Sitting of 14 February 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    West Germany
    Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in manufactured goods with West Germany.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): The deficit with Germany in 1989 was £9·6 billion on the manufactured trade account.
    Mr. Bradley: As the deficit with West Germany has grown by over £6 billion since 1979 and now accounts for about half the total deficit, will the Minister acknowledge that he has a problem? Does he recognise that it is his responsibility and will he do something about it? When he acts to close the gap, will he develop an industrial strategy based on British rather than foreign industry?
    Mr. Redwood: Many good things are happening. The Labour party never looks at the invisible account, yet we export services and earn a great deal of money from investments abroad. Do Labour Members realise that we earn more from invisible credits than from total exports of manufactured goods? Do they realise that exports were up by 15 per cent. in the last quarter of 1989 compared with 1988? Do they agree that the strategy that we have developed of a firm approach to fiscal policy and allowing enterprise to get on with the job is working? Have Labour Members seen the latest export surveys which show that exports are going well? Do they realise that their strategy would cause considerable distress?
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister at least accept that trade with West Germany has become a trade disaster area? The deficit is twice as large as the one with Japan, which is now a much more open market. Would it not do more good for British trade if, instead of spending a great deal of money on posters telling us that the internal market has arrived, the Minister considered the many examples that have been sent to him of how the Germans restrict imports for wholly bogus and non-tariff reasons?
    Mr. Redwood: The Government are dedicated to completing the 1992 programme. We are especially keen to remove barriers to trade in invisibles to complement the good work being done in the manufacturing sector to remove such barriers. If my hon. Friend wishes to send
    248
    more details of restraints on trade that are against the EEC treaty and against Government policy, I and my right hon. Friend will pursue the matter with vigour.

    New York Speech
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place a copy of his recent New York speech in the Library.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I have already done so.
    Mr. Kirkwood: In the New York speech the Secretary of State acknowledged that every trading nation had something to gain from lifting trade barriers. However, on textiles he seemed to leave the initiative in the hands of the American negotiators in terms of the current GATT round. It would be interesting to hear the American view of the current textiles position in the GATT round. Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that he will not begin to dismantle the framework of the multi-fibre arrangement until the United Kingdom textiles industry obtains copper-bottomed guarantees of new export opportunities to new trading countries?
    Mr. Ridley: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's interest in my speech. I note his liberal attitude to trade liberalisation. The position of the United States Administration is in one respect similar to that of the European Community. It is that the trade in textiles should in due course be returned to the GATT and that a considerable transitional period will be necessary. There is most dispute about what the interim regime should he. The Americans want global quotas, a solution which is unattractive to the other trading partners. The negotiations will be about a system of safeguards and the length of the transitional period. There is agreement that in due course, after a proper transitional period, textiles should return to a more free trading atmosphere.
    Mr. Bowis: Was not one theme of my right hon. Friend's excellent speech the opportunities for world trade and prosperity that come from the single market, the Uruguay round and the changes in eastern Europe? Was not a second theme of his speech the dangers of protectionism? Does he agree that that is a great danger to world trade and prosperity from whichever side of the Atlantic it comes?
    Mr. Ridley: Both points are correct, but I sought to make a third point—that freedom to invest freely in those countries is an important way for both partners in the transaction to prosper. I criticised the United States tendency to restrict inward investment, but I am sure that the Administration there will ensure that those tendencies are resisted.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: In that wide-ranging speech in New York, why did not the Secretary of State explain that Britain has the worst inflation, the highest interest rates and one of the worst trade deficits of our major competitors? Will he now confirm not only that mortgage rises have put 400,000 families into mortgage arrears of two months or more, but that the latest figures from the Lord Chancellor show that there has been a 46 per cent. increase in small business liquidations over the last

    249
    quarter? As Secretary of State for Industry, will he press the Chancellor for a Budget for industry that will help to bring interest rates down?
    Mr. Ridley: There are two reasons why I did not make those points in America. First, it is not my habit to knock my country from abroad. Secondly, the particular copy with which the hon. Gentleman suggests I should knock it is inaccurate and untrue. The hon. Gentleman is always in the business of measuring the gross, not the net. If he examines the net survival of small businesses, he will find that it is very much better than under the Labour Government. If he also examines the total of the mortgage sector, he will find the same.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one problem may be that, because of the two Germanys' headlong rush to merge, the deutschmark will weaken, and Germany will become even more competitive than at present with its £46 billion trade balance? Does my right hon. Friend have anything in mind to make sure that our manufacturers are not more disadvantaged than they are already?
    Mr. Ridley: I think that the deutschmark has strengthened on the latest news, although I am not in the business of forecasting what will happen in view of the events described by my hon. Friend. Policy on eastern Europe is not particularly relevant to the value of the pound in relation to the deutschmark. I am confident that British exports will maintain their good record and their good showing whatever happens in East Germany.

    Eastern Europe
    Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's balance of trade in manufactures in 1989 with (a) the USSR, (b) East Germany, (c) Poland, (d) Czechoslovakia and (e) Romania.
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Lady will be delighted to know that in 1989 the United Kingdom had a surplus of more than £100 million with the five countries mentioned in her question, comprising a good surplus with the USSR and deficits with the other four.
    Ms. Short: Will the Minister confirm that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry said that Britain was lagging behind the countries of western Europe in its trade with eastern Europe because at that time we were importing more than we were exporting, reflecting the mess that the Government have made of our balance of payments overall? Is it not time that the Government took action to implement the Select Committee's recommendations on trade with eastern Europe, given the current massive and important changes that are taking place there?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Lady has asked the wrong question. She obviously wanted to get a different answer. Had she asked about Hungary and Bulgaria, she would have heard about surpluses. I have just arrived back from Czechoslovakia where I led a delegation of eight British business men to encourage more British trade. The Government will take all reasonable steps to encourage British businesses to take advantage of the many new
    250
    opportunities in eastern Europe. I urge more British business men to visit eastern Europe to follow up the advances that many are making in those countries.
    Dr. Hampson: The whole House will praise my hon. Friend for the efforts that he has begun to put into trade with eastern Europe. In the process of expanding our connections, does the Department have any mechanism or unit for ensuring more secondment of people from the academic and industrial sectors here who can go over there to encourage those countries to look towards us and our processes, especially in distribution and marketing?
    Mr. Redwood: Yes, 25 people in the Department of Trade and Industry specialise in eastern Europe trade matters. Together with those in the Foreign Office, they are working on the distribution of know-how moneys from our know-how funds to strengthen such links for the reason that my hon. Friend so rightly described.

    Stock Exchange
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the stock exchange; and what will be discussed.
    Mr. Ridley: Ministers meet the chairman of the stock exchange whenever appropriate to discuss topics of mutual interest.
    Mr. Darling: Will the Secretary of State discuss junk bonds with the chairman? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs said last November that junkiness was in the eye of the beholder, but does not the Secretary of State know that the chairman of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has expressed concern about the matter and hinted in the clearest possible terms that he would like it to be referred to him for investigation? Will the Secretary of State agree to such an investigation? If he does not, the public will begin to think that the Government are prepared to condone, if not encourage, the sort of tacky behaviour that we see on the other side of the Atlantic.
    Mr. Ridley: No, Sir. I do not believe that issues of corporate financing are ones for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. They may be for the stock exchange, or even the Bank of England, to consider, but not the MMC. Only if there were a merger involving a highly leveraged bid, together with other factors that affected the national interest, would my policy be to refer the matter to the MMC. I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that junkiness is in the eye of the beholder.
    Mr. Forman: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the stock exchange, will he urge him to make faster progress towards the so-called paperless transactions for share dealings as it is clear that the interests of the small investor would be greatly assisted if progress were more rapid?
    Mr. Ridley: The stock exchange is making pretty fast progress with the Taurus system. When we see the full details, we shall ensure that it contains no conditions that will interfere with the interests of the smaller investor. I agree with my hon. Friend that the sooner we get the system up and running, the better.

    Defence Contractors
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has anything to add to his answer to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, of 17 January 1990, Official Report, columns 280–81 about encouraging defence contractors to look for alternative work.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Yet again, no, Sir. As I stated on the two previous occasions when the hon. Gentleman raised this point, it is my firm view that such decisions are best left to those best equipped to take them—business men.
    Mr. Bennett: I am glad that the Minister remembers his outbursts on the two previous occasions. Has he had the chance to read the speech that the Foreign Secretary made two days later, when he said that turning swords into ploughshares was a cliché, but that turning tanks into tractors was the politics that the Government were involved in? Is the Foreign Secretary more interested in protecting British industry and converting our arms industry into peaceful use than are Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry? When will the Minister take notice of the more sensible members of the Government?
    Mr Hogg: I am becoming increasingly concerned for the hon. Gentleman, who has posed exactly the same question on three successive occasions. There are two kind explanations for his bizarre behaviour: first, that he has run out of ideas and the Labour party is intellectually bankrupt, which I know to be true; and, secondly, that he is trying to divert attention from Labour's losing policies—the roof and window tax and the payroll tax. The plain truth is that companies such as British Aerospace and Marconi need no advice from a conversion agency about how to diversify or find new markets.
    Mr. Jack: Is my hon. Friend aware of the efforts being made by British Aerospace, through its involvement in Airbus Industrie, to diversify? Is he further aware of the damage being done to that effort by the continuing luddite strike by the engineering unions, supported by Opposition Members? Will he join me in condemning those unions for their inability to agree to a good deal offered by the company?
    Mr. Hogg: As I would expect from my hon. Friend, he has made a powerful point. British Aerospace is participating in the Airbus, which is an extremely successful product. The future of Airbus Industrie is threatened by the strikes of the engineering unions. Those strikes are being supported by the Labour party, which is a discreditable activity and one calculated to damage British industry.

    Tobacco Sales
    Mr. Ashton: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the number of retail shops licensed to sell tobacco.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): It is not necessary to be licensed to sell tobacco.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister has given her full support to the Parents against Tobacco campaign? It is estimated that at least 50 per cent. of retailers are prepared to sell to children under age, and that as many as 500,000 under-age children are regular smokers of tobacco. What will he do to put pressure on local councils to take up the campaign when they are granting planning permission, or to put pressure on newsagents to refuse to sell tobacco to children under the age of 16? Will he support his Prime Minister by putting pressure on them?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. There is an adequate law to protect children against those who seek to sell tobacco to them. The problem is one of enforcement. It is for all hon. Members to take up where appropriate with local authorities and the police the effective enforcement of the existing law, and I am sure that they will, aided by the excellent campaign.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept the Department of Health's policy to reduce the consumption of tobacco?
    Mr. Forth: Of course.

    Footwear Imports
    Mr. Fry: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy on the future of voluntary restraint agreements on footwear imports from eastern European countries.
    Mr. Ridley: In the light of developments in the EC's relations with Poland, the European Commission has suspended the voluntary restraint arrangement with Poland on leather footwear imports for one year from 1 January 1990. The position will be reviewed before the end of the year.
    With regard to Czechoslovakia and Romania, we have asked the European Commission to maintain the voluntary restraint on leather footwear from those countries during 1990. The Commission is considering our request. The United Kingdom does not have voluntary restraint arrangements on footwear with the other east European countries.
    Mr. Fry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any increase in imports of footwear will considerably increase the problems of the British industry? Therefore, will he support the European Commission's renewed initiative to make voluntary restraint arrangements with South Korea and Taiwan? Will he also work towards the reduction or removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers to enable British exporters to sell much more footwear abroad?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend will agree that one thing that we can do to help the Poles in their gallant efforts to improve their economy and their present parlous position is to increase the opportunities for them to trade. It would be churlish to deny them the things that they need most, for example, trading opportunities. My hon. Friend may know that the Community has not yet made up its mind what to do about Korea and Taiwan. The member states of the Community are split 50–50 on whether the Commisson should take action. I hope that my hon. Friend will be content with that answer.
    Mr. Vaz: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the past: 10 years 45,000 jobs have been lost in the British footwear

    253
    industry—35 per cent. of the entire employment in that industry—and that two jobs are being lost every hour? Last week in my constituency, Glovese, the leading manufacturers of ladies' boots, closed because of the level of imports. Will he give an undertaking to the House that he will not alter any arrangements without full consultation with the manufacturers and the trade unions?
    Mr. Ridley: I cannot give such an undertaking. But employment in Britain is running at 26·5 million, the highest ever, and within that remarkable figure it is inevitable that employment will be gained in some industries and lost in others. The flexible work force in the face of fast-changing trading and industrial conditions is one of the virtues that the hon. Gentleman should be preaching to his constituency because he can see with his own eyes the extraordinary effect on employment that such latitude can have.
    Mr. Budgen: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Government's policy on the provision of training and aid for eastern Europe, in that they are pointing out to all the advantages of privatisation and of joint ventures, and are not engaging in wasteful schemes involving inter-governmental aid.
    Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree with him. I add to his list private investment in eastern European countries. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs recently returned from Czechoslovakia, and there have been other missions. More are planned for the future, when we shall take British business men to eastern European countries to show them the opportunities for investment there. That is the best way of helping those countries to re-establish their economies.

    Manufactured Imports
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the growth in imports of manufactured goods from the European Community since 1979.
    Mr. Redwood: Imports of manufactured goods from the European Community have risen from £16 billion in 1979 to £52·5 billion in 1989. Exports of manufactured goods to the European Community have virtually trebled over the same period.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister agree that those figures are disgraceful? Will the effect of the single European market be to worsen them? Is not this the wrong time to dismantle the functions of the Department of Trade and Industry? Would not that be idiotic? Does the Minister agree that wherever the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry goes, acts of madness follow?
    Mr. Redwood: No, I do not agree with that. Nor do I agree that the figures are disgraceful. The figures for exports are good, and we should be proud of the export efforts of a number of English manufacturers. The hon. Gentleman addresses only a quarter of the problem. He refers to visible trade but not to invisible trade, and to imports but not to exports. One must consider the total trade picture. It is about time the Opposition started realising that our trade position has been improving for five months. There is every sign in the latest surveys that exports will continue to improve this year.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Will not the development of Japanese-owned car assembly plants in this country do much to redress our trade deficit with the European Community over the next few years?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes the most important point of all so far in this exchange. There will be a major expansion of cars assembled in this country from 1·3 million to 2 million, and, as motor vehicles account for the biggest item in our manufactures deficit, right hon. and hon. Members can immediately calculate that a big change will result from the investment made here by Japanese companies.
    Mr. James Lamond: The Minister seemed strangely reluctant to give the House the actual exports figure. Was that because Britain is in considerable deficit with the countries of the European Community? If so, did the Minister hear the Secretary of State a few minutes ago discarding the multi-fibre arrangement, contrary to the sentiments expressed by the Minister in a recent debate? That must result in an even greater loss to our textiles manufacturing industry, causing job losses throughout the country. Does not the Minister want to do something about that?
    Mr. Redwood: I have clearly given the figures required by the original question. Of course I accept that a deficit exists with some countries—most notably the Federal Republic of Germany. I also pointed out that the position is improving. The Government believe that open trading and the extension of the 1992 programme is the best way of narrowing the trade gap. I particularly draw the attention of the House to the important role of invisibles in our total trading performance. They will be improved if we can persuade our European partners to keep the 1992 programme on track and on time.

    Export Credits Guarantee Department
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to introduce his proposals to reform the structure of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
    Mr. Ridley: It is the Government's intention to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to bring about the changes to ECGD's structure that I announced on 18 December 1989. The aim is to establish the new company to be created from ECGD's insurance services group on 1 April 1991.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. I agree that the insurance part of the Export Credits Guarantee Department should be privatised, but can he assure the House that the credit on capital goods will be maintained and that it will be possible for companies such as British Aerospace, which exports £150 million worth of goods per week or £6,000 million worth per year, to maintain their 10-year view on exports?
    Mr. Ridley: Yes, I made it clear in December that the projects group would not be part of the privatisation but will continue its activities to aid British exports of the kind that my hon. Friend mentioned, including exports by British Aerospace.
    Mr. Morgan: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the insurance services group, which is based in Cardiff and

    255
    employs many of my constituents, is profitable, that its achievements are a credit to the public sector, and that it has no requirement to be privatised? Can he also confirm that Malcolm Stephens, chief executive of the ECGD, recently made a statement that privatisation of the insurance services group would pave the way for foreign stakes to be taken in the ECGD?
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
    Mr. Morgan: Does not the Secretary of State conclude that it would be a ludicrous irony if in a few years' time a support service for British exports were controlled by a foreign bank or finance house?
    Mr. Ridley: I confirm that the Cardiff operation is profitable and held in high respect by its customers. I also confirm that the hon. Gentleman got it totally wrong when quoting the chief executive of the ECGD. I have here statements that he made on radio referring to
    "the Chief Executive in a press conference alongside Nicholas Ridley".
    I remember no such press conference. [Interruption.]
    The hon. Gentleman is advocating an illegal action if he is asking me to say that no national other than a British national may acquire a stake in companies in this country. He must recognise that we are members of a European Community which bans discrimination against its other members. The hon. Gentleman should wait and see who puts forward offers when the time comes to privatise the ECGD. If it is not privatised, it will have no future in the European market.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that export credits as they will be operated once reformed will make trade with eastern Europe more viable and possible as a reward for the desires and the declarations about human rights and democracy that have been expressed there? If that is so, can he explain the difference, as seen by the Opposition, between that and our similar programme with South Africa?
    Mr. Ridley: The subject of ECGD cover for eastern European states also raises the question of their indebtedness and the risk that it poses for insurance cover. Different countries in eastern Europe have different debt situations, so I cannot answer the question in a general way, but I confirm that we are doing our best to make credit cover available for exports to eastern Europe when the country concerned merits the credit.

    British Steel
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the chairman of British Steel.
    Mr. Ridley: I have no plans at present to meet the chairman of British Steel.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the importance of the steel industry to Scottish employment and to the entire Scottish economy, will the Secretary of State draw the chairman's attention to the need to locate a new steel plate mill in Scotland? That is necessary not just for the Dalziel works, but for Ravenscraig and for the whole future of steel making in Scotland. Does the Secretary of State accept any
    256
    responsibility for the future of the Scottish steel industry, or was privatisation merely a means of abrogating all Government responsibility?
    Mr. Ridley: Investment by the steel industry is entirely a matter for the steel industry to decide. The point of investment in the steel industry or in any other industry is to ensure the most efficient production and for no other reason.
    Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that privatisation of the British steel industry in my constituency and elsewhere on Teesside has done much for the economic regeneration of the area and is one of the outstanding achievements of the Government in the past few years? Is he aware that continuation of that policy with the privatisation of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority would be most welcome?
    Mr. Ridley: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the remarkable industrial transformation on Teesside. I should also point to the large increase in British industrial production in the past few years. I believe that both are connected with the policy of letting industry make its own investment decisions.
    Ms. Quin: Given that the overall level of British steel production is still less than half that of West Germany, and given that our share of the continental market is very small, does not the Secretary of State see a great possibility for the expansion of British Steel? In the context of 1992, would not that safeguard the health of all the plants in the United Kingdom? Will he use his influence—or perhaps even his golden share—to secure such expansion?
    Mr. Ridley: I am not sure that the golden share would be of use for that purpose, but I agree with the hon. Lady, and pay tribute to her for striking an optimistic note for once. I will do all that I can to ensure that British Steel has opportunities throughout the world—and in the Community—to increase its sales and its share of the market. We are fortunate in having persuaded the Americans to agree to end the voluntary restraint agreement in, I believe, three years' time, which will give British Steel big opportunities in the United States. It will also give that excellent company further opportunities to increase its market share in Europe.

    Latin America
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Britain's exports to and investment in Latin America.
    Mr. Ridley: In 1989 United Kingdom exports to Latin America were almost £1·2 billion. At the end of 1987, the last year for which figures are available, the level of United Kingdom direct investment in the region was almost £3 billion.
    Mr. Arnold: Should not we bear in mind that the combined economies of Latin America are far greater than those of Africa, the middle east and the Indian sub-continent put together? Should not we be putting more effort into our exports to Latin America, and perhaps expanding the medium-term export finance cover, particularly for Brazil and Argentina?
    Mr. Ridley: I hope that the opportunities around the world for both trade and investment will be exploited by British industry to an ever greater degree. I agree that Latin America remains an important market. Medium-term cover is available within an overall exposure limit for some of those countries, including Mexico, Chile, Colombia and Venezuela, which will present plenty of opportunities for our business men to export to them, at least.
    Mr. Ron Brown: The Government are allegedly committed to perestroika and glasnost. Which of the countries that the Secretary of State mentioned is supposedly a democracy, and how does he justify trade with any Latin American country that is not a democracy? Such trade is clearly an abuse of people's rights, when they know that—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has asked his question.
    Mr. Ridley: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said, now that perestroika and glasnost have broken out in Leith. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) must be able to hear the answer to his question.
    Mr. Ridley: Only in the past two weeks, the president of Mexico and the president-elect of Brazil have been in London. They are both democratically elected. Many other countries in South America are also democracies. I believe that we should treat them with all the respect that is due to democratic countries, and seek to trade with them to the maximum extent.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I understand that my right hon. Friend met the president-elect of Brazil when the latter visited the United Kingdom recently. My right hon. Friend has said that he is in favour of British manufacturing industry. What steps did he take to urge the Brazilian Government to reduce the huge tariffs that they impose against British exports, particularly textiles and clothing? Does he agree that British manufacturing industry should have a level playing field on which to operate, and what does he intend to do about that?
    Mr. Ridley: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I have done. I raised my hon. Friend's points with the president-elect of Brazil, who gave me a fulsome undertaking that Brazil would play a full and forward part in the Uruguay round to reduce tariffs and protective devices of all kinds. He agreed with my hon. Friend's policy on free trade, which is also my policy—that we should clear away such restrictions—and I believe that Brazil will be very helpful in the forthcoming discussions.

    Technological Standards
    Mr. Snape: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response he will be making to the report produced for the European Commission by the university of Louvain with respect to its assessment of the United Kingdom's technological standards; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of the report. The Government are well aware of the challenge of 1992, and we have policies in place to help firms in all regions to rise to it.
    Mr. Snape: I thought that it was for the Opposition to ask supplementary questions. Does the Minister agree that the report places the United Kingdom, with Spain, at the bottom of the technology and training league? Does he agree that any further reduction in the industry budget will make it even less likely that the regions, particularly the west midlands, will be able to recover from the collapse of manufacturing industry brought about by the Government's disastrous policies?
    Mr. Hogg: As might be expected, I have two pieces of good news for the hon. Gentleman. First, as regards technology, the hon. Gentleman will be very pleased to know that between 1983 and 1987 research and development investment in the United Kingdom rose by 27 per cent. in real terms. Secondly, the main lesson to be learnt from the report is the need to diversify the economies of traditional industrial regions, such as South Yorkshire. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have been pursuing that policy vigorously—often, I may say, opposed by the Labour party—and we have achieved very considerable success with it.
    Mr. Dykes: As the Right-wing economic ideologues in this country persist in saying that we misunderstand Germany—which, apparently, is bureaucratic, overregulated, subsidised, corporatist and inefficient—could we send a DTI task force to Germany to acquire some of its bad habits?
    Mr. Hogg: In many respects we could give the Germans some very good lessons indeed. For instance, we could give them a lesson in how to reduce unemployment in areas that have suffered economic deprivation. The House will be pleased to know, for a start, that the rate of unemployment in this country is now two thirds of the European Community average. To take Sheffield as an example, in December 1989 the rate of unemployment there was 9·6 per cent., whereas in March 1986 it was 16 per cent. That is a remarkable transformation, and it is due to this Government's policies—not those of the German Government.
    Mr. Caborn: It seems as though there are two Louvain reports—the one that the Government have read, and the one that other people have read. Looking to the competition that there will be in 1992, the report shows clearly that there are major structural weaknesses in the regions of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister re-read the report and consider the first survey of state aid in the European Community? He will see that the average investment per head in manufacturing industry, apart from steel and shipbuilding, is £1,050. The United Kingdom comes at the bottom of the league with £448 and the Germans are well ahead. As for investment in research and development, training and infrastructure, the Louvain report shows clearly that that is where we are weakest.
    Mr. Hogg: It would help if the hon. Gentleman were a little more candid. He has not read the report. It is in French and the hon. Gentleman does not read French.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: Has my hon. Friend read the British textile industry's report? Is he aware that that

    259
    industry, which is worried about training in this country, sent a delegation to Germany where it found that training in the German textile industry is inefficient, expensive, out of date and no good at all for young people or re-entrants?
    Mr. Hogg: I am very well aware of the German textile industry's shortcomings. More broadly speaking, we think—and most sensible people also think—that the textile industry must be brought back within the general agreement on tariffs and trade. That is the only sensible way forward. The proper way forward for the textile industry is to focus on products that add value to what the industry is already doing.

    Post Office
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the chairman of the Post Office; and what was discussed.
    Mr. Forth: I last met the chairman of the Post Office, Sir Bryan Nicholson, on 11 January. We discussed various matters of mutual interest.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Post Office workers who have coped so ably with the extra-large load of card deliveries today? Despite the blandishments of the directors of TNT and others interested in acquiring the profitable sectors of the Post Office, will the Minister reassure the British public, especially those who live in rural areas, that their needs have not been forgotten?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for putting the question in that way. I agree with all parts of her question. First, I congratulate the Post Office in Glasgow on its excellent performance and on one of the best staff recruitment and retention records in the United Kingdom. Secondly, I join the hon. Lady in praising the Post Office for having one of the best delivery performances in Europe and for charging less for stamps than almost any other country in Europe. I can give her the assurance that she seeks. Despite the fact that my right hon. Friend has met a number of companies interested in the kind of services provided by the Post Office, none has put forward a proposition of interest to my right hon. Friend or to me. We are concerned to maintain not just the rural network hut all parts of the Post Office network.
    Mr. Gow: Does my hon. Friend recall that 13 years ago, with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) I introduced a Bill to end the Post Office's statutory monopoly in the collection and delivery of letters? Will he now reintroduce that Bill?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is ahead of his time in many things. That is a reputation which he rightly enjoys. He must know, however—it has often been repeated—that we regard the Post Office monopoly as a privilege, not as a right, and the Post Office well understands that. The monopoly is kept under review so that an assessment can be made from to time of whether any action is appropriate. That process continues.
    Mr. Henderson: The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that she believes in keeping the Royal Mail intact. The Under-Secretary of State wrote to me on 1 February saying that there were no plans to break up the Post Office monopoly, so on what basis did the Minister say today
    260
    that propositions had been received relating to the privatisation of the Post Office? Why did departmental officials admit to the press this morning that they had received propositions and that talks had taken place with road haulage companies? Will the Minister make an honest statement and say whether the Government intend to sell off the letters business to the fat cats in the road haulage industry, or is he prepared to accept the need to protect the service throughout the country, especially in rural areas?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is confusing himself and there is a danger that he may confuse the House as well. It is no secret that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met a number of companies with activities in that sector. Indeed, it would be most odd if he had not, as I believe that my right hon. Friend has shown his usual open-mindedness in wishing to hear all points of view and all proposals. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman, as I reassured the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), that none of the companies' suggestions has found favour with my right hon. Friend, but we shall continue to consider the matter as it is our duty to do so.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: I would not wish to stop the Minister talking to anybody, but will he give an absolute commitment to the House that he stands four-square, 100 per cent. behind the principle that the postage rate for letters should be the same no matter where in the United Kingdom they go? That is what matters to constituents in the further-flung areas, particularly in my part of the world.
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Interestingly, that principle and the principle of universal delivery provide the greatest difficulty for those who seek to provide alternatives to the existing postal services. I believe that our insistence on those principles is crucial and I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: If newspapers can be delivered all over the United Kingdom at the same price, why should the Post Office continue to have a monopoly? Private enterprise has already shown that it can deliver various goods just as well as the Post Office does.
    Mr. Forth: I am delighted to see my hon. Friend here, obviously in good heart and good spirits. It is untypical of him to confuse deliveries of commercial items such as newspapers with postal deliveries. The two cannot and should not be compared because the Post Office has an obligation to collect an item anywhere in the United Kingdom and to deliver it anywhere in the United Kingdom, and it does so. It is seeking to improve deliveries, but it still delivers at a standard rate. That principle has been re-emphasised not only by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister but by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and we shall continue to do so.

    Japan
    Mr. Buckley: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current trade deficit with Japan; and how much of the deficit is accounted for by manufactured goods.
    Mr. Redwood: In 1989 the deficit in total visible trade with Japan was £4·8 billion. In the same period, the deficit for manufactured goods was £5 billion. Last year United Kingdom exports to Japan increased by £525 million to £2·3 billion, an increase of 30 per cent. over 1988.
    Mr. Buckley: Now that the Secretary of State accepts that we have a deficit with Japan, Germany, Italy and the United States, and an ever-increasing deficit with other EC countries, does he accept that he ought to be doing something about it? The announcement today of an upturn in output of 4·3 per cent. in 1989, compared with 7·1 per cent. in 1988, is another indication of the devastating effect on the British economy of the Government's so-called economic miracle.
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman scoffs too much when he derides the increase in output. He is talking about years of unprecedented growth in the United Kingdom economy. There has been strength in manufacturing, in invisibles and in all sectors of the economy. As I have told the House already, the trade position has been improving in recent months and there is every indication that more progress will be made in the current year.
    Mr. Wells: Are not the areas in which our trade with Japan and Germany weakest the very areas in which Socialism applied in the 1960s and 1970s—motor cars, semi-conductors and all the other areas in which the Labour party tried to reorganise British industry?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is noticeable that the output and performance of those industries are improving by the day as the Government cease to intervene and cease to pursue the policies that the Labour party pursued when in office. The more the Government continue their enterprise-loving policies, the more industry will strengthen.
    Dr. Moonie: Will the Minister cast his enterprise-loving mind over the problem of computer manufacture? Can he name one major computer component in which we are in positive balance with Japan'? If not, can he tell us of one thing that he intends to do in the coming year to improve the situation?
    Mr. Redwood: I do not have detailed information about all component manufacturers and I would not wish to mislead the House, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that our trade is strengthening and a great deal of inward investment is coming from Japan which is very welcome here. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) will presumably not be telling the House today that near his constituency, Pioneer Electronics is to make a major investment, creating about 1,200 jobs in a very important sector.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend remind the Opposition that a nation that has never suffered any significant nationalisation, that has had low taxation and public spending and a superb education system and that, above all, has never suffered from a Socialist Goverment is always likely to be in better shape economically than one that has suffered from Socialism?
    Mr. Redwood: That is so very true. Evidence from the other end of the spectrum can be seen in the way in which the Socialist economies of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union are trying to get information from the West about
    262
    how to run a proper enterprise economy so to enjoy the fruits of prosperity that we in the West have enjoyed for so many years.

    Monopolies and Mergers Commission
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to change the role of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
    Mr. Ridley: I have no such plans.
    Mr. Marshall: Does the Secretary of State accept that while competition must remain central to takeover activities, other factors such as the strategic national interest and the impact of takeovers on regional employment or unemployment must be taken into consideration?
    Mr. Ridley: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman agree that competition is the prime concern of monopolies and mergers policy. I accept there could be examples in which the national interest is involved. We also consider implications such as regional policy, but I stress that that is very much a secondary consideration to the competition issue.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should be opened up and brought much closer to the American anti-trust laws with the ability to break up the large monopolies being created in Britain so that we can have real capitalism rather than over-large, domineering companies in any one sector?
    Mr. Ridley: The commission has power to order divestment, or to suggest that I order divestment, in certain cases where monopolies are formed, and that power has been used. The policy that appeared to be evolving in the Labour party in a document called "Industry 2000"—I doubt whether anyone has heard of it—was virtually to put a stop to all takeovers. That would be disastrous for the continuing efficient function of the economy.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the Secretary of State aware that W. H. Smith and Son Wholesale, which distributes many of the newspapers to which the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) referred, is a monopoly? Does he plan to do anything about that?
    Mr. Ridley: These matters have been looked at by the Director General of Fair Trading. I do not think that it is a monopoly because others also circulate newspapers.

    Manufactured Imports
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the growth in imports of manufactured goods from the European Community since 1979.
    Mr. Redwood: Imports of manufactured goods from the European Community have risen from £16 billion in 1979 to £52·5 billion in 1989, and exports have virtually trebled, as I mentioned earlier.
    Mr. Clarke: Is not a deficit of £14·5 billion a serious matter? Is not that why the Confederation of British Industry is concerned about the impact of high interest

    263
    rates and the uniform business rate on fixed investment in 1991? Does that not worry the Minister as we approach 1992?
    Mr. Redwood: Investment has been running at record levels and we have been enjoying an investment boom. I am sure that that will strengthen our industrial base for the early 1990s and will continue the improvements to which I referred earlier.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to read the Labour party document "Industry 2000"? Does it contain anything that would indicate—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be careful how his question is framed.
    Mr. Bruce: Has my hon. Friend read the document and has he found anything in it to help our import-export balance, or does it propose a return to state intervention and central control? Is he surprised—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask about the Government's policy.
    Mr. Redwood: I think that my hon. Friend asked about Government policy. He asked whether there were helpful ideas in a particular document. Having read the document carefully, I notice that a policy gap is developing as the document refers to very few of the ideas in the original Labour policy review. Apart from schemes that the Government are already pursuing, such as training and enterprise schemes, the document contains nothing that would help and many proposals which might be illegal under the European Community regime.

    Manufacturing Industry (Competitiveness)
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Most contacts that my Department has with industry and commerce involve matters having a bearing on United Kingdom competitiveness.
    Mr. Barron: Has the Minister had any direct representations on the lack of skill training in the British
    264
    economy, especially in those areas where the major steel and coal industries have been running down? The lack of skill training has been well highlighted by my hon. Friends in relation to the Labour party campaign, "Industry 2000". Why has there been deskilling in many major industries that, according to EEC reports, lack skilled people for the jobs that we hope will exist in the future?
    Mr. Hogg: That was a surprisingly uninformed question, even for the hon. Gentleman. He seems unaware that we have put the training councils in place. On a broader point, British industry is in infinitely better shape than it was 10 years ago. I should have thought that the Labour party would welcome the fact that the volume of exports is 15 per cent. higher than it was 12 months ago—a volume increase unprecedented since 1973. Incidentally, Labour Members would be well advised to tell their union friends not to pursue inflationary policies.
    Mr. Caborn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member wants to explain that he speaks French.
    Mr. Caborn: I do not speak French, Sir. I should like to present to the House the report, in English, to which the Minister for Industry referred when he accused the Opposition of not being able to speak French. It is evident that the hon. Gentleman has read the wrong report, that he cannot read French and that he has reached the wrong conclusion.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to the point of order, M r. Speaker. I am prepared to accept that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) may have glanced at the document and to that extent I withdraw my observation. A more interesting question is whether he understood it and whether he is prepared to submit himself for examination, and I shall report to the House on that.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that that was a very helpful intervention by the Minister.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that, on 17 April last year I was fortunate enough to have an Adjournment debate on the finances of the Mersey tunnels. I have in front of me a letter, dated yesterday, to Councillor Ingham, the chair of the Merseyside passenger transport authority, in which, in effect, the Secretary of State has ruled out any solution to the problems of financing the work on the Mersey tunnels. As my hon. Friends and I have raised this issue in the House, is not it wrong that the Secretary of State did not respond to the House but instead wrote a letter which Parliament has no opportunity to scrutinise?
Mr. Speaker: I must tell the hon. Member with deep regret that I do not immediately remember his Adjournment debate last year. I suggest that he tables a question, and perhaps he will get an answer.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of order will take time out of a very important debate.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I can ask for your advice before the debate on South Africa begins. I refer you to page 94 of a book called "How to be a Minister" by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), in which he said:
"Do not waste your good lines on having"—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a parliamentary book. I shall be very interested to read it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so.
If it were possible for me to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches in the coming debate on South Africa, I should do so. Indeed, even if it were possible to impose a five-minute limit on speeches, I do not think that I would be able to call all hon. Members who wish to speak. Points of order will take time out of that debate.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that it matters whether it takes up time. The liberties of the House are much more important than any debate.
Yesterday afternoon, we had, to quote you, Mr. Speaker, a particularly disagreeable exchange, in which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made an absolutely discreditable and disgraceful accusation, and he was allowed to get away with it. We had a build-up of pressure—in a pressure-cooker sense—because there was real outrage among my right hon. and hon. Friends about what was said on the Opposition side.
Is not it time for you again to examine the time when hon. Members may raise points of order? The idea that points of order have to wait until after however many statements there may be leads to more trouble, not less. Should not points of order, like any punishment or design, be made immediately after the offence, and not need to wait for hour after hour, as sometimes happens? On a most genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker, will you look at this matter again—that points of order are raised before statements and immediately after Question Time is concluded, because—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have frequently been asked to look at this matter. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that I have made numerous rulings on it. The proper time to raise proper points of order is immediately after private notice questions or statements. That is exactly what happened yesterday. If a matter needs the immediate attention of the Chair it should be raised as a point of order at the time. As regards yesterday, we cannot go back over that. I did not hear the remark of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: We all did.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may have done. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is in Hansard."] Of course it is in Hansard, because it was subsequently referred to, but I did not hear it. However, I have now had an opportunity of not only listening to it on the radio but seeing it on television. The remark appears to have been somewhat magnified on the medium. However, we cannot go back on it now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Well, it was said from a sedentary position. It was not an unparliamentary expression, but it was certainly an offensive comment to make. It may be that we will have an opportunity today to put that right.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Many Opposition Members would want to go along with your ruling about the remark not being unparliamentary. The remark itself was very opportune, and most of us—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall not have a debate on that.
Mr. Skinner: Let me put the point of order.
Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman is always very helpful. Of course he has a lot of experience in dealing with—
Mr. Skinner: Let me put the point of order.
Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has simply prefaced it in that way.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), Mr. Speaker. The observation by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was not unparliamentary, but she had to withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: The House should look at what I said in Hansard. I did not hear that remark, either. What I said was that if the Prime Minister had made an unparliamentary allegation, I am sure that she would wish to withdraw it. She did withdraw it. That is exactly what happened.
Mr. Donald Thompson: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. You referred to restricting speeches to five or 10 minutes. Many Back-Bench Members do not think that the quality of debate would be improved by a restriction of either five or 10 minutes, except perhaps in my own case.
Mr. Speaker: I subscribe to that view. It is a pity that the Chair does occasionally impose limits, because I am a believer in personal restraint. If hon. Members could limit their speeches today to about 10 minutes, we would be much better off.
Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, you rightly followed precedent by saying that you could not pursue remarks made from a sedentary position that you had not heard. However, you were equally saying yesterday that we should have regard to the fact that the television cameras are now here. This afternoon, you said that, on reflection, having taken advantage of what the cameras picked up and of programmes this morning, you had heard something today that you did not hear yesterday. Is not there a case for you to reconsider precedent and, when you find something to have been offensive, to require it to be withdrawn the following day?
Mr. Speaker: It is not for the Chair to require offensive remarks to be withdrawn. Offensive remarks are, I fear, frequently made in the House. The role of the Chair is to ensure that unparliamentary expressions are not used here. It is up to the right hon. Gentleman concerned to decide what to do in relation to that, and perhaps today we shall hear something from him about it.
Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said some moments ago that it would not be possible to go over an incident that occurred in the House some time ago. Did you mean that? Surely we are constantly going over matters—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Yes, I did mean it.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it on a different matter?
Mr. Marlow: It is on a slightly different matter, Mr. Speaker. It is now in the public domain, as we all wearily
268
know, that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), a man who chooses his words carefully, said yesterday that the Prime Minister should have done 27 years—[Interruption.]—inside. For the right hon. Gentleman to have said that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain that this is going to add to the quality of our discussions in the House. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order for me?
Mr. Marlow: The point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, is that if the right hon. Member for Gorton has evidence for that remark, perhaps he should bring it before the House. If not, like any other hon. Member, he should do the decent thing and withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps he will.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that we might clear the matter up by putting the words used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in the form of a motion? There were so many Tory wets laughing yesterday that we might just carry it.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    CONTROL OF AMUSEMENT ARCADES
    Mr. Kenneth Hind, Supported by Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Den Dover, Mr. Patrick Thompson and Mr. Tim Devlin, presented a Bill to control the licensing of amusement arcades by local authorities; and to restrict entry to amusement arcades to persons over eighteen years of age: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 March and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

  Recycling of Plastics
  3.42 pm
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that ownership of plastic wrappings and containers shall remain with the manufacturer or retailer; to require the return of such materials for recycling; to provide for incentives in the form of returnable deposits for consumers and a standard labelling format to ease segregation of materials; to impose controls on the incineration and disposal by other means of certain plastics; and for connected purposes.
  The Bill is timely because it arises from a recognition by the plastics industry, heavily represented in my constituency, that there is a waste disposal problem with plastic materials, and because it outlines the path down which the industry may wish to go in future.
  I begin by paying tribute to the managers and staff of Visqueen Limited, in my constituency, one of the largest manufacturers of plastic bags and film in this country, who first raised this important subject with me.
  World consumption of plastics has risen from 1·5 million tonnes in 1939 to 80 million tonnes last year. In the European Community, plastic makes up 7 per cent. of municipal waste by weight, but 25 per cent. by volume. Its use is to be encouraged because it has the inherent advantages of lightness, economical cost and excellent mechanical properties. It is a particularly important material in the protective wrapping of food, in the distribution trade, in building and in the electrical industries.
  However, encouragement means that we must think creatively about the disposal after use or possible reuse of plastics. With that in mind, the industry has already taken positive steps actively to collect post-consumer waste and to introduce in-factory reclamation of waste. All the in-factory waste at Visqueen is reused to make black plastic refuse sacks. The parent company now has two further plants on stream—one to deal with agricultural plastic film and bags at Ardeer in west Scotland and the other to deal with supermarket waste at Heanor in Derbyshire, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). It is due to be opened by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs next Monday.
  Recycling has been slow to be recognised as a major option for waste, but we cannot sustain our present throwaway attitudes indefinitely. If we do not move to tackle the problems of plastic waste, we shall increasingly harm our surrounding environment. There are few alternative options open to us.
  Refuse dumped at sea leads to plastic film damaging aquatic life, smothering fish and plant life and wrapping round the propellors of ships. Agricultural film which is ploughed into the ground comes back up, choking animals and ruining the countryside. In cities, plastics make up much of the lightweight litter about which we complain so bitterly.
  According to William Rathje, an American garbologist—apparently that is the term for someone who excavates dumps—plastics have not been a major problem in landfills. They are inert and compactable. The largest single item in landfills is paper, with telephone directories
  270
  the main culprits, but landfills are filling up, and thermosplastic materials—the six main commodities—are made from crude oil, which is not limitless.
  We must tackle the problems the right way round. The European Commission intends to legislate on the matter, according to Commissioner Schafter-Sotiropoulou. However, as we have found with paper and glass, encouragement cannot be given to recycling until industry has a demand for the collected materials.
  The Bill provides for a marking scheme to ease separation of the six basic materials. It might work in the same way as the Australian green spot system, in which a number or code is put on products to say into which group they fall. I am sure that many consumers who currently collect their bottles and paper, could collect and separate plastics to go in with plastic waste collected from supermarkets.
  Consumer goods, from lawn mowers to clothing, begin their useful life only when sold, but packaging has almost completed its useful life by the time that it reaches the consumer. Like all products, packaging uses raw materials and energy, which are both costly to the manufacturer. Therefore, there is an economic incentive to keep the use of those resources to a minimum.
  Consideration should be given at the design stage to the impact that the package will have as waste. Features that will aid recycling must be considered. These days, few items need only one layer of protection. Most are packed in primary consumer packaging such as a jar, and grouped together by secondary distribution packaging, such as a cardboard box or shrink-wrapped tray. There can come a point where reducing the use of material in the primary pack is counter-productive, because the secondary pack has to be strengthened and more material used.
  Some packaging is so efficient that its secondary packaging gives rise to more waste than the primary packaging. The secondary packaging accumulates at retail outlets and can be more easily collected for recycling.
  Biodegradability is some times held up as an option, but it is not. First, none of the so-called biodegradable plastics are truly biodegradable. Secondly, the research into biodegradability is far from complete. Thirdly, waste in landfill is so compact that it may take centuries to rot.
  If anyone wants a mint condition 1952 newspaper or telephone directory, our American garbologist advises digging down through 38 layers of any tip. With further development of recycling technology, I hope that it will be possible—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very important Bill. Would hon. Members mind having their conversations outside the Chamber?
  Mr. Devlin: With further developments in recycling technology, I hope that it will be possible to reopen landfill sites by the end of the century and to recycle the plastic materials in them.
  Plastic materials are one of our best options for the future if they are constantly reusable. We can start by recycling waste from large users, such as distribution, supermarkets, the building trades and agriculture. Deposits would work for large users, but they have been found to be ineffective for household goods. Proper labelling is also vital.
  In my part of the world, we want to stop the dumping of rubbish in our North sea. We have run out of landfill

  271
  space in our county and are looking for more. Our people do not want to incinerate any more than we have to, even if plastic burns well with other materials.
  Recycling represents a crucial fourth option. With this Bill, I ask the House to seize the opportunity with both hands.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tim Devlin, Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Dr. Michael Clark, Mr. David Tredinnick, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Toby Jessel, Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Hugo Summerson, Mr. Gerald Bowden, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr. Spencer Batiste and Mr. Kenneth Hind.

  RECYCLING OF PLASTICS
  Mr. Tim Devlin accordingly presented a Bill to provide that ownership of plastic wrappings and containers shall remain with the manufacturer or retailer; to require the return of such materials for recycling; to provide for incentives in the form of returnable deposits for consumers and a standard labelling format to ease segregation of materials; to impose controls on the incineration and disposal by other means of certain plastics; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 February and to be printed. [Bill 73.]
Opposition Day
[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  South Africa
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I repeat what I said in reply to the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson): a voluntary restraint of 10 minutes or even less would he extremely helpful this afternoon.
  3.51 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to move,
  That this House salutes Nelson Mandela on his release after more than twenty-seven years of wrongful imprisonment; welcomes the constructive actions taken by President de Klerk to create an atmosphere conducive to negotiations with the African National Congress on the future of South Africa; notes that the basic structure of apartheid remains intact and that the world community, including the European Community, has imposed sanctions in order to secure the dismantling of apartheid; and calls upon the European Community at its Ministerial meeting next Tuesday to reject the untimely call of the United Kingdom Government for the abandonment of key sanctions.
  During the past two weeks, the world has witnessed historic events in South Africa. First, there was the dramatic speech by President de Klerk announcing the unbanning of the African National Congress and other organisations; the suspension of capital sentences; the freeing of certain political prisoners, and the decision to release Nelson Mandela. That was a courageous speech, on which we congratulate President de Klerk.
  Then, last Sunday, came the release of Nelson Mandela after 27 years in prison, a sentence mostly served in brutal conditions, and a sentence which he should never have served. I note that, although the Government amendment to our motion
  "salutes Nelson Mandela on his release",
  it does not include our phraseology that Mr. Mandela was wrongfully imprisoned. Opposition members salute this great man on his regaining the freedom which he should never have lost.
  Let us be clear that, although the measures taken by Mr. de Klerk are welcome, they do not affect apartheid's basic structure. The Group Areas Act continues, the Land Act continues, detention without trial continues, the state of emergency continues, censorship of the media continues and the police state continues.
  Nelson Mandela is free within South Africa, but South Africa is not free. Nelson Mandela is out of prison, but South Africa continues to be a prison, stunting the lives of all in it who, under its racialist laws, are not classified as white. Mandela and his fellow black Africans do not have a vote. They live in poor housing in racially segregated townships. Nelson Mandela, on returning home, returned to a dwelling in one of those townships.
  How is South Africa to become free? We are told that negotiations are to begin—negotiations which we in the Labour party believe can end acceptably only with a South African democracy that gives the vote to every man and woman on a common role. What hon. Members from both

  273
  sides of the House demand for the countries of eastern Europe, we must also demand for the people of South Africa.
  What is the balance of power in the negotiations that we hope will soon begin between the African National Congress and the South African Government? On the one hand there is the South African Government, buttressed by the laws made by their stooge Parliament, the army, the police, the prison, and the gallows, which still remain. On the other hand, there is the non-white majority with nothing but its courage, its readiness to suffer and endure, and whatever pressure the international community can exert through sanctions.
  Nelson Mandela asks for sanctions to continue. He said that clearly on his release from prison on Sunday, in the historic speech that he made from the balcony in Cape Town. He said:
  "To lift sanctions now would be to run the risk of aborting the process towards the complete eradication of apartheid."
  Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: I shall certainly give way to any hon. Member who calls me his right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Field: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. As the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested that it would be a useful gesture to relax sanctions, and President Kaunda has called on the African National Congress to give up the armed struggle, would not the Labour party find itself in good company if it made a gesture of that nature to celebrate the feeedom of Nelson Mandela?
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman has ingeniously managed to combine Nos. 3 and 11 of the interventions that the Foreign Office suggested, in a circular, should be made in my speech.[Laughter.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get on.
  Mr. Field: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: It cannot be a point of order. I think that the hon. Gentleman did not like the answer.
  Mr. Field: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have not had an answer, and I combined nothing. This House would do itself a great service in South Africa if it tore up the Gleneagles agreement and allowed sportsmen—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to outline that matter later on.
  Mr. Kaufman: I quoted what Mr. Mandela said in Cape Town—
  Mr. Gerald Howarth rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members have a great interest in the debate, and interventions take up time.
  Mr. Kaufman: I am selective about my friends, Mr. Speaker. But if the hon. Gentleman would, from a sedentary position, care to call out the number of his intervention, I shall do my best to deal with it as I proceed.
  Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has twice referred to a list produced by I know not whom. Am I to understand that, if any Conservative Member wishes to raise a matter that he genuinely feels to be important, it can be dismissed just because it happens to be on somebody else's list as well?
  Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of any list. If anyone has one, perhaps I could have a look at it.
  Mr. Kaufman: I quoted Mr. Mandela, and most of the international community agrees with him—the United States, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the European Community. Mr. Manuel Marin, the European Commissioner for developing countries, said on Monday that sanctions should continue until the situation is sufficiently clear to accept that the end of apartheid is a reality. Against that near-unanimity in the international community that sanctions against South Africa are essential, only one significant country stands out—the United Kingdom, and especially the Prime Minister.
  The Prime Minister is not only completely isolated on this issue: she glories in her isolation. She has turned being alone into a political way of life—in NATO, in the European Community and, above all, on this issue of sanctions. Her retort to the rest of the international community is, "Don't try to confuse me with the facts of apartheid."
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, because his question will have been supplied not by the Foreign Office but by the South African embassy.
  Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who, as usual, is giving misinformation to the House. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that Mr. Mandela has called for sanctions to be continued, but will he give an assessment of other voices within South Africa, which represent far more people? Mr. Mandela represents the Xhosa tribe, with 3 million members, but Chief Buthelezi, who represents 7 million people, is against sanctions, at least 2 million coloureds are against sanctions, 1 million Indians are against sanctions and 4·5 million whites are against sanctions. The right hon. Gentleman is fond of quoting numbers from Britain and the rest of Europe, but will he consider the matter from a South African perspective rather than choosing Mr. Mandela as a reason for continuing sanctions?
  Mr. Kaufman: To take one of the hon. Gentleman's examples, Chief Buthelezi has already announced that he would like to enter into association with the ANC in the negotiations to take place with the South African Government. The South African Government have released Mr. Mandela and unbanned the ANC because they are the people with whom the South Africans wish to negotiate. Therefore, it is especially appropriate to pay heed to what they say.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: No, not at this stage.
  The Prime Minister is alone in the international community among leaders of significant countries in

  275
  opposing sanctions. This weekend her press secretary, Mr. Bernard Ingham, talking about the Prime Minister's isolation, said:
  "The truth is the Prime Minister is in command in this situation. She is leading the world."
  Leading the world sounds all very grand, but what was ever achieved by a procession of one? To be alone in the world and right is to be heroic, but to be alone in the world and wrong is futile and destructive. That is the position in which the Prime Minister has placed herself and this country.
  For years, at every conceivable international meeting, the Prime Minister and her Government have striven to block sanctions. The episodes stand out: at Nassau in 1985, making a space of half an inch with her fingers, and boasting that she had moved just "a tiny little bit"; at Vancouver in 1987, ordering her press secretary deliberately to distort the Canadian record on sanctions; at Brussels in 1988, ordering her then Foreign Secretary to block a joint declaration by the European Community warning of punitive action if the Sharpeville Six were executed; at Kuala Lumpur in 1989, allowing her then poor novice Foreign Secretary to sign a declaration in good faith, and within an hour betraying him and the Commonwealth by issuing a separate declaration—and now, rushing headlong into taking unilateral action in consequence of the recent developments in South Africa.
  The Prime Minister's actions have been surrounded by great confusion. There was the episode of the rebel cricket tour of South Africa—now sensibly called off, as we sensibly demanded. Mr. Gatting seems to have learnt more about the facts of South Africa in three weeks than the Prime Minister has learnt in 11 years in Downing street. But then, Mr. Gatting has a clear advantage over the Prime Minister. He admits that he knows nothing about the realities of South African politics. Questioned in the House, the Prime Minister said that the Gatting tour was
  "not contrary to the Gleneagles agreement".—[Official Report, 23 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 735.]
  But the Gleneagles agreement—to which the Prime Minister is, in her words, "signed up"—calls on participating Governments to take every practical step to discourage contacts or competition by their nations with sporting organisations, teams or sportsmen from South Africa. The Gatting tour, contrary to the Prime Minister's statement, is a clear breach of the Gleneagles agreement.
  At the time of the Moscow Olympic games, the Prime Minister personally wrote to the chairman of the British Olympic Association urging the British Olympic team not to go to Moscow. Why did she not write to Gatting and Graveney in the same way? The answer is that she did not care whether or not that team went to South Africa.
  Then there was the press conference that never was. Recently, the Prime Minister has taken to turning Downing street—fortress Downing street as it has become, since the barricades were erected to keep out the populace—into an equivalent of the White House lawns. On Sunday, journalists were kept waiting for one hour in the rain there before the ubiquitous Mr. Ingham came out to see them. Incidentally, I was touched to learn that Mr. Ingham was briefing the press against me last night. I am honoured to join the company of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), the deputy Prime Minister, and a cast of thousands.
  Mr. Ingham told the soaked journalists, "She is not coming down. She does not think she has anything further
  276
  to say." The Prime Minister with nothing further to say? I bet that the Cabinet would not have minded being soaked to the skin in exchange for such an unprecedented bonus.
  Confusion extends to the Prime Minister's view of the sanctions' legal status. She has scrapped one sanction already. On Sunday, she announced that she has lifted the ban on artistic and cultural contacts with South Africa. That is a harsh decision. Exposing innocent South Africans to the plays of Jeffrey Archer and to the musicals of Andrew Lloyd Webber is a form of punitive sanction in itself.
  Then we come to the sanction on new investment, which the Prime Minister also said on Sunday she wanted to lift. Is this a voluntary sanction which we are free to lift, without the agreement of the European Community? Yesterday, I contacted the Foreign Secretary's office and asked for a definitive ruling. After some delay, the right hon. Gentleman's staff courteously telephoned my office with their reply. They offered no guidance other than to refer me to what the Prime Minister had said in the House at Question Time. It is no wonder that the Sunday Telegraph said last Sunday:
  "The Prime Minister's good relations with her new Foreign Secretary have caused some surprise."—
  said a Minister.
  "He accepts rebukes and he isn't operating an independent Foreign Office policy."
  In the House yesterday, the Prime Minister was unclear. She said that this sanction was voluntary, but she did not say whether it could be lifted unilaterally. My advice is that it cannot. The decision of the ministerial council of 27 October 1986 says:
  "Member states shall take the necessary measures to ensure that new direct investments in the Republic of South Africa by natural or legal persons resident within the Community are suspended."
  We
  "shall take the necessary measures."
  That seems pretty binding to me, and it is especially binding for the United Kingdom because of the circumstances in which the decision was made.
  The document containing the decision on the ban on new investment in South Africa concludes:
  "Done at Luxembourg, 27 October 1986."
  It was signed "The President G. Howe".
  The circumstances under which sanctions may be relaxed are strictly laid down in agreements to which the Government are a signatory party. The United Nations declaration of December 1989 demands the release of all political prisoners and detainees, removal of all troops from the townships, the end of the state of emergency and the repeal of the Internal Security Act. None of those conditions has been fulfilled. By seeking to drop sanctions now, the Prime Minister is seeking to breach a united declaration which she has signed.
  Mr. Dave Nellist: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, underlying the points that he has correctly made about the isolation of the Prime Minister on the question of sanctions, is the fact that Britain is the largest single investor in South Africa, with £12,000 million-worth of investments? Consolidated Gold Fields has regularly made more than £100 million a year profit out of the blood and bones of black miners. That is why the Prime Minister is such a friend.
  Mr. Kaufman: When I was in South Africa last July as a guest of the South African Council of Churches, I visited the people who had been sacked by the subsidiary of a British company—BTR Sarmcol. They were thrown out of work, on to the scrap heap, with no job, no wages and nothing to live on. That is the way in which British investors are taking advantage of conditions in South Africa.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Kaufman: The statement by the Commonwealth Heads of Government at Kuala Lumpur last October declares 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."
  That change has not been irreversibly secured. By seeking to drop sanctions now, the Prime Minister is seeking to breach a Commonwealth statement which she signed. It was a part of the statement that she assented to, and did not disclaim. The statement of partial disclaimer, issued separately at Kuala Lumpur by the Prime Miniser and the Foreign Secretary, clearly states "the necessary steps" under which
  "it would be right to lift some of the measures imposed by the international community."
  Those steps—listed in a statement issued by the Prime Minister as her personal policy—include lifting the state of emergency. But the state of emergency has not been lifted. In seeking to drop sanctions now, the Prime Minister is trying to breach a personal statement that she herself drafted and signed. It is impossible to imagine anything more unprincipled.
  The fact is that the Prime Minister has never wanted any sanctions to be imposed on South Africa at any time. She is now falling over herself at what she regards as a golden opportunity to get rid of them. She is trying desperately to wriggle out of commitments on sanctions that she made apparently in honour.
  In the House yesterday the Prime Minister said, again creating confusion:
  "The sanctions … are totally voluntary".
  But there are several sanctions that, as the Foreign Secretary must know, are absolutely binding on us in international law. The Prime Minister is wrong about that. She also said in the House yesterday that the sanctions imposed by the United Kingdom were
  "some very minor gesture sanctions".—[Official Report, 13 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 136–38.]
  At other times she has warned of the dire effect of sanctions and their capacity to cause economic damage to South Africa. Most notable, of course, is the ban on new investment presided over in Luxembourg by the deputy Prime Minister in 1986.
  The Prime Minister is confused about every aspect of sanctions except one. The point that she is clear about is that she wants to lift them. Why? There is no doubt of the damaging affects of the ban on new investment: the Trust bank of South Africa calculates that the country has lost $14 billion in loans and direct investments over the past five years, and that 280 foreign companies have abandoned it since 1984.
  A few months ago, the South African Finance Minister spoke of the "economic onslaught", the "beleaguered community", the
  278
  "need to break the isolation imposed on us … the elementary but remorseless truth … for both the economic and the political policymakers that no country can stand alone."
  The South African Law and Order Minister has also admitted the effect of sanctions on his country:
  "Our ability to make decisions is limited. If sanctions are introduced against us we can do nothing … We do not live alone in the world."
  There is no doubt that sanctions have worked; there is no doubt that they are working. Nor is there any doubt that that is why the Prime Minister wants to get rid of them. She wants to rescue the very regime that sanctions are helping to bring down: she is the world's best friend of apartheid.
  The most sickening aspect of the Prime Minister's opposition to effective sanctions is the argument against them that she has offered. She says that they would put hundreds of thousands of black South Africans out of work, and would cause deprivation and starvation. When did the Prime Minister ever care about unemployment? When did she ever care about poverty? It is true that South Africa contains unemployment and poverty on a horrendous scale, by any standards in the world; that unemployment and that poverty, however, are caused not by sanctions but by the system—the very system which the Prime Minister wants to prop up.
  Let us be clear that apartheid is not racial oppression for its own sake; apartheid is racial oppression to make possible the use of the cheap slave labour of millions of blacks to provide a luxurious standard of living for the minority of whites.
  I do not accuse the Prime Minister of condoning the racialism of apartheid, but I do say that, shorn of its racialism, the economic objective of the South African Government is Thatcherism in its ultimate form: the poor financing the high living standards of the rich. That is what exists in South Africa, and that is what the Prime Minister, given the chance, wants to bring about in this country too.
  Speaking in Soweto yesterday, Mr. Nelson Mandela said:
  "South Africa is a wealthy country. It is the labour of black workers which has built the roads and factories that we see … Our people need proper houses, not ghettos like Soweto."
  Mr. Mandela said:
  "They"—
  the black people of South Africa—
  "cannot be excluded from that wealth."
  This great man, his mind crystal clear after 27 years of incarceration and suffering, states the position in its starkest terms. Mr. Mandela explains the situation and the product and the objective of apartheid in South Africa. He explains why the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is so wrong. He explains why sanctions must stay. He explains why this House should vote for this motion tonight.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During exchanges before this debate started, you said that you hoped that an apology might he given during the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). No such apology has been given. Perhaps that was an oversight. Could you, Mr. Speaker, invite the right hon. Gentleman to give that apology?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. I have already made my position clear.
  4.22 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "salutes Nelson Mandela on his release and welcomes the constructive actions taken by President de Klerk to create an atmosphere conducive to negotiations with all parties in South Africa towards a non-racial constitution enjoying the support of a majority of South Africans; and believes these steps deserve a positive and practical response from the international community."
  It is always difficult to know how to qualify a speech such as that which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has just delivered. Fortuntely, he has come to my help on this occasion. In his book, "How to be a Minister" he gives this advice:
  "Your final paragraph should be grandiloquent, even if almost meaningless."
  The right hon. Gentleman is certainly consistent. Indeed, he has expanded on his own advice by covering in that way not only the final paragraph but the whole speech.
  I am glad that the Opposition chose this matter for debate because it enables me to set out, in what I hope will be a coherent way, the approach and reasoning behind Her Majesty's Government's policy towards South Africa. I am glad to be able to do that as, up to now, I have not had the opportunity.
  As the right hon. Gentleman said, the world had seen remarkable changes in recent months, but few have been more remarkable, or more welcome, than the transformation being wrought in South African politics—a transformation symbolised by the scenes that we saw last Sunday and thereafter. I congratulate Mr. Mandela on his release. Even those who, like myself, have been able to watch only snatches of the events that have followed the release must have been impressed by the overwhelming warmth of the welcome that Mr. Mandela has received and by the dignity with which he met it. It has been a formidable welcome—this is a serious point—bringing with it a formidable responsibility for one man to carry, and we wish him well as he begins to shoulder that responsibility.
  Contrary to the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, the Government's policy towards South Africa has always been based on our rejection of apartheid. It is wrong; it does not work; the sooner it is ended the better. If the right hon. Gentleman had heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister speaking as forcefully in private as in public about apartheid, he simply would not have made the misleading and perverse remarks that he did about my right hon. Friend. What we have done in the past and what we are doing now is designed to speed up the end of apartheid.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to inform the House whether, before the Prime Minister decided to abandon certain of these sanctions, she bothered to consult her Foreign Secretary or even that amiable dumb-bell, the deputy Prime Minister?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here yesterday, but I do not think that remarks of that kind add any quality to our debates.
  Mr. Faulds: On reconsideration, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that. I have considerable regard for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am only sorry for I he suffering that he has to put up with.
  Mr. Hurd: I do not wish to contradict you, Mr. Speaker, but I thought that the contribution from the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) was rather above the level that we have had so far from the Opposition. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. What has been said and what is being done is part of a measured response, worked out well in advance, to the kind of actions that we hoped the President of South Africa would take and that he is now taking.
  Mr. Robert Adley: I should like my right hon. Friend to clarify one point. There are different ways of interpreting different events. I understand that the Government's interpretation of the situation is that it would help Mr. de Klerk if we began to lower the sanctions barriers. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is also the opposite argument: that at the moment Mr. de Klerk's main problem is the white Fascists in South Africa, not the African National Congress? If sanctions are lowered, Mr. de Klerk faces the possibility of the white Fascists saying, "We are doing quite well out of what the Government have already done." Since Mr. Mandela's release, has Mr. de Klerk specifically asked the British Government to do anything about sanctions?
  Mr. Hurd: President de Klerk made it clear in our contacts with him throughout that he very much hoped that if he began to move down the path that we and others—but eminently we—have been urging, there would be some response. That seems to be an entirely reasonable point. It is highly desirable that he should have that response to be able to reply to his critics on the Right who are pressing him fairly hard and who have been pressing him even harder since he made his speech on 2 February. We want to help to bring about in South Africa the peaceful replacement of apartheid by a non-racial, representative system of government that is fair and acceptable to the people of South Africa as a whole.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hurd: No, I must get on with my speech.
  To this end, the Government have maintained a consistent policy towards the South African Government of pressure and encouragement. We want to bring about an environment in which the negotiations that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—on an end to apartheid—can take place. We believe that that requires encouragement.
  Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later, if he persists, but I must make some progress with my speech because many hon. Members wish to speak.
  We believe in encouragement when steps have been taken in the right direction and pressure when they have not—a combination of encouragement and pressure. That is why we supported the mission to South Africa in 1986 of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group. The

  281
  group developed a negotiating concept. That, in our view, represented the most feasible basis on which to get the negotiations under way.
  Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is, I believe, one of those who wishes to participate in the debate. Perhaps he could leave his point until then.
  Mr. Hurd: The core of the EPG concept was one of matching and reciprocal commitments by both sides in South Africa. It is worth recalling what it asked them to do. The EPG called on the South African Government to unban the ANC and the Pan-Africanist Congress, to release Mr. Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners and detainees, to remove troops from the townships, to provide for freedom of assembly and discussion and to suspend detention without trial; in short, to normalise political activity in South Africa. It called on the ANC and others, for their part, to suspend violence and enter negotiations.
  The negotiating concept of the Eminent Persons Group had wide international support. The whole House should be glad that President de Klerk has now gone so far towards meeting the EPG's conditions for dialogue. We urge the ANC and other opposition groups to make an equivalent response by suspending their campaign of violence.
  Mr. Nellist rose—
  Mr. Hurd: Let me justify what I have just said. President de Klerk came to office on 21 September last year. In October he released from long years of imprisonment eight black leaders, including Walter Sisulu, the former general secretary of the African National Congress. In November he announced the dismantling of the national security management system. He began an investigation into serious allegations of covert activities by the South African security forces against anti-apartheid activists, an investigation which has since been raised to the level of a full judicial inquiry. In the same month he opened South Africa's remaining segregated beaches to all races and promised that the Separate Amenities Act, which permits segregation of other facilities, would be repealed.
  Those in themselves were major steps, but they were overshadowed by the further steps announced in President de Klerk's speech on 2 February. Before he made his speech in Parliament on 2 February, we urged him to release Mr. Nelson Mandela unconditionally, to unban the ANC, the PAC and the South African Communist party, and to lift the state of emergency. We expressed the hope that the South African Government would look again at the law on capital punishment and think in terms of protection for minority rather than "group" rights. President de Klerk has taken many of the steps we urged on him and which the Prime Minister urged on him when she saw him in London last June. We have exerted our influence to the full in that direction in South Africa, and we have been able to do so more directly and more successfully than most other countries.
  Mr. John Battle rose—
  Mr. Hurd: Every one of those steps is therefore something for which Britain has repeatedly called and pressed over the years. Now they have been taken, it is absurd to say—as the Opposition do in their motion—that we should behave as though nothing had happened. To propose, as the Opposition do, that sanctions should be maintained in all their forms merely reveals the irresponsibility of their policy. Talk of intensified, comprehensive sanctions, in which the Opposition still dabble from time to time, now clearly belongs to another world.
  The Leader of the Opposition suggests that we should do as Mr. Mandela asks and maintain all sanctions. That is not our analysis. To do that would be to shirk our responsibility. The ANC is a key participant in negotiations about the future of South Africa but, as has already been pointed out, it is the only one. It is the job of a British Government not to favour one party or another, but to try to do what we can to contribute to a peaceful, democratic solution in South Africa.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: It is precisely the point of a peaceful and democratic achievement that I want to raise with the Secretary of State. If sanctions are lifted, the tragic fact is that the only force for change remaining in South Africa will be mass action, with all the risks of tension and upheaval that come with it. In the knowledge that that is the case, and that if sanctions are lifted, the ANC and the other forces striving for the abolition of apartheid are left to their own internal devices, is he prepared to reconsider any of his current views on sanctions?
  Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is making the same mistake as I think he made yesterday, although I was not in the House. He is assuming that we propose the abolition of all sanctions, but we are not doing that. We propose a step-by-step, measured response. The President of South Africa has taken a large number of the measures which we, with the support of the House, have urged upon him. That response, which is a courageous one on his part, requires a response from us if he is to be taken seriously. He has not gone the full way, and we are not proposing to go the full way. Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that if someone has started a process that we have urged upon him, it is sensible that we should respond by some encouragement so that he can proceed. If we give him no encouragement and say that nothing that he has done is worthy or deserves any response or relaxation, we are throwing him away and discouraging him from taking any further action. If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that basic point, he is not looking at it through straight eyes.
  Mr. Kinnock: I apologise to the Secretary of State for intervening again, but it is a fundamental point. First, the right hon. Gentleman is representing a Prime Minister who has shown that she is antagonistic to sanctions in principle. Secondly, she has described the sanctions that she installed as gesture sanctions. What real case can he build for suggesting that by the withdrawal of sanctions on which the Government put no value he can exert an influence over or offer a reward to President de Klerk?
  Mr. Hurd: Perhaps I can answer the right hon. Gentleman by continuing my speech and dealing with the sanctions in question.

  283
  I return to my main point—that we have to encourage the process that is under way. It does not make sense to take punitive actions when the South African Government are doing all the wrong things and to maintain all those punitive measures when the South African Government, at long last, are doing many of the right things. There is an obvious need to encourage the South African Government to take further steps, including the complete lifting of the state of emergency. That is where the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. We are not rushing to lift all sanctions. Ours is a measured response. Mandatory sanctions, including the arms embargo which is crucial, remain. We stand by the Gleneagles agreement, to the disappointment of some of my hon. Friends. There is no question of reviewing the arms embargo or associated military sanctions until there is a full democratic constitution in South Africa. We are giving a measured but positive response to President de Klerk's bold moves.
  I now deal with the European Community, on which the right hon. Member for Gorton spent some time. In 1986, the Foreign Ministers of the European Community agreed to impose restrictive measures on South Africa in response to the actions of the South African Government. The European Community imposed those measures to send a signal to the South African Government that they should take steps to open the road to dialogue. In particular, it mentioned the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners, and the lifting of the ban on the ANC, the PAC and other political parties. Community Ministers also called for the ending of the state of emergency, and on 10 February President de Klerk made it clear that that could take place within weeks if there was no upsurge of violence.
  We propose a logical, step-by-step response; not to lift all our measures, but to consult our Community partners about lifting those measures adopted in 1986, starting with the Community ban on new investment which was always voluntary in our case.
  The right hon. Member for Gorton may not know that our approach has been endorsed by a letter to a number of Community Foreign Ministers from Helen Suzman, who is one of the leading veteran opponents of apartheid in South Africa, asking the Community to revise the policy of sanctions against South Africa to fortify President de Klerk's ability to combat white fears and resistance, and to enable the South African economy to grow to provide education, social services and employment opportunities to all South Africans in a non-racial society.
  Mr. Kaufman: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Hurd: Before I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, it is worth remembering that the population of South Africa will grow by nearly 1 million people a year over the next 10 years. There are 7 million children at school today in South Africa. By the turn of the century there will be 12 million people needing education. If we were to inflict the serious economic damage on South Africa that the right hon. Gentleman favours, we would leave any future South African Government with a hopeless task.
  Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to clear up a matter which his office, with all the good will in the world, was unable to clear up yesterday?
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the ban on new investment made under the presidency of the deputy Prime
  284
  Minister as a "voluntary" measure. It is certainly a voluntary measure for the companies, because the decision states that the provision
  "may be complied with by the issue of guidance to natural and legal persons."
  Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear whether the Government's advice is that they can get rid of this ban on new investment unilaterally, or whether that can be done only by another decision of the European Community?
  Mr. Hurd: I shall gladly elucidate. The decisions made in September 1986 were to place bans on new investment, imports of iron and steel and imports of certain gold coins. The bans on those imports were implemented through Community legislation, but the ban on new investment was not—it was a separate decision by member states outside the framework of the treaties. Its implementation was left to the decision of individual member countries. We have no capital controls in this country, and therefore we could only discourage companies from new investment. That was done in a written answer by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The last paragraph of that written answer stated:
  "Meanwhile, if the South African Government were to take those steps for which we and our partners have called, in order to establish a process of dialogue across racial lines, we have made clear in the Commonwealth communiqué that we stand ready to review and, if appropriate, to rescind the measures we have adopted."—[Official Report, 30 October 1986; Vol. 103, c. 220.]
  We seek to lay before our Community partners—I shall do this in Dublin next week—a reasoned case, to consult them on our proposals and to explain why we think there is no logic in the continuance in present circumstances of this voluntary ban on new investment.
  Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?
  Mr. Hurd: I have answered. We are pursuing the correct policy. We are consulting our European Community partners and making it clear that we see no sense in continuing the ban.
  Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? This is a very important point.
  Mr. Hurd: I think that I should continue. Perhaps I can clarify the matter further. We shall not, of course, instruct companies to invest in South Africa, because Governments do not direct such decisions. We would simply say to the companies, "Make your judgment on straightforward commercial grounds in either direction, free from politically motivated pressures." Companies will look to South Africa's long-term prospects as a stable and prosperous country. South Africa will have to satisfy that requirement, which will remain a powerful incentive for all South Africans to make further progress. South Africa needs to restore its valued place in development if it is to satisfy the aspirations of all its citizens. It will need help from abroad. That is what led the Commonwealth at Kuala Lumpur to call on international financial institutions, particularly the International Monetary Fund, to examine how resources might be mobilised once there is evidence of clear and irreversible change. 'That evidence is now before us.
  Mr. Kaufman rose—
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Nellist rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Gorton.
  Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered clearly the question that I put to him. Can he take the action that he has described—withdrawing the guidance to the companies unilaterally—or can he do that only if he secures agreement in Dublin next Tuesday?
  Mr. Hurd: We are doing what I am advised we need to do—consulting our partners. There is no written answer and no statement rescinding that decision. We will point out that the logic of the voluntary ban on investment has run out. In the light of the September 1986 decisions, there is no further purpose in carrying on with that.
  At the same time, we remain fully engaged on the ground in South Africa. Part of the trouble in these debates is that they are all about sanctions, whereas sanctions are only part of the answer. We are continuing our bilateral aid programme and are thereby proving in a thoroughly practical way our commitment to help ease the transition to a post-apartheid society.
  I should like to give the facts. The right hon. Member for Gorton has visited some of these projects and knows how important they are. Together with our contribution to the European Community programme, we expect to spend about £40 million in the period 1987 to 1992. Most of this will be spent on supporting education and training. By the end of this year, we shall be funding more than 1,000 scholarships for South African students. We are supporting education projects throughout South Africa. Last year, we played a leading role in helping to set up a scheme run by the Urban Foundation which will enable 40,000 South African families, who would not otherwise have the chance, to buy their own homes. We are contributing to hundreds of community projects that will help to improve standards of health care, education, community support and so on.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Nellist rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I shall continue.
  Mr. Nellist: Will the Secretary of State now give way? He has given way to several Members, so will he now give way to me?
  Mr. Hurd: I have given way extensively. I gave way to the hon. Gentleman the last time we had questions on South Africa, and I shall not do so today.
  It is true that mitigating the hardships caused by apartheid is no substitute for working for its abolition—we must do both—but I hope that the persistence of apartheid will not be used as an excuse for not getting involved. Through our focus on education at all levels, we are helping to prepare the generation that we hope will inherit the post-apartheid South Africa.
  Mr. Nellist: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? He said 15 minutes ago that he would.
  Mr. Hurd: I did not say that, and I do not intend to give way.
  Mr. Nellist: The Secretary of State said that he would give way.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) wishes to participate in this debate. It will not improve his chances if he does not listen to the Foreign Secretary and delays proceedings.
  Mr. Hurd: I have given way extensively, and I shall not give way again. Hon. Members who are seeking to interrupt me will be able to make their own speeches, if they catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
  Some people argue that when the Securitate starts to crumble, one should not make concessions to it. That is a false and over-simple analogy. There are lessons for South Africa in eastern Europe, as President de Klerk has acknowledged, but anyone who thinks—this view was apparent in some of the comments of the right hon. Member for Gorton—that the South African Government are about to surrender power for fear of having it wrested from them is deluding himself about the real position. No one who really cares about the future of South Africa would advocate a policy that would set back reform and lead to bloodshed. It is very easy for people to warm themselves with their rhetoric on this subject, but we do not intend to do that. We shall continue to take measured steps to contribute to a peaceful solution inside South Africa.
  Of course, it is true that apartheid has not yet been abolished and that the Group Areas Act, the Land Acts and the Population Registration Act remain in place. The South Africans are not yet at the end of the road, but they have taken the first steps upon it. The South African Government have made it clear that all the so-called "pillars of apartheid" are open for negotiation. They are setting no limits on the agenda. By any reasonable standard, it is now for their opponents to respond.
  Mr. Nellist: Will the Secretary of State respond—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must resume his seat.
  Mr. Nellist: The debate is supposed to be about South Africa and—
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to join the debate by making his own speech.
  If there is no response from the international community of the kind that we have suggested, there will be—as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said the day before yesterday—a danger of a Right-wing reaction, even though those opposing President de Klerk can offer South Africa nothing but increasing strife in a hopelessly divided society.
  If we wanted to snuff out the present process of reform, condemn the black majority to greater poverty than the right hon. Gentleman described, and condemn the white minority to extremist white Government, we would follow the right hon. Gentleman's advice and make no response to President de Klerk's initiative. But we do not intend to do that. That is the wrong way around.
  It is reasonable to look to the many opposition groups in South Africa to take this opportunity. A chance now exists to bring about genuine change through peaceful negotiation, involving not only the ANC but the PAC, the black consciousness movement, the Inkatha movement, which has already been referred to, and all the other political organisations that have struggled against

  287
  apartheid for so long. They should take up the challenge and heed the many calls, most recently from President Kaunda, to suspend violence and enter negotiations.
  In his speech on 2 February, President de Klerk called on his opponents to walk through the open door and take their place at the negotiating table. I was heartened by that, and I am heartened by Mr. Mandela's belief that the negotiations will begin very soon. I sincerely hope that that is the case. That is the way to speed the end of apartheid. The prize of a free, democratic and prosperous South Africa is one for which we have worked for a long time.
  4.50 pm
  Sir David Steel: The whole House will feel some sympathy for the Foreign Secretary because he had to make that speech today. I remain one of those who are convinced that we would not have had this debate had it not been for the Prime Minister's maladroit remarks over the weekend in response to President de Klerk's press conference and Nelson Mandela's release. One could almost hear the tearing of hair in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the time. That explains why the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was so uncomfortable at the Dispatch Box on Monday.
  I do not dispute for a second that the Prime Minister is opposed to apartheid, but we all know—more important, the people of South Africa know—that her denunciation of apartheid has always been ritual, while her denunciation of sanctions has always been passionate. That has always been the impression gained by people in South Africa. My party would not object to the Foreign Secretary laying down a reasonable programme of looking ahead to the lifting of pressures and sanctions. Of course that is sensible in response to the changes that will come about in South Africa, but we object to that being done prematurely and not in concert with our European and Commonwealth partners.
  I noticed that the Foreign Secretary did not pray in aid this afternoon, as the Prime Minister attempted to do yesterday, President Bush, the Archbishop of Canterbury or anybody else. They, too, have made it quite clear that they are talking about a future programme of lifting sanctions, not about prematurely lifting sanctions.
  I again quote to the Foreign Secretary the words to which the Government are committed. At the Council of Ministers meeting on 10 September 1985 it was agreed that the objective of European Community measures was
  "the complete abolition of apartheid as a whole and not just certain components of the system."
  That is an important recollection to which the Government are wholly committed.
  At the Commonwealth conference at Kuala Lumpur, the Government entered many reservations about the communiqué, but there was no reservation about paragraph 7. It was one of the paragraphs to which the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister assented. The communiqué states that the Heads of Government
  "agreed that the only justification for sanctions against South Africa was the pressure they created for fundamental political change. The purpose was not punitive, but to abolish apartheid by bringing Pretoria to the negotiating table"—
  I stress this—
  "and keeping it there until that change was irreversibly secured. In this respect Heads of Government noted that leading personalities in the South African Government had themselves acknowledged the increasing pressure on the
  288
  South African economy, and that those pressures would not be diminished until fundamental political change had taken place."
  That is in the Commonwealth communique to which the previous Foreign Secretary assented.
  Mr. Hurd: Looking fairly at the situation in South Africa, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that while apartheid still remained there had been fundamental political changes?
  Sir David Steel: I agree with the Foreign Secretary that there is the foreshadowing of fundamental political change, but the whole apartheid system is still in place.
  I have been to South Africa since President de Klerk came to office. There is no doubt that there is a major change in attitude, mentality and objective between the de Klerk Government and the previous Government. That is not in dispute. It was put to me time and again, particularly by sections of the black population, that once Nelson Mandela was released and the state of emergency was lifted, the country would just be back to had normality—the apartheid system would still exist. That is the position that we face today. Of course we must look forward and hope for the best, but the change has not yet happened, and it will take a little time.
  Moreover, those who doubted, including the Prime Minister, whether sanctions would be effective should look at what was said in the National party manifesto in the elections in the autumn. It states:
  "boycotts, sanctions and disinvestment, have strained the economy of the country and of every business and household."
  We do not rejoice because that has happened, but it is an open acknowledgment of what many of us knew was happening—that the pressure inside the National party and inside the business community led to the removal of President P. W. Botha and his replacement by President de Klerk. There is no question but that they played a major part.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes rose—
  Mr. John Carlisle rose—
  Sir David Steel: Hon. Members know that Mr. Speaker has called for brief speeches. I have given way once already.
  Mr. Dykes: Is not one of the problems vis-a-vis the majority of the population that, although President de Klerk is an enormous improvement on the previous state President, there is still anxiety? Botha originally promised a great deal of reform, but he did nothing about abolishing the Population Registration Act, the Land Acts and the Group Areas Act.
  Sir David Steel: I made that point in response to the Minister's statement the other day. We must make sure that there is pressure for their abolition and maintain it.
  Yesterday, the Prime Minister quoted the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has been forced to elaborate on what he said in Bangladesh. In his press release this morning, he said:
  "But the hardest work—and the hardest tests—lie ahead. When those tests—such as the legislation that enforces apartheid—are tackled, the government of South Africa will need encouragement so that they can show their electorate that the dismantling of the system is good for all the people of South Africa. That, after all, is the whole point of the existing sanctions."

  289
  The archbishop concluded:
  "We should applaud President de Klerk for taking the essential first steps and be ready at the right time to respond with the easing of sanctions. I pray that time may not be long delayed."
  That is precisely my party's position also. I do not believe that the Government are right to rush unilaterally ahead of our allies in taking unjustified steps.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir David Steel: I will not give way again. I shall conclude my remarks in just a couple of minutes.
  In November, when I was last in South Africa, it was quite clear that every section of white opinion—even those who, slightly to my surprise, did not agree with the imposition of sanctions, including colleagues and friends in the Democratic party who have always disagreed with us on this issue—acknowledged that international pressures had played their part in bringing about the change. Equally, I could find nobody of any particular persuasion in the black community who believed that the Prime Minister had done anything but hinder change. In a sense, that is rather unfair. The Foreign Secretary and I know that her private pressures have been helpful. The work being done by our embassy in Pretoria and by our consulate in Johannesburg on the ground and the projects to which the Foreign Secretary referred are wholly admirable. The trouble is that we have been doing good by stealth. The overall impression among the black population of South Africa is overlaid by the Prime Minister's repeated and isolated antagonism to bring effective pressure to bear.
  I welcome President Mandela's first speech—[Interruption.] I am moving too far ahead. I welcome Mr. Mandela's speech on the balcony in Cape Town, when he paid tribute to the sections of the white population who had played their part in the struggle. He mentioned the black sash movement and the National Union of Students in South Africa. He could have mentioned others also. All the churches have played a significant role.
  I should not like the chance to go by without paying tribute to our colleagues in our sister Democratic party in opposition within the South African Parliament. I refer to Helen Suzman, Colin Eglin, van Zyl Slabbert and others who have a record, admittedly within a limited white parliamentary system, of trying to mitigate the effects of apartheid.
  The challenge facing Nelson Mandela is difficult, but he is the one person who can reunite the black movements. It is essential that Inkatha—Chief Buthelezi's movement—be brought back into a reconciliation with the ANC and the other movements, and Mr. Mandela is the only man who can do that.
  In November I had the extraordinary experience of talking with Walter Sisulu at his home in Soweto. I was deeply impressed and moved by the fact that a man who had spent a quarter of a century in gaol could talk for an hour calmly, reasonably, realistically and with no bitterness about how it would take time for the changes to come about in South Africa and about how they would be under pressure from younger people with rising expectations of instant change. That is a frustration with which the ANC leadership and others will have to deal. In
  290
  the meantime, while that is happening, there should be no let-up from the outside world in keeping the pressure going.
  5 pm
  Mr. Julian Amery: I should at the outset declare an interest. I have been associated for many years with the Anglo-American Corporation of South Africa. I have no reason to regret that. Indeed, I have some reason to be proud of it, as it has pressed for many years for dialogue between the South African Government and the different African organisations. Indeed, the present chairman of the corporation undertook a journey to Lusaka to talk to the ANC leaders some months ago.
  We must, however, face the fact that until the last year there was no basis for dialogue. Under the Brezhnev regime in the Soviet Union, central and southern Africa were turned into a major theatre of the cold war. Cuban troops were sent to Angola, and SWAPO and ANC forces were equipped and encouraged to attempt to overthrow South African rule by force. Only in the last year has western diplomacy, and American diplomacy above all, succeeded in convincing Mr. Gorbachev that he was on to a no-win situation in central and southern Africa and that there was no possibility of overthrowing by force the white regime in the South African Republic.
  Only in the last 12 months have we got agreement for the withdrawal of Cubans from Angola, for SWAPO being prepared to come in peacefully in the South-West African—Namibian—elections. Only in the last few months has the ANC leadership, including the Communist leader, Mr. Joe Slovo, accepted the idea that they could make progress only by negotiation and no longer by violent force. That has been a tremendous change, and it has created a situation in which dialogue should be possible. It has gradually sunk in on the black and white sides.
  I join in saluting Mr. Mandela on his release and for showing great dignity since then. I praise Mr. de Klerk because he has taken a tremendous risk, in domestic and global politics. He has opened a gate and he cannot be sure whether, at the end of the day, there will or will not be fruitful negotiations. He deserves our congratulations.
  I regret that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is not in his place, because I intend to be rather harsh towards him. I have attended and taken part in many debates in the House under what might be described as the broad heading of decolonisation. Although we no longer have dominant influence, we have some influence as we deal with the future of 25 million people. This is not the occasion for a cheap solicitous speech, which is what we heard from the right hon. Member for Gorton. Had the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) been here, he would have raised the level well above that.
  Because we are dealing with the future of so many people, this is not an occasion for scoring cheap debating points about whether a particular sanction was or was not an international commitment. There is a case to be made, although I do not hold with it, for retaining sanctions, and there is a case for lifting them, but the issue should be dealt with in a more measured and statesmanlike way than we heard from the right hon. Member for Gorton.
  The right hon. Gentleman's remarks left me with the impression that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was absolutely right in her stricture about him yesterday,

  291
  which a leading article in The Times this morning tended to confirm. Analogies are always dangerous, but it seemed as if the Labour party was committing itself to the point where its South African policy would be dictated by the ANC.
  That happened before, in Mr. Attlee's time, with the Indian Congress party. The result was the partition of India, first into two and later into three, with 2 million dead and with chaotic consequences visible still in Kashmir and Karachi. It is dangerous for a great party such as the Labour party to commit itself to one particular faction in another country. Luckily, its influence—indeed the influence of the Government—is limited today.
  It is equally important to remember that, while the ANC is an important factor in the equation, it is not the only one. There are other important black African factors. There are also the Indians and coloureds, together about 3 million people; and at the end of the day, whatever negotiations are achieved, the conclusions will have to be submitted to the white electorate, whose views we must also have in mind.
  I am not sure that sanctions have played a great part in leading up to Mr. de Klerk's speech—the withdrawal of Soviet support from the revolutionary elements has been far more important—but I would not deny that sanctions have had an important symbolic effect, because they have made the South African whites feel isolated. It is important, if we are to carry them in the general movement for reform, that they should realise that sanctions will be lifted and that they will be less isolated, as already they are, as they move towards reform.
  It is important to remember that President de Klerk has already been received by several African heads of state, that trade between South Africa and black Africa has increased by leaps and bounds, and that even relations with the Soviet Union are progressing. No wonder, since they are both gold and diamond producers and both are benefiting from cheap labour.
  We should have made some gestures in the time of President Botha, because he started the reform process. Let us not under-estimate what he did. It was regarded as revolutionary at the time in white South Africa, and what is happening now goes a long way forward from those steps.
  We must always have in mind the wider objective of our policy in southern Africa. The dismantlement of apartheid is no doubt a worthy goal, but it is not in itself a great objective of British policy. We are really concerned with reviving the economy of southern and central Africa as a whole.
  The report of the World bank shows that this area of Africa is dying, and there are many reasons why that is the case. It is clear that we shall not be able to revive it—to rescue it from its present decline—without co-operation from South Africa, which is the only modern industrial country in that part of the world.
  Until now South Africa's stance has inhibited its co-operation with its neighbours. The real reason why I should like to see apartheid dismantled is to enable South Africa to fulfil what should be its right purpose—to develop and bring forward the economies of its neighbouring countries.
  We want to see progress towards democracy but, as we keep saying about eastern Europe, it must be based on a market economy and private enterprise. The ANC has not yet come round to that view. I hope that it will. It is clear
  292
  that, unless it does, it will not only bring destruction to what is still a prosperous economy in South Africa but will abort the possibility of the constructive work which the South African Republic could bring about in southern or central Africa.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Bernie Grant: I have just returned from South Africa. South Africa is a beautiful country, full of resources, but it is a tragic country. One gets the feeling when one goes there that the situation is extremely tense and that unless something of substance happens reasonably quickly there could be an almighty bloodbath.
  I was a member of Rev. Jesse Jackson's party invited by the South African Council of Churches and the ANC to South Africa. On our way, we visited Zambia, where we were the guests of President Kaunda. In Zambia, we had meetings with the ANC leadership in exile. We then went on to Johannesburg and Cape Town, where we met various people, including the South African Council of Churches, clergy from all the South African churches, including the Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist and African independent Churches.
  We also met the Pan-Africanist Congress, the United Democratic Front, Soweto People's Committee, Soweto teachers, NACTU, the Azanian People's Organisation and representatives of the British Council, lecturers in the university of the Western Cape, the National Sports Congress, the Western Cape Traders Association, several ANC and Church leaders such as Oscar Mpetha, the Rev. Allan Boesak, Archbishop Tutu and Mr. Frank Chicane. We also met the mayor of Cape Town and, of course, Mr. Nelson Mandela.
  All those people, except the British consul officer—I did not ask him for his opinion—agreed that sanctions had to be maintained and asked me to take that message back to the United Kingdom.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie rose—
  Mr. Grant: I saw the oppressors at first hand. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Last Saturday at Crossroads, just outside Cape Town, we held a peaceful rally attended by some 2,000 to 3,000 people. As soon as our party got into our vehicles, vigilantes started shooting at the crowd. The police then started shooting. The Kitzkonstabel, the paramilitary police, who are given three weeks' training and then given rifles and shotguns, surrounded our vans as we were assisting into a lorry a man who had been shot in the stomach. I have spoken about the Kitzkonstabel before in the House. As they pointed their guns at us, I could not help hoping that they had not read Hansard.
  Several people were injured and I witnessed a perfectly peaceful rally being fired on by the security forces. The whole incident was witnessed by the television cameras and a dossier has been submitted to the Minister of Justice for his investigation.
  I was told by the British consul officer that the day before a peaceful crowd had gathered outside the British consul to protest at the Gatting cricket tour. They had been refused permission to demonstrate outside the Wanderers stadium in Johannesburg. The deputy consul-general himself had agreed with the police that the protesters could remain, but as soon as his back was turned the police immediately baton-charged the crowd. Several injuries resulted. One got the impression that, as

  293
  soon as anyone of any substance turned his or her back on a peaceful situation, the security forces immediately went in to deal with the people who were doing nothing but enjoying themselves peacefully.
  The continuing state of emergency in South Africa allows such atrocities to take place because it empowers the police and security forces to act without any accountability whatever. That is why the ANC and other liberation movements have called for the cancellation of the state of emergency as one of the prerequisites for talks.
  Mr. John Carlisle: I have listened with sadness to the hon. Gentleman's account of what happened in that demonstration, and I have no reason to doubt his word. As he was an eye-witness to that incident and is well aware of other incidents, would it not have been sensible for him to seek a meeting and discussions with members of the security forces and, indeed, members of the South African Government? He gave us a list of the people to whom he spoke when he was in South Africa, but, if I ascertained it aright, there was not one Minister or Government official. Would it not have been prudent to have the other point of view put to him? He may not have liked it, but at least he could have come back to the House better informed.
  Mr. Grant: We submitted a dossier to the Justice Minister. The Rev. Jesse Jackson, who was the head of the delegation, tried to have a meeting with him, but he was out of town. On the day that I returned to Britain, meetings had been set up with Mr. de Klerk, Mr. Pik Botha and Mr. Viljoen, who are senior members of the Cabinet. Those meetings took place. I am here to give an account of what transpired at those meetings. It was clear that our party intended to meet as many people as possible. It also intended to meet representatives of the Dutch Reformed Church and Mr. Gatsha Buthelezi and other people.
  The situation in South Africa is complex and new. The state has been maintained on the basis of violent and evil oppression of black people by a minority white population. Now we have a chance to do something about creating democracy in that country.
  It is important to understand how South Africa has reached this point and what worldwide pressures have prevailed on both the Government and the democratic forces. There can be no doubt that sanctions and the armed struggle have had a major part to play. In just one example of the armed struggle, at the battle of Cuita Cuanavale, the combined forces of the Angolans and the Cubans forced the South Africans and the forces of Savimbi into retreat, to such an extent that now, for the first time after decades of struggle, we have a newly-emerging independent Namibia. The battle of Cuita Cuanavale also assisted the South African Government in changing their mind.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the battle of Cuita Cuanavale makes the case for sanctions? Because of the arms embargo, the aged Mirage of the South African Government was out-gunned by the MIGs of the Angolan Government.
  Mr. Grant: My hon. Friend is correct. It was clear during those battles that the South Africans could not match the firepower of the Cubans and Angolans.
  294
  It is important to understand the complexity of South African society. Few of those who have not visited the country can appreciate it. I had only a slight taste of it in a few weeks, but I know that it is an extremely complex situation.
  At the moment, South Africa is very volatile. It is not unlike a boiling pot, because to take off the lid suddenly without turning down the fire would be to risk the escape of a cloud of steam that would scald all those people—of whatever colour—who are gathered around it. The task that faces Mr. Mandela is to turn down that fire so that successful negotiations can ensue. It is precarious and challenging, and such an undertaking needs the full understanding of hon. Members here.
  I have no doubt whatsoever that the Mr. Mandela whom I was privileged to meet is equal to that task. He exudes a strength, calmness and authority that is remarkable in a man who has been incarcerated for 27 years. He is astonishingly without bitterness, but remains standing full square behind the principles for which he has sacrificed so much—the principles of a non-racial and democratic South Africa, in which black and white people alike can share equally. It is clear from what he has said since his release that he is a responsible and wise statesperson, who is now ready to play his part in steering South Africa into the future, and who knows full well how perilous and inflammable the scenerio is.
  What, then, should be our role in Britain if we genuinely wish to see a peaceful transition towards democracy in South Africa? I believe that we should see ourselves as outsiders—as outsiders with a grave responsibility, given the sorry contribution that this country has made to prolong the system of apartheid, but as outsiders nevertheless. We should not seek to inflame the situation by raising red herrings about the danger of a white backlash or by raising the bogey of the armed struggle.
  If there is danger of such a backlash, Mr. de Klerk is well aware of it, and it is something that he is well able to handle. Mr. de Klerk does not seem to have been surprised by the ANC's continuing commitment to the armed struggle, and nor should the British Government. It is a weapon that the ANC must hold in reserve in the negotiations that lie ahead in the event of there being no movement to dismantle the institutions of apartheid, which have themselves perpetrated so much violence against the mass of South African people.
  The Prime Minister seeks to make petty distinctions between different kinds of sanctions. She talks, for example, about voluntary sanctions, but to the man or the woman on the omnibus in Soweto or on the train going into Johannesburg, those distinctions do not mean very much. To them, the fact that the British Prime Minister talks about the removal of sanctions is a matter of great anxiety and grief. They are not concerned about, and they are not aware of, the ramifications of discussions with the Commonwealth leaders or the European Community. Frankly, they could not care less, but they are concerned when they see what they believe to be a sell-out by Britain.
  Nor must we rush to destabilise the position, as the Prime Minister has done, by pressing for the removal of sanctions. The demand worldwide is that sanctions should stay until the pillars of apartheid are removed. To remove sanctions now would be the height of irresponsibility. It would strengthen the hand of the South African

  295
  Government against the mass of the people who have already given so much to reach this position, and who are already at a disadvantage in any future negotiations.
  If the British Government really want to find a way forward, they should be helping to ensure parity in the capability of both sides to negotiate. It seems that the Prime Minister wishes to see the mass democratic movement going naked into the negotiating chamber. Mr. Mandela and the mass democratic movement are already at a gross disadvantage. They do not have the backing of a vast army of civil servants or all the paraphernalia of diplomacy that the South African Government clearly have. They have few resources. Their key personnel are scattered throughout the world, subsisting in impoverished exiled communities.
  Our Government should therefore compare their attitude to South Africa with their attitude to the restoration of democracy in eastern Europe. There, they have given £25 million to assist the process of democracy. They should therefore come to the House with similar proposals for funding the democratic forces in South Africa.
  Britain has done enough damage in South Africa. Let it now be bold and positive. Let us put our money behind all that we have mouthed about supporting the oppressed people in South Africa. The soundest investment that we can make is to ensure that, when there are future negotiations, those people are properly prepared to play their full part.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. George Gardiner: The tragedy of today's debate is that it has arisen out of such a negative Opposition motion. After paying their tribute to Nelson Mandela, which is hardly a matter of dissent in the House, and after some rather grudging acknowledgments to the moves that President de Klerk has made, the motion concentrates almost entirely on sanctions policy which, I submit, is irrelevant to the opportunities opening up in South Africa for dismantling the apartheid system.
  Sanctions pressure has never been particularly welcome to the black population of South Africa. I have made many visits to South Africa, including a couple last year, and have always taken all the opportunities presented of talking to leading blacks. I have never found them pleading with me to urge my Government to impose more sanctions.
  Mr. Nellist: Who paid?
  Mr. Gardiner: I have never been asked to urge others to cease buying the products that provide those people in South Africa with their livelihoods. I have never been urged to ask British industrialists to disinvest and to sell their companies' equity in South Africa to white South African groupings.
  Mr. Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gardiner: However, they have talked about and urged the need for improvements in their schools-[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order.
  Mr. Nellist rose—
  Mr. Gardiner: No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Gardiner: They have pleaded with me and talked about increasing investment in their schools—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have a point of order to hear. I call Mr. Nellist.
  Mr. Nellist: Would it not have been more correct, in terms of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the hon. Gentleman, who has admitted correctly that he has been to South Africa twice, had at least shared with the rest of us what it has just taken us a few seconds to look up in the Register of Members' Interests? He was paid on one occasion by the South African coal industry and on the second by the International Freedom Foundation.
  Mr. Gardiner: I should have thought that the whole point of that was served by the declaration made in the register. I return to the point that I was making before that bogus point of order.
  When speaking to blacks in South Africa and to the leaders of their communities there, I have not found them speaking on the matters that Opposition Members seem to expect. Their concern has been about investment in their schools and clinics and, above all, in jobs for themselves and their families. Of course they have always said that they wanted to see the release of Nelson Mandela, not necessarily because they share all the objectives of the ANC but because they saw him as a symbol of the black condition in South Africa. Of course, they looked forward to having a vote in the future towards the government of their country, but they do not want that on an empty belly.
  We have heard the arguments today, and on earlier occasions in this House, between Conservative Members who think that our opposition to a sanctions policy has helped to speed the process of reform in South Africa. We have heard the arguments advanced by the Opposition who claim that sanctions policy has achieved that. That is an argument of historical interest but, quite honestly, it has become arcane. It reminds me of the arguments that I witnessed when I was a student in the 1950s, when undergraduates debated among themselves which side they would have supported in the Spanish civil war if they had been alive at the time. History has left such questions way behind.
  I make one concession to the Opposition on sanctions. There is no doubt that sanctions have had some effect. When I was in South Africa in February I paid a return visit to Mamelodi, a well run black township to the north of Pretoria. I spoke to the mayor of Mamelodi, a gentleman whom I met previously, and asked him what effect sanctions had had on his area. He said, "Well, Mr. Gardiner, I can only put it this way—last year in this town we had an unemployment rate of 9 per cent. This year we have 22 per cent." That has been the outcome of the sanctions policy.
  If sanctions have had any effect, they have impoverished the black population. Evidence of that is crystal clear if one looks at the opinion polls, conducted by a range of independent organisations, of black opinion in South Africa. They have found that between 70 and 80 per cent. of the black population do not want to see further sanctions imposed against them.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the light of the evidence that he has just adduced, and the other evidence available to us, it

  297
  is inconceivably two-faced and duplicitous—if that is not an unparliamentary expression—for the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to allege in his speech that it is disgraceful that British companies create unemployment in South Africa and, two seconds later, urge divestment by British companies and speak in favour of sanctions?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he said that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was duplicitous.
  Mr. Davies: I was referring to the words that he spoke, not to his character.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman says things that reflect on the integrity and character of a right hon. Member, he should withdraw his remarks.
  Mr. Davies: I withdraw my remarks entirely. They were intended as a reflection on the internal logic of the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is making an unqualified withdrawal.
  Mr. Gardiner: I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies).
  When it comes to discussing sanctions and whether they should be continued, I refer to the words uttered by Chief Buthelezi at the end of last week:
  "Blacks see the international community being brutally unconcerned about both the wishes and the well-being of the victims of apartheid."
  I can only hope that those words are heeded by the Ministers who will be congregating in Dublin next week.
  All hon. Members welcome the process that has been begun by President de Klerk. It is a challenge to the whites in South Africa, to the blacks, to the African National Congress to make a suitable response to that initiative by dropping its arguments in favour of an arms struggle, and to other groups. I referred to Chief Buthelezi and the lnkatha movement, and there are others. It presents a challenge to us to do all that we can to encourage negotiated reforms and to help secure the wellbeing of blacks in the process.
  As the reform process became stalled under the previous president, blacks managed to obtain and build up for themselves an economic clout in the fast expanding informal sector of the economy. One has only to go to South Africa to see the black taxis, which we would call mini buses, and which are the fastest growing industry in the country. Provision shops are being run from back rooms of houses, and building materials are being supplied from back yards. There is no lack of enterprise among the black community.
  Mrs. Currie: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says. Does he agree that tourism would be a good way of encouraging the sort of developments that he has mentioned, and would provide employment? Am I right in thinking that tourism is one of the sanctions that still operates and is quite effective? Does he agree that there is something not quite right about hon. Members,
  298
  particularly Opposition Members, being tourists and going on jaunts to South Africa and then deciding that the rest of us should not be able to do so?
  Mr. Gardiner: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The Government accepted a voluntary discouragement of tourism. I am glad to say that it has not had a great deal of effect because tourism provides a great number of jobs for the black community in South Africa.
  What South Africa needs above all else to coincide with negotiations on its constitutional future is investment in industries large and small, with all the spin-offs in the townships and the informal sector. I am glad that the British Government have seen the need for that and are raising the voluntary curbs on investment. I applaud that.
  I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to switch much more into the positive vein and go all out to encourage investment to help South Africa along the way. That will provide a foundation for the new vision that is opening up in that country. It will ensure that when all Africans get the vote, as I am sure they will, they will inherit a meaningful economic foundation to enable them to use their vote in the most responsible way.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: It is extremely difficult in this short but welcome debate to know where to start, where to finish and what to put in the middle. It would be a good idea to start with the Government's amendment. In their speeches, Government Members seek to make us accept that their intentions are bona fide, that we are all working for the same objectives, and that there are no real differences between us or about what the end product should be, but minor differences about how we get there.
  The Government's amendment says that they welcome the move towards a non-racial constitution. That jars with what the Government did at the United Nations General Assembly last December. They gave their assent to a wider-ranging document suggesting what the conditions for negotiations should be and what the new South Africa should be like. No sooner had they signed it—a most dangerous thing—than they entered a reservation. Britain was the only country in the United Nations to enter a reservation that it was against the possibility of a new constitution for South Africa based on a non-racial voters roll. What hypocrisy there is in their amendment that they welcome the moves towards a non-racial democracy, after having entered such a reservation at the United Nations. It is hardly surprising that we find it difficult to accept that we are all working on the same side and that it is only a matter of differences of approach.
  The second best starting point for my speech is last Sunday, at 2.05 pm, on that historic occasion when Nelson Mandela walked out of prison. It is difficult to describe the excitement, interest, exuberance and near euphoria felt when he came out of prison. He has not walked into freedom, because the pillars of apartheid remain. He does not have a vote, he cannot live where he likes and there are a number of things that he cannot do. The state of emergency remains and there are still many political prisoners yet to be released. Paradoxically, Nelson Mandela is a much freer man than President de Klerk.
  I fully accept that President de Klerk has made significant moves. He went much further on 2 February than I had expected, and I welcome that. I welcome the

  299
  unbanning of the ANC, the Pan-Africanist Congress and the South African Communist party. I welcome the unbanning of all the other organisations previously restricted.
  The prospect of negotiations, or a real dialogue to freedom, is a wonderful thing. The sad thing is that it did not happen 20 or 30 years ago. The suffering during that time has been enormous. What a different country South Africa would be today if only the white Government of South Africa had recognised that they had to negotiate and bring about a peaceful transition. Many tragedies could have been avoided if there had been decisive action.
  We are told that we should look not to the past but to the future. We all have a tremendous hope for the future, but the lessons that we have learnt from the past must govern and guide our future actions. I remember, and I am sure that it is in the memory of most hon. Members, the long process of the independence of Namibia. It is 12 to 15 years since the South African Government accepted the principles of UN resolution 435 and the principle of negotiation along the lines of the United Nations plan for that independence to come about, as it will do on 21 March. The South African Government used every dilatory and delaying tactic in the book, but South Africa does not have a time scale of 12, 15 or 20 years to make some real progress.
  We have sometimes spoken in the past, perhaps too glibly, about the last chance and the last window of opportunity. But if this chance is allowed to slip away, the future of South Africa will be too dreadful to contemplate. That is why we must keep up the pressure. That is why we must ensure that, until the process of change has really become irreversible, the pressure cannot be lifted.
  I accept that there is a genuine difference of opinion about sanctions, although not all my hon. Friends agree. When the sanctions argument started, there was a great deal of discussion on the Left, never mind between the Left and the Right or between both sides of the House, about whether imposing sanctions was the right policy.
  We must remember that the call for sanctions came first from the people of South Africa, who said that, if we could not help them in any other way, we should help them through sanctions. I am not saying that sanctions have been fully effective or that sanctions alone have brought President de Klerk to his present position. I am not saying that at all. I have too much respect for the people of South Africa, who have fought in many different ways.
  I say quite frankly that I have too much respect for the members of Umkhonto we Siswe and for those who have fought apartheid through passive resistance to make that claim for sanctions. But they have had an effect. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) quoted President de Klerk's election manifesto. He could have quoted what he said on 2 February, when he made it clear that South Africa could not stand alone, that it had to be part of the world community and work together with other countries.
  What annoys me intensely about the Prime Minister is that she refuses even to give a nod or to genuflect in the slightest way, not just to the effects of sanctions but to the struggle of the people of South Africa. I do not like to personalise things, but the Prime Minister's egocentricity casts her in the role of the wicked fairy in Snow White, asking, "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the cleverest of them all?" Given her hostility to anyone who disagrees with her, it is not surprising that we charge her, as I charge
  300
  her, with colluding in and collaborating with the oppression of the people of South Africa. Why could the Prime Minister not have waited? Why could she not at least have allowed more time to pass before rushing in?
  President de Klerk has made many moves, but we should never forget that, when he was elected, he said,
  "Do not expect me to negotiate myself out of power."
  Yet the negotiations must be precisely about the transfer of power from the minority to all the people of South Africa irrespective of their race, creed or colour. That is a noble vision, which Nelson Madela restated after his release. He restated the steadfast principle which our Prime Minister, for some reason unknown to any of us, cannot stomach.
  Many conditions were laid down during the United Nations special session, yet the Government have admitted that not all the conditions have been met. The state of emergency has not been lifted, the Internal Security Act remains in place.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No, I cannot. This is a short debate and many hon. Members wish to speak.
  None of the pillars of apartheid have really been tackled, and President de Klerk has said nothing at all about his vision for the new South Africa, beyond the fact that he wants to see some sort of negotiation and dialogue. We would do well to listen to the people of South Africa, who are saying clearly that they do not want sanctions lifted until the process has become irreversible. It is not yet irreversible. We wish it well, but if we take the pressure off now the temptation will be to delay and delay in the hope that somehow, sooner or later, the white Government of South Africa will not have to take the major step and make the major change that is necessary.
  I have no doubt that we shall soon see a democratic, non-racial, non-sexist and united South Africa. But what Nelson Mandela has described as the long road to freedom is not yet over. The suffering along that road has been immense and more suffering may yet have to be faced by the people of South Africa before they get their freedom. It has not been in vain in the past and it will not be in vain in the future.
  Many people have stood proudly, shoulder to shoulder, with the people of South Africa in their struggle. It is surely not too much to ask even of this Government at this stage to do something positive to end apartheid. We live in historic times. I regret to say that the Government have so far not lived up to their responsibilities. But if we and the Government all act with a sense of history and on the side of freedom, there will be something that we can all enjoy and celebrate.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I confess that I am mystified by the Government's policy on South Africa and I cannot, in all conscience, support it.
  One would think from the innocuous words of the Government's amendment to the motion that there was little that was contentious in South Africa apart from some constitutional issues. But the harsh reality of apartheid is ignored. The oppression of 80 per cent. of the population and their deprivation of civil rights is passed over. The internal violence and the destabilisation of the economies of the surrounding countries is completely passed over.

  301
  Nelson Mandela is saluted, but there is no recognition of the fact that his emergence on the scene is the one new factor that gives us all the best chance of solving the big problems and bringing peace, stability and reconciliation to this important but unhappy country.
  Discussing South Africa without discussing apartheid is completely unrealistic. Apartheid is an evil and wicked doctrine, used by unworthy people to justify the retention of power by the minority, a minority which uses whips and dogs upon those who protest against it. which deprives the majority of the vote and even of the right to live where they choose in their own country—all in the name of racial superiority. It is contemptible. I would have expected better from the Government in condemning it in an amendment of this kind.
  I accept that the British Government are sincere when they say that they want to get rid of apartheid, but if so, they conceal their intentions well. They applied what few sanctions there are timidly and half-heartedly when under pressure to do so, and they now seek to withdraw them at the first sign that they are working.
  The present willingness of the South African Government to come to terms with its African majority has been prompted by a combination of internal and external pressures. Our reluctance to add to that pressure, and even to seek to abate it, may have helped to keep open the lines of communication between Downing street and Cape Town, but it cannot have brought about the South African Government's change of policy. My right hon. and hon. Friends in government are made to look foolish by asserting otherwise. I am not convinced by all the intellectual arguments addressed to us by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the House this evening.
  I am concerned most about the apparent disregard of our Government for the possibility of establishing friendly relations with a future predominantly African Government of South Africa. Our interests surely lie in being a good friend and an ally of the predominantly black democratic Government that will eventually emerge. In practice, we seem to be writing ourselves out of any role in South Africa's future.
  The present South African regime is on its last legs. Nelson Mandela's release has acted as a catalyst, and things will never be the same again. Pray to God that his life will be preserved. As with eastern Europe, the move towards democracy in South Africa is unstoppable. We British have no interest to serve in propping up a doomed regime—only in so far as we can assist in ensuring a peaceful transition to democracy.
  Tribalism is a curse in Africa and in South Africa as elsewhere.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: As in Ireland.
  Mr. Stanbrook: In Ireland also, as my hon. Friend says—but it is a particular problem of government in South Africa.
  South Africa is fortunate in that there is now someone on the scene who commands loyalty and allegiance across tribal boundaries, with some chance of achieving reconciliation and being able to negotiate on behalf of the majority of Africans in South Africa. Mr. Mandela will, I
  302
  believe, be able to command the overwhelming support of the people of South Africa once it has the smallest chance of becoming a democracy.
  We must welcome President de Klerk's initiative, but we should put our money on Nelson Mandela and give him all the help that he needs to bring peace, reconciliation and democracy to a great African country.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I echo the comments already made in welcoming the release of Nelson Mandela as the most significant development in South Africa for many years. I welcome, too, the speech of the state President to the South African Parliament on 2 February. Conservative Members suggested that President de Klerk took a great risk in making that speech. Although I acknowledge that it was a courageous speech, involving some risk, if President de Klerk had chosen not to take that line, there would have been an even greater risk to his Government and the consequences for South Africa might have been so disastrous as to make problems in other parts of the world appear insignificant.
  Nelson Mandela, the African National Congress and other organisations have a role to play in achieving a peaceful solution and a free South Africa where all races are equal. One of Nelson Mandela's most significant statements in his speech earlier this week was that he does not want to replace white domination by black domination. Such statements guarantee a role for him in future negotiations.
  I had a motion on the Order Paper for Monday that was not reached which concerned the conditions under which the Prime Minister should undertake an official visit to South Africa. The necessity for such a debate was strengthened by the right hon. Lady's recent comments on sanctions and investment. Because of those statements, our country is regarded by blacks and whites in South Africa as the strongest supporter of apartheid outside their country. I have visited South Africa twice and Namibia, and all their peoples, black and white, consider the British Prime Minister and Government as apartheid's strongest supporters. The Prime Minister's statements since President de Klerk's announcement tend to support that view.
  The Foreign Secretary and the Government should take due note of the role that Britain must play in South Africa which is of great importance for a number of reasons. We are an important member of the Commonwealth and of the European Community, and we have a special relationship with America and, whether we like it or not, this country's investments and commercial interests in South Africa are also significant. All those factors mean that, when our Prime Minister speaks about South Africa, she does so from a position of greater stature than almost anyone else outside South Africa itself.
  Although President de Klerk has opened the door, one can never be too sure what lies behind it. At this stage, President de Klerk has not given any indication, or taken any action, to suggest that apartheid will positively be ended in South Africa. Although our policy on relaxing sanctions and investment restrictions should be kept constantly under review, it would be premature to take any action before receiving from the South African Government a positive sign of their intention to abolish apartheid. The country's racial registration legislation

  303
  must be repealed, as it underpins the whole basis of apartheid. The Land Act, the Group Areas Act and other statutes must also be abolished.
  A few years ago, the Prime Minister made the important statement that she believed that the form of South Africa's future Government was a matter for the people of South Africa to determine. I share that view, provided that one is talking of all the people of South Africa, including the 80 per cent. who happen to be black. I once asked the Prime Minister whether that statement meant that she accepted a future black majority Government for South Africa, but she weaved and dodged and did not answer. The following day, The Daily Telegraph commented that that was an unanswerable question for the Prime Minister, because although she really wanted to say no, she could not—but she could not say yes either.
  At the end of the day, the Prime Minister must recognise that if we want universal suffrage and freedom in South Africa, it will mean a black majority Government. However, that does not mean that we wish to replace white domination by black domination—to use the words of Nelson Mandela. He wants a free South Africa that can use its tremendous benefits to the advantage of all its people.
  I recognise that when apartheid ends in South Africa there will be major problems. It will be difficult to ensure that the blacks have opportunities for education, health treatment and many other things. The South African economy may be the strongest in the continent, but it will be unable to bear the burden alone. One positive step that the British Government could take would be to say now that if steps are taken to end apartheid and to give freedom to all the people of South Africa, we will assist the country to tackle the problems of the 80 per cent. of their people who are deprived at present.
  At this time it would be wrong for the Prime Minister to make an official visit to South Africa, and it is wrong for us to talk of investment and of ending sanctions. We need more positive signs, and we should encourage President de Klerk for the moves that he has made.
  Ultimately, I hope that there will be genuine talks around a table—talks that will include Nelson Mandela and other people who are genuinely selected to represent the different races in that country. I hope that we will see a day when apartheid ends, and we can welcome South Africa back into the Commonwealth.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I had planned to say how disappointed I had been by the reactions of the House at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, and by the approach of the leader of the Government and of the Leader of the Opposition to the difficult question of South Africa. It seems that the two leading parties are more concerned with fighting about their domestic differences in the House, and in this country, than raising their sights, showing that they have vision and recognising the momentous events that have taken place in South Africa.
  The main event has been the release of Nelson Mandela after 27 years of wrongful imprisonment for his political views. That is the vision, and the clue. Through Nelson Mandela we may find a way through the serious difficulties which face the South African people.
  304
  Let me demonstrate that. Back-Bench Members have demonstrated more vision than the leadership. They understand. The hon. Members for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike), and my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) and for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) showed that understanding in their speeches.
  We are concerned with the difficulties that South Africa and its people face—both white and black, with all their many differences. How do we bring the country away from the state of military oppression and racial oppression, from the denial of basic human rights, towards education for black children and jobs for young black men and women, who are denied the professional qualifications that might help them to progress within society? The community is becoming more and more violent as it objects to the violence of the state and the apartheid system. How do we bring the community from violence to a peaceful, democratic and racially equal society?
  We have a responsibility, and the sort of behaviour that we saw in the House yesterday at Question Time from both sides of the House, and again today at the beginning of this debate, is unhelpful, insensitive and entirely counter-productive to bringing about a peaceful solution to these difficult problems.
  At the age of 70, after 27 years in gaol, Nelson Mandela has to face the problem of trying to bring about a democratic, non-racial society. He still wants to bring about all the things that he said he believed in in the wonderful speech that he made from the dock 27 years ago. His conviction, his authority and the degree to which he has suffered make him the bridge.
  To argue about sanctions—whether we should take them off or not, whether they are voluntary or not—is totally irrelevant to the argument. We should be embracing Nelson Mandela's hope for the future, and helping him to bring about the reconciliation that is required in South Africa, but what are we doing? We do not encourage meetings of the African National Congress here. When Mr. Oliver Tambo had to be treated in hospital in Stockholm, the ANC meeting took place in Stockholm, not in London, because the Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave it no encouragement to do so. The FCO has ignored Mr. Tambo, the leader of the ANC, and his wife who lives in Camden and does an important job as a nurse, living in humble surroundings to keep the family together. Reconciliation and meetings should be encouraged to take place in London.
  Why do we not respond generously to Nelson Mandela? Why does the Prime Minister not phone him, as President Bush did, and invite him to come here? To my knowledge, the Prime Minister has not rung him. She sent an official from the British Embassy to see him in Cape Town. That does not show any warmth or understanding of the problems, nor does it demonstrate the support that we should be giving Mr. Mandela and all those who seek peace—people on all sides.
  We should remember the white community, which is extremely frightened. Its members do not know how they can continue to live under an African majority Government. They have many reasons to be frightened—because of their treatment of black people for so many years, and because of the example that has been set in the north of South Africa and in most African countries. They are not successful communities, and they cannot be described as respecters of human rights or as democracies.

  305
  White people have serious misgivings and fears. Mr. Mandela recognises that, he has said so, and we should respond to that.
  Of course, the white Government and Mr. de Klerk should be congratulated on the release of Mr. Mandela. As a lifelong opponent of sanctions, I say that we should lift them as soon as it is practically possible. Surely Britain should say, "Come here and discuss it." We should say that we will reinforce the elements within South African society—black or white—to encourage them to form the bridge and to keep the peace.
  A prosperous society, in which there would be new investment, and a reduction of unemployment among the black population are more likely to put the pieces together and to go through a peaceful transformation. This is no time to talk about loosening sanctions. It is a time for encouraging and meeting everyone in South Africa who wants peace and the evolution to democracy and equality. That is what I expect the Government to do.
  6.8 pm
  Dr. David Owen: The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) made a remarkable speech, as did the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant). The Front-Bench spokesmen on both sides of the House would be well advised not to call a Division.
  The mood of today's speeches has reflected the complexity of the issues that face us all, but especially South Africans, both black and white. Hon. Members' conduct yesterday was a disgrace, given the gravity of the position and the incredible opportunity with which South Africa is now confronted. If we spend our time engaging in a petty little squabble about what has or has not been done in the past, we shall be unable to contribute as much as we might to the resolution of those difficult problems.
  Profound changes are taking place in South Africa, and there is no doubt in my mind that things are already moving far faster than most of us realise. President de Klerk and Nelson Mandela have an understanding about how such matters should be dealt with. I believe that the ANC's role in applying pressure to secure the cancellation of the extremely ill-advised Gatting cricket tour is a sign of that: it was realised that such events can provide a focus for the kind of unrest that would make a repeal of the state of emergency very difficult.
  The state of emergency is the main impediment to the relaxation of sanctions. The Prime Minister recognised that in her statement in Kuala Lumpur. Lifting sanctions would be absurd, and it will not happen: the Council of Foreign Ministers, which is to meet in Dublin, would not dream of relaxing them while the state of emergency continues. That is a sine qua non, as the Foreign Secretary knows. He also knows that he and the Government are not entitled to say that they no longer wish people not to make new investments. He quoted from the resolution, passed under the chairmanship of the deputy Prime Minister, to "rescind". Action cannot be taken on a single decision made by a member state; we are bound by that 1986 resolution. We are also bound by something far more important, and that is honour.
  For the past decade or more, the Prime Minister has waxed eloquent against unilateral nuclear disarmament
  306
  —rightly, in my view—and unilateralism cannot be criticised at one moment and embraced at the next. For 20 years or more, this country has acted in the deepest concert with the United States, and often with France, on the question of sanctions against South Africa. We have not once been split on that issue, which has not been easy, because of the tactics aimed at dividing us.
  It would be entirely irresponsible for the British Government to abandon the sanction on new investment unilaterally, knowing full well that President Bush has not the freedom to do the same because of the legislation by which he is bound. It is obvious to us all that Anglo-American relations are going through a difficult period, but the improvement that we all want—the Foreign Secretary must want it, too—will not be possible if Britain acts unilaterally. We must act in concert, as we have done in the past.
  I still believe that, properly applied, external pressure can be constructive. Let us face it: the biggest problem is President de Klerk. He represents the minority, but the minority happen to be in power. Under the apartheid system—wrongly—South Africa has all the violent structures of minority power which must be dismantled progressively over the next few years. We know that there will be considerable resistance. Of course, President de Klerk must be encouraged, but he must be encouraged in a manner that ensures that there can be no going back. Having conversed with him, I think that he understands that perfectly. International agreement on a serious reduction of sanctions will be very difficult until negotiatons have started: that should be the threshold.
  It would be mad—crazy—for the two main parties to do anything to damage South Africa's future economy once the talks have begun. I say "the two main parties", meaning the National party and the ANC, but I believe strongly that agreement should be widened to include Inkatha, and the PAC is perfectly entitled to make its case in the talks, as is the Conservative party. There is no doubt that if the negotiations break down and anyone is shown to have entered into them in bad faith, the world will make a judgment. If it should happen to be the South African Government who entered into them in bad faith, the result will he the reimposition of economic sanctions that will really hurt.
  In 1985, for the first time, we discovered a really effective economic sanction, when banks such as the Chase Manhattan refused to roll forward credits. By 1988 it was really biting: the Prime Minister need only read the South African newspapers to discover that. The overriding of President Reagan's veto by the American Congress, on a bipartisan basis, was the biggest single reverse of the Reagan presidency. From that moment South Africa knew that there would be no comfort from Washington, and that Republicans and Democrats were determined to combine to put pressure on South Africa to end apartheid.
  That bipartisanship still exists in Congress, and it will not be broken. I believe that an agreement will be reached, and that President Bush will respond: he has already urged the parties to come together. Would it not be marvellous if the British Prime Minister occasionally came to the House and said that she would like to try to secure agreement here about the pace at which sanctions should be removed? Then the Foreign Secretary would be asked to conduct a dialogue with his opposite number and with

  307
  the other parties to try to reach a measure of understanding, so that we could. act in concert with our European partners, the United States and the world.
  Let us try to restore the kind of recognition that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford described. We have an important foreign policy responsibility. We want South Africa to develop quickly the unity of purpose that will lead to a common electoral roll—one man, one vote—and proportional representation, which will provide significant minority safeguards: no constitutional change will then be possible without, say, 80 per cent. agreement. Namibia has shown the way with a Bill of Rights, providing for proportional representation and one of the best constitutions, which will be enacted on 21 March.
  Massive change is taking place in South Africa, but we spent our time yesterday in the House hurling insults at each other. Such behaviour is below the level merited by such events. It is time that the Prime Minister recognised that she is not entitled to act unilaterally—that there must be international agreement. I hope that when the Foreign Secretary goes to Dublin on Tuesday he will be able to say, "We want to give President de Klerk a significant response: we want to encourage him to move forward."
  I do not mind giving the House some idea of the criteria that should be applied. Let us remind ourselves of the provisions of the American Congressional legislation—the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act 1986:
  "The bill provides that the sanctions contained in the bill shall terminate automatically if the South African Government meets five conditions specified in the bill. These conditions related to (1) the release of Nelson Mandela and all political prisoners"—
  negotiations on who the political prisoners are have already begun—
  "(2) the repeal of the State of Emergency and all detainees"—
  I expect that to happen in a matters of weeks—
  "(3) the unhanning of political parties"—
  that has already happened—
  "(4) the repeal of the Group Areas and Population Registration Acts"—
  it will be hard to repeal the Group Areas Act immediately, but if the Government start to sign on for definite progress there is no reason why the Population Registration Act should not go as well—
  "and (5) agreeing to enter into good faith negotiations with truly representative members of the black majority without preconditions."
  That last criterion has virtually been fulfilled: President de Klerk is clear that there are to be no preconditions, and I believe that he will respond, as will all parties to the negotiations.
  It never ceases to amaze me that liberation fighters throughout the world, and black Africans in particular, can demonstrate a spirit of reconciliation at a time of transition, and can forget the oppression that they have experienced in the past. Jomo Kenyatta is a classic example of that; it was seen from the late President Machel; it has been experienced by Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe; it is now being demonstrated by Sam Nujoma; and it has been seen from Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu. I am glad that the role of Oliver Tambo has been mentioned. I hope that that will not be forgotten, because in the past 30 years Mr. Tambo has shown remarkable courage in relation to the ANC outside the country. The Foreign Secretary understands these issues.
  Mr. Dykes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Owen: I cannot give way. Time is limited.
  I hope that the Foreign Secretary will ignore the vote tonight and that he will take the spirit of the House with him into the chamber of the Council of Ministers in Dublin on Tuesday.
  6.21 pm
  Sir Ian Lloyd: I know that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) will not consider me in any sense discourteous if I do not follow him closely, though I undoubtedly agree with some of his very interesting speech. I wish to refer to something that was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) who accused the Prime Minister of collaborating and colluding with apartheid.
  It was my privilege, in August, to carry a message from the Prime Minister to my old school in Natal. There I addressed a very large audience—about 1,500 people. The Prime Minister's message contained the most unequivocal and total condemnation of apartheid that anyone could expect. The chief justice of the Republic of South Africa was in the audience, and there was no doubt whatever about the message that the Prime Minister was conveying or about the message that I was conveying. All the nonsense about the Prime Minister really supporting apartheid must be demolished. I have no doubt whatever that there is an argument about sanctions, about the means of achieving the end, but I do not think that the first proposition can be sustained.
  I wish also to refer to the very interesting speech made by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant). On occasion, the hon. Member has roused my ire, but this time he did not. He made a profoundly interesting and moving speech, and in his analysis of the major problem of the South African security forces being almost uncontrollable or out of control he put his finger on the central problem of manipulating change in that very difficult country. I welcome what he said about the vast complexities in South Africa. His remarks—if I may say so without being in any sense patronising—indicated great progress on his part.
  The speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was a very different proposition. The right hon. Gentleman is a kind of one-man antiques road show. He comes to the House with his little brown paper parcels, filled with prejudice, half-truths and all sorts of other things. When he opens them—one of his favourites is the one that he likes to open when we debate South Africa—one gets a very strong whiff of smear gas. We know what is happening when the right hon. Gentleman speaks. He has absolutely no sympathy for, and very little understanding of, this question.
  I wish to confess three mistakes that I have made—I believe that humility is the order of the day. Had I been asked 35 or 40 years ago whether an Afrikaner-dominated Government, a nationalist Government, would be proposing what Mr. de Klerk has proposed I should have said, "Not a chance—never." Had I been asked whether an Afrikaner leader of the stature of Mr. de Klerk would emerge and would lead that movement, I should have said the odds were 1,000 to one against. I had the privilege of meeting Mr. de Klerk when he was in London last June and I am happy to admit to the House that my assessment of him was totally mistaken. We now have a situation which opens up great hope and great possibilities.

  309
  I made those confessions because it is easy to be pessimistic about South Africa, as I myself was and as other hon. Members have been today. It is all too easy to underestimate the idealism, the political skill and the judgment of great Afrikaners such as Smuts. Smuts was one of the founding fathers of the League of Nations and one of the architects of the United Nations, so let no smear on him come from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). In this context I should also mention Louis Botha, the first prime minister of South Africa, as well as people such as Helen Suzman, Hofmeyr and, most recently, President de Klerk.
  Perhaps we can inject some humility into this debate. I have read most of the speeches made in this House and most of the early-day motions on this subject in the past 25 years. What comes through most of them is an astonishing certainty, conviction and, above all, condemnation. As the hon. Member for Tottenham has realised, however, South Africa is probably the most ethnically complex society on earth. Most hon. Members' knowledge is derived largely from television programmes, articles—usually hostile—and 10-day visits, or perhaps even shorter visits such as the one that the right hon. Member for Gorton made recently. Nevertheless, they propound solutions and give prolific advice to all concerned about the problems in South Africa—problems which defeated Smuts and Hofmeyr. They are problems which also defeated Helen Suzman, a great battler for the cause of freedom in South Africa, and, indeed, defeated my late and lamented great personal friend, Patrick Duncan, who probably fought as courageous a campaign against apartheid as anyone mentioned in the debate so far.
  We have exhibited an overpowering urge to condemn—an urge against which the great Goethe warned many years ago when he said that people should be suspicious whenever they met anyone with an overpowering urge to condemn. No one disputes the fact that such condemnation has been fully earned by apartheid, but—this is the principal point that I wish to make—the condemnation has assumed a somewhat less defensible form and is in some subtle way becoming a form of anti-South-Africanism which shares the bigotry, the vindictiveness and the viciousness of anti-semitism. I see this emerging in a number of ways and, regrettably, in a number of places. A basic distinction lies at the heart of this debate—the distinction between apartheid and South Africa. There is no defence for apartheid and no one in this House would attempt to make such a defence. South Africa, however, for all its faults and for all the grave situations that have rightly been described, is the nearest thing to an economic miracle in Africa south of the Sahara, and that fact lies at the heart of the debate.
  The House had a similar debate about 40 years ago, when it was suggested that Germany, which had introduced possibly the most appalling doctrine that the western world had ever known—the Herrenvolk concept—should be not only defeated but totally destroyed. That was a great debate and a great argument, and it is one that is mirrored in, and in some senses at the heart of, this debate. I do not believe in total destruction. Nor did the West. To save western civilisation, and to save Europe, after Germany had been virtually destroyed, the Marshall
  310
  plan had to be brought in. The purpose was to reconstruct Germany, and to enable its great economic engine to serve the purpose which in western Europe only it could serve.
  I therefore have three fundamental objections to apartheid. The first relates to economic change. I do not think that it is arguable that sanctions have not been an important factor, but neither do I think that any hon. Member, on either side of the House, can prove that it has, or has not, been the factor that some hon. Members would like to think that it has been in the change of heart that has taken place. I do not believe that it is so. I believe that that argument ignores the character of the Afrikaner, who seldom makes the kind of cringing response that Opposition Members might expect him to make to pressure from outside. I remind the House that there are 2 million of us out there. When I say "us" I refer to English-speaking South Africans. There are 2 million English-speaking South Africans, whose connection with this country is close and often continuous. As every hon. Member knows, we do not like to be pushed around, and we are talking to "us". When in this House or in this country we use the wrong methods in our attempts to influence people we know what reaction we get. The reaction out there will be exacly the same.
  My second objection is to the blunderbuss character of all sanctions. They are indiscriminate. They affect doctors and nurses and hospitals. They affect teachers and schools. One of South Africa's most distinguished physicists, Professor Serette at Fort Hare, in the most recent issue of New Scientist, stated unequivocally his condemnation of and opposition to sanctions because of the damage that they have done to black education at his university. Opposition Members suggest that all South Africans agree with them, but Professor Serette's remarks give the complete lie to that suggestion.
  Mr. Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Ian Lloyd: No. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but there is no time for me to give way to him.
  Does the existence of racial discrimination or ethnic violence justify sanctions anywhere? If so, where does it stop? Who comes next? With whom do we not trade or communicate when this problem has been solved? Not many members of the United Nations would qualify, according to the conditions that we are trying to impose on South Africa.
  There are two phrases in the Opposition motion with which I cannot agree. They are "the dismantling of apartheid" and
  "the basic structure of apartheid remains intact."
  In 1947, there was a most offensive legal institutionalisation of segregation and discrimination, which caused everything that has happened since. South Africa was then one of many countries with segregation; it was endemic in an imperfect world. Between 1939 and 1945, this very imperfect world lost 20 million to 30 million people, and 30,000 of those who died were South Africans who wanted to defeat the Herrenvolk concept. The people who introduced apartheid in 1947 grotesquely underestimated the reaction of the civilised world to what they were doing.
  By definition, therefore, all the legislation that has been passed since 1947 should be dismantled. I wholly share that view, but the ANC is asking for the repeal of all legislation passed since 1910. That may be desirable, but it is a very different proposition. It is like asking Mr. Gorbachev to atone for history by dismantling the USSR

  311
  and all that has happened there since 1917. Both are utterly impractical and both are beyond possibility. It is an unrealistic, naive and fatuous policy which implies that we have a right to sit in judgment. I do not think that we have.
  Therefore, I wholly and fully support the Government's policy. I also support the first three lines of the Opposition's amendment, which have very much in common with the Government's policy. I hope that all my hon. Friends will go into the Lobby tonight and give the fullest possible support to the Government.
  6.32 pm
  Ms. Diane Abbott: I want to refer briefly to three themes that are uppermost in the minds of the public as they consider the recent events in South Africa: jubilation, expectation and apprehension.
  If last weekend's events are the fruits of anything, they are the fruits of years of unsung, unselfish campaigning by ordinary people, black and white, through picketing, collecting signatures and lobbying Members of Parliament. I know many people, black and white, who have dedicated their lives to a free South Africa. If the release of Nelson Mandela is a tribute to anything, it is a tribute to all those campaigners, black and white, in Britain and throughout the world. His release has created jubilation among them.
  There is also a sense of jubilation among many young black people in Britain. They are often told who their heroes should be, but for many young black people their supreme hero is Nelson Mandela, because of the example that he has set of fortitude, courage, bravery and commitment. He has shown young people what it is to be a black man in the 1990s. Above all, there is a feeling of jubilation among ordinary black people in South Africa, who for generations have borne the brunt of the brutality of apartheid.
  There is a sense of expectation, because a free and democratic South Africa might lead to hope for the whole continent. A free and democratic South Africa, with its huge natural resources and its level of industralisation, could help to raise economic standards throughout the continent. There is expectation, too, among many hon. Members and those outside the House that we shall live to see Nelson Mandela as head of state in a free, democratic and non-racial South Africa.
  There is also apprehension, due to a tiny Fascist element among the white population in South Africa. They will fight as fearlessly and ruthlessly as the Algerian settlers fought, but to as little purpose. However, they will cause enormous disruption and there might be great bloodshed. One wonders whether the police and the army are really under the control of the state.
  Although there has been much talk about fear of a white backlash, I urge the Secretary of State to look northwards to Zimbabwe. I had the privilege of visiting Zimbabwe two years ago. After one of the most bitter civil wars, it is a tribute to the essential humanity of African people that both black and white people live side by side in peace in Zimbabwe. Ian Smith can walk the streets without a police guard. We should not, therefore, be too carried away by talk of threats to the white minority.
  There are many different groupings and many different tribes. The possibility therefore exists of upheaval, of the exploitation of tribalism and of the policy of divide and
  312
  rule. If Ministers accuse the Opposition of irresponsibility in supporting sanctions and of wishing the armed struggle to continue, what do they say to President Bush, who has stated that sanctions cannot yet be removed?
  The overwhelming feeling in the hearts and minds of us all when we saw Nelson Mandela walk out of prison after 27 years was jubilation. It proved to the Opposition that there is no power on earth that can keep down a people who are determined to be free.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: During the last few months, we have savoured sweet moments of history. The Berlin wall is down; the Brandenburg gate is open. Now the most important political prisoner of our day has been liberated. Who can forget, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) has just said, the joy of seeing Mr. Mandela step that grand step into freedom? He can play a unique role in the transition from the old to the new South Africa. His royal progress culminated in yesterday's rally and triumphant homecoming in Soweto. His appeal for discipline and dignity was echoed by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and other contributors to the debate.
  The historic grandeur of that moment of joy was not matched by the British Government's response. After her ritual expression of pleasure, the Prime Minister, true to form, rushed into a call for the easing of sanctions. She had already abandoned unilaterally some of the sanctions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) mentioned the new investment. That cannot be justified legally. The sanctions relating to scientific and cultural exchanges that have already been abandoned ought properly, had we been true partners, to have been taken to the Commonwealth and the European Economic Community.
  I remind the Foreign Secretary of the preface to the 1986 Commonwealth Nassau statement on scientific and cultural exchanges:
  "For our part, we have, as an earnest of our opposition to apartheid, reached accord on a programme of common action as follows:
  That is very different from a unilateral abandonment of sanctions. Similarly, the preface, agreed with our EC partners, on the discouragement of scientific and cultural exchanges says:
  "the Ten and Spain and Portugal have decided to harmonize their attitudes on the following measures".
  Again, that would be working in partnership with our colleagues.
  The tragedy for Britain of the unilateral enunciation is not only that it spurns our colleagues, but it gives a clear and wrong signal to white and black in South Africa. To the white reactionary element, it says effectively that we are ready to yield at an early stage. To the blacks, it only underlines what they have known all along—that the Prime Minister is ever ready to protect the reactionary element against the wrath of world opinion. The Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State must know in their hearts as they speak to our people in South Africa just what damage is being done to our work among the black community, which will be the South Africa of the future, by the image which the Prime Minister gives.
  We know that policy on South Africa comes from No. 10 and that the Foreign Office is increasingly marginalised.

  313
  The Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State know the damage being done by the attitude of the Prime Minister. It has confirmed the view in South Africa that her passions are stonger against sanctions than against apartheid. Indeed, she fails to recognise that apartheid itself amounts to sanctions against the majority in South Africa.
  When Mr. Mandela, as a black South African, stepped out into freedom, it was in many ways the unfreedom of all black people in South Africa. Sanctions must be maintained, as a continued pressure for change and as an indication of the international resolve to end apartheid, until we are further down the road, when the momentum to negotiate is well under way. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said:
  "I do not think that sanctions have achieved anything".—[Official Report, 13 February 1990; Vol. 1967, c. 140.]
  Let her tell that to the business community, the Anglos and others in South Africa, and see how they respond.
  The Prime Minister does not recognise that she is on her own, not only in Europe, but in respect of President Bush. Worse, in regard to our international stance, she is gratuitously using up our international goodwill, as, sadly, she has done in another sphere in her response to German unification, again by gratuitously irritating our allies in Europe and in the German Federal Republic. It cannot be good for British foreign policy to be thus isolated. Gareth Evans, the Australian Foreign Minister, said it all when he said that the Prime Minister is "isolated and irrelevant".
  Already, in December 1989, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, we had entered reservations in what was otherwise a consensus resolution at the United Nations. That is why I believe that I speak on behalf not only of the official Opposition but of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who spoke for the Liberal party and who has played such a distinguished role in the fight against apartheid, when I say that it cannot be good for Britain that we are now seen by those who have struggled over the years for freedom in South Africa as the major protectors of a system which has done so much damage to them.
  In that context, given the past protection of the white minority, and given the fact that the Government have refused to meet ANC leaders and that the Prime Minister has called the ANC "just another terrorist organisation", with her real passion coming from attacks on the ANC, is it not clear that the Prime Minister's invitation to Mr. Mandela to visit this country is both naive and impertinent?
  The purpose of the debate is not just to expose the Prime Minister and to show that we are alone, but to take the opportunity to affirm to the world that there is a different view from that of the Prime Minister, as we have seen from the courageous speeches of the hon. Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), Hertford and Stortford and others. We want to reaffirm to the world that the majority here are progressive and concerned, and rejoice with the underprivileged majority in South Africa at the liberation of their great leader. We know, as they do, that it would be wrong to lift sanctions, because sanctions have been one of the key factors which have led to change.
  Events since 2 February have raised hope that the bloodbath which the Eminent Persons Group of the Commonwealth foresaw in 1986 may not come to pass.
  314
  That, in part, is the result of the vision of President de Klerk and the integrity to which Mr. Mandela himself paid tribute. Indeed, those two men can play a key role in history, President de Klerk as, hopefully, the last white President of South Africa and Mr. Mandela as, hopefully, the first black President of that country.
  In passing, if the whites in South Africa have apprehensions, let them look over the border to Namibia and remember the dire predictions about the whites fleeing from Namibia and about the economy collapsing. What do we see now? A democratic constitution was agreed last week as a prelude to independence, which will take place on 21 March. There is major investment by the international community in that country. In our judgment, it is a model for what can happen across the border in South Africa if only we have men of vision able to carry forward the dialogue to the new South Africa.
  Having spent many weeks in South Africa over the years, I never fail to be amazed at the capacity of the blacks to forgive, as we have seen in Zimbabwe. For that I have great respect. Part of the tragedy of British foreign policy in past weeks has been that the Government, in the shape of the Prime Minister, have identified us with the old regime at a time of rapid change. The Prime Minister takes the reluctant Foreign Office with her. By contrast, we identify with the new, and with those who seek fundamental reforms in South Africa, who seek an end to apartheid and who want to use the vast potential of that country for the benefit of all its citizens.
  6.47 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) who, if we remove the obligatory rude remarks about the Prime Minister which have to decorate every Opposition speech, made many points with which I can agree.
  I shall start with a secondary issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition—the question of isolation. It is a secondary issue because, if we could win the argument that the action that we are taking is right, it does not matter that we are alone. A radical party such as the Labour party should be wary of saying that we always have to move in total consensus. A radical party would find itself in an odd position if it believed that that was so. The argument is about whether we are right. As the Leader of the Opposition asked what will happen if we are isolated in the European Community, let me make matters clear, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did. Of course, we are obliged, and willingly accept the obligation, to consult our partners in the European Community, which is what we will do on 20 February. If we fail to reach agreement, the Government must reserve the right to act on their own, if necessary. That is the legal position.
  The much more fundamental argument that goes to the root of whether we are doing the right thing has been mentioned on all sides, and it was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) and for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd). There is a profound sense in which we are not isolated. No one doubts for a moment that it has been the policy of the ANC to argue for comprehensive sanctions; it is unclear whether the Labour party is still arguing for comprehensive mandatory sanctions. But that is a legitimate argument.

  315
  Many people in South Africa and elsewhere who have perfectly good credentials to argue against apartheid take a different view. It was quite fair for my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate to refer to opinion polls among the blacks in South Africa, and it is fair to refer to the views of Chief Buthelezi.
  It is obvious that Mr. Mandela will be a key player. Many take the same view as the hon. Member for Swansea, East that he will be the key player, but he is one voice among many in a complex situation, rightly defined in a formidable speech by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) and an excellent short speech by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott). We often oversimplify such issues, and one of the dangerous oversimplifications is to say that the ANC is the only voice of South Africa.
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made perfectly clear, we are not arguing for the abolition of all sanctions. No one is arguing that we should abolish the sanctions on arms sales, for example. As the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, until the end of the speech by the hon. Member for Swansea, East, no one on the Opposition Front Bench tried to deal with the issue at the centre of our case. Is it not right to try to make some response to the steps that Mr. de Klerk has taken? My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), in an intervention, at least produced an argument—the first that I had heard against doing that—which was taken up by the Leader of the Opposition. He said that we might strengthen the hand of the Right wing by doing so. I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington that we should not make too much of the white backlash, although comparisons with settlers in Rhodesia who always knew their status and the Boers in South Africa are a little dangerous. However, while President de Klerk has the present constitution, he must show his own constituents that it is worth their while following him.
  The Leader of the Opposition asked whether there have been any requests from South Africa. The South African Government have made it clear that they desperately hope for some response to the steps that they have taken. They are not unrealistic; they do not believe that they will get very much, but they want some response so that they can demonstrate to their own constituents that it is worth continuing down that road. Surely that argument is at least worth considering. Our emotional commitments against apartheid should not make us doubt our role. It is better that it be done by consensus, but that is not always possible. We have to find a policy, not simply an emotional response, and our policy is to push, press and argue that negotiations are the way forward.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman did not give way. I shall respond to his important speech in a moment. I have only 12 minutes left to speak.
  Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) who did not get in earlier.
  Mr. Nellist: As I have now been reselected, perhaps I can turn up some dangerous ground. I knew that I would be in a better position with the Minister than I was with the
  316
  Foreign Secretary. I shall ask the Minister the same question as I would have asked the Secretary of State. How can the Government ask the ANC to make concessions, following Mr. de Klerk's announcement and the release of Nelson Mandela, when the largely cosmetic changes that were made about segregation do not belie the fact that the Group Areas Act and the Labour Relations Act are still in force in a country where some people do not have a vote? Most important from my point of view, as I represent the interests of trade unionists internationally, there is still a system in which poverty wages down the pits, in the factories and in the townships mean that millions of people live in misery. Until those problems are solved, how the hell can the Government ask the ANC to make any more concessions?
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman's points were dealt with in the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), which I shall turn to next, paying tribute in passing to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right that the background of world politics has contributed to changing the attitudes of both sides in South Africa. No one is immune from the spirit of the possibility of peace and negotiation that is sweeping the world. The attitude of the Communist party in Russia to its connected parties in South Africa has been very important.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I shall not give way as I must deal with the speech by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North.
  Like the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North asked how we could take such a step before the pillars of apartheid had been destroyed. That shows a complete misunderstanding of the European Community sanctions. I beg the hon. Gentleman to read once again the preamble to the 1986 decisions which were designed to bring about national dialogue across the racial barriers. As Mr. Mandela, among others, says, we are now approaching that—[Interruption.] I quoted it yesterday and my right hon. Friend quoted it earlier. As usual, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) comments from a sedentary position. If he still does not know the truth, I shall send it to him and he can learn it by heart.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said that what has happened is all cosmetic—the words of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East—because the really big things such as the dismantling of apartheid are not up for negotiation. That is where he and I disagree. Perhaps he and Mr. Mandela divide on this issue, because when Mr. Mandela talks about integrity, he is surely saying that he trusts President de Klerk to negotiate those issues. Mr. de Klerk's spokesman, the Minister of Constitutional Development, reiterated the points of agreement with Mr. Mandela and said that they now have a climate conducive to a negotiated settlement. Mr. Viljoen made those points, and President de Klerk agreed with him again today that they reject any system of white or black domination—or any domination of one group over another. On the two most fundamental issues of all they say that the remains of apartheid—although some of us believe that the most important parts of the structure still remain—must be removed. Whether they are remains or pillars of apartheid, they must be removed. Even the South African

  317
  Government Minister believes so, and that will be included in the negotiations. Finally, Mr. Viljoen said that they were aiming for universal suffrage in a united democratic South Africa, and President de Klerk reaffirmed that in television interviews today.
  If that is not putting the pillars of apartheid on the table for negotiation—if I can be excused a mixed metaphor—I do not know what is. The South African Government are making it clear that the door is open for talks; they are welcoming everybody, including the ANC, to those talks; they are not making unnecessary difficulties about the background of anyone to whom they wish to talk; and they are moving towards accepting the olive branch that has been offered by Mr. Mandela in terms of talking about defensive action. That is very close to the principle that we have espoused in the House of mutually winding down on both sides. The South African Government are cutting their defence forces.
  Against that background, with the talks ready to begin and the South African Government making it clear that what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North calls the pillars of apartheid are the subject of negotiations, should we still behave as though nothing has changed? The British Government consider that a response should be made, as my right hon. Friend made perfectly clear, without sweeping away the existing pressures which are not fundamentally caused by the actions of any Government. We all know that what really shook South Africa was not the sanctions or any act of Government, but the actions of the commercial banks in their credit negotiations. Those banks and investors know very well that, unless South Africa moves, there will be conflict. That is why people will not invest there. It is not because the Twelve, the 24 or the Commonwealth tell them not to invest there; it is because they can see the truth. Now that there is a chance of movement and the hope that those investments will return, whatever anyone says, it is perfectly legitimate for us to say that it is pointless to discourage them. In the new climate it would be wrong to discourage them. We should look for some response to the steps that have been taken.
  For many years, the Labour party told us that the Government had caused a dreadful block because there were no sanctions. Labour Members cannot now argue that the fundamental changes have been brought about by sanctions which they have repeatedly argued in the House have no more than symbolic power. They try to have the argument both ways, but logically they cannot.
  I hope that the powerful speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) laid to rest any claims that the concerns about apartheid are felt by only one side of the House. There is no Member of the House who is not committed to the destruction of apartheid. The arguments are entirely about the tactics and how to make the transition without the revolutionary destruction of the economy and potential of South Africa that could all too easily come about. That is why I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the Government amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 278.

  Division No. 74]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Allen, Graham

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Alton, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Anderson, Donald

  Gordon, Mildred

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Gould, Bryan

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Graham, Thomas

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Ashton, Joe

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Hardy, Peter

  Barron, Kevin

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Battle, John

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Beckett, Margaret

  Haynes, Frank

  Beith, A. J.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Bell, Stuart

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Henderson, Doug

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

  Hinchliffe, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Blunkett, David

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Boateng, Paul

  Home Robertson, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Hood, Jimmy

  Bradley, Keith

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Howells, Geraint

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Buckley, George J.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Caborn, Richard

  Illsley, Eric

  Callaghan, Jim

  Janner, Greville

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Clay, Bob

  Kennedy, Charles

  Clelland, David

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cohen, Harry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Coleman, Donald

  Lambie, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Lamond, James

  Corbett, Robin

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Leighton, Ron

  Cousins, Jim

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Crowther, Stan

  Lewis, Terry

  Cryer, Bob

  Litherland, Robert

  Cummings, John

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Livsey, Richard

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Darling, Alistair

  Loyden, Eddie

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McAllion, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McAvoy, Thomas

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

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Dewar, Donald

  McFall, John

  Dixon, Don

  McKelvey, William

  Dobson, Frank

  McLeish, Henry

  Doran, Frank

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McWilliam, John

  Eadie, Alexander

  Madden, Max

  Eastham, Ken

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Marek, Dr John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Maxton, John

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Fisher, Mark

  Meale, Alan

  Flannery, Martin

  Michael, Alun

  Flynn, Paul

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I & Bute)

  Foster, Derek

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Foulkes, George

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fraser, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Galloway, George

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Mullin, Chris

  319

  Murphy, Paul

  Snape, Peter

  Nellist, Dave

  Soley, Clive

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Brien, William

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Strang, Gavin

  Patchett, Terry

  Straw, Jack

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Prescott, John

  Turner, Dennis

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Vaz, Keith

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wall, Pat

  Radice, Giles

  Wallace, James

  Randall, Stuart

  Walley, Joan

  Redmond, Martin

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Richardson, Jo

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Salmond, Alex

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wilson, Brian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winnick, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Worthington, Tony

  Short, Clare

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sillars, Jim

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie and Mr. Allen McKay.

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

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Amess, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Amos, Alan

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arbuthnot, James

  Chope, Christopher

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Churchill, Mr

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

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

  Ashby, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Atkins, Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Atkinson, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Conway, Derek

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Couchman, James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cran, James

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Critchley, Julian

  Benyon, W.

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Curry, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

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

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Dover, Den

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowis, John

  Durant, Tony

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Dykes, Hugh

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Eggar, Tim

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evennett, David

  Bright, Graham

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fallon, Michael

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

  Favell, Tony

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Burns, Simon

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Burt, Alistair

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Butler, Chris

  Forman, Nigel

  Butterfill, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Forth, Eric

  320

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Freeman, Roger

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  French, Douglas

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Gale, Roger

  Mills, lain

  Gardiner, George

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gill, Christopher

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gow, Ian

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mudd, David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Needham, Richard

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Grist, Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Grylls, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hague, William

  Norris, Steve

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Page, Richard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Paice, James

  Hannam, John

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Harris, David

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Pawsey, James

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hayes, Jerry

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hayward, Robert

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Price, Sir David

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Redwood, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hill, James

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hind, Kenneth

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Holt, Richard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Rost, Peter

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Irvine, Michael

  Shelton, Sir William

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Jack, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Janman, Tim

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Jessel, Toby

  Sims, Roger

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Smith. Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Key, Robert

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Kilfedder, James

  Speller, Tony

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Squire, Robin

  Knapman, Roger

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Steen, Anthony

  Knox, David

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Lightbown, David

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Lilley, Peter

  Sumberg, David

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lord, Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Madel, David

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mans, Keith

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N;

  Maples, John

  Thorne, Neil

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  321

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Whitney, Ray

  Tredinnick, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Trippier, David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Trotter, Neville

  Wilkinson, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wilshire, David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Wood, Timothy

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Yeo, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Watts, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  Madam Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House salutes Nelson Mandela on his release and welcomes the constructive actions taken by President de Klerk to create an atmosphere conducive to negotiations with all parties in South Africa towards a non-racial constitution enjoying the support of a majority of South Africans; and believes these steps deserve a positive and practical response from the international community.
  Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the total lack of regard in the previous debate for the real reason why the white Government in South Africa have retreated—namely, the heroic role of the black working class and the youth of that country—I give notice that I shall seek to prolong the debate by using the mechanism of the Adjournment debate.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That matter has nothing to do with the Chair. All that I can say to the hon. Member is that I wish him the best of British luck.

  Rail Fares and Services
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the Government's approach to British Rail and London Underground that has produced the poorest quality rail and tube services and the highest fares in Western Europe, and has left Britain's transport system unable to cope with the challenges posed by the Channel Tunnel and the Single European Market; believes that Britain's transport crisis is now so severe that it is doing severe economic and environmental damage to the whole nation; deplores the low pay and long hours which typify the average working period of railway workers; recognises the need to set tougher quality of service standards to ensure that real passengers enjoy a safer, more reliable and efficient service at a fairer price and have greater powers to demand redress when those standards are not met; believes that compared to the railway systems of other developed nations, British Rail deserves greater financial support from public funds; and resolves that these problems can only be solved by adopting a co-ordinated approach to transport policy, increasing the level of public service obligation and other grants paid to British Rail and London Regional Transport, and adopting a new approach to investment to ensure that all plans are judged on a common basis, taking full account of environmental, economic and social benefits for both users and non-users.
  This is the first proper transport debate since the new Secretary of State's appointment. Today, the Opposition will express the anger of millions of passengers who, after 10 years of cuts in subsidy and moves towards privatisation, are fed up with paying the highest fares in Europe for a dirty, unreliable and overcrowded railway service. The amendment paints a picture that is a million miles from the daily experience of millions of people who travel on our railway system today. The Government fail to understand that transport has become a major political issue, not only because the Opposition have chosen to make it so but because people feel helpless and frustrated at the scale of our transport crisis.
  The facts of a poor quality service are well documented and are available for all hon. Members to see in the various reports. A dossier of shame has been compiled. It shows that one in six InterCity trains—that is, more than 300 trains per day—are at least 10 minutes late, that 112 trains on Network SouthEast are cancelled every day because of staff shortages, and that more than 800 trains on Network SouthEast are more than five minutes late every day. The position on provincial services is even worse.
  Despite the fact that the number of passengers has increased by 10 per cent.—almost 70 million passengers—since 1983, there are 676 fewer carriages, which is about 50,000 seats, and 2,500 fewer locomotives in the railway system. With the increasing number of passengers on our rail system and with less seating capacity, it is hardly surprising that overcrowding has become so bad on Network SouthEast that on journeys lasting more than 20 minutes there must be at least one third of passengers standing before British Rail will put on an extra train—provided, of course, that there is one available and there are staff to man it.
  On London Underground, one in three escalators are out of order on any given day. Also, 551 tube stations were closed for all or part of a day in the past six months

  323
  because there were not enough staff to keep them open. An increasing number of stations are being closed at certain times because of dangerous overcrowding on platforms.
  The question for the House and for the country is why that has happened. Instead of having arguments about policy differences, it is fair to draw a comparison with the European experience. Other European countries have transport systems which move millions of people around, they have trains and buses, and it is fair to see how their Governments manage to provide a far better system. That is why many people in this country are increasingly angry. They go abroad and see the systems there, and they know that there is no need for the standard of service that they get in Britain to continue.
  Undoubtedly, one of the key differences is the financial framework. The level of Government grant in European countries is far higher and it maintains a better quality system. Almost uniquely in Europe, the present British Government have pursued a policy of reducing public subsidy. In 1983 it was more than £1 billion, but it has been reduced to £560 million this year and there is to be a further cut of £340 million by 1992. The Treasury has saved nearly £2 billion compared with the 1983 levels of support. British Rail now receives only one third to one half of average European financial support.
  The only way in which British Rail could compensate for such a massive loss of income is to pursue a policy of massive redundancies with the loss of more than 40,000 jobs, which has affected the quality of service. British Rail has also had to sell off assets—some very cheaply, as we recently saw in the British Rail Engineering Ltd. case about the sale of land, which is quite usual in privatisation programmes. Fares have risen by 24 per cent. in real terms in the past 10 years. That makes our fares the most expensive in Europe. An average 10 km journey costs twice as much in London as in other capital cities in Europe. That problem can be solved only by a very different policy.
  The Secretary of State inherited a major problem, and it was hoped by many that his different approach might produce an entirely different policy. Opposition Members believe that a different policy is needed. As I shadowed the right hon. Gentleman on energy matters, I am bound to say that I did not believe that there would be any change in policy. He is a great man for explaining why things ought to be working and giving out the message, "It's the way I tell them."
  That is not good enough because the Government's policies are wrong. They are going in for presentation. That is always the Tory approach to problems. They regularly argue that there is nothing wrong with their policies, simply that the presentation is wrong. In this case, the Secretary of State, who has earned himself a name for presenting matters in a better way than his predecessor, has done his best to go in for better presentation.
  When the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) was replaced by the present Secretary of State—known as the Prime Minister's trouble shooter—I thought that a fresh mind was being brought to the urgent problems of the railways and that, as the right hon. Gentleman is good at PR, he might recognise, on studying the problems, that presentation and PR are not enough on this occasion. I regret to say that the right hon. Gentleman was brought in not to solve Britain's transport crisis but to improve the presentation and interpretation of Tory policies.
  324
  When Sir Bob Reid said that his job was not to run a service that was desirable but to run one that was profitable—he was talking about the Channel tunnel services—the Secretary of State explained to the House that he had been misunderstood. When Sir Bob warned that Britain's future as the transport hub of Europe was threatened by a lack of investment, the Secretary of State claimed that his speech had been widely misinterpreted.
  When I warned in a statement on rail fares that the downturn in the economy, with the slump in the property market, meant that British Rail would have to cut its investment programme by up to £500 million, the Secretary of State told "The World At One" that there had been a misunderstanding of the figures. His office asked for a copy of my press release, which highlighted the figures and he must have studied them in detail. The right hon. Gentleman with his background as an accountant presumably understands figures better than most, although that is not obvious from the presentation of his policies.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman deny, as I predicted a couple of weeks ago in regard to the corporate review and the Government's financial statement, that we shall be underfunded in the proposed £3·7 billion investment programme? I predicted cuts. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the story in The Guardian this morning that trains are to be shortened and services scrapped? Is that another misunderstanding? I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that when he speaks in the debate.
  Such cuts have been happening throughout the system for a long time. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the electrification of the King's Lynn and Uckfield lines has been delayed, that station modernisation schemes have been shelved and that park 'n' ride schemes have been scrapped? Does he appreciate that British Rail's investment programme assumes a rate of economic growth that is twice the Treasury's prediction?
  The Secretary of State has assumed that the programme of investment will be protected and will not be cut. He said that in an interview that he gave to The Financial Times. If that is so, how is it to be financed? If the programme is to be maintained and not cut, who will pay for it? Can passengers expect a higher level of fares, or will more jobs on the railways be lost? Will the Government sell more railway assets? Or are the Government prepared to protect the railway system and provide more financial support?
  If the Government genuinely wish to support the railways—not claim that there has been another misunderstanding or misinterpretation—they will have to review the corporate plan that has just been announced by British Rail and the financial framework that has been announced to Parliament. I call on the Secretary of State to review that corporate plan. If he is to provide the investment that he and we wish to see in the British Rail system, that is vital.
  The Secretary of State claimed in an article in the Financial Times that the problem with me—and, I assume, many others—was that I did not understand the figures.
  "It's not my fault John's not an accountant",
  he said. That is true, though I have met many creative accountants who have been paid to present different positions on the same figures. The Secretary of State is a past master at doing that.
  The right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of accountancy did not do him much good when it came to electricity

  325
  privatisation because he constantly said in the House that there would not be any price increases. That claim was blown apart with the statement in the House last week, and particularly with what has happened over electricity privatisation and nuclear plants.
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Prescott: I gather that the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with me. The record proves the correctness of what I say, including statements made by the right hon. Gentleman to the House and on television. I shall be only too pleased to provide him with the details of that record. His reputation on figures was not good in that respect, which is no doubt why he moved to the Department of Transport.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does the hon. Gentleman have an opinion about creative returns to the Customs and Excise by people coming through with cameras accompanied by false receipts.
  Mr. Prescott: I shall not enter into that issue. I would be prepared to discuss it with the hon. Lady, and I assure her that I felt as aggrieved as anybody else about that matter. Hon. Members will accept my reputation as one who has never entered into personal slights, and I regret that the hon. Lady has done so on this occasion. She will find that the House does not admire Members who get involved in that kind of slagging, on either side of the Chamber. Professional politicians are better occupied dealing with the substances of politics.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: Get on with it.
  Mr. Prescott: Not much need be said about the egg woman. She has said enough already.
  Mrs. Currie rose—
  Mr. Prescott: I had better get on with the transport matters with which we are dealing.
  Mrs. Currie rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way. If that is the case, the hon. Lady must resume her seat.
  Mr. Prescott: The country has not gained in the past from interventions by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I cannot see that anything would be gained by my giving way to her now.
  Mrs. Currie rose—
  Mr. Prescott: In the White Paper on London traffic we were again challenged on the figures—
  Mrs. Currie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely it is not in order for an Opposition Front Bench spokesman to be so rude and personal about Members on the Government side when we simply wish to ask questions about the railway service and know the views of Opposition Members on that subject. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refuse to give way on that basis? If so, it is thoroughly bad manners on his part.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are no Standing Orders to that effect. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he was not giving way to the hon. Lady, so I cannot allow her at this stage to intervene.
  Mr. Prescott: No doubt the hon. Lady feels that she has said her television piece. People in glasshouses should not throw eggs.
  When it comes to judging estimates relating to prices, the Secretary of State does not have a good reputation. The House may recall an exchange that took place about the London road assessment figures and the judgement that rail prices would increase by 40 per cent. in real terms. That was contested by the Secretary of State at the time, supported by other Conservative Members.
  I have now seen the correspondence between the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman has had to concede that, judged in terms of GNP or price increases, our predictions are right. I have since checked my facts with the Library, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to deal with that in his speech, I shall be delighted.
  The Secretary of State's judgment is so faulty that he is making fundamental mistakes in his transport policy. Not only is there a fundamental difference between the two sides of the House about how we should approach the whole issue of transport, but there is that difference between all parties in the Opposition vis-a-vis the views of the Secretary of State.
  When discussing these issues with the Council of Ministers in Europe, the right hon. Gentleman must find himself isolated in the policy that he is pursuing. As we heard on Monday, the right hon. Gentleman is fond of talking about the situation in eastern Europe, especially on matters of intervention, integration and co-ordination. Every other country in Europe is pursuing policies different from his.
  The only crumb of comfort he seemed to gather was that the subsidies being put into their transport system by the Germans did not meet with his approval. But whether or not the right hon. Gentleman is proud of what is happening in Germany, the Germans have a far superior system to ours. That is the crux of the matter, especially as in Germany they are not talking about reducing their subsidies.
  The British Government are isolated in their transport policy. If it is a question of disagreement between the two sides of the House, I call in aid—to show that it goes deeper than just disagreement—some of the editorials that are now appearing in the press about the Government's policy in general and the Secretary of State in particular. For example, readers of The Daily Telegraph were told to be "wary of misunderstandings" and that the Secretary of State was taking
  "A pitifully myopic approach to our desperate transport problems."
  Presumably the writer meant to say that he was doing a wonderful job. The same newspaper claimed that the
  "luckless Transport Secretary" was in
  "possibly his last Cabinet post."
  The right hon. Gentleman no doubt interpreted that to mean that he was heading for the top—[Interruption.] Conservative Back Benchers need have no fear because I am now coming to them, and in particular to the hon.

  327
  Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). After all, Back Benchers travel on the trains. I extended to the hon. Member for Selly Oak the courtesy of informing him that I would be referring to him. He said:
  "You get the feeling that Mr. Parkinson wants the Tories to lose the next election".
  He said that to tell inter-city commuters that they are getting travel too cheap was bizarre nonsense and that the Secretary of State was living in cloud-cuckoo-land. I am sure that the Secretary of State will say that, on careful reading of his hon. Friend's remarks, he is sure that he was widely misunderstood. I do not take that view. It is a clear and categorical statement about the Conservative party's policy on transport, particularly with regard to fares. As I have been told to keep to transport, I shall say that as an influential Back Bencher—[HON. MEMBERS: "Senior."]—yes, a senior Back Bencher or Front Back Bencher, whatever the hon. Gentleman's position is called, he made a trenchant criticism of the Government's transport policy.
  The Secretary of State is finding out that all the clever messages and nice images are not the way to solve major problems. I shall tell him why his message will have no effect on the electorate. The daily experience of British people is so bad—they know what they are experiencing—that they will not listen to such blandishments and messages. We could all give many examples, but I shall give the Secretary of State my experience on the railway yesterday.
  I had to go to Manchester to address a CLES conference on the future of British Rail. I joined one of BR's flagships, the Manchester pullman, at 8 am. The toilets did not work, the brakes were faulty, a boiler had failed and there were staff shortages. The train stopped and I looked out of the window and saw that we had been connected to the other British Rail flagship, the 7.50 Liverpool pullman, and were pushing it into Nuneaton. We arrived 40 minutes late.
  I returned on the 3 pm train, which had worn-out shabby coaches and brake problems and was an hour late arriving in London. I then joined the London Underground Victoria line system, but we were informed that it would not be stopping at Victoria. I bailed out at Green Park and got on to the Jubilee line, which the Secretary of State intends to abolish in one of his new proposals for cross-London links, but found that the escalators were not working. I managed to arrive at Charing Cross on the good old Northern line—as soon as the doors open, one always faces a wall of bodies through which one has to fight one's way on to the train—and took the Circle line to Westminster and was informed that there would be delays and cancellations because of shortages of staff.
  That tragedy of a journey was by no means exceptional. It is the daily experience of many people in Britain. We know that the Secretary of State"s experiences are somewhat limited. He told the Daily Mail when he took the job:
  "When all the fuss dies down I must get myself on a bus or train, I haven't been on either for years."
  In another interview we were told that he intends to travel incognito on the trains and tubes. I do not blame him for that. If he is recognised while travelling on a train or Underground, he will be in trouble. If he had been on the InterCity trains yesterday to and from Manchester and
  328
  people had seen him, he would certainly have been in trouble. Actually, of course, they did see him—on the front of the InterCity propaganda magazine which stated:
  "Parkinson's mission is to produce a balanced alternative."
  I wish that he had been on the train yesterday to explain the balanced alternative to interested commuters. I agreed that I would pass on their message. I would never use strong language, but I think that the Secretary of State gets my meaning.
  If the policy is wrong, what needs to be done? If we are to learn anything from the European experience, it is that the transport system needs more money. Whatever the argument—politicians cannot buck this—the Government must find more resources for the British Rail system. They cannot sack more people, sell more assets or put the fares up any more. More money has to be found. That is the reality and none of us can duck it.
  Whether it is expressed as a proportion of GDP or in the amounts of money involved, we give only a fraction of what other European countries give to their rail systems. The problems cannot be solved by real fare increases. The Secretary of State puts up the argument that long distance passengers are subsidised and should pay a great deal more. The answer to that argument came strongly from his hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak, as I said earlier.
  The Confederation of British Industry estimates that road congestion costs us £20 billion. Not many years ago social costing justified putting more money into the railway system. What is so terrible in this country is that we do not judge rail and road investment in the same way. We make rail investment require an 8 per cent. return. For roads, we estimate how many accidents are likely to happen and the time that can be saved and justify millions of pounds of expenditure. A social cost approach for rail is essential.
  Mr. Parkinson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State shakes his head. In a letter to The Guardian his hon. Friend the Minister said that there was no difference between the assessment for road and rail investment. I was surprised to hear that remark. It has always been generally accepted that there is a difference. I heard a speech in Manchester. Major-General Lennox Napier, the chairman of TCCC, the passenger consultative body, has always made it clear that the cuts in the public service obligation have affected the quality of services. That is what the passengers say and what the body set up to make the judgment says. He went on to make another point on cost-benefit analysis. He said:
  "I find myself an inspector of public enquiries on roads."
  He does both things:
  "I find myself presented with a cost-benefit analysis for road building which measures all the costs and all the benefits which accrue to society at large as a result of public investment over a 30-year period."
  I am surprised that until now no equivalent cost-benefit analysis has been applied to rail investment. The cost-benefit analysis system should be applied in determining investment and investments should be made in British Rail.
  I should like the Secretary of State to tell us who is right in that argument. Are his hon. Friends right? Is there a difference? If there is a difference, as most of us believe and most of the authorities have always said, would he

  329
  reconsider his position so that we can have a fair comparison when judging the investment criteria of the two Departments?
  Mr. David Evennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prescott: No, I have a problem with time. In the last debate I took an awfully long time.
  On subsidies, it is clear that there is a link between subsidies and the quality of service. I have given the authority for saying that and quoted my own direct experience. The Secretary of State argues, "Why should we subsidise services that are overcrowded?" We have a pricing policy which seems to be geared to driving people off the trains and on to our congested roads. We know the consequences and cost to the economy of congestion. We know the environmental cost of exhaust emissions of more people going by car. It must be desirable to subsidise rail services. Network South East will soon be the only urban rail network in Europe and North America which operates without any public subsidy.
  Mr. Roger King: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear." I note that he is from a midlands constituency. There is not much hear-hearing from people in the Network South East area.
  It is generally accepted that our fares are too high. In railway transportation it is not possible to secure all the operating and investment costs from the fare box and it is nonsense to attempt to do so. No other country has achieved that. Investment is absolutely crucial. There has been chronic underfunding throughout the 1980s. In both Labour and Tory Governments the Treasury's influence was such that the Government took a short-term view of long-term investment.
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): So the hon. Gentleman accepts that.
  Mr. Prescott: I have said it constantly. The Minister should look at the record. The last bulge in investment was in 1955. In various Governments, the Treasury has taken the view that investment could be put off and trains could be made to last longer. Now we have the bunching of investment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Investment is crucial and necessary but it means that we did not have a sustained level of investment in British Rail over a long period. [Interruption.] Yes, it is bunching. We are investing today because of a bunching of investment requirements. I cannot argue with the fact that there is an investment programme. I fully accept it. It is hard to deny that a £3·5 billion investment programme is going on. [Interruption.] Of course there is investment. The engines and coaches are 25 and 30 years old. They cannot go any longer. Investment has to be made. Before Conservative Members start cheering I shall tell them the problem with the programme. Does any Conservative Member know of any industry that tries to cover a 30-year replacement programme in a few years and obtain all the money from the fare box? It is nonsense. It is not done anywhere. It puts the penalties on the passengers.
  France, Germany and Holland are investing far more in the railway revolution that is sweeping through Europe.
  330
  Throughout the 1980s, the French have invested heavily in developing the TGV and suburban networks. Some 30 per cent. of the cost of TGV and electrification schemes are met by Government grants. The Governments give capital as well as revenue grants to the railway system. We should recognise that the same is critical for our system.
  If we are to have a railway system that is modern and meets the freight requirements of our industry and travelling public we shall have to find more investment for it—and larger sums than those available at present.
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): Does the hon. Gentleman talk to his hon. Friends in the Labour finance team?
  Mr. Prescott: Yes, I do.
  There are different ways and different priorities in financing such measures. We would not follow the crazy road programme that the Government have embarked upon—[Interruption.] Yes, it is crazy because all that it has done is to transfer the money that has been saved from the public service obligation for railways across to the road programme. The Government have doubled the road programme at the expense of the rail passengers at the very time when we want people to come out of their cars and to use the railway system. That is the craziness of the Government's policy.
  At the same time, the Government have ignored passenger accountability. Passengers feel helpless and the quality of the service is declining. I note that the Secretary of State is talking about a "passenger service charter". I am glad to see that he is pinching some of the ideas of the Labour policy document that we sent to the Secretary of State. That is not the first idea that he has pinched from Labour's transport programme and it will not be the last. However, we welcome that because it means an improvement.
  If the Secretary of State really wants to help the passengers he will have to do something about the fares and about greater public financial support for the railways. I give him another bit of advice—he should establish an independent body so that passengers can complain about what is happening. We shall set one up under the auspices of a public interest commissioner, who will have the Power to investigate British Rail independently, allow passengers to make complaints, award compensation against British Rail for its failures, and give passengers a real chance to exercise their grievances.
  A modern railway system needs additional public financial support, and such a system is absolutely crucial if we are to relieve the congestion that is a major cost to our economy and to do anything about environmental problems. That is not an eastern European solution. It is a good, sensible solution that has been adopted by most western European countries, which have far better transport systems than we have.
  7.41 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'congratulates the Government on developing a balanced transport policy which recognises the economic importance to the United Kingdom of its rail, road and air network; welcomes the biggest programme of investment in British Rail for 25 years and the massive increase in investment in London Underground which will relieve congestion and meet the increased demand which is the result of the economic success

  331
  of the United Kingdom; welcomes the demanding quality of service objectives set by the Government; welcomes the £1 billion which will be spent to ensure Britain's rail infrastructure is in place to service the Channel Tunnel when it opens in 1993; applauds the high priority that the Government gives to all matters of safety on transport; and welcomes its recognition of the importance of the environment in transport policy.'.
  We heard the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, (Mr. Prescott) at his characteristic worst, full of bluster and wild promises. He may not have read the speech made yesterday by his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in which she said that the Opposition were determined to avoid any commitments to any major public expenditure programmes. She subsequently said that transport was one of a number of priorities—I repeat, "one of".
  In the past 24 hours, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has promised to repeal section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, and has said that a Labour Government would underwrite the cross-Channel link. I hope that he cleared that with Sam McCluskie, who will find out today that his favourite son is planning to subsidise the competitors of the ferries and hovercraft on which his members depend for their living—[Interruption.] As I said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman cleared that with his friend Sam; otherwise, he might find tomorrow that he is no longer sponsored, which would be a terrible, terrible shock. The hon. Gentleman also made a series of wild remarks, implying that the subsidy under Labour is bound to increase enormously and that it will be centrally funded.
  Over and over again, we hear the hon. Gentleman whingeing. It is not for nothing that he is called the prince of whingers in his time. It is not for nothing that he is universally distrusted and, if I may say so, fairly widely disliked. It is not for nothing that neither we nor the country take him seriously.
  The hon. Gentleman made a modest claim tonight. He said that it was as a result of the Labour party's efforts that transport has suddenly become an important subject. I shall tell him why transport is an important subject—
  Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State was not listening.
  Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman should check Hansard.
  Transport has become an important subject because, under a Conservative Government, this country has enjoyed 10 years of substantial economic growth. On the personal level, the net result is that 5 million more motor cars are now on the roads; two thirds of families in this country now own a family car, and 20 per cent. own more than one.
  There has been a huge increase in economic activity, which has resulted in a great increase in the movement of freight and commercial traffic around our country. In London alone, there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the use of light commercial vans. I do not know of any plans—even by the hon. Gentleman—for getting light commercial vehicles on to buses, which seems to be the hon. Gentleman's answer to pretty well everything else. There has also been a huge increase in the number of people travelling by rail, air and road as the country has become more prosperous.
  Another factor is that the Government have been determined to avoid the mistakes of their predecessors,
  332
  who set out on ambitious programmes that they could not sustain, running the country into an economic mess and subsequently slashing all the capital investment programmes on which they had embarked. We were determined that that would not happen. As the country has become more prosperous, so the investment programmes, right across the whole spectrum of the infrastructure, have been improved.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State has made great play of the importance of those economic benefits to the whole community. Will he therefore tell me why there is such deep concern in my part of the country, where there is no clear investment programme on either the roads or the railways that would ensure that we in the north-east and in the highlands and islands of Scotland can benefit from 1992? What are his Government's direct plans for Scotland to ensure that we have the road and rail network that we merit?
  Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Lady knows, roads in Scotland are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, the train system in Scotland is my responsibility and a substantial investment programme is planned for ScotRail. A huge subsidy is being spent to maintain the rail system. The Government accept the need to maintain that system—
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Parkinson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I want to get on—
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State give way on that very point?
  Mr. Parkinson: No, I want to get on with my speech.
  As a result of the country's increased prosperity—I am glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, started to admit that—there has been a huge increase in investment across the whole spectrum of our infrastructure. Our road programmes are running at a high level. Investment in the Underground, at £400 million per year, is at twice the level when the Labour party controlled it through the Greater London council. Next year, that figure will increase to 3·5 times the amount that was spent in 1984–85. We are also investing the highest amount for over 25 years on the rail network. The investment programme for the past three years represents a 26 per cent. increase over the previous three years and, as I have said, 1989–90 represents a record level of investment in British Rail.
  Mr. Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in spite of active representations from an all-party delegation, which included his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), his right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), several of my hon. Friends, and hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland, British Rail is to go ahead with cutting the last sleeper service between Northern Ireland and south-west Scotland and Euston?
  That has tremendous political implications for Northern Ireland and south-west Scotland. The local authorities have come up with some resources to advertise and promote the service, and there is a great possibility that it will be made economic. Will the Secretary of State

  333
  intervene personally, look at the case, and talk to the chairman of British Rail to see whether that vital service can be saved? If he does, he will gain a great deal of good will from hon. Members of all parties.
  Mr. Parkinson: I am aware of that problem, and the hon. Gentleman knows that the service was withdrawn because it was under-used. That is an operational day-to-day matter for British Rail.
  Sir Hector Monro: I am so glad that InterCity is profitable. However, should it remove one of the last rail links between London and Ireland just because it is the least profitable of British Rail services? British Rail has a duty to keep the main InterCity routes going.
  Mr. Parkinson: The service was withdrawn because it was not being used. I have never known what benefit it is to the public to keep a service going when the public do not want to use it. Running empty trains up and down the railway may give some people satisfaction, but I cannot see what good it does the public or the railways.
  The Government's policy on transport is straightforward and clear. It is to develop a balanced policy to improve all aspects of our transport arrangements. We have steadily built up two substantial programmes across the spectrum. For example, as a result of the "Roads for Prosperity" White Paper, the Government have recognised the need to improve the national road system. In spite of predictions from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and others about our lack of success in negotiations with the Treasury, this year we won a roads programme of £5·7 billion over the next three years—a 50 per cent. increase in real terms, which gives us a major programme.
  Hon. Members talk about the Channel tunnel and getting freight on to rail, but the Channel tunnel will be capable of handling only about 3 per cent. of our exports—97 per cent. of our exports will still have to leave this country by the traditional routes of ports and airports. The road system connecting those ports is a vital part of maintaining Britain's prosperity.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has at last admitted that the Government have approved the biggest ever investment programme for British Rail—£3·7 billion over the next three years—and £2·2 billion for the Underground. Other major public transport investment will be made. We have a record programme for the improvement of airports. Our air traffic control system will have £600 million invested in it to improve the capacity of our airways.
  Right across the spectrum, the Government are showing, in a controlled and sensible way, that they recognise the nation's transport problems and are making the investment to deal with them. We differ from the Opposition because we do not believe that strategic planners, drawing up strategic transport plans, are the people to determine the future of our transport system. They have an almost unenviable record of getting it consistently wrong. If the transport system is modernised, the public will be capable of making the choice about which transport method best suits it.
  Mr. Robert Adley: As my right hon. Friend has discussed road and rail, I shall continue the Scottish symphony. When there were bad floods in Inverness a year or so ago—
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: And this year.
  Mr. Adley: Let us not discuss the weather in Scotland.
  When there were floods a year ago and the Inverness rail bridge was washed away, the damage done to the roads in that area was paid for by the taxpayer. However, British Rail was expected to pay from its own revenue for the repair of the railway bridge. Is that a fair and equal comparison between road and rail?
  Mr. Peter Snape rose—
  Mr. Parkinson: I shall not give way, because the hon. Gentleman will have the chance to make his own usual boring say towards the end of the debate. I do not see why I should make way for him now.
  Mr. Snape rose—
  Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. I can hear only one hon. Member at a time.
  Mr. Parkinson: I shall deal with the argument about the lack of public contribution to investment. ScotRail receives a subsidy that represents more than 70 per cent. of the costs. The passengers on ScotRail contribute less than 30 per cent. Therefore, the taxpayer is making a substantial contribution to ScotRail.
  Mrs. Ewing: What is the answer?
  Mr. Parkinson: I have just given the answer, but the hon. Lady did not understand it.
  Opposition Members have been making great play about the level of this year's fare increases. The fare increases on British Rail are 8 to 8·5 per cent. and on London Regional Transport they are just over 9 per cent. There is one record that no Government will wrest from the Labour party. In 1975, the Labour Government increased fares by 50 per cent. in a single year. In no year under the Labour Government was any fares increase less than double figures—except, for some reason, the one that took place two months before the 1979 general election. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has suddently become the great friend of the long-distance commuter, who pays about 40 per cent. of the standard fare to travel at peak hours. He pays less than the cheapest off-peak fare. That was regarded as unsatisfactory by British Rail, and last year it proposed that, over a three-year period, the discount should be reduced—not eliminated—from about 60 to 40 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it is unfair to the rest of the travelling public to have heavily subsidised fares for people travelling in peak hours.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, in his normal wide-awake fashion, cottoned on to this two years late. It was announced two years ago, but it took him by surprise when the second stage was announced this week.
  The long-distance commuter, of whom there are 18,000, will still receive a substantial discount, but it will be smaller. His fares increase this year will be about 13·75 per cent. Another advantage for long-distance commuters is that they can choose when to pay the increase. Most of them, having more sense than the hon. Gentleman, trade in their season tickets a day before the fares go up, and

  335
  travel for an extra year at the lower rate. If the hon. Gentleman has no group to worry about than that one, he is a lucky man.
  Through the whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument runs the theme that fares should not have gone up. That would have meant that British Rail's losses would be increased, because it does not make a profit. If the fares had not gone up but the expenses had, the losses would have gone up, and therefore the taxpayers' contribution would have gone up because there are only two sources of revenue. The hon. Gentleman backs every wage claim that is made. and wages represent 60 per cent. of the expenditure.
  I shall quote a remark made by a more enlightened Labour Transport Secretary who had some experience of Government and running an organisation. The following statement was issued by the Labour Government in a Command Paper in 1977:
  "subsidies transfer the cost of a service from the traveller to the taxpayer or the ratepayer, and the traveller is often a taxpayer or ratepayer himself. To use subsidies to disguise from people the cost of the services they are paying for is pointless, and to subsidise richer people at the expense of poorer is perverse."
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham rose—
  Mr. Prescott: Who was it?
  Mr. Parkinson: It was the Labour Government. If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about government, he would know that White Papers are issued in the name of the Government collectively. That was presumably the voice of the Labour Government. At the time, the hon. Gentleman was scrubbing around on the Back Benches, and many people think that he was at his best in those days.
  Mr. Snape: The right hon. Gentleman should not be so personal.
  Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman devoted his speech to attacking my professional qualifications. I do not know what his are, if he has any. None of us knows what he did before he came here.
  Increasing British Rail's losses, increasing its subsidy at the taxpayers' expense or cutting investment would not be a sensible way forward. British Rail's services need to be improved, and the farepayers should make a contribution. There should be massive investment programmes. They are in place and they are being sustained. They will produce a better service, because British Rail will have better equipment at its disposal. We have set it service objectives that are designed to ensure that the passenger has a better deal—better punctuality, more cleanliness and more regular services.
  I found it objectionable that the hon. Gentleman should complain about the decline in British Rail's standards and its record last year. In the four previous years, British Rail had a record of improved punctuality and service.
  Mr. Prescott: No.
  Mr. Parkinson: Yes, look at the figures.
  Mr. Prescott: The figures are fiddled.
  Mr. Parkinson: There was no fiddle. The hon. Gentleman should try to remember what happened in 1989, when there was an unnecessary, mindless and
  336
  wasteful strike that ruined British Rail's reputation, cost British Rail £70 million and put at risk investment and jobs. The hon. Gentleman tacitly supported that strike throughout. The hon. Gentleman complains about an effect, the cause of which he supported.
  Mr. Prescott: So did the arbitration.
  Mr. Snape: So did the public.
  Mr. Parkinson: We listened to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East with no surprise but with a growing marvel at his nerve. He represented a Government who presided over British Rail's decline, who increased its losses, reduced its investment and saw the number of passengers go down.
  Mr. Prescott: Not true.
  Mr. Parkinson: Check the figures. They are there for all to see. British Rail's investment programme was slashed, and many believed that British Rail was in a state of terminal decline.
  It is under a Conservative Government that investment has gone in, performance standards have been set, new equipment has been bought, new signalling systems installed and stations modernised and lengthened. We shall preside over an improvement in a system over whose decline the Labour Government presided and which many believe they sponsored. I invite the House to reject the Opposition's insolent, ill-informed and aggressive motion, and to support the Government's amendment.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. David Marshall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on initiating the debate, which comes at a particularly opportune time to consider the bleak future facing Britain's rail passengers and railway workers. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent exposure of the failure of the Government's transport policies in general and railway policy in particular.
  The Government's amendment is a huge joke to any regular traveller. The Government want to be congratulated on developing a balanced transport policy, but what they have developed is balanced chaos in our rail, road and air networks. Passengers are crammed in like sardines on London Regional Transport's Underground and on many British Rail routes, paying ever-increasing fares which are arguably the dearest in the world, and worrying more and more about safety on trains and platforms—especially on platforms which are unmanned in order to save money.
  Sir David Mitchell: When the hon. Gentleman speaks about overcrowding on the London Underground, should he not take into account the fact that we have the largest number of people in work in our history and we cannot have that without a massive increase in the number of passengers? That is what is causing the overcrowding, not a reduction in the number of trains or inactivity by LRT. It is congested because many more people are travelling.
  Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point, but the Government are doing nothing to cope with the problem—quite the reverse.
  Congestion on our roads is bringing many of our city centres and many lengths of our motorway system to a

  337
  grinding halt, at a cost of billions of pounds. Perhaps the Secretary of State will say how many billions of pounds congestion on our roads costs the nation.
  We also have overcrowded airports. Heathrow has insufficient terminal capacity to meet the demand and the delays caused by air traffic control problems which resulted from a lack of investment in air travel control infrastructure between 1979 and 1987. I defy the Secretary of State to deny that that is the case. He cannot do so.
  Mr. Bermingham: The Secretary of State would not give way to me, but my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity to intervene while he is still here. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State, who talks of balance, shows no balance when considering the charges for the Mersey tunnel? Apparently, the Humber bridge's debts are to be written off by the Government because they must not fall on the local community charge payers, many of whom live in Tory constituencies. However, the cost of the Mersey tunnel will fall on the Merseyside community charge payers at a cost of £8 per head per year. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State shows a complete lack of balance?
  Mr. Marshall: Of course. I would go even further and say that there is an unanswerable case for the removal of charges on all estuarial crossings and toll bridges in Britain. I look forward to the day when such tolls are removed.
  The present investment programme in British Rail is welcome, but the tragedy is that there was no such programme between 1979 and 1987. There was nothing like the accelerated programme of the past two years. During those previous years, many of today's and tomorrow's problems were created as a result of the Government's deliberate lack of investment.
  Sir David Mitchell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that during the years to which he is referring British Rail was given consent for the biggest investment programme since steam gave way to diesel? Can he deny that? If that is true, does it not make nonsense of the point that he is trying to make?
  Mr. Marshall: No, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The Government underinvested in public transport, particularly in the railways, during those years. It is only now, because of the huge public concern about transport safety and the realisation that votes may be lost on transport issues, that the Government are committing those resources and additional investment to the railways.
  The public expenditure White Paper shows that the growth in passengers on LRT has almost completely tailed off over the past three years. That growth was largely generated by travelcards, sales of which have now evened off.
  On 7 June 1989 the chairman and chief executive of LRT and his chief officials appeared before the Select Committee on Transport, which I have the privilege to chair. The Committee was astonished to be told that the Underground in central London was so near to an intolerable level of overcrowding that fares would have to be increased to curb growth in passenger demand.
  338
  That is the exact opposite of what public transport should be about. It was also made clear to the Committee that there could be no major expansion of capacity until well into the mid-1990s or late 1990s. If that is not an abject admission of the failure of the policies of the past 10 years, I do not know what is. The Committee was so concerned about the position that it took the unusual step of publishing a report after that single sitting.
  When the Secretary of State appeared before the Select Committee recently, he was very dismissive of road pricing, which could take some cars off the road and compel people to use public transport. The right hon. Gentleman felt that that was a highly unattractive option. Why is a policy of pricing people off public transport, such as London Underground proposes to cope with overcrowding, seen as an attractive option? Such a policy can only lead to people being forced to use already overcrowded roads. Why should one option be unattractive to the Secretary of State but a comparable policy, apparently attractive to LRT's chairman, be deemed attractive?
  Mr. Parkinson: It is not part of Government policy to drive people either off the roads on to the Underground, or off the Underground on to the roads. If the hon. Gentleman will study Underground fares, he will see that that is the case, because they have not been increased in real terms for 10 years. They have on British Rail but not on the Underground. I repeat, it is no part of our policy to price people off the Underground.
  Mr. Marshall: I do not agree with the Secretary of State, and nor does my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Secretary of State was the person who appointed the new head of London Regional Transport—
  Mr. Parkinson: Not me.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The right hon. Gentleman's Department made that appointment. That chairman then told the Select Committee that LRT could not cope with the increase in the number of passengers and would price them off the Underground. When he was asked to reveal with which financial theory such a policy accorded, he was unable to answer, so we assumed that the source of that policy was the Department.
  Mr. Marshall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point much more succintly than I could have done. I invite the Secretary of State and other Government Members to read the Committee's second report of last year.
  Following that meeting of the Select Committee, on 12 June, in a parliamentary reply the former Secretary of State said that he would have to hear convincing arguments from LRT before agreeing to pricing the public off the Underground. Is that the present Secretary of State's policy? Does it apply also to British Rail? In some ways the right hon. Gentleman answered those questions with his earlier intervention. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister for Public Transport, when he winds up, will give an example of what he considers to be a convincing argument. Is it not the case that there will be a 33 per cent. cut in InterCity's subsidy by 1992–93, and that consultants considering public transport alternatives to

  339
  new roads in London were instructed by the Department's officials to assume a massive 46 per cent. real increase in fares by the year 2001? A report to that effect appears in this month's Railway Gazette International. How does that figure compare with the increased cost of private car use, which is estimated at only 9 per cent. by the year 2000? Is the increase linked to the removal of public service obligation subsidy completely? Will the Secretary of State come clean and tell the House what are his intentions?
  The Secretary of State's policy is to allow InterCity to operate as a private company, which means that it could take certain business decisions that were very much against the public interest—such as doubling long-distance commuter fares. Even if half InterCity's passengers were lost, revenues would be maintained while rolling stock levels would be reduced. Would the Government stand aside and allow that to happen? I would not put it past them.
  I return to the scandalous withdrawal of the Stranraer-London sleeper services to which my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred earlier—as did the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who was apparently brashly dismissed by the Secretary of State. Despite all-party opposition from Members of Parliament representing constituences in south-west Scotland and Northern Ireland, no one in British Rail seems to give a damn what happens. Local authorities and other interested organisations are willing to commit themselves financially to helping the services, yet they are still to be withdrawn. Does that signal the beginning of the end of sleeper services between London and Aberdeen, Inverness and Oban, and perhaps even between Edinburgh and Glasgow? Will the Secretary of State agree not to withdraw those sleeper services and personally to examine the Stranraer service—and not hide behind the argument that that matter is entirely for InterCity to decide?
  Everyone knows that the Government are not very popular in Scotland because of their policies. Perhaps the Secretary of State can build up a little good will by giving a categorical assurance that no more Scottish services will be withdrawn, especially in rural areas. Will he consider the electrification of the east coast line north of Edinburgh to Aberdeen? Can he guarantee that Channel tunnel passengers from Scotland will have direct inter-line facilities in London, without having to change stations, from the day the Channel tunnel comes into operation? There is a strong suspicion that Scotland will not benefit, and nor will other areas, and that not all the necessary infrastructure will be in place when the tunnel opens. There is no such suspicion attached to the French operation. I for one am not in the least reassured by the Secretary of State's promise that everything will be all right on the night. I do not believe that we will be ready for the opening of the Channel tunnel.
  Most railway workers do a first-class job in all kinds of weather, working long and unsocial hours for low pay. Last year, they had to fight very hard for an 8·8 per cent. pay increase, yet the salary of British Rail's new chairman will increase from £92,000 to £200,000 per annum. Any Government, regardless of their policies, must acknowledge that the best way of improving services is to provide more financial support for infrastructure, and to pay railway workers decent wages and provide them with good working conditions.
  340
  The nation needs a properly planned, co-ordinated and integrated transport system. I make no apology for reiterating a longstanding trade union and Labour party transport argument. The nation needs a system that will take into account economic, environmental and social benefits for users and non-users alike. The Government will not provide such a system, but the next Labour Government will.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: One would have more respect for the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and by his hon. Friends if they at least acknowledged some of the achievements of our transport system over recent years. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acknowledged that many improvements need to be made, but one must acknowledge also those that have already been made.
  If I may say so in her absence, the intervention of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) could not have been more wide of the mark. Roads in Scotland, of course, are the ultimate responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I remind the hon. Member for Moray that the part of Scotland that I represent as well as the hon. Lady has seen road dualling between Perth and Aberdeen nearly completed, but she made no mention of that. In the last nine months, my right hon. Friend has committed himself to major improvements to the road between Aberdeen and Inverness, in the hon. Lady's own constituency.
  Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I would rather not give way, as this is a short debate and I want to finish fairly quickly.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to investment in British Rail, and to its continuation. Investment has increased in recent years.
  I want to concentrate on the concern in my part of Scotland about current plans to finish the electrification of the east coast line at Edinburgh and not to continue it to Aberdeen. The hon. Member for Shettleston mentioned this.
  We certainly appreciate that some £400 million has been invested in the east coast route. It has been the biggest single investment that British Rail has carried out in its electrification programme, and we are grateful for it, but it is only logical that it should be continued beyond Edinburgh to Aberdeen. I ask my right hon. Friend to do all that he can to ensure that it is completed.
  I know that I am talking about a further investment of some £80 million, but when one compares that with the hundreds of millions spent on the Channel tunnel, and the £200 million or more which is projected for the Heathrow link, it is no wonder that there is anxiety in our part of Scotland.
  People in areas north of Edinburgh are worried that British Rail has said that electrification is not justified. We welcome British Rail's commitment to consider the matter again.
  Why are we so concerned? The people in the north of Scotland want to take advantage of the Channel tunnel, as do other areas, and we want to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the integrated European market after 1992.

  341
  Under the present arrangements, the east coast main line is part of the integrated United Kingdom InterCity network. If electrification ends at Edinburgh, locomotives will have to be changed, and that makes many people think, rightly or wrongly, that the area north of Edinburgh will become peripheral. We will not share in the advantages offered by the improved journey time from London to Edinburgh. That journey is to be cut by 35 minutes, but the journey to Aberdeen, after allowing for the change of locomotives, will increase by 20 to 30 minutes. We do not count that as progress. We ask for our share in the 35-minute improvement in journey time that Edinburgh will get.
  Freightliner's terminals are being closed in Scotland, and four British Rail area manager's offices are closing. Therefore, my right hon. Friend should not be surprised at the kind of fears that I have expressed. They are genuine fears, and we do not want to see the north of Scotland become peripheral.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No, I would rather not give way, because of the time.
  The Grampian region has a population of more than half a million. Tayside has 400,000 and Fife some 350,000, so we are not talking about peripheral areas. They have a large population and it is growing, which is a reverse of the national trend in Scotland. It is also an area of high economic and industrial activity. My right hon. Friend used to be at the Department of Energy, and he should not need persuading about the importance of that part of Scotland because of North sea oil.
  Would the investment be justified? British Rail says that its figures show that it would not, but the figures are only a little short of viability. I welcome the fact that they are going to re-examine the figures, and I hope that something positive will result.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that this should be costed in socio-economic terms and not just economic terms. We want a full cost-benefit analysis, showing the benefit to travellers, the time saved, the reduced congestion on roads and other economic and social benefits to the local areas served by the line. I understand that that is how road investment studies are carried out, and how investment in harbours and ports is assessed. We ask for similar treatment for this line. The issue has real relevance in regional development terms, particularly if the whole of the United Kingdom is to benefit from the Channel tunnel.
  I remind my right hon. Friend that this kind of project is appropriate for external funding. Some 40 per cent. of the line goes through assisted areas. The inquiries that have been made of the European development fund show that it could be used. One of its purposes is to correct regional imbalance. Therefore, a considerable amount of funding could come from Europe, and I hope that advantage will be taken of that.
  More recently, a number of individuals and bodies have come up with the suggestion of private funding. Some of my hon. Friends have criticised the amount of money that
  342
  Scotland gets. However, people in Scotland are prepared to put money into a project such as this, and the chairman of British Rail is considering proposals at the moment.
  I ask my right hon. Friend to keep pressing British Rail about the project, and to facilitate it in every way that he can. We want an integrated transport system. The Scottish Office has improved roads in north-east Scotland beyond recognition in the past 10 years under the Conservative Government. Aberdeen airport is one of the busiest airports in Britain, and a lot of money and investment has been put into it. We want choice and competition in transport services, so we want the rail system to be improved, not hindered, so that it shares in the competition and offers choice to the user. That makes sense for regional development.
  I ask my right hon. Friend and the House not to forget that the area concerned services the generation of all the revenues from the North sea. We simply ask for a little of it back.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: St. Valentine's day is an appropriate day to discuss rail services. I am certain that the majority of the British public, and those who travel on British Rail and London Underground, have a love-hate relationship with the managements of those companies, and would rather put them in the stocks.
  The public know that the management are not the real culprits because their hands are tied, and they have no alternative but to do what the Government order. They know that profit and loss has to take priority over quality and service.
  Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
  Mr. Fearn: I shall give way in a moment.
  The recent astronomical fares increases are symptomatic of the Government's attitude towards anything that can be even remotely considered a public service. The ideology is to apply market forces, but in this case I do not think that that is going to work. Britain needs a comprehensive public transport system to meet the economic and trade needs of the 1990s, and the social and environmental needs of today and beyond.
  On Monday, during questions, the Secretary of State chose to give my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) a tongue-in-cheek response to his question about the need for an integrated transport system. Is the Minister aware that we are probably the only country in Europe that ignores the social and environmental public interest aspects of our public transport system, and probably the only country that does not view public transport as a public service, but thinks that its profitability, when it is run as a commercial organisation, is the only evidence that it is operating in the best public interest?
  The Secretary of State also said in his response that his Department was pursuing a balanced policy, with record levels of investment to improve all aspects of the transport system. He made it sound as though the Government had performed a great service, and that we should give them a pat on the back.
  Yet we know that the share of total capital invested in the railways today which comes from the Treasury is minimal. We also know that, in France, capital investment plans announced this year show that they are investing in

  343
  their railways at well over twice the rate of investment in Britain, and theirs is already a well-funded system. The cost of travelling on French railways will be cheaper. The French have seen the opportunities of 1992 and of the Channel tunnel, and have reached out to grasp them. We have not done that; our transport policy will hang around our necks like a millstone for the rest of time.
  What is required is planning, along with co-ordination, investment and financial support. Part of our policy should be a recognition that—properly developed and fully exploited, and with the dedicated reserved routes that they control—the railways can carry far more passengers and goods than the roads, using much less space, ensuring greater safety and causing less environmental pollution.
  What the system does not need is a massive fares increase, which will deter passengers and return them to the roads. In September 1978, the price of a standard return ticket from London to Brighton was £5·65; in September 1989, it was £16·20. Following the latest increase, the fare is 200 per cent. higher than it was when the present Government came to power.
  Hon. Members will want to know how inflation affects those calculations. Rail fares are rising faster than the inflation rate: the rise in the retail prices index over the same period was only 115 per cent.—which, of course, is nothing to be proud of. Passengers are being priced off the rails. Our roads are becoming more congested, with all the social, economic and environmental disadvantages that that creates. It is madness to build more roads in the mistaken belief that they will relieve congestion: the more roads that are built, the more cars there will be to fill them. It is nonsense for us to pursue policies that will inevitably bring our major towns to a halt.
  London Regional Transport's declared policy is to deter passengers, at least during peak hours. British Rail claims that it has never been part of its policy to turn passengers away, but the current fares increases will do just that. Today's press reports that British Rail is to make further cuts in services, and to shorten trains on Network SouthEast and the rural provincial lines, seem to confirm that its policy is to reduce capacity rather than increase it.
  Both groups point to the increased number of people they transport to dispute that fact, and to justify claims that services have been improved. The number of passengers has undoubtedly increased over the years, but that is probably due less to efforts to improve services than to the nature of today's society. More people are on the move: as communities break up, they travel further to work, do the shopping and engage in leisure activities.
  Many people have moved further afield to be able to afford their own homes. They have been hit hardest, especially in the present climate of high interest rates. The recent fares increases are the final blow, and many people may have to consider moving again or even leaving the home ownership market altogether. Moreover, those on low incomes who cannot afford to buy cars increasingly cannot afford to travel on public transport either. They are in danger of becoming isolated from the services they need, and of being unable to participate in the life around them.
  I referred earlier to the policy of encouraging off-peak travel. Of course, if LRT's attempts were entirely successful, the "off-peak" period would become the new rush hour. More to the point, there is a limit to the amount of off-peak travelling that is possible: flexible hours may have some advantages, but they too are limited—not only from a business point of view, but because they can be very
  344
  destructive to family life. As a frequent traveller on British Rail and London Underground, I am always rather sceptical when I hear talk of "off-peak hours", because the trains are always crowded when I travel on them, whatever the time.
  I have not said much about the quality of service on the railways. Certainly the astronomical price of tickets should warrant excellent service, but more often than not it does not approach such a standard. Trains are cancelled, run late, do not contain the advertised buffet car and are poorly maintained, and in some cases passengers have no idea what is happening.
  On my latest trip from the north, my train was an hour and a half late. When I questioned a member of staff, he said that the driver was ill and had not turned up in time. When I asked another member of staff who happened to be passing—admittedly he was on the catering side—he said that the train had not come out of the siding in time. Later, someone on one of the platforms said that the delay was definitely due to a landslide in Scotland. As it happened, none of the excuses was correct.
  Even when efforts are made to inform passengers, it is virtually impossible to hear, because the tannoy system does not work.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Clearly a good deal of creativity is involved in the production of so many good excuses. If we privatised the railway service and gave it its head, it would improve considerably, as does any service in which British industry and enterprise are involved.
  Mr. Fearn: The hon. Gentleman has a point, but I think that the number of excuses would be reduced only if staff were paid a proper rate for the job. If British Rail had more employees, the service would be better. The problems are all symptomatic of a system that has been cut to the bone in the interests of cost efficiency, and that is not a good way in which to run a public transport system.
  I have mentioned the Secretary of State's reference to his Department's balanced policy. Last Monday, at Transport Question Time, he said that in the next three years the Government's roads programme would amount to £5·7 billion, and the rail, Underground and other public transport programmes to £6 billion. Does he really consider that a good, balanced policy? Spending on more roads has been justified through cost-benefit assessments, but no form of rail investment has been seen to bring such benefits.
  I note that it is now part of British Rail's objectives to undertake cost-benefit analysis to enable Government to justify capital grant for investment. I also understand that the payment of capital grant for non-user benefits has, in theory, been Government policy since 1987, but that policy has not been followed through in practice.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: The hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine adjoin each other and we have common problems, caused mainly by traffic flow. Bypasses are needed to relieve the pressure on the villages in the area. A bypass has already been built in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, on the edge of Southport, adjacent to the new hospital that owes its existence to this forward-thinking Government. In the villages, however, and in and around Ormskirk and Southport, the public are asking for the traffic flow to be relieved. Surely it is only right for the Government to give that a high priority.
  Mr. Fearn: The hon. Gentleman and I agree on that, and we are both working towards the new road system leading to Southport. If the Minister had agreed to open the Burscough Curves, a flow of traffic from Scotland and the north would have opened up the north-west, and I hope that that will still be a rider. We know that the local authorities must get together, but Government money is needed as well.
  When does the Minister expect the first capital grant for non-user benefit to be made under the new objective? How does that fit in with the requirement for British Rail to operate in a commercial manner to ensure a return on investment of at least 8 per cent.? It is clear that transport costs should be reduced. To achieve this, we must invest in our railways.
  Investment in the railways could have a proportionately greater effect than investment in roads, and it could have greater environmental and social benefits. Other nations in Europe have seen that. Other nations have invested at a far greater rate than has Britain. Proportionately, they have invested more public money. It is time that we did the same. If we are to compete, if we are to benefit from 1992 and from the Channel tunnel, we must invest in our infrastructure. The railways and London Underground are part of that infrastructure.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: The only thing more depressing than the simplistic motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition was the somewhat negative speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—a characteristic performance with nothing but dubious criticism. The hon. Gentleman tried to scale the heights, but did not quite get there. We heard nothing constuctive. Nor—and this is more important—did the hon. Gentleman's speech tell us anything precise about what the Labour party proposes to do about rail transport, or about where the money to pay for the very vague ideas spluttered out would come from. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1984 another politician—Fritz Mondale—went round the country criticising his political opponents but failing to come up with any detailed, constructive proposals of his own. People turned to him and said, "Where's the beef'?" I say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, "Where's the beef, Giovanni?" The British electorate want to know the precise details of the policy. We do not want simplistic solutions and flowery expressions in an attempt to con the electorate.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his admirable speech, not everything that British Rail is doing is now completely up to scratch. There is a good reason for that. Our railways were neglected in the late 1960s and the 1970s. There was under-investment and gross over-subsidisation. Opposition Members call for the investment of more taxpayers' money. That would not improve the service one iota; it would lead to inefficiency. The use of taxpayers' money leads to lethargy and to a total refusal to meet the demands or satisfy the needs of the customer. That is what British Rail has been suffering from, and that is why, until recently, British Rail was not providing anything like as good a service as its customers deserve and should have been getting.
  Mr. Adley: Does that apply to West Germany as well?
  Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) raises the question of West Germany.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Yes, tell us about West Germany.
  Mr. Burns: Once again the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) seeks to intervene from a sedentary position. Many people regard the hon. Gentleman as the unthinking man's Alf Garnett. If he listened a little more in quiet, he might learn something and increase his knowledge of the subject.
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, I would say that it is too easy, too glib, to make comparisons between subsidisation in Britain and subsidisation in Europe. The railway debts that the British Government have written off have not been written off in Europe. That is why the subsidisation figures there are far higher than they are in this country.
  Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Burns: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. Other hon. Members want to speak, and I am pushed for time.
  I would point out to my right hon. Friend that Chelmsford is one of the largest commuter towns in the south of England. I, too, have been a commuter, and I can say that the service lacks a number of elements. For example, the cleanliness of trains, despite the target, is not good enough. Neither is time-keeping.
  Mr. Prescott: Here come the complaints.
  Mr. Burns: Not at all. Before the hon. Gentleman gets carried away I shall explain that, despite those criticisms, there is investment pouring into British Rail and it is being reflected in the service. But because there is so much catching up to do, as a consequence of neglect in the 1970s, it is not possible to do everything overnight.
  Those lines in which there has been investment have seen the benefits of remarkably improved service. The Liverpool Street to Chelmsford line is not so good as it should be, but one can see that the investment there is beginning to bear fruit. New and additional trains are being introduced. Outdated rolling stock is being replaced with new carriages. More than £1 billion is being invested in Liverpool Street station. Of course, because of the building work, that station has been a nightmare for commuters in the last three years. The rebuilding is extensive, and when the station is up and running it will be a showpiece for London and will bring benefits for commuters.
  Within the last three years there has been a major rebuilding programme at Chelmsford station. My constituents will be delighted at my right hon. Friend's announcement at Question Time on Monday that a new signalling programme on the Shenfield to Chelmsford to Colchester line, costing more than £19 million, is to start early next year. That will bring real benefits to commuters and to the line when it is in operation in 1993.
  The crux of the matter is investment. What is needed is investment. That is why I welcome the fact that since 1983 the Government and BR have invested more than £3 billion in British Rail. [Interruption.] The Government and BR have invested more than £3 billion in British Rail, and during the next three years more than £3·7 billion will

  347
  be invested to improve the service. That is the way forward. That is the way in which we will get a better service. And we shall continue.
  My constituents accept that the fare increases that they have had to put up with over a number of years have been above the rate of inflation. But they are saying "Thank God we did not have the 50 per cent. increase in fares that was experienced during the time of the last Labour Government." Thank God, as a result of some of the increases in fares, they have seen improvements in the service. I remind the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that they were less than amused when their fares went up again this month to pay for the strike last year that the hon. Gentleman endorsed and encouraged. That is the answer on fares.
  Perhaps the most powerful argument against the whole case for subsidisation comes from the Labour party consultation paper of 1977, which said:
  "Social, environmental and economic considerations do not seem to justify the large subsidy which railway users now receive, hearing in mind in particular that the generality of railway subsidies are regressive in effect."
  That is the truth of the matter. That is why it is right that there should not be further subsidisation just to cushion inefficiency. We cannot have a system of meddling and blanket subsidies; that benefits the rich far more than the poor. What we need is more investment. It is time that that was recognised by the Opposition. We should not con the electorate with subsidies. We should provide real benefit. We should improve the service through investment. That is the way in which British Rail is proceeding.
  In conclusion, I say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that the motion that he and his hon. Friends have asked the House to support should be rejected. It shows that the Opposition have learnt nothing, and that they propose to do nothing in the future if they ever get into power. The House should reject the motion and treat it with the contempt that it so richly deserves.
  8.49 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Nothing delights me more than to hear a Conservative Member of Parliament say, with great fervour, that we must never allow the rich to subsidise the poor. From a party that has just introduced the poll tax, the effrontery is so amazing we can only sit and gawp. Almost every other European country has spent more on state assistance to its national railways than we have. We spend 0·22 per cent. of our GDP on state assistance to our railways. Luxembourg, Ireland, Germany, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and even little Portugal, with its rundown system, spend more on their railways.
  We are told that British Rail is responding to the performance target set for it by the Government and that it will be able to introduce a much better service. The reality is quite different. Using 1989–90 prices, when the Conservative party took power in 1979 investment in British Rail was £518 million. In 1988–89, that figure has risen to £600 million. We are not talking about a tremendously impressive increase in investment. The Government decided, for dogmatic reasons, that they would not invest in British Rail and that they would reduce the passenger service grant. That led to considerable discomfort for passengers, although fares increased and services grew much worse.
  348
  I spoke last week to a member of the French Assembly who had been asked to produce a detailed report on transport for 1992. Shortly before that, I spoke to members of the German Parliament about their transport plans. A French Government transport official says:
  "For us the TGV is an Airbus on rails. It is competitive with air up to 500 kilometres. It gets cars off the road and it is clean."
  If other nations are prepared to spend more money on improving their services, why do we suffer from constantly increasing fares and constantly declining services? The reason is simple. The Government boast that they have allowed British Rail to increase its investment, but they have never said that they expect all that investment to be provided directly by passengers, through increased fares. They never refer to the fact that people who have had to move out of city centres to find somewhere to live have already had to bear considerable fare increases.
  We desperately need a Government who are prepared to face up to reality. The Government's transport policy takes no account of the fact that our road system is incapable of carrying all passengers and freight and that it has become bogged down to such an extent that even industry, when it is realistic, can put a figure on what the Government's policy is costing it. If asked, industry would make it plain to the Government that it wants a rail system that will provide a good alternative to our overcrowded roads.
  London's transport system is almost breaking down. Crisis management has led to the stopping of escalators on London Underground and people cannot get to the platforms. Passengers find it difficult to go from place to place at particular times of the day. They are forced to endure conditions on London Underground that are unacceptable in this day and age.
  The Government should not perpetuate their confidence trick by saying that they are investing more in the system when what they really mean is that they are prepared to allow British Rail to borrow more money, provided that passengers will put up with lower standards of service and higher fares. The Government say that they are committed to improving the transport system. The reality is quite the reverse. The passenger is paying, in every sense of the word. If Conservative Members of Parliament do not accept that fact, at the next general election they will be shown clearly what their constituents think of the Government's commitment, or lack of it, to a public transport system.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I intend to speak briefly about the railway line problems in my constituency and then to compare the United Kingdom network with those that are developing rapidly in Europe. The comparison is not favourable to this country.
  There are three railway lines in Sevenoaks. Year after year the Uckfield line has been unreliable and has continued to lose passengers. Electrification is essential if the line is to provide the service that passengers can reasonably expect. The north-west Kent lines run from Maidstone to Swanley, and the high-speed Channel tunnel link will feed into those lines. We shall debate that matter in more detail on another occasion. However, those lines, which run into south-west London, are already overloaded. British Rail has said that its Channel tunnel

  349
  link services will not be detrimental to existing services. All of us who represent constituents in that area have difficulty believing that, but we shall hold British Rail to it.
  I also have in my constituency the Sevenoaks to Orpington line which runs from Tonbridge and Hastings into London. The service there, although better than on the other two, still leaves much to be desired in punctuality, reliability and, above all, cleanliness.
  I do not argue that just throwing money at the problem will solve it. Good management by British Rail is the key, but there is also an essential need for a strategy and for increased funding. I have a specific question for my right hon. and hon. Friends on management. Am I correct in understanding that the new chairman of British Rail, Mr. Bob Reid, will not take up his job fully until September or October and that there will be an interregnum between the departure of Sir Bob Reid and the taking of full control by his successor? If true, that is extremely disturbing in that all the consultation on the detail of the high-speed link, before the legislation is deposited in Parliament, will take place between British Rail and Trafalgar House when there is no full-time chairman in post. It is extraordinary that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could not arrange for Mr. Robert Reid to take over the job when his predecessor leaves in the spring. I cannot believe that Shell, with its strength of management, could not have done without its current chief for a further three months.
  I shall concentrate on the unfavourable comparison between the British Rail network and the European network of the future. On which European railway lines have my right hon. and hon. Friends travelled during the past six months? What is their impression of them, and how did they view Britain's rail network as of now and, more importantly, as of the next decade in comparison with the networks of France, West Germany, Italy and Switzerland?
  I recently had the opportunity, with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and others from both sides of the House, to travel on the newest TGV line from Brittany to Paris. We saw new marshalling yards, new rolling stock, and brand-new and extremely efficient train sets, as they are described. The track out of Paris follows an old route unused since the first world war, but not sold off; it was kept with an eye to the future. The line has been well barriered for noise and a large part of it is in a cut-and-cover tunnel. Landscaping has been carried out over the top to a very high standard, with local authorities being involved in the project.
  Mr. Adley: I support everything my hon. Friend has said. Will he join me and, I am sure, other hon. Members in pleading yet again with the Government to stop immediately the policy of successive Governments of selling off redundant railway track? There may be a case for closing some services but there can never be a case for destroying part of our transport heritage.
  Mr. Wolfson: I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. I cannot go as far as he does about never selling unused track because there may be places where, taking even the longest view, there would appear to be no future use for it. However, the example I have described makes strongly the case that he is arguing.
  350
  The line from Paris has been superbly landscaped. New houses have been built alongside it, enhancing the environment, and the value of houses on each side of the track has increased considerably. Suburbs that were previously regarded as being on the wrong side of the track are now attractive. The improvement is the result of a long-term strategy and long-term planning for the railways.
  The speed, design, quality and performance of the new train are better than those of the newest trains in Britain. There is no vibration or noise when one moves from one coach to another. I take up the point of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that train will be the way to travel in Europe for distances between, say, 200 and 1,000 km rather than making the change from bus to plane to bus. No less a person than Lord Young of Graffham, when Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said off the cuff that Europe will travel by train in the future, not as now by plane. At that time he was spearheading the campaign to bring Britain up to date with the opportunities of 1992. Unless we build a rail infrastructure to meet that challenge, we shall not meet it effectively.
  Sir David Mitchell: My hon. Friend refers to the scope for travel within the continent and to journeys between 200 and 1,000 km as the major front for rail travel in future. Does he accept that journeys of those distances, which exist throughout the continent, can make a railway network pay in a way that could never be achieved with the shorter distances in Britain?
  Mr. Wolfson: My hon. Friend makes the point that it may be easier to do that on the continent, but in the Standing Committee considering the Channel Tunnel Bill, he argued that the Channel tunnel provided British Rail with the greatest opportunity for more than 100 years. I agree with him that the Channel tunnel will link us into the long-distance network, but the Government need to demonstrate a greater commitment and give a higher priority to the railways than they have in the past. Funding is required to build an infrastructure.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) pleaded for national support, as well as arguing that support would come from the private sector, for his area of Scotland as part of a regional development policy. That is exactly what the French have done in building the TGV for the Atlantic coast. They took the view that Brittany and the south-west of France needed the stimulus of a high-grade modern rail service, from which growth will follow. That argument applies exactly to the case that my right hon. Friend was making for Scotland. It is no surprise that a number of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies have spoken tonight. They have said they want the benefits of the Channel tunnel in Scotland. In Kent we are concerned about having too much growth, because it is not needed in all parts of the county. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) is in a different position. He could do with the stimulus—[Laughter.] I do not wish to be misunderstood. My hon. Friend's constituency will benefit from the stimulus. An effective rail link is crucial to bring the benefits of the Channel tunnel to the midlands, the north and, above all, to Scotland.
  Mr. George J. Buckley: Not with £600 million investment.
  Mr. Wolfson: I do not suggest that when the Labour party was in government it had a satisfactory record of investment in the railways. It did not. I certainly cannot support the Opposition's motion today as I have no confidence that they would be able to deliver.
  I look to the Government to provide a larger proportion of public investment, as capital subsidy and as continuing subsidy to running costs if we are to get the full benefits of the rail system that I believe this country deserves.
  Finally, I wish to refer to the political relevance of all this. It is of real concern to rail travellers throughout Britain when they are travelling in cattle truck conditions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the perfectly sensible point that lines had closed and the sleeper service was suspended because they were not being used effectively. He did not say that some lines are used so effectively that people travel in cattle truck conditions. After 10 years of Conservative government, people expect the service to be better, whatever the Government's capital investment in British Rail. My concern is for the British economy in the future. I am not satisfied that our stategy is correct. It is flawed and I shall therefore abstain in the vote.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Alan Meale: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak after the Secretary of State. I have never heard so much codswallop about transport policy. He said that everything in the transport industry on the rail side was hunky-dory. Has he forgotten the simple facts throughout 10 years of Conservative Government? We have had worsening services on all railway routes, lack of investment and one of the most major strikes ever to confront the industry; and recently we heard that railway lines three times the length of the Channel tunnel were to be put underground in Kent because the work infringed on some of the constituents of Conservative Members.
  The Secretary of State said that the Government were spending more than any other Government. He had the audacity to accuse the Labour Government of not investing in the railways. The Labour Government invested in people—80,000 more rail workers were employed to serve the community which needed rail links, but they have been left languishing in the dole queues, at the cost of services.
  A few Conservative Members are smiling. If they are in any doubt about what happens, they should have the courage of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and ask people whether they are happy about the fares increases forced upon them. Some have to pay more than some of our constituents in the east midlands, the north and Scotland earn in a week from their part-time jobs, the only ones that they can get.
  It gives me great pleasure to follow the ridiculous speech by the Secretary of State and to commend the Opposition amendment, which refers to the excellent argument that is always used in transport debates. The amendment states:
  "problems can only be solved by adopting a co-ordinated approach to transport policy".
  The argument is not simply about rail services but about the co-ordinated approach that all our constituents are supposed to want.
  The debate gives me an opportunity to raise an important local matter involving industrial relations. Yet
  352
  again, because of the Government's policy, services have been disrupted in my constituency and the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Severe problems have arisen because of legislation to end the so-called monopoly of the bus companies that service the railway network, by selling the public services to the private sector.
  Amazing problems have been caused because of a new monopoly being created in the bus industry. In my area, the East Midlands Motor Services Co. supplies bus services to railway stations. In my case, the nearest railway station is 15 miles away. Eight hundred constituents a re facing the most horrific circumstances because of the policy of selling off companies. That cannot be allowed to happen. It is not right for the Government to talk about freedom of expression in eastern Europe without acknowledging that people who adopt democratic practices in their workplaces—[Interruption] If the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) wishes to speak, he may do so when I conclude my speech, or he could do what he has done earlier in the debate, and pop up and down during other hon. Members' contributions.
  The Government cannot argue about freedom and democracy in eastern Europe without recognising that, when transport workers follow legislative requirements to conduct ballots and so on, a new employer will often say, "If you carry out the results of ballots, you will be sacked on the spot." There have already been two such occasions. Already, in the East Midlands Motor Services Co. trade union representatives have been sacked simply because they wanted to maintain services.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The case that my hon. Friend is discussing also involves rail and road transport connections. The trade union concerned is the National Union of Railwaymen. That demonstrates that the workers know something about the integrated nature of the services. Problems were initially created by the dismissal of Dave Edinbrough, who is one of my constituents and lives at Tupton, near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Dave Edinbrough was sacked merely for involving himself in trade union activities. He is a good trade unionist and a good worker. The company took action to get rid of him. That has exacerbated the situation and led to further problems and the dismissal of other trade unionists.
  Mr. Meale: I agree with my hon. Friend. Among other things, Dave Edinbrough was accused of telling bus drivers to report safety faults that were a danger to the travelling public. It is a disgrace. He was required by law to do that. The amendment
  "applauds the high priority that the Government gives to all matters of safety on transport".
  Government legislation allowed private monopolies suddenly to take over from public monopolies. At least with public monopolies the public's health and safety were protected.
  I regret that the Secretary of State is not in his place—I trust that he will return before the end of the debate—because I wish to pay tribute to him over what happened in that case. When the company was privatised, there was another company in the wings wishing to buy it, and the right hon. Gentleman stepped in and sorted the issue out.

  353
  But unfortunately the management buy-out team then sold the company to a new entrepreneur, a Mr. Suter, who is taking steps against the work force, who are anxious to maintain a high level of service.
  Guarantees were given in Tory legislation that workers in a public company that was privatised would receive shares in the firm and would then be able to purchase additional shares. Despite repeated attempts by the workers to buy into their firm, the present and previous owners have prevented them from doing so. I trust that the Minister will investigate the case, because it seems that the present and previous owners are in breach of the law.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have the impression that Tory Members feel that my hon. Friend should not be discussing the issue that he has raised and the way in which the company in general, and Mr. Suter in particular, are trying to destroy trade union participation in what used to be called the East Midlands Motor Services Co. but what is now known as Stagecoach.
  My hon. Friend is drawing attention to the fact that, when there are no railways and we have only a bus monopoly—in this case, a bus monopoly 100 miles wide stretching from the east coast to the west coast—not only do fares go up but, in this case, the company sacked two leading directors and managers with 28 years' service.
  Now the bus drivers are being threatened into not reporting defects on buses. They are frightened to death of losing their jobs. That is what can happen when the railways shut, and Tory Members should understand it.
  Mr. Meale: I agree with my hon. Friend. Tory Members who think that this issue should not be debated at this stage should reflect that the nearest railway network stations for many of our constituents are 10 or 15 miles away. The only way—
  Mr. Stephen Day: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise simply to point out that, if the matter which the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) is raising is of such importance to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), perhaps the latter should have been in the Chamber for the whole of the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Let us get on.
  Mr. Meale: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In any event, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has been present for most of the debate. When he has not been present, he has been flitting back and forth delivering messages to my hon. Friends and me regarding the sort of issues that should be raised.
  We have every right to raise these issues because the communities of north Derbyshire, Bolsover, Mansfield and Ashfield rely on bus services to reach the rail network, and I congratulate the Secretary of State—who I regret is still not in his place—on intervening and trying to get a rail network in the area.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend need not apologise for raising this matter, because in addition to the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and others, the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister and other leading Conservative Members
  354
  welcomes what is being done by the Government in terms of the rail-road network. We are dealing with that very point.
  Mr. Meale: Yet again, I agree with every sentiment that my hon. Friend has expressed.
  The Front Bench spokesmen and the Ministers are looking at the clock. They wish to put express views before the Division. I ask the Minister to take note of some of the points that I have raised tonight about events in the company to which I referred, which have been caused by legislation enacted by his Government and the guarantees that were given. I do not apologise for doing so. Conservative Members come to the House to represent the people who give them the greatest support. I come here to fight for my class, and I am pleased to do so.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Robert Adley: The speech that we have just heard was rather sad. Perhaps the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) would have done better if he had reminded the House that Barbara Castle closed the railway lines in his constituency. It was my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport who took the historic decision not to close the Settle to Carlisle line. That was a landmark in terms of railway closure policy. It is one of the few things on which I intend to congratulate my hon. Friend.
  The Opposition motion is long on words and short on memory, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out. However, the Government amendment describes a public transport scenario which I do not recognise. The Government's policy on railways fails to recognise their proper role in a modern industrialised nation.
  The Labour policy, as described in the motion, sounds good, but experience teaches us that Labour economic policies lead to a failing economy, reductions in public expenditure and, so often, the abandonment of many well-meant plans.
  The question of investment and subsidy has been raised. In a press release sent out by his Department two days ago, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the revitalised economy had led to a dramatic increase in rail travel. There has been welcome economic growth as a result of the Government's policies. That has led to more cars on the road and, in turn, to more congestion. My conclusion is that we need more support for the railway system, particularly at its pressure points and in those areas where the railway is the only sane way of coping with the movement of large numbers of people in and out of cities in peak hours. Separation as between investment and subsidy may be a finely drawn argument for book-keepers but it does not seem to me the only way for politicians to grapple with the serious transport problems that we face.
  We must give credit to the Government for enabling British Rail to invest its own money in the east coast main line, the electrification of East Anglian services, and the Windsor link in Manchester. I shall not weary the House by repeating all the examples. There has been a great deal of investment, not of the Government's money but mainly of British Rail's money, which it has earned from its customers, in the "new" railway, but as the Government have cut the public service obligation grant we have found

  355
  that much of the existing railway is seriously and sadly declining into the dirt, delays and other faults that Opposition Members have highlighted.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) referred to the recent visit to France by Conservative and Opposition Members. The French have a completely different attitude to their railways. A 30 per cent. grant is available to the SNCF from the French Government. To summarise the position succinctly, I can do no better than refer to an article in the Glasgow Herald today by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who was with us on the trip. Referring to the cancellation of the 6.15 am express service from Victoria to Gatwick, he said:
  "It was a fitting start to a day devoted to comparing and contrasting British and French railways; not just the quality of rolling-stock or services, but the whole national philosophy which underlies them. It is a short, sharp educational experience which I commend to anyone who is concerned about the future quality of life in our own country."
  Perhaps when my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport replies, he will answer on behalf of himself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the question that was posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks: "When did any Ministers last travel on any French, West German, Italian or Swiss trains and what were their impressions of that experience?"
  Many of my hon. Friends do not like the frequent comparisons with France. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) got quite irate and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State got very irate when I mentioned West Germany. Although my right hon. Friend has given up attacking my figures, in response to my question on Monday about the levels of investment in the German railways, he said:
  "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."—[Official Report, 12 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 9.]
  I do not know my right hon. Friend's source for that, but I have with me a press release that I received recently from the German embassy. It is headed:
  "Railway system on the right lines for 1992".
  It states:
  "The railways need more public subsidy-and they will get it."
  I do not know whether the person who wrote that on behalf of the German Government ever talks to the person whom my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was quoting when he said that the Minister concerned objected to the subsidy that the West Germans have in their railway system. The press release also states:
  "In 1989 alone, 3,000 new personnel are being taken on",
  and refers to the fact that
  "Promoting competitiveness of the railway system by making sure that other means of transport do not acquire artificial advantage by back-door subsidies"
  is also part of the West German transport policy. We are not talking about a Socialist Valhalla. We are talking about the West German Christian Democratic Government.
  I must therefore ask my hon. Friends, some of whom blanch at the words "subsidies" and "public investment", which comes first—economic progress or infrastructure investment'? One reason why the West Germans have such a successful economy is that they are investing millions and millions of pounds in their transport infrastructure. Deutsche Bundesbahn receives a subsidy to encourage
  356
  heavy lorries in transit across West Germany to move on to the "rolende landstrasse", which I have written in capitals in my notes for the benefit of Hansard. Like the SNCF, the Deutsche Bundesbahn has a "social tariff structure", which means a subsidy to keep fares down.
  Mr. Roger King: We are stopping the subsidy.
  Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend says that we are stopping the subsidy, but we are also stopping the trains and overcrowding them. There is a direct equation. I recognise that with his road interests my hon. Friend likes to advocate such a policy, but it does not appeal to me.
  I take up another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. In the information kindly provided by the Government in the Whips' Office for this debate, we are told that accurate comparisons are impossible, given the differences in networks, accounting methods and organisation. However, the next paragraph states that huge amounts of BR debt have been written off, amounting to more than £1·5 billion in cash terms since 1962.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford kindly gave way to me in his speech to allow me to ask him his view of the West German subsidy. I think that the record will show that he said that the West Germans have not written off their railway's debts. However, I must advise him that British Rail has written off £1·5 billion and that Deutsche Bundesbahn has written off £4·2 billion. I am sorry to confuse my hon. Friends with some of the facts and I apologise if those facts interfere with their political prejudices.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State has previously chided me on the question of Government investment in the railways. My hon. Friends rightly welcome all the investment that is going into our railways, but they should be aware that in 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1987 British Rail had absolutely no recourse to borrowing from the national loans fund and in 1984 and 1988 it had little recourse to the fund. The investment money has come from British Rail's own resources.
  Mr. Brian Wilson rose—
  Mr. Adley: I shall continue with my speech as I do not want to go on indefinitely.
  In the United States, that great paradise of private enterprise, in 1987 Amtrak took 65 per cent. of its revenue from fares. In 1990, the figure is planned to be 70 per cent. British Rail's figures for the two years 1987 and 1990 are 75 per cent. and 82 per cent., and on InterCity 89 per cent. and more than 100 per cent. However, the passenger journeys completed by Amtrak in 1987 were 20 million, while the figure for British Rail was 727.2 million. By any stretch of the imagination, this country's record with its nationalised railway system is infinitely better than anything in the United States.
  Before some of my hon. Friends clamour for privatisation, I suggest that they ask themselves what the following railway systems, which include the best passenger railways in the world, have in common—I refer to the West German, French, Italian and Swiss railways. The answer is, of course, that they are all nationalised. Which country has the worst passenger railway system of the industrialised nations? The answer is probably the United States. If I were setting an A-level paper, I would ask what conclusions could be drawn from that.

  357
  The sad fact is that public transport and party politics make uneasy bedfellows. I am also sorry to say to some of my hon. Friends—
  Mr. John Butterfill: Is my hon. Friend winding-up?
  Mr. Adley: If I am going on too long, I will finish by commending to the House the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in her advocacy of Victorian values. Can any hon. Member imagine what public transport in any of our cities would be like if our Victorian and Edwardian forebears had not built the railway lines and underground systems that we enjoy in this country?
  Sir David Mitchell: That was private enterprise.
  Mr. Adley: It was indeed. The construction that has taken place on new underground railway lines in London in the past 15 or 16 years, however, has been restricted to certain sections of the Jubilee line. London's congestion problems can be solved only by new underground railways. The first priority is the Paddington-Liverpool Street line, the second is the Chelsea-Hackney line and the third, which the Government have chosen, is the Jubilee line extension.
  The internal combustion engine once threatened the railway systems of the industrialised world with extinction. That very internal combustion engine is now choking the nation to death. The railway is the last means of civilised transport open to man. Until all parties in the House swallow their political dogma, eradicate prejudices and follow the French and German example, misery will remain our lot.
  9.37 pm
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo: In the last few minutes of this debate I shall quote the western region of the Transport Users Consultative Committee which is chaired by the Conservative leader of Bristol city council. That organisation is known for its support of the Government's policies. It describes the railways in the south-west as follows: the Cotswold line as the "railway of denial"; the Falmouth line as the "railway of dilapidation"; the Gloucester-Bristol line as the "railway of decimation"; and the Swindon-Bristol line as the "railway of deprivation".
  This evening's debate has been about the lack of investment. According to Hansard, since 1981 there has been a 60 per cent. reduction in investment in real terms by the Government. The debate has been about the way that our European counterparts consistently invest in the railway. We have discussed overcrowding and its safety problems, and congested roads and the environmental difficulties that they bring. We have discussed the problems that transport users face. How much longer do we need to discuss them before the Government invest properly in our rail network?
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: The debate, albeit truncated, has been interesting in some ways. Most Conservative Members appear to have swallowed the Department of Transport's propaganda that investment in our railway system has never been higher. It took the hon.
  358
  Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) to point out that that investment is paid for almost entirely by the passengers out of higher fares.
  Mr. Parkinson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Snape: I will come to the Secretary of State's speech, but he provokes me to comment now. I have for some time been seeking detailed information about who pays for investment in our railway network. So far, my questions having been shuffled between the Treasury and the Department of Transport, of the £3·7 billion of investment about which the right hon. Gentleman boasted tonight, we have been able to isolate only £100 million that has come from the Government. The right hon. Gentleman boasted about his accountancy prowess. He or the Minister for Public Transport will be able to tell us what percentage of that £3·7 billion came from the Government.
  Over and over again hon. Members on both sides of the House, but particularly Conservative Members, have asked the Secretary of State how many journeys he has made on railways in other parts of the world.
  Mr. David Marshall: Or Britain.
  Mr. Snape: Some of us are more concerned that he should make one or two journeys in the United Kingdom to see the squalor that many passengers have to put up with daily. Conservative Members say "Come off it," but the amendment that the Government have had the temerity to table bears no resemblance to the reality of daily life for commuters or for long-distance passengers on our railway network.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) talked about his problems in getting to and from Manchester yesterday. I do not want to provide anecdotal evidence about how bad some of our railway journeys are. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must agree, at least privately, that the delays on InterCity, on other provincial services and on Network SouthEast have never been so great. Perhaps because some of my hon. Friends recall that I used to work in the railways industry, I receive many of their complaints. I have never received so many complaints about the railway system as I have under the Secretary of State's stewardship, and he has been there for only five minutes.
  However, let us be fair. The Secretary of State, accountant to the last, has done something about punctuality on British Rail. He has moved the goalposts of a five-minute late arrival to a 10-minute late arrival.
  Mr. Parkinson: It is the other way round.
  Mr. Snape: That shows how much the right hon. Gentleman knows about the playing field about which he talks. He has moved the goalposts.
  Before the right hon. Gentleman shouts too loudly, let me say that we were all a little concerned about his display earlier. His red face looming over the Dispatch Box is a pretty terrifying sight. I was not sure at one stage whether it was indignation, claret or a faulty sun lamp that made the right hon. Gentleman look like that, but whatever it was, it was worrying.
  The Government's amendment insults the intelligence of the House. It certainly insults the intelligence of the hon. Members for Sevenoaks and for Christchurch because

  359
  they do not believe it. Does the Secretary of State appreciate the contribution of those much scoffed-at people who operate British Rail's services? The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made a contribution—I had better be kind about it—apparently based more on enthusiasm than on ignorance. He accused Opposition Members of supporting every railway dispute. Having spent some years working for the pretty rotten wages that British Rail traditionally pays, I had a lot of sympathy for the railway staff in their dispute last year. I remind the House that every opinion poll showed that the British public did so, too, as did those who eventually sat in arbitration on that claim.
  I say to the hon. Member for Chelmsford and to others that if railway staff continue to be paid as inadequately as they are now, and if we insist on that staff working the kind of hours that they do now, the circumstances that surrounded the Clapham junction accident will recur.
  Mr. Burns indicated dissent.
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if he reads the contributions to the inquiry of Mr. Stanley Hall, the British Rail board's director of safety, he will find that Mr. Hall commented that if staff are forced to work 12 hours a day, six months at a time, to pay their mortgages—anyone with the Abbey National will be even worse off from tomorrow—one must expect that their contribution to safety standards will inevitably slip.
  The amendment does not recognise that problem, nor does it acknowledge that the railway network is being run into the ground. The days are past when engineers decided rolling stock standards and railway operations. It is the accountants who run the railways these days.
  The Secretary of State talks about ideology. The ideology of privatisation for the sake of it ensured that the Sprinter multiple diesel units ordered as the flagship of British Rail's provincial services are running so late that the next timetable is being completely recast. The ideology of insistence on privatisation meant that the earliest Sprinters had their electronic door controls set outside the train, so they let in water. That meant that the whole fleet had to be returned to the makers for repair. The ideology of privatisation gave us Pacer trains that break down all over the network, and whose replacement gear boxes must be obtained from Germany. We did not get the gearboxes from a nationalised industry. The Secretary of State never knows what is going on.
  Mr. Parkinson rose—
  Mr. Snape: The right hon. Gentleman would not give way to me, so I certainly shall not give way to him.
  The fact that those trains exhibit all the quality and reliability of the average.Skoda is a direct tribute to the Secretary of State and his system of operation.
  Mr. Roger King rose—
  Mr. Snape: I am certainly not giving way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) either. This is a serious debate.
  The amendment mentions ensuring that
  "Britain's rail infrastructure is in place to service the Channel Tunnel".
  Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House? He knows better than anyone else that when
  360
  the modernisation programme of the mid-1950s was brought forward by a nationalised system, none of the rolling stock worked.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a point of argument, not a point of order.
  Mr. Snape: The Minister for Public Transport will have to pay for that puerile intervention by the hon. Member for Northfield; that must be a matter between the two of them.
  The amendment mentions the infrastructure that will be needed for Channel tunnel services. Day after day, we hear Conservative Members ask what contribution will be made, where the infrastructure is, and what will happen to their constituents when the tunnel opens. Only the right hon. Gentleman knows where he drew up the amendment.
  The Secretary of State spoke earlier of safety. He sometimes accuses the Opposition of exploiting that subject, but arising directly from the Hidden report on the Clapham junction inquiry will be a great deal of expenditure, to say the least. The introduction of automatic train protection will be extremely expensive and will require additional staff to install and maintain it. The installation of black boxes in cabs, particularly on Network SouthEast, will be extremely expensive, but we are told that Network SouthEast must break even within the next two or three years. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to provide any public money for those much-needed safety measures? We are eagerly waiting for some replies, but they are not usually forthcoming and I do not suppose that they will be tonight.
  For all the torrents of abuse that we got from the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box earlier, his speech was very thin on content, like most of his speeches. The Daily Telegraph sums up the right hon. Gentleman pretty well. Its editorial of 29 December sums up the right hon. Gentleman, the Government's approach to the railway system, and his future prospects, saying:
  "Mr. Parkinson has taken a course that will damage the environment, increase costs to business and inconvenience the public. It is a pitifully myopic approach to our desperate transport problems, and ill becomes a Government that wants to help business expand."
  The article concludes:
  "Ultimate blame, though, lies with Mr. Parkinson. He must start thinking realistically about transport needs, even if he has to spend"—
  Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) read it earlier.
  Mr. Snape: Not this bit—
  "even if he has to spend taxpayers' money to satisfy them."
  That is from The Daily Telegraph—from Max Hastings. It continues:
  "Failure will lead to chaos, and chaos cannot be an option."
  That is what our motion is about tonight.
  I hope that Conservative Members who spoke so bravely about the railway system and its needs will vote in the Opposition Lobby tonight. Tomorrow's opinion polls, the voters in the Mid-Staffordshire by-election and the electorate, including commuters who are temporarily represented by Conservative Members, will decide that they are fed up with public squalor and fed up with the right hon. Gentleman.
  9.52 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I shall begin uncontroversially, I hope, by saying what a pleasure it was to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) making a characteristically fair speech. He paid tribute to the biggest single electrification which has occurred—on the east coast main line. I know that he is right, and that British Rail is in discussion with groups such as CREATE about electrifying the railway line north of Edinburgh. I remind him that British Rail is going to put 90 mph diesels with air conditioning—I am not sure whether that is necessary in Scotland—on that line. The InterCity 125s are the fastest diesels in the world. None the less, I shall draw his remarks to the attention of British Rail.
  I notice my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) in his place. I am sure that we all sympathise with his constituents, whose railway line has been cut off by floods, and we look forward to that service being restored.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made a realistic speech, as well he might have, because he knows that there has been £100 million worth of investment at Liverpool Street and in the new station at Chelmsford. He has seen the work going on. He also knows that, since 1987, 428 new coaches costing about £150 million have been approved for the Anglia and Great Eastern Services. Therefore, despite the complaints that he has made on behalf of his constituents, he knows that the investment is going in.
  I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) was less fair. He might have mentioned the fact that the Uckfield line has just been resignalled, saving his constituents 10 minutes on their journey time. He also might have mentioned the fact that we have ordered 676 coaches for the inner suburban services in Kent—that has been approved or agreed in principle—that platform lengthening is under way and more orders for the outer suburban services will come through shortly. Mentioning those facts would have given a fairer impression of what is going on.
  Mr. Roger Gale: When my hon. Friend next speaks to the chairman of British Rail, will he convey to him that commuters on the north Kent line would have been much happier if the fares had increased after the promises had been fulfilled, rather than now?
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend has been a lion roaring on behalf of his constituents. He has been to see me and I know how seriously he takes the matter.
  In reply to the hon. Members for Southport (Mr. Fearn) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), and my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks and for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), who talked about foreign comparisons, I must point out that the subsidy per route kilometre in the last figures we have was £49,000 in the United Kingdom and £47,000 in France, which is less. I have always said to my hon. Friends that what matters is not subsidy but investment. Let me give the figures for that. Last year we invested £67,000 per km, while France invested £49,000.
  362
  I was asked whether we would use cost-benefit analysis. It was used to justify the Thameslink services, the Manchester Metrolink and the Jubilee line, which will do so much to open up docklands, a new area of London.
  There was great rejoicing at part of the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Although he will deny it, I believe that this is the first time that he has acknowledged that investment is at a record level. Before tonight I had the impression that he had the greatest difficulty distinguishing between subsidy and investment, but he has now put on record his recognition of the facts. I am sorry that he was unable to convince the hon. Members for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), who still seem to doubt the truth.
  I was also asked what was our commitment to investment in the railway. I am pleased to be able to announce an increase of £220 million in British Rail's external finance limit for 1989–90. This year's EFL goes up from £415 million—after taking account of grants from the European Community—to £635 million. That large increase will enable BR to press ahead with its investment programme, including plans for the Channel tunnel rail services and the new trains for those services which we authorised in December.
  Investment in British Rail will be £3·7 billion over the next three years. The chairman of British Rail has described that as being about as much as "we can physically manage". It will be financed not just by passengers but by asset sales, the higher revenues that are available, huge amounts of borrowing made available by the Government at preferential rates from the national loans fund and some very small reductions in grant. Today 60 per cent. of the provincial sector's costs are met by the taxpayer, and the passenger pays only 40p in the pound.
  On the London Underground, the enormous increases in investment are directly attributable to an increase in Government grant: it will increase by 115 per cent. over the next three years. The result—if we take LRT and Network SouthEast together—will be a rise in subsidy for public transport in the south-east from £387 million at today's prices to £669 million in 1992–93. Investment in London Underground has doubled over the past five years, since we wrested control from the GLC, and it will double again over the next three years.
  No wonder the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to the role of the Treasury under various Governments. Let me quote from the Labour Government's consultation document of 1976:
  "For the time being, the decision to stabilise rail investment at present levels should form a basic input to railway planning. This level is lower than that envisaged in … 1973 … But the 1973 programme was criticised in the Socialist Commentary Report as being too high … In our present … circumstances".
  said the Labour Government,
  "we … cannot afford more than this."
  Although rail fares had doubled in the previous two years, said Labour,
  "in the present situation … further increases in fares must form part of the long-term strategy. There can be no question of a general increase in Government subsidy".
  That was the Labour party in office. That would be the Labour party again. The fact is that the Labour party has no place in this debate. If it had remained in power the railways would not have the opportunities that they have today. Opportunities derive from economic prosperity. I

  363
  admit that, under Labour's failing economic policies, congestion might be less severe than it is today. But congestion is also the product of economic success. Under this Government the problem of congestion can be tackled by vast new—
  Mr. Don Dixon rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 259.

  Division No. 75]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Allen, Graham

  Fatchett, Derek

  Alton, David

  Faulds, Andrew

  Anderson, Donald

  Fearn, Ronald

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

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

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Fisher, Mark

  Ashton, Joe

  Flannery, Martin

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Flynn, Paul

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Barron, Kevin

  Foster, Derek

  Battle, John

  Foulkes, George

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fraser, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bell, Stuart

  Galloway, George

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

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

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Blunkett, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boateng, Paul

  Gordon, Mildred

  Boyes, Roland

  Gould, Bryan

  Bradley, Keith

  Graham, Thomas

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hardy, Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Buchan, Norman

  Haynes, Frank

  Buckley, George J.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Caborn, Richard

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Callaghan, Jim

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clay, Bob

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Howells, Geraint

  Coleman, Donald

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Crowther, Stan

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cummings, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Janner, Greville

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

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

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dewar, Donald

  Lambie, David

  Dixon, Don

  Lamond, James

  Dobson, Frank

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Doran, Frank

  Leighton, Ron

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Lewis, Terry

  Eadie, Alexander

  Litherland, Robert

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Livingstone, Ken

  364

  Livsey, Richard

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Richardson, Jo

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McAllion, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Joan

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Salmond, Alex

  McFall, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKelvey, William

  Sheerman, Barry

  McLeish, Henry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McWilliam, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Madden, Max

  Short, Clare

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marek, Dr John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Martlew, Eric

  Snape, Peter

  Maxton, John

  Soley, Clive

  Meacher, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meale, Alan

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Michael, Alun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Stott, Roger

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Strang, Gavin

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Straw, Jack

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Turner, Dennis

  Morley, Elliot

  Vaz, Keith

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wall, Pat

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wallace, James

  Mullin, Chris

  Walley, Joan

  Murphy, Paul

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Nellist, Dave

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  O'Brien, William

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Patchett, Terry

  Wilson, Brian

  Pike, Peter L.

  Winnick, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Prescott, John

  Worthington, Tony

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wray, Jimmy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Radice, Giles

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Randall, Stuart

  Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Allen McKay.

  Redmond, Martin

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brazier, Julian

  Alexander, Richard

  Bright, Graham

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Amess, David

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

  Amos, Alan

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Burns, Simon

  Ashby, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Butler, Chris

  Atkins, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Atkinson, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bellingham, Henry

  Chope, Christopher

  Bendall, Vivian

  Churchill, Mr

  Benyon, W.

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

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Couchman, James

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Cran, James

  Bowis, John

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Curry, David

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

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

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  365

  Day, Stephen

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Devlin, Tim

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Dover, Den

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Dunn, Bob

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Durant, Tony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dykes, Hugh

  Irvine, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Jessel, Toby

  Evennett, David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Fallon, Michael

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Favell, Tony

  Key, Robert

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Kilfedder, James

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Knox, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Forth, Eric

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lilley, Peter

  French, Douglas

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Gale, Roger

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Gardiner, George

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  Madel, David

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Mans, Keith

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Maples, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gow, Ian

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mills, Iain

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Grist, Ian

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Grylls, Michael

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hague, William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mudd, David

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hannam, John

  Needham, Richard

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

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Norris, Steve

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hayes, Jerry

  Page, Richard

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Paice, James

  Hayward, Robert

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hill, James

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Portillo, Michael

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

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Price, Sir David

  366

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Redwood, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Thorne, Neil

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tredinnick, David

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Trippier, David

  Rost, Peter

  Trotter, Neville

  Rowe, Andrew

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Walden, George

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Waller, Gary

  Shelton, Sir William

  Ward, John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Watts, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Whitney, Ray

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Speller, Tony

  Wilkinson, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilshire, David

  Squire, Robin

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wood, Timothy

  Steen, Anthony

  Yeo, Tim

  Stevens, Lewis

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Sumberg, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the Government on developing a balanced transport policy which recognises the economic importance to the United Kingdom of its rail, road and air network; welcomes the biggest programme of investment in British Rail for 25 years and the massive increase in investment in London Underground which will relieve congestion and meet the increased demand which is the result of the economic success of the United Kingdom; welcomes the demanding quality of service objectives set by the Government; welcomes the £1 billion which will be spent to ensure Britain's rail infrastructure is in place to service the Channel Tunnel when it opens in 1993; applauds the high priority that the Government gives to all matters of safety on transport; and welcomes its recognition of the importance of the environment in transport policy.

  Tobacco (Sale to Children)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  10.13 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the massive problem of illegal tobacco sales to children. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to announce initiatives to deal with that scandal. Hon. Members in all parts of the House are concerned about it, as witnessed by the fact that despite the usual exodus at this time of night a number of hon. Members have remained in the Chamber.
  I have a particular interest in the subject because the legislation which is supposed to ban sales of cigarettes and all tobacco to children, the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986, began as a private Member's Bill which I introduced. It had two objectives: first, to include products such as Skoal Bandits in the legal definition of tobacco—I pay tribute to the Government for banning that product altogether—and, secondly, to clarify and strengthen the legislation supposed to have banned tobacco sales to children since 1933. The 1986 legislation swept away the condition which used to allow any retailer to justify tobacco sales to children on the ground that he thought that the tobacco was intended for use by an adult. It also gave the courts a mandatory duty to deal with cigarette vending machines used by youngsters.
  My Bill received universal support at that time, including a very strong speech on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), the present Minister for Health. Having passed the Bill, we were entitled to expect the legislation to lead to action to deter the pushers who supply cigarettes to children. Unfortunately, virtually nothing has been done to enforce the law and the evil trade is continuing on a massive scale.
  I have repeatedly asked Ministers what they are doing about enforcement of the 1986 Act, but the total lack of action over four years shows that the legislation has been effectively smothered by a tobacco industry smokescreen. The industry claims to be spending £1 million per year advertising the fact that children should not buy cigarettes, but at the same time it is cheerfully reaping the profits from £70 million worth of trade with those very children.
  Of course, catching them young is a long-term investment for an industry which is killing off its older customers at a rate of 300 per day, or 110,000 per year. The tobacco industry needs to attract 300 new customers per day just to replace its own victims, and since we know that 75 per cent. of adult smokers are hooked by the time they are 18 it really has to catch them young—and its £100 million budget for advertising and sports sponsorship is targeted accordingly.
  The industry is running rings around the Government's voluntary restrictions on tobacco advertising. We all know that sports sponsorship is getting the cigarette sales pitch across in an increasingly insiduous manner, even on the BBC's television coverage of snooker, horse racing and motor sports. An advertising executive for Marlborough is quoted as having said in relation to that company's sponsorship of motor racing:
  "What we wanted was to promote a particular image of adventure, courage and virility."
  Yet there is supposed to be an agreement to avoid those very suggestions and implications in tobacco advertising.
  368
  The trade, and the advertising that promotes it, is a national scandal and it is prolonging the agony and the costs which arise from tobacco-related diseases. The Chief Medical Officer, Sir Donald Acheson, recently confirmed that smoking is
  "by far the most important cause of ill health and premature death, and hence of expenditure on health services."
  It is all starting in the corner shops, off licences, supermarkets and service stations which are supplying cigarettes to youngsters without let or hindrance, or even shame, sometimes even in the form of a single cigarette with a match at a price to suit the budget of a school child's pocket money—12p per time.
  In England alone it is reckoned that about 500,000 15-year-olds are smokers, 300,000 of them regular smokers. The teeny-smoker trade is worth a cool £700 million per year to the tobacco barons, but there were just 29 prosecutions in 1988, none of which achieved the maximum fine of £400. The situation in Scotland is probably even worse, but we do not have adequate statistics from the Scottish Office.
  The Government have failed to lift a finger to enforce the 1986 Act. An Act which was passed without dissent in the House just four years ago might as well be a dead letter. Nobody is being deterred, and that poisonous trade is proceeding with impunity. The tobacco industry is treating the will of Parliament with contempt and, far worse, it is conspiring to wreck the health of another generation of young people.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Home Robertson: Briefly.
  Mr. Foulkes: I always do as my landowner colleague tells me. Does my hon. Friend agree that so many of the tobacco industry's customers die every day as a result of smoking that it has to recruit new smokers? That is why the industry has to have an aggressive campaign to get young people to take up smoking. That is the important commercial message from the industry.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I made the point that the industry needs to recruit 300 new smokers per day just to replace those whom it kills.
  The House will know that a large number of parents are determined to protect their children from tobacco addiction and are joining the recently launched Parents Against Tobacco campaign to confront the tobacco barons with a healthy dose of people power—and not before time. Parents Against Tobacco has attracted strong support from people in every walk of life in every part of the United Kingdom, including at least 160 Members of Parliament. The campaign seeks to mobilise public opinion and to activate public authorities to confront the menace of long-term tobacco addiction leading to bad health and premature death for many of our children. I speak as a father of two young children and as one who is very worried about that threat.
  Parents Against Tobacco surveyed 212 shops and found that 109 sold cigarettes to children under 16. In London, the campaign surveyed 50 shops and found that 36 sold cigarettes to a boy of 10. Local newspapers have been taking up the initiative, and a newspaper in Rugby reported last week that an 11-year-old girl in school

  369
  uniform was sold cigarettes in 11 of the 12 shops into which she went. The evidence is overwhelming. It appears that half the tobacco retailers blatantly flout the 1986 Act.
  Parents Against Tobacco has also been investigating the reason why the law is not enforced. A survey of 110 local authorities found that 104 had never taken action under the 1986 Act. Many said that they did not know about the Act and many said that they did not think that it was their responsibility to do anything about it. I understand that they have not received any Government circular to clarify the position.
  Nevertheless, some local authorities have taken local initiatives. My attention has been drawn particularly to the work in Liverpool, Somerset and Enfield and in Hereford and Worcester county. In Liverpool, illegal sales fell by 50 per cent. following an active survey of retailers and the prosecution of some offenders. I have been alarmed to hear that Hereford and Worcester county council's campaign has run into difficulties because the courts insist that photographic evidence of the apparent age of a child is not enough to secure prosecution and the council is rightly reluctant to make children appear in court. I should be grateful if the Minister or the Attorney-General would write to me with some advice on that narrow point about court procedure. Overall, there seems to be intolerable confusion, inconsistency and even perversity in the enforcement of the legislation by the various authorities.
  What about the police? Parents Against Tobacco wrote to chief constables, most of whom said that they had insufficient resources or that they could not give the problem the priority that it deserved. I put it to the Minister that it is up to the Government to take active steps to get the 1986 Act enforced. Local authority trading standards departments are probably the most appropriate bodies to take on the job. They certainly have the best knowledge of the retail trade in their local areas, and those councils which have made it their business to apply the law have made a pretty good job of it. We need clear guidance from Ministers as to who should enforce the legislation and how they should go about it.
  Experience shows that one or two prosecutions against blatant offenders in each area can concentrate the minds of all offending retailers, so we should be able to reduce the scandalous scale of this illegal trade quite quickly. The Minister must accept that the law is useless unless it is enforced effectively and fairly in every part of the country. It may be necessary to amend the law again, to make it easier to enforce it. The maximum fine for this serious crime of endangering young people should be increased from £400 to at least £1,000. We may also need clearer legislation to deal with vending machines.
  We could also help responsible tobacconists—I freely acknowledge that there are many—by providing independent official advertisements proclaiming the prohibition on sales to children and by providing official leaflets to explain the law to youngsters in shops. The tobacco industry's own self-righteous advertising campaign reeks of hypocrisy. The cost of that campaign is just one seventieth of gross takings in tobacco sales to children and no one could take its integrity seriously.
  We can pass laws until we are blue in the face, but it is futile to do so if the Executive refuses to do anything to enforce them. That is what happened in the case of the
  370
  Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986. We have polling evidence that 95 per cent. of our people want that Act enforced effectively and strictly. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point today.
  There is no need to repeat all the evidence that tobacco is dirty and dangerous and that children should be protected against nicotine addiction. There is ample evidence that laws to protect children from this menace are being cynically circumvented by the tobacco industry and flagrantly broken by thousands of retailers. I welcome the initiative of Parents Against Tobacco to campaign on this issue. Several Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have also endorsed the objectives of the campaign. With all respect to the Minister, it is not good enough for Ministers to issue well-meaning statements—they must support their words with action, starting with action to deter traders who are supplying £70 million worth of cigarettes per year to our children. I ask the Minister to take this opportunity to announce specific Government initiatives to enforce the 1986 Act. There is far more to be done, but let us start by clamping down on a trade which is already supposed to be illegal.
  10.26 pm
  Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for selecting this important matter for debate and for allowing me briefly to intervene. I speak as the chairman of the parliamentary wing of Parents Against Tobacco—the local shop steward. I am delighted to see my hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and for Hexham (Mr. Amos) and several Opposition Members with whose constituencies, sadly, I am not familiar.
  The position seems clear. Parliament has decided that it is a criminal offence for a retailer to sell cigarettes to a child under 16. That legislation has wide support. Parents whom I know, whether they be smokers or non-smokers, do not want their children to start smoking. There is a degree of unanimity. We have on the statute book legislation that is widely supported but, as the hon. Member for East Lothian said, it is frequently flouted.
  I raise three simple matters with my hon. Friend the Minister. First, I have written to the Home Secretary on behalf of the parliamentary branch of Parents Against Tobacco, asking for a meeting with him. I very much hope that the answer will be in the affirmative.
  Secondly, my hon. Friend the Minister will have seen the PAT manifesto—in particular, the legislation that we propose to introduce at the end of this year if the Government do not do so themselves. We should like an initial response from the Government to the legislative measure that we have outlined.
  The third matter arises from a statement that the Lord Chancellor made yesterday about the use of hearsay evidence from children. That matter is highly relevant to the debate because of the difficulties of getting children into court to give evidence—their reluctance to appear as witnesses and the reluctance of their parents to let them so appear. The Lord Chancellor is proposing to change the rules about the use of hearsay evidence from children. It would be helpful to know whether it is of relevance in bringing prosecutions in the circumstances that were mentioned by the hon. Member for East Lothian.
  10.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on securing this Adjournment debate. It is no surprise that he should choose such an important subject, given his long and active interest in these matters and his success in piloting through the House the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986.
  Selling cigarettes to those who are under age shows a deeply irresponsible disregard for the law, for the best interests of the retail trade and for the health of young people. We therefore stand firmly alongside the hon. Member in condemning those retailers who do.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House are looking for a positive response from the Government tonight, giving their moral support to the movement, which already has 160 hon. Members behind it, and, hopefully, promising a sympathetic hearing for the legislation that we are determined to introduce.
  The sale of cigarettes to children under the age of 16 has been illegal since the passing of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, and this was extended to a complete ban on all products containing tobacco by the hon. Gentleman's Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986. It is for the police and the local authorities' trading standards officers to enforce the law in this area.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Which of them?
  Mr. Lloyd: Both of them. Both have powers, duties and responsibilities, and I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's contention, to put it at its best, that they are unevenly applied throughout the country. Our overriding objective—and, I am sure, that of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends—is to see fewer youngsters taking up the habit of smoking, not least because, as he said, 110,000 smoking-related deaths occur in the United Kingdom each year. Surveys show that 75 per cent. of regular smokers start their habit while teenagers.
  But there are some encouraging signs, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not mention them, although I expect he is aware of them. Evidence from the latest survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys shows that smoking among under-16s is going down. In 1984, 13 per cent. of young people aged 11 to 15 smoked regularly. In 1986 the figure was 10 per cent. and in 1988 it was 8 per cent.
  It is worth noting that, for the first time, the 1988 study used a biochemical test to determine whether the children had actually been smoking—a sort of lie detector—and it is proposed to continue that technique in future, for it will clearly add to the reliability of the data.
  Mr. Foulkes: Can the Minister divide the statistics between boys and girls? Do they show that girls are not smoking any less, which is a worrying factor?
  Mr. Lloyd: It is clear from the statistics—I am speaking from memory, and I will confirm the position to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong—that girls have in the past smoked less than boys; but the proportion is changing because the number of boys smoking is dropping quite rapidly, but the same, alas, cannot he said for girls.
  The data that we are getting have the basic reliable method of which I spoke, which tells whether the youngster has smoked within the previous seven days. To
  372
  build on the welcome trend last year, the Department of Health and the Health Education Authority jointly launched a £2 million a year campaign aimed at reducing still further the proportion of teenagers who smoke. The target is an additional one third cut by 1994. Health education to reduce the number of illegal sales to children will be one of the chief means of realising that objective.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister said that the Department of Health had allocated some additional funds to discourage youngsters from taking up smoking. From my point of view and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (M r. Foulkes), that is of limited comfort because none of that money is going to Scotland. It would be useful if the Minister's hon. Friends in the Scottish Office showed the same motivation as is shown by his hon. Friends in the Department of Health, although I appreciate that he cannot answer for them.
  Mr. Lloyd: That is correct, but I will pass on to my colleagues in the Scottish Office what the hon. Gentleman said.
  A further key aim is to stimulate action in schools and among parents to prevent shops selling cigarettes to children. That action is complemented by the tobacco industry's £1 million a year campaign—which the hon. Gentleman mentioned somewhat disparagingly—to inform retailers about the law. Although it is only part of the exercise, it is a welcome part.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) made some telling points and the Government, and particularly the Home Secretary, will want to take them into acount when we produce the further proposals for legislation that we are developing. He mentioned in particular Parents Against Tobacco. That campaign was launched just six weeks ago, and has similar objectives to the Government's. The arrival of the campaign is both timely and welcome. The Government look forward to the powerful reinforcement that it will bring. We shall consider carefully the proposals that it puts forward.
  Well-targeted local influence and pressure brought to bear on traders who would flout the law are likely to be particularly persuasive. Actual enforcement of the law is a matter, as far as the police are concerned, for chief officers, who must decide the priority to place on illegal tobacco sales and have regard to other demands on their forces.
  As I mentioned earlier, the law can and should be enforced by local authorities' trading standards officers. That is why the chairman of the Health Education Authority wrote in 1988 to all local authorities urging them to encourage trading standards officers to enforce the law and to use the councils' powers of prosecution.
  Well-judged consumer campaigns, or perhaps, to be correct, non-consumer campaigns, should have a powerful deterrent effect on irresponsible traders, as will—this goes to the heart of what the hon. Member for East Lothian said—the grass root reminders to local authorities of their powers and their duty to use them.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the law. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health have seen to it that the ministerial group on crime prevention has considered options for strengthening the legislation on this matter.

  373
  They are satisfied that improvement is possible, and they are developing specific proposals to put before Parliament as soon as a suitable opportunity arises.
  Mr. Foulkes: When?
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for East Lothian will be pleased to hear that among them will be a proposal designed to clarify and strengthen the responsibility of retailers.
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asked when we shall bring forward proposals. It will be as soon as we have a legislative vehicle to which they can reasonably be attached.
  We have an emerging partnership between volunteers in the community, the enforcement agencies, the law and the industry.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister is being genuinely helpful. Does he accept that, as long as two separate bodies—the police and the local authorities—have overlapping duties and other competing priorities, we shall have the problem that each says that it is up to the other to deal with the problem? Will the Government please give a steer? I suggest that life would be a lot easier if a circular went round local authorities stating that the Government intend that the work should be done by trading standards authorities.
  Mr. Lloyd: The trading standards authorities have the powers. As I said, they have been reminded of that during the past 18 months. There is ample scope for local groups organised by Parents Against Tobacco to remind the local authorities. There will be scope when the law is amended to remind the local authorities and the police what the new law is and what their duties are. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not mean that he would like one or other authority to have a responsibility. Clearly, both should have a role. There may be scope to state more clearly what emphasis each should adopt.
  As I said, there is scope for a partnership between the community, the enforcement agencies, the law and the industry. That is precisely the sort of collaboration which we have advocated and developed in crime prevention during the past six years. It is proving remarkably successful.
  I recognise that the number of hon. Members present shows that the matter is of wide and compelling interest. I hope that hon. Members will be encouraged, as I have been, to learn that the strategic approach to eliminating the illegal sale of tobacco to children takes as its model proven and recently tested techniques.
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is just in time.
  Mr. Foulkes: The Minister said that he hoped that the law could be changed when a legislative opportunity became available, but he did not say whether the Government intend to find such a legislative opportunity. If a private Member of any party were to introduce a Bill that would give that legislative opportunity, would the Government give that Bill a fair wind through the House?
  That is an important point because, as my hon. Friend has said, it is clear that there are breaches of the law again and again. For about 90 per cent. of the time, the law is being broken. Therefore, I repeat: if the Government believe that a legislative opportunity should be sought to change that position, and if they are not willing to introduce such a Bill, if a private Member of any party were to do so, would the Government give it a fair wind?
  Mr. Lloyd: I thought that it was perfectly clear from what I have said that, not only are the Government developing proposals, but we are looking for an early opportunity to put those proposals into effect.
  Mr. Foulkes: When?
  Mr. Lloyd: If a private Member comes up with a Bill that coincides with some or all of those objectives, of course the Government would not be a dog in the manger and give it other than their support. However, I am not sure that our proposals, which are not yet ready but which are in the process of evolution, would necessarily be successfully put on the statute book by the private Members' process, especially at this stage in the Parliament. I can certainly make it plain to the hon. Gentleman in the remaining minutes of the debate that it is our intention to produce proposals on this matter and to see them on the statute book.
  Mr. Foulkes: Is it the Government's intention to do it this Session? The Government do not have many Sessions left.
  Mr. Lloyd: I doubt whether we should be able to bring forward anything in this Session, for two reasons. First, we are well into it and the legislative programme is well advanced; secondly, the changes that we are looking to make have still not yet been finalised.
  As I have said, I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Lothian for bringing this issue to the attention of the House tonight and for giving me the opportunity of bringing him and the House up to date with the Government's thinking on this matter because all of us agree—in government and in all parties—that this extremely important matter should be dealt with.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordzngly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Dog Registration
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many local authorities and organisations representing local authorities, responding to the paper "Action on Dogs", were in favour of registration as a means of tackling the stray dogs problem;

  (2) how many responses were received from local authorities, and organisations representing local authorities, to the Government's consultation paper "Action on Dogs".

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Out of 462 local authorities and organisations known to represent them, 247 responded to our consultation paper and 207 of those who responded supported a dog registration scheme of some kind.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to assess the dog registration scheme in Northern Ireland with a view to applying that scheme in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My officials have made contact with officials in the Department of Agriculture, Northern Ireland, with a view to discussing with them their experience of the operation of the various dog control provisions in force in Northern Ireland, and in particular the enforcement of the requirement for dogs to wear identification tags. We believe that the enforcement of this existing requirement would be more effective than an elaborate registration scheme in solving the problems caused by irresponsible dog owners. Officials from my Department will be visiting Northern Ireland shortly for this purpose.

  Toxic Waste Tips
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the danger posed by toxic waste tips to drinking water supplies and on current filling and safety regulations in respect of toxic tips; and what plans he has to amend these regulations in the future.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are a range of statutory controls which provide effective protection of drinking water supplies. First, there is a requirement for waste disposal authorities—in considering applications for disposal licences made under the Control of Pollution Act 1974—to have regard to possible risks of water pollution, and to consult with the National Rivers Authority. Under provisions in the current Environmental Protection Bill, we propose to strengthen and extend the licensing controls. Secondly, under the Water Act 1989, water undertakings are under a statutory duty to supply wholesome water, and it is an offence to supply water 220
  which is unfit for human consumption. Thirdly, we have recently announced the formation of a new drinking water inspectorate whose job it will be to check that supplies meet the standards defined in the new water quality regulations. Fourthly, the NRA also have extensive programmes for monitoring the quality of ground and surface waters. Consequently, we now have a strong set of safeguards for drinking water supplies and I have no plans to amend the basic system of controls in this area.

  Council Properties, Bolton
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council-owned properties in the Bolton metropolitan borough area were renovated in 1989 and during each of the last 10 years; and what was the amount of Government grants given in respect of this work during the same period.

  Mr. Chope
  The number of renovations completed on local authority-owned dwellings in England appears in "Local Housing Statistics" [volumes 55 (table 9), 58 (table 7) and table 4 of volumes 65, 69, 73, 77, 81, 85, 89, 90 and 91 (first half 1989)].

  Copies are available in the Library.

  The cost of renovation works undertaken by a council is included in the calculation of its entitlement to main housing subsidy. Bolton received £3,070,669 in subsidy in 1981–82 and £126,447 in 1982–83. It has since been out of subsidy.

  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for the number of people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

  Mr. Chope
  Latest estimates of households temporarily resident in bed-and-breakfast accommodation appear in table 4(a) of "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for the third quarter 1989. Supplementary Tables", which is in the Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of the percentage of persons listed on community charge registers who will fail to pay the charge in 1990–91 for English shire counties; and what guidance he has issued to local authorities as to the estimates they should make for default when deciding on the amount of charge to meet their planned expenditure.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department has made no estimates of the proportion of charge payers who may fail to pay community charges and sees no need to offer advice on this to charging authorities. We have issued practice notes on steps that charging authorities may take to minimise arrears, and more flexible instalment regimes and improved powers of enforcement should improve authorities' ability to obtain arrears compared with that under the domestic rating system.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the totals of spending in 1990–91 by(a) Somerset county council and (b) Taunton

  221
  Deane borough council assumed for the purposes of his calculations of illustrative combined capital value rates and local income tax published on 6 November 1989.

  Mr. Chope
  The assumed spending was the same as that used for the provisional assumed charges also published on 6 November.

  The assumed spending figures for 1990–91 were:

  £ million

  Somerset county council

  222·367

  Taunton Deane borough council

  4·306

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East on 6 February,Official Report, columns 582–83, if he will list all departmental circulars, excluding practice notes, issued by his Department in connection with the community charge, giving in each case, the date of issue and an outline of the contents; and if he will indicate whether copies of such have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 13 February 1990]: No numbered departmental circulars have been issued about the community charge. A number of letters have been sent to all charging authorities. These are as follows:

  Date of issue

  Contents

  1988

  25 July

  Community charge costs: Price Waterhouse study

  5 August

  Local Government Finance Act

  15 December

  Community charge regulations: Valuation and Community Charge Tribunals

  16 December

  Community charge preparation costs

  1989

  31 January

  Community charge students regulations

  31 January

  Implementation of the community charge

  28 February

  Community charge implementation and minority language translations

  17 March

  Implementation of rates reform

  3 May

  Implementation of the community charge and NNDR: questionnaire

  5 May

  Leaflet: "The community charge (the so-called Poll Tax): how it will work for you"

  5 May

  Payment of specific grant for community charge

  10 May

  United Kingdom service personnel

  10 August

  Community charge registration and data protection

  18 September

  Amendments to practice notes

  11 October

  Safety net and transitional relief

  13 October

  Payment of specific grant for community charge preparation

  20 October

  Community charge transitional relief

  20 October

  Community charge bill

  26 October

  Amendments to practice notes

  3 November

  Exemption for those severely mentally impaired

  9 November

  Community charge transitional relief

  16 November

  Local Government and Housing Act 1989: amendments to Local Government Finance Act

  22 November

  Transitional relief scheme—details

  15 December

  Community charge bill—details

  28 December

  Community charge: amendments to practice notes

  1990

  10 January

  Community charge transitional relief regulations

  9 February

  Designation of Ministry of Defence Establishments

  222
  Details of those letters amending practice notes are placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will provide comparable figures to his November estimate of the amount of poll tax payable in 1990–91 per adult as against rates for each region and each metropolitan area and county council.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested has been placed in the Library. The figures are consistent with the assumed charges published on 11 January.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he proposes to use to charge-cap those authorities whose proposed community charge is unacceptably high; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North-West (Mr. Stern) on 17 January,Official Report, columns 252–3.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received over the shortage of council houses in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend receives representations from time to time from hon. Members' interest groups and members of the public. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) on 13 December 1989,Official Report, column 711.

  Hazardous Wastes
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on control of the transfrontier shipment of hazardous wastes.

  Mr. Trippier
  Government policy is to encourage international action to reduce transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste for disposal to the environmentally justified minimum and to monitor and control effectively, those movements that are necessary. These objectives are being pursued in discussions with the European Community, OECD and UNEP and through the provisions of national legislation.

  Waste Dumps
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in Northumberland the location of mine shafts currently in use as dumps for waste or special waste.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department has no record of any mine shafts currently in use in Northumberland for the disposal of controlled waste.

  Water Supplies
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the number of poison dumps which threaten water supplies; and what
  223
  assessment he has made of the danger posed by such dumps to water supplies within the Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency.

  Mr. Trippier
  These are matters for waste disposal authorities. They are required to operate disposal licensing controls under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, acting in consultation with what is now the National Rivers Authority, in order to prevent risks of water pollution. Under provisions in the Environmental Protection Bill, waste regulation authorities will also be required to inspect and monitor closed landfill sites.

  The recently publicised 1974 survey was a desk assessment to assist the relevant authorities in carrying out their statutory responsibilities. Since then, the Department has had an active research programme into the behaviour and characteristics of landfill sites, the results of which have been reflected in a series of waste management papers issued by the Department.

  Council Contracts
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to prevent councils from avoiding competition by submitting contracts to tender in a way guaranteed to favour their own work force.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Department investigates all complaints of anti-competitive practices by local authorities on their merits. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has powers of sanction under sections 19A and 19B of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and sections 13 and 14 of the Local Government Act 1988 and will use them where necessary. To date, notices under section 19A of the 1980 Act have been served on the metropolitan borough of Wirral and the London borough of Brent. A direction was subsequently given to the metropolitan borough of Wirral under section 19B of that Act. Notices under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988 have been served on five local authorities—the London borough of Hillingdon, Bristol city council, Wolverhampton metropolitan borough council, Knowsley metropolitan borough council and Charnwood borough council. My right hon. Friend is currently considering responses received from these authorities.

  Homelessness
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures of acceptances of homeless households by local authorities in England and Wales.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Latest estimates of households accepted a s homeless in England appear in table 1(a) of "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for the third quarter 1989. Supplementary Tables", which is in the Library.

  For information about Wales, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Pollution
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to help Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and local authorities recover the costs of regulating pollution.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), on Tuesday 30 January 1990,Official Report, columns 173–74.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to extend the right to buy to all tenants of non-resident landlords.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Lambeth
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what loss of income will accrue to Lambeth council when uniform business rates are not paid within the year to which demands relate.

  Mr. Chope
  Under the Non-Domestic Rating Contributions (England) Regulations 1989 (S I 2435), charging authorities in inner London, in calculating their provisional contributions to the national non-domestic rating pool, may deduct an allowance for possible losses of 0·45 per cent. of their estimated rate yield for the year. The regulations provide for all losses to be offset against contributions to the pool at outturn stage, subject to audit. Provision may be made at outturn stage for amounts which may have to be written off, again subject to audit. These arrangements were agreed by the local authority associations.

  Revenue Support Grant, Northamptonshire
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 1990–91 revenue support grant entitlement per head of population, before safety net adjustments, for each borough and district council in Northamptonshire, in descending order of magnitude.

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

  1990–91 Revenue support grant per adult before safety net adjustments

  Area

  RSG before safety net

  (£ adult)

  Northampton

  239

  Corby

  233

  Wellingborough

  223

  Kettering

  222

  Daventry

  213

  East Northamptonshire

  212

  South Northamptonshire

  204

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has considered the issue of liability in respect of damage caused to the environment as a result of the release of a genetically engineered organism.
  225
  Mr. Trippier
  Part VI of the Environmental Protection Bill refers to the setting up of a statutory control system for genetically modified (engineered) organisms, making provision for criminal offences in the case of breach, including the general duties for preventing damage to the environment. Express provisions relating to civil liability are not included. However, Lord Lewis, chairman of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, referred to the question of strict civil liability in his letter to the Secretary of State of 6 February. I am considering the position further.

  Derbyshire County Council
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out a table showing for each year since 1981 the expenditure of Derbyshire county council in(a) cash terms, (b) constant price terms and (c) cash terms per head of population.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows:

  Net current expenditure—Derbyshire county council

  Cash terms

  Real terms—1981–82 prices

  Cash terms per head

  £ million

  £ million1

  £2

  1981–82

  268·0

  268·0

  294

  1982–83

  296·8

  276·8

  326

  1983–84

  313·3

  279·2

  344

  1984–85

  365·9

  310·6

  401

  1985–86

  357·4

  287·9

  392

  1986–87

  397·4

  309·7

  433

  1987–88

  442·2

  327·3

  481

  1988–89

  486·2

  335·5

  526

  1989–90

  503·3

  324·6

  544

  1Using the GDP deflator to convert from cash values to constant prices.

  2Population figures used to derive per capita values are latest available Office of Population Censuses and Surveys mid-year estimates of total population.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out a table showing for each year since 1981 the staffing levels of Derbyshire county council(a) full time, (b) part time and (c) in total.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows:

  Derbyshire county council: All services at June

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  1981

  20,517

  17,891

  38,408

  1982

  20,217

  18,455

  38,672

  1983

  20,765

  18,342

  39,107

  1984

  20,817

  18,764

  39,581

  1985

  20,764

  19,252

  40,016

  1986

  20,903

  21,234

  42,137

  1987

  21,412

  23,501

  44,913

  1988

  22,569

  25,081

  47,650

  1989

  22,712

  23,593

  46,305

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority planning decisions were overruled by his Department in 1989.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The figure is 7,681. This amounts to less than 2 per cent. of all planning decisions.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) for what type of Property Services Agency the Thesis computer system has been designed;

  (2) what is the projected cost of equipping the Property Services Agency with the Thesis computer system.

  Mr. Chope
  The Thesis system is designed to provide IT support to PSA's maintenance management and associated operations throughout the United Kingdom. The equipment is estimated to cost £12·8 million over the next two years. The system is reviewed periodically against PSA's changing requirements. A review is now in progress in the light of PSA's transition to a commercial organisation and subsequent privatisation.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the discussions between representatives of the United States air force and the Property Services Agency about the implications for the United States air force of Property Services Agency privatisation.

  Mr. Chope
  Talks are continuing, and I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 21 December 1989,Official Report, column 436.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the time it is expected to take for the Property Services Agency to move from vote accounting to full commercial accounting in a trading fund.

  Mr. Chope
  It is planned to introduce full commercial accounts with effect from 1 April 1991. So long as the PSA remains a Government Department, it will retain vote accounts in parallel. There are no plans to establish PSA as a trading fund.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many grades 6 and above were working in the Crown Suppliers on 1 February 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Chope
  At 1 February 1988, there were eight grade 6 staff; four grade 5 staff and one grade 3. At 1 February 1989, there were eight grade 6 staff; three grade 5 staff and one grade 3. At 1 February 1990, there were six grade 6 staff; five grade 5 and one grade 3.

  Waste Sites (West Sussex)
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the environment what action his Department is taking to deal with the West Sussex toxic and domestic waste sites posing some risk to water in his Department's list of landfill sites in England and Wales.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: The 1973–74 survey, featured in a recent newspaper article, was a desk assessment of possible risks to assist statutory authorities in controlling and monitoring waste disposal sites under public health legislation and, subsequently, the licensing requirements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. The information was made available to the appropriate authorities at the time.
  227
  Since then, West Sussex county council and the Southern water authority will have monitored waste disposal sites and ground and surface waters in their areas in accordance with their responsibilities under the Water Act 1973 and the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which include powers to take action over pollution where this occurs.

  Detailed, up-to-date information is not held centrally on the location of waste disposal sites and safeguards taken. Under the Water Act 1989, the National Rivers Authority now has responsibility for monitoring ground and surface waters and is currently reviewing the scope of these programmes. We are providing it with the list of sites identified in the 1973–74 survey for possible reference purposes.

  SSAs, Yorkshire
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the reasons for the variations in the standard spending assessment between the Harrogate borough council on a per capita basis, York city council and Scarborough borough council.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: The standard spending assessments for these three authorities have been calculated in accordance with the formulae set out in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England). The table gives details for the three authorities of the amount of SSA in £/adult which is attributable to each of the indicators used to calculate their SSAs. The indicators are defined in annex A to the distribution report.

  SSA £/per head of relevant population

  Indicator

  Harrogate

  York

  Scarborough

  Resident population

  81

  75

  77

  Daytime net inflow

  -1

  3

  0

  Visitors nights

  1

  1

  5

  Ward weighted density

  10

  26

  12

  Social index

  -21

  -1

  -14

  Sparsity

  14

  0

  11

  Transfer to North Yorks CC

  -8

  -8

  -8

  County level services

  1

  1

  1

  Flood defence

  1

  1

  0

  Coast protection

  0

  0

  2

  Interest receipts

  -2

  -3

  -2

  TOTAL OTHER SERVICES

  75

  95

  84

  TOTAL CAPITAL FINANCING

  6

  6

  8

  TOTAL SSA

  81

  102

  91

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider financial measures that would encourage local authorities to use recycled stationery.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 13 February 1990]: Financial measures are not necessary; stationery made from recycled fibre can already fulfil most requirements adequately at a competitive price. It is important for local authorities to consider whether they are over-specifying and demanding a quality of paper that
  228
  is too good for the purpose. An expert working group set up under the aegis of the recycling forum chaired by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Slate for Industry and Consumer Affairs is specifically considering such issues.

  Metals (Recycling)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage the recycling of metals.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department's environmental programme includes a number of initiatives aimed at increasing awareness of the economic and environmental benefits of recycling, and at achieving increases in the levels of United Kingdom domestic and industrial waste now being recycled. The recycling advisory group which I formed last year is currently considering the best means of securing such increases for a range of products and materials, including metal containers, and Warren Spring laboratory has been co-operating with industry on research into techniques to reclaim more metals from the waste stream. My Department has also helped to organise the recycling of metalliferous materials international conference to be held in Birmingham in April.

  The Environmental Protection Bill also contains proposals which are intended to increase recycling levels, and it is the Government's intention to publish a White Paper on the environment later this year; this may also have implications for recycling.

  Packaging
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the packaging industry about the need for minimum packaging policies to reduce waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department's environmental programme has given priority to waste minimisation issues and the "Cutting Your Losses" brochure published last year emphasised the importance of reducing waste in all industrial sectors, including the packaging industry. We are now organising a design for the environment conference at the national exhibition centre on 28 March; this will consider environmental design problems and in particular will examine how products can be redesigned to minimise waste during the manufacturing and packaging process. The conference will act as a springboard for other design-related initiatives to promote awareness in this area. My Department is also of course in frequent touch with the packaging industry on the full range of environmental issues.

  Forestry
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many hectares of forest have been planted in each year since 1980.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is given in the table. This covers the total new planting undertaken or grant-aided by the

  229
  Forestry Commission in the years stated, rounded to the nearest 1,000 hectares. It does not include the restocking of woodland after felling.

  Year ended 31 March

  Total new planting

  (hectares)

  1980

  24,000

  1981

  20,000

  1982

  23,000

  1983

  21,000

  1984

  25,000

  1985

  21,000

  1986

  23,000

  1987

  24,000

  1988

  29,000

  1989

  29,000

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what means his Department is monitoring Government policy on the integration of children with special educational needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The principal means used by the Department are the statistical returns from local education authorities and schools, HMI reports, surveys and research projects. Evaluation studies of the Education Reform Act will also take account of the position of pupils with special educational needs, where appropriate.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in the light of the findings of Her Majesty's inspector's report on education, he has proposals designed to improve the quality of education available to students with learning disabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Government announced on 18 December their programme for the local education authority training grants scheme for 1990–91, under which £9·7 million will be devoted to six national priority areas in the field of special needs and issued for consultation on 9 January a draft circular on staffing for pupils with special educational needs, which sets out a number of considerations which local education authorities should take into account in reviewing local provision for these pupils in their areas. These measures will contribute to the achievement of the Government's education reforms which are intended to secure the best possible return from the resources which are invested in the education service and to raise the standards of achievement of all pupils, including those with special educational needs.

  Project grants and year

  Neurosciences

  Systems

  Cell

  Total

  Total applications

  1979–80

  272

  425

  280

  977

  1988–89

  322

  380

  290

  992

  Alpha applications

  1979–80

  147

  225

  179

  551

  GCSE
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received from schools complaining about the dates of the GCSE examinations in 1989 and 1990.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We have received about 25 representations on this issue.

  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the first and last dates of GCSE examinations in 1989 and in 1990 together with similar information for GCE O-levels in 1987.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In 1989, the first GCSE examination was on 15 May, the last on 23 June. In 1990, the first examination will be on 14 May, the last on 22 June.

  In 1987 the GCE O-level examinations of most of the boards ran from the beginning to the end of June.

  Since GCSE replaced GCE O-level and CSE, any comparison must also take into account the dates of the CSE examinations: in 1987, these generally ran from the end of April or the beginning of May to mid-June.

  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements exist for his Department to make representations to the GCSE examination boards about the dates of examinations.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Officials are in regular contact with the examining groups about this issue.

  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the policy of his Department about the proportion of the summer term which should be regarded as available for GCSE examinations and the relation of this to the spring bank holiday.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The GCSE examining groups are independent bodies, wholly responsible for the administration of their own examinations. Ministers have no powers to intervene directly in their day-to-day affairs. Nevertheless, I am concerned that the examination season should not encroach unnecessarily on the summer term. I am assured that the groups are aware of the anxiety which has been expressed on this issue, and that although it is now too late to change the timetable for 1990, the groups are looking very carefully at the position for 1991 and beyond.

  Neurosciences Projects
  Mr. Rhodes James
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list for the years 1979–80 and 1989–90(a) total applications, (b) alpha applications, (c) awards and (d) alpha applications unfunded in Medical Research Council grants to cell systems and neurosciences projects.

  Mr. Jackson
  The following table lists the figures for academic years 1979–80 and 1988–89. Figures for the academic year 1989–90 are not yet available.
  231

  Project grants and year

  Neurosciences

  Systems

  Cell

  Total

  1988–89

  231

  233

  207

  671

  Awards made

  1979–80

  142

  228

  166

  536

  1988–89

  121

  130

  119

  370

  Alpha applications not funded

  1979–80

  6

  5

  4

  15

  1988–89

  110

  103

  88

  301

  The Medical Research Council has reduced in recent years the proportion of funds available for short-term awards to universities in order to concentrate on long-term programmes both in universities and Medical Research Council establishments and to meet new problems such as AIDS.

  Secondary School Buildings
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has for renovating secondary school buildings, in the light of Her Majesty's inspector's second annual report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Local education authorities are responsible for deciding which building projects to undertake at individual county and voluntary controlled secondary schools, in the light of local needs and circumstances. For 1990–91, £485 million is available in annual capital guidelines for capital expenditure on schools and colleges in England, compared with £352 million under the old system of allocations for 1989–90. Local authorities are free to spend above the level of their annual capital guideline, by using capital receipts as permitted within the flexibilities of the Local Government Acts. In addition, £118 million of grant is available for voluntary aided, special agreement and grant-maintained schools.

  Computers
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he makes of the number of computers per 100 pupils in(a) maintained secondary schools and (b) city technology colleges.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Four per 100 in maintained secondary schools and 25 per 100 in the city technology colleges established to date, none of which yet has its full complement of pupils.

TRANSPORT

  Trains (Punctuality)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will obtain a copy of the year-round survey produced by the Railway Development Society's "Yorkshire Rail Review", which covers express and local trains and records their punctuality; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have a copy of this report and I have noted its contents.

  London Docklands Railway
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the docklands light railway to meet the requirements of the docklands after its extension in 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have asked the docklands light railway to prepare for my consideration a strategic review of the options for future development following the completion of the City and Beckton extensions, having regard to forecasts of demand and the planned extension of the Jubilee line to docklands.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations his Department has given to the impact on cyclists of the plans to dual trunk roads; and what steps will be taken to minimise the effects.

  Mr. Atkins
  In planning new trunk roads and improving existing ones, close attention is paid to the suitability of the route for cyclists and to the design of junctions and other locations where cyclists are known to be at particular risk. Published material is available for the guidance of highway planners and engineers.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further research and publications his Department intends to undertake in 1990 to encourage cycling.

  Mr. Atkins
  We are pressing ahead with implementation of the remaining aspects of the cycle routes programme of research and application studies.

  Research continues into innovatory traffic engineering techniques to help cyclists. Currently, the main projects are concerned with finding further methods of improving safety on roundabouts; refining the use of advance stop lines for cyclists; and identifying a more efficient form of shared use crossing for cyclists and pedestrians.

  Our aim in undertaking research and publishing technical guidance on cycling issues is to assist highway authorities and others in efforts to create safer conditions for cyclists.

  So far, four local transport notes and 27 traffic advisory leaflets have been produced using the results from our cycling research. Further material on cycling will be published as the results of studies become available.

  Woolwich Ferry
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the maximum number of passengers permitted on the Woolwich ferry under existing safety regulations; and what steps are currently taken to ensure that this figure is not exceeded.
  233
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Each of the three Woolwich ferries is allowed to carry a maximum of 300 passengers. The owner and master have the responsibility for ensuring that this number is not exceeded. Random checks are carried out by the Department's marine surveyors.

  Severn Crossing
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has now decided upon the method of financing the proposed second Severn crossing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  No; the decision on whether to use private or public finance will depend on our final evaluation of the tenderers' corresponding proposals.

  Mersey Tunnels
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is in a position to respond to Merseytravel's case for Government financial assistance for the Mersey tunnels.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend has today written to Councillor Ingham of Merseytravel to say that we have considered very carefully the case presented for Government financial assistance for the Mersey tunnels. In that letter, he explained that the merits of the case did not justify Government assistance. Indeed, our examination of the case suggests that the tunnels could become financially self-supporting in a few years' time.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  European Convention
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General what guidance is issued to English courts in respect of references to the European convention in continuing domestic legislation.

  The Attorney-General
  It is not appropriate for the Government to issue guidance to the courts on how legislation should be interpreted, and they do not do so.

  Land Covenants, Ashworth
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received about relator proceedings on land covenants at Ashworth.

  The Attorney-General
  The solicitors to the relators in the proceedings against Barratt Manchester Limited and Bolton metropolitan borough council have supplied me with a copy of the judgment of Mr. Justice Scott which is now being considered.

  Tax Law
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what discussions he has had with the Law Society concerning the introduction of a fair disclosure pact with the Inland Revenue in tax avoidance cases;

  (2) what discussions he has had with representatives of the legal profession concerning the duties of solicitors and members of the Bar in cases of (a) tax avoidance, (b) tax evasion and (c) cases where the Inland Revenue seeks to discover documents to assess the difference between avoidance and evasion.
  234
  The Attorney-General
  None. The Inland Revenue has statutory powers to require persons, including members of the legal profession to provide information in specified circumstances, where it is relevant to a taxpayer's affairs, except where the position is covered by privilege. In addition, the legal profession has codes of conduct which prevent members assisting clients in any unlawful activity, whether concerned with tax or otherwise.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his response to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr Fraser),Official Report, 12 February, column 67, if he will make a further statement on the role of the Crown prosecution service in relation to the case of Coren and Greenwood.

  The Attorney-General
  Primary responsibility for the enforcement of insider dealing legislation rests with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The case of Coren and Greenwood involved a civil servant within the Office of Fair Trading, and because of the relation between that office and the DTI, the Crown prosecution service undertook the conduct of the proceedings. My assertion that this case was brought by the DTI was therefore incorrect, and I regret the mistake.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Passports
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many individuals currently resident(a) in South Africa and (b) in the rest of the world (i) hold a British passport and (ii) have the right to return to live in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no means of assessing accurately how many British nationals overseas hold British passports. British nationals resident in South Africa are estimated to number between 500,000 and 1 million. Most of them have the right to live in the United Kingdom. British nationals in the rest of the world, including dependent territories, are estimated to number 8 million to 8·5 million. Of these, it is estimated that 5 million have the right to live in the United Kingdom. However, many of these are likely to be dual nationals currently holding only the passport of their country of residence.

  Chile
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes there have been in Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Chile since the democratic elections in that country.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  With our European partners, we have welcomed the transition towards democracy in Chile, and look forward to a deepening of our bilateral relations.

  British Embassy, Bangkok
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) men and (b) women are awaiting interview at the British embassy in Bangkok for consideration for entry into the United Kingdom either as husbands or wives of British citizens.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As at 13 February 1990 there were two men and 97 women awaiting settlement interviews at the embassy in Bangkok.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many suicide attempts have occurred in Hong Kong detention camps for Vietnamese boat people since the inception of the camps: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Eight people have inflicted injuries upon themselves in Hong Kong's detention centres since the closed camp policy started on 16 June 1988. One of those people was found to be suffering from a psychiatric illness and two gave their reasons for injuring themselves as family problems. Five people gave their reasons as a desire to protest against the policy of screening and repatriation. None sustained life-threatening injuries.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is given generally to Vietnamese boat women in Hong Kong detention camps as to the health attributes of the contraceptive drug Depo Provera and its consequences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The Family Planning Association offers the usual range of contraceptive techniques to Vietnamese women. In offering Depo Provera it explains that it is a drug administered by injection and that it is effective for 12 weeks. It also explains all the possible side-effects. Depo Provera has been approved for use by the World Health Organisation. It is made available to Vietnamese women in detention centres on the same basis as it is offered to the general population in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign arid Commonwealth Affairs whether the staff in Hong Kong detention camps have administered the contraceptive drug Depo Provera to Vietnamese boat women held there; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Various methods of contraception are offered to Vietnamese boat people on an entirely voluntary basis by staff of the Family Planning Association. Some Vietnamese women have chosen to use Depo Provera.

  Kurds
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning the reported poisoning of Kurdish refugees in Turkey; and whether he intends to raise the matter with representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and of the Turkish Government.

  Mr. Maude
  Staff from HM embassy have been in touch with the office of the UNHCR in Ankara which confirms that approximately 100 Iraqui Kurds at 236
  Diyarbakir entered hospital on 1 February after eating contaminated bread. We understand that all have been discharged. Samples of the bread are being analysed by the Turkish authorities.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  David Lloyd George
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will arrange for the Refreshment Department to offer a special menu to commemorate the centenary of the election of David Lloyd George, MP, ex-Prime Minister, to Parliament on 10 April 1890.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The hon. Member's request will be considered by the Catering Sub-Committee.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the names of all the private security firms currently employed by his Department, the number of employees for each firm on the contract, the total value of each contract and the total value of all contracts for each financial year since 1984–85.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Duchy of Lancaster has not employed any security firms during the period in question.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on how many Metropolitan police officers and how many person hours were spent on observation duties of public lavatories in the N division between 1 September 1989 and 31 December 1989;

  if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on how many men were arrested by Metropolitan police officers engaged on observation duties of public lavatories in the N division between 1 September 1989 and 31 December 1989;

  if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on how many men were arrested by Metropolitan police officers engaged on observation duties of the public lavatories located at Highbury crescent, London N5, between 1 September 1989 and 31 December 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the only police observation duties of public lavatories in the N division area during the period were at Highbury crescent, London N5. The operation involved the deployment of four officers over a total period of 239 hours, and 35 arrests were made.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. Peter Lloyd
  There is no central record of any disciplinary proceedings on such a basis in the last five years.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what statutory basis transfers of personal data take place from his Department to the police; and how many such transfers take place each year;

  (2) what kinds of personal data held by his Department are transferred to the police; and whether records are kept of such transfers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are frequent transfers of personal data between the Home Office and the police as part of the day-to-day business of the Department. I regret that more detailed information about the basis and frequency of such transfers could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  NATO Courses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) Government Departments and (b) private or public bodies in the United Kingdom which send participants to the bi-annual courses on civil-military co-operation held by NATO at Oberammergau.

  Mr. John Patten
  Such courses cover civil emergency planning as well as civil-military co-operation, and are attended by civil and military personnel who are directly involved in NATO planning. Members of staff from a number of Government Departments and the armed services have participated in the courses. We are not aware that any representatives from private or other public bodies in the United Kingdom have so far attended.

  Boundary Commission for Wales
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of the parliamentary boundary commission for Wales appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessors.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The parliamentary boundary commission for Wales is an entirely independent body and the disclosure of internal management information of this kind is more appropriate for the commission itself.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by the parliamentary boundary commission for Wales declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those declaring a political affiliation, how many showed allegiance to(a) Conservatives, (b) Labour, (c) the Liberal Democrats, (d) the Social Democratic party, (e) the Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The parliamentary boundary commission for Wales makes no appointments. From time 238
  to time my right hon. and learned Friend appoints assistant commissioners to conduct local inquiries for the commission. Before their appointment, candidates are asked for an assurance that they have not been involved in political activity. There are no such assistant commissioners at present.

  Dart Guns
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dart gun firearms certificates have been granted; how many persons now have such weapons in England and Wales, broken down by police force areas; and how many are held by(a) deer farmers and (b) others.

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

  Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reassess the answer of the Minister of State to the Adjournment debate on Colin Wallace's manslaughter conviction,Official Report, col 948–52, 27 June 1989, in the light of the most recent ministerial replies in relation to Colin Wallace.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have nothing to add to the answer given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) on 30 January 1990 at column 119.

  Animal Experimentation
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he is going to publish guidance on the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Guidance on the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 has today been laid before Parliament, in accordance with section 21(1) of the Act. The Animal Procedures Committee has been fully consulted about this guidance, in accordance with section 21(3) of the Act. The guidance will be published tomorrow as HC182 and a copy will be sent to every holder of a certificate of designation issued under sections 6 and 7 of the Act.

  The publication of this guidance is the last major step in the bringing into force of the 1986 Act. The changeover to the new legislation has been carried out swiftly and according to the timetable that we set ourselves. This is a major achievement, reflecting the positive response which the scientific community is giving to the 1986 Act. This guidance sets out fully how the strict controls of the Act are now operating.

THE ARTS

  Royal Shakespeare Company
  Mr. Jesse!
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the latest position concerning the work of the Royal Shakespeare Company and its funding, taking into account the recent announcement of an increase in funding.
  239
  Mr. Luce
  It is for the Arts Council to determine the level of its grant to individual companies in the light of their artistic importance and a range of other factors.

  In the case of the Royal Shakespeare Company, its national and international importance is not in doubt. The Arts Council has awarded the RSC an 11 per cent. increase in its grant for next year, taking it to over £6 million. This is a very substantial increase, well above the rate of inflation, and should help the company balance its books.

  In 1984, the Government wrote off the RSC's deficit and increased its baseline grant in order to put the company on a firm footing from which to plan its future programmes. This was in response to two of the three recommendations of the Priestley report. The recommendation to index-link the RSC's grant was not accepted.

  I understand that the company is to cancel the winter season planned at the Barbican for 1991. This is a management decision by the RSC, and it is entirely for it to make. It will continue production as normal in its other venues, and will reopen at the Barbican in spring 1991. It will continue to tour widely. I am sure that it will maintain its excellent attendance levels.

  The company has generated substantial income from the box office and the private sector, including generous sponsorship from Royal Insurance of £1·1 million over three years. I have every hope and confidence that the RSC will continue to build on its success.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if there have been any items accepted in lieu of tax or allocated since he last made an announcement on the subject to the House.

  Mr. Luce
  Since my announcement on 22 January at column 536, I am pleased to announce that four offers of items have been accepted in lieu of tax; a collection of 20 modern paintings, a collection of Anglo-Saxon and medieval coins, a painting by Constable and an 18th century harpsichord. In accordance with the condition on which it was offered the coin collection will be allocated to the Fitzwilliam museum, Cambridge. It satisfied £418,429·20 tax and followed the precedent set by the acceptance of Picasso's "Weeping Woman" in that the Fitzwilliam agreed to pay the owner the difference (£108,128·80) between that tax liability to be satisfied and the special price of £526,558. The collection of modern paintings satisfied £82,742 tax and will be allocated to the Abbot Hall art gallery, Cumbria. No decision on allocation has yet been taken regarding Constable's "Farm Cart with Horse in Harness" or the harpsichord which satisfied £50,025 and £25,432·79 tax respectively. These items will be advertised to institutions in the usual way.

  Finally, I have decided that Cezanne's "Allée à Chantilly", accepted in lieu of tax in 1988–89, should be allocated to the National gallery.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list the names of all the private security firms currently employed by his Department, the number of 240
  employees for each firm on the contract, the total value of each contract and the total value of all contracts for each financial year since 1984–85.

  Mr. Luce
  My Department currently has two contracts with Securiguard Services Limited, to the annual value of £85,420 and £14,175. The contracts provide for five employees, four of them operating in shifts. The total value of all contracts with private security firms in each financial year since 1984–85 is:

  Year

  £

  1984–85

  45,000

  1985–86

  48,000

  1986–87

  70,600

  1987–88

  77,200

  1988–89

  69,700

  1989–90

  84,600

  Occupational Health Department
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he expects to computerise information held by the Civil Service occupational health department at Murray house.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 8 February 1990]: There are no plans to computerise the information held by the Civil Service occupational health service at Murray house. During 1990–91 a study is to be undertaken into the computerising of various financial and operational procedures, leading to the introduction of a new computer system serving the headquarters and all regional offices in 1991–92.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the current level of incentive for industry to recycle its waste.

  Mr. Forth
  A very strong incentive—that of market economics—aleady exists, and I am pleased that many United Kingdom companies are saving money by recycling a very high proportion of their recyclable process scrap. I congratulate those companies but more could be done, and my Department is actively encouraging others to recognise the economic and environmental benefits of waste minimisation and recycling.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to encourage investment in capital equipment for the purpose of recycling of waste materials in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Forth
  Investment in capital equipment for this purpose will flow naturally when effective waste separation and processing systems are in place, when consumer demand for products manufactured from recycled materials is secure, and when commercial operations are in prospect. My Department is working closely with the Department of the Environment, industry, consumer groups and the voluntary sector to develop a coherent national approach to recycling, and this is also expected to lead to an increase in investment in capital equipment.

  Post Office
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the chairman of the Post Office; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the chairman of the Post Office; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the chairman of the Post Office; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Forth
  I last met the chairman of the Post Office, Sir Bryan Nicholson, on 11 January. We discussed various matters of mutual interest.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last reviewed the regulations to deal with insider dealing; and whether he has any plans to bring forward amendments.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last reviewed the regulations to deal with insider dealing; and whether he has any plans to bring forward amendments.

  Mr. Redwood
  As I told the House on 8 December, the Government that day published a consultative document on proposals for changes to the law on insider dealing. A copy is in the Library. I will consider carefully any constructive proposals that may emerge from the consultation.

  Product Safety
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is considering to ensure greater product safety.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is considering to ensure greater product safety.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is considering to ensure greater product safety.

  Mr. Forth
  Product safety will continue to be a high priority for my Department. Provision is being made for the collection and analysis of accident statistics, the promotion of effective safety campaigns to raise public awareness, and for comprehensive statutory protection against unsafe goods. The Consumer Protection Act 1987, for example, makes it a criminal offence to supply any consumer product that is not safe. This is supported by specific safety regulations where necessary, and by my approval of specific safety standards, and the promotion of reasonable standards of safety in the marketing of consumer products.

  Telephones (Number Displays)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make it his policy to encourage the telecommunications industry and Oftel to promote the introduction of telephones which display the caller's number.
  242
  Mr. Forth
  The provision of calling line identification facilities is primarily a matter for the network operators. I know that the Director General of Telecommunications, Sir Bryan Carsberg, is keeping the position under close review.

  Japan
  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current trade deficit with Japan; and how much of the deficit is accounted for by manufactured goods.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current trade deficit with Japan; and how much of the deficit is accounted for by manufactured goods.

  Mr. Redwood
  In 1989 the deficit in total visible trade with Japan was £4·8 billion. In the same period the deficit for manufactured goods was £5·0 billion. Last year United Kingdom exports to Japan increased by £525 million to £2·3 billion, an increase of 30 per cent. over 1988.

  Technological Standards
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response he will be making to the report produced for the European Commission by the university of Louvain in respect of its assessment of the United Kingdom's technological standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response he will be making to the report produced for the European Commission by the university of Louvain in respect of its assessment of the United Kingdom's technological standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The report does not actually highlight the United Kingdom's technological backwardsness. The Government are well aware of the challenge of 1992 and we have policies in place to help firms in all regions to rise to it.

  Trade Deficits
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the European Economic Community countries with which the United Kingdom has a manufacturing trade deficit.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the European Economic Community countries with which the United Kingdom has a manufacturing trade deficit.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the European Economic Community countries with which the United Kingdom has a manufacturing trade deficit.

  Mr. Redwood
  In 1989 the United Kingdom had a manufacturing trade deficit with the following countries:

  France

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Italy

  Denmark

  Portugal.

  Public Ownership
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the Government's policy as to the circumstances under which they would consider taking an industry or company into public ownership.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on taking industries or companies into public ownership.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government's policy is to return industrial and commercial activities to the private sector wherever practicable. I can think of no industry or company now in the private sector which would benefit from nationalisation.

  Manufactured Imports
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the growth in imports of manufactured goods from the European Community since 1979.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and. Industry what has been the growth in imports of manufactured goods from the European Community since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  Imports of manufactured goods from the European Community have risen from £16 billion in 1979 to £52·5 billion in 1989, an increase of £36·s5 billion.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department has taken to encourage the growth of the credit union movement in inner-city areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department has not taken any action to support credit unions in the inner cities.

  Information Technology
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans to encourage research and development in information technology.

  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans to encourage research and development in information technology.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans to encourage research and development in information technology.

  Mr. Forth
  DTI policy and arrangements to encourage research and development in information technology were set out in the White Papers "Information Technology" (Cm. 646) and "DTI—the department for Enterprise" (Cm. 278). The Government have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Trade Barriers
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to ensure that the European Economic Community does not erect protectionist trade barriers.
  244
  Mr. Redwood
  I am against protectionism. I will certainly ensure that any European Community proposals for protectionist trade policy action are rigorously opposed by the United Kingdom.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to change the role of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to change the role of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have no such plans.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's balance of trade in manufactures in 1989 with(a) the USSR, (b) East Germany, (c) Poland, (d) Czechoslovakia and (e) Romania.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's balance of trade in manufactures in 1989 with(a) the USSR, (b) East Germany, (c) Poland, (d) Czechoslovakia and (e) Romania.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier to the question of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short).

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to encourage increased trade between the United Kingdom and eastern Europe.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department is doing to promote trade and investment by British companies in eastern Europe.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department is encouraging business men to look hard at the new commercial opportunities in 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 whilst 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 co-operation.

  Financial Institutions (Self-regulation)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of self-regulation of the financial institutions.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of self-regulation of the financial institutions.
  245
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of self-regulation of the financial institutions.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Securities and Investments Board is responsible for ensuring that the appropriate standard of protection for investors is provided by the self-regulating bodies recognised under the Financial Services Act.

  EC Financial Markets
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made in discussions within the European Economic Community on the opening up of financial markets throughout the Community.

  Mr. Redwood
  We are fully committed to the liberalisation of the EC's financial services sector. It is a fundamental element of the single market programme not only because of the beneficial effects of liberalisation which will be passed on to other sectors.

  The capital liberalisation directive adopted on 24 June 1988 will enable the free movement of capital across the Community. Remaining exchange controls will be abolished. Many member states have already removed most if not all their controls.

  More recent progress includes the adoption of the second banking co-ordination directive on 15 December 1989, which sets out the conditions on which credit institutions (broadly banks and building societies) may establish a branch in, or provide a wide range of cross-border services into, another member state on the basis of home state authorisation. The related solvency ratios directive adopted on 18 December and own funds directive adopted on 17 April set out minimum standards of capital adequacy for credit institutions.

  The life services directive awaits the opinion of the European Parliament. The directive lays down rules for the writing of life assurance by an insurer established in a member state other than that of the policyholder.

  Other measures at an earlier stage of discussion will, when implemented, open further the single market in financial services. The investment services directive will provide a similar single passport for investment firms to that available to banks under the second banking co-ordination directive. The supporting capital adequacy directive has not yet been presented to the Council, but the Commission hopes to propose a draft text in March. Its aim is to set out capital requirements for firms doing investment business.

  The Commission has recently announced plans for a single licence approach to life and non-life insurance, similar to the single passport concept in the banking and investment service fields.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss manufacturing industry.
  246
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department maintains regular and frequent contacts with the Confederation of British Industry at all levels on a wide range of matters relating to manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the prospects for manufacturing industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have met representatives of the Confederation of British Industry on several occasions recently, and discussed with them matters relevant to the prospects of manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Most contacts that my Department has with industry and commerce involve matters having a bearing on United Kingdom competitiveness.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the director general of the National Economic Development Council to discuss manufacturing industry.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the director general of the National Economic Development Council to discuss manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the director general of the National Economic Development Council to discuss manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I expect to meet the director general of the National Economic Development Office on 4 April, at the next meeting of the National Economic Development Council. The council will discuss several items relevant to manufacturing industry.

  Consumer Guarantees Bill
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has had from consumer organisations in respect of the Consumer Guarantees Bill.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has had from consumer organisations in respect of the Consumer Guarantees Bill.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has had from consumer organisations in respect of the Consumer Guarantees Bill.
  247
  Mr. Forth
  There have been representations from various organisations both for and against aspects of the proposal. Unless agreed otherwise with the parties concerned, these representations have been made in confidence and it would be inappropriate to name the organisations or to indicate the interests they represent.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the representations he has received for or against the Consumer Guarantees Bill.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the representations he has received for or against the Consumer Guarantees Bill.

  Mr. Forth
  There have been numerous representations both for and against various aspects of the proposal. Unless agreed otherwise with the parties concerned, these representations have been made in confidence and it would be inappropriate to list them.

  Technology (Co-operation)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to submit new proposals for co-operation in technology within the conference on security and co-operation in Europe process at the forthcoming conference on economic co-operation in Europe to be held in Bonn on 19 March to 11 April.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is intended that proposals by the 12 member states of the European Community will be co-ordinated at Community level, but we will be considering whether or not to propose any separate national initiatives to complement the Community's efforts.

  1992
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet the European Commission to discuss the implications of 1992 for British industry.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet the European Commission to discuss the implications of 1992 for British industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  I continue to keep in close contact with the EC Commission across a broad range of issues.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been spent by his Department on awareness-raising about the implications of the single European market among British businesses; and if he will launch a survey of how many British companies are aware of the implications of 1992.

  Mr. Redwood
  Expenditure to date on the DTI's "Europe Open for Business" campaign to encourage businesses to prepare for the single market is £13·6 million. A weekly survey of business attitudes to the single market amongst firms employing 10 or more people is already undertaken on behalf of DTI. A hundred different firms are surveyed each week. The results show that business awareness of the single market is in excess of 95 per cent. Some 50 per cent. of firms are currently taking action to prepare themselves for the single market.
  248
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the most recent assessment that his Department has made of the effects upon British industry of the completion of the European single market in 1992.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The single market will provide enormous opportunities and challenges to firms in all parts of the United Kingdom. The overall impact will depend on how individual firms respond. About 50 per cent. of firms throughout the United Kingdom are now taking action to prepare for the single market and a further 10 per cent. are considering action.

  Consumers' Association
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the Consumers' Association; and what was discussed.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the Consumers' Association; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the Consumers' Association; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Forth
  I visited the Consumers' Association on 6 February 1989 and a number of current issues relevant to consumers were discussed.

  EC Ministers
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet his European Economic Community counterparts; and what subjects will be discussed.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet his European Economic Community counterparts; and what subjects will be discussed.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet his European Economic Community counterparts; and what subjects will be discussed.

  Mr. Redwood
  I continue to keep in close contact with my EC counterparts on a whole range of matters.

  Industrial Development
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the financing of industrial development.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the financing of industrial development.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Yes. I find it most helpful to discuss industrial financing and other matters of mutual interest with the governor from time to time.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies have been returned to the private sector by his Department since 1979.
  249
  Mr. Redwood
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 9 January at columns 517–18. My Department has primary responsibility for returning seven companies to the private sector.

  Product Warranties
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is considering taking to ensure that products carry effective warranties.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is considering taking to ensure that products carry effective warranties.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is considering taking to ensure that products carry effective warranties.

  Mr. Forth
  The issue is being considered in the context of the private Member's Bill on consumer guarantees being put forward by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones). The Government are considering their position on the Bill and will make a statement in due course. The Government's concerns about the implications of the Bill are already on record.

  Textiles
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which issues he will raise in relation to the international trade in textiles when he next meets his European Economic Community counterparts.

  Mr. Redwood
  The main issues for discussion with European Community colleagues will be the further development of the Community's position in the GATT Uruguay round negotiations on the return of trade in textiles and clothing to strengthened GATT rules. Discussion will be likely to focus on the method of phasing out the M FA after the current arrangements expire next year and the parallel strengthening of GATT rules and disciplines. These issues were fully debated in the House on 12 January 1990.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in the textile industry.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in the textile industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Latest available figures show that imports of textiles (SITC division 65) exceeded exports by £1,576 million in the 12 months to November 1989.

  Hosiery and Knitwear
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the hosiery and knitwear industry in Leicestershire concerning the United Kingdom's trading position in this sector.

  Mr. Redwood
  The difficulties facing the knitwear industry in Leicestershire were the subject of an Adjournment debate in the House on 12 December 1989.250
  They have also been the subject of correspondence and meetings between industry representations and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Trade.

  Securities and Investments Board
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board to discuss a range of topics concerning the regulation of financial services as frequently as is necessary. No date has been fixed for the next such meeting.

  West Germany
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in manufactured goods with West Germany.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in manufactured goods with West Germany.

  Mr. Redwood
  In 1989 imports of manufactures from the Federal Republic of Germany exceeded United Kingdom exports to that country by £9·6 billion.

  Structural Funds
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to encourage British firms to compete for structural funds-related business.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government attach considerable importance to British firms competing effectively for structural funds-related business. To that end, my Department has organised two major conferences. These have been supplemented by a number of regional events. The Department also offers an information service to United Kingdom business men interested in pursuing opportunities.

  The more recent conference on 23 November 1989 was timed to coincide with the publication of the approved spending plans for the less developed regions of the Community. I addressed the conference and referred to the need for industry, Government and our diplomatic staff overseas to work together in order to identify the opportunities available. It is the efforts and enterprise of those in the private sector which will then determine how much of this new business is won by Britain.

  Package Holidays
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to introduce any further measures to offer greater consumer protection to people who contract for package holidays and travel arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government have no imminent plans to introduce further measures in this area. However the common position reached by EC Ministers at the 21–22 December Council on the draft package travel directive portends that consideration will need to be given in due course to its implementation in the United Kingdom. The Asociation of British Travel Agents has already announced that its new codes of practice will take effect during this year.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to increase consumer protection.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to increase consumer protection.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to increase consumer protection.

  Mr. Forth
  We intend to improve the protection given to consumers in a number of ways including the introduction of an order under the Prices Act 1974, as amended, on price indications and unit pricing, and changes to other legislation affecting consumers' interests.

  Bankruptcies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the latest figures for bankruptcies.

  Mr. Redwood
  During 1989, a total of 8,115 bankruptcy orders were made against individuals.

  Exporters
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any new plans to assist British exporters.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any new plans to assist British exporters.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provide through the export initiative a wide range of practical help, advice and support.

  It is only a year since my Department announced a significant package of improvements to our export promotion effort to ensure that it meets United Kingdom exporters' needs more effectively. Response to the package has been encouraging and we continue to monitor the performance and relevance of our services to United Kingdom exporters' demands closely.

  Industrial Activity (North-West)
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Manchester chamber of commerce and industry to discuss the chamber's recent survey of industrial activity in the north-west.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I was pleased to see the results of the recent survey published by the Manchester chamber of commerce and industry, however I have no plans to meet any of its representatives.

  Car Manufacturers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the major car manufacturers; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the major car manufacturers; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the major car manufacturers; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government have regular contacts with the major car manufacturers on a range of issues of interest to the industry. No meetings are currently planned.

  CBI Regional Bodies
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met a Confederation of British Industry regional body; and what was discussed.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met a Confederation of Business Industry regional body; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department maintains regular contact with the CBI at all levels on a wide range of matters relating to industry.

  C. J. How
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will initiate an investigation under the Companies Acts into the activities of the finance company C. J. How.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. On 7 November 1989, a bankruptcy order was made in the Cheltenham county court against Mr. Christopher John How, financial consultant, of the Coach House, Winchcombe road, Sedgeberrow, near Evesham. His affairs are under investigation by the Official Receiver pursuant to section 289 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

  Departmental Structure
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for the future structure of his Department.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans for the reorganisation of his Department.
  253
  Mr. Ridley
  I am reviewing various aspects of the work of my Department but have no changes to announce at present.

  Stock Exchange
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the stock exchange; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the stock exchange; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Ridley
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) earlier today.

  Dixons Group (Takeover Bid)
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to reach a decision on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the proposed acquisition of Kingfisher plc of Dixons Group plc.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is due to submit its report on the proposed acquisition to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by 27 April this year. The report will be published as soon as is practicable after that. It would be inappropriate to speculate about its possible findings.

  Exports
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action is being taken by his Department to further increase exports.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on 12 February at column 45.

  Electrical Goods
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has recently received about competition in the electrical goods sector.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received various representations from hon. Members and others about competition issues, including representations specifically about the proposed acquisition of Dixons Group plc by Kingfisher plc which is currently under investigation by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Securities Industry (Supervision)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is considering transferring any departmental securities industry supervision functions to the SIB.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans for any major change in the distribution of powers between my Department and the SIB.

  No-dividend Policy
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate his Department has made of the effects of a no-dividend policy upon British industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. Dividend policy is a matter for the directors of individual companies.

  Sunderland
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last visited Sunderland; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Ridley
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry visited Sunderland on 5 October 1989, when he met Tyne and Wear development corporation, Sunderland borough council, the Wearside Opportunity and the Sunderland shipyards campaign committee. My right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster visited Sunderland on three occasions in 1989. On these occasions discussion centred upon NESL and the package of remedial measures, following its closure. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry was in Newcastle on 25 January and met representatives of Sunderland borough council to discuss these issues.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of regional selective assistance.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  An evaluation of regional selective assistance (RSA) by DTI and the Scottish and Welsh Offices was completed last year. Its main conclusions were that offers of RSA made in the evaluation period (1980–84) had assisted the creation or safeguarding of over 1·1 million net job years (or 56,000 permanent jobs) in assisted areas in Great Britain at a cost of some £580 per job year (or £11,600 per job), after taking account of jobs which were not additional and of displacement effects. The report on the evaluation is due to be published by HMSO in the near future.

  North East Shipbuilders Limited
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are his current plans regarding the facilities of North East Shipbuilders Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  British Shipbuilders remains in discussion with the two parties interested in purchasing the assets of North East Shipbuilders Ltd. We are seeking to progress outstanding issues as quickly as possible. I hope these will be resolved soon.

  Japanese-owned Industry
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the percentage of manufacturing industry output and employment in Britain which is Japanese owned.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The results of the latest (1987) annual census of production indicate that Japanese-owned
  255
  companies had 0·22 per cent. of employment in manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom. The figures for gross output and net output respectively were 0·45 per cent. and 0·21 per cent.

  Petrol
  Mr. Gulls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on petrol; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  I am today publishing the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of petrol by wholesale in the United Kingdom.

  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has concluded that petrol wholesaling is a competitive industry at present. It has found that neither the structure, the practices nor the profits in the industry operate against the public interest. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has accordingly made no recommendations for change.

  The supply of petrol is a key part of the nation's economy and a matter of considerable interest to individual consumers. Petrol alone accounts for 3 per cent. of consumer expenditure. Any defects in competition could have serious consequences for the public interest. It is right that issues that have caused public concern should have been subjected to close and careful scrutiny and I am grateful for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's expert work in carrying out this investigation.

  The main findings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are that:
  the price of petrol is primarily governed by movements in the underlying price of crude oil and the international market price for petrol, and particularly by their prices on the Rotterdam market;
  United Kingdom pump prices are not out of line with those in European countries or movements in consumer prices;
  price rises are not implemented more quickly than price falls;
  there is no evidence of collusion between the companies; petrol exchanges between wholesalers reduce costs to consumers and are pro-competitive;
  petrol company profits on wholesaling have been no more than moderate in recent years and on their downstream operations as a whole they have been low;
  there are no significant barriers to entry to the wholesale market;
  the hypermarkets and independent chains provide strong and growing competition in the retail market, and
  most consumers can choose from a range of prices and standards of service.

  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission found that a complex monopoly exists in favour of 69 oil companies that supply over 95 per cent. of the market. However, it concludes that the facts found do not operate against the public interest, that no steps are being taken by the monopolists to exploit the situation, and that the market is a competitive one. Since there are no adverse findings in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report, the question of remedies does not arise.

  I have received the Director General of Fair Trading's advice on the report. He endorses the overall conclusions the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has reached on the public interest. The director general agrees with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that future changes could increase the scope for anti-competitive behaviour in the industry. Accordingly he believes that his office should, in three years' time subject to any developments in the meantime, carry out a review of company ownership in the
  256
  industry and an assessment of developments in competition. In the meantime, he will keep under review any major changes which affect conditions of competition in the industry, though without seeking all the further more detailed information suggested by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I agree that the director general should proceed in this way and I shall keep the House informed of any developments.

  I accept the analysis in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report and am grateful to the commission for having produced a substantial document reflecting the outcome of a wide-ranging and intensive investigation.

  Toyota Factory, Derbyshire
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the European Commission is conducting, or proposes to conduct, an investigation into the proposed Toyota factory in Derbyshire.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]When the Toyota project was announced in April 1989, the Government informed the European Commission that the company had decided to locate in the United Kingdom without seeking any financial assistance from the Government; that discussions were in progress between the company and the local authorities in Derbyshire about a possible modest package of local measures; and that, once the elements of the package had been defined, the Government would consider whether any of them required notification to the Commission under the terms of the Community's rules on state aids to the vehicle sector. My Department has recently told the Commission that in our view the package envisaged included nothing which could be regarded as an aid to Toyota. We have made clear our readiness to meet Commission officials to explain the content of the package and the reasons for our conclusion.

  Amateur Radio
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many complaints concerning abuse on the amateur bands have been received by his Department from the Radio Society of Great Britain;

  (2) how many complaints of abuse on GB 35L, GB 3BM and GB 3NA have been received by his Department;

  (3) what response he has made to the Radio Society of Great Britain with regard to its criticism of amateur radio repeaters in the categories GB 35L, GB 3BM and GB 3NA which are licensed by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 13 February 1990]The Radio Society of Great Britain has raised the issue of abuse on amateur radio repeater stations with the Department, and my officials are holding discussions with them about the matter.

  Paper Recycling
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will add improved pulping and de-inking technology used to recycle waste paper to those projects currently supported by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 13 February 1990]Government involvement in research into de-inking and pulping has taken place for some years, particularly through support for projects at the paper and board
  257
  division of PIRA, the research association for the paper promotion board who have been appointed by himself or printing and packaging industries. Current projects are his predecessor either solely or in conjunction with other specifically looking at de-inking (due to be completed in Ministers; and what is their attendance record at meetings autumn 1990), the difficulties of pulping and refining raw materials of the future (completion due spring 1992), and a new project approved to commence in April 1990 to investigate recycling of waste paper into higher grades of paper.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will initiate a campaign to encourage the use of recycled paper in manufacturing processes.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 13 February 1990]In 1989 United Kingdom paper and board manufacturers consumed approximately 2·5 million tonnes of waste paper. This represents 53 per cent. of the fibre requirement of the industry.

  The Department is keen to promote the use of recycled fibre in production processes whenever it is technically and economically viable to do so. With this aim in mind, a joint DTI-industry working group has drawn up specifications for educational and computer papers containing 75 per cent. recycled fibre which will shortly be published. An advisory group set up by the Department is currently examining ways of increasing the utilisation of waste paper in all paper products.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will initiate a publicity campaign to encourage the use by the public of products made from recycled paper.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 13 February 1990]The Department is keen to encourage the use of products which are manufactured using recycled fibre. Currently an advisory group set up by the DTI is examining ways of increasing the utilisation of waste paper in all paper products.

  Tissue Products
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will examine the regulations governing the content of waste newsprint in tissue products.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 13 February 1990]There are no regulations governing the content of waste newsprint in tissue products. Members of the Association of Makers of Soft Tissues do, however, abide by an industry code of practice which recognises that recycled paper in various forms is a satisfactory substitute for virgin woodpulp after proper selection and treatment.

  An advisory group set up by the Department is currently examining ways of increasing the utilisation of waste paper in all products.

WALES

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will name the current members of(a) each community health council in Wales, (b) each district health authority in Wales, (c) the all-Wales advisory panel on the development of services for people with mental handicaps, (d) each family practitioner committee in Wales, (e) the health policy board and (f) the health
  258
  promotion board who have been appointed by himself or his predecessor either soley or in conjunction with other Ministers; and what is their attendance record at meetings (i) since their appointement and (ii)during 1989.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The current members appointed by myself are as follows:

  (a) the Community Health Counculs

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Mr. W. Mason

  Mrs. M. A. Campbell

  Mrs. S. L. Greensmith

  Mr. J. W. Phillips

  Neath/ Port Talbot

  Mr. J. Warman

  Mrs. B. E. Wheadon

  Mrs. J. D. Chatterton

  Mrs. B. I. Tyler

  Swansea/Lliw Valley

  Mr. J. D. Lloyd

  Rev. A. E. Pierce

  Mrs. M. J. Thomas

  Mrs. B. C. Rees

  Ogwr

  Mrs. Y. M. Griffiths

  Mrs. M. C. Evans

  Captain M. Wilcox

  Aberconwy

  Mrs. M. Priddle Higson

  Mrs. J. A. D. Doll

  Mr. J. Cockburn

  Arfon/Dwyfor

  Mr. H. Williams

  Mrs. W. F. T.Watkin

  Mr. E. T. Jones

  Mr. E. Wright

  North Gwent

  Dr. J. K. Hardy

  Mrs. F. I. Earl

  Mr. R. W. Batten

  Mrs. V. Withers

  Cardiff

  Ms. J. A. Gasson

  Mrs. A. Davies

  Mr. E. G. Owen

  Mrs. A. Butlin

  Montgomery

  Mr. D. H. Evans

  Mrs. K. M. Roberts Jones

  Brecknock/Radnor

  Mrs. G. D. Jones

  Mr. B. R. P. Couzens

  Mrs. D. M. J. James

  Mr. W. G. Phillips

  Merthyr/Cynon

  Mrs. B. Brown

  Mrs. D. M. Griffiths

  Mr. C. T. Jones

  Mr. P. E. Linton

  South Gwent

  Mr. A. R. Bradley

  Mr. A. T. Sawyer

  Mrs. J. C. Phillips

  Mrs. A. Meredith

  Pembrokeshire

  Mrs. C. I. Howells

  Mrs. M. L. Rashley

  259

  Mr. W. R. Stocker

  Miss M. J. Thomas

  Ceredigion

  Mrs. M. E. Jenkins

  Miss M. M. Henllys Jones

  Mr. R. Gardner

  Mr. H. Lewis

  East Glamorgan

  Miss A. M. Yates

  Mr. E. J. Thomas

  Mrs. J. E. Evans

  Mrs. D. H. Thomas

  Rhymney Valley

  Mrs. M. Roberts

  Mr. C. Fenton

  Mrs. N. Rowlands

  Mr. K. Perryman

  Merionydd

  Mr. E. M. Davies

  Mrs. A. J. Noble

  Ynys Môn

  Mrs. P. A. Ade

  Mr. R. A. Johnson

  Mr. M. J. Bonnie

  Carmarthen/Dinefiwr

  Mrs. S. M. A. Roberts

  Mrs. Z. Jenkins

  Mr. D. G. Williams

  Mrs. P. M. Carpenter

  Clwyd North

  Mrs. M. O. Davies

  Mr. L. Jones

  Mrs. B. A. Thompson

  Mrs. J. B. Thomas

  Clwyd South

  Lt. Col. J. P. Margarson

  Mr. E. Williams

  Mr. J. Wainwright

  Mrs. S. C. Cope

  Llanelli/Dinefwr

  Mr. G Jones

  Mr. W. T. Davies

  Mr. D. T. James

  Mrs. M. W. Hopkin Thomas

  to (b)District Health Authorities:

  Clwyd

  Chairman—Mr. E.M.V. Griffith

  Dr. T.M. Hayes

  Mr. A. Williams

  Dr. W.E. Lewis

  Mrs. M. Williams

  Mr. J. O. Morris

  Mr. S. G. Badland

  Mrs. D.R. Mars Jones

  Mrs. A. Roberts

  Mr. R. F Drennan

  Mrs. C. Owen

  Gwent

  Chairman—Mr. J. N. Headlam

  Prof. A. Richens

  MR. W. B. Peeling

  Dr. B. Davies

  Mrs. B. Miles

  Mr. W. D G. Morgan

  Mr. R. Newton

  Mr. R. D Owen

  260

  Mrs. P. A. White

  Mrs. F. N. Peel

  Mr. G. Rosser

  Pembrokeshire

  Chairman—Captain H. W. Phillips

  Dr. E. Verner Jones

  Dr. D. J. Jones

  Dr. B. W. Barton

  Mrs. A. V. Males

  Mr. I. Page

  Mr. D. R. S. Clarke

  B. S. Hearne

  Mr. J. E. Lloyd

  Mr. B. M. Skyes

  Mrs. M. Thomas

  Rev. T. A. Thomas

  East Dyfed

  Chairman—Mr. J. S. Thomas

  Mr. J. Williams

  Dr. A. G. Davies

  Dr. H. Herbert

  Mrs. D. M. Tyler

  Mr. T. G. Evans

  Mrs. V. J. Bourne

  Mr. D. P. Williams

  Mrs. H. M. Jones

  Dr. J. Clough Davies

  Mrs. L. George

  Mr. D. J. Thomas

  Gwynedd

  Chairman—Mrs. N. L. Edwards

  Dr. J. H. Jones

  Mr. R. H. P. Oliver

  Dr. J. B. T. Griffiths

  Mrs. M. P. William

  Mr. T. Thomas

  Mr. G. W. Jones

  Lt. Col. Prescott Walker

  Lady Jane Stanley

  Mr. G. Hulse

  Mr. J. L. Williams

  Powys

  Chairman—Hon. Mrs. L. Price

  Mr. R. G. S. Mills

  Dr. K. G. Mohon Bhakta

  Dr. M. Riley

  Mr. D. W. Williams

  Mr. S. Morris

  Mr. W. P. Pryce

  Mrs. G. Raikes

  Archdeacon J. W. J. Rees

  Lady B. Davies

  Major M. Dyer

  Mid Glamorgan

  Chairman—Mr. B. Davies

  Prof. O. P. Gray

  Mr. D. E. B. Powell

  Dr. P. D. R. Williams

  Mr. D. Thomas

  Mr. V. Williams

  Mr. G. L. Down

  Mr. E. Jowett

  Mr. R. Mitchell

  Mrs. A. M. Morris

  Mr. A. C. Williams

  Mrs. D. Lees

  Mr. D. W. C. Morgan

  South Glamorgan

  Chairman—Mr. A. S. Jones

  261

  Prof. Sir H. L. Duthie

  Prof. N. R. E. Robertson

  Prof. G. H. Elder

  Mr. D. L. Crosby

  Dr. S. G. Gang

  Mrs. C. M. Owen

  Mr. S. M. Jones

  Mrs. M. Box

  Mr. D. Gwynne Evans

  Mr. N. J. Butcher

  Dr. R. M. Pill

  Mrs. J. G. Rees

  Cllr. J. Sainsbury

  West Glamorgan

  Chairman—Prof. W. M. Williams

  Prof. A. L. Bloom

  Dr. P. A. Steane

  Dr. P. Mellor

  Miss V. Burns

  Mr. J. F. Ryan

  Mrs. M. O. Chilcott

  Mr. C. C. Lea

  Mr. G. Lawler

  Mrs. B. K. Bose

  Mr. E. Fuge

  Clwyd FPC

  Chairman—Councillor Tom W. Jones

  Dr. Ewan D. Deas

  Dr. Gruffydd O. Jones

  Dr. William E. Lewis

  Dr. Malcolm D. Manson

  Dr. John N. Taylor

  Dr. David L. Williams

  Dr. Peter Wykes

  Mr. Thomas Birchall

  Mr. Gareth W. Lloyd

  Mr. Konrad J. Saunders

  Mr. Richard B. Harrison

  Mr. Alexander S. Young

  Mr. Geoffrey C. Seys-Llewellyn

  Mr. William J. Ridgway

  Mr. Ronald F. P. Drennan

  Mrs. A. L. Roberts

  Mrs. Irene J.Train

  Mrs. Cathleen T. Owen

  Cllr Peter Morris

  Cllr Neil A. Formstone

  Cllr David Messham

  Mrs. Eurwen H. Edwards

  Mrs. Lynne Hughes

  Dr. Zuzana Hughes

  Mr. Robert W. Manners

  Mr. Christopher B. Swale

  Mrs. Angharad Waters

  Mr. David J. Wells

  Gwent FPC

  Chairman—Dr. Gerald L. Goodwin

  Dr. Anthony L.Calland

  Dr. Frederick R. Cranfield

  Dr. Gregory I. Graham

  Dr. H. S. Sahni

  Dr. Derwyn F. Jones

  Dr. David L. Phillips

  Dr. Christopher J. Wintle

  Dr. Ramnik B. Shah

  Mr. Stuart Geddes

  Mr. William D. G. Morgan

  Mr. Hugh C. Tagg

  Dr. Dilwyn Jones

  Mr. David T. Owen

  Mr. Wilfred H. Phillips

  Mr. John H. Bowen

  Cllr Peter J. Law

  262

  Mrs. Beth Miles

  Mrs. Doreen Moore

  Mrs. Patricia A White

  Cllr Maldwyn J. Harris

  Cllr Richard E. Murray

  Cllr Alan L. Brown

  Cllr Mrs. V. Smith

  Mr. Anthony J. Bell

  Mrs. Judith O. Cox

  Mrs. Susan E. Gregory

  Mr. Bernard W. J. Jarvis

  Mrs. Kathleen D. Jordan

  Mr. Douglas E. Waters

  Miss Zena Williams

  Gwynedd FPC

  Chairman—Dr. John E. A. Kenrick

  Dr. John B. T. Griffiths

  Dr. Huw I. Humphreys

  Dr. Elwyn T. Jones

  Dr. Owen P. Jones

  Dr. Geoffrey D. King

  Dr. Ian E. Roberts

  Dr. John G. Roberts

  Dr. Jitendra J. Tolia

  Mr. Robert J. Jones

  Mr. Timothy H. Poole

  Mr. John R. E. Stagg

  Mr. Michael L. Ashley

  Mr. Richard N. Thomas

  Mr. William E. Roberts

  Mr. Arthur W. Jones

  Mr. George Guyse Barker

  Mr. G. Morris Jones

  Mr. Gwilyn Wyn Jones

  Mrs. Meiriona P. Wiliam

  Cllr. Morgan L. Vaughan

  Cllr. Mrs. Betty Williams

  Cllr. Mrs. Blodwen Jones

  Cllr. Thomas E. Walker

  Mr. Barry J. Owens

  Mr. William R. Roberts

  Mrs. Margaret A. Saracco

  Mrs. Lorna Scharer

  Mr. Simon G. L. Simcox

  Mr. John Williams

  Mr. Meirion T.Wynne

  Dyfed FPC

  Chairman—Mrs. Edith M. Herbert

  Dr. Beryl M. A. Callaghan

  Dr. Walford F. T. Davies

  Dr. Gareth James

  Dr. James M. Lewis

  Dr. Roger G. Paul

  Dr. Beryl A. Roberts

  Dr. Derek B. Scourfield

  Dr. Hilary K. R. Loxdale

  Cllr. Trevor T. Griffiths

  Mr. Thomas Lloyd

  Mr. Ken Owen

  Mr. T. C. Williams

  Cllr. Edwyn P.Parry

  Mr. Adrian F. Murphy

  Mr. Stuart H. Watts

  Mrs. Elizabeth B. Hardcastle

  Mr. Anthony C. Richardson

  Rev. Thomas A. Thomas

  Mrs. Vanessa J. Bourne

  Cllr. Kenneth V. Owens

  Cllr. Geoffrey Sizer

  Cllr. William H. Hitchings

  CIIr. Mrs. June Williams

  Mr. David Bentham

  Mrs. Anne Bowen

  Mr. David Gwynne

  Mr. John K. Harris

  Mr. William D. L. Lloyd

  263

  Mrs. Mona R. Morris

  Mr. B. L. Davies

  Mid Glamorgan FPC

  Chairman—Mr. J. Devonald Williams

  Dr. Subrahmanyam Ganesh

  Dr. Robert Jones

  Dr. John B. R.Lewis

  Dr. Christopher J. L. Morgan

  Dr. David Parry

  Dr. Bipkin K. Shah

  Dr. John C. Tiarks

  Mr. Leslie Cooper

  Mr. Ian Price

  Mr. William A. Tucker

  Mr. Roy Jones

  Mr. Colin H. Thomas

  Mr. J. Neville G. Davies

  Mr. Peter Jenkins

  Miss Anne D. M. Harris

  Mr. Eric Jowett

  Mrs. Anne M. Morris

  Mr. Alan C. Williams

  Cllr. Leslie J. Rees

  Cllr. M. J. Ing

  Cllr. Arthur J. Davies

  Cllr. David E. Morgan

  Mr. Michael W. Davies

  Mrs. Brigit C. Dimond

  Mr. Brian Griffiths

  Mrs. Roseilia M. Lewis

  Mrs. Daphne M. Morris

  Mr. Jeffrey H. Silcock

  Mr. Edward H. Tiltman

  The hon. Member would need to write to the chairman of each of these bodies for details of attendance.

  Powys FPC

  Chairman—Archdeacon. J. W. J. Rees

  Dr. Anthony V. Evans

  Dr. Peter O. Faulkner

  Dr. John Harries

  Dr. Keith Hughes

  Dr. John Wynn-Jones

  Dr. Simeon Ovis

  Dr. Derek Wilson

  Dr. Barbara K.Wynne-Evans

  Mr. Timothy E. Powell

  Mrs. Jean R. Wynne-Griffith

  Mr. Stuart L. Danby

  Mr. Paul G. J. Davies

  Mr. William G. Cawley

  Mr. Anthony V. Jones

  Mrs. Patricia A. Antill

  Mrs. Margaret J. Dodd

  Mr. Selwyn Morris

  Mrs. Kathlen Scott

  Cllr. Eifion H. Lewis

  Cllr. Mrs. Marilyn Roberts

  Cllr. Mrs. M. C. Lennox-Smith

  ClIr. Mrs. Ivy B. Lewis

  Mrs. Catherine A. Bartholomew

  Mr. R. E. Jones

  Miss Barbara Hughes

  Mrs. Margaret R. O'Hare

  Mrs. Jean Ryder

  Mr. Colin J. Spackman

  Mrs. Anne M. T. Usborne

  South Glamorgan FPC

  Chairman—Dr. Richard G. Lloyd

  Dr. O. M. Parkash Aggarwal

  Dr. Raphael Cantor

  Dr. S. Keith Holgate

  Dr. Geoffrey F Morgan

  Dr. Anthony S. Parsons

  Dr. Margaret V. Williams

  Dr. C. W. Allanby

  264

  Mr. A. R. Fuge

  Mr. Leslie Greenbaum

  Mr. P. J. Naish

  Mr. Peter J. Cummins

  Mr. Ian Phillips

  Mr. Richard N. Roberts

  Mr. Anthony W. Blasebalk

  Dr. Roisin M. Pill

  Mrs. Mary K. Provis

  Mr. Gerald Rapport

  Mrs. Moira Griffiths

  Cllr. Russell V. Goodway

  Cllr. Peter H. Jarvis

  Cllr. Mrs. Susan L. Essex

  Cllr. Emlyn T. Williams

  Mr. Richard C. Daniel

  Cllr. Ian B. Hermer

  Mrs. Linda James

  Mr. James H. Leighton

  Mrs. Mary Mossford

  Mrs. Gerald N. Robinson

  Mr. David G. Thomas

  West Glamorgan FPC

  Chairman—Dr. Paul Mellor

  Dr. Prydderch D. Davies

  Dr. Stuart P. Jenkins

  Dr. Ian M. Millington

  Dr. E. M. Williams

  Dr. Richard G. Pincott

  Dr. Edward M. Roberts

  Dr. Neil Upton

  Dr. Marion Lesley Howells

  Mr. Peter L. Evans

  Mr. Peter Lloyd

  Mr. Michael L. Mills Davies

  Mr. Peter K. Howard

  Mr. Gerald Thomas

  Mr. Keith MacDonald

  Mr. Andrew J. H. Bevan

  Mr. John N. Clement

  Mrs. Margaret M. Evans

  Mr. Gerard Lawler

  Mrs. Margaret F. Williams

  Cty. Cllr. Norman R. Thomas

  Cty. Cllr. Miss Sarah M. Thomas

  Cllr. R. Francis-Davies

  Cllr. Harry I. Thomas

  Mrs. Margaret E. Coleman

  Mrs. Jane V. Davies

  Mr. Ioan H. Durban

  Mr. Thomas W. Harries

  Mrs. Gwyneira Harris

  Mr. Graham L. Jones

  Mr. William G. Rees

  to (c):

  The all Wales Advisory Panel on the Development of Service for people with a mental handicap.

  Attendance record percentage

  since appointment

  in 1989

  Mr. D. E. A. Jones

  100

  100

  Professor M. Chazan

  100

  100

  Dr. D. Dickens

  100

  100

  Mr. D. Sines

  84

  100

  Dr. D. Towell

  84

  100

  Mr. R. G. Davies

  84

  84

  Mr. M. Weinberg

  100

  100

  Mr. G. Wistow

  100

  100

  to (e):

  The Health Policy Board

  Mr J. W. Lloyd

  100

  100

  Mr. R. W. Jarman

  100

  100

  Mr. J. W. Owen

  100

  100

  Dr. D. Ferguson Lewis

  100

  100

  Miss M. P. Bull

  100

  100

  Mr. D. G. Evans

  88

  100

  265

  Attendance record percentage

  since appointment

  in 1989

  Rear Admiral J. P. Edwards

  92

  100

  Mr. R. Tydesley

  100

  100

  Mr. A. G. Thornton

  100

  100

  to (f) correctly titled The Health Promotion Authority for Wales

  Dr. S. A. Smail—Chairman

  Mr. J. Thomas

  Mrs. M. Bond

  Mr. A. Crabbe

  Mr D. Francis

  Professor R. Hodgson

  Mrs. C. James

  Councillor T. Jones

  Dr. M. Keen

  Dr. B. Littlepage

  Miss E. Muir

  Mrs. S. Sandham

  Ms. V. Sugar

  Mrs. I. Train

  The hon. Member would need to write to the chairman of the authority for details of attendance.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of (a) the Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee, (b) the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances, (c) the Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales, (d) the Agricultural Valuation Panel for Wales, (e) the agricultural wages committee, (f) the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales, (g) the Audit Commission and (h) the British Wool Marketing Board, appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessor.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is as follows:

  Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee.

  Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances.

  Department of Health officials provide the secretariats of both of these bodies.

  The hon. Member may wish to pursue this with my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 13 February. Agricultural Valuation Panel for Wales:

  Agricultural Valuation Panel for Wales:

  Agricultural Valuation Panel for Wales

  Attendance record percentage

  Since appointment

  In 1989

  Mr. M. S. Argles

  71

  100

  Mr. N. E. Elliott

  86

  100

  Mr. F. Grounds

  100

  100

  Mr. J. H. Harris

  —

  —

  Mr. H. B. Knight

  100

  100

  Mr. J. R. Mathias

  100

  100

  Mr. J. A. Pallister

  67

  100

  Mr. T. W. Sale

  100

  100

  Mr. T. G. Sherman

  100

  100

  Mr. R. Thomas

  86

  100

  Mr. G. W. Wadsworth

  100

  100

  Mr. G T. Williams

  100

  100

  Agricultural Wages Committees:

  Clwyd

  Mr. J. E. Ambrose

  100

  100

  Mr. T. Jones

  100

  100

  Mr. I. G. Richards

  100

  —

  Dyfed

  266

  Attendance record percentage

  Since appointment

  In 1989

  Mr. T. E. Davies

  96

  100

  Mr. C. F. Hosking

  100

  100

  Mrs. E. D. Williams

  100

  —

  Glamorgan

  Mrs. S. E. L. Reeve

  100

  100

  Mr. P. Hart

  90

  50

  Mr. D. R. I. Williams

  95

  50

  Gwent

  Mr. J. L. Evans

  50

  0

  Mr. J. M. H. Stephens

  100

  100

  Mr. P. A. Thomas

  100

  100

  Gwynedd

  Mr. E. Lloyd Evans

  57

  100

  Mr. R. R. Harris

  100

  —

  Mr. T. H. Morgan

  100

  100

  Powys

  Mr. W. G. Davies

  87

  100

  Canon E. J. John

  100

  100

  Mrs. G. L. Thomas

  80

  0

  Audit Commission:

  The Audit Commission is an independent body entirely responsible for regulating its own affairs. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman.

  British Wool Marketing Board:

  This information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to the secretary of the board.

  Ancient Monuments Board

  Attendance record percentage

  Since appointment

  In 1989

  Professor Glanmor Williams

  100

  100

  Mr. G. C. Boon

  100

  100

  Professor R. R. Davies

  83

  100

  Mr. R. B. Heaton

  50

  50

  Mr. R. J. Keen

  100

  100

  Miss F. Lynch

  100

  100

  Mr. D. Moore

  100

  100

  Mr. P. Smith

  83

  100

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of (a) the Farm Animal Welfare Council, (b) the Forestry Commission Reference Committee for Wales, (c) the Historic Buildings Council for Wales, (d) Housing for Wales, (e) the Land Authority for Wales, (f) the Library and Information Services Council (Wales), (g) the Local Government Boundary Commission and (h) the national parks committee appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessor.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is as follows:

  Farm Animal Welfare Council

  The secretariat for this body is provided by Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials. The hon. Member may wish to inquire of my right hon. Friend.

  Forestry Commission Reference Committee for Wales

  The Forestry Commission reference committee panels comprise persons who can be called upon to form committees to advise the Secretary of State on felling licences etc. appeals referred to him under the terms of the Forestry Act 1967. No such appeals have been made so no committees have met.

  Historic Buildings Council for Wales
  267

  Attendance record

  Since appointment

  Since 1989

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Marquis of Anglesey

  100

  100

  Dr. Prys Morgan

  100

  100

  Professor J. Eynon

  100

  100

  The Earl Lloyd George of Dwyfor

  100

  100

  Mr. Lindsay Evans

  70

  60

  Mr. R. Haslam

  100

  100

  Mr. T. Lloyd

  100

  100

  Housing for Wales

  Land Authority for Wales

  This information is not collected centrally for these bodies. The hon. Member may wish to write to the respective chairmen.

  Library and Information Services Council

  Per cent.

  Attendance record

  Since appointment

  Since 1989

  Mr. G. W. F. Ewins

  67

  95

  Miss M. Cooper

  67

  77

  Mr. Tim Heald

  0

  75

  Miss Tudfil Adams

  100

  71

  Dr. Brynley Roberts

  100

  90

  Mr. Hywel Roberts

  100

  100

  Dr. Ian Lovesy

  67

  80

  Mr. Ieuan Edwards

  67

  80

  Mr. Gwyn Williams

  100

  75

  Local Government Boundary Commission

  This information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to the secretary of the local Government Boundary Commission.

  National Parks Committee

  The information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairmen of the relevant national parks committees in Wales (Snowdonia, Brecon Beacons, Pembrokeshire Coast).

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of (a) the National Radiological Protection Board, (b) the North-Western and North Wales sea fisheries committee, (c) the Place Names Advisory Committee, (d) the rent assessment panel, (e) the Saundersfoot Harbour Commission, (f) the Sports Council for Wales and (g) the South Wales sea fisheries committee appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessor.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is as follows:

  National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB).:

  The secretariat of this body is provided by NRPB officials. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman.

  North-Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee:

  This is a local authority committee. The hon. Member may wish to write to the clerk and chief fisheries officer of the committee.

  Place Names Advisory Committee:
  268
  The business of this body is conducted entirely by correspondence.

  Rent Assessment Panel:

  Rent assessment panels are convened as necessary from a general list of members who are prepared to serve on panels from time to time. It is not meaningful to give a breakdown of individual attendances.

  Saundersfoot Harbour Commission:

  This information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to the clerk to the harbour commissions.

  Sports Council for Wales:

  This information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman.

  South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee:

  This is a local authority committee. The hon. Member may wish to write to the clerk and chief fisheries officer of the committee.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of (a) the Cardiff Bay development corporation,(b) the committee for the Welsh scheme for the development of health and social research, (c) the Committee on Opportunities for Volunteering, (d) the Council for National Academic Awards, (e) the courts and councils of (i) the National Library and (ii) the National Museum of Wales, (f) the Curriculum Council for Wales and (g) the Development Board for Rural Wales, appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessor.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is not collected centrally for any of the bodies listed.

  (a) Cardiff Bay Development Corporation.

  (d) Council for National Academic Awards.

  (f) Curriculum Council for Wales

  (g)Development Board for Rural Wales

  The hon. Gentleman may wish to write to the chairman of each of these bodies.

  (c) Committee on Opportunities for Volunteering.

  The hon. Gentleman may wish to write to the secretary.

  (e) The courts and councils of (i) the National Library and (ii) the National Museum of Wales.

  The hon. Gentleman may wish to write to the respective presidents.

  (b) The committee for the Welsh scheme for the development of health and social research.

  This scheme is administered on my behalf by the university of Wales College of Medicine, to which the hon. Gentleman may wish to write.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the Welsh health common services authority are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the Sports Council for Wales are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Four.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure of Sports Council for
  269
  Wales during the last year where figures are available and what proportion of expenditure was allocated to (a) administration in general, (b) hosting of meetings and conferences, (c) allowances for attending meetings and (d) general allowances given to nominees on the committee.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The published accounts of the Sports Council for Wales for the year ended 31 March 1989 show total expenditure of £5,746,706.

  (a) Expenditure on administration in general (including relevant staff costs and computerisation) was 14 per cent. of the total.

  (b) Users of the Sports Council for Wales' facilities are charged a commercial fee. The costs of any meetings or conferences arising from the Sports Council for Wales' work are subsumed in the administrative costs.

  (c) No payments are made for attending meetings. The total expenditure on reimbursement of members' travel and subsistence costs for 1988–89 was 0·4 per cent. of the total expenditure of the council.

  (d) Nominees from outside bodies who attend council meetings receive no payment from the Sports Council for Wales.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the agricultural dwelling house advisory committee panel of chairmen, Wales, declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those declaring a political affiliation, how many showed allegiance to(a) Conservatives, (b) Labour, (c) the Liberal Democrats,(d) the Social Democratic party, (e) the Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru;

  (2) how many nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the training enterprise and education advisory group declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those declaring a political affiliation, how many showed allegiance to (a) Conservatives, (b) Labour, (c) the Liberal Democrats,(d) the Social Democratic party, (e) the Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru;

  (3) how many nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the urban investment appraisal panel declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those declaring a political affiliation, how many showed allegiance to (a) Conservatives, (b) Labour, (c) the Liberal Democrats,(d) the Social Democratic party, (e) the Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru;

  (4) how many nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him for the Welsh Development Agency declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those declaring a political affiliation, how many showed allegiance to (a) Conservatives, (b) Labour, (c) the Liberal Democrats, (d) the Social Democratic party, (e) the Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru;

  (5) how many nominees for current appointments made by him either solely or jointly with another Minister to the Welsh committee for postgraduate pharmaceutical education declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those declaring a political affiliation, how many showed allegiance to (a) Conservatives, (b) Labour, (c) the Liberal Democrats, (d) the Social Democratic party, (e) the Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru;
  270
  (6) how many of the nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the Wales committee on drug misuse declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those declaring a political affiliation how many showed allegiance to (a) Conservatives, (b) Labour, (c) the Liberal Democrats, (d) the Social Democratic party, (e) the Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru;

  (7) how many of the nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the Welsh language board declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and how many showed allegiance to (a) Conservatives, (b) Labour, (c) the Liberal Democrats, (d) the Social Democratic party, (e) the Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru;

  (8) how many of the nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the standing working group of the Wales advisory body declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae and of those declaring a political affiliation, how many showed allegiance to (a) Conservatives, (b) Labour, (c) the Liberal Democrats, (d) the Social Democratic party, (e) the Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru;

  (9) how many of the nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the Welsh industrial development advisory board declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and how many showed allegiance to (a) Conservatives, (b) Labour, (c) the Liberal Democrats, (d) the Social Democratic party, (e) the Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru;

  (10) how many of the nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the Welsh national board for nursing, midwifery and health visiting declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and how many showed allegiance to (a) Conservatives, (b) Labour, (c) the Liberal Democrats, (d) the Social Democratic party, (e) the Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru;

  (11) how many of the nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the Welsh health common services authority declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those declaring a political affiliation how many showed allegiance to (a) Conservatives, (b) Labour, (c) the Liberal Democrats, (d) the Social Democratic party, (e) the Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru;

  (12) how many of the nominees to the current appointments made by him either solely or jointly with another Minister to the Wales tourist board declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those, how many showed allegiance to (a) Conservatives, (b) Labour, (c) the Liberal Democrats, (d) the Social Democratic party, (e) the Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru;

  (13) how many nominees for current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the teamcare valleys steering group declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those declaring a political affiliation how many showed allegiance to (a) Conservatives, (b) Labour, (c) the Liberal Democrats, (d) the Social Democratic party, (e) the Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru;

  (14) how many of the nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the agricultural training board declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those declaring a political

  271
  affiliation, how many showed allegiance to (a) Conservatives, (b) Labour, (c) the Liberal Democrats, (d) the Social Democratic party, (e) the Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru.

  (15) how many nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the council of University College, Lampeter, declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those declaring a political affiliation how many showed allegiance to (a)Conservatives, (b)Labour, (c) the Liberal Democrats, (d) the Social Democratic party, (e)the Green party and (f)Plaid Cymru;

  (16) how many nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the court of the University College, Swansea, declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those declaring a political affiliation how many showed allegiance to (a)Conservatives, (b)Labour, (c) the Liberal Democrats, (d) the Social Democratic party, (e)the Green party and (f)Plaid Cymru;

  (17)how many nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the court and council of the University of Wales, Bangor, declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those declaring a political affiliation how many showed allegiance to (a)Conservatives, (b)Labour, (c)the Liberal Democrats, (d) the Social Democratic party, (e)the Green party and (f) Plaid Cymru;

  (18)how many nominees for the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the court and council of the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, declared a political affiliation in their curricula vitae; and of those declaring a political affiliation how many showed allegiance to (a)Conservatives, (b)Labour, (c)the Liberal Democrats, (d)the Social Democratic party, (e)the Green party and (f)Plaid Cymru.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I do not require candidates for public appointment to indicate their political affiliation, as this is not a qualification for appointment.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made by him either solely or jointly with another Minister to the Welsh committee on drug misuse are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Six.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the standing working group of the Wales advisory body are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Two.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the agricultural dwelling house advisory committee panel of chairmen, Wales, are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Three.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the training enterprise and education advisory group are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The training, enterprise and education advisory group has one female member.
  272
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the Welsh language board are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  One.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the parliamentary boundary commission for Wales are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker:
  None.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the urban investment appraisal panel are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker:
  None.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the Wales tourist board are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker:
  one.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the Welsh industrial development advisory board are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the Welsh Development Agency are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will name the current members of the agricultural dwelling house advisory committee panel of chairmen, Wales, who have been appointed by himself or his predecessor either solely or in conjunction with other Ministers; what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of the agricultural dwelling house advisory committee panel of chairmen, Wales, appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessor.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is as follows. Panel members with no meetings recorded by their names have not yet been called upon to chair meetings.

  Attendance

  Since appointment

  During 1989

  Clwyd

  (a)

  (b)

  Mr. J. E. Ambrose

  —

  —

  Mr. I. G. Richards

  —

  —

  Dyfed

  Mr. C. F. Hosking

  —

  —

  Mrs. E. D. Williams

  —

  —

  Glamorgans

  Mr. P. T. Hart

  1 out of 1

  —

  Mrs. S. E. L. Reeve

  —

  —

  Gwent

  273

  Attendance

  Since appointment

  During 1989

  Clwyd

  (a)

  (b)

  Mr. J. L. Evans

  —

  —

  Mr. J. M. H. Stephens

  2 out of 2

  —

  Gwynedd

  Mr. R. R. Harris

  —

  —

  Mr. E. Lloyd Evans

  —

  —

  Powys

  Canon E. C. John

  —

  —

  Mrs. G. L. Thomas

  1 out of 1

  1 out of 1

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will name the current members of the Wales tourist board who have been appointed by himself or his predecessor either solely or in conjunction with other Ministers; and what is their attendance record at meetings(a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The current members of the Wales tourist board are listed below. They have each been appointed solely by the present Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. I. Prys Edwards (Chairman)

  Mrs. Lorna Minors

  Mr. Christopher L. Pollard OBE

  Mr. E. Glyn Davies

  Mr. Elfed Roberts

  Mr. David H. Griffith

  Mr. John Dunscombe

  Information on their attendance record at meetings is not collected centrally. The hon. Gentleman may wish to write to the chairman.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will name the current members of the Welsh

  From appointment

  Includes columns (e) and (f)

  1989 only

  Member

  Start date

  Attended

  Total No. held

  Attended

  Total No. held

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  (f)

  J. W. Owen1

  April 1985

  51

  51

  10

  10

  D. W. C. Morgan

  March 1982

  75

  82

  9

  10

  K. C. White

  February 1982

  72

  83

  9

  10

  J. N. Headlam

  September 1984

  52

  58

  9

  10

  G. I. Harrhy

  July 1987

  20

  26

  8

  10

  1 Chairman.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of the Welsh industrial development advisory board appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessor.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Attendance levels at meetings for current members of the Welsh industrial development advisory board are as follows:

  Name

  Attendance since appointment

  During 1989

  percentage

  percentage

  P. J. Phillips OBE

  85

  92

  N. D. Penfold MBE

  85

  92

  M. Wallace

  47

  38

  D. Jenkins

  88

  92

  A. Folwell

  73

  62

  K. Hodge

  78

  77

  274
  committee for postgraduate pharmaceutical education who have been appointed by himself or his predecessor either solely or in conjunction with other Ministers; what is their attendance record at meetings (a)since their appointment and (b) during 1989.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information is shown in the following table:

  Members

  Attendance record percentage

  Since appointment

  1989

  Mr. M. A. Pollard

  100

  100

  Miss C. Wynne-Howells

  79

  67

  Prof. I. W. Kellaway

  79

  67

  Mr. T. D. Turner

  57

  67

  Dr. N. A. Armstrong

  67

  67

  Mr. H. A. O. Hughes

  100

  100

  Mr. K. C. Rew

  100

  100

  Miss M. G. E. Price

  100

  100

  Mr. P. Hollyman

  67

  67

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, of the current appointments made by him either solely or jointly with another Minister to the Welsh committee for postgraduate pharmaceutical education, how many posts are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Two.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of the Welsh health common services authority appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessor.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  See following table:

  Name

  Attendance since appointment

  During 1989

  pecentage

  pecentage

  H. G. Jones

  1100

  n/a

  T. G. Jones OBE

  10

  n/a

  1 Appointed 1 January 1990.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of the Welsh industrial development advisory board appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessor.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is as follows:
  275

  Members

  Attendance

  Since appointment

  1989

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Professor C. M. Chapman OBE (Chairman)

  88

  83

  Mrs. E. Walker (Deputy Chairman)

  88

  83

  Dr. S. K. Armitage

  88

  83

  Mrs. C. G. Ball

  95

  83

  Mrs. J. Y. Beese

  100

  100

  Mr. D. J. Black

  88

  83

  Mr. G. Boulton

  75

  67

  Mr. G. Castledine

  100

  100

  Mrs. A. C. D. Davies

  69

  50

  Mrs. J. Davies

  63

  50

  Miss A. Doyle

  85

  83

  Mrs. S. M. Drayton

  87

  67

  Mr. P. W. Ebenezer

  65

  50

  Mr. E. R. Edwards JP

  77

  67

  Mrs. J. E. M. Edwards

  75

  67

  Mrs. S. E. Gregory

  50

  33

  Dr. D. Harrett (from April 1989)

  75

  75

  Miss M. Hughes JP

  85

  88

  Mrs. S. C. Hunt

  100

  100

  Mr. D. C. Jones-Davies

  60

  67

  Mrs. D. A. Keddie

  100

  100

  Mrs. A. Kelly

  75

  67

  Mrs. A. V. Males

  97

  83

  Miss J. Martin

  100

  100

  Dr. J. S. Morris

  70

  67

  Mrs. S. B. Nuttall

  92

  100

  Mrs. T. J. Parry

  88

  83

  Miss R. M. Phillips

  88

  83

  Mr. P. J. Pye

  80

  67

  Ms. L. I. Silverton

  88

  100

  Ms. R. Thome

  88

  83

  Mr. N. S. Towns (from April 1989)

  50

  50

  Mrs. A. Whitehead

  100

  100

  Mrs. B. Wroe

  100

  100

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of the standing working group of the Wales advisory body appointed soley or jointly by him or his predecessor.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is not held centrally; the hon. Gentleman may wish to write to the secretary of the Wales Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of the urban investment appraisal panel appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessors.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The urban investment grant appraisal panel was constituted on 8 July 1987. The record of attendance is shown in the following table:

  Panel Member

  Possible Attendance Level

  Actual Attendance Level

  (a) Record of Attendance since appointment:

  Sir Melvyn Rosser

  9

  9

  Mr. David P. Schwarz

  9

  8

  Mr. Ray Lacey

  9

  9

  Mr. Stuart Lindsay

  9

  9

  Mr. Peter Laing

  9

  9

  Mr. Kevin Doolan

  2

  1

  Mr. Rhys James

  2

  1

  (b) Record of Attendance during 1989:

  276

  Panel Member

  Possible Attendance Level

  Actual Attendance Level

  Sir Melvyn Rosser

  3

  3

  Mr. David P. Scharz

  3

  3

  Mr. Ray Lacey

  3

  3

  Mr. Stuart Lindsay

  3

  3

  Mr. Peter Laing

  3

  3

  Mr. Kevin Doolan

  1

  —

  Mr. Rhys James

  1

  1

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of the training enterprise and education advisory group appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessors.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Between March 1989, when the group was established, and December 1989 there have been four meetings; the percentage of members attending was 90 per cent.; 77 per cent., 62 per cent. and 92 per cent. respectively.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of the Welsh language board appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessor.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of the Welsh Development Agency appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessor.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  This is primarily a matter for the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of the Wales committee on drug misuse appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessor.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Welsh Committee on Drug Misuse was established in December 1986. Since then there have been 13 meetings, four of which were in 1989. The following table lists the current members and their attendance record:

  Percentage attended since appointment

  Percentage attended in 1989

  Dr. N. J. B. Evans (Chairman)

  100

  100

  *Mr. D. Allen

  0

  0

  Dr. D. Bevan

  92

  100

  Dr. W. B. Clee

  100

  100

  Mr. R. Evans

  100

  100

  Dr. G. W. Hughes

  100

  100

  Mrs. S. Jones

  100

  100

  Miss M. H. Jones

  46

  25

  Dr. M. R. Keen

  92

  100

  Ms. C. Lambert

  92

  75

  *Mr. K. J. McDonogh

  0

  0

  *Dr. S. Palmer

  0

  0

  Mr. R. Pates

  100

  100

  277

  Percentage attended since appointment

  Percentage attended in 1989

  Mrs. L. Quinn

  100

  100

  Dr. D. J. Temple

  100

  100

  Mr. D. T. Williams

  77

  75

  Mr. P. M. Williams

  85

  75

  Dr. B. O. Wilson

  85

  100

  Mr. J. Wreford

  100

  100

  Those marked * were appointed in December 1989 and were not able to attend the December meeting.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure of the agricultural dwelling house advisory committee panel of chairmen, Wales, during the last year where figures are available; and what proportion of expenditure was allocated to(a) administration in general, (b) hosting of meetings and conferences, (c) allowances for attending meetings and (d) general allowances given to nominees on the committee.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None. There are six panels of chairmen in Wales, whose members chair meetings of ADHACs on an ad hoc basis. One member of the panel chaired an ADHAC meeting in 1989 but he did not claim his fees or expenses. The minimal servicing costs for the meeting were absorbed by my Department.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure of the standing working group of the Wales advisory body during the last year where figures are available; and what proportion of expenditure was allocated to(a) administration in general, (b) hosting of meetings and conferences, (c) allowances for attending meetings and (d) general allowances given to nominees on the committee.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is not held centrally; the hon. Gentleman may wish to write to the secretary of the Wales Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure of the training enterprise and education advisory group during the last year where figures are available; and what proportion of expenditure was allocated to(a) administration in general, (b) hosting of meetings and conferences, (c) allowances for attending meetings and (d) general allowances given to nominees on the committee.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Figures for expenditure on administration are not available. Between March 1989, when the group was established, and December 1989 accommodation and catering costs totalled approximately £1,055 and members' travel and subsistence costs approximately £1,238. The chairman of the group is paid £11,393 per annum; no other allowances are paid to members.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure of the urban investment appraisal panel during the last year where figures are available; and what proportion of expenditure was allocated to(a) administration in general, (b) hosting of meetings and conferences, (c) allowances for attending meetings and (d) general allowances given to nominees on the committee.
  278
  Mr. Peter Walker
  During 1989 urban investment grant appraisal panel expenditure was £719 of which £200 was spent on hosting of meetings, the balance of £519 being the cost of members' attendance at meetings.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure of the Wales tourist board during the last year where figures are available; and what proportion of expenditure was allocated to(a) administration in general, (b) hosting of meetings and conferences, (c) allowances for attending meetings and (d) general allowances given to nominees on the committee.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Total expenditure by the Wales tourist board during 1988–89 was £11·709 million. Of this, £4·060 million or 34·7 per cent. is attributable to operating or administrative costs. Details of expenditure on meetings and conferences is not separately identifiable. Allowances for attending meetings are met from within the total travel and subsistence element of the board's operating costs, amounting to £0·337 million or 2·9 per cent. of the total expenditure in 1988–89.

  In the period April to October 1988, actual salaries for part-time commitment paid to the chairman and other members of the board were £23,913 and £4,725 respectively. These rose to £24,234 and £4,790 in the period November 1988 to March 1989. In addition, board members were entitled to claim within an authorised scale travelling and incidental expenses incurred on the business of the board.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure of the Welsh committee for postgraduate pharmaceutical education during the last year where figures are available; and what proportion of expenditure was allocated to(a) administration in general, (b) hosting of meetings and conferences, (c) allowances for attending meetings and (d) general allowances given to nominees of the committee.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Welsh committee for postgraduate pharmaceutical education receives funding from my Department and from other sources. It is therefore not possible to provide a figure for total expenditure. However, my Department in the financial year 1988–89, provided funds for(a) the maintenance of the office of the director, his staff, and for some limited courses for hospital pharmacists in the sum of £71,938; and (b) a further £15,000 was expended on providing courses for community pharmacists.

  Of the sum at (a) above, 80·77 per cent. was expended on administration in general, and 3·39 per cent. on members' allowances for attending meetings. There was no expenditure on the hosting of meetings, and since the committee has no nominees, there was no further expenditure under this heading.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure of the Welsh committee on drug misuse during the last year where figures are available; and what proportion of expenditure was allocated to(a) administration in general, (b) hosting of meetings and conferences, (c) allowances for attending meetings and (d) general allowances given to nominees on the committee.
  279
  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Welsh committee on drug misuse is an advisory committee and as such does not have an operational budget. The only expenditure associated with it is as follows:

  (a) Secretariat and administrative support is provided by staff of my Department as part of their wider duties.

  (b) £4,601·18 (1988–89).

  (c) Travel and subsistence claims are where possible met by employing authorities or organisations. Where this is not possible they are met centrally. The amount for 1988–89 was £2,198·06.

  (d)Appointments are unpaid although a financial loss allowance is available to eligible members. The amount for 1988–89 was £206·25.

  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure of the Welsh Development Agency during the last year where figures are available; and what proportion of expenditure was allocated to(a) administration in general, (b) hosting of meetings and conferences, (c) allowances for attending meetings and (d) general allowances given to nominees on the committee.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is contained within the agency's latest annual report and accounts, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, with the exception of expenditure incurred in hosting meetings and conferences. This information is not separately recorded.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure of the Welsh health common services authority during the last year where figures are available; and what proportion of expenditure was allocated to(a) administration in general, (b) hosting of meetings and conferences, (c) allowances for attending meetings and (d) general allowances given to nominees on the committee.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  During the last financial year, the Welsh health common services authority spent a total of £26,431,669. The further information requested by the hon. Gentleman is not available centrally.

  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure of the Welsh industrial development advisory board during the last year where figures are available; and what proportion of expenditure was allocated to(a) administration in general, (b) hosting of meetings and conferences, (c) allowances for attending meetings and (d) general allowances given to nominees on the committee.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In the 1988–89 financial year, expenditure in respect of the Welsh industrial development advisory board totalled £3,7831, of which £2,353 were travel and subsistence expenses for board members, and £1,430 was for hospitality at board meetings. No fees or general allowances are payable to board members.
  1Excluding Welsh office administration costs, which are published annually in "Public Bodies".

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure of the Welsh language board during the last year where figures are available; and what proportion of expenditure was allocated to(a) administration in general, (b) hosting of meetings and conferences, (c) allowances for attending meetings and (d) general allowances given to nominees on the committee.
  280
  Mr. Peter Walker
  The total expenditure on administration of the Welsh language board during the financial year 1988–89 was £90,807, of which the amount spent on meetings and conferences was £654. Expenses paid for attending meetings of the board and its working groups totalled £6,833. Members of the board do not receive a fee for their work.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the agricultural training board are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  One.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the teamcare valleys steering group are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  One.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of the agricultural training board appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessor.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The attendance record is:

  (a) Since appointed

  (b) During 1989

  Mr. J. E. Smith (Chairman)

  5 out of 5

  4 out of 4

  Mr. M. J. Curtis (Deputy Chairman)

  5 out of 5

  4 out of 4

  Prof Kathleen Anderson

  4 out of 5

  3 out of 4

  Mr. G. J. Baird

  5 out of 5

  4 out of 4

  Mr. J. Burnett

  5 out of 5

  4 out of 4

  Mr. A. H. Fooks

  5 out of 5

  4 out of 4

  Mr. J. A. Kilgour

  41 out of 46

  5 out of 6

  Mr. N. J. Mallett

  5 out of 5

  4 out of 4

  Mr. I. Monkton

  5 out of 5

  4 out of 4

  Mr. M. D. Pollard

  27 out of 27

  6 out of 6

  Mr. D. H. Roberts

  26 out of 27

  6 out of 6

  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since the appointment and (b) during 1989 of current members of the court and council of the University of Wales, Bangor appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessors.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Gentleman may wish to write to the registrar at the college.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since: their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of the teamcare valleys steering group appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessors.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There were only two meetings during 1989 of the teamcare valleys steering group, which was established on 1 June 1989.

  Current membership and attendance record of the group is listed in the table:

  281

  Attendance since appointed in 1989 percent.

  Chairman—Dr. P. Elwood

  100

  Professor N. Stott

  100

  Professor T. Hayes

  50

  Professor B. Davies

  100

  Mr. J. P. Williams

  100

  Mr. J. Butcher

  100

  Mrs. E. M. Lovell

  100

  Dr. G. Graham

  50

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure of the teamcare valleys steering group during the last year where figures are available; and what proportion of expenditure was allocated to(a) administration in general, (b) hosting of meetings and conferences, (c) allowances for attending meetings and (d) general allowances given to nominees on the committee.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The teamcare valleys steering group is an advisory body, established on 1 June 1989, and does not have an operational budget. The only expenditure of the group is as follows:

  (a) Secretariat and administrative support is provided by staff of my Department as part of their wider duties;

  (b) Nil to date;

  (c) Travel and subsistence claims are, where possible, met by members' nominating authorities or organisations. No claims have been received to date;

  (d) Appointments are unpaid although a financial loss allowance is available to eligible members. No claims have been received to date.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made by him to the council of University College, Lampeter, are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the court and council of the University of Wales, Bangor, are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the court and council of the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the current appointments made solely or jointly by him to the court of University College, Swansea, are held by women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the attendance record at meetings(a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of the council of University College, Lampeter, appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessor;

  (2) what is the attendance record at meetings (a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current
  282
  members of the court and council of the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessor;

  (3) what is the attendance record at meetings (a) since their appointment and (b) during 1989 of the current members of the court of University College, Swansea, appointed solely or jointly by him or his predecessor.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Gentleman may wish to write to the registrars at the colleges.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Rain Forest
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for the international convention on rain forest problems, as outlined in the Kew lecture on 6 February by the Prince of Wales.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government intend to pursue the proposal for an international convention on the world's forests, including tropical forests, in the context of negotiations on a climate convention and related protocols.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Doctors and Nurses
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will identify the number of doctors and nurses employed in Northern Ireland(a) now and (b) in June 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  The information, which is available for September of each year, is as follows:

  Year

  Doctors (including GPs)

  Nurses

  September 1979

  2,931

  18,711

  September 1989

  3,459

  20,780

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what was the destination by parliamentary constituency of jobs created by the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland from inward investment into Northern Ireland in 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89;

  (2) what was the destination, by parliamentary constituency, of the jobs created by the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland in 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Needham
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. The table details jobs promoted in each parliamentary constituency during the years 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89:
  283

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Inward

  Home

  Inward

  Home

  Inward

  Home

  Parliamentary constituency

  Foreign

  GB

  NI

  Total

  Foreign

  GB

  NI

  Total

  Foreign

  GB

  NI

  Total

  Belfast, East

  8

  8

  Belfast, North

  40

  38

  78

  Belfast, South

  103

  103

  15

  20

  35

  243

  60

  303

  Belfast, West

  93

  5

  98

  44

  44

  East Antrim

  15

  22

  37

  44

  136

  50

  230

  87

  124

  389

  600

  East Londonderry

  44

  65

  109

  20

  245

  160

  425

  7

  190

  73

  270

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  10

  127

  137

  180

  6

  459

  645

  34

  192

  178

  404

  Foyle

  99

  111

  17

  227

  89

  304

  393

  354

  88

  36

  478

  Lagan Valley

  108

  147

  255

  93

  30

  123

  939

  66

  44

  1,049

  Mid Ulster

  28

  190

  4

  222

  50

  280

  330

  16

  16

  Newry and Armagh

  30

  107

  137

  123

  311

  434

  74

  103

  177

  North Antrim

  72

  23

  95

  165

  4

  63

  232

  16

  90

  106

  North Down

  168

  75

  243

  73

  136

  209

  14

  14

  South Antrim

  124

  1,268

  263

  1,655

  212

  374

  306

  892

  793

  440

  153

  1,386

  South Down

  82

  28

  110

  63

  108

  171

  171

  261

  432

  Strangford

  26

  221

  247

  144

  177

  321

  18

  78

  153

  249

  Upper Bann

  72

  200

  162

  434

  281

  40

  487

  808

  91

  12

  66

  169

  Total

  662

  2,193

  1,332

  4,187

  1,258

  1,243

  2,799

  5,300

  2,568

  1,449

  1,636

  5,653

  Factory Space
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total amount of factory space available for letting from the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland and the Local Enterprise Development Unit at 30 September 1989 analysed by parliamentary constituency.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on the amount of factory space available from the Industrial Development Board is set out at table A.

  While the Local Enterprise Development Unit does not normally provide factory space for letting, it assists local enterprise agencies to provide workspace accommodation for small firms. In addition, its private developers scheme encourages the private sector to provide industrial property for letting to small businesses. Figures are not available by parliamentary constituency for LEDU-related property and are therefore provided by district council area in table B.

  Table A

  Industrial Development Board

  Parliamentary constituency

  Factories square metres

  Small units square metres

  Total

  North Belfast

  —

  1,020

  1,020

  East Antrim

  1,580

  200

  1,780

  East Londonderry

  3,070

  300

  3,370

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  1,508

  —

  1,508

  Foyle

  7,853

  —

  7,853

  Lagan Valley

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Ulster

  3,799

  944

  4,743

  Newry and Armagh

  1,500

  401

  1,901

  North Antrim

  4,990

  —

  4,990

  North Down

  3,842

  —

  3,842

  South Armagh

  700

  307

  1,007

  South Down

  1,580

  —

  1,580

  Strangford

  —

  483

  483

  Upper Bann

  3,000

  —

  3,000

  Total

  33,422

  3,655

  37,077

  Supplementary Note—Table A

  1. The figures shown are an aggregate of factory space and include small units held primarily for LEDU clients (under 700 sq metres).

  2. The analysis includes factories and small units which are ready
  284
  for immediate occupation, together with those which require some refurbishment, and those which are surplus to requirements, pending disposal on the open market.

  Table B

  Local enterprise development unit

  Factory available for letting at 30 September 1989

  District council area

  Lettable factory space (square meters)

  Armagh District Council

  202

  Ballymena District Council

  108

  Belfast City Council

  4,407

  Carrickfergus Borough Council

  740

  Coleraine Borough Council

  645

  Craigavon Borough Council

  63

  Derry City Council

  1,189

  Down District Council

  753

  Dungannon District Council

  1,035

  Fermanagh District Council

  334

  Larne Borough Council

  257

  Magherafelt District Council

  550

  Newry & Mourne District Council

  2,120

  North Down Borough Council

  198

  Omagh District Council

  1,484

  Strabane District Council

  100

  Total

  14,184

  Notes:

  1. LEDU's local enterprise programme assists local community based groups to play an active role in economic regeneration and local industrial development by providing assistance to these groups to establish local enterprise agencies. These agencies provide workspace accommodation for small businesses in addition to business advisory services and administrative support.

  2. The private developers scheme is aimed at encouraging private sector developers to provide new industrial premises for letting to small businesses. A shortfall grant, representing the difference between the local cost of providing the premises and their commercial value on completion, is available to developers from LEDU.

  3. In one particular case in County Fermanagh, LEDU has purchased an industrial estate which is let directly to small businesses. This unique situation arose in order to ensure that eleven LEDU client companies could continue operating at the Necarne estate which had been in danger of closure. LEDU is currently negotiating the sale of the property.

  "Working for Patients"
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the future of the Association of District Committees for the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland in the light of "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Needham
  The Association of District Committees will cease to exist if district committees are stood down following the prepared replacement by four area councils under the forthcoming Order in Council. The need for a central association of the proposed area councils will be for those bodies to determine.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on arrangements for ensuring a voice for the consumer in the Health Service in Northern Ireland after implementation of the proposals contained in "Working for Patients"; what will be the arrangements for ensuring that the role of monitoring and visiting will be carried out; and how many places on area councils and boards will be set aside for representatives of patients.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of Health and Social Services has consulted on the advisory and consultative arrangements for health and social services boards and is considering the representations received. An announcement will be made soon. Subject to the necessary legislation being made, boards will no longer have places set aside for representatives. All members will have an interest in securing the best possible services for their board's resident population and non-executive members will be appointed solely on the basis of the contribution they can make.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the current categories of membership of each health and social services board, together with a table showing the categories of membership of each proposed board giving their method of appointment under the present system, and that proposed in "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Needham
  The chairman and vice-chairman of each board are appointed by the Department of Health and Social Services. Board members are appointed by the Department in proportions as follows:about 30 per cent. with a minimum of one member per council on the nomination of district councils;
  about 30 per cent. after consultation with professional bodies; the balance after consultation with the universities and other interested bodies including the trade unions, employers organisations and voluntary bodies.

  Subject to the necessary legislation being made it is proposed that boards will consist of a chairman and non-executive members appointed by the Department, prescribed officers of the board including the general manager, and a number of officers of the board appointed by the chairman, non-executive members and the general manager. The number of officer members will not exceed the number of non-executive members.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the current categories of membership of each district committee in Northern Ireland together with
  286
  a table showing the categories of membership of the proposed area councils along with the method of appointment under the present system and that under the proposals contained in "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Needham
  District committees in Northern Ireland comprise 16 to 24 members and are appointed by the relevant health and social services boards on the basis of nominations drawn from voluntary and community organisations (at least one third of the membership but not more than one half), district councils (at least one quarter with a minimum of one member per council) with the balance drawn from trade unions, employers organisations and Churches.

  The Department of Health and Social Services has consulted on the membership and method of appointment of the proposed area councils and is considering the representations it has received.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Brussels Agriculture Council held on 12 and 13 February.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting together with my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the Parliamentary Secretary in my Department.

  The Council considered in detail some of the Commission's proposals for the 1990 price fixing. I explained the United Kingdom position which I also outlined to the House recently. In particular I made it clear that the devaluation proposed for the green pound was insufficient.

  The Council will resume consideration of the price proposals at its next meeting on 5 and 6 March.

  Biotechnology and Seed Companies
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made an assessment of the implications for British farmers and British agriculture of the purchase of biotechnology companies and seed companies by agrochemical companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Because of the long-term nature of plant breeding and the heavy investment involved in biotechnological and seed research, larger companies already involved in the agricultural industry and which have the necessary financial resources and research facilities are particularly well placed. Provided there is adequate competition between them and between the United Kingdom companies and their international competitors in the United Kingdom market and that there is room for innovative small companies to identify market opportunities, I see no cause for concern.

  Animal Feedingstuffs
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline the controls which exist to regulate the use of therapeutic medicants in animal feedingstuffs.
  287
  Mr. Maclean
  Therapeutic medicines may be used in animal feedingstuffs only if they are licensed for incorporation under the Medicines Act 1968. Where appropriate, a veterinarian's written direction is required before incorporation of a medicine or sale of a medicated feedingstuff.

  Veterinary Medicines (Withdrawal Periods)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what checks have been carried out to ensure animals treated against warble fly have not been sent for slaughter before the withdrawal period recommended by the manufacturers has expired; and if he will publish the results;

  (2) which checks have been carried out to ensure sheep dipped in an organophosphorous solution have not been sent for slaughter before the withdrawal period recommended by the manufacturers; and if he will publish the results.

  Mr. Maclean
  Withdrawal periods for licensed veterinary medicines, where stipulated, are designed to ensure that any residues in products from the treated animal are at safe levels. Residue levels are checked by my Department through its extensive programme of monitoring at slaughterhouses and on farms. For maximum effectiveness monitoring is carried out on a carefully randomised basis, not on target groups, but the results to date have not given any evidence of problems which could be attributed to warble fly treatment or sheep dipping.

  Antibiotics (Milk)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what checks he has carried out to establish the presence or otherwise of antibiotics in milk destined for human consumption; what the results show; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  All antibiotic products must be licensed under the Medicines Act. One of the licence conditions is that the product label must include details of the withholding period to be observed before milk can be taken for human consumption. The working party on veterinary residues in animal products keeps the position under review and, in addition, the Milk Marketing Board operates a strict testing regime for antibiotics in milk and applies severe penalties if consignments fail.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to extend food labelling requirements relating to contents to wine and beer.

  Mr. Maclean
  I expect the Commission of the European Communities to discharge its commitment in this area and to make proposals to the Council shortly for ingredient listing on the labels of all alcoholic drinks.

  Safety Tests
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department conducts into the safety of commercially marketable products to check on industrially sponsored safety tests.
  288
  Mr. Maclean
  The Department commissions and draws upon a wide range of research to fulfil its responsibilities for the safety and standard of food products, pesticides and veterinary medicines.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food over what period he expects to have results from his recently announced research programme on bovine spongiform encephalopathy; whether he intends to publish it; whether the research covers milk as well as meat; and whether animals other than cattle, pigs and chickens will be tested.

  Mr. Curry
  The results of the research programme on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) initiated by the Department in 1987, will become available at intervals over the next 10 years. We shall follow our general policy of publishing the results of the research that we fund. Already since 1987, major papers have been published announcing the discovery, the transmission of the agent, the structure of the protein associated with infectivity and the results of epidemiological studies.

  The Department will be funding research into the infectivity of a wide range of organs, tissues and secretions, including milk, from BSE-affected cattle.

  Experiments are in progress or planned to determine the transmissibility of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to a range of host species including goats, hamsters, marmosets, mice, mink and sheep, in addition to cattle, chickens and pigs.

  Sheepmeat Premium
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's procedures to ensure that the European Community sheepmeat premium is paid only in respect of eligible sheep.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department carefully checks every claim for sheep annual premium to verify that the scheme rules have been complied with, and that payments are made only in respect of eligible animals.

  Turkeys (Feed Compounds)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what on-the-spot checks by his officials have been made in the last 12 months at turkey-rearing units owned by companies that mix their own feed compounds, to ascertain what kind of antibiotics have been added.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under the terms of the Medicines Act 1968 and regulations made under it, all businesses that manufacture medicated feedingstuffs are required to register with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and are subject to regular inspection by the society to ensure compliance with the requirements of medicines legislation.

  Meat Processing
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what controls there are on the use of processing aids to allow meats to absorb water.
  289
  Mr. Maclean
  Products containing water retention agents are subject to the provisions of the Food Act 1984, the Food Labelling Regulations 1984, the Meat Products and Spreadable Fish Products Regulations 1984 and the Miscellaneous Additives in Food Regulations 1980. There are also Community regulations controlling the water content of frozen chickens. Any ingredient used to increase the water content of meat would have to be declared in the list of ingredients. Where added water comprises more than 5 per cent. of the finished product it must also be declared in the list of ingredients. There are special labelling rules covering the declaration of added water in cured meats.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Payroll Tax
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has made any estimate of the additional costs to industry of a payroll tax of 0·5 per cent. of total payroll.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate has been made by his Department of the impact on industry of payroll taxes.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has made any estimate of the additional costs to industry of a payroll tax of 0·5 per cent. of total payroll.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) on 13 February at columns 121–22.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the United Kingdom's balance of trade in manufactured goods(a) in 1979 and (b) in 1989.

  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the United Kingdom's balance of trade in manufactured goods(a) in 1979 and (b) in 1989.

  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the United Kingdom's balance of trade in manufactured goods(a) in 1979 and (b) in 1989.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information may be found in(a) table A9 of the mid-year supplement of the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics" and (b) table 12 of the latest monthly press notice on the current account of the balance of payments, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the impact of the current level of interest rates upon United Kingdom export performance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In the fourth quarter of 1989, the volume of exports (less oil and erratics) was 4 per cent. higher than in the previous quarter and 15 per cent. higher than a year earlier. This is clear evidence that production is being switched to export markets as domestic demand has slowed in response to the tightening of policy.

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the trade deficit.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend receives a few letters each month from members of the public concerning the trade deficit.

  Share Ownership
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the numbers of new shareholders since 1979; and whether he intends to promote measures to further encourage the growth of individual share ownership.

  Mr. Lilley
  The joint Treasury and stock exchange survey carried out in January and February 1989 estimated that approximately 9 million people own shares directly—20 per cent. of the adult population; a threefold increase since 1979.

  Capital Investment
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for capital investment by business.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest estimates of business investment are given in the table. In the two years to 1988 business investment grew by over 30 per cent. to reach £51·4 billion at constant 1985 prices. In the first three quarters of 1989 it was 12 per cent. higher than in the same period a year earlier, seasonally adjusted and at constant 1985 prices.

  Business investment, seasonally adjusted at constant 1985 prices

  £ billion

  1986

  39·5

  1987

  43·7

  1988

  51·4

  1988 Q1

  11·7

  Q2

  12·8

  Q3

  13·3

  Q4

  13·6

  1989 Q1

  13·9

  Q2

  14·2

  Q3

  14·4

  Personal Data
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many members of staff in Customs and Excise have been disciplined for breaching internal regulations on the disclosure of personal data within the last five years;

  (2) if he will set out the procedure within Customs and Excise for authorising transfers of personal data to other Government Departments; and at what level such decisions are authorised;

  (3) on what grounds decisions are taken to transfer personal data held by Customs and Excise to other Government Departments;

  (4) on what statutory basis transfers of personal data take place from Customs and Excise to the police; and how many such transfers take place each year;
  291
  (5) on what statutory basis transfers of personal data take place from Customs and Excise to other Government Departments; and how many such transfers take place each year;

  (6) what internal guidelines covering the transfer of personal data to other Government Departments are available to staff in Customs and Excise; and whether he will place a copy of any such guidelines in the Library;

  (7) what kind of personal data held by the Customs and Excise, whether on computer or manually, are transferred to other Government Departments;

  (8) what kinds of personal data held by Customs and Excise are transferred to the police; and whether records are kept of such transfers;

  (9) what plans exist in Customs and Excise for the transfer of personal data via the Government data network; and what new procedures have been adopted to prevent unauthorised transfers of such data;

  (10) what records are kept of transfers of personal data from Customs and Excise to other Government Departments; and whether the Data Protection Registrar has access to the relevant records;

  (11) whether records will be kept of all personal data transferred from Customs and Excise, to other Government Departments via the Government data network;

  (12) whether the rules governing the transfer of personal data from the Customs and Excise to other Government Departments are the same for data held manually as for data held on computer.

  Mr. Ryder
  Much of the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. Customs and Excise maintain extensive records, many of which contain personal data. These records may be either manually recorded or computerised, and they cover a wide range of different subjects.

  Where the information is computerised disclosure is made in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. This Act allows the Data Protection Registrar access to computerised personal records. Customs and Excise do not maintain a record of personal data disclosed.

  Currently Customs and Excise do not exchange data with any other Government Departments via the Government data network other than for updating and returning personal data relating to staff employment (salary. overtime and so on) on the Chessington pay system, because the Chessington computer centre acts as an agent for payroll processing. Customs and Excise have no plans to maintain records, or to issue specific instructions dealing with the transfer of personal data over the Government data network.

  Disclosure of personal information is made in accordance with statutory provisions or where it is in the public interest. The authority to disclose is given at no lower than grade 7. There are a number of legal provisions providing for disclosure:

  Data Protection Act 1984: S.34 (6)(b)

  Finance Act 1972: S.127

  VAT Act 1983: S.44

  Gaming Act 1968, Schedules 2, 3 and 4

  Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1982, Schedule 2 paragraph 8

  Finance Act 1969: S.59

  Customs and Excise Management Act 1979: S.9 (b)

  All these are held in the Library of the House.
  292
  Instructions to staff are contained in various standing instructions based on the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, the Data Protection Act, and the Finance Act 1972 in particular. Customs and Excise have no record of any member of their staff having been disciplined for breaching internal regulations on the disclosure of personal data within the last five years.

  VAT
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement as to how far charities and non-profit-making organisations other than local authorities are covered by article 13A1 of the sixth European Community directive on harmonisation of value added tax.

  Mr. Ryder
  Services and goods supplied by charities are exempt from VAT under article 13A1 of the EC sixth VAT directive if they are linked to welfare and social security work, or the protection of children and young people. VAT exemption under article 13A1 also applies to services closely linked to sport or physical education and certain cultural services supplied by non-profit-making organisations (but some member states, including the United Kingdom, under a permitted derogation, continue to tax such supplies); to children's or young people's education, school or university education, vocational training or retraining provided by bodies established for this purpose; to certain supplies of staff by religious or philosophical institutions; to activities of public radio and television bodies other than those of a commercial nature; and, provided that exemption is not likely to cause distortion of competition, to services and closely related goods supplied by a wide range of non-profit-making organisations to their members, and to services and goods supplied by such organisations and by various charitable bodies in connection with their fund-raising events. Furthermore, charities and other non-profit-making organisations engaged in certain activities, such as hospital and medical care, specified by article 13A1 as being in the public interest, may exempt their services if carried out in recognised establishments or by staff with a statutory qualification.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost if the value added tax levied on energy efficient appliances and insulation material was reduced to(a) 10 per cent., (b) 5 per cent. and (c) zero.

  Mr. Ryder
  Information is not available on which to base estimates.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of reducing the value added tax levied on recycled material to(a) 10 per cent., (b) 5 per cent. and (c) zero.

  Mr. Ryder
  Information is not available on which to base estimates.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of reducing the value added tax rate levied on non-recyclable, non-biodegradable packaging to(a) 10 per cent., (b) 5 per cent. and (c) zero.
  293
  Mr. Ryder
  There would be no measurable revenue loss because normal packaging is regarded as an integral part of the goods it contains and is therefore taxed at the same rate when the goods are supplied.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer and the expected take-up of fitting cars with catalytic converters if the value added tax of fitting catalytic converters was reduced to(a) zero (b) 5 per cent. and (c) 10 per cent.

  Mr. Ryder
  Information on which to base an estimate is not readily available.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue would be raised if the value added tax levied on energy efficient appliances and insulation material was increased to(a) 20 per cent., (b) 25 per cent. and (c) 30 per cent.

  Mr. Ryder
  Information is not available on which to base estimates.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue would be raised if the value added tax rate levied on non-recyclable, non-biodegradable packaging was(a) kept to 15 per cent. and (b) raised to (i) 20 per cent., (ii) 25 per cent. and (iii) 30 per cent.

  Mr. Ryder
  No measurable extra revenue would accrue because normal packaging is regarded as an integral part of the goods it contains and is therefore taxed at the same rate when the goods are supplied.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much value added tax was paid per annum by a family consisting of a married man on three quarters of average male earnings, his wife and two children in 1978–79; and what is the most recent estimate.

  Mr. Ryder
  Figures for 1978–79 have been placed in the Library of the House and estimates for 1989–90 were given in reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 8 January 1990, at column 559.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much value added tax was paid per annum by a family consisting of a married man on(a) twice and (b) three times average male earnings, his wife and two children in 1978–79; and what is the most recent estimate;

  (2) how much value added tax was paid per annum by a family consisting of a married man on half of average male earnings, his wife and two children in 1978–79; and what is the most recent estimate.

  Mr. Ryder
  The levels of earnings specified fall outside the range for which reliable estimates of household VAT payments can be made.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much would be raised if the value added tax levied on recycled material was increased to(a) 20 per cent., (b) 25 per cent. and (c) 30 per cent.

  Mr. Ryder
  Information is not available on which to base estimates.

  Excise Duties
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conclusions he has reached from available information on the regressive nature of excise duties on tobacco and alcohol.

  Mr. Ryder
  The amount of duty paid by a household depends on the expenditure it makes on tobacco and alcohol. As households are free to choose that expenditure in accordance with their own preferences, there is no necessary link between duty payments and income.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the impact of indexation of excise duties by product on(a) inflation and (b) revenues in 1990–91 and a full year.

  Mr. Ryder
  The impact of indexation of excise duties by product on the retail prices index and revenues in 1990–91 and a full year is shown in the table:

  Duty Item

  Retail prices index

  Revenue/Yield 1990–91

  Revenue/ Yield Full year

  Per cent.

  £ million

  £ million

  Tobacco

  0·16

  265

  290

  Petrol

  0·14

  480

  495

  Derv

  0·01

  110

  115

  Beer

  0·07

  160

  175

  Wine

  0·06

  55

  55

  Spirits

  0·04

  80

  85

  Vehicle excise duty

  0·06

  230

  230

  Cider

  negligible

  5

  5

  Rebated oils

  negligible

  15

  15

  Total

  0.54

  1,400

  1,465

  The indexation factor used is the 7·7 per cent. rise in the retail prices index between December 1988 and December 1989.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the proportion of excise duties, broken down by product, paid by those on different incomes.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to an article entitled "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income, 1986" in the December 1988 issue of Economic Trends.

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about sterling's participation in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have received a number of representations.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the prospects of the United Kingdom seeking to place sterling within the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government have made it clear that the United Kingdom will join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS during stage 1 of the Delors plan. The conditions for entry were set out following the Madrid summit.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the effect on sales has been of raising the minimum purchase of premium bonds to £100.

  Mr. Ryder
  In the six months since the change premium bond purchases averaged some 58,300 a month to a value of about £19·7 million. During the corresponding period in 1988, premium bond purchases averaged around 166,400 per month to a value of some £26·4 million.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints he has received to date about the increase in the minimum value of a purchase of premium bonds to £100.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 13 February 1990]: My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations about the increase in the minimum purchase of premium bonds from right hon. and hon. Members on behalf of constituents and from members of the public.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is(a) the number of people investing in premium bonds each month since the change to a minimum investment of £100, (b) the number of persons who purchased bonds in each of the six months before the change and (c) the value of the bonds purchased in each of those months.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 13 February 1990]: The minimum purchase for those aged 16 and over was increased to £100 on 1 July 1989. The number and value of premium bonds purchased in each month since the change are:

  1989

  Number

  Value

  (000s)

  (£ million)

  July

  57·4

  21·4

  August

  63·2

  24·7

  September

  60·2

  22·0

  October

  60·4

  20·1

  November

  58·8

  17·0

  December

  49·6

  13·1

  The number and value of premium bonds purchased in each of the six months prior to the change are:

  January

  197·3

  29·6

  February

  170·4

  25·2

  March

  171·9

  24·4

  April

  170·5

  24·6

  May

  163·2

  25·1

  June

  190·4

  22·5

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average value of the holdings of premium bonds.

  Excise duty and VAT on 20 cigarettes in the most popular price category: as at 12 February 19901

  RSP2

  Factor3 cost

  Total duty

  VAT

  Total tax

  Total tax as percentage of RSP

  (pence)

  (pence)

  (pence)

  (pence)

  (pence)

  Belgium

  104

  30

  68

  6

  74

  71

  Denmark

  239

  34

  162

  43

  205

  86

  France

  104

  36

  52

  16

  68

  65

  Germany

  149

  41

  90

  18

  108

  72

  Greece

  41

  13

  17

  11

  28

  68

  Ireland

  188

  48

  102

  38

  140

  74

  Italy

  91

  25

  52

  14

  66

  73

  Luxembourg

  82

  23

  50

  9

  59

  72

  296
  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 13 February 1990]: The average value of each holding since premium bonds were introduced in 1956 is around £95.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of interest on premium bonds; and how much of the monthly and annual interest is paid out in prizes.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 13 February 1990]: The rate of interest used to calculate the total prize fund is currently 6·5 per cent. per annum of the value of bonds eligible for each prize draw.

  Import Duties
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the sum collected by the Customs and Excise in import duties at London Heathrow airport for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Ryder
  Customs and anti-dumping duties and agricultural levies collected at London Heathrow and Gatwick airports for the financial year ended 31 March 1989 totalled £300 million. Separate figures for Heathrow are not available.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the implications for economic policy of a 15 per cent. increase in local authority spending in 1990–91.

  Mr. Major
  The Government's firm control of public expenditure, and the reduction in general Government expenditure as a share of gross domestic product, have played a major part in the successful conduct of economic policy. The Government are determined that this should continue. There is no doubt that an increase of that order in local authority spending would be unhelpful, and would impose a heavy burden on community charge payers, for which the responsible local council would be accountable.

  Cigarettes
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show the tax paid on a pack of 20 cigarettes in each EEC country as a percentage of the total price and the average price of a pack of 20 cigarettes in each country; and what were the figures five years ago.

  Mr. Ryder
  The figures for current and 1985 taxation and price levels of a pack of 20 cigarettes in each EC country are as follows:
  297

  RSP2

  Factor3 cost

  Total duty

  VAT

  Total tax

  Total tax as percentage of RSP

  (pence)

  (pence)

  (pence)

  (pence)

  (pence)

  Netherlands

  108

  32

  59

  17

  76

  70

  Portugal

  60

  15

  36

  9

  45

  75

  Spain

  57

  25

  26

  6

  32

  56

  United Kingdom

  161

  43

  97

  21

  118

  73

  1 Rates of exchange as at 12 February 1990.

  2 Retail selling price.

  3 Cost exclusive of duty and VAT.

  Source: EC excise duty tables.

  Excise duty and VAT on 20 cigarettes in the most popular price category: as at 27 February 1985

  RSP

  Factor cost

  Total duty

  VAT

  Total lax

  Total tax as percentage of RSP

  (pence)

  (pence)

  (pence)

  (pence)

  (pence)

  Belgium

  69

  20

  45

  4

  49

  71

  Denmark

  175

  22

  121·5

  31·5

  153

  87

  France

  43

  11

  21

  11

  32

  74

  Germany

  102

  26

  63·5

  12·5

  76

  74·5

  Greece

  26

  10

  15

  1—

  16

  261·5

  Ireland

  140

  36

  78

  26

  104

  74

  Italy

  57

  16

  32

  9

  41

  72

  Luxembourg

  53

  18

  32

  3

  35

  66

  Netherlands

  88

  26

  48

  14

  62

  70

  United Kingdom

  127

  34

  76·5

  16·5

  93

  73

  1 Greece had not yet introduced VAT in 1985.

  2 Includes sales tax.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Personal Data
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) 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;

  (2) if he will set out the procedure within his Department for authorising transfers of personal data to other Government Departments; and at what level such decisions are authorised;

  (3) on what grounds decisions are taken to transfer personal data held by his Department to other Government Departments;

  (4) on what statutory basis transfers of personal data take place from his Department to the police; and how many such transfers take place each year;

  (5) on what statutory basis transfers of personal data take place from his Department to other Government Departments; and how many such transfers take place each year;

  (6) what internal guidelines covering the transfer of personal data to other Government Departments are available to staff in his Department; and whether he will place a copy of any such guidelines in the Library;

  (7) what kinds of personal data held by his Department are transferred to the police; and whether records are kept of such transfers;

  (8) what kind of personal data held by his Department, whether on computer or manually, are transferred to other Government Departments;

  (9) what records are kept of transfers of personal data from his Department to other Government Departments; and whether the Data Protection Registrar has access to the relevant records;
  298
  (10) whether the rules governing the transfer of personal data from his Department to other Government Departments are the same for data held manually as for data held on computer.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the information requested concerning the number of transfers of personal data to other Government Departments is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  It is Government policy that information obtained about a member of the public should be used only for the purpose for which it was acquired. Information held in social security records, both in manual and computerised form, is considered to have been given to the Department for social security purposes only and it is not normally available to other Government Departments. There is, however, statutory provision for the transfer of certain limited information from the Department to the Inland Revenue in connection with the PAYE, national insurance and statutory sick pay schemes.

  In other circumstances, where there is no statutory function, requests for information from social security records made by other Government Departments are considered only if the information would prevent the duplication of public funds, help the prosecution of a serious crime, meet the welfare needs of the individual concerned or would be in the public interest.

  Information may be disclosed in confidence, in individual cases, to the police in circumstances which involve serious crime.

  Where information is held on computer, disclosure to other Government Departments and the police is made only as permitted by purposes 41 to 70 of the Data Protection Act 1984. Under that Act, the Data Protection Registrar has no automatic right of access to individual personal records.
  299
  Instructions concerning the disclosure of information are issued to all staff dealing with social security business. These are in the process of revision and we will consider placing a copy in the Library in due course.

  During the past five years, 13 members of staff have been reprimanded at a local level for minor breaches of the rules governing disclosure of information and 10 have been reprimanded at headquarters level for more serious breaches of the rules.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans exist in his Department for the transfer of personal data via the Government data network; and what new procedures have been adopted within the Department to prevent unauthorised transfers of such data.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department plans to use the Government data network for the provision of computer services to the offices of the Department, the employment service and the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland as part of the operational strategy. Additionally the Department plans to use the Government data network for other departmental systems as required. Organisational and technical safeguards which apply to all the Department's networks, including the Government data network, ensure that access to personal data is in accordance with authorisations.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether records will be kept of all personal data transferred to other Government Departments via the Government data network.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The types and purposes of transfer of personal computer data to other Government Departments, whether via the GDN or otherwise, are recorded in accordance with the Data Protection Act.

  Outturn Expenditure
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide details of outturn expenditure for Department of Social Security offices in each local authority area on(a) single payments in 1987–88, (b) social fund 1988–89, (c) social fund 1989–90, up to the latest available date and (d) budget allocations for the social fund 1990–91.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on the basis of local authority areas is not available. Information by local office relating to single payments in 1987–88, and the social fund in 1988–89 and the period April 1989 to December 1989, is in the Library. Budget allocations for 1990–91 will be announced in due course.

  Community care

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  Income Support caseload1

  (000's)

  (000's)

  (000's)

  (000's )

  1988–89

  315

  933

  501

  May 4,350

  August 4,420

  November 4,260

  November 4,260

  February 4,350

  1989–90 (April-December)

  375

  840

  464

  May 4,160

  August 4,310

  November 4,352

  1 As derived from the Quarterly Statistical Enquiry and rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the maximum delays occurring in cases where hospital medical reports are required for consideration by social security appeal tribunals, resulting in adjournments for appellants; and what is being done to reduce such delays.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Figures showing the delays caused to social security appeal tribunal cases while awaiting hospital medical reports are not collected centrally. We are, however, aware of the delays that these reports can create. Provision of the reports is not part of hospital doctors' terms of service and the Department is entirely dependent on the good will of consultants.

  In 1988 my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale wrote to the chairmen of all regional health authorities explaining the problem to them and asking them to encourage consultants to provide reports when requested and to do so with the least possible delay. We know from the replies that subsequently came to the Department that this request was widely disseminated to consultants. In addition, medical and lay staff in the Department's regional offices take every opportunity to remind consultants and their secretaries of the problems caused for claimants by these delays.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many, and what percentage of, women pensioners receive a full national insurance retirement pension on the basis of their own national insurance contributions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that it is possible to provide figures in the form requested on a Great Britain basis only. Of the 2,173,730 women resident in Great Britain who receive a category A pension, based upon their own contributions, approximately 73 per cent. receive a full rate pension.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on the relationship between social fund claims and receipt of, and level of, other social security benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  Budgeting loans and community care grants are available to income support recipients, and crisis loans to anyone without resources in an emergency. The number of social fund applications in the periods 1988–89 and April 1989 to December 1989 and the national income support caseload are set out in the table:

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in respect of a man who becomes entitled to invalidity benefit at the age of 60 years in each of the tax years 1990–91, 2000–01, 2010–11, and 2020–21, after having paid full class 1 contributions in each prior tax year from 1978–79, what he estimates will be(a) the maximum and average amounts of such a man's invalidity benefit, including invalidity allowance and additional pension at 1989–90 prices, (i) if clause 4 of the Social Security Bill is enacted, (ii) if the present position remains unchanged, (b) the corresponding amounts of retirement pension such a man will receive at normal retirement date if he remains on invalidity benefit until that date and then retires and (c) the corresponding amounts of widow's pension the widow of such a man will receive if he dies on the day after he becomes entitled to invalidity benefit and she is eligible for a widow's pension.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 13 February 1990]: The right hon. Member's question calls for calculations relating to circumstances which would occur infrequently. Furthermore, projections of the average amounts of invalidity benefit for the circumstances stated are not available. The figures set out in the final column therefore relate to the entitlement of a man on average male earnings in each year from 1978–79, with assumptions about earnings growth in the future. In 1987–88, the latest year for which information is available, the average amount of additional pension payable to a 60-year-old man newly entitled to invalidity benefit was £13·64 per week. This compares with a figure of £20·16 which results from the application of average male earnings over the period since 1978–79. Invalidity allowance is not payable for men aged 60 or over when incapacity begins.

  The information is as follows:

  (a) (i) Invalidity benefit under clause 4 proposals1–4

  Year becoming entitled to IVB

  Maximum amount (£)

  Amount based on average male earnings (£)

  1990–91

  90·97

  77·45

  2000–01

  98·95

  83·75

  2010–11

  86·80

  75·00

  2020–21

  82·25

  71·85

  Bolton

  North Western Region

  England

  Year

  Number of nurses

  Whole-time equivalents

  Number of nurses

  Whole-time equivalents

  1988

  33

  13

  333

  167

  6,878

  3,514

  1987

  10

  5

  210

  89

  5,752

  2,983

  1986

  9

  5

  175

  83

  4,956

  2,501

  1985

  8

  4

  152

  74

  4,392

  2,211

  1984

  8

  3

  121

  61

  3,891

  1,924

  1983

  7

  3

  93

  49

  3,284

  1,657

  302

  (a) (ii) Invalidity benefit under present arrangements1–4

  Year becoming entitled to IVB

  Maximum amount (£)

  Amount based on average male earnings (£)

  1990–91

  90·97

  77·45

  2000–01

  128·95

  109·95

  2010–11

  125·60

  110·90

  2020–21

  131·60

  118·25

  (b) Retirement pension1–4

  Year reaching age 65

  Maximum amount (£)

  Average amount (£)

  1995–96

  96·15

  81·30

  2005–06

  131·75

  111·95

  2015–16

  132·60

  116·75

  2025–26

  139·10

  124·75

  (c) Widows pension1,2,4,5

  Year of entitlement

  Maximum amount (£)

  Average amount (£)

  1990–91

  90·97

  77·45

  2000–01

  86·25

  76·80

  2010–11

  84·60

  77·25

  2020–21

  87·60

  80·95

  1 All figures at 1989–90 prices.

  2 All amounts include the standard rate of invalidity pension, retirement pension or widows pension as the case may be (£43·60); to the extent that there is entitlement to increase for dependants these amounts will increase by £26·20 for an adult and £8·95 for each child.

  3 Maximum amount assumes earnings at the upper earnings limit in each year from 1978–79.

  4 Average amount assumes average male earnings in each year from 1978–79. The figures assume real earnings growth of 1½ per cent, per year.

  5 Amounts of widows pension, assume the widow is aged 55 or over and no guaranteed minimum pension in payment.

HEALTH

  Practice Nurses
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many practice nurses are based at general practitioners' surgeries at the current time; and what were the corresponding numbers for the previous five years(a) in the Bolton health authority area, (b) in the North West regional health authority area and (c) in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on the numbers of practice nurses employed by general practitioners under the ancillary staff scheme is given in the table. Figures are for England only; information in relation to family practitioner services in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will set out the procedure within his Department for authorising transfers of personal data to other Government Departments; and at what level such decisions are authorised;

  (2) on what grounds decisions are taken to transfer personal data held by his Department to other Government Departments;

  (3) on what statutory basis transfers of personal data take place from his Department to the police; and how many such transfers take place each year;

  (4) on what statutory basis transfers of personal data take place from his Department to other Government Departments; and how many such transfers take place each year;

  (5) what internal guidelines covering the transfer of personal data to other Government Departments are available to staff in his Department; and whether he will place a copy of any such guidelines in the Library;

  (6) what kind of personal data held by his Department, whether on computer or manually, are transferred to other Government Departments;

  (7) what kinds of personal data held by his Department are transferred to the police; and whether records are kept of such transfers;

  (8) what plans exist in his Department for the transfer of personal data via the Government data network; and what new procedures have been adopted within the Department to prevent unauthorised transfers of such data;

  (9) what records are kept of transfers of personal data from his Department to other Government Departments; and whether the Data Protection Registrar has access to the relevant records;

  (10) whether records will be kept of all personal data transferred to other Government Departments via the Government data network;

  (11) whether the rules governing the transfer of personal data from his Department to other Government Departments are the same for data held manually as for data held on computer.

  Mr. Freeman
  The majority of personal data held by the Department relates to departmental staff records. This information is held in manual and computer systems and access is restricted on a need-to-know basis. This information is transferred to other Government Departments on a regular and routine basis by executive and clerical staff, normally in conjunction with actual or prospective career transfers of the staff between Departments.

  Personal data about patients having legally induced abortion is supplied by doctors to the Department's Chief Medical Officer in accordance with the Abortion Regulations 1968, (SI 1968 No. 390 as amended by SI 1969 No. 636, SI 1976 No. 15 and SI 1980 No. 1724). The regulations restrict disclosure of that information except to the persons and in the circumstances specified in the regulations.

  Some personal data is held by the Department in respect of young people detained in youth treatment centres and in connection with the activities of the regional medical service, the dental reference service and the social services inspectorate. Where personal medical data have
  304
  been referred for a second opinion, this is not disclosed for any other purpose unless the individual's consent has been obtained.

  The Department also holds some data about the remuneration of general medical practitioners and others in the health services. The regional medical service holds personal data about GPs, but these are not disclosed to other Government Departments.

  Regional medical service doctors, in common with any other doctor, have a statutory duty to notify the Chief Medical Officer at the Home Office about individuals considered to be or suspected to be addicted to certain drugs.

  All personal data held on computer systems are subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984; this is so whether or not there is any connection to the Government data network.

  The only circumstances in which the Department might transfer personal data to the police would be where the Department itself had an interest in an offence, or in other cases where serious crime was involved; no records are kept of such transfers.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve the range and availability of infertility treatment.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve the range and availability of infertility treatments.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo). for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) on 23 January at columns 660–61.

  Consultants
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of consultant surgeons within the National Health Service work on a part-time basis in the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No information is collected on National Health Service consultants' work in the private sector. Consultants on National Health Service whole-time contracts are permitted private practice earnings up to 10 per cent. of gross whole-time salary. Sixty-nine per cent. of consultant surgeons have maximum part-time or part-time contracts which place no limits on private practice earnings. The Government's proposal to introduce full job plans for all consultants should improve their accountability to local management and make it easier for managers to monitor whether consultants are fulfilling their contractual commitments.

  Family Planning Clinics
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implications of the changes in the National Health Service on family planning clinics.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Under the National Health Service review proposals, districts will be responsible for
  305
  ensuring that their resident populations have access to a comprehensive range of services and this will include family planning. The new funding arrangements will be particularly helpful to family planning clinics which provide services to residents of many districts. Clinics will be able to obtain resources from all authorities whose residents use their services.

  Kidney Machines
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many kidney dialysis machines are currently in use in the Durham area health authority; and how many patients are receiving dialysis in the area.

  Mr. Freeman
  We do not hold information centrally about the number of kidney dialysis machines in use by health authorities. The hon. Member may care to contact the chairman of the Durham health authority for the information.

  Hospital Inventories
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the 1967 report on hospital inventories remains the basis of good practice in the National Health Service.

  (£000s)

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  ACET

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50·0

  London Lighthouse

  Core revenue grant

  —

  —

  100·0

  170·0

  300·0

  Capital grant

  —

  —

  500·0

  750·0

  —

  Project grant

  —

  —

  —

  37·9

  —

  Mildmay Mission

  Core revenue grant

  —

  —

  79·0

  162·0

  130·0

  Capital grant

  —

  —

  321·0

  94·0

  —

  National AIDS Trust (includes pro rata contributions from other Health Departments)

  Core revenue grant

  —

  —

  47·6

  127·0

  228·5

  Project grant

  —

  —

  500·0

  —

  —

  Terrence Higgins Trust

  40·0

  100·0

  300·0

  400·0

  450·0

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to make a decision on AIDS Care Education and Training's application for section 64 funding.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) on 5 February at column 486.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any progress is being made as a result of the waiting list fund.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The £119 million made available through the waiting list fund over four years has enabled thousands of additional patients to be treated from the waiting lists. Particularly impressive reductions have been made in the Mersey region, which has reduced the number of patients waiting over a year by a quarter in the nine months to December 1989. The region plans to be the first to have no patient waiting longer than two years for treatment.
  306
  Mr. Freeman
  The National Association of Health Authorities published a security manual in 1984 which the Department commended to the NHS as a good practical guide on matters relating to security of equipment, stock and premises.

  AIDS
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the level of section 64 grant funding since 1984 for each Lighthouse, Terrence Higgins Trust, Mildmay, National AIDS Trust and ACET.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the rules of the general grant scheme established under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 the Department can offer four sorts of grant. Most grants are awarded to national voluntary organisations towards their headquarters administrative costs. The Department has made the following section 64 grants to the voluntary organisations identified:

  We are determined to tackle the problem of excessive waiting, and have sent a management team into the 22 districts with the longest waiting lists, backed by money from the waiting list fund. As a result waiting lists in those districts have reduced by 12 per cent. and the number of patients waiting over a year by 17 per cent., with further reductions planned. This work will continue in 1990–91, when the team will be investigating the 100 longest district specialty lists in the country. Nationally, provisional figures for September 1989 suggest that waiting lists have fallen since March, and in particular the numbers waiting over a year.

  Mental Health Act Commission
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the Mental Health Act Commission with their qualifications and occupations.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no specific qualifications required for appointment to the Mental Health Act Commission.

  The following list shows the current commissioners, sub-divided according to their category of membership:
  307
  Legal

  Mr. L. Blom-Cooper (Chairman)

  Mrs. Dimond

  Mrs. V. Bellau

  Mrs. C. Bennett

  Mr. J. Bowyer

  Mrs. C. Goonatillake

  Miss G. Richardson

  Ms L. Scott Moncrieff

  Ms L. Sinclair

  Mr. C. N. S. Watts

  Mr. J. D. Finch

  Mrs. J. Forman Hardy

  Mr. M. Napier

  Mr. A. Parkin

  Medical

  Professor E. Murphy (Vice Chairman)

  Dr. R. M. Evans

  Dr. R. Dolan

  Dr. S. Fernando

  Dr. K. Hamadah

  Dr. P. Hettiaratchy

  Mr. D. Hide

  Dr. N. Seberatnum

  Professor D. West

  Dr. D. Gaspar

  Dr. M. Harper

  Dr. M. Malcom

  Dr. Oyebode

  Dr. R. M. Philpott

  Dr. P. Harper

  Dr. K. A. Day

  Dr. D. Dunleavy

  Dr. H. Ghadiali

  Dr. N. L. Gittleson

  Dr. E. B. Gordon

  Dr. A. Hauck

  Social Work

  Mr. R. Lingham

  Mrs. V. Lipscombe

  Mrs. M. Meacher

  Mrs. I. Midforth

  Miss I. Nutting

  Mr. R. Stables

  Mr. J. Allan

  Mrs. J. Deeley

  Mrs. C. L. Jones

  Mr. A. Ball

  Mr. D. Parkin

  Mr. H. Vickers

  Nurse

  Mr. M. Brown

  Mr. E. A. R. Chitty

  Miss G. Linton

  Mr. S. Manikon

  Mrs. Soo Lee

  Mr. B. Thorne

  Mr. M. Graham

  Ms. A. Aiyebusi

  Mrs. C. Selim

  Mr. H. A. Teaney

  Mr. R. Wix

  Mr. P. Brotherhood

  Mrs. R. M. Fraser

  Mr. H. McClarron

  Number of deaths on arrival

  Number carried

  Health authority

  December

  December

  December

  December 1989

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Police

  Voluntary

  Leeds Eastern

  17

  14

  20

  n/a

  n/a

  Leeds Western

  7

  14

  16

  0

  0

  Bradford

  34

  30

  29

  29

  0

  Pontefract

  n/a

  16

  20

  0

  0

  Airedale

  8

  3

  9

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  16

  8

  12

  0

  0

  308
  Psychologist

  Miss C. Bollinger

  Dr. A. Broadhurst

  Ms. P. Spinks

  Mr. D. Torpy

  Mr. J. Graham-White

  Dr. J. Ashcroft

  Mr. D. A. Black

  Mr. A. Dabbs

  Mr. L. J. Wilson

  Lay/Specialist

  Dr. A. J. Blowers

  Mr. G. Bye

  Mrs. T. Jowell

  Mrs. B. Stroll

  Mr. M. Taylor

  Rev. A. J. Hawes

  Mrs. L. Mason

  Dr. M. Barnes

  Mrs. P. Entwistle

  Mrs. E. Owen

  Mrs. A. Samuels

  Mrs. M. R. Morris

  Mr. B. Smith

  Mr. A. Milligan

  Dispensing Doctors
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the current average discount percentage deducted from dispensing doctors' remuneration;

  (2) when the last inquiry was held into discounts received by dispensing doctors on their drug purchases; and what is the date of the next inquiry.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1988–89, the latest period for which figures are available, the discount scale for dispensing doctors withheld an average of 5·7 per cent. of the price of drugs obtained by dispensing doctors. The last discount inquiry established the average discount available to dispensing doctors in 1983. No date has yet been set for a further inquiry.

  Deaths on Arrival
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many deaths on arrival were delivered by the police, armed services and voluntary organisations in December 1989 for each of the health authorities operating in West Yorkshire; and what was the cause of death;

  (2) how many deaths on arrival were delivered to the health authorities operating in West Yorkshire in December 1987 and December 1988.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The available information on number of deaths on arrival at hospitals covered by West Yorkshire metropolitan ambulance service during December 1987, 1988 and 1989 is given in the following table. There have been no military ambulances deployed in West Yorkshire.
  309

  Number carried

  Health authority

  December

  December

  December

  December 1989

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Police

  Voluntary

  Dewsbury

  10

  11

  19

  0

  0

  Huddersfield

  13

  4

  7

  0

  0

  Wakefield

  8

  8

  7

  0

  0

  TOTAL

  108

  139

  n/a—Not available.

  Details of the cause of death could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Figures for the number of deaths on arrival can fluctuate significantly, depending on the range of cases in a particular month and if there has been any temporary increase in illness locally, for example, as a result of a flu epidemic.

  Depo Provera
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the contraceptive drug Depo Provera is approved for use in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Depo Provera is licensed in the United Kingdom for use in short-term contraception where an oral contraceptive is contraindicated or considered inappropriate, for wives of men undergoing vasectomy and for women being immunised against rubella; it is also licensed for long-term use in women for whom other contraceptives are contraindicated or have caused unacceptable side-effects. In addition, the product is licensed for the treatment of endometriosis, and of certain malignant tumours.

  NHS (Financial Management)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what decisions have been taken on the type of information needed for the central assessment of the financial management performance of buyers' activity under the proposals of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is one of the issues addressed in our consultative paper "Framework for Information Systems: Information"; see annex 11, section 3. Copies are in the Library. No firm decisions will be taken until completion of the consultation exercise which ends on 30 March.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated total saving that it is hoped will follow the introduction of the changes in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill; and what is the breakdown of these savings by category, including hospital closure, more rapid throughput of patients and reductions in drug expenditure.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The object of our reforms of the Health Service is to improve the choice and quality of services available to NHS patients rather than to produce savings. Some of the proposals will lead to the more 310
  considered and cost-effective use of resources and this will enable the Health Service to increase the level of patient care it provides.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total amount spent to date on the preparation of the changes proposed in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill on(a) additional staff costs, (b) staff diverted from other work, (c) materials and(d) contracts placed with non-National Health Service bodies.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Additional funds allocated to health authorities in this financial year are for the preparation of the NHS review proposals. None of these central allocations has been directed to specific clauses in the Bill.

  Homes for the Elderly
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 231, (1) if he will give his reasons for deciding that local authorities will have to contribute more to the support of people in homes under their own management than to that of people in private homes;

  (2) what are the reasons why Government contributions to support people living in homes for the elderly are not to be calculated on the same basis, irrespective of whether the home is publicly or privately run.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answers 9 February and 12 February 1990]: As the White Paper "Caring for People" makes clear, the Government recognise that local authorities will need adequate resources to enable them to discharge their new responsibilities from April 1991 including meeting the care costs of people in private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes. We shall therefore transfer to local authorities the resources which would otherwise have been used to finance care through social security payments to people in residential and nursing homes. The arrangements for paying social security benefits to people in local authority-managed homes will not change.

  We want to ensure that local authorities encourage a mixed economy of care and make full use of the independent sector when placing people in residential settings. This will provide residents with a wider choice of accommodation and enable more rational use to be made of public resources.

DEFENCE

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many private security firms are currently hired by(a) his Department and (b) the services; how many firms have been hired for each of the last 10 years; and what is the value of the contracts at 1989 prices.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 February 1990]: Twenty-one private security contractors are currently employed by the Ministry of Defence, at both service and civilian establishments. The total number of security contractors employed by the Ministry of Defence in each year from 1983 to 1989 is shown in the table. Figures for the years 1980 to 1982 are not held centrally.

  Year

  Number of firms

  1983

  5

  1984

  9

  1985

  10

  1986

  9

  1987

  10

  1988

  17

  1989

  22

  The total values at 1989 prices of the private security contracts in each financial year from 1983–84 are as follows:

  Information for earlier years is not available.

  Financial year

  Total value ('000s at 1989 prices)

  £

  1983–84

  345

  1984–85

  461

  1985–86

  750

  1986–87

  1,329

  1987–88

  1,549

  1988–89

  2,033

  1989–90

  4,418

  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are used in deciding between competing private security firms for Ministry of Defence contracts.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 February 1990]: All contractors who wish to obtain MOD contracts must be listed on the defence contractors list. Companies that apply to join this list are scrutinised by MOD, for financial viability and technical competence. The references of the listed executives are also checked. Many of these companies are members of the British Security Industry Association and the International Professional Security Association, although they do not necessarily have to be members to join the defence contractors list.

  When a decision is taken, by unit and command, after careful evaluation, that a guarding contract is to be placed, the contracts branch is asked to submit the details of the requirement to those companies listed on the defence contractors list. A company that wishes to be considered for tender or be awarded a contract must be on the defence contractors list.

  The decision to award a contract for security guarding is based on the company's ability to meet the technical requirements of the tasks together with value for money.
  312
  Technical compliancy is decided upon by a technical evaluation panel which includes security experts from the unit/command/department in question. This examines all technical aspects, that is, the firm's ability to perform the tasks effectively and efficiently. All the competing firms are then placed in an order of compliancy. A financial analysis of each tender is carried out by the contracts branch alone. The contracts branch then decides, using the technical panel's information on compliancy, with which contractor it will place the contract.

SCOTLAND

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the number of persons who(a) were on remand and (b) had not been convicted amongst the Scottish prison population on any one day; and how many were (i) males and (ii) females.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is set out in the table:

  Average daily remand population1 in Scottish penal establishments during January 1990

  Untried

  Convicted awaiting sentence

  Total on remand

  Males

  575

  144

  719

  Females

  31

  4

  35

  Total

  606

  148

  753

  1 Provisional.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current prison population in Scotland in total; how many are(a) males and (b) females; and what were the corresponding figures for (i) 1985, (ii) 1986, (iii) 1987, (iv) 1988 and (v) 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is set out in the table:

  Average daily population in Scottish penal establishments for the month of January 1985–90

  Males

  Females

  2 Total

  1985

  4,718

  144

  4,863

  1986

  5,191

  171

  5,361

  1987

  5,220

  176

  5,396

  1988

  5,115

  152

  5,267

  11989

  4,826

  147

  4,973

  11990

  4,489

  124

  4,612

  1 Provisional.

  2 Some of the numbers do not total due to rounding.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions in the past five years he has provided compensation or payments to the Scottish fishing industry as a result of losses caused by inclement weather; what was the basis of such schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  None.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dart gun firearms certificates have been granted, how many persons now have such weapons in Scotland, broken down by police force areas; and how many are held by(a) deer farmers and (b) others.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Guns that are specially designed or adapted to discharge tranquillising darts are defined as prohibited weapons under the terms of section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 and as such may not be purchased, acquired or possessed by anyone without the prior authority in writing of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the consequent issue of a firearm certificate by the chief constable of the area in which the applicant is based.

  The available information is set out in the table:

  Police force

  Total number of current S.5 authorities relating to dart guns

  Number of S.5 authorities relating to dart guns known to be issued to deer farmers

  Central Scotland police

  5

  2

  Dumfries and Galloway constabulary

  6

  Nil

  Fife constabulary

  4

  1

  Grampian police

  17

  2

  Lothian and Borders police

  11

  1

  Northern constabulary

  17

  2

  Strathclyde police

  8

  1

  Tayside police

  7

  2

  In addition one registered firearms dealer in the Fife constabulary area has been given authority under section 5 to deal specifically in tranquillising dart guns.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Rehabilitation Service
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when Egham residential employment rehabilitation centre was established; and for how long 24-hour medical cover has been available.

  Mr. Eggar
  Egham employment rehabilitation centre was officially opened in December 1943. Twenty four-hour medical cover has been available since that time.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to transfer the employment rehabilitation service from the Training Agency to the employment service.

  Mr. Eggar
  The organisation of the employment rehabilitation service is among the subjects being considered as part of my Department's internal review of services to people with disabilities. A consultative document covering the conclusions of the review will be published soon.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to withdraw 24-hour medical cover from Egham residential employment rehabilitation centre, and what assessment he has made of how this will affect the access to the centre for people with severe disabilities.
  314
  Mr. Eggar
  There are no plans to withdraw 24-hour medical cover from Egham employment rehabilitation centre.

  Exeter Asset Centre
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which organisation is financing the posts of two occupational psychologists at Exeter asset centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Grand Metropolitan Community Services employs two occupational psychologists based at Exeter asset centre, which is otherwise staffed by the Training Agency. This initiative for people with disabilities in the Exeter area is a welcome demonstration of the value of co-operation between the Government and the private sector.

  Tobacco Products
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are employed in(a) Northern Ireland, (b) England, (c) Scotland and (d) Wales in the manufacture of tobacco products; what percentage of the total working population that represents in each of these areas; what is the tax revenue for their products in each country; and what percentage of the total of tobacco producers is produced in each of the four constituent areas of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information about employment in the tobacco industry by country is available only from the census of employment. The most recent figures are for September 1987. Due to confidentiality restrictions only figures for Northern Ireland and Great Britain can be given. These are as follows:

  Employees in employment1 in the tobacco industry2 at September 1987

  Number (thousands)

  Percentage3

  Northern Ireland

  2·1

  0·4

  Great Britain

  15·0

  0·1

  1 Excludes the self-employed.

  2 Activity Heading 4290 of the Standard Industrial Classification 1980.

  3 Percentage of all employees in employment.

  Information relating to taxation on tobacco products and tobacco products sales is not available on a regional basis. The United Kingdom figure for tax on tobacco products, including imports, is estimated at £5,800 million for the financial year 1987–88. United Kingdom home-produced tobacco product sales amounted to £6,423 million in 1987.

  Homeworkers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many homeworkers are employed in England and Wales and in what industries, giving the most recent figures by year for each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 24 January 1990]: The detailed information requested is not available. However, in 1981 a survey estimated that, excluding childminders, 230,000 people were working at home in England and Wales. Consideration is being given to whether a more recent figure can be provided.

  Restart
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many restart interviews are planned for the coming year, how many restart follow-up interviews are planned and how many claimant adviser interviews are planned.
  316
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 13 February 1990]: Because the interview programme responds to the numbers and circumstances of individual unemployed people, it is not possible to predict how many interviews will be necessary.

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.
Lord Swaythling—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Crèche Facilities for Employees
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to encourage the establishment of crèche facilities for employees.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government take every opportunity to encourage employers to adopt family friendly recruitment and retention policies including, where appropriate, assistance with child care. A number of practical initiatives to improve the range and quality of child care provisions available to working parents have been taken through the ministerial group on women's issues.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, although I shall have to read it in Hansard tomorrow to find out what it means. What proposals have the Government in mind, in view of their policy to encourage married women back to work, to bring about the provision of a more comprehensive nursery facility for the children of working mothers? Does he not agree that while the initiative of some employers —very few, but some —to make provisions available is welcome, that in itself is not enough? Does he not further agree that if we are to make comprehensive provision for all children who need the services, it will be necessary for the Government to make available facilities and finance to encourage both employers and local authorities to provide those services?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not understand my original Answer. I said that we hope that more employers will have family friendly policies towards their employees. More specifically, the Government are aware of the great concern of many women on this issue. The ministerial group on women's issues has issued a five point initiative. All government training programmes and business initiatives are open to women and we are also supporting the nationwide Back to the Future series of conferences for women returners which are being held in conjunction with the BBC and the Industrial Society.
We do not believe that the future is bleak. As the noble Baroness said, many employers have good practices, and we are encouraging them to continue those and to be an example to other employers.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, in view of the Minister's reply, will he say whether the Government will reconsider their attitude to the European directive on parental leave?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have not yet been convinced of the need to have a European directive on that issue.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can I call the Minister's attention to the text of the Question which says nothing at all about working mothers but talks about crèche facilities for employees? Are we to understand that the child labour laws are being abolished?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful comment. I think he knows as well as I what the Question is trying to get at.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in those instances where employees provide crèche facilities for their female employees, the Inland Revenue nevertheless assesses those employees on a benefit which they receive in that way? Does the noble Lord agree that if there is to be a further incentive for the provision and taking advantage of crèche facilities, the tax imposition should be removed?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord must know perfectly well that at this time of the year, when we are approaching the Budget, it would be quite wrong of me to speculate on anything which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have in mind.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us where the family friendly crèches are for employees of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government as an employer have a very good record on that sort of provision. They provide flexible working practices to allow women to be able to organise how they wish to work. Some Government departments have schemes for the holidays. Indeed, there is one in central London which is based at the Treasury. Generally speaking, the Civil Service is seen as a good leader and a good example to other employers. However, we shall obviously seek to do more.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the Question was correct in saying "employees" in that there are a few fathers who have to look after children? In addition, the noble Lord says that the Government are encouraging employers to provide crèches. Therefore, will he bear in mind —he must always bear it in mind because the Government are so enthusiastic about the small employer —that the small employer is in no position to provide a crèche and it would be quite ridiculous for him to do so? It might be used only once every four years. What does he propose to do about that?
While I am on my feet, what does the noble Lord propose to do about the provision of facilities —which in many ways is much more important from the angle of getting women into

1375
employement —over the school holidays, which go on until the youngsters are 16?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the point the noble Baroness makes about small firms is absolutely valid. What we are doing is encouraging small employers in specific areas to club together to provide the kinds of facilities that single large firms can supply themselves. The same basic principle applies for school holidays. One of the initiatives we have taken is to write to school governors to remind them that they have the powers to provide school premises out of school hours precisely for that sort of care.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, perhaps I may come back on the noble Lord's reply to my European directive question. If the Government do not believe in European directives, do they believe in parental leave? What are they doing to encourage employers to adopt parental leave systems themselves?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we encourage many flexible working practices and we encourage maternal leave. I think the record in this country is not at all bad.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister constantly uses the word "encouragement". Does he mean that the Government will actively assist with cash?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is a great deal of good practice at the moment so there is no need to assist with cash. However, the Department of Health is making available £2 million for pilot studies on how existing government resources can be more clearly focused.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in noting the noble Lord's reference to not anticipating his right honourable friend's Budget Statement, may we have an undertaking from him that he will convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the manifest injustice and indeed hardship endured by women who desire to take advantage of the crèche facilities, by being taxed in respect of them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot agree with the words of the noble Lord. I am not sure that his Back-Benchers agree with him either.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Minister ask the Government to encourage the DES to be family friendly and produce some finance so that LEA employees can use crèche facilities in schools?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it must be up to the individual LEAs to decide exactly how they will provide for their employees.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, the Minister said that he cannot anticipate what the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be saying shortly. However, I wonder whether he saw the report concerning one of his former colleagues, Edwina Currie, who was speaking on this matter some weeks ago. She is reported to
1376
have said, with reference to the National Health Service, that it employs half a million nurses and there are hardly any crèches. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government propose to do in order to provide crèche facilities for their own employees?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness refers to the employees of the National Health Service. It must be up to the National Health Service to decide how best to deal with the needs of its own employees.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what provision will be made for the children of civil servants?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have already answered that question.

City Technology Colleges Programme
2.47 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made with the city technology colleges programme.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the city technology colleges programme continues to make excellent progress. Kingshurst CTC opened in 1988 and two more CTCs at Teesside and Nottingham opened in 1989. At least a further 10 colleges will open in 1990 and 1991.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when the scheme was launched the then Secretary of State said that 20 CTCs would be in operation by the end of 1989? Does not the failure to achieve anything like that target relate to the second failure; that is, the inability to attract more than 20 per cent. of private money into what was to be a 100 per cent. private money scheme? The whole business is little short of a scandal. Should not the 80 per cent. of public money which is being poured into these unnecessary schemes be used to repair our crumbling schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think there is a philosophical divide between the noble Lord and the Government on this question. First, the money that is being spent on CTCs is new money and not money which would otherwise have been spent on educational establishments. It has also generated a maximum amount —in fact, an unprecedented amount —of money from commerce and industry to support a most interesting educational innovation. The signs so far are that this innovation is most effective.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, what on earth does the Minister mean in this context by new money?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, by new money I mean that money was extracted from the Treasury to

1377
finance a most interesting educational innovation. If it had not been extracted one cannot assume that it would have been spent on other things in education.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that since this idea was launched about two years ago it has become evident to people wherever they may sit in this House or in another place that the shortage of technologists is very important and that this imaginative arrangement will be welcomed by everyone who tries to recruit people into the technology industries?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes a most valid point. It is true that this programme is proving exceptionally opportune at this time when we need more technologists and scientists. The scheme builds on the arrangements of TVEI which is operating in our schools. However, I believe that it is quite wrong to deny this facility to some of our children if we cannot apply this innovation to all our children at this moment.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to the Government's expenditure plan for 1988–89, the total capital spending on schools was £283 million and the expenditure for city technology colleges was £14 million? However, is she aware that there are 24,000 schools which are receiving £12,000 each whereas the sum of £14 million is spread among at most six colleges? Will she say whether that is fair and whether she believes that situation encourages teachers in most schools? We have had a very bad report from the HMI on the state of school buildings. Can the Minister say whether the financial provision I have described encourages the morale of teachers and students in every other kind of school?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Question Time allows us to be rather simplistic about our statements on these affairs. It is important to remember that the government allocation for schools is only one part of the process. Local authorities themselves can supplement the sums that are spent on their schools. Another key feature is the way in which local authorities actually manage both repairs and capital spending on their schools.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a number of these new city technology colleges are being established in areas where there is already a great number of surplus places in the secondary schools? Does she not agree that to build new secondary schools in areas where there are already spare places is a ridiculous waste of public money? Does the Minister not further agree that it is particularly strange that the Government should be following this route when for many years they have exhorted local authorities to run their secondary school provision on a more value for money and rational basis?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my right honourable friend and the Government set out to establish these
1378
schools in the areas of greatest need; that is, in the most urban areas of our country. Where there are surplus places in some of those schools, it would help enormously if local authorities were more co-operative in working alongside and joining in the strategy of working a CTC with their own local schools in the area. There has been particular hostility from the teaching profession and the teaching unions in many of our areas. I believe that if they worked more closely with this innovation that would not only benefit those areas where school rolls are declining but also make better use of surplus places in some of our school buildings.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there are many local authorities which have a grave problem; namely, that many of our schools are in danger of falling down? That is their state. Can the Minister say whether local authorities have asked for special consideration from Her Majesty's Government to save the schools from crumbling?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord overstates his case. It is important to say two things. First, I do not believe that there has ever been more money spent on education. The record compares most favourably with that of the party of the noble Lord opposite. Secondly, it is a question of effective management of resources on the part of local education authorities in making the most of the allocation that is given by central government.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is terribly difficult for teachers to teach in schools which are falling down?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I accept that it is difficult for teachers to teach in schools which are falling down. I said that there was scope for managing resources rather better in many of our schools.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we have spent 20 minutes—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I suggest that my noble friend puts his question, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, puts his question, and we then pass on to the next Question.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, I was just going to say that we have spent 20 minutes on two Questions.
Lord Oram: My Lords, I shall be one more minute. Is the Minister aware that my noble friend Lord Molloy was not overstating the case as illustrated by the highly unsatisfactory situation in Brighton? There the Government are providing £7.2 million for the building of just one city technology college, whereas there is a great shortage of money for dealing with a backlog of repairs and capital programmes. Does the Minister not agree that that money could be spent to much better educational effect?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, two issues are ignored by that comment. The first is that the benefits that will be brought to Brighton by the existence of a CTC need to be measured once that college is up and running and its contribution to commerce and industry in the area can be assessed. Secondly, the point made by the noble Lord also ignores the enormous contribution that is to be made by commerce and industry to the capital project.

Mr. Colin Wallace: Inquiry
2.56 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider widening the terms of reference of the inquiry to be conducted by Mr. David Calcutt QC into the case of Mr. Colin Wallace.
Lord Reay: My Lords, an inquiry is being undertaken by Mr. Calcutt to consider whether any injustice may have been done to Mr. Wallace in respect of his appeal to the Civil Service Appeal Board. An internal Ministry of Defence inquiry is also being conducted into the reasons why relevant departmental papers came to light only last year. The Government see no need for a wider inquiry.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, given that Mr. Wallace has made further statements since the Government's last very unsatisfactory statement on this matter, and that some of his former colleagues in the army information service have offered to give testimony, can the Minister explain further why the Government do not establish a wider judicial inquiry to establish the truth once and for all in this matter and to finally kill off the disturbing rumours that former Ministers, some of whom are noble Lords in this House, were the victims of a smear campaign? In particular, will the Minister give an assurance that present and former officers and servants of the Crown will not be deterred from giving evidence either by departmental pressure or by threats of prosecution under the Official Secrets Act?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the errors recently discovered in ministerial statements primarily concern Mr. Wallace's involvement in the use of disinformation against the Provisional IRA. No evidence was found of the use in headquarters Northern Ireland of disinformation designed to denigrate Members of Parliament or Ministers. If anyone has substantive evidence of illegal or improper activities by Crown servants in Northern Ireland they should submit it to the proper authorities.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the allegations about a campaign to discredit members of the Wilson Government will not go away, as I told the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, some time ago? In my own case, the documentary evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it. If this Government will not set up an inquiry, the Labour Government who will most certainly come
1380
in in 1992 will do so. We would rather that this Government set up an inquiry now.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Prime Minister reported in another place in 1987 the very full assurances that she had received from the director general of the security services that he could find no basis for the allegations that there had been a plot to destabilise the government of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, as he now is. Nothing that has recently come to light in departmental papers concerning the Wallace case casts any doubt on that statement.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is it really too late to kill off the terrible word "disinformation"? What is wrong with the good old English word "lies"?
Lord Reay: My Lords, there are proper uses for disinformation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister really saying to this noble House that there was no attempt to destabilise a democractically elected British Government? We want to know whether the Government intend to investigate what many of us believe was a real attempt to destabilise a democractically elected British Government. Will he answer quite clearly that there will be an investigation, or do the Government intend to dodge it?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have already answered that question. If there is any further evidence, it should be submitted to the proper authorities.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, when the Prime Minister has spoken on this matter she has referred to incorrect statements made by herself and other Ministers which misled Parliament, but she has refused to tell us what those misleading statements were. Can the Minister help us where the Prime Minister has refused to do so? Cannot the noble Lord recognise that, now that the Defence Select Committee of another place has taken the decision to widen the inquiry from its narrow terms of reference, it will be doing the job that the Government ought to be doing?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the manner in which incorrect advice came to be tendered to Ministers is the subject of an internal inquiry. The outcome will be reported to your Lordships' House.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Minister clear up the point about the lack of evidence? The Government rest their case on the contention that there is no evidence. What appears to be evidence has already been printed, for instance, in the back of Mr. Paul Foot's book. Is it the Government's contention that that is forged —it may be inconclusive but it appears to be evidence —or is there some other explanation as to why it does not count as evidence?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot comment on Paul Foot's book. I understand that the Ministry of Defence has not received any papers containing new material of significance.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the Government would consider evidence. May I ask specifically whether they have considered the evidence in my case which they already have? Have they asked Scotland Yard for the results of its inquiries into my case, if they can obtain them, which I cannot?
Lord Reay: My Lords, if the noble Lord feels that he has evidence which has not been properly considered, then he should submit it to the proper authorities.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I asked the noble Lord whether the Government had considered the evidence in my case; and secondly, whether they had considered the results of Scotland Yard's inquiries in my case. Specifically, have the Government considered that evidence, or not?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I have replied on several occasions, the Government see no reason for a further wider inquiry. If the noble Lord feels that he has evidence which has not been properly considered, he should submit it to the proper authorities.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that my noble friend has raised this matter before on more than one occasion? He has repeated a very serious statement that he has made on previous occasions. Will the noble Lord be good enough to convey this to his right honourable friend? The noble Lord said during Question Time in answer to a question from me last week that he would ask his right honourable friend to consider an inquiry when, and if necessary after, the Calcutt inquiry has been completed. Did he do that, and what response did he receive from his right honourable freind? Furthermore, can he say a word about the disappearance of the 200-page document which Mr. Wallace sent to No. 10 Downing Street in 1984? Is there an inquiry into that disappearance? Is he aware that there is grave and increasing disquiet not only in Parliament but in the country generally about the way in which the Government are handling this case? The fact that they are not responding is causing people to think that the Government have something to hide.
Lord Reay: My Lords, in the first place I am quite happy to give an assurance that I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the protest of the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. If the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition was referring to Mr. Wallace's handwritten notes, all I can say is that there is nothing to indicate that they were part of his official duties or that he was authorised to compile them.
On the wider point raised by the noble Lord, there is an opinion different from his and it is not only held by members of the Government or by noble Lords on this side of the House. Another distinguished and powerful member of the Downing Street staff of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, at the same time as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, Mr. Joe Haines, takes a different view.
1382
Writing in his column in the Daily Mirror on 9th February he has this to say:
"The hysteria about M15 and dirty tricks is getting out of hand. What we are seeing is rumour masquerading as fact, gossip pretending to be truth. This dirty tricks hare won't run. The sooner it is derailed the better".
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would that not happen sooner if the Government agreed to an inquiry?
Lord Reay: No, my Lords. As I have said, the Government do not see any need for a wider inquiry.

Nuclear Submarines: Fault Inspections
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many nuclear-powered hunter-killer and Polaris submarines have been withdrawn from duties or recalled as a result of the discovery of faults.
Lord Reay: My Lords, none of the Royal Navy's nuclear powered submarines has been recalled from operational tasks. Following the recent discovery of a technical defect in one of them, however, all these vessels are being inspected as a precautionary measure when they come alongside.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it the case that nine Royal Navy nuclear powered submarines, probably including Polaris, have been found to have cracks in their nuclear reactor cooling circuits? Is the noble Lord aware that there is considerable public concern both for the safety of the crews of these submarines and for the safety of the local populations when the submarines put into port?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the defect was discovered during a refit of one submarine. There has been no accident or injury to anyone. The inspection of other boats is simply a prudent precaution since the defect has potential safety implications.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, given the difficulty in identifying faults, does the noble Lord agree that it is a matter of grave concern that the submarines remain at sea when their safety cannot be guaranteed? Will he take on board what my noble friend has said regarding the concern not only for the crews and maintenance staff, but also for the people who live in and around the naval dock areas? Surely as a matter of urgency the ships ought not to await their normal call but should be recalled so that everyone concerned, including the civilian population, is assured about safety?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can assure noble Lords that the Government attach the highest priority to nuclear safety. The inspections are part of that policy and the ministry is acting in close consultation with its independent technical and safety advisers.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that these submarines, and in particular the Polaris fleet, have a marvellous record of reliability? Does he agree that in the present circumstances there is plainly a case for maintaining our nuclear capability?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, has the Minister read the book Submarine versus Submarine by Commander Richard Compton Hall, MBE, RN? The relevance of my question is contained in this passage:
"A total coolant failure in any nuclear plant is disastrous and inevitably leads to the melt down of the core. Western submariners are absolutely certain that these safety devices and back-up systems will never allow this to happen. The Russians said the same until Chernobyl".
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can only repeat that this is a precautionary measure. There has been no accident or injury to anyone. The boats are being called in to be inspected alongside.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are concerned not about whether there has been an accident, but whether in the future the faults which the noble Lord has admitted have been discovered could cause an accident, resulting in injury and danger both to the crews and to the populations around the ports where they are to be investigated?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can only repeat that the action taken is simply a prudent precaution.

Business
3.10 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I should like to say a word about the arrangements for this afternoon's two short debates standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Rippon of Hexham. On the principle that the mover is allowed 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the short debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose a formal time limit. However, I know that noble Lords will keep their speeches within limits compatible with the spirit of these short debates. In the case of the short debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham, it means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 12 minutes.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene here to inform the House that I shall be unable to take part in the second debate. That may give some Members a minute more in which to speak.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am afraid that my powers of instant mathematics are not capable of saying whether my noble friend is absolutely right
1384
in his calculation about giving each speaker a minute extra in the debate. However, perhaps I may take a little time outside the Chamber to consider the calculation and thereafter advise speakers on the matter.

Port of Tyne Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Midland Metro (Penalty Fares) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Broadcasting: Select Committee Report
3.12 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we had the television cameras in this House, but when they were not yet installed in the House of Commons, the broadcasters were not allowed to televise Commons Statements repeated in this House. That seemed a sensible arrangement. However, now that the television experiment is taking place in another place there seems no logical reason to continue the ban. Therefore, the committee recommends that it should be lifted. That is the point of this report.
Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee [H.L. Paper 18] be agreed to. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report:

ORDERED TO REPORT:—
Ministerial Statements
1. At present the broadcasting authorities are prohibited from televising ministerial statements which are repeated in the House of Lords, and subsequent exchanges.
2. This prohibition was originally recommended by the Select Commitee on Sound Broadcasting and repeated by the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House. It was thought inappropriate that only the repetition of a statement could be televised, at a time when the House of Commons did not admit television cameras. On both occasions the recommendation was agreed to by the House.
3. While abiding by the restriction, the broadcasting authorities did not welcome it. When proceedings in the House are interrupted by a statement television recording must cease and, in the case of a live broadcast, transmission is interrupted. Moreover the broadcasters are prevented from recording the exchanges following a statement which, especially when Lords speak from positions of particular authority or experience, can be of great interest. The broadcasting authorities have on two previous occasions requested the Committee to reconsider the restriction, but the Committee decided that no change in circumstances occasioned reconsideration.
4. The broadcasting authorities have recently again raised the matter with the Committee. Since the House of Commons is now

1385
televised, and ministerial statements made there can now be shown, the original reason for the restriction has been removed. No similar restriction has ever been imposed in respect of sound broadcasting.
5. The Committee therefore recommend that the broadcasting authorities should in future be permitted to televise ministerial statements repeated in the Lords, and subsequent exchanges.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord and to members of the committee for the work that they have carried out over the years on our behalf. We very much appreciate in fact that Statements repeated in this House, and the discussion which follows, are now to be televised. I would not expect the noble Lord to be able to comment upon the question of lighting in this Chamber. However, he may be aware —as, indeed, are noble Lords on all sides of the House —that the lighting has deteriorated over the past few weeks while proceedings were being televised, whereas the lighting in another place, strangely enough, has improved. I only ask the noble Lord, and his noble friends, to consider the matter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will pay great attention to the remarks made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. It is plain to the naked eye that the lighting is not as good as it was. Moreover, I have received several complaints from people who watch the broadcasts of our proceedings who say that we are at any rate marginally less visible than we were. Perhaps my noble friend will take up the matter.
As regards Statements, I support what the noble Lord opposite said. I very much welcome this announcement, not least because the comments of noble Lords on government Statements are often, if I may put it correctly, no less wise and helpful than those made in another place.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what effect the fact that there is a picture being taken of everyone will have on the merit or demerit of any Statement?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, on the question of lighting, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is quite right. There was a reduction in the lighting in this House due to the fact that the idea of economising on electrical costs resulted in bulbs of rather less power being installed. However, that situation has now been put right. Therefore I can assure my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that to the naked eye the bulbs are now back at their previous strength. That means that we should be achieving at least the same kind of pictures as we previously enjoyed.
However, as regards the question asked by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I am afraid that it is one which he will have to answer for himself. I really cannot help him in the matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

North Sea Pollution
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyrose to call attention to the state of the North Sea and the need to continue to prevent further pollution; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a happy chance that success in the ballot should have steered this debate to mid-February, because the third in the series of ministerial North Sea conferences is due to take place at the Hague next month. That gives us a timely opportunity to discuss the subject and offer suggestions. The last conference took place in London a little over two years go. The participants are Ministers from the eight countries with coasts on the North Sea.
In the past, poets would have described the coasts as those washed by the North Sea. However, not now. On some of those shores, rubbish and sewage make a mockery of such a description. In addition, other forms of pollution threaten marine life, sea birds, tourism and recreation —and the amenity of what would otherwise be coastlines of natural beauty.
The fact that the eight governments started to hold these conferences a few years ago is to be applauded. I understand that much work is carried out by the officials' meetings between the conferences. I hope that fruitful preparations will have been made by them for the forthcoming conference at the Hague.
In considering these special arrangements for the North Sea, one must take into account the wider international agreements and meetings which have been taking place for much longer and which also apply to other seas. They have led by stages to agreements, embodied in conventions, to be observed by the participating parties. That process continues, with protocols and annexes being added to put into effect further agreements on related subjects. Examples are the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, and its protocol known as MARPOL, achieved in the mid-1970s, and the London Dumping Convention, which entered into effect in 1975. In both those conventions the International Maritime Organisation (the IMO) has a central role to play. Within the terms of those wider international conventions, the North Sea countries must address themselves to the particular causes of pollution on, and near, their own coasts.
The North Sea has its own characteristics. It also presents special problems. It does not suffer from being almost enclosed, like the Mediterranean and the Baltic, or from the shallowness of the Baltic. It has the advantages of open sea and considerable depth, although mostly it is continental shelf. It also has the boon of swift currents which can disperse and dilute unwanted substances. I suggest that those advantages have tempted many to take liberties with the North Sea which should no longer be permitted.
With those characteristics, it may be asked: why are there special problems? They arise mainly from the proximity of centres of industry and population which have been discarding unwanted material into the rivers and estuaries from the east, the west and

1387
the south, and from sewage outfalls along the coasts. Moreover, busy shipping routes pass through the North Sea and there are the large oil ports of Rotterdam and Sullom Voe in Shetland. In addition, during the past 25 years a large new industry —namely, offshore oil and gas production —has developed, with many installations being constructed and continuously manned in the middle of the North Sea.
The international conventions which I mentioned, especially MARPOL, should control pollution from vessels; dealing especially with oil, chemicals and garbage. They have led to a steady improvement in the situation. However, what the eight North Sea countries have to do is to build upon this by reaching agreement on reductions of polluting substances originating from land.
Progress was made at the second conference in London in November 1987. The principal decisions were: to reduce specified dangerous substances —and those were defined as persistent, toxic or likely to accumulate —going into rivers and estuaries by 50 per cent. by 1995. Another was to bring the dumping of industrial waste to an end, with exceptions being made for authorised dumping where there is no alternative which is not worse and where it can be shown that harm will not be done. That was to finish at the end of last year. Thirdly, there was the decision to phase out incineration at sea by the end of 1994. I understand that the United Kingdom is no longer doing this and I hope that my noble friend will confirm that.
In the debate on my Motion on worldwide pollution on 20th December 1989, I asked my noble friend Lord Hesketh what it was hoped would be gained from the third conference in March. He replied that further progress was intended, with special attention being given on this occasion to wildlife and shipping. My noble friend is not replying today because he is in California on an official visit. I look forward to the reply today from my noble friend Lord Reay in his place.
Someone else who is many miles away is my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. He told me last week that he would have taken part today but he is in Borneo. No one can say that Members of this House are not prepared to travel long distances to inquire and consult on environmental matters. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook has been greatly concerned with the state of the North Sea. He is chairman of the Marine Forum, which has just printed a collection of up-to-date comments from various bodies on pollution and its effects in the North Sea.
I believe that this will be the first time that wildlife has been an individual item on the agenda, so I offer a few comments. There are certain species which need protection from pollution as well as other threats. For example, some of the marine mammals, which include whales, porpoises and dolphins, are to be found in the North Sea. Dolphins are a friendly and endearing form of life to the human race. I put in a plea because they are rare round our coasts —and I hope that the plea will be considered by the governments concerned —for the small school of dolphins which takes refuge in the Moray Firth, an
1388
inlet from the North Sea. There is anxiety, shared by experts, that plans to increase emissions of sewage and other pollution will harm or kill these creatures.
Another species for which I have a warm regard and which still swims near our shores is the basking shark. The Marine Conservation Society is concerned about its future and its survival. I should point out in its favour that although it looks fierce, the basking shark is completely harmless. If your Lordships will forgive me saying this, it should be remembered about this shark that its bask is worse than its bite!
Birds are of course especially vulnerable to pollution —sea birds, waders and wildfowl. The plight of stricken birds washed up on beaches has attracted the attention of the press and engaged the concern of the public. The Government can be sure of full support in this country for measures to prevent such distressing incidents. Where sea fish are considered, one must be aware that fishermen's livelihoods are also at risk. Shellfish and oyster beds in particular can be wiped out by coastal pollution. In general, too, even the suspicion or rumour that fish are being polluted in a certain area can kill the market for them.
The other subject which my noble friend Lord Hesketh said in my debate on 20th December would be on the agenda at The Hague was shipping. Despite the general success of MARPOL, particularly over oil pollution, practice and discipline need to be tightened up on the throwing overboard of debris, rubbish and unwanted equipment, much of which ends up on beaches. For example, old fishing nets can be lethal for birds, both at sea and on the shore. The United Kingdom has issued regulations —the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage) Order 1988. I ask the Government two questions: first, have other North Sea countries acted similarly? Secondly, how difficult is it to enforce such regulations? It cannot be easy to monitor the discarding of rubbish in the open sea.
Improvement is also necessary in the use of facilities at ports for receiving oily ballast and other polluting substances. Otherwise, these are likely to be released into the sea. Above all, everything should be done to avoid collisions and accidents at sea, the cause of the worst pollution incidents in recent years. There have been serious incidents in the last two years, not only in Europe, caused by bad navigation and seamanship. This should not be allowed to occur, given the technology and training now available.
I have touched on the two subjects volunteered by my noble friend to be discussed at The Hague. I urge as the most important of all that the Government should strive to improve targets for the quality of rivers and estuaries and to build upon the agreement reached on this in 1987. My information is that rivers are the main cause of North Sea pollution. A very large part of that pollution is caused by industrial effluents emitted into rivers and estuaries. We must be severe, if necessary, regarding our own British rivers.
It is important also that rivers flowing from the east in continental Europe should be carefully

1389
considered. It is estimated that less than a quarter of the pollution from rivers now comes from Britain, from the west. The rest comes from elsewhere. Can we hope for further progress in the cleaning of effluents before discharge into rivers and estuaries on both sides of the North Sea?
The British Government clearly take pollution from British rivers seriously. They will receive strong support in all future progress. In England and Wales this is becoming the responsibility of the new National Rivers Authority, which does not apply to Scotland. The word "national" has unfortunately misled the media. Since I raised that point before Christmas there has been a further example on the BBC, among other media, of a radio programme which entirely concentrated on the fact that the new authority would be in charge of all the rivers in Britain. Of course, that is not so; the facts are different. The Secretary of State for the Environment does not have functions in Scotland. Everything he does in England and Wales is carried out in Scotland by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has his own team of officials and a pollution inspectorate in the Scottish Office. It is therefore essential that the two government departments should work together to ensure that the rivers flowing into the North Sea from Britain are kept clean and improved where necessary.
I wish to make clear at this point that I accept that the best way of disposing of some waste matter is to release it into the sea, in the right conditions. The sea can break down and transform safely, bringing about a sea change. Safe disposal can be achieved of suitable substances with knowledge, within assessed quantities and in the right places. To take a simple example on land, the normal and correct disposal of a dead and decomposing cat is burial in the earth in a suitable, well-chosen place. Friends of the Earth would not object to that. The sea similarly plays a part in the natural cycle of decomposition and change. Mankind, when substantially adding to it, should do so, however, with knowledge and discrimination.
I now come to the subject of dumping. While pollution from rivers is largely invisible, dumping is visible and more obvious. The North Sea in this respect is covered not only by the London Dumping Convention but also by the Oslo Convention. The latter was concluded later in the 1970s. I hope that progress can be made to reduce dumping, although I recognise the difficulties. In North-East England there are industries —for example, the coal industry —which have problems in disposing of waste material. The United Kingdom has had to make use of the exceptions allowing authorised dumping if a substance is regarded as harmless —for example, stone from mining operations —or if it cannot be dealt with more safely on land.
I have two questions on this matter for my noble friend who is to reply to the debate. First, is further agreement on dumping necessary and likely at the Hague? Secondly, can he explain the licences granted after 31st December last for dumping industrial waste so as to dispel the apprehensions and doubts of some observers, including those from the other North Sea countries? I understand that soon it will
1390
for the first time be an offence for any vessel, whether it is UK registered or not, to dump without a licence in any part of the British continental shelf. If that is so, that will be a great advance.
The press yesterday suggested that one of the items at the Hague conference would be PCBs. I shall not spell out the long title of those substances as I believe noble Lords know what they are from previous debates. PCBs are not being manufactured or introduced but they are still widely in use in refrigeration and cooling liquids. However, this is a world-wide topic and is not confined to seas or to the North Sea. I was surprised to note that that topic was to be discussed at the conference. Is that expected on the part of the United Kingdom delegation? Certainly more needs to be agreed between the nations on that matter, but it is not necessarily an item for the North Sea agenda.
This debate would not be complete without some comment on the offshore oil industry. with which I am familiar. I again declare an interest. For the past 14 years I have worked in a non-executive capacity for an international oil company 'which is the operator of one of the largest fields in the North Sea, Ninian, which has been producing oil for 11 years. The worst oil pollution is likely to arise from accidents. These may be accidents on platforms such as a blowout or they may result from breaches in pipelines. Prevention is best secured by safety measures and by the highest standards in use and maintenance of plant and equipment. It is good news that leading oil companies are now installing at considerable expense on the sea bed below platforms additional valves which will cut of oil in emergencies. This will prevent oil from continuing to flow into a fire or into the sea. It is a significant measure affecting both safety and pollution and is being carried out before the report of the Piper Alpha inquiry makes recommendations.
In the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea, the Department of Energy monitors and controls spills and pollution from oil installations. It rightly brings charges against alleged offenders and goes to court if necessary. There are allowable amounts of oil drippings, the cuttings from drilling and "produced water" as it is called, which can go into the sea as part of operations. However, I ask the Government whether they can ensure that the other national sectors, for example the Norwegian and Danish sectors, have equivalent standards which are required and enforced. The offshore industry has found and applied technology to improve the removal of oil traces from waste. I should mention the hydrocyclone, which has been invented and recently brought into use to separate oil from water on platforms at sea. Research is now being done to reduce oil contamination of cuttings and other discarded material in order to lower the percentage now allowed.
In the United Kingdom the Marine Pollution Control Unit has been in existence for only the past 10 years. In that time it has collected great expertise and has gained the confidence of the British coastal local authorities. We are much better placed now to deal with major incidents. I wish to pay a tribute to its leader for the first eight years, Admiral Michael

1391
Stacey, who has helped to create a key element in prevention and remedy. I ask my noble friend whether other North Sea countries have the equivalent of that unit.
During this opening speech I have naturally probed and asked questions. Other noble Lords who will follow me in the debate will no doubt do the same. I conclude by stating that my good wishes will be with the United Kingdom representatives at the conference in the Hague next month in their joint endeavour to improve conditions in the North Sea. I beg to move for Papers.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, we must all be appreciative of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has raised in a short debate a subject matter which is of pressing interest and of continuing difficulty. The noble Lord in a wide-ranging speech touched upon the questions of sewage disposal, chemical dumping, long sea outfalls, effluent disposal and other such matters. I myself want to concentrate rather more on the continuing war which exists between the offshore oil industry and the fishing industry. It is a mini-war but it could almost be described as a war.
I state the obvious in mentioning that there are currently substantial numbers of oil and gas field developments in British waters together with their associated platforms, subsea installations, pipelines and suspended wellheads. Inevitably an unacceptable level of debris is thereby generated. Moreover, we are now faced with the fact that as and when those installations come to the end of their working lives and have to be abandoned the Government seem clearly resolved to pursue a policy of either partial or non-removal of platforms, subsea installations and pipelines with the consequences that disruption, inconvenience, loss of access and risk to safety at sea are likely to be with us forever and a day.
While it is not my primary function this afternoon in such a debate as this to review in any great detail the level of activity, both current and prospective, in the North Sea entered into by offshore oil companies, it might be helpful if I refer to a few facts from the report of the Department of Energy, known as the Brown Book, which was published in April 1989. It is entitled The Development of Oil and Gas Resources in the United Kingdom. The report records among other things that there have been 11 licensing rounds since 1964 involving the award of some 689 licences covering approximately 1,368 blocks. It also records that there were 36 offshore oil and 24 offshore gas fields in production at the end of 1988, and that those were served by no fewer than 75 trunk and interfield offshore pipelines with a total length in excess of 3,000 miles.
The Brown Book also tells us that a total of 177 exploration and appraisal wells, the highest number since 1984, were started in 1988, that 167 offshore development wells were drilled during that year and that 24 development projects were approved, also in that year. All in all the thrust of the report leaves me in no doubt that there is a very substantial
1392
volume of development still to come in British waters. That will take us well into the next century. The consequence will be increasing discomfort —to put it no more strongly —for our fishing fleet.
Against the background that I have outlined, your Lordships may be interested to learn that there is no obligation whatever on the oil companies to consult with the fishermen's interests —for theirs is the main interface in the dark waters of the North Sea with the oil companies —about the location of production platforms, drilling rigs or subsea installations. Obviously those are sited where the oil and gas are to be found, or in the case of drilling rigs thought likely to be found, irrespective of their interference with fishing grounds or with the fishermen's favourite tow.
The impact does not end there in that there are fields in the UK Continental Shelf which comprise a number of platforms and satellite wellheads all of which are connected by interfield pipelines and small diameter flowlines. In those cases the companies concerned have claimed and been granted development area status for the fields in question. The implication is that fishermen should give those areas a wide berth.
As I have indicated, there are about 3,000 miles of pipelines. They comprise a mixture of large diameter trunk lines, smaller pipelines, interfield lines and flowlines. Some are trenched or buried, others are not. Therefore, in spite of the undertakings of the early days that there would be no proliferation of pipelines, that is what we most certainly have.
The views of the fishing industry on pipelines are clear and concise. Fishermen would like to see all lines buried on construction so that they can feel assured that no problem will arise in terms of contact with fishing gear. Moreover, when the time for abandonment comes, as it surely will, little if any remedial action will be required. Neither the Government nor the oil and gas industry have seen it in that light, at least so far. It seems that from the outset while some companies have either trenched or buried their pipelines, others have laid them proud on the sea bed.
In approaching the matter in that way —after conducting certain experiments involving the interaction between fishing gear and pipelines, I agree —the Government adopted a policy approach which decreed that whereas all pipelines of 16 inches diameter or less should be buried or trenched, those of larger sizes could safely be laid proud on the sea bed. We have been saddled with that approach to pipeline projects ever since with the consequent fouling of nets and the increase in debris which has subsequently occurred.
Fishermen create debris. I do not attempt to suggest otherwise. However, in my view that is as nothing compared with the amount of debris dumped by the oil and gas industry across the whole range of its activities in the North Sea. There is no doubt whatever that the oil operators and their support companies have been guilty of bad housekeeping in that respect. That is to put it reasonably kindly. It is, if anything, an understatement.

1393
The situation has not been helped by the patent ineffectiveness of the dumping at sea legislation or such legislation as we have to that end thus far. The legislation is clearly unenforceable given that the bulk of the debris cannot be attributed to anyone since there is no requirement in the legislation for equipment to be marked durably. That is one of the key points.
While the amount of debris dumped is a cause for disquiet, the picture becomes even more depressing when one considers what is happening on the question of abandonment in terms of both the emerging international legal regime and the statutory powers already taken by the United Kingdom Government under the Petroleum Act 1987. The prospect of either platforms or pipelines being left in the waters of the North Sea in partial form must dismay and alarm. I should make it clear that the proposed regime on platform abandonment, if it were implemented as it stands at the moment, would result in the removal of only the three platforms of the Beatrice field which are located in the shallow waters of the inner Moray Firth on the north-east coast of Scotland.
Regarding platforms in general, whether they are severed or toppled there will be a stump which will present a hazard both to the safety of navigation and fishing operations in perpetuity. At the very worst, that will give rise to the prospect of a vessel putting its gear round the stump causing great danger to the safety of that vessel and its crew. Inevitably, partially removed platforms will degrade, with debris being distributed all over the adjacent sea.
Much the same considerations will apply to pipelines which will also degrade and perpetuate debris on the sea bottom. That again gives rise to the potential fouling of fishermen's gear and a further increase in debris. A disused pipeline will be subject to an order by the Secretary of State who may authorise the pipeline to be abandoned in total in situ. I can see the argument in favour of that as an act of government policy, but it has the concomitant difficulty of further sea bottom debris pollution.
What should we be seeking to do in the circumstances that I have just mentioned? It seems to me at the least that vigorous pressure needs to be applied urgently within the international negotiating arrangements to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred. If we are to have any prospect of securing the introduction of satisfactory safeguards to combat the onset of the policy of partial removal of platforms and pipelines which now seems to be gaining momentum, and probably inevitably so, a possible package of proposed measures might include the following. It might include requirements to the effect that the area or areas around any partially —or completely —removed installation or installations should be the subject of a debris clean-up operation. In the case of partial removal, it should further be subject to an annual inspection with a view to ensuring that it remains free of installation related debris. There should be agreement that any debris identified as a result of such an inspection should be removed as soon as the
1394
parties concerned can arrange for that to be done. That would require an enforcing inspectorate, a concept which so far the Government have rejected.
My latter suggestion —for it is no more than that —might be a first faltering step at least towards some solution of what is becoming an increasingly intractable problem in the dark waters of the North Sea.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy for introducing the debate, and congratulate him on his luck in the ballot only three weeks before the Third North Sea Conference takes place. In his introduction he set the problem in the context of world agreements covering all seas, and he rightly pointed out that the North Sea countries have a special responsibility for what happens in our seas. Although we in this country are to blame for many things, it is true that the discharges from the Rhine are of even greater concern. However, that should not leave us feeling complacent. Everything that is done by all the countries around the North Sea has an effect on the marine environment. I, and I am sure all noble Lords, believe that this country should set an example rather than lag behind.
The UK Government was a signatory to the ageement reached at the Second North Sea Conference two years ago. It outlawed the dumping of industrial waste in the North Sea from 31st December, 1989, unless there was no other practical alternative for disposal on land, and the materials dumped posed no risk to the marine environment.
In his introduction, the noble Lord asked the Government many questions. I wish to ask the Government why, having signed the agreement, do they grant licences enabling the CEGB to dump fly ash in the North Sea off the east coast? At present, 98·5 per cent. of fly ash is disposed of on land, so an alternative exists; it is unnecessary dumping. There is no doubt that the dumping of fly ash seriously affects marine life by smothering the sea bed and killing that life.
I have also been told that a local company called Thermalite has stated that it can turn the fly ash into breeze blocks. That process of recycling, about which we continually talk, may help to influence building costs.
The UK is now the only country in Europe still dumping sewage sludge in the North Sea. From our rivers 300 million gallons are discharged into the North Sea every day. More than 8 million tonnes of sewage sludge, containing a high proportion of heavy metals, is dumped into the North Sea each year. Direct industrial discharges include arsenic, copper, cadmium, nickel, mercury and zinc. We also continue to allow the incineration of toxic wastes off the Scarborough coast. That is to be banned completely from 1994. However, most of us would wish to see this country join the Danes in calling for a world-wide ban by 1991.
The fishermen off the east coast complain of diseased fish and a great reduction in their catches. They also complain of suffering from strange

1395
infections, and some of them now wear facial protection when fishing. Yesterday the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, Mr. Jim Wallace, met a delegation of those fishermen who were lobbying for an end to the incineration of toxic wastes.
The European Community agreed to phase out the dumping of industrial waste in the North Sea by 31st December 1989. That date has now passed. The UK Government recently applied to the Oslo Commission for a licence to dump further industrial waste. They have asked for a licence to dump 42,000 tonnes of waste from paracetamol production; 3,000 tonnes of waste, from O-tolyl-biguanide which is a curing agent and anti-detoxicant, and 4,000 tonnes of waste from the synthesis of asthma and allergy medicines. A fourth application has been made for permission to dump 8,000 tonnes of chemical waste. It is a particular waste called BSM which is mostly alcohol and has a very high oxygen demand. Quite clearly, it poses a risk to the marine environment in the North Sea. Most of those toxic substances could be disposed of in other ways. If that is not possible, they should be stored for a period of years until a means of disposal has been found.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to an article in yesterday's Times about PCBs. I also read the article and the headline pleased me very much. It stated,
"UK will back international pact for a total ban on PCBs".
That is wonderful news; but further reading shows that again there is disagreement about the timing of the prohibition. Norway, Denmark, and Sweden want them to be phased out by 1995. West Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands and Switzerland are pressing for the year 2000. But again Britain, with only one other member state (France), is pressing for a much longer period; that is, 2005. That is too long, and in many cases the Government are not courageous enough in committing themselves to the earliest deadlines.
As a nation our responsibility is great. We should commit ourselves, as should the Government, to the complete phasing out of incineration of waste at sea by 1991; a complete ban on sewage sludge dumping at sea with immediate effect; a ban on direct discharges of sewage sludge into the sea, and an end to all industrial discharges into the acquatic environment by the year 2000. We should set up an urgent scientific survey of all mammalian populations in British waters in order to establish population levels, birthrates and general health. Together with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I welcome the fact that for the first time the North Sea conference is to discuss the mammalian populations of the North Sea.
Lastly, I wonder whether some of the enforcement policies in this country are correct or whether we should consider altering them. For instance, there is the problem that dumping is controlled by the Ministry of Agriculture. Some of us believe that perhaps that Ministry is not as green as it might be. I should like to ask the Government whether they would consider transferring the responsibility to the Department of the Environment, which I believe better understands these matters.
4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are a number of reasons to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on having introduced this debate this afternoon. First, he is himself a distinguished former chairman of the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea, of which my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff has been president. Secondly, as he said, it was timely that he should win the ballot for short debates only three weeks before the Hague Convention opens. Thirdly, as a number of noble Lords said, the debate is timely because we have just passed the deadline for the prohibition of dumping of industrial waste in the North Sea which was required by the second conference in London in 1987.
I have no doubt that the government spokesmen will go to the Hague Convention next month full of joy at showing how much better we are as regards the cleanliness of our rivers and in various other detailed respects compared with other European countries whose rivers discharge into the North Sea. We had a foretaste of that in the speech of Mrs. Bottomley at the Hamburg Harbour meeting on 12th September last year. She boasted that the Thames was very much cleaner than the Rhine, the Meuse and the Elbe. I do not doubt that she is correct. I do not doubt that many of the longer rivers which run through industrialised countries, and particularly the Elbe which starts off in the German Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia, carry very much worse chemical contamination into the North Sea than does the Thames and, I imagine, even more than the Tyne or the Tees.
It is also true that we have quite effective scientific programmes to investigate attempts to devise controls for pollution in the North Sea. As she announced at that meeting, we have the North Sea action plan which is based on what I think is the nastiest acronym that I have ever heard; namely, BATNEEC —which means best available technology not entailing excessive costs. The sting of that acronym is in the tail: not entailing excessive costs. In other words, the phrase means that we shall do as little as we can but we shall call it by a grand name.
Under the North Sea action plan, Mrs. Bottomley promised the nations participating in the Hamburg Harbour conference that there would be substantial reductions in pollution of the North Sea by 1995. She talked about the North Sea task-force producing by 1993 a new quality status report which in effect is a bill of health for the North Sea, and the North Sea project from the Natural Environment Research Council producing mathematical models of physical, chemical and biological processes affecting the quality of the North Sea. So far so good. I have no doubt that there will be effective and sincere speeches made by Government Ministers at the Hague next month.
However, we have to look at the matters on which we can congratulate ourselves in the context of those matters on which we are far less able to congratulate ourselves. My noble friend Lord Kirkhill and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to some of

1397
them. My noble friend referred politely to the bad housekeeping of the offshore oil industry. I agreed with him when he called for effective debris clean-up when offshore oil sites are partially or wholly abandoned and for a subsequent annual inspection. He made his remarks from the point of view of the interests of the fishing industry, again quite rightly, but there are wider interests involved.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said —and he has very specific knowledge of this industry, particularly, as he said, in the Ninian field —there is a substantial amount of pollution from chemicals, oil and materials used in the upkeep and cleaning of the offshore oil installations. That damage is continuing. The evidence for bad housekeeping has been very clearly outlined by my noble friend. It would be interesting to hear what the government spokesmen will say about that at the Hague. After all, we are the largest single exporter of North Sea oil and gas and our responsibility is therefore very considerable.
I also want to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, on making a large part of the speech that I intended to make about dumping of industrial waste. As she said, the second conference in London in 1987 undertook to phase out the dumping of industrial waste by 31st December 1989 except for inert materials of natural origin. I think the qualification to that was that those who were dumping what are claimed to be inert materials of natural origin would have to prove that it was not in any way dangerous. I accept that that applies in particular to the minestone which is dumped off the north-east coast by the coal industry. I believe that it is nowadays generally agreed —certainly by the Scandinavian countries, which are the most advanced in the control of dumping—that minestone off the north-east coast is inert and not dangerous to the natural environment of the North Sea. My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton made that point only last Friday during the Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill.
But although all the environment Ministers at the London Conference signed the declaration, only the United Kingdom continues to make application for licences to dump on a very large scale. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred in particular to three applications; namely, those from Sterling Organics for 42,000 tonnes of materials used in paracetamol production; from Orsynetics for 13,000 tonnes of ortho-tolyl-biguanide which is used in the production of soap; and from Fisons for 4,000 tonnes of materials used in the preparation of asthma and allergy remedies. In fact, as confirmed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in an Answer only last December to my honourable friend Dr. David Clark, there were no fewer than 26 applications for dumping of chemical wastes in the North Sea in the course of 1989. Of those 26 applications one was not approved and was not put forward to the Oslo Commission but 21 of them were due to extend beyond the deadline of 31st December 1989 and therefore are in conflict with agreement to the London Convention and, I put to the Government, in conflict with the international obligations of the United Kingdom.
1398
When the government representatives are congratulating themselves at the Hague, perhaps they will put on a hair shirt and confess that our record on dumping is not what it ought to be and that there are many ways in which we continue to defy internationally accepted standards with regard to dumping damaging materials into the North Sea. I should like to remind the noble Lord who will reply to this debate from the Government Front Bench that in a parliamentary reply to Dr. David Clark on 4th December 1989 Mr. Gummer, the Minister of Agriculture, said that the final termination date for applications could not be precisely identified. He said that most of them would be terminated within about two years. That indicates to me that a considerable number will still be continuing for more than about two years and will therefore be at least two years outside the deadline agreed at the London Conference.
With reference to polychlorinated biphenyls, the noble Baroness mentioned the fact that our deadline of 2005 is very much worse than any of the other European countries with the exception of France. That is again a matter where the United Kingdom will have to stand up and be counted at the Hague. I shall be interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Reay, what the Minister will say at the Hague Convention and how we shall defend the fact that we are putting forward much worse deadlines for the removal of pollution than almost any other country.
We have talked much about the removal of damage from the dumping of chemical waste. However, in terms of quantity, there are two things that we continue blatantly to do, and about which we do nothing. Nobody else acts in this way. The first is the dumping of sewage sludge. The second is the dumping of large quantities of less damaging, but still damaging, industrial waste. The water and sewerage undertakings in this country dump 9 million tonnes of sewage sludge in the North Sea. A very large proportion of that is seriously contaminated with chemical effluent from the treatment that sewage undergoes. What proposals do the Government have to eliminate that?
It has been virtually universally agreed that dumping of sewage sludge is part of the failed tall chimneys technique for dealing with pollution. I refer to the idea that if one dilutes the pollution somehow one is dealing effectively with the problem. That has been shown not to be true when one talks of air pollution. It has become quite clear that the tall chimneys approach —the dilution approach —simply results in the damage caused in this country taking effect in Germany, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and other parts of Central Europe. While we congratulate ourselves on the purity of our rivers compared with those countries, we must compare the damage that we are doing to their forests and air conditions by our tall chimneys approach.
When we look at the remainder of the industrial waste, it is still the case that British industry is dumping 3 million tonnes of waste in the North Sea per annum after 31st December 1989 —after the deadline set at the London Conference. Mr. Patten,

1399
the Secretary of State, met Mrs. Maij-Weggen, the Dutch Minister for Transport, yesterday. I shall be interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Reay, what he said to her and how he defended the continuing pollution that is undertaken by this country and the continuing damage to the condition of the North Sea by the policies of this country.
I do not wish to go over the ground of the privatisation of water and the effect of that on the environment. It has become very clear that the privatisation of water and of the electricity industry has been used by this Government as excuses for failing to deal with pollution in the way that they should have done. However, I suggest that there are many answers that the Government will have to give at the Hague Convention next month. Any indication by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, of a recognition of our failings would be unexpected but very welcome.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for introducing this important topic which provides us with a very useful opportunity to reappraise marine pollution issues in the run-up to the Third North Sea Conference, which is to be held in the Hague in three weeks' time. As the outgoing chairman of ACOPs —the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea —my noble friend is perhaps one of the best informed Members of your Lordship's House on marine environment issues. ACOPs has done much to influence and raise the quality of international debate on marine pollution issues and we expect to see evidence of some of this influence at the Hague Conference.
First, perhaps I may refer to the condition of the North Sea. The most accurate picture that we have is that provided by the quality status report, prepared and agreed by all North Sea states for the second London conference in 1987. The report demonstrates that, although there are some problem areas, the North Sea is generally in good shape. It continues to support a rich variety of marine life as in evident in this quotation from the report:
"[North Sea] habitats are rich in marine life. Large and diverse migratory bird populations are found along most of the North Sea coastline. Marine animals and especially seals are also widely distributed. The shallow and highly productive Wadden Seas have their own rich flora and fauna, and fragile and vulnerable ecosystems; they also provide the major habitat for the early stages of many commercial species of fish caught in the open North Sea. Many of the estuaries are flanked by salt marshes which support rich and sometimes unique populations of marine plants and animals and are important in the turnover of nutrients in the coastal zone".
In addition, the North Sea still yields an exceptional fishery, representing between one-quarter and one-third of the total catch of the North-East Atlantic. The threat to this major renewable resource comes not from pollution but from overfishing.
The picture painted by the quality status report, which was agreed by marine environment scientists from all the North Sea states, indicates clearly that
1400
there are specific environmental problems in the North Sea, principally in the areas close to the main sources of pollution of which the large industrial rivers are the most important example. Where the circulation of water is slow and depths are shallow, large volumes of contaminated riverflow can create problems in the coastal belt, but this is a far cry from claiming that the North Sea is dying or even that its general environmental quality is poor. Taken as a whole the North Sea does not show evidence of widespread damage. But it is to address the particular problems which have been identified that the North Sea conferences were established.
The first North Sea conference was held in Bremen in 1984 and the second in London in November 1987, hosted by my right honourable friend the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The conferences bring together all the North Sea states —Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and the United Kingdom. Your Lordships may like to know that for the purposes of these conferences the North Sea is defined as including the English Channel almost as far west as Falmouth and, on the Scottish coast, the waters as far west as Cape Wrath. In addition to member states the conference includes observers from the main relevant international organisations such as the Oslo and Paris commissions, the International Maritime Organisation, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and so on.
The achievement of the first conference in Bremen was to establish the broad principles and strategies for international co-operation on the North Sea. It was the London conference which established the basic framework for tackling problems identified by the quality status report, by proposing specific measures for each of the main inputs to the sea. The most important of these was to secure a substantial reduction, of the order of 50 per cent. in dangerous substances entering rivers and coastal waters. The conference also agreed to phase out the dumping and incineration of industrial waste and to apply tighter controls to discharges from ships and offshore platforms.
The United Kingdom has made clear that it places a high priority on the measures agreed by the North Sea Conference and after the London conference we took an early lead in publishing a guidance note explaining how the declaration was to be implemented in the United Kingdom. We also committed ourselves to its general application to all our coastal waters including the Irish Sea.
To illustrate this commitment, I shall select some aspects of our implementation of the London agreement. The most important has been the development of a national North Sea action plan on reducing dangerous substances inputs to rivers. The action plan will, among other things, review the consents granted for any discharge of waste water to rivers, estuaries and coastal waters. Our first task in this area was to develop a system for identifying the most dangerous priority substances. There is no point in having unrealistically long lists where the likelihood of taking action is remote.

1401
In April last year we published our first priority "Red List" of the 23 substances which the United Kingdom considers to be the most dangerous to the aquatic environment, together with the criteria and selection system used for identifying them. Indeed the selection scheme is currently being refined with a view to identifying the next group of substances to be considered for possible later additions to the list.
Many of the substances identified in the "Red List" reach the aquatic environment from what are called diffuse sources. In other words, we are talking not about a single plant or industry, but about a scatter of waste sources—discarded drums of pesticides, abandoned dump sites and so on. We are increasingly taking the potential of such diffuse sources into account when looking at the approval for use of pesticides and similar chemicals. We have recently decided to ban all remaining uses of the pesticides dieldrin, aldrin and chlordane and we are now looking closely at lindane, and dichlorvos. But where such contaminants originate from past uses of land or materials, or from improper disposal, the problems are considerable and the persistence of these substances means that their reduction or elimination will sometimes be a slow and gradual process.
The United Kingdom can also point to a strong record on other aspects of the London agreement. We began a regular programme of aerial surveillance for oil slicks in April 1989 and recently we have increased that programme. Harbour authorities have provided reception facilities at ports for ships' waste and their adequacy is monitored. Indeed an example of good progress, and one where a lot of people can do something themselves to help, are the controls on disposal of refuse at sea. Annex V of the MARPOL convention on pollution from ships, provides strict controls on the dumping of garbage and prohibits completely the disposal of plastic refuse which is now an offence under United Kingdom law. Making this a reality will surely depend as much on education, publicity and public pressure as on any international agreement. A disgraceful amount of plastic and other litter is still thrown carelessly into rivers or from ships at sea. This is something that we can all play a part in putting a stop to.
The United Kingdom also took the initiative at the London Conference in proposing the North Sea task force to co-ordinate science and research in the North Sea. The task force was established in 1988 and brings together scientists from all North Sea states to prepare a new and much more comprehensive report on its quality. Much has already been agreed, but critical gaps in science remain. We in the United Kingdom are helping to cover those by directing research effort from the programmes of the Natural Environment Research Council and the Fisheries Departments towards the priority areas identified. The Department of the Environment co-ordinates the United Kingdom contribution and has increased its own programme to around £1.6 million per annum to help address these concerns.
So your Lordships may ask: how does this record compare with other North Sea states: We do not yet have a full answer, but it is clear that on the inputs
1402
of dangerous substances to rivers and coastal areas, the United Kingdom has a strong position. Figures showing the reductions expected to be achieved by 1995 will be published very shortly, while similar returns from some other North Sea states have yet to be made. Certain states have failed to address the critical problem of diffuse sources of dangerous substances, such as pesticides. Again this is an area where powers in the Environment Protection Bill, are proof of the Government's commitment.
I do not want to appear narrowly nationalist on this point, but I think it is worth reminding ourselves that the United Kingdom is not the source of most North Sea pollution. If we look at rivers, which are the most important source of pollutants, the United Kingdom accounts generally for about 20 per cent. of contaminants, while the Rhine and the Meuse alone contribute 50 per cent. On incineration, for example, the United Kingdom has made comparatively little use of the option, while the Federal Republic of Germany has accounted for about 60 per cent. of the total. Indeed when we hear strong environmental concerns being expressed about this or that aspect of the United Kingdom's inputs to the sea, I cannot help wondering if this is an attempt sometimes by some to deflect attention from more fundamental problems closer to home.
Turning now to some of the topics currently highlighted as a cause for concern, we can, I think, show clearly that the United Kingdom has kept to the undertakings it gave at the London Conference. In the case of dumping at sea, which has been raised by several noble Lords, the London Declaration clearly states that dumping should be phased out as practical land based alternatives become available, but that no waste should be disposed of in any way which has a worse effect on the environment. The United Kingdom is actively pursuing the availability of practicable land based alternatives. and indeed for both sewage sludge and industrial waste dumping detailed assessments of this are made before a licence is granted, while at the same time ensuring that the materials dumped are not likely to harm the marine environment.
In the case of sewage sludge, the London conference put forward an additional requirement that the level of contaminants in sludge should not exceed 1987 levels. Figures recently presented to the North Sea Conference Secretariat confirm that the United Kingdom has achieved this, and indeed showed that since 1976 levels of mercury and cadmium in sludge had been reduced by two-thirds, while in the case of the man-made organic micropollutants, such as pesticides, most levels were below the limits of detection. Indeed sewage sludge generally accounts for only 1 per cent. of contaminants in the North Sea and, in the form in which it is dumped, is around 95 per cent. water. We shall be continuing to keep under review the possibilities of land based alternatives to sea disposal, but such moves will in most cases require substantial investment and long term planning.
Turning to industrial waste, again the picture is far from that which some reports and overseas commentators would have us believe. Industrial waste dumping in the United Kingdom consists of

1403
highly diluted washings from industry on the one hand, and colliery spoil and power station fly ash, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, on the other. In all these cases, we are looking very carefully at the availability of alternatives, but these cannot be found overnight. In the case of the largest quantity of liquid waste —165,000 tonnes of ammonium sulphate from ICI at Billingham —a £30 million investment in a recycling plant to take this waste is now under way, but I understand that several years will be needed to bring it into full operation. Equally it will be obvious that landfill is not an option for large volume liquid wastes of this type. Nevertheless the United Kingdom has reduced the total of this type of waste disposed at sea by around 50 per cent. since 1980 and only nine current licences remain. Following further scrutiny of alternatives, one of these licences will not be renewed and it is hoped to terminate most of the remainder within the next two years. Indeed of the four United Kingdom licences which are being considered at today's special meeting of the Oslo Commission, one is no longer required and two will not be required by the end of this year.
In fact, none of the industrial wastes licensed for dumping in the North Sea is toxic and they are a negligible source of contaminants in the North Sea. The metals they contain cannot be detected above existing background levels. Incineration at sea is another form of disposal which the United Kingdom has agreed to phase out as land based alternatives become available. In recent years, the United Kingdom has made little use of marine incineration generating around 3 per cent. of the North Sea total, and we envisage that all United Kingdom marine incineration will end well before the 1994 deadline established by the London Conference.
Nutrients are a topic addressed by the London Conference which undoubtedly will also be one of the most important issues at the Hague conference. The agreement in London reflected the quality status report observation that high levels of nutrient input into the shallow coastal belt running from the Wadden Sea to the Skaggerak appeared to be a major contributor to eutrophication problems and to be linked with an increase in the frequency of exceptional algal blooms. Accordingly, states contributing discharges to these affected areas pledged themselves to reduce, by the order of 50 per cent. inputs of nitrogen and phosphate to these waters. That has proved to be an enormous commitment affecting not only discharges from sewage works, but also drainage and run-off from agricultural land, some of which is among the most intensively farmed in Europe. Again the hydrographic aspect of the North Sea is important. Riverflow from the great European rivers, such as the Rhine the Meuse and the Scheldt, is maintained as a separate, slow-moving band of water staying close inshore along continental coasts by the large volume of Channel water which flows into the central North Sea.
Following the London conference the United Kingdom surveyed its coastal waters to establish whether problems of eutrophication could be found.
1404
The only evidence of this was in a handful of highly localised areas such as Langstone Harbour in Hampshire. Indeed surveys of offshore levels of nitrate show no increase off the United Kingdom in recent years while for the hydrographic reasons already referred to any inputs the United Kingdom makes have no material effect on the situation off continental coasts. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom is considering carefully whether it can make reductions in nutrient inputs to the North Sea and a number of measures already taken by industry and pollution control authorities will help to achieve that aim. Equally important is the long-term commitment to further research to establish more accurately the exact contribution to the sea of man-made nutrients.
PCBs are a topic which is of particular concern to all those interested in marine mammals and it is likely that the next North Sea Conference will consider specific initiatives to phase out all remaining identifiable uses —an objective which we would support; but since remaining PCBs are used in "closed" systems only, that is, inside machinery, withdrawal in our view only makes sense if it is firmly linked to destruction in an environmentally safe way. Some North Sea states are proposing early withdrawal and then storage. Storage of withdrawn equipment containing PCBs is in our opinion not only no solution but ducks the issue and indeed introduces an additional hazard through the possibility of damage by fire or other means. I suggest that illustrates that it is not enough merely to make environmental policy gestures —the implications have to be rigorously and honestly addressed.
Oil pollution remains a high priority for those concerned with protecting the marine environment. One of the principal threats remains illegal discharges by ships, and North Sea states are co-operating even more closely both on exchanging information when an offence has taken place and on deterrent measures, including airborne surveillance. Among the issues for the third North Sea Conference will be proposals to achieve higher standards for legal discharges. The primary problem remains those who break the law. Another source of oil discharges is offshore platforms and here I hope that the forthcoming conference will secure an agreement to minimise and in due course eliminate the pollution caused by some of these discharges in what is an expanding and vital industry. When and if pollution occurs, the United Kingdom has well-tried and tested arrangements for preventing damage. Those are co-ordinated by the Department of Transport's marine pollution control unit. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy asked me whether other countries have similar bodies. I am informed that other North Sea countries all have similar capabilities and co-operate on their operation within the framework of the Bonn agreement. The unit to which I referred maintains a national contingency plan to cover emergencies at sea and offers advice and assistance to local authorities if pollution reaches the coastline.
This year's conference will also address for the first time the protection of marine wildlife, as a result of proposals put forward by the UK —a point

1405
made much of by my noble friend. These we hope will lead to a new emphasis on conservation for coastal and marine sites around the North Sea and in particular for the protection of small cetacean species of porpoise and dolphin, so dear to the heart of my noble friend and others.
My noble friend asked about the throwing of rubbish overboard. I am informed that all North Sea states have ratified Annex V of MARPOL which prohibits the dumping of most forms of garbage. A poster education campaign is under way by the Department of Transport.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point it might be convenient to ask him whether he can reply to the related question that I asked about monitoring and control; because one can pass protocols and annexes, but it is extremely difficult to discover when garbage is thrown overboard in the open sea.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am told that the answer is yes. My noble friend assumed that the "green" Bill would prohibit the dumping of industrial waste anywhere on the United Kingdom continental shelf. That is not so. The clause in the Bill is designed to control dumping by vessels of non-United Kingdom registration loaded in non-United Kingdom ports. It is designed to deal with ships such as the "Karin B" had that ship dumped its waste over the side.
I hope that I have addressed some of the questions asked by noble Lords. I am sure that there will be others that I have not addressed. I cannot do so now and I hope that they will permit me to write to them.
In addition, for reasons which I am sure noble Lords will understand, I do not feel that I can say more at this stage about the expected conclusions of the Hague conference, but in selecting the topics to speak about I hope that I have given some indication of its scope. It will be concerned primarily with reviewing and cementing the initiatives agreed at London, as, for example, in consolidating the lists of dangerous substances used in each North Sea state into a common North Sea list. It should also produce some useful new initiatives.
The United Kingdom Government remain strongly committed to the success of the North Sea Conference and will continue, through that and other means, to do all that they can to protect and improve the quality of our seas and coastal waters.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the speakers who have taken part in the debate. They have spoken with knowledge of and great interest in the subject. We have not had to limit our contributions today because of the passage of time. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for taking part in the debate. He was Lord Provost of Aberdeen during the four years that I was Secretary of State for Scotland in the early 1970s when oil was first discovered in the North Sea.
Conflicting interests were immediately apparent between the fishing and the oil industries which the noble Lord has described today. In those years until
1406
1974 there was no Department of Energy. As part of the arrangements to adapt to the new oil discoveries I established a body containing representatives of both the fishing and the oil industries. At that time it could discuss and iron out early possible conflicts of interest. Naturally, I am not fully in the picture now, but I hope that my noble friend will have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said.
As we have time, I should like to say a little more about that topic in reply to the noble Lord. The fishermen's anxieties are ones with which I am familiar. They are concerned about debris and obstructions, including pipelines, on the seabed. It may mean that they cannot trawl on or near the bottom or that they foul their nets on obstacles. It is similar to the minestone from industry on land to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred. It is not harmful toxically, but it may interfere with traditional fishing grounds. Care has to be taken where it is dumped, particularly off the North-East of England. It is a long-term problem because fishing boats are not allowed to approach within a certain distance —if I remember correctly it is 1,000 metres —of any North Sea platforms. That is a safety precaution. The debris that may fall below the platforms cannot possibly foul their nets or be an obstruction at the moment.
Some of the fishing grounds may be unusable, but that is inevitable if we are to have an off-shore oil industry. That is part of having the industry. The noble Lord mentioned the abandonment of North Sea structures, when the oil fields eventually come to an end, or the structures are no longer in use. That, too, causes concern to the fishermen because unless they are removed they could leave obstacles for the fishing industry. It was discussed when the Petroleum Bill was passing through this House about two years ago. But I would mention that there are platforms about 100 miles from land in deep water where no one has ever heard of any fishermen trying to trawl the bottom for fish, so there could not be a danger there, except to submarines; but that is another question.
This is not an absolutely straightforward matter and certain questions still need to be worked out before abandonment principles are finally decided upon. I am told that the first case of a platform being abandoned is still at least five years off.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, supported my inquiry about licensed dumping by the United Kingdom after 31st December last, which was the deadline for ending dumping of industrial waste. She also shares my concern for wildlife. I am sure both of us were glad to hear what my noble friend Lord Reay, was able to say about that.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, expressed the views of most of us concerned with the subject, and helpfully raised some matters for which I did not have time in my speech. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Reay for his reply. I was not quite sure whether he was able to say that incineration at sea had already been completely ended in the United Kingdom, but he certainly indicated that that has not been done for some time and it is apparently not intended to do much, if any, in the future.

1407
I did not raise the question of nutrients —that is, nitrates and phosphates—because of the need to restrict the time of my opening speech. As regards the United Kingdom, I was delighted to hear my noble friend's statement that the Government were going to insist on reductions of emissions of nitrates into the rivers and waters of the North Sea from this country but, as he mentioned, the real problem is the long stretch of shallow water along the coast of the Netherlands and Germany known as the Wadden area, where nitrates and phosphates have caused a real problem of pollution.
Again, I thank all who have taken part in the debate, and I wish the Government representatives all good fortune at the conference at the Hague. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Legislation: Scrutiny Proposal
4.45 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexhamrose to call attention to the case for a Select Committee to scrutinise all Bills coming before Parliament, and to report whether such Bills contain insufficiently defined administrative powers or propose any inappropriate delegation of legislative powers; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I introduce this debate perhaps I may point out to those who are relying on the list of speakers that I want to discuss inappropriate delegation of legislative powers and not appropriate ones.
Your Lordships will recall that on 31st January the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, initiated a valuable short debate asking the Government to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of legislation. That debate successfully identified the mischief, and in particular the growing tendency for an all-powerful executive to diminish effective parliamentary control and replace it by ministerial legislation in the form of innumerable rules, regulations and orders having the force of law. I hope this debate will provide your Lordships with an opportunity to discuss possible remedies.
The first check should be inside the government machine itself. Unfortunately, there is at least circumstantial evidence, notably in the Bills themselves recently brought forward, that that is not working as well as it should nor, indeed, as I believe used to be the case. Bill after Bill contains Henry VIII clauses; that is to say, clauses giving the Minister power to amend or even repeal primary legislation by order. Moreover, there is an increasing reliance on enabling powers of one kind or another. So I believe that we have to consider what checks Parliament itself can impose.
In 1932 the Donoughue Committee, while it did not disapprove of the use of Henry VIII clauses in all circumstances, said they should be severely restricted and should always be explained and justified in the memorandum to the Bill. For my
1408
part, I see no reason why this should not be done as a matter of course.
Dealing with this issue in the Committee stage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had the following to say on 23rd January, at col 944 of Hansard:
"Many things have happened since Donoughmore reported, including the great development of the powers of the court in judicial review and the right to apply in the exercise of powers the underlying intention of the statute as the court gathers it".
The first thing that has happened is that there are now many more Henry VIII clauses. They are wider in scope and they are no longer time limited as they were in the cases considered by the Donoughmore Committee.
As for judicial review, I suggest that one of the main reasons for the enormous growth in demand in the courts for such review is that Parliament has lost control over the examination of legislation. If there were better legislation there would be less necessity for judicial review. But judicial review is not a complete remedy. The courts cannot override an absolute power given by Parliament to a Minister.
If I may indulge in a little personal reminiscence, I recall that in 1976 I had the unusual and perhaps unique experience of being briefed by the Inland Revenue to defend an order made in my name in 1973. It was made under the General Rate Act 1967 and was signed by a junior Minister. I never recalled actually seeing it myself. The order was alleged to be ultra vires and void because it rated a hereditament outside the rating area according to a formula which produced double rating and contrary to any previously established principle. The effect was to put the rates up from £4,000 a year to about £55,000.
I did not have too much trouble in the court of first instance before Mr. Justice Bridge, as he then was, but the Court of Appeal tried for three days to find grounds for upsetting the order, but concluded there was no way round the Minister's statutory power to provide whatever code or whatever principles he chose, or to repeal or amend any enactment including the enabling Act itself. Indeed, I recall that Lord Justice Cairns said to me, "Are you saying, Mr. Rippon, that the Secretary of State could if he wished have rated this hereditament at twice the salary of the chief executive?" I said, "Indeed, my Lord, that is exactly what I am saying. Parliament gave the Secretary of State absolute powers and he exercised them".
Your Lordships may note that it could be many years before such a power is exercised by a different Minister in a different government. It may also be noted that in that case the order was subject to affirmative resolution, but although the committees scrutinising statutory instruments do a fine job it is easy for orders to slip through the net, as that order most certainly did. We must bear in mind that there are up to 9,000 pages of statutory instruments a year, and it is all ex post facto. The orders are very frequently lengthy and complex and they do not explain clearly how they are to be used even when, as in the case to which I referred, taxation is involved.
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for having undertaken during the

1409
Committee stage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill to ensure that in future, where the power to amend primary legislation is conferred even in a limited sense, he will see that the affirmative resolution procedure is followed. As I have already indicated, that is not in itself a sufficient safeguard, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said when we were debating similar clauses in the Companies Bill. I quote Hansard of 14th February 1989, at col. 113:
"We should be aware that the Bill is giving the Secretary of State unlimited power to reconstruct Clause 77 by order, which as we know even by the affirmative procedure … is not voted against and is not amended".
Of course, that is in your Lordships' House. In the other place it can be voted against but there is rarely even a debate.
In the debate which we had on the quantity and quality of legislation my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate expressed the view:
"what occasionally happens is that when criticism is made of the drafting of Bills it is not criticism of the way in which the policy is being expressed but of the policy itself". —[Official Report, 31/1/90; col. 406.]
I believe that that shows some misunderstanding of the concerns which some of us have tried to express. Criticisms of excessive delegated powers have come from all sides of the Chamber when we have debated similar clauses in recent years; for example, the Courts and Legal Services Bill, the Children Act, the Companies Act, the Financial Services Act, the Banking Act and the many local government finance Acts which regularly come before us. I doubt whether anybody, even the Minister who supports the policy, knew what would be the result of the community charge or the business rate.
In so far as there is any truth in the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, that only underlines the need for some method of objective scrutiny. As matters now stand, it is certainly true that when those issues are raised in the middle of a Committee stage, there are those who have not listened to the argument who tend to head for the party Lobby as soon as they have ascertained which that is. To my mind, the evidence is overwhelming that parliametary scrutiny is today, by any objective standards, totally inadequate.
Therefore, we need to consider a new machinery to remedy that situation. In France there is the Conseil d' état to which the government have to submit draft Bills. They may then be criticised for bad drafting or for provisions which are deemed to be objectionable in priniciple. The same applies to government decrees and regulations.
From time to time the case has been argued that in this country we should have some form of pre-legislation procedure. I see no reason why draft Bills should not be tabled and when appropriate discussed and considered before governments come to final conclusions. Unfortunately, I feel that there is frequently too short a gap between the publication of a Bill and the Second Reading debate.
All I wish to suggest today is a first practical step which the Procedure Committee or some appropriate body should study. That is what happens in Australia where in 1981 it established a Senate
1410
standing committee for the scrutiny of Bills. The committee consists of six senators —three government and three non-government —with one of the government senators in the chair. The chairman has a casting vote but I understand that that has never been used. Their responsibility is to focus on the structure of Bills and not in any way on their political purpose.
The terms of reference are simply to report whether Bills, by express words or otherwise:
"(i) trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties; (ii) make rights, liberties, and/or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined adminstrative powers; (iii) make such rights, liberties, and/or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable decisions; (iv) inappropriately delegate legislative power or (v) insufficiently subject the exercise of legislative power to parliamentary scrutiny".
For a detailed description of how the committee operates in Australia I refer your Lordships to an impressive paper by Senator Rosemary Crowley, a past chairman of that committee, delivered last November to the Third Commonwealth Conference on Delegated Legislation held in London. She pointed out how zealous they are in Australia in dealing with Henry VIII clauses, how they can call upon the Minister to justify the powers which he seeks and the way in which they report to the legislature which can then decide whether or not the regulation or order-making power is appropriate. Therefore, the Australian Parliament is enabled to legislate with open eyes. I wish we could say with complete conviction that we are doing the same in this country today.
I believe that to many onlookers Parliament has become a sort of legislative sweatshop whose Members are so overwhelmed by the never-ending stream of Bills that in many cases they seem neither to know nor to care what they are rubber-stamping. I hope that your Lordships may feel that the establishment of a Select Committee on something along the lines of that established in Australia might help us to re-establish the authority of Parliament over the Executive. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this subject this afternoon, a subject on which he speaks with so much authority and expertise. He mentioned the Commonwealth Conference on Delegated Legislation last November. I suppose that modesty prevented him from mentioning that he fascinated the conference with an address about Henry VIII clauses.
I should like to take four examples from the statutes which illustrate the need for that which the noble Lord seeks. I have not delved deeply into the past. One can always find some absurd example if one digs deep enough, and sometimes that is rather unfair. I wish to take four examples from the 1988 statute book. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 begins by providing, in its first 18 sections, for the matter of extradition proceedings. Section 19 provides that those sections:

1411
"shall extend to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and shall have effect as if each of them was part of the United Kingdom".
It then goes on to provide in subsection (2):
"Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) above shall, in its application to any of the said islands, have effect subject to such exceptions … as may be specified".
I am advised that such an Order in Council, far from being subject to any parliamentary proceedings, does not even have to be laid before Parliament. Therefore, Parliament having said explicitly that, for example, the Isle of Man was to be treated for these purposes as part of the United Kingdom, an Order in Council could strike the Isle of Man off the list and Parliament is not even notified that that has been done.
A similar case arises under the Education Reform Act 1988. Section 52(7) provides that an order under that section does not need to be laid before Parliament. I do not wish to go into that matter too deeply because I believe that the department has admitted that that occurred due to an oversight. Nevertheless, a scrutiny committee will be just as useful scrutinising oversights as scrutinising deliberate decisions of a mischievous character.
The British Steel Act 1988 is a good example of bad retrospective delegated legislation. The Act provides for the transition of the British Steel Corporation into a successor company. There is to be an appointed day. The relevant section then continues:
"and any provision of an order made under this subsection after the appointed day may be made so as to have effect as from that or any later day".
We could therefore have a situation where somebody had a cause of action subsisting on the appointed day and subsequently, by an order by the Minister, the cause of action could retrospectively be taken away from the citizen. We all know that no nice kind Secretary of State will behave in that way, but why confer such a power upon him?
The Employment Act 1988 provides that a Minister may make orders, and states that an order may:
"modify any enactment or subordinate legislation".
We then have the words:
"In this section —`enactment' includes an enactment contained in this Act or in any Act passed after this Act".
That led a certain learned QC to make this comment,
"A power to modify future legislation is remarkable enough; that it should be subject only to negative resolution rather than to draft affirmative procedure leaves me at a loss for words to express my admiration of a Parliament so modestly willing to defer to the superior wisdom of a Secretary of State".
I can imagine that Lord Hewart of The New Despotism fame might have used stronger words. I can imagine him saying "Power to a Minister to modify Acts of Parliament that have not seen the light of day; has Parliament gone completely and absolutely bonkers?"
I understand that until recently any order modifying primary legislation always had to come
1412
under the affirmative procedure. It no longer does. I cannot help thinking that it would be a very good thing if it did. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, mentioned slipping things through the net. I cannot help thinking that if there were something which the Minister himself was not quite happy about, he would be much less likely to try slipping it through the net if he knew that he had to stand at the Dispatch Box and defend it.
I know that it would take up valuable parliamentary time, but I believe the extensions of standing committees would alleviate the demands upon parliamentary time, at least in another place. I should like to see orders of that kind again subject to the affirmative procedure in every case.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, has done the House considerable service in initiating this debate on the need for scrutiny of Bills to come before Parliament in the interests of eradicating, or at least modifying, the granting of powers to Ministers which could infringe the rights and liberties of citizens and erode the legislative power of Parliament.
As the noble Lord mentioned, a Commonwealth conference was held in London last November and was well attended by parliamentarians throughout the Commonwealth who were concerned with delegated legislation. During the course of this conference it became evident that the legislatures of many of the countries represented exerted more influence and control upon non-statutory legislation than does the Mother of Parliaments from which they largely derive their procedures and customs.
The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, gave a very full description of the Senate scrutiny committee in the Australian Parliament. The same type of scrutiny is afforded in New Zealand and, to a lesser extent —though it does not apply to pre-examination of Bills before they are read a first time —in Canada.
That is not to say that there is a total lack of scrutiny of delegated powers at Westminster. With other Members of your Lordships' House I have the duty and privilege of sitting on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments of both Houses. It may be that not all your Lordships are familiar with the duties and powers of that committee, but it will suffice to say that we examine orders, regulations and the like made by Ministers to determine whether they accord with the powers given to government by primary legislation; to determine that they are technically accurate; that they do not exercise unexpected or unusual powers, and that they are framed in language which is understandable to the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, also referred to the fact that many of these orders and regulations are lengthy and complex. That is perhaps a very careful understatement of the actual case. I will say something about that a little later. In other words, the joint committee is charged with the examination of the technical quality of delegated legislation, but not of its substance. That is a somewhat confining rule. The committee reports to both Houses of

1413
Parliament regularly on its examinations of the delegated legislation. I must say that when I first sat on the committee, about six years ago, I was terribly frustrated by the inability to do anything after the fact, but over a period of time I have become inured to the limits of our competence.
In that sense, to a certain degree we act as a watchdog; regrettably it is a watchdog with a bark but no bite. I suggest that were we to have a select committee as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, considerable benefit would result. First, it would complement, in a way, the work of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Presumably the committee would have the power to invite Ministers to meet with it to explain and defend the authority conferred upon them by the proposed legislation and why such powers should be subjected to either the affirmative or negative instrument procedure. In addition to the obvious benefits for parliamentary control, it would help to eliminate lengthy debate at Committee stage upon whether these powers should be set out in the statute—because that would have been decided beforehand —or whether they should be subject to the affirmative or negative procedure. In that way a certain amount of parliamentary time might be saved.
The famous, or infamous, Henry VIII clauses have been mentioned. There are also other instances which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, mentioned. There are numerous instances of less proclamatory clauses in Bills which merit greater examination and consideration than the pressure upon parliamentary time —as excessive as it sometimes is—permits under the present system.
Finally, I wish to mention the number of statutory instruments which have come before the joint committee in the past 10 years: in 1979 there were 1,770, and in 1989 there were 2,510 which is an increase of 40 per cent. I revert to what the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, referred to as lengthy and complex instruments, orders and regulations. I wish very quickly to quote from part of a regulation which came before our committee only yesterday. It is in connection with the community charge and it reads as follows —if I can get through it:
"Where a liability order is made against a co-owner in respect of an amount, and also against another co-owner or a spouse or manager of a co-owner (whether at the same time as the order against the first mentioned co-owner or subsequently and whether in respect of all or part of that amount), the order made as respects all but the relevant co-owner shall not include under regulation 29(6)(b) or (7) of the principal Regulations(a) any additional sum in respect of the costs of obtaining the order against them, but they (with the relevant co-owner) shall be treated as jointly and severally liable for the amount included in the order against the relevant co-owner in respect of costs, and the order against them shall (as regards regulation 29(6)(b) or (7) of those Regulations) be made in respect of the sum outstanding in relation to it; and for this purpose the relevant co-owner is the co-owner against whom the liability order was first made in respect of the amount, or if there are more than one such, such one of them as the court considers appropriate."
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Keep going!
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, it is little wonder that we on the Joint Committee on Statutory
1414
Instruments sometimes feel like sacrificial goats on the altar of prolixity.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, for initiating this important debate. I doubt whether any of your Lordships would disagree with the main point that he made. He said that parliamentary scrutiny was inadequate. He has put before us a proposal for improving that situation. I fully support what he has proposed but it does not go far enough.
Perhaps I may explain why I think that is the case. First, there will be the obvious answer from the Government —which may be forthcoming even today —that we have already the committee on which the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, serves and to which he referred, and that the committee is capable of doing the job. Therefore, I shall first concentrate on the aspect of delegated legislation. We all know that Parliament is the proper body for the purposes of legislation and not others which are not in Parliament, notwithstanding that certain duties have been delegated to them.
Apart from that, we tend to deceive ourselves about the powers we have concerning delegated legislation. For example, where a Bill says that a proposal has to be approved by what we call for short the affirmative resolution, we tend to believe that that means something. It does not. It means nothing. It means that your Lordships can discuss the matter, full stop. We cannot vote on the issue, but I do not wish to go into the reasons for that now. For good reasons, we cannot vote on the issue under that procedure. Therefore, this House has no control whatever on delegated legislation; negative resolutions mean nothing and affirmative resolutions, for all practical purposes, mean even less than that. So one relies on the other place and what happens there.
The joint committee has been referred to. It reports in cases which have not slipped through the net. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, gave us a very good example from his own knowledge where an issue had slipped through the net, namely, the question of vires. Where a matter has not slipped through the net, the committee reports to the other place and says, "You must discuss so-and-so; this is not right". Of course it is appropriate that the other place should discuss the issue. The other place would debate the issue if it had the time, which it has not. Therefore, time and time again there are reports from the committee which go to the other place and nothing is done about them because there is no time available.
So in terms of delegated legislation, as regards both Houses, we are much less in control and have much less scrutiny than we think we have. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, has understated the situation when he says that parliamentary scrutiny is inadequate.
How does all this arise? If there is a great deal of legislation going through Pariament, it is natural that as much as possible of that legislation should be taken out of the body of the Bill and put into the

1415
appendix. Then as much as possible of the legislation should be taken from the appendix and put into delegated legislation. There is then a reduction in the apparent volume of legislation coming before Parliament.
I speak from the experience of a mere 20 years in this House plus 25 years in the other place. Notwithstanding the best endeavours of Leader after Leader of the House promising to reduce the volume of legislation, we all know that year after year the volume of parliamentary legislation and Bills put before Parliament increases astronomically. The figures were given in the last debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, referred. It is pointless trying to imagine that with public pressures continuing as they are, Ministers will be strong enough to stand against the demands for legislation, and that the volume of such work will decrease to a level where we can cope with it.
We have only to consider what happened last week. We were discussing a most important Bill for which any number of your Lordships are specially equipped to deal and to make recommendations. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, took a leading part in the debates. That Bill was being debated at 3 a.m. and we are still only in the early part of February. The situation will get a lot worse. If anyone tells me that is the proper way to debate that Bill, then I respectfully disagree. We are already in a situation where too much legislation is facing us and it will continue to do so. There is only one way in which we can escape from this problem.
We also know —and I assert it —that this House deals very well with legislation; it is very competent at improving legislation. This House has been shown to do that. This Chamber is also very competent at producing excellent Select Committee reports which is not surprising when one considers the reservoir of ability, experience and sheer brain power which this House possesses. Therefore, I am proposing that this House must get used to affording more time for dealing with legislation, which it is very capable of dealing with, by the simple process of allowing some of the Committee stage of some Bills to be taken away from the Floor of this Chamber. So long as we restrict ourselves to discussing everything in this one Chamber we shall never —I repeat never —be able to cope with the flow of legislation.
Why do I say "never"? What will happen in the future? There will always be sufficient legislation for the Commons to get its teeth into. The Commons does two things in particular. First, it guillotines large parts of Bills which we have then to consider with more than normal care; and secondly, it has many Standing Committees which take the weight off the Floor of the Chamber so that discussion can go on at the same. We have to examine every Bill as it comes from the Commons and we have to examine especially carefully the parts that have been guillotined.
We shall never be able to give Bills full consideration in the hours of the day when we are fresh enough unless we are prepared in appropriate cases to take part of the discussion of some of the Bills off the Floor of the Chamber and deal with them
1416
in Standing Committees. It would be an obvious step forward for us to have not the committee which the noble Lord has proposed but a committee with more powers, comparable to the Special Standing Committees which they have in another place and which the Select Committee on Procedure in this House recommended in or around 1976.
Such a committee could deal with the points to which the noble Lord referred and could also take evidence and examine the reasons for the Bill. It could examine civil servants about the reasons for delegated powers. It could do a thorough job without delaying any of the business on the Floor of the Chamber. It could do that perfectly well. This House is especially good at setting up Select Committees of able people. We have the ability to do it. It would be a great step forward and no time would be lost. It has been recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure. It would do the very things which the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, suggests.
I say to the authorities and to the Government that they should give careful consideration to enabling this House to do its job properly by adding to its scope in time by taking part of the discussion of Committee stages off the Floor of the Chamber. I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for being present for this debate.
5.24 p.m.
Viscount Dilhorne: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Rippon. He is the head of my chambers and so I suppose that I have a vested interest of some kind in supporting him. It is of no importance really, except that it is delightful to be in his chambers.
Poor draftsmanship leads to bad laws and to the risk of arbitrary government. It is the volume and complexity of legislation which results in statutes which are obscure and poorly drafted and which, when they are construed by the courts, are found not to achieve what their promoters intended. A stark example of this process was provided by the Bromley error —I see lots of puzzled faces —which concerned an allowance to be made in the calculation of the rate support grant for the additional responsibility for highway maintenance taken on by the London borough councils as a result of the abolition of the Greater London Council in 1985. The result of this error was that Bromley and certain other borough councils received no allowance for the additional responsibilities they assumed.
The Secretary of State for the Environment admitted that the rate support grant system was of Byzantine complexity. Perhaps that was the reason why the error was not spotted before it was made. The error was incorporated in an almost unintelligible formula for determining the multiplier to be applied in calculating the rate support grant for 1986–87 in the rate support grant report for that year.
The legislative morass to which I refer began with the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, to which my noble friend briefly referred. The Act set up the rate support grant system. It really cannot have surprised anyone that that Act spawned

1417
litigation. The Act contained 197 sections, 34 schedules and occupied 1,329 pages in the Queen's printer's copy of the Act. The part that dealt with the rate support grant was a small part of that statute but it has proved an immensely fertile source of litigation and further legislative activity.
The saga continues with the Bromley error. The first problem encountered with the Bromley error was at the High Court in the case of Regina v. The Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Birmingham City Council. It was held that all the multipliers in the rate support grant report for the year were ultra vires because under the 1980 legislation the Secretary of State had no power to use them for the purpose for which he had used the multiplier in question. As a result the Secretary of State introduced a new Bill to make legal retrospectively what he had done illegally. I refer to the Rate Support Grants Act 1986. One of the provisions of the Act sought to limit the circumstances in which a multiplier could be varied once it had been previously determined. The Secretary of State obviously thought that, once that amending Act was passed, he would be able to correct the Bromley error by varying the original multiplier he had previously determined which the Act retrospectively made lawful. The saga still continues, for in the case of Regina v. The Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte the London Borough of Greenwich, Mr. Justice Taylor, as he then was, held that the Secretary of State had no power to correct the Bromley error. He said that the Rate Support Grants Act 1986 was held to have removed that power. Lord Justice Taylor, as he now is, put it this way —the Secretary of State was hoist on his own petard.
That cannot be a good thing. In order to reverse that decision Parliament was asked to legislate again. Section 126 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 was enacted to reverse what the courts had held to be the effect of earlier legislation which the Secretary of State clearly had not fully understood. Ill-conceived and ill-digested legislation in 1980 led to further ill-conceived and poorly drafted legislation in 1986 and to further remedial legislation in 1988 to undo what was then intended to be remedial legislation. That surely could be defined, if such was needed, as poor legislation.
The result of poor legislation is confusion, obscurity and litigation. Few people are thought ever to have understood the legislation relating to the rate support grant and the Department of the Environment can scarcely claim itself to have mastered it. Yet it is on such legislation that the finances of local authorities depend.
Noble Lords could be forgiven if they thought that that was the end to the saga. Unfortunately it was not, because the Government have now decided to move to a new style of legislation for financial assistance to local authorities. In the Local Government Finance Act 1988 they introduced a new system of revenue support grants. All that the legislature now provides is that the Secretary of State each year shall make a determination of the amount of grant for the year. That is contained in a report laid before the House of Commons. Once the other
1418
place has approved it, that is the amount of grant for the year. Then the Secretary of State makes another report, containing the basis upon which he proposes to distribute the grant among the receiving authorities. Once that report is approved the Secretary of State then calculates and pays the grant accordingly.
What seems to me to be significant about this skeletal legislation is that there is no statutory limitation on the basis upon which this grant may be distributed. Rate support grants used to be calculated as a result of statutory provisions in accordance with principles applicable to all authorities of a relevant class. The same principles had to be applied across the board to all relevant authorities. The present position permits a choice on any basis that the Secretary of State likes, provided that he can secure a majority in the other place. Any challenge made in the courts to such a decision could be doomed to fail. That follows a decision in the House of Lords of Regina v. The Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Nottinghamshire County Council.
That situation seems to beg the question of whether legislative simplicity has been bought at too great a price. It seems to me that wide discretionary powers, unfettered by statutory constraint or limitation, are not the answer to difficulties created by ill-conceived and ill-digested legislation. Is it not now time to say, "No more to poorly drafted, voluminous legislation"? The answer to this malaise is not to give the Executive unfettered discretionary power over which no effective parliamentary scrutiny can be exercised. That seems to me to purchase simplicity at too high a price and that price exposes everyone to the risk —and, I stress the word "risk" —of arbitary government.
I end this short peroration by repeating something which has not yet been quoted. It was said by my father many years ago, before he became Lord Chancellor, at the Anglo-American Bar Convention in the United States. He headed his discourse with the words, "The Disease of Words". He said:
"One of the results of a modern education not infrequently to be observed is the stringing together of a mass of high sounding words, sprinkled with adjectives in meaningless or almost meaningless conjunction"—
We have heard a very good example of such a case from the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy—
"When I heard one of these lengthy orations, I searched amid the verbiage for one trace of originality of thought —seldom with success. What is the message? What is the meaning? If the 12 Apostles had received a modern education, the world would still be heathen, that is, M'Luds, if they had adopted modern methods.
Noise and nonsense go well together. But an omelette of words is a disease destructive of the English language".
I suggest that we are already infected with that particular disease. I wholeheartedly support everything that each speaker has said so far in this debate.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is in no conventional sense that we express our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, not only for his

1419
admirable speech based on wide experience, which was deeply informative and cogent in expression, but also because the matters which your Lordships have under consideration are of high constitutional importance. If legislation is passed which the ordinary citizen cannot understand, or can only understand with great difficulty, that is an affront to the rule of law. Moreover, if the Executive arrogates to itself, in the way that has been described today, powers which are traditionally those of the Houses of Parliament, that is an infringment of parliamentary sovereignity. Therefore, the matters which we are discussing are highly important, and today's debate has mainly concentrated upon the second issue; namely, the arrogation of executive power and how it shall be controlled.
It is alarming to find a recrudescence of an age-long pretension; namely, the claim of the Executive to legislate. It was settled at the Glorious Revolution. There was a slight attempt to revive it in the 1930s but then the Donoughmore Committee seemed to put the stop on the Executive pretensions. The recommendations of that committee were observed for over 50 years; but, then, suddenly during the last Session a crop of Bills was produced with Henry VIII clauses.
During the course of the passage of the Children Bill, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made a rapid concession and appeared to accept the Donoughmore recommendations. Therefore, it was alarming to find in the Courts and Legal Services Bill, for which my noble and learned friend was responsible, a whole series of new Henry VIII provisions. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who noted it at the time, is nodding his head in agreement. It is therefore incumbent upon us to examine how we can cope with that particular infringement of constitutional proprieties.
There are five ways in which we can do so. The first is the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, with great effect during the passage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill; namely, the restoration of the legislation committee of the Cabinet to its former role which it carried out very efficiently. I do not think that that is exhaustive of all that needs to done; but it certainly would be valuable in itself. The second way is the hobbyhorse which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, suggested with great enthusiasm in his speech today. He said that your Lordships should set up Standing or Select Committees and take the business out of the Committee of the Whole House. I can only say that that was tried in the Pilotage Bill, but it was found to be unsatisfactory.
The third way is to perhaps look again at the French Conseil d'Etat. That works very well in the French context, especially in controlling secondary legislation. However, it may not be very easy to adapt in this country, although we may well look at it in connection with the noble Lord's suggestion of a Select Committee to scrutinise legislation.
Perhaps I should mention a fourth way, only to dismiss it. When I gave evidence to the Renton Committee, I recommended that the Report stage
1420
in the second House could be used for scrutiny of legislative drafting. I no longer think that that is satisfactory. Indeed it was not recommended by Renton.
So we come to the fifth way, which seems to me to have much to commend it, particularly with the Australian precedent. It is a Select Committee of Parliament, possibly a joint Select Committee with specific terms of reference to look out for such matters as the Australian committee had to watch for. It would be rather on the lines of a remit that is given to the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.
For years now there have been complaints about the quality and quantity of legislation. No notice has been taken either of public or of parliamentary complaints. A snook has been cocked at the Renton Committee and its main recommendation. However, we have seen this kind of thing before. I remember that after the 1939–45 war there was a tremendous surge of bureaucratic activity, despite all protests that the ordinary citizens' complaints were being dismissed. That was brushed aside and in the end the whole matter exploded in the face of the Government at Crichel Down. A popular and able Minister was forced to resign; several civil servants were moved sideways and for a time the air seemed clearer. I am quite certain that if successive governments pay no attention to the complaints that are repeatedly made, they must expect another Crichel Down in this field.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, various important and interesting lines of thought have been provoked by the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. Some of them the House may find more agreeable than others. It is clear that we suffer from too much legislation, much of it poor in quality. The blame for this excess in the amount of legislation which is thought to be at the root of our difficulty of controlling it has been put by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, at the feet of the electorate, the citizens whom we hope to serve. I find this unconvincing. It reminds me of the East German playwright, Bertolt Brecht, who said, "The people have lost confidence in the Government. We must get rid of the people".
As a society we are not very different in the scope of our governmental provision, in the economy, welfare or law and order from other democratic countries. None of them that I know of submits its parliament to the burden in terms of hours and days to which the British Parliament is submitted. The fault must at least in part lie with our institutions; this despite the fact that both our Houses of Parliament and certainly, for practical purposes in the other place, our parliamentary Chambers are unusually large.
What then are the reasons for this legislation being so voluminous and at the same time so poor in quality? Much of it arises —and this explains Henry VIII clauses, delegated powers and so on —from the overweaning ambitions of civil servants, the desire to make their mark by being known not to the public but in the pecking order of Whitehall as the authors

1421
of Acts of Parliament. On the other hand, Ministers have shown themselves not to be loath to increase their powers by giving themselves the power either to amend, in extreme cases, primary legislation or in any event to fill in the details at their own unfettered discretion.
My views on this have been fortified by the example given by the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. Sometimes one wonders whether we may come to have a gracious Speech which merely says, "My Ministers will lay before you a number of measures conferring greater powers on themselves, the purposes of which will subsequently be revealed". Sometimes it is obvious. For instance, it is obvious —this has been referred to by other noble Lords —in the Courts and Legal Services Bill with which we are at present wrestling that the Bill is deliberately designed in some respects to increase the powers of the Executive.
I do not have a particularly conspiratorial view of our situation but there is also the fact that the volume of legislation which Ministers are persuaded or persuade themselves they need to introduce is of poor quality because little time is given to serious preparation. Anyone like myself who has happened to work on the history of this country in the 19th century or the early part of this century—the period of the inauguration by Lloyd George of the welfare state —knows how infinitely greater were the researches undertaken before legislation was presented; how infinitely larger was the amount of parliamentary time given to a single Bill; how much wider in the country were the consultation and debate. We have debased the legislative procedure for the sake of haste.
Perhaps I may give an example from a Bill which your Lordships will consider in a couple of weeks' time. It is a Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will not claim is the result of the Government kow-towing to popular demand. I refer to the Education (Student Loans) Bill. So far as I know, it was demanded by no one except one junior Minister in another place. As presented to the House of Commons this was entirely an enabling Bill. It is very short and its content was to give the Secretary of State the power to set up and operate machinery for making loans to students in place of part of the grants they had hitherto received.
It was the intention of the Government, reiterated during the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons —where it concludes its stages tomorrow —that the purpose was to have a scheme which would be administered by the financial institutions, primarily the clearing banks. Therefore in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum which accompanies the Bill there is the clear statement that student loans would be administered by a private sector company, established and wholly owned by financial institutions. No net increase in public service manpower would result from the passage of the Bill.
While the Bill was going through another place, as noble Lords know and as I repeatedly warned the Government would happen, the banks refused to take part in this lunatic scheme. The Government
1422
were forced to announce that they would set up a publicly owned company. Before the Bill reached your Lordships' House they began to recruit staff for this company.
No one knows whether the staff were to be composed of civil servants or other employees, but they would certainly have been on the public payroll. When it was pointed out that that was in violation of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill the Minister said that he would draw up a new Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to make the matter all right. That legislation was so badly prepared that the institutions that were supposed to operate it would not commit themselves to do so. It is legislation of that kind which obviously tempts any government to make legislation as vague as possible and to commit to delegated legislation all the information that the country requires in order to judge a scheme, safe in the knowledge, as the noble Lords, Lord Shaughnessy and Lord Diamond, and others have pointed out, that delegated legislation is virtually untouchable by either House of Parliament.
We have, on the one hand, blithering incompetence and, on the other hand, the urge for power. That combination could be fatal to parliamentary government. What, then, are we going to do? That is the question which the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, has offered to us. He offered his own remedy. The remedy sounds attractive. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, will enlarge on one or two of the points that he made when he replies to the debate. Is the proposed committee to be, as in the Australian case, a committee of the upper House of Parliament or is it to be a joint committee, as is the case with the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, on which I had the pleasure of serving with the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy? That makes a considerable difference.
At what point would legislation be submitted to the committee? Some legislation which begins in your Lordships' House could appropriately be submitted even to a committee of this House. On the other hand, most legislation is presented orginally —that will continue to be the case —to the House of Commons. The House of Commons may or may not feel attracted by the proposal of preliminary scrutiny by a committee not of its own choosing. I should like to know a little more about the form and nature of this committee and in what sense it could report to either House of Parliament and to what extent —this is perhaps the most important aspect of the matter—Ministers would feel able to brush it aside, as they brushed aside in the committee of the House of Commons to which I referred the grave constitutional objections to their handling of the student loans Bill.
We have to remember that another characteristic of this Parliament, as compared with many other democratic parliaments, is the extreme and increasing rigidity of party control. That committee would no doubt be set up, whether in one House or in both, through the usual channels. It would therefore be nominated by the Whips. I have little confidence in the Whips of a governing party when

1423
it comes to providing obstacles or potential obstacles to the legislation of that party.
I am sorry to keep harping on the matter of the ridiculous student loans Bill, but it is the most vivid illustration of my case. The student loans Bill went to a Standing Committee. It has just emerged from a Standing Committee in the House of Commons. When on Second Reading in the House of Commons it became clear that apart from the criticisms from the two main opposition parties there was considerable dissent on the Conservative Benches, not a single Member from the Conservative Benches who had expressed the slightest doubt on the merits of the Bill was allowed to serve on the committee, even though those dissentients included Conservative Back Benchers with the greatest factual and administrative knowledge of the problems before them. The Whips were quite ruthless in that matter and that was noted by other members of the committee.
I wonder whether, given our parliamentary structure and the rule of the Whips and their capacity for abusing their powers, the attractive solution which the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, put before us will work, or whether all we can do is to make it as difficult as possible for Ministers to get through ill-prepared and draconian legislation and to make their life such a misery that they will think again.
5.55 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I was intrigued to read in this morning's paper of the conversion of the communist party of the Soviet Union to the principle of separation of powers. I should like to think that I am a reasonable man. I do not intend to adopt today as extreme a libertarian position as the communist party of the Soviet Union. I believe that Montesquieu rather exaggerated; I believe that the notion of separation of powers depends on an over-exact sense of categories. Although I do not believe in separation of powers I believe strongly in checks and balances. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, to whom I am very grateful for introducing this debate, referred to the formidable nature of the power that is in the hands of those who pass an Act of Parliament. That is a point that cannot be overstressed. The noble Lord will perhaps forgive me for adding one more story to his examples. It is the case of the Bude and Torrington railway.
Parliament passed an Act setting up a company to make a railway from Bude to Torrington. It was then informed that that company had given up work. Therefore a second Act of Parliament was passed taking the power to take the railway away from the first company and giving it to a second company. The first company then appeared in court. It said that it had never given up work and that the second Act of Parliament had been grounded entirely on false information. The courts, inevitably, had to say that they could give no remedy. It was no business of theirs if an Act of Parliament had been grounded on false information. It was still an Act of Parliament and only Parliament could repeal it.
1424
Lord Burghley in Elizabeth's reign was wont to say that he knew not what an Act of Parliament could not do. Therefore, whoever passes such Acts must be subject to considerable scrutiny. That is also important as regards the matter of government by consent. I am sure that many of us, as I have, have explained to our children why they are bound to keep the law and make their protests in a legal manner. However, if we are to make that case convincing we must be able to convince them that the procedures used in the House are ones which, on occasion at least, are capable of being effective.
I also noticed on the ticker tape this afternoon that Czechoslovakia is about to send a delegation over here to study the Westminster method of parliamentary government. If they reach the same conclusion as the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in his powerful speech when he said that the system exposes everyone to the risk of arbitrary government, will they really feel that our system will give them the kind of emancipation of which they feel in need? The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, said on 31st January that Parliament was in a state of acute malfunction. We have heard today a good deal of further justification for that view. The basic reason for that is that the parliamentary system assumes that the check on the Executive is scrutiny in another place. Ever since Sir Robert Walpole discovered that every man has his price, that has given rise to difficulties. It seems now to be giving rise to more difficulties than usual. It is extremely unusual now for government measures to be checked or significantly amended in another place. Therefore, almost all that stands between us and the will of the prince having the force of law is the revising powers, small as they are, of this Chamber. I should like there to be a little more than that.
Enabling power is a good example of the kind of dangers that we face. The revising powers of this Chamber, the amending powers, are the jewel in our crown. For that reason I am not entirely happy about the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to refer them to a committee upstairs.
Whatever the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science may suppose, regulations cannot be amended. On the other hand there are precedents —and I have been surprised to find how many —for Divisions on them: 20 Divisions on affirmative instruments and three on negative instruments since 1968. That is not an altogether satisfactory state of affairs. Statutory instruments are not subject to the Parliament Acts and therefore there must be a genuine hesitation about dividing on them.
However, it seems to me that we need restraint on both sides. The principle of the Donoughmore Committee that enabling legislation should be kept for minor matters is a vital one. However, if this House is to restrain itself from dividing on statutory instruments then equally the Government should restrain themselves from using enabling powers for provisions which are not minor matters.
I shall take one example which I did not quote on 31st January because it had not yet happened. Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Social Security, said on 1st February in another place that the Government intended to use enabling

1425
powers for the purpose of taking students out of the social security system. That was another part of the package of measures with which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, dealt so ably. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate when he comes to reply to say, first, under what statutes those enabling powers are granted, and secondly, whether that is really a minor matter within the meaning of the Donoughmore Committee.
In the long term the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is right. The measures that are proposed are inadequate. In the long term there is no solution but changes in the electoral system which mean that once again the Government have to work for their majority in another place. I shall not develop that point today.
I warmly support the proposal for a committee. I could see it being presided over by a retired judge who might be capable of telling even Whips that they should not disrupt a court. Such a committee could scrutinise the kind of unintelligible gobbledegook which the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, so persuasively recited to us. It could pull up cases where enabling powers are proposed in a way which does not allow adequate parliamentary scrutiny.
I appreciate that there are difficulties in the way of such a procedure. No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will tell the House about a good many of them. We have to reflect that there are also difficulties in the way of any alternatives. We should consider whether those difficulties are greater. The vital point in dealing with such procedural matters is that we must try to separate form from substance.
On 31st January the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate rightly drew attention to the importance of that point. However, if I may say so, I thought that in the process he did me a certain amount of injustice. He said that none of us had spoken on Bills except where we were against the principle of the Bill, or words to that effect. I spoke on the Football Spectators Bill and on the testing powers in the national curriculum in the Education Reform Bill. I was not against the principle of either. In one case I wanted to know what was proposed so that I could decide whether I was for or against it and in the other whether what was proposed could be done at all. However, that illustrates that if we try to thrash out these matters on the Floor of the Chamber allegations of ex parte will rush in both directions across the Floor of the Chamber. That will impede serious consideration of complicated procedural points.
The major attraction of the proposal that the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, has offered is that it enables us to consider questions of form in a non-party atmosphere, and I hope also in a legal atmosphere, without the need to accuse everybody of seeking party advantage.
If we are not to do that there are two possible alternatives. One is that we should make more use of the revising powers of this Chamber. I do not believe that that view will commend itself to the Government. However, if we look carefully at
1426
Erskine May we shall find that those powers are a little more extensive than they are sometimes taken to be. I do not believe that that is the best answer, but if we cannot have the committee proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, it would be a possible answer.
The other possible answer would be simply to accept that what the Executive proposes will pass into law more or less unamended —to accept that what pleases the prince shall have the force of law. That is a principle with a long history, but I hope that there are a good many common lawyers in this Chamber who would find that principle repugnant, as I do. That would be an abandonment of parliamentary scrutiny, a threat to the grounds of government by consent, and unacceptable.
Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, has put forward the best proposal that we can think of for the moment. I very much hope to hear when the noble and learned Lord replies to the debate that the Government are prepared to act on it, because they might find that the alternatives are worse.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is not only noble Lords who are present in the Chamber at the moment who should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, for opening the debate on this subject. Parliamentarians of every party, and no party at all, ought equally to be grateful to him for dealing with this important matter.
Statistics regarding the growing number of statutory instruments coming before Parliament have been mentioned. Perhaps I may add one more, which is a telling one. In 1976 there were seven volumes of statutory instruments. We achieved the record in 1986 of turning those seven volumes into 10 volumes. That speaks for itself.
Before dealing with the problem and possible solutions, perhaps I may question the wisdom of one of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, if he will excuse me for doing so. He laid much of the blame for this on the:
"overweening ambitions of civil servants".
If we are not very careful such an attack upon those who cannot speak for themselves in this Chamber, like an attack on parliamentary draftsmen, will mean that the eminent people whom we want to be our civil servants and our parliamentary draftsmen will find it easier to avoid attack by taking on other careers. In my view that will not be to the benefit of this nation. If Ministers cannot control civil servants when they believe that they are wrong, they do not deserve to be Ministers. We must face the fact that, if Parliament cannot control the Executive, there must be something wrong with Parliament. Let us place the blame where it rightfully belongs.
I was greatly amused, as were all noble Lords, by the quotation from the statutory instrument made by the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy. Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I recall the melodious voice of my much lamented friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. In November, 1987, he quoted Lord Justice Harman's words about such a statutory instrument, so well

1427
described by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, as "frequently lengthy and complex". Lord Justice Harman said:
"To reach a conclusion on this matter involved the court in wading through a monstrous legislative morass, staggering from stone to stone and ignoring the marsh gas exhaling from the forest of schedules lining the way on each side. I regarded it at one time, I must confess, as a Slough of Despond through which the court would never drag its feet, but I have, by leaping from tussock to tussock as best I might, eventually, pale and exhausted, reached the other side where I find myself, I am glad to say, at the same point as that arrived at with more agility by Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls". —[Offical Report, 11/11/87; col. 1438.]
The noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, might apply those words to the magnificent example he gave.
It is right to reflect that the complaint voiced almost unanimously in the debate, so well initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, is not new. Many noble Lords have quoted the Donoughmore Committee, which sat in 1932, now 58 years ago. Although it is not strictly relevant to the debate, it is amusing to note that the cost of the committee's 130-page report was, inclusive of printing and publication, £241 8s. 6d. The committee sat on many occasions and that is a great example of economy not so much in evidence these days.
I looked at the committee's report and recommendations and I was interested to note that it dealt with an argument to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate may refer when answering the debate, although I may be proved to be wrong. In criticising the unexampled plethora of delegated legislation, noble Lords will be asking for something about which they have often complained; it is the length of Bills and the time which must be taken in dealing with them. It is interesting to note that 58 years ago the matter was dealt with by the Donoughmore Committee. At page 60 it stated:
"It is probable that, if this provision were no longer used, the operation of certain large measures of reform would be somewhat delayed".
This is the important point:
"Bills would take longer to prepare, and once the Act was in operation any defect in its provision could not be remedied until amending legislation had been passed. This price, however, may be worth paying, if there is anything in the view that the mere existence of the power has aroused suspicion and hostility against the machinery of government as it exists, and may well continue to do so in an increasing degree: and that is a standing temptation to Ministers and their subordinates either to be slipshod in the preparatory work before the Bill is introduced into Parliament or to attempt to seize for their own Departments the authority which properly belongs to Parliament".
Speaking with a voice uttered some 58 years ago, your Lordships may feel that the price of slightly longer Bills is well worth paying if subordinate legislation is to be reduced.
When talking about the Education (Student Loans) Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, produced an excellent example of subordinate legislation which ran riot. My only grievance is that I had a note to mention the Bill but the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, got in first. However, I merely add this comment in order to underline the point that we have reached, although his eloquence made that clear. The Bill contains 27 words enabling a ministerial order to be made to establish whatever scheme the Minister chooses. They were preceded by 48 pages of the
1428
White Paper and 68 pages of two successive consultation reports. In 27 words the Minister is given the power to produce any scheme he likes without Parliament having a real opportunity to look at it.
It has been said so often by Ministers that in this House noble Lords have the right to debate an affirmative resolution and to pray against a negative resolution. That has been answered on many occasions but I do not believe that it has been answered as effectively as it was in a paper which appeared in the 1988 volume of Public Law. The article was entitled The Parliamentary Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation and the authors were the late Mr. Hayhurst and Professor Wallington. This is what the academic had to say after analysis of events in your Lordships' House as against the figures that were given for both Houses of Parliament by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. At page 556 the article states:
"There is a tradition of reluctance to press disagreement to a division in the Lords. The Brooke committee could discover no instance of a division on a prayer before 1971, and we have found none since. Affirmative resolution instruments fared similarly until 1965, when the first (unsuccessful) division occurred. The Rhodesian sanctions issue generated a substantial back bench rebellion in the Lords with several divisions on draft orders and the one postwar defeat of an instrument to occur in the Lords, on the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1968. This provoked a government proposal to remove the Lords' power of veto and, perhaps mindful of this, their Lordships have not divided since".
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him, the figures that I quoted for divisions on statutory instruments since 1968 were for this House alone.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I am sure that he will agree with me that even those figures, as he said, showed that the debates were few and far between, the Divisions were minimal and the effectiveness of this House in being able to deal with affirmative or negative resolutions without the power to amend them at all is obviously minimal and not a solution to our problems. If it were to be a solution, there would be a challenge from the elected House which might produce that kind of constitutional uproar which as a rule your Lordships are not minded to welcome. I hope that that is a tactful way of referring to what might happen if there were to be such a dispute between the two Houses.
In conclusion, I turn to the very constructive suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, which concerns setting up a committee in line with the one that we already have and of which the noble Lords, Lord Shaughnessy and Lord Beloff, were proud to be members. As we all know, that committee deals with statutory instruments that come before it, not with the origin of the statutory instrument —that is, the Bill or, subsequently, the Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, suggested that such a committee should, among other things, look at the constitutional implications of Bills, including whether or not there was a proper delegated authority in all the circumstances and whether

1429
matters should be dealt with by primary legislation rather than secondary legislation.
That is an interesting proposal which obviously ought to be considered. I suppose that the alternative —especially as we were reminded that the Australian Parliament has such a committee, but in the Upper House —may very well be that, when one day your Lordships' Chamber comes to be reformed, part of the reformation procedure will be to give that second House, whatever it may be, the very power, right and constitutional defence of our realm of which we have been talking this afternoon.
6.22 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the complaint about the increasing incidence of delegated legislation and the substitution of decisions made privily by Ministers and their civil servants for the considered resolutions of Parliament is a refrain that is as regular as it is loud. As has already been observed during the course of this debate, we went through the first round of discussion on these matters on 31st January.
Noble Lords in some parts of the House may hark back wistfully to a golden age when Bills were expressed in broad general principles and it was left to the courts to determine, within the guidance given by those general principles, what were the rights of the citizens in particular cases. Many of us may wish to look back wistfully to that age; but life is not like that. Regrettably, it has not been like that for a considerable number of years. Dare I say, defensively, that it is not the fault of this Government, or indeed of any government, that life is no longer like that? There is a changing public perception of the role of government and generally as a society we are no longer content with the assumption that persons, whether natural or legal, interact with one another on an equal footing simply because in the eyes of the law they have equal rights. We are no longer content in major areas, such as health care or land use, to take but two examples, to leave these matters beyond the law and beyond regulation.
From time to time there may be an ebb and flow in the tide of regulation for particular economic activities, but we cannot escape from the fact that there are large areas of life which previous generations were content to leave to individual provision. But these are now expected to be covered. Such provision requires considerable legislation because these matters require not only the spending of vast sums of money, but also that new regulations be spelt out in some detail because the public and administrators must know the rules from the outset and how they are to be administered.
I heard what my noble friend Lord Beloff had to say about the overweening ambition of civil servants and what he saw as an arrogation of discretion. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that I have some considerable sympathy for his remarks about civil servants. They are not in a position to defend themselves. Perhaps I may say that it is also my view that by instinct civil servants do not want a vast area of discretion to exercise. If there is a complaint to be
1430
levelled from time to time against the civil servant, it is that he seeks too much detail in the provisions of secondary legislation certainly which spell out for him how that power should be exercised. That is often why, as the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, indicated, one gets some extremely elaborate pieces of secondary legislation which are not for the public at large but for administrators.
Perhaps I may take just one example —that of the National Health Service. Because there are conflicting opinions as to how an agreed purpose may be carried out, it is right and proper that the statute implementing the aim of establishing such a service should specify in some detail what form that service should take and in general terms how the money to be spent should be accounted for, so that the end product should reflect what Parliament intended. Continuing with that example, in any undertaking as large as the National Health Service there will be a multitude of minor decisions to be taken and Parliament is not the appropriate place to take those decisions. No doubt there are experts in this field as in many others in both Houses of Parliament, but I doubt whether Parliament is truly equipped to make such detailed arrangements. Its procedures are not so organised as to make it possible and often it simply does not have the time.
What is required —and that requirement has long been recognised —is a degree of delegation. Indeed, noble Lords may have reconsidered the Donoughmore Committee (which has certainly been referred to more than once in the course of this debate). Reporting in 1932, it concluded (at page 15) that:
"The delegation of legislative powers is at the present time inevitable".
Just after that report there was an uncomfortable parallel drawn with the Tudor period, to which I shall not refer. Nevertheless that was the conclusion reached. It is not unreasonable in relation to a particular piece of administration that the Executive should be given the flexibility to adjust this scheme, not least to accommodate a change of circumstance. I appreciate that it is not considered to be as adequate as some would like it to be, but parliamentary control is preserved by the requirement to place any proposal for detailed regulation before both Houses for approval even if it is in a negative sense. If a matter arises which goes beyond what Parliament had contemplated when the original Act was passed, it will be necessary for the Executive to return to Parliament with fresh proposals for primary legislation.
Therefore I suggest that any debate on the propriety or otherwise of a particular power to make subordinate legislation must start from the premise, which I suspect may have become obscured to some extent, that there is nothing inherently wrong with delegated legislation. Without it, governments simply could not deliver the degree of provision which is now demanded of them. I accept that a matter for concern, which was very clearly spelt out by my noble friend Lord Rippon in introducing the Motion, is this. The question of whether there is a tendency for excessive powers to be sought in some cases and of whether the establishment of a Select

1431
Committee would be of benefit in checking such a tendency, are matters that are very properly for this House.
First, the extent of the powers that are to be delegated to the Executive in any piece of legislation will depend on the legislative proposals that are made. There is no standard form of provision inserted into every Bill to enable subordinate legislation to be made. Each case is decided on its merits. Sometimes the powers conferred on that ubiquitous creature, the Secretary of State, will be limited to specifying the details of a scheme. Sometimes they will extend to the detailed regulation of a new body that is to be set up by the legislation. Sometimes they will enable the Secretary of State to regulate, for example, a particular part of an industry. Occasionally, they will extend to the amendment of existing legislation.
It is quite clear from the course of this debate that it is that last case which gives rise to misgivings. However, in such a case the power sought should be limited to the amendment of that legislation to the extent necessary to give effect to the legislation under consideration. I ask what seems to me to be the crucial question. Is there anything inherently sinister in such a procedure? The intention of Parliament might be that one set of rules should be applied for a purpose for which they were not originally intended. That intention could be implemented by amending those rules so far as was necessary to achieve that purpose. It would of course be possible to achieve the same result by inserting a mass of minor amendments into the legislation. That would probably be done by way of schedules.
However, noble Lords will be aware of the frequent complaints that arise when such a device is resorted to. It is not difficult to envisage that it may not be possible to work out the implications in sufficient detail before the Bill was presented to Parliament if the latter route were to be pursued. Nor, if it were possible, might it be desirable because further adjustment might be required once the new system of regulation had been brought into operation. If the relevant provision were in subordinate legislation, amendment would be straightforward. If it were in primary legislation, not only would there be the problem of waiting for a suitable opportunity in the legislative cycle, but a feeling would very soon grow that Parliament ought not to be bothered with such minor detail.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, considers that that might be a price worth paying. He gave a quotation to the House. However, I am sure that he will appreciate, as will many others, that where there are matters of minor detail that often have to be corrected following complicated legislation, it might be very undesirable if a long period were to elapse. The policy having been agreed, I suggest that it ought to be implemented without further reference to Parliament other than through the procedures for the scrutiny of the subordinate legislation.
The specific question that is addressed in the Motion is whether a Select Committee would assist in watching over any tendency of the Executive to
1432
seek excessive powers. It would clearly be possible to establish such a Select Committee. It would possibly be a joint committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, requested; or it might be a Select Committee simply of this House alone, rather on a parallel with the Australian example to which the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, referred.
When considering his proposal, I reflected on the piece of legislation for which the noble Lord is most famous, or notorious, for introducing during his long and distinguished political career; namely, the European Communities' Bill. If such a Select Committee had been established at the time that the noble Lord was bringing forward this legislation in another place it would have seemed to me to be entirely appropriate that such a Bill be referred to that Select Committee to consider what was contained within it. I should have thought that the Select Committee would have concluded, after consideration, that it contained some of the most extraordinary and certainly unique provisions of any legislation this century. However, whatever that Select Committee had said, I have no doubt that the noble Lord would have listened to it with the greatest of courtesy and would then have taken the legislation through Parliament without amendment as he so successfully did at the time.
In addition to the Australian example that has been given, I understand that in Sweden there is a special law commission set up to prepare each Bill. A permanent law commission then vets the Bill so prepared for the kind of provision to which noble Lords take exception. It provides an instructive example. The process there, however, is quite different from that which obtains in this country. As I understand the matter, the involvement of the Swedish Parliament is confined to a kind of Second Reading debate. There is no detailed consideration of the Bill on a line by line basis. In that way the time taken by the scrutiny of legislation by the commission is balanced by limiting the time taken by Parliament. That is obviously one way of doing the job, but it would be a remarkable departure for this country.
The various recommendations and constructive proposals for change during the course of the debate indicate, that there has not been any great willingness to surrender time and involvement in the existing stages that we have for the consideration of legislation in both Houses. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that I listened with great interest to his proposal on the use of a Committee stage away from the Floor of the House as a way to relieve pressure on the business of the House. I have been in the House for only a year. I have some caution in putting forward any personal view on how effective such a device might be. However, from what I understand of the Pilotage Bill, to which reference has been made, if we were to use that technique more extensively, the relationship between the use of Committee time and the latter stage of Report would have to be more carefully structured and restricted than it was when the experiment was carried out.
Perhaps I may revert to the Select Committee proposal. If such a Select Committee were to be

1433
introduced, would there still be a serious risk of duplication of all the effort that we make? There is the problem of whether such a proposal applies to this House or the two Houses. We would have to consider seriously the timing of the committee's examination of a Bill. Is it to consider matters in parallel, or must it all be concluded before the legislation is introduced? At the present time, we have a legislative programme that is set out at the time of the Queen's speech. Is that scrutiny to be undertaken during the Recess before the Queen's speech, or will this House and the business managers have to await the consideration of that Select Committee before the legislative process can be allowed properly to develop?
There is a further difficulty about this. What is to be done where there are, at a later stage in the course of a Bill's progress, amendments made which involve the conferring of a power to make subordinate legislation? At that point would the Committee stage stop while we referred the matter to the Select Committee, or would we carry on? It may sound a nit-picking point, but what concerns me about it is that if that were to be a possibility, far from it being a device that would improve the legislation which was going through this House or another House it might become a new and further device to block the progress of a Bill. That might be done by anybody —indeed even, rather curiously, Opposition Members—putting down an amendment which conferred excessive powers on the Secretary of State, which would have only the effect of having the matter referred to a Select Committee, and providing a further block or delay in the progress of the Government's legislation.
I am not suggesting that any of these problems are insoluble, but in highlighting what seem to me to be a number of the problems I hope it will be appreciated that they require to be considered very carefully indeed. I suggest that, while there is certainly plenty of opportunity for stimulating debate on this matter, it does not emerge as the only or indeed the immediately obvious resolution of the legislative difficulties.
This House presently has ample opportunity to examine the form and content of a Bill. The nature of any powers sought can be scrutinised at all stages of a Bill's passage. So far as concerns all subordinate legislation, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments subjects it to close scrutiny and any instrument can be scrutinised further, whether it is presented on an affirmative or a negative basis. I find it difficult to envisage a Select Committee mechanism which would avoid duplication of the other scrutiny mechanisms and which would retain the non-partisan character appropriate to a Select Committee. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has a point in his appreciation of how such a committee might be packed.
I suggest that the only test for the measures in a particular Bill is whether or not they are appropriate for that Bill. I say to my noble friend Lord Rippon, who referred to what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said over Henry VIII clauses and affirmative resolutions, that it would be right to
1434
regard what he said very strictly in the context in which his observations were made.
There is no general rule as to the appropriateness of delegated powers; it depends on the subject matter. It is possible to say, as the Donoughmore Committee said in relation to Henry VIII clauses, that they should be,
"abandoned in all but the most exceptional cases."
But beyond that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to set what is indeed the test of appropriateness for any such clause; and it will be readily enough appreciated that each Secretary of State will argue that in his particular case it is indeed appropriate.
What it would seem to me my noble friend is seeking in the establishment of a Select Committee is not that the judgment of that committee should be substituted for the judgment of this House, or indeed another place, but that such a committee should strike a note of warning or provide a note of censure where the Secretary of State seeks to secure too great powers for himself.
Before I conclude, I shall deal with a number of other matters that were raised with me. First, I say to the noble Earl that I have indeed received a letter from him, but I received it some five minutes before he rose to speak so I hope he will allow me to extend the courtesy of dealing with the matter by writing to him, rather than attempting to deal with it at this stage.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that while he is critical of the provisions that are contained within the various Acts of legislation which have come before this House in recent years —in particular in 1988, to which he referred —in a sense he undermined his own point. He had not missed what was the extent of the power being sought by the Secretary of State. It would seem to me that there might in a sense have been greater force in his argument if he had shown that, in one way or another, the Secretary of State had managed to sneak in powers which no one had noticed. In respect of Bills to which he referred —further reference has been made to the Children Bill and to the Courts and Legal Services Bill —I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as well as to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and others, that they have not missed at any stage when a Secretary of State or a Lord Chancellor has sought to take to himself powers which may be described in shorthand as a Henry VIII clause.
In the course of what the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, had to say he read to us what was a very difficult provision in relation to something which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments had had to consider. I am sure we are all familiar with some very difficult comparable provisions. What he had to say seemed to me to fall importantly within the ambit of what we had to say on 31st January, and was not quite so closely related or referable to what my noble friend had to say on the appointment of a Select Committee. Nevertheless, the force of what he had to say is, I am sure, appreciated by the draftsmen.
As I have indicated, on 31st January we had one go at this difficult matter, and there has been another

1435
barrel discharged at me during the course of this afternoon and early evening. While there are difficulties over the introduction of such provisions that will take a considerable time to resolve, I give my noble friend this very solemn personal assurance. Being aware of the difficulties that I will encounter if I seek to introduce a clause of the Henry VIII variety, I promise him and others that I will give it personally my greatest and most detailed consideration before I take the risk of coming before the House with such a provision.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate sits down, I do not know whether I heard him correctly earlier in his remarks. Did he say that regulations governing the community charge, which is payable almost without exception by every citizen of England and Wales, need not be written in language which is understandable by the general public? I may have got this wrong, but I wonder whether he can clarify it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords, I was not saying that. What I was suggesting was that there are certainly circumstances where there is secondary legislation which is, frankly, drafted to enable administrators in one area of activity or another to understand what is to be done by them. I indicated that in the context of saying that sometimes it was not that civil servants wished to have to themselves a broad, ill-defined area of discretion but that often it might be said that they sought too great detail in the arrangements under which they operated, and that sometimes meant that there were pieces of secondary legislation which were extremely difficult to penetrate.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, suggested that as there might be a little time left at the end of this debate I might expand —I trust briefly —on some of the points that I made. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said that I had understated my case. I must say that that is an accusation which has rarely been levelled against me. But having come from the hurly-burly of another place I have been told that your Lordships do not appreciate language that is over the top. I tried to suggest a fairly simple practical solution of the kind which was designed to take this particular controversy out of the political arena, so far as that is possible.
Whatever merits there may be —it is not for me to express an opinion about it —in Standing Committees of the House to deal with certain Bills, that matter is then already in the political arena. Our problem is that we now have a great deal of skeletal legislation, albeit of great length, which is always justified on the grounds that the Minister needs flexibility to bring the Act into operation.
No one suggests that it is not appropriate to have delegated powers in suitable cases. From time to time they must be extensive. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, whose wisdom and experience is
1436
unparalleled —I have known him for many years in local government and parliamentary matters —pin-pointed the objection that the Government would make to new procedures: that if we provided more detail in Bills we should have more legislation. As I said in the debate on 31st January, I do not believe that that is true. After the Donoughmore Committee reported in 1932 the Henry VIII clause was never again used until the war. There were Bills such as the Public Health Act 1936 and the Local Government Act 1933 which were detailed and which lasted rather longer than does much modern legislation.
If the 50 local government Acts and 10 local government finance Acts that we have had in the past 10 years had been more carefully drafted we should be better off. My noble and learned friend is correct when he says that each case has to be considered on its merits. He referred to the European Communities Bill. Without any modesty, I should say that that Bill was extremely well-drafted and did not require any amendment, albeit that it needed three three-line Whips in a week in your Lordships' House, which is rather unusual. That of course was a Bill to implement a treaty. The Bill had to give effect to those changes in our national law that were required to give effect to the treaty. There have been other treaties such as the North Atlantic Treaty or the Brussels Treaty where there have been considerable derogations from national sovereignty without any debate in the House, debate being necessary only where the Ponsonby Rules are brought into effect.
If we look, as I suggested that your Lordships might, in great detail, as I hope the Government will, at the Australian procedure and the way in which that committee works, one will see that it is significant that its terms of reference require it to concentrate on certain fairly narrowly-defined aspects of a Bill rather than on the policy underlying it. Its purpose is merely to identify provisions which require further study. It can call upon the Minister to provide justification.
The purpose of the committee is to draw attention to where the delegation appears to go beyond the mere filling out of details. Details can certainly be dealt with in subordinate legislation, but the type of example of where it might intervene and make a report to Parliament, is where a fee, a charge or a levy in the nature of a tax is left to be set by regulations without specifying a maximum level of imposition. In the field of taxation it is especially important that the citizen should know just where he stands in language that he and not just his advisers can understand.
My noble friend Lord Dilhorne referred to local government legislation dealing with the rate support grant. I remember that in the other place as a Back Bencher on the 1980 Bill I used the phrase quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon: that it was a monstrous morass of legislation. In the event of course there was judicial review, and twice the Government were struck down. So what do they do? In the 1988 Act —I referred to this point then —they took a power which in effect —it was its purpose certainly —enabled the Government to redistribute the rate support grant on any principle they like.

1437
They can decide that only socialist authorities can have it. They can decide that it can go only to local authorities whose members have an average height of five foot six inches. Those are the powers at which we need to look much more carefully, because it will not necessarily, as in the case that I cited, be the particular government or Minister —he may say that he will look at the point with every care and that we can trust him —but a different Minister and a different government, perhaps years later, who exercise the powers in a way that no one foresaw.
My noble friend Lord Beloff asked whether it should be a committee of this place or a joint committee. That is a matter upon which I do not believe that it is necessary for me to express an opinion. I am too new a Member to advise the House on how it should regulate its affairs, but that is a possibility. It does not raise any great difficulty.
The important point is that the committee should be small —it is only seven members in the case of Australia —with its own legal adviser. At what point would the committee operate? It would operate, as in Australia, when the Bill is first presented. There would be no duplication of effort, no impingement on parliamentary time; and it would not act in parallel. The committee, because it is small and has its own legal adviser, makes its study and report. My noble friend Lord Beloff asked to what extent Ministers would feel able to brush it aside. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was right to emphasise ministerial responsibility.
The Minister is responsible. He can be called before the committee. He can be asked to explain before the committee. Perhaps he can defend himself before the committee; but he can say, "I will not accept the report. I ask Parliament not to accept the report. I take my ministerial responsibility for it". Of course the Minister cannot override ultimate parliamentary responsibility. It is at that stage that we have our share of responsibility and where I believe that our procedures do not enable us to fulfil our obligations.
Of course what I suggest is not the final solution; but I hope that your Lordships will feel that the debate has provided a basis upon which we can have a fuller consideration of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, rightly said is a matter of high constitutional importance.
Finally, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for his full, if cautious, reply. I am grateful to him for saying that this is a matter which requires further consideration. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and those who have listened. I hope that it has at least been useful in throwing up some ideas for improving our procedures. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Traffic Obstruction and Public Utility Works
6.57 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildfordrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are planning to reduce
1438
traffic obstruction and delay due to public utility works in highways.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the background to my Question is the Government's recently announced policy to grasp the nettle of London's dire traffic congestion by a strategy of drastic measures. A major feature of that policy is to free all the main traffic routes in central London from vehicles parked at the kerb so that the whole width of the road is available for traffic movement. That is a logical and entirely admirable policy, but it removes only one of the obstacles to the free movement of traffic.
The second obstacle on the highway, and quite as obstructive as the parked vehicle, is the public utility street work which requires the surface of the street to be broken open for the work to be carried out. This denies to traffic a significant part of the highway, usually as much as half the highway. It is worse than a parked vehicle because the obstruction usually continues for several days or even weeks and —worst of all —often the contractor starts the job, opens up the highway, deposits heaps of materials and gear, and then leaves it for days or weeks before returning to complete the job. For the driver of a private car or a light delivery van this really rubs salt into the wound.
The Horne Committee, which made a survey of this, indicated that street works, large and small, amount to between 2 and 3 million a year. Naturally, the majority are in urban areas where traffic is heavy and where the concentration of buildings is densest. As an example, in the City of Westminster road openings are estimated at about 90 per annum per kilometre. In the City of London that figure rises to approximately 200 per annum per kilometre. All too often, as soon as one of the major utilities has finished a job, along comes another to open the road again in the same area.
The great majority of roadworks are carried out by the traditional methods of breaking open the road surfaces, excavating to find the cable or pipe requiring attention or replacement, completing the necessary works, filling in again and reinstating the surface.
Today there is a new technology of trenchless digging which is beginning to be used. To their great credit, British Gas has been the pioneer in that field in this country. It is currently relaying more than 1,500 kilometres by the trenchless technique. That is over half its annual programme. British Gas has adopted the trenchless technique not just pro bono publico but because it is comprised of shrewd people, trying to serve their customers and their shareholders. They have discovered that it is cheaper and quicker, and it always involves less breaking up of the road surface and therefore less traffic obstruction.
As an example, where there are no service joints to be made, lengths of a quarter of a mile or more can be moled before a new service hole is needed. The technique can be used to lay new pipes or cables up to 1,000 millimetres in diameter, or for relining old pipes needing repair.
One may well ask why all the public utilities do not use this new technique if it is so good. The answer

1439
is that it requires their workforce to be trained to use the new sophisticated moling machines, and the contractors must acquire the necessary range of machines and organise their workforce to do the job in small teams of skilled workers.
British Gas has adopted the technique for no other reason than that it is cost effective in money and time. In the event, it is conferring a substantial benefit on the public by reducing traffic obstruction.
The other public utilities such as electricity, water, British Telecom, and cable television which is coming along very fast too, evidently need an additional incentive to persuade them to adopt the new technique. The obvious solution would be the introduction of a lane rental charge for highway obstruction, which of course would be set at a level related to the very high cost of traffic obstruction in urban areas and to the number of days for which the obstruction continues. Then we could expect all contractors to make efforts to introduce the new trenchless technique.
Incidentally, I understand from some of my old friends in the water industry that Yorkshire Water PLC in particular is already doing so. Of course, the technique can be used for sewer pipes as well as for mains supplies.
No doubt the other public utilities will experience the same benefit as British Gas when they have taken the plunge, or perhaps I should say engaged the mole. They will find that the trenchless technique is cheaper and quicker, and the workforce very quickly takes to it because they see that it is really good.
The initiative to bring about this desirable end lies with the Government. I understand that a Bill has been drafted to cover all the aspects of a new street works Bill, including the power to introduce lane rental charges. I made vigorous representations to the Ministry of Transport to make sure that it did so. I should also add that if and when this much required Bill comes along it will be over half a century since we last had legislation in this field, so the present legislation is somewhat out of date. I feel certain that it will receive support from all sides —I see the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, sitting on the Front Bench —so the Government may like the change from some other legislation which has not received support quite so easily.
I ask my noble friend who has been good enough to come here this evening to answer my Unstarred Question: when can we expect him to introduce this very desirable Bill which would make a significant contribution to improving traffic movement? Or even —I would suggest to him —how about a Private Member's Bill, which I would gladly introduce for him?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, upon putting down this Unstarred Question. It seems to me that it follows on very nicely from the previous debates we have had in your Lordships' Chamber. We had a transport debate on 17th January, one on London traffic on 24th January, and the debate on the Motor Trade Consumer Protection Bill on 2nd February.
1440
I am personally indebted to the noble Lord because I must admit that I had not heard about British Gas and the new trenchless system. Nor had I thought of charging people who dig up the roads a fee for closing the lanes. I had worked out that there are roughly seven different utilities which dig holes in our roads: water, electricity, gas, British Telecom, drains, as well as road improvements and repairs to the fabric of the road.
I shall concentrate basically on one thing for which there are no statistics —that is, the number of accidents which these roadworks cause. Mark Twain said that there are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. Such statistics that I shall be quoting are produced by the Department of Transport, and I am sure they are fairly accurate. Briefly, in 1988 there were 246,000 accidents, 5,050 deaths, 63,500 serious injuries, and 254,000 slight injuries. That is fairly staggering although the number of deaths has been descending steeply for many years.
Dealing first with motorways, drivers become infuriated when there is a lane closure, mile after mile of traffic and, as far as they can see, no one doing any work at all. That can go on for a long time. Then there are the dreaded contraflows which are dangerous. However, when one considers the multiple pile ups which there are in fog or bad weather, when there are accidents involving 50, 60 or 100 vehicles, the fact remains that our motorways are the safest roads in the country and account for less than 3 per cent. of all accidents.
I am afraid that I do not have any statistics for causes of accidents; that is, whether they are caused directly or even indirectly by roadworks. However, there is little doubt that frustration and enforced delays, which lead to driver fatigue, must have a considerable effect. I believe that that is proved by the fact that most accidents occur at about 5 o'clock in the evening.
In 1988 71 per cent. of road accidents involved cars —that is, approximately 306,700 cars —against only 4 per cent. involving heavy goods vehicles —which is approximately 7,600. Most accidents take place on built-up roads with vehicles travelling at speeds of between one and 40 miles per hour and even more on built-up roads with vehicles travelling at speeds of between 41 and 75 miles per hour. The latter accounts for 70 per cent. of accidents.
Also, 70 per cent. of accidents occur at or near road junctions. Let us think about that. There are through roads in London where most accidents occur. The traffic builds up because a road has been dug up. Then, towards the end of the day, a person who has put in a full day's work gets into his car, and becomes frustrated at the delay. Once past the obstruction, he puts his foot down and becomes impatient. There is a tendency to jump the traffic lights or to become involved in an accident when turning right at a junction.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that often a hole is dug in a road, the workers disappear and the hole remains there for days or even weeks. Finally something is done. The hole is

1441
filled in and, hey presto! the next week another utility comes along and does exactly the same thing. My Lords, there are things like letters. Cannot these different utilities get together and write to each other to say, "Look, we have to dig up such and such a road at this spot. We propose to do that on this day. When we have finished, before we fill in the hole, would you like to come along and do any work which is needed?" That would save an awful lot of time. However, it seems to me that utilities like British Gas and the electricity boards never talk to each other. Apart from the frustration to the poor motorist, that must cost an awful lot of money. If one hole is dug but is used by five or six utilities, then there is only one infill instead of perhaps five or six. Therefore, economically that would make sense.
As we know because we have discussed it very recently, London is coming to a halt. There are too many cars on too few roads. It is no good building any more roads because we do not have the space. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, suggests, there are new methods which can be used to reduce all those bottlenecks caused by people digging holes, then everyone would benefit.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it is easy to see that this is a debate on transport: the House has emptied, the lights are down and the television cameras are not switched on, because people are not interested in important matters like transport but in other matters elsewhere. Nevertheless, those of us who are interested in transport are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for asking this Unstarred Question. Apart from anything else, it gives us the chance to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on the subject of the Home Report, a subject on which we have been longing to hear him speak for quite a long time.
Indeed, the Home Report is at the very centre of the whole question of public utility street works. It starts with the immortal words, "The problem with which we are charged is not a new one", and, indeed, it illustrates the point by including a frontispiece dated 1817. The report was published in 1985 to deal with an Act which, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, indicated, goes back as far as 1950.
There has been growing criticism of the planning and operation of roadworks. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, indicated many matters which are in the public mind and illustrated that very well. One sometimes forgets the difference between the amount of traffic on the road in 1950 and today. I do not know the factor but it is a very large multiplier. We are still trying to run our road system with that increased amount of traffic and trying to use it at the same time as a ducting for an increasing number of services, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said. New inventions such as cable television and all these wonderful optical cables are going through the middle of what is supposed to be a duct for traffic rather than for every other utility.
The AA has carried out a survey and studied something like 914 roadworks, 332 public utilities
1442
and 52 developers. It is interesting that it found that 44 per cent. of utility sites are badly planned and operated, 29 per cent. of local highway authorities works are badly operated and planned but, worst of all, contractors employed by the utilities have a failure rate of 55 per cent. by AA standards.
Again, as the noble Earl indicated to us, that is not only frustrating for drivers of vehicles and people wishing to move themselves and goods across the country, but it is extremely dangerous. He vividly explained the situation of motorways. I must admit that I had not taken motorways into consideration when I prepared my speech but that is very important. Much of our road network is coned off for much of the time, although not usually for putting gas mains underneath it.
Again the AA survey demonstrates that roadworks have repeatedly shown poor standards of safety and dangerous practices and it says that there is an indifference by those responsible. That is a serious matter. People working on sites in the road are exposed to considerable danger. Unless there is maintenance of a high standard of safety and good practices, there will be a lot of human suffering.
I find it particularly worrying that the survey can point at lack of management interest and control because, as has been said before in your Lordships' House, safety must start at the top of the organisation if it is to be effective. I remember that we talked about that in relation to the King's Cross fire and the Fennell Report. We there pinpointed the lack of an atmosphere in which safety was considered to be important. It is quite clear from what I read of this AA survey that the average local authority, the average contractor, the average utility is not giving enough direction from the top of the organisation to a need for safety among the people actually working on the roads.
I turn briefly to the Home Report because I do not intend to detain your Lordships for very long this evening. I have a few points relating to the report and to the Government's response, which was made in July 1986. It is an excellent report and deals at great length with the sort of things we have already heard and to which other noble Lords will doubtless refer. It goes into great detail about the reinstatement of roadworks: who should be responsible, who should pay, how they should pay, how they should be capable of being brought to task if the reinstatement is not adequate, both in the short and the long term. It goes into considerable detail on communication —a point the noble Earl made —between the various utilities and undertakings.
On the question of different organisations getting their act together, the report mentions mapping and pinpointing places where roadworks should take place. That gave me a strong sense of déjà vu and took me back to 1984, when your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology produced a report on remote sensing and digital mapping. That report strongly recommended that local authorities should be encouraged to digitise their maps in order that utilities could have a common base on which to pinpoint their areas of operation.

1443
On 5th July 1985, at col. 1403, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, if the Government would read again the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology on the digitising of maps. I said,
"This will go some way to assisting local authorities in finding where the holes in the ground should go the first time, instead of the second or third time. Are the Government aware that members of the Select Committee are somewhat upset that the Ordnance Survey is not pressing ahead with this important matter as fast as it should be?"—[Official Report, 5/7/85; col. 1403.]
I should like to ask the noble Viscount how far the digitising of maps has gone since that time, because it is a very important mechanism for ensuring that accurate mapping is carried out which can be used by a number of utilities.
I now turn to some specific items. I direct your Lordships' attention to Recommendation 37(3) of the report, which states that the various pieces of legislation should be amended so as to,
"oblige the utilities to take advantage of excavations to make accurate records of all existing apparatus found, whether belonging to that utility or to other utilities".
That again bears on the point made by the noble Earl, that over the passage of time there seems to be a history of people not quite knowing where anything is under the road.
Recommendation 43 refers to the question of the Traffic Signs Manual. In the Government's response —which I repeat was in July 1986 —the recommendation that the Traffic Signs Manual should be revised and updated was accepted. How far has it been brought up to date after that time? I ask because the response says there is a need for primary legislation which,
"will need to include basic requirements on signing and guarding … with a provision that these requirements will be deemed to be satisfied by compliance with a detailed code of guidance to be specified by the Secretary of State for Transport".
I am not sure whether that detailed code of guidance has been brought into operation, but I am sure that primary legislation is not in place for it.
Recommendations 49 and 50 interest me to a certain extent in relation to the Unstarred Question on transport problems for the disabled which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has down for next week. This refers particularly to the blind and disabled being fully consulted in preparation for the changes to Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual. The Government indicated in their response that that recommendation was accepted. Has any progress been made in that direction?
Recommendation 50 states:
"Where local organisations of the blind or the disabled wish to take an initiative in providing advance information about street works to their members, the utilities and the highway authority should assist in providing the relevant information".
That recommendation was accepted. How much progress has been made? That certainly is not something which needs primary legislation. Have the local authorities been assisted or encouraged to provide such information?
Recommendation 56 is interesting, again in relation to the investigation by your Lordships' Committee on Science and Technology of research
1444
and development in local government. It refers to the possibility of using prefabricated multiway duct systems. Has any progress been made on that? When your Lordships' Select Committee visited Leeds in, I believe, 1987, we saw some interesting patented applications which had been produced and which could be fitted into new roads to allow ducting to be built in situ in the kerbside, as the road was built. That struck us as being a very interesting idea.
In Recommendation 64 there appears to be something of a disagreement between the Horne Committee and the Government in the wording. The recommendation states:
"In all major highway schemes (to be defined by national agreement) there should be a statutory obligation on highway authorities to give notice to utilities likely to be affected by the scheme not less than five years before it is implemented".
The response again falls back on model guidelines. It states:
"The Model Guidelines could provide guidance on the lengthy periods of notice required for major highway schemes".
Are the Government still convinced that there should not be a statutory obligation written into the legislation when it finally comes before us?
There are many recommendations in this report which are extremely worthwhile, particularly those which emphasise the training and supervision of people working for local authorities and for utilities in teaching their people the right and proper way in which to handle all these difficult problems on the roads. However, one has to ask: why has legislation not come forward? This report was published in 1985 and the response appeared in 1986. The proposals for legislation were published by the Government in May 1989 but still there is no legislation in sight.
It is indicative of the time lag that the Printed Paper Office no longer keeps the Home Report because, so far as the PPO is concerned, it is out of date. That seems to me to be a shocking indictment of the way in which a most sensible, useful and helpful report has been treated by the Government. The Government can find time for legislation on projects like Autoguide; interesting, potentially exciting and worthy, no doubt, but, in terms of actually getting anything done on our roads, it bears no comparison to the recommendations of the Home Report.
The truth is that, if we were not a rather silly sort of civilisation, we should not try to combine roads, sewers, electrical cables, gas and telephones all in one situation; we should try to find some way of separating those utilities. However, that is a problem for the town planners rather than for legislation. The potential for legislation is here to make a considerable contribution towards improving the situation on our roads. I hope that very soon the Government will tell us when they are going to legislate.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for giving us the opportunity tonight, despite a thinly-attended House, to discuss the urgent need for action on public utilities. As has been said already, the committee was

1445
set up as long ago as 1984 by the Government because there was rising concern expressed time and time again about the problems of congestion. There was also concern expressed about the operation of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950.
The committee was set up under the chairmanship of Professor Michael Home to review all aspects of that Act. We have been reminded tonight by most noble Lords that the committee reported in November 1985 which is four years ago. The Government responded in July 1986 which is over three-and-a half-years ago. More importantly, in their response the Government of the time said that they accepted most of the recommendations of the Home Report. Yet here we are still awaiting legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said.
It is not my intention to go through the report and deal with the various points contained in it. I want to deal with the need for legislation and the reasons why we have not got it. I wish to make three references contained in the summary of conclusions and recommendations of the report. These are introductions to three of the recommendations; Recommendation I says:
"The confusion of responsibilities for reinstatements of utility openings that is inherent in the existing system must be resolved".
The introduction to Recommendation 2 states:
"The many variations around the country in specifications for the reinstatement of utility openings are undesirable".
The last quotation is from the introduction to Recommendation 6:
The present PUSWA notices procedures are cumbersome, unsatisfactory and not appropriate to the current levels of street works activity".
Those are just three of the points which I picked up from the Horne Report as to why action and legislation is necessary.
Last Friday another Question on the issue of street works was raised in your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, whom I am very pleased to note is going to reply to this debate tonight, gave the customary reply which we have also heard over the past two years from various spokesmen on the Government Benches. He said:
"A Bill … will be introduced as soon as a suitable opportunity can be found". —[Official Report, 9/2/90; col. 1029.]
The noble Viscount added at col. 1031:
"However, many factors must be taken into account when determining the legislative programme … Street works reform would have required a lengthy, technically complex Bill and there would not have been sufficient parliamentary time this Session".
That reply reflects the Government's attitude, but it does not take into account that the local authority associations and the public utilities group have been hard at work in the closest co-operation on the proposals for implementing the recommendations of the Home Report. In that regard, I wish to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, for sending me two consultative papers setting out the Government's proposals for legislation following the debate on London's traffic on 24th January.
One of them, containing 45 paragraphs, indicates the degree of preparation for legislation. The other paper deals with other matters to which I shall refer later. The noble Viscount pointed out that the
1446
proposals had been drawn up on the advice of the street works advisory committee, the setting up of which was Recommendation 72 of the Home Report. In the covering letter the noble Viscount says that the committee has been in consultation with the highway authorities and utilities committee set up by the local authority associations and the public utilities group.
In early 1989 the Secretary of State wrote to express appreciation for all the hard work which the joint local authority associations and the national joint utilities group put into the detailed technical aspects of implementation of the proposals in the Home Report. The Secretary of State ended by saying:
"We shall introduce a Bill as soon as a suitable opportunity can be found".
I repeat that all the local authority associations have been working in close co-operation. In May 1989, the ACC, the ADC and the AMA issued a document called, A Step Ahead: Improving the Pedestrian Environment. That was a matter dealt with in the Home Report. In the same month the same associations were joined by CoSLA in producing another booklet entitled, Highway Maintenance: Code of Practice.
The committee set up by the associations and the utilities has been hard at work with three working parties: one on a computerised street works register; another on training and certification; and a third on reinstatement specification. The associations were bitterly disappointed when there was no reference to legislation in the current Session concerning the Home Report. The Association of County Councils was so incensed that at one time it floated the idea of the promotion of a Private Member's Bill. The chairman of the highways committee of the AMA wrote to the Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Robert Atkins, to convey the dismay of the Local Authority Associations. He pointed out the vast amount of work which had been undertaken involving large numbers of senior officers and elected members.
The Minister replied that legislation was not included for the current Session because of,
"the very heavy pressure on legislative time".
However, Mr. Atkins expressed the hope that the co-operative work towards a reform of the situation will be continued; an effort which Mr. Atkins said,
"has developed so well since the Horne Report''.
I can testify to the kind of work that is being carried out by the joint committee of the associations and the utilities group because I have seen many reports which have been submitted to the highways committee of the AMA. As its president I have received the reports, and I can see the amount of work that has been carried through.
I believe that we must repeat the question which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked last Friday; namely, does
"the Government give the subject low parliamentary priority?" —[col. 1031.]
I believe that the transport Minister and the department would like to see legislation on the Home Report. The Government have reiterated their

1447
commitment to legislation, but they have given no comment as to when. It must be emphasised that this situation is creating real difficulty for local government which is committing a vast amount of resources in terms of staff hours in order to develop the procedures necessary once the legislation is in place. That is through the highways authorities and the utilities committee and the working parties to which I have referred.
Unless a clear commitment is given to legislation in the next Session of Parliament, there is a real danger that elected members will curtail the amount of time they are prepared to allow officers to spend on this subject. That is a factor which I hope will be taken into consideration. Further, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, mentioned, in the debate on London's traffic reference was made to the position of red routes. We have also had recently a statement from the Secretary of State that the potential growth of public transport in London concerns the bus. The development of the bus and the development of red routes will all be at naught if the Home Report's recommendations to tackle street works congestion are not dealt with.
The control and co-ordination of road works is equally as important as the promised stringent control of parking on red routes. Both the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club have expressed concern at the delay in bringing forward legislation. The RAC says:
"It is appalling that after five years Professor Home's recommendations have still not been implemented despite the almost unanimous agreement that the recommendations are right".
The AA comments that,
"whatever the reason for not implementing legislation, the AA believes it was a very shortsighted decision and that the level of disruption to traffic movement caused by roadworks is enormous".
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to the illuminating survey carried out by the AA. It showed that more than a third of all road works examined were operating at a standard below the minimum required. Surely that must be thorough justification for legislation.
There is a problem. In two recent decisions the Government have thrown spanners into the works. A key element in the package is the introduction of the computerised street works register. The local authority associations and the utilities have jointly agreed on a specification. But the cost of the next stage of that development will be around £700,000. Progress is now deadlocked because the Government are insisting that they will meet only one-third of the cost, the balance to be shared between the associations and the utilities.
The main beneficiaries of such a register will be the general public. Surely the cost of further development of the computerised register should be met by central government. It must be emphasised that the local authority associations have no nationally developed budget to cover this kind of expenditure. It would be a tragedy if this kind of work which is vital and which has been praised by the Minister did not go through because the
1448
Government would not meet the small cost of £700,000.
Last year the Government issued a consultation paper proposing that utilities should be charged for the occupation of road space when excavating a road. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was prepared to accept such charges. This has introduced an element of controversy into what up to now has been a jointly agreed and widely supported legislative package. The associations have reacted. First, the joint committee of highway authorities and utilities was not consulted over this proposal. The department has consulted on all other matters and there has been general agreement. Secondly, the Government have made it clear that grants to highway authorities would be reduced to reflect any income derived from the charging system. Thirdly, the association consider that other proposals in the Horne package would have a far greater impact on congestion.
The associations have been concilliatory in their response. They have supported the possible inclusion of an enabling power in legislation for the Secretary of State to introduce a charging mechanism. However, they wanted an assurance that this would be used only if it could be shown that other provisions in the agreed street works package for reducing congestion were ineffective.
We have the Horne recommendations. The Government accepted in the main all 73 recommendations. We have the working groups praised by the Minister for Roads and Traffic. We already have draft legislation and yet we still do not know whether there will be legislation soon. In fact, we know definitely that we shall not have legislation soon. I know that the noble Viscount may be in difficulty on this point, but promises have already been made about other legislation in the next Session.
This matter is extremely important. The CBI has expressed concern about congestion. Everyone is concerned about congestion. The Government should give a definite undertaking to introduce a Bill in the next Session of Parliament. Unless that undertaking is given, the work that is being done now may not continue. That would be a tragedy because the work will be vital to implementing the proposals.
7.46 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for having introduced this short debate on the subject of utility street works. The subject is not a new one, as the noble lord, Lord Tordoff, said when he quoted from the preface of the Home Report, although the degree of public expectation from people as users of the roads and customers of the public utilities is probably higher now that ever before.
We rightly expect high standards and quick response times from the utilities, while at the same time wanting street works to be co-ordinated and done quickly to minimise disruption to traffic, and good standards of road reinstatement. This is a tall order, and there is no doubt that a complete overhaul

1449
of the legislation governing utility street works is required if there is to be a real and lasting improvement. The Government are committed to bringing forward at a suitable opportunity legislation to reform the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950.
It may be convenient if I briefly summarise the findings of the Home Report on the Review of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, the Government's proposals for legislation, and the preparations that have been made for the implementation of a new regime for utility street works. The 1950 Act came about as a result of the work of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament under the chairmanship of Lord Carnock that reported in 1939. Until that time it had been necessary to include provisions to protect the interests of the highway authority in every Private Bill needed to empower the utilities to place and maintain their equipment in streets, and such provisions were often the cause of contention. The Carnock Committee resolved most of the contentious issues by recommending a comprehensive new code which would apply equally to all the utilities. This code became part of the 1950 Act.
All legislation has to be kept relevant and apposite to the circumstances of its application. The conflict between the interests of the utility and its customers, on the one hand, and those of the highway authority and road users, on the other, has become all too apparent in recent years. The cumbersome and outdated procedures prescribed by the 1950 Act no longer serve their purpose. To take but one example, the requirements to serve notice in writing on all the authorities involved before starting street works results in unnecessary bureaucracy. Utilities dig each year more than 3 million holes, the figure mentioned by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, that are subject to the requirements of this system of paper notices —a system in which there are 18 different forms of statutory notice for use by the utilities and a further 21 for use by other authorities; and a system which fails to distinguish the important advance notices from the routine. The highway authority has little opportunity to make adequate arrangements for traffic management, still less to co-ordinate works between various utilities. The possibilities for simplification and efficiency gains offered by information technology are precluded by the present statutory requirements.
Recognising problems such as these, in 1984 the Minister of State for Transport invited Professor Michael Home to chair a committee to review all aspects of street works legislation and associated matters. Its report, Roads and the Utilities, published in November 1985, is a model of its kind, providing a comprehensive and clear review of a complicated issue, leading to recommendations for action which command a wide degree of support.
The Government published their formal response to the report in July 1986, accepting the main recommendations, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned. These were: first, that the primary responsibility for carrying out reinstatements following street works by utilities
1450
should be placed on the utilities themselves. Local authorities and their direct labour organizations would be allowed to tender for such work if they wished, but would no longer have a statutory right to elect to do the permanent reinstatement themselves.
Secondly, there should be new performance standards for reinstatements with better specifications for materials and workmanship, backed up a by a system of training and certification of workmen and their supervisors. Proposals for improvements in the procedures for service of notices, for inspections, for traffic management, and for safeguarding road users were also accepted.
Thirdly and lastly, came the contentious proposal on sharing the costs of diversionary works on utility apparatus required by highway schemes. Here, the Government proposed that parties involved should agree a code of practice designed to ensure that no unnecessary works were undertaken, and that a cost-sharing agreement should be negotiated between highway authorities and utilities.
In accepting the main recommendations of the Horne Report, the Government recognised that primary legislation would be required to implement many of them. At the same time, i t urged local authorities and utilities to embark on the detailed technical work required to prepare the ground. The Street Works Advisory Committee was established to give the Secretary of State for Transport direct access to the best expert advice available. That committee has assisted in the formulation of detailed proposals for legislation, which were included in a consultation paper issued by the Department of Transport last May.
Over the last three years a considerable effort has been made by representatives of local authorities and utilities, in association with government officials, to draw up the various codes of practice which will underpin the proposed new arrangements. I must pay tribute to the industry of those involved, who have produced draft codes of practice on diversionary works, specifications for reinstatement, notice and inspection procedures, and begun devising arrangements for the training and certification of workmen and the establishment of a computerised street works register. I am sure that this computerised register will overcome some of the problems mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee.
It is most important —and, I must emphasise this point to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill —that the interested parties should continue to co-operate in this preparatory work to ensure that the implementation of the new arrangements can be done more effectively and quickly once the new legislative framework is in place.
The noble Lord also asked me about the funding for the new computerised streets works register. The Government have made a proposal to the local authority associations, which he mentioned, and to the utilities for the joint development and funding of a computerised street works register. The Government believe that the offer was a fair one, reflecting the benefits to be enjoyed from the system. However, the Department of Transport is happy to discuss the way forward with all interested parties.

1451
There are two aspects of the Government's proposals to which I would like to draw particular attention. The general standard of signing and guarding of works, in particular the protection afforded to pedestrians including blind and disabled people, can and must be improved. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, also, quite rightly, mentioned motorways in this connection.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the Department of Transport's technical advice on safety measures and signing at road works—Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual —has been comprehensively reviewed and will be published in its new form later this year. Advice booklets on the new standards for use by the utilities and their contractors are being prepared.
A related matter of particular concern is the protection of the more vulnerable road users. This was considered carefully by Professor Home in his report. As well as the prescription of improved standards of signing, guarding and lighting of works in progress, the proposals for legislation will introduce standards for completed reinstatements. In setting such standards, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will have the needs of pedestrians and cyclists very much in mind. The new arrangements for training of workmen and supervisors will also lay stress on the importance of protecting vulnerable road users. That is an important point and it was quite rightly brought to our attention by the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Underhill, when they quoted from the AA survey.
My noble friend Lord Nugent has drawn particular attention in his Question to the need to reduce traffic obstruction and delay caused by utility street works. The Horne Report argued the need for improved co-ordination of road works and better traffic management during the execution of works. The Government fully accept the importance of that aspect and have indeed gone further than Home in their proposals to protect the interests of road users, whether they be on wheels or on foot.
It is proposed that the highway authority will be placed under a duty to co-ordinate all excavations in the highway (including its own) with a view to minimising the disruption to road users. The highway authority and utility will each be required to observe a code of practice on the co-ordination of works and be subject to a fine for failure to do so. The highway authority will be empowered to designate as traffic sensitive those streets where works could cause great disruption to road users. On such streets, utilities will be required to consult the highway authority in advance before starting works. Where the highway authority is satisfied that works may cause serious disruption to traffic it will have power to direct the utility on the times of working.
My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who is vice-president of the International Society of Trenchless Technology, has explained that the trenchless methods of construction and maintenance are now well established in this country. He told us that British Gas has used this extensively. The
1452
Government welcome the increasing use of such technology by the utilities and their contractors, particularly when it reduces the amount of disruption to traffic and inconvenience to the public caused by road works. As the various techniques are improved we may hope to see them become more cost-effective and still more attractive to the promoters of works.
However, we do not believe that the proposed street works legislation should include compulsion on utilities to use trenchless methods, which may not be appropriate in every case taking account of all the factors involved. The proposed powers for highway authorities to apply to traffic sensitive streets should nevertheless serve to increase the incentives on utilities to adopt working methods which cause less disruption to road users.
The Government are determined to tackle the problems of traffic congestion by every means they can. Utility street works and building works undoubtedly impose costly delays on traffic. Although much of this disruption is unavoidable and as customers of the utilities we often benefit from the work which causes it, unnecessarily long or frequent disruption to road users can and must be avoided. It was for this reason that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport came forward with a further proposal last autumn to take a power which would enable him to require highway authorities to charge the promoters of works in certain circumstances for their occupation of road space. My noble friend Lord Nugent called it "lane rental". This measure could act as a powerful incentive on the promoters of works and their contractors to minimise disruption and delay in the most traffic sensitive areas. The proposal drew a large number of responses which are currently being considered by my right honourable friend.
I wish to deal with one or two points raised during the course of this evening's debate. Perhaps I may take the three points which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, made. First, on digitised maps, the Government fully accept the importance of developing this system which has implications well beyond the field of utility street works. However, I wish to write to the noble Lord to explain how far work in this area has progressed. The Government's response to the Home Report stresses the importance of utilities ensuring that the location of their equipment is recorded in an accurate and consistent form.
The noble Lord also asked me about the interesting proposal concerning multi-channel ducts. The Government have invited the National Joint Utilities Group to re-examine the possibilities for the use of this new technology, including the prefabricated multi-way duct systems. However, one must recognise that on occasions there are practical difficulties in combining certain services in the same duct. We shall certainly be encouraging their provision in new roads wherever possible.
Lastly, the noble Lord spoke about Recommendation No. 64 —will an obligation on highway authorities to give notice to utilities of their works five years ahead be included in legislation? The code of practice on diversionary works has

1453
been agreed between the utilities and the highway authorities which will include such a requirement. The code will be backed up by new duties in the proposed legislation.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, also referred to road safety and quoted some statistics. I say to all Members of your Lordships' House that the Government take the problems of road safety very seriously. They have set themselves the objective of reducing road casualties by one-third by the year 2000.
I now come to a part in my speech which I think will not please noble Lords quite so much. I have to say that I cannot tell the House today when a Bill to reform street works legislation will be brought before your Lordships. However, it will be introduced as soon as a suitable opportunity can be found. It is simply not possible to vouchsafe that in advance, given the kinds of competing and urgent claims that can arise on the legislative programme. In the meantime we must all do our best to sustain the momentum.
Whether as drivers, pedestrians, occupiers of property or customers of the utilities, we all want to see utility works carried out efficiently and safely and with minimum inconvenience and disruption. The Government intend to play their part in securing what is needed to achieve that. The proposals for legislation which we have brought forward for consultation represent a considered and balanced approach to these improvements.
I have noted with interest the broad support that the measures command across this House and I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to this and to the detailed suggestions made by noble Lords. I hope that it will not be too long before your Lordships have another opportunity to debate the subject, in the context of a Bill to reform the Public Utilities Street Works Act.

Heathrow Express Railway Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Select Committee with amendments, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at five minutes past eight o'clock.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION: VOLUME
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION: VOLUME
  OPERA: ARTS COUNCIL SUPPORT
  OPERA: ARTS COUNCIL SUPPORT
  WORK PERMIT STATISTICS
  WORK PERMIT STATISTICS
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTS: POLICY
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTS: POLICY
  ANGLO-ISRAELI CULTURAL RELATIONS
  ANGLO-ISRAELI CULTURAL RELATIONS
  MORLEY COLLEGE: FUNDING
  MORLEY COLLEGE: FUNDING
  MR. LORRAIN OSMAN
  MR. LORRAIN OSMAN
  ECONOMIC LEAGUE
  ECONOMIC LEAGUE