Sitting of 15 January 1990

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

  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday.

  BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Wednesday, at Seven o'clock.

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday.

  MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Central Line
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the total cost of re-equipping the Central line.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): The Central line is to be re-equipped with new trains that will carry more people, it is to have new signalling to enable more trains to be run and it will be thoroughly modernised. This investment will cost about £720 million.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend's answer shows that the Government are fully committed to improving the Central line, and it will be much welcomed in my constituency of Wanstead and Woodford. My hon. Friend has dealt with the long-term solutions to the problem of the Central line, but does he accept that short-term interim improvements are needed, particularly to the signalling and track? Is he able to give any good news about that?
    Mr. Portillo: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I agree with him that my answer demonstrates the Government's long-term commitment to improving the Central line. We have brought forward the order for trains to the earliest possible date so that they will be running in 1992. More staff and trains need to be available to improve the reliability of the service. More staff will be available on stations to look after passengers. I am particularly keen that the escalators should be available for use more regularly. That point is covered in the objectives that have been set for London Regional Transport.
    Mr. Tony Banks: As the Minister knows, the Central line rattles through my constituency to Stratford station, and more often than not stops there. How much of the new investment is Government money as opposed to internally generated LRT money? Furthermore, will the long-awaited and much-welcomed proposals to improve the

    3
    Central line take into account the possibility of Stratford being used as the site for the second London terminal of the Channel tunnel link?
    Mr. Portillo: If Stratford became the second London terminal, there might have to be some reappraisal, but the hon. Gentleman knows that a further £1 billion is to be invested to extend the Jubilee line to Stratford. There will, therefore, be additional capacity at Stratford in any case. It is also one of the candidates for a new railway line in the shape of the east-west cross rail link. The hon. Gentleman's point about Government subsidy gives me the opportunity to say that over the next three years Government subsidy to LRT will rise by 113 per cent. As a former chairman of the Greater London council, the hon. Gentleman will know that already the investment on London Underground is double what it was in his day as chairman of the GLC.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware of press reports that Central line and other London Underground drivers have been asked to switch off electricity to save it, thereby saving money? Will he confirm whether those press reports are true? If they are true, how much money is saved, who gains it and is it safe to switch off in that way?
    Mr. Portillo: I read the reports to which my hon. Friend referred, but I am afraid that I cannot help him. I do not know whether the reports are accurate. I am not responsible for the day-to-day management of London Underground. The plans for the Central line include a 16 per cent. increase in capacity and a 12 per cent. reduction in journey times. Whatever may be going on at the moment, electricity is being saved. The long-term objective is to carry more passengers more quickly on the Central line.
    Ms. Ruddock: Does not the Minister acknowledge that LRT would have liked substantially more money to be made available to it by the Government? Is it not a fact that the investment plans for the Central line and other parts of the Underground system may be delayed or cancelled because of the lack of and the cuts in Government support, as is happening currently over the investment that British Rail has sought but has failed to get from the Government?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady surprises me. There has been no cut in Government support for LRT. There has been an enormous increase. I repeat, in case she had difficulty hearing me a few moments ago, that there will be a 113 per cent. increase in the Government grant during the next three years. LRT may wish more money, but it must recognise that those are record sums. Any child who goes into a sweet shop learns that what he wants is not what he can have. The Government have been generous in providing extra money to LRT.

    London Regional Transport
    Mr. Summerson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department invested in London Regional Transport for 1989–90.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): Government grant to London Regional Transport for 1989–90 is £287 million. That will enable
    4
    LRT to invest approximately £400 million—a 60 per cent. increase in real terms since 1984 when the GLC had responsibility for funding.
    Mr. Summerson: Those are impressive figures. In view of the unprecedented increase in the number of passengers carried by LRT in the past few years, will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department will make further sums available to LRT, so that it may enhance and improve services to the people of London in the next few years?
    Mr. Parkinson: Yes, in our present plans we have announced an investment programme of more than £2·2 billion for the next three years, and we have announced that, as a result of the central London rail study, we shall come to Parliament with proposals for another line in November this year. Therefore, the figure of £2·2 billion excludes the substantial investment that is likely to take place in additional lines. That makes an all-time record of investment for London transport.
    Mr. Leighton: Is it not a scandal and a disgrace that, after 10 years of Conservative Government, the situation on the Underground is so bad that fares are being deliberately pushed up by well above the rate of inflation to discourage people from using it, which is pushing more people on to the congested roads? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not invest in cross-rails from north to south, and east to west, and a line from Heathrow, through Paddington and Oxford Circus, to Stratford in the east end of London?
    Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the central London rail study made three suggestions. The first was the upgrading of the existing lines—£1·5 billion has been earmarked for that over the next three years. Secondly, it suggested an east-west cross-rail link. Thirdly, it said that a line from Chelsea to Hackney should be considered. As we have already told the House, one of those lines will go ahead, and we shall come forward with proposals in the autumn. We have also pointed out—and if the hon. Gentleman took a little more interest he would know—that we do not believe that London can stand the simultaneous construction of the Jubilee line, the east-west cross-rail and the Chelsea to Hackney line. They might make London a better place in 10 years, but they would make it impossible in the intervening period.

    Road Construction
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to shorten the period between the announcement of a road and its construction.
    Mr. Parkinson: We have set targets for reducing the average time taken to progress a scheme from start of preparation work to opening for traffic by four years. In introducing the changes, we have taken care to ensure that the rights of interested parties will not be affected.
    Mr. Stern: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that one of the ways in which implementation can be brought forward is by the earliest possible consultation with all interested and affected parties, rather than waiting for the inquiry? Does he agree that one way of bringing forward the Avonmouth relief road in my constituency would be to instruct the

    5
    Department of Transport to talk to the owners and tenants of houses affected by the overhead section at the earliest possible date, in the hope that an alternative route might be found?
    Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, the consultation period on the Avonmouth relief road has ended. We expect to make an announcement on the agreed route of the proposed road in the spring. After that, statutory procedures will have to be followed because it is vital that people whose rights may be affected should have the right to make representations. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend knows that I shall bear his comments in mind.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: May I remind the Secretary of State that it is nearly 20 years since the Government announced their intention to build a motorway around the east side of Manchester, in which time less than half of it has been built? It now finishes in Denton in my constituency and does not continue to Middleton, which is causing difficult conditions for people on the old road. Will he speed up its completion and ensure that we have a motorway around the east side of Manchester as soon as possible?
    Mr. Parkinson: I shall look into the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I thank him for underlining something that does not always seem to be understood by many Labour Members—that roads will play a vital part in Britain's future transport infrastructure.
    Mr. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the present arrangements for compensating those whose property values are affected by the announcement of a preferred route are grossly unfair? As I understand it, at present, those who are in the line of a route cannot claim compensation until two years after the road has been completed. Is that not totally unfair and unjust, and what will my right hon. Friend do about it?
    Mr. Parkinson: My right hon. Friend has touched on an important point. I am not convinced that the present arrangements are satisfactory. I believe that there is great concern among those who could be affected, and we must find better ways of dealing with the problem than we have at present. I have the point firmly on board.

    Traffic Delays
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the total value of the extra fuel used by motor vehicles in the United Kingdom due to delays in 1989.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): While accurate estimates are not possible, road congestion clearly increases fuel consumption, which must be a wasteful use of resources.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that the volume of fuel consumed by stationary or almost stationary vehicles must soon equal the total that was consumed by freely moving vehicles not all that many years ago? Will he study the matter to arrive at an estimate of the cost of those delays and the other consequencies of traffic congestion and traffic thrombosis, which are experienced on almost every long car journey throughout the country?
    Mr. Atkins: I defer to the hon. Gentleman's mathematical genius in doing such a calculation. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said earlier, that demonstrates the need for improved, wider and, where necessary, new roads, which is part and parcel of the Government's policy.
    Mr. Amos: My hon. Friend recently visited the north-east—we were very pleased to see him—so I am sure that he is aware of the amount of fuel that is wasted by drivers travelling from London to the north-east on the A1. Can he offer me and my constituents any hope that the A1 will be improved to motorway standard within the foreseeable future?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is a doughty supporter of the new requirements for the A1, and I give him credit for that. He will know that we are devoting much time, effort and commitment to improving the A1 and that we are giving much consideration to its conversion to a motorway between London and Newcastle. As he well knows, the problems involve several local people on either side of the A1, and they must be taken into account. My hon. Friend was right to raise the matter in the terms that he did.

    British Rail
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what was discussed.
    Mr. Parkinson: I last met the chairman of British Rail on 13 December, when a wide variety of rail topics were discussed.
    Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend tell me what British Rail's investment plans are for the next few years? Does he believe that its provision is adequate nationally and in the north-west?
    Mr. Parkinson: Over the next three years, British Rail plans to invest £3·7 billion in the network, which, as Sir Robert Reid mentioned in his very interesting speech, represents a doubling of investment from when he began his job. It is a record level of investment, and, in his own words, is,
    "practically as much as we can manage."
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does not the Secretary of State accept that rail commuters, wherever they live, are entitled to parity of services? Is he aware of British Rail's ludicrous proposal in my area to remove the Super Sprinters from the Inverness to Aberdeen route, to resolve some little local difficulties elsewhere in the network? Does he therefore accept the need for investment to cover the whole country, to ensure that some regions do not benefit at the expense of others? Will he look into that ridiculous proposal?
    Mr. Parkinson: I shall happily look into that matter on behalf of the hon. Lady and write to her. One difficulty has been that much of the new rolling stock has failed to perform. British Rail has found itself in substantial difficulties, with new trains that do not meet the required specification.
    Mr. Adley: Was there not something of a discrepancy between the recent speech by the chairman of British Rail and press reports of it? Given one of the points that the present chairman made about the need for assistance to

    7
    complete an environmentally acceptable link from London to the Channel tunnel, can my right hon. Friend tell me whether the Government are unwilling to provide assistance or whether they believe that section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 precludes them from doing so?
    Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend has noticed what even The Observer noticed yesterday: the report of the speech and the speech bore little resemblance to each other. Sir Robert said that, at the end of his period as chairman, British Rail was in an unprecedented position of strength. His speech was widely misreported.
    The Government's position on a fast link is clear. They committed themselves to ensuring that the existing infrastructure—road to rail—would be improved to service the tunnel when it opened in 1993. The fast link is a private venture between British Rail and a private sector partner. The Government are precluded by section 40 from subsidising that line.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Secretary of State accept that, according to the interpretation of at least such well-known Left-wing newspapers as the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph, Sir Robert Reid's recent speech was a denunciation of the Government's investment policy? What proportion are the Government providing of the billions of pounds that are soon to be invested in British Rail? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if he used the same cost-benefit analysis that he uses to justify the Government's road programme in order to electrify and modernise our railway network, Britain could have a railway system that is desirable as well as profitable?
    Mr. Parkinson: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the whole speech. He will find that Sir Robert pointed to the tremendous improvement in British Rail—69 million more passengers and record investment—and said that his successor would inherit a rail system that was infinitely better prepared for the 1990s than it was for the 1980s, when he took over. The Government will put in substantial parts of the programme.
    Mr. Snape: How much?
    Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has today tabled a question on that matter to the Treasury, and I shall not anticipate the answer. By the way, I should like to know where the hon. Gentleman is—this is the second Question Time in succession that he has missed. Perhaps he does not approve of televising the proceedings in the House and is making his protest. When the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) sees that answer, he will find that the investment is substantially funded from the public purse.

    Traffic (London)
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any representations on the implications of the traffic assessment studies for London on traffic congestion in the outer London boroughs following his Statement on 14 December 1989, Official Report, columns 1184-1202.
    Mr. Atkins: Not yet, but any such comments received by 28 February will, of course, be considered carefully.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend and the Department for handling this matter flexibly and creatively. Does my hon. Friend agree that, after so much waiting, hesitation and uncertainty, it is essential that we proceed rapidly? Does my hon. Friend further agree that we could call Marsham street Robert Atkins avenue if he said that the period of consultation would be completed as rapidly as possible?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the proceedings have gone on too long and that there should be early completion of the consultation. I am grateful to him for his kind remarks, but of course I should defer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in these matters.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister will be aware that the proposals in the east London assessment study for a major highway from Archway through the heart of my constituency to King's Cross are causing my constituents enormous concern. Can he assure me that the consultation exercise, which ends on 28 February, is not simply a cosmetic exercise, that the Department will listen to the representations that are made and that, if it becomes obvious that the overwhelming majority of people in my constituency are opposed to the road going past their doorstep, he will abandon the proposals?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is to raise the matter on the Adjournment later this week, and I look forward to debating it with him in detail then. He may or may not know that the Archway road saga and related developments have been going on since 1947, if not before. As someone who served on that local authority, I understand only too well the concerns about the Archway road. The hon. Gentleman's point about consultation was well made and I can assure him that any representations will be listened to most carefully and that, depending on what the consultations show, we shall take appropriate action.
    Mr. Jessel: Would not traffic congestion on the west side of outer London be increased by the construction of a fifth terminal at Heathrow?
    Mr. Atkins: I know that that subject is dear to my hon. Friend's heart. He could possibly tempt me into making a long comment about it; suffice it to say that his views are well known and that we shall consider them carefully when we consider the question overall.

    British Rail
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail concerning freight facilities in south Wales.
    Mr. Portillo: In December Ministers were given a presentation on British Rail's plans for rail services between the Channel tunnel and every region of the country. Those plans envisage a major terminal in south Wales.
    Mr. Hughes: May I draw the Minister's attention to the importance of the area bordering the proposed second Severn crossing? Does he appreciate the fact that local interests are now calling for the reopening of closed railway stations and for more extensive use of existing

    9
    stations, for park-and-ride facilities, for a rail terminal and for the electrification of the main lines from Paddington to south Wales? Will the Minister assure the House that he fully realises the importance of the area stretching all the way along the coast to Newport?
    Mr. Portillo: Certainly, British Rail recognises the importance of the area and that is why, in its plans for the Channel tunnel, it has included a freight terminal somewhere between Newport and Cardiff. The exact location is yet to be determined. British Rail recognises the importance of the development for passengers, too. It envisages services connecting south Wales to Waterloo to give passengers an easy interchange with the international services and so that there can be night passenger services direct from south Wales to the continent. In all those respects, British Rail recognises the vital part that south Wales has to play in the post-1992 European structure.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Pembroke dock in my constituency, at the end of the west Wales railway line, is conducting an increasing amount of trade with Ireland and Spain. Will the Minister bear in mind the merits of a terminal in that region so that we can take advantage of the increasing trade in 1992?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend would expect me to reply that, if private sector elements wish to develop the dock further and if trade is available from Ireland, through Wales to the United Kingdom, we shall look favourably on investors coming forward with proposals. I am sure that British Rail will want to play its part in any such venture.
    Mr. Anderson: Did the Minister note reports published over the weekend of a Belgian study showing that the older industrial areas of the United Kingdom, such as south Wales, could become increasingly marginalised as a result of European Community developments unless there is major investment in infrastructure? Will the Minister look at the implications for new freight terminals and acknowledge that the regional implications of European Community developments are properly a matter for central Government and not just British Rail, and that central Government should be co-ordinating regional arrangements to deal with the impact of the EC?
    Mr. Portillo: The whole of the United Kingdom is at one extremity of the European Community and the issue therefore arises about our becoming peripheral in some sense to Europe. As the hon. Gentleman knows, train services between south Wales and the south-east of England are extremely good. He may know also that Britain has more train services running at more than 100 mph than any other European country except France. We already have a very high standard of infrastructure use and British Rail has expressed its wish to develop that further.

    Network SouthEast
    Mr. Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much Network SouthEast plans to spend in the next three years.
    Mr. Parkinson: Network SouthEast has plans to invest some 1.2 billion between 1990–91 and 1992–93. This represents an increase of about 30 per cent. in real terms over the previous three-year period.
    Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the long-suffering commuters of the south-east are entitled to a much fairer deal than they have received in recent years in terms of restraints on prospective fare increases and travelling in comfort? With regard to the latter, when can we expect delivery of the new rolling stock that we have long been promised?
    Mr. Parkinson: In August I approved an order for £257 million worth of new rolling stock for the north Kent lines. The first of those trains will come into service in January 1992. I expect to receive an additional application for further investment for the 471 series trains which will serve my hon. Friend's constituency, and they will come into service a year later.
    Mr. Dunn: In considering Network SouthEast, will my right hon. Friend undertake to make representations to British Rail to the effect that all interested parties should be involved in the process of policy and decision-making leading up to the final delineation of the high-speed link through Kent to south-east London so that there will be no loss of service in Network South East as a result of the development of that link—if and when it takes place?
    Mr. Parkinson: British Rail recognises that its early handling of that issue and consultation with the public: left something to be desired. It also recognises that Network SouthEast is one of the fastest-growing networks in terms of passengers, with a 25 per cent. increase over the past five years. British Rail recognises that additional capacity will be needed, and that is one reason why the high-speed link is under consideration.
    Mrs Dunwoody: The Secretary of State did not answer the question about the price of developments in the south-east. It is clear that passengers will not continue to pay high fares for poor accommodation. Will the Secretary of State accept that too many passengers throughout British Rail's network are paying for almost the entire investment programme?
    Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Lady's latter assertion is not true. During the past five years, the subsidy has been reduced, the income of the system has risen and investment has increased enormously. We now have more passengers while the system is less heavily subsidised, and passengers are using an improving service. I believe that that is the right way forward, not the Labour party's policy of subsidies to passengers and no investment.

    Heathrow and Gatwick
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to auction aircraft slots at Heathrow and Gatwick airports to the highest bidder.
    The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): My right hon. Friend has no such plans. He is awaiting advice from the Civil Aviation Authority on how the price mechanism might be used to make the most effective use of airport capacity.
    Mr. Steen: In the light of the link-up between Air France and UTA at the weekend, which will give Air France control over all domestic flights in France and regional and international flights, and in the light of the non-aggression pact between Lufthansa and Air France, is my right hon. Friend aware that two blocs will emerge

    11
    —Air France and Lufthansa together and British Airways, Sabena and KLM—which will control 60 per cent. of the slots at Heathrow? Is he also aware that, as a result, British Midland Airways, which was granted seven licences by the Civil Aviation Authority to fly to Europe, cannot use any of them because of the absence of slots at Heathrow? What will my right hon. Friend do about that in connection with the Government's competition policy?
    Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are addressing ourselves to the matter, and we have asked the CAA to advise us so that we can ensure that smaller airlines receive equal opportunities to some of the larger ones.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ease pressure at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, what progress are Ministers making in their negotiations with the United States about more transatlantic flights to and from Manchester airport? Is the Minister aware of the considerable urgency of that important issue?
    Mr. McLoughlin: Indeed, I am. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Secretary Skinner last week, and we are hopeful of the outcome of that meeting. We are aware of the important role that regional airports can play. During the past 10 years, the Government have made a considerable amount of money available to regional airports. There is nothing to stop regional airports attracting private sector involvement. which would provide greater user potential. Both Manchester and Birmingham airports issue scheduling rights.
    Mr. Wilshire: Whatever the CAA might propose, will my hon. Friend assure the House that he has absolutely no proposals to increase the number of flights allowed out of Heathrow, or to do anything to increase night quotas or relax noise controls at Heathrow airport?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently said that we will not increase the number of night flights from Heathrow. My hon. Friend's other two points are in our minds when we make decisions on practices at Heathrow airport.

    Light Railways
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a Statement on the development of rapid light transport railway systems.
    Mr. Portillo: Light rail systems can play a part in improving public transport in some of Britain's cities. We will consider making available central Government grant to those which are expected to bring about reduced road congestion, environmental improvements and economic development.
    Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister agree that restrictions on section 56 grants hamper progress on light railways? Does he further agree that light railways are required in our cities and towns, and required quickly?
    Mr. Portillo: I cannot agree that our section 56 criteria are inhibiting investment. Only in October last year the Government were able to agree to the Manchester Metrolink, which is a £110 million project, financed and operated in the private sector, and which is likely to enjoy
    12
    a Government grant of about £40 million. Last year, we were also able to authorise investment in building a case for the South Yorkshire supertram.
    It is important to make sure that the most cost-effective investment is being made. In some cities, it will be in light rail systems, while in others it might be in less glamorous options such as making the priority for buses more effective.
    Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend should be aware that my constituents would not wish him to be distracted by light railway systems from ensuring that the traditional Network SouthEast services are improved to their absolute maximum rather than building unnecessary roads in the London area.
    Mr. Portillo: I assure my hon. Friend that I will not be distracted by light rail systems, but I hope that I will give them the consideration that they merit. Certainly, the fact that there will be a £1·2 billion investment programme in Network SouthEast over the coming three years suggests that we will not be distracted.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) please not read a newspaper?
    Mr. Spearing: Have not the Government shown a rather belated recognition of the important part that light rail has to play in places such as Croydon and London docklands? Is the Minister aware that, about two years ago, I approached his predecessor but two asking that the docklands light railway be extended to Barking and Thamesmead, and that I was turned down? Is it not stupid to build a six-lane highway across the River Thames, irrespective of the merits of doing so, and not extend at least one line of the docklands light railway across a new bridge to Thamesmead?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman cannot sustain the accusation that we have been behind the game with light rail in London. After all, the docklands light railway was constructed when many Labour Members thought that docklands would enjoy no success and that the establishment of the docklands light railway was a waste of money. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Croydon. I am told that there is a plan to deposit a Bill in the House in November 1991. A proposal is being formed for an extension of the docklands light railway to Lewisham. We do not yet know how that will be financed. When we know that, we can consider whether to allow London Regional Transport to deposit a Bill next November.
    Mr. Fry: Does my hon. Friend agree that at long last a number of encouraging schemes for light rail transit are coming forward? Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), is it not true that in the capital such schemes are not as well advanced as in other of our major cities? Would not the expedition of such schemes do something to allay increasing congestion on London's roads?
    Mr. Portillo: May I welcome my hon. Friend back and say how pleased we are to see him here? The schemes are progressing apace in London and throughout the country. Many schemes are being talked about now, but not many of them have been brought to the point at which an application for Government grant has been made.

    13
    However, we expect to hear shortly from Avon and West Midlands, and there is a long list of other authorities which may or may not apply for grants in due course.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Uniform Business Rate
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he plans to visit the county palatine to discuss the impact of the uniform business rate.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I shall visit the county palatinate on 1 and 23 February. On 1 February I shall be speaking at a dinner of the Manchester chamber of commerce and I am sure that there will be ample opportunity to discuss the enormous benefits accruing to businesses in the county palatinate from the uniform business rate.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the uniform business rate is the most effective instrument of regional policy since the war? Will he reiterate the Government's willingness to reconsider the transitional arrangements for small businesses?
    Mr. Baker: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the answer is most certainly yes. There are substantial benefits to businesses in the north—in the whole of the north, not just the north-west—as a result of the uniform business rate. The yield of business rates in the north-west will fall by about £300 million over the coming years, with substantial reductions of about 44 per cent. for factories, 16·5 per cent. for shops and 35 per cent. for offices.
    On the question of transitional relief, my hon. Friend knows that arrangements have been made so that no small business will face a rise of more than 15 per cent. in real terms each year as the new uniform business rate is phased in. In London, which is one of my hon. Friend's particular concerns, the limit of transitional relief for small businesses is extended to £15,000 new rateable value as opposed to £10,000 elsewhere in the country.
    Dr. Cunningham: When the Chancellor visits the north-west, will he talk to Mr. Duffy at his grocer's shop in Adlington, which is in the constituency of Chorley, as the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) is telling him? Mr. Duffy faces almost a doubling of his local tax under the scheme, which is the right hon. Gentleman's own work. When Mr. Duffy's poll tax is added, he will face an increase in his local taxes in excess of 100 per cent. Even allowing for the transitional arrangements, he is likely to pay a minimum of 25 per cent. more, which will be about £500 per year extra. What will the Chancellor say to Mr. Duffy?
    Mr. Baker: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what I should say to Mr. Duffy; that if we had kept the rating system, as a result of the overspending plans of Lancashire county council the rates this year would have risen by over one third, which would certainly be a great problem for Mr. Duffy, both as a small trader and an ordinary taxpayer. There is no doubt that this is a fairer and better system of local taxation for businesses and for ordinary community charge payers.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in future businesses in Lancashire will be protected from the appalling weight of the burdens thrust on them every year since Lancashire county council fell under the control of Labour, which is probably why the Labour party did not do too well in the by-election in Blackpool on Thursday? As my right hon. Friend has observed, under the old system, the increase this year would have been very nearly one third.
    Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. The advantage of the uniform business rate to businesses not only in the north-west but across the country is that local variations, which are largely due to overspending by Labour local councils, will be a thing of the past. In the Labour-controlled local authority of Manchester, which is one of the jewels in the Labour party's local authority crown, the rate poundage has increased over 10 years by 240 per cent. compound which, after allowing for inflation, is 44 per cent. That is an enormous burden upon businesses in Manchester.

    Official Duties
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much time he has spent on official duties since he last answered oral parliamentary questions.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have spent up to a quarter of my time carrying out my duties as Chancellor since I last answered oral parliamentary questions.
    Mr. Banks: That does not seem to be a heavy workload. The right hon. Gentleman's job seems about as relevant as that of court correspondent for the Exchange and Mart. Is this not just a con—a way to get the British taxpayer to pay him a salary of £52,000 so that he can sit in the Cabinet as chairman of the Conservative party? Would it not be better, because of his role as the Josef Goebbels of the Conservative party, for Central Office, rather than the hard-pressed British taxpayer, to pay his salary?
    Mr. Baker: I receive no Ministerial salary. The hon. Gentleman should be the last person to attack me for having two jobs because he used to have two jobs. He was chairman of the Greater London council while representing Newham, North-West in the House. I deprived him of his first job in 1986 and I shall do all that I can to deprive him of his present job at the next general election.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

    National Audit Office
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what recent discussions he has had with the National Audit Office; and if he will make a Statement.
    Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): I met the Comptroller and Auditor General and the head of the National Audit Office and his deputy at the meeting of the Public Accounts Commission on 12 December 1989. In addition, I have regular informal contacts with the Comptroller and the Auditor General and his staff.
    Mr. Skinner: When the hon. Gentleman next meets the officers, will he say to them that there is continuing disquiet about employers not handing over to the Exchequer national insurance contributions that are collected? According to one civil servant who has blown the whistle, an estimated £1 million a day that is collected from low-paid workers in this way is not handed over. Will he tell the officers that it is high time that they used their powers at the National Audit Office to investigate this serious complaint? If the Government can have officers running round all parts of the country investigating people who have received £30 from the Department of Social Security, they should be investigating this matter.
    Sir Peter Hordern: That is an interesting question, but unfortunately it is not one for the Public Accounts Commission. It sounds to me like one for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, I shall write to the Comptroller and Auditor General to see that the hon. Gentleman gets a reply.

    Commission Meetings
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Public Accounts Commission last met; and what matters were discussed.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The Commission last met on 12 December 1989 when, among other subjects we discussed the Estimates for 1990–91 of the National Audit Office and the Northern Ireland National Audit Office, and the corporate plan for the National Audit Office to 1994–95.
    Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, last week, statutory instruments relating to the Official Secrets Acts were before the House but were blocked. Hon. Members blocked them because of a condition relating to the National Audit Office, which is that those who work for the office could be described as Crown servants and could therefore fall under the ambit of the Official Secrets Acts. Will the hon. Gentleman reassure the House that National Audit Office staff will be free to continue their work on behalf of the Public Accounts Commission to examine all papers relevant to the pursuit of public money? Will he make those assurances publicly?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office will be able to pursue their duties, as they have always been able to, under the new legislation affecting the Official Secrets Acts.
    Mr. Marlow: Will the Public Accounts Committee look into the massive £2,000 million net contribution that we made last year to the European Community, which I understand is a major—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is about the Public Accounts Commission, not the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. Marlow: Indeed, the Commission is even better than the Committee. Could it look into that matter and see whether we can get more of our money back?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I am not sure that the Commission is any better than the Committee. The matter is more properly for the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee than for the Public Accounts Commission.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is unacceptable, on an issue where the Public Accounts Commission could make representations, that the Public Accounts Committee is unable to—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The same rules apply. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, so he should know.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am referring specifically to the Commission's relationship to the Committee and the fact that it can make representations to the Committee. The PAC does not have access to information about State expenditure on the security services and GCHQ. That is shown as a single sum in the Vote and we are not allowed in any way to investigate the areas of expenditure covered by those headings. Members of Parliament may want more information, although not wishing to interfere in the operational work of that department.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Although that is another interesting question, I fear that it is not one for the Commission, whose remit in these matters is limited.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Standing Order No. 10
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to invoke the use of the provisions of Standing Order No. 10.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I have no such plans.
    Mr. Allen: The Lord President will be aware that Standing Order No. 10 which related to the possibility of adjourning the House and resuming on a morning sitting has been in disuse for nearly 20 years. It was introduced by one of his predecessors, Richard Crossman. After that 20-year gap, does he consider that it is time to look again at the relevance of a similar Standing Order, either by revamping or reinstituting Standing Order No. 10 or by some similar measure, so that hon. Members can proceed with business more rationally?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is unusual for the hon. Gentleman to express such enthusiasm for a matter on which there has already been an experiment which failed. Standing Order No. 10 was introduced in 1967—
    Mr. Allen: I was at school then.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman may have been at school then—
    Mr. Allen: Primary school.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: So much the better for the hon. Gentleman. The Standing Order has not been used since 1969. It was found to be inconvenient, not just by Ministers but by hon. Members on both sides of the House to reassemble the House the following morning. It broke the continuity of the debate and did not work. I see no case for re-examining it.
    Mr. Conway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend resist any suggestion to adopt the policy advocated by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), because

    17
    of the pressure that that would place on Members who represent provincial constituencies a long way from London to base their families in London? That would break the link that many Members find important of living in the communities that they represent rather than in this all-too-dominating capital city?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend makes a good point. No doubt it was one of the many that led to the disuse of the Standing Order 20 years ago.

    Private Bill Procedure
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he is ready to announce what changes he proposes to the private Bill procedure; and if he will make a Statement.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, Sir, but I hope that it will be possible to announce before too long how we intend to take this matter forward.
    Mr. Skinner: I hope that the Leader of the House will make a better fist of this than he did last week. When he introduces any alterations, will he bear in mind last week's unseemly behaviour when the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill received its Third Reading? During those proceedings there were never fewer than 50 hon. Members opposed to the Bill present in the House. Yet at 10 o'clock there was a sudden traffic jam outside when Ministerial cars packed to the roof with Ministers came rolling in to secure the Aye vote. They argued that they were not on a three-line Whip, but they were led by the Prime Minister. Is it not a scandal that the Government promoters and, in this case, the South African authorities which wish to bring coal into Britain, are abusing so-called private Bills?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman is such a bad loser in that and many other matters. The Bill commanded substantial attention from both sides of the House for a long time. It is not surprising, therefore, that it received a substantial vote in its favour last week and was safely enacted by the House.
    Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the simplest reform of the private Bill procedure advocated by the Procedure Committee which relates to the means of objection and which is supported by both sides of the House? The mumbling behind hands and behind Order Papers in order to object to a Bill is unseemly and does the House no good.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly take account of that point among the many recommendations of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure. It is clear that the House wants the private Bill procedure to remain an effective force, but it is equally clear that significant changes must be made to it. I shall consider them all.

    European Parliament
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals for an institutional link between the House and the European Parliament.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no plans at this stage to bring forward proposals for a formal link of this kind, but I am
    18
    giving careful consideration to the Procedure Committee's important discussion in its recent report of the other possible aspects of this matter.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Leader of the House agree that Members of the European Parliament are not elected to be a mouthpiece either for this House or for the British Government? Nevertheless, because of the nature of the subjects and the interchange of legislation between the European Parliament and this House, some type of institutional connection would be valuable to all concerned, whether they be elected for the governing party or the opposition parties. At least that would save the time of the chairman of the Tory party, who last week called in dissident Tory Members of the European Parliament and threatened them with expulsion from the Tory party because they were not toeing the line in Europe. We do not want that type of confusion; people should be allowed to speak freely. We in this House should have the means of input with Members of the European Parliament when they get to grips with that end of the legislative operation.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's case does not need to be supported by unjust accusations against my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Procedure Committee has made recommendations for developments in this area. In recent years there has been a steady series of changes, informal and formal, so that Members of the European Parliament increasingly attend Back-Bench meetings of both major parliamentary parties. Certainly the European Democratic Group meets regularly in the Palace of Westminster. There are a number of initiatives, including that taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to inrease such informal contacts and there will be others. They all deserve to be considered sympathetically.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the cause of many of the difficulties that we have had in recent years with the European Parliament is that Members of that Parliament are in a political vacuum? That arose largely because the House agreed to the direct election of Members to the European Parliament. Would it not have been better to have had indirect elections of Members of this House who could have served in Europe by rota? All of us would have had the experience of exercising responsibility towards the European Community.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is entitled to advocate such an approach, but it is not required by or compatible with the arrangements made with the EC. Most people believe that it is difficult to combine both jobs, and one consequence of trying to maintain the dual mandate was that we moved to direct elections.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Leader of the House aware that the problem derives from the fact that, under the treaty of Rome, Members of the European Parliament have no control over the legislation and, under the prerogative, the House of Commons has no control over the Ministers who go? Therefore, both the European Parliament and the House of Commons are impotent observers of decisions taken in secret by the Council of Ministers on the instructions or the advice of the Commission, which is elected by nobody but appointed by Governments.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is a very compact oversimplification of the position. As a result of the Single European Act among other things, Members of the European Parliament have a significant role in legislative matters coming before the European Parliament. As a result of hon. Members' continued consideration of the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee and others, hon. Members also have a significant influence on the position adopted by Ministers in the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Dykes: The Lord President rightly says that there are growing party and personal links, but is not part of the equation missing if we do not have the institutional links suggested by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)? We need the formal linkage of membership to, for example, a Select Committee for the Members of the European Parliament, and MEPs should have facilities such as telexes, a fax room and telephones as are provided in other national Parliaments.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot comment in detail on the Select Committee's recommendations on this. However, my hon. Friend will remember that the report recently submitted by the Select Committee concluded that there were no strong arguments for recommending formal links such as he suggests. There is certainly a case for looking at the improvement of physical communications by post as well as telecommunications.

    Souvenir Kiosk
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the take at the souvenir kiosk in December 1989.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Gross takings in the kiosk for the month of December 1989, including VAT, were £171,325.
    Mr. Banks: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. Will he convey the thanks of the House to the staff who work in the kiosk for the enormous work that they do before Christmas? Would it not be appropriate for them to receive a hefty bonus for that work? It seems from the figures that the path to reselection is paved with Victorian House of Commons mints and tins of humbugs and fudge. Would it not be appropriate to relocate the kiosk to Westminster Hall, where members of the general public could get to it and purchase some of the excellent commodities on sale? That would also improve the profitability of the House.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is certainly a case for examining the possibility of extending this facility, but such matters must always be considered in the light of the limited accommodation available in the Palace of Westminster. I hope that, as the hon. Gentleman seeks reselection, he will find it convenient to make use of House of Commons fudge in large quantities.

Shootings (west Belfast)
3.30 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a Statement about the killings in west Belfast on Saturday night.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): At about 10.50 am on Saturday 13 January, two soldiers on duty in civilian clothes were leaving west Belfast and driving along the Falls road in the direction of the city centre. By chance, they saw a car approach from the other direction and stop at the junction of the Falls road and the Whiterock road. They then saw two masked men, one of whom was armed with what appeared to be a sub-machine gun, run from the car into a betting shop. A third man remained in the driver's seat of the car.
It is clearly the responsibility of members of the security forces to take immediate action to respond to a situation which appears to pose immediate danger to life. What precisely happened next, and why, is properly the subject of the investigation now being rigorously pursued by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the House will not expect me to comment on details. However, as the House knows, both the driver of the car and the two men who entered the betting shop were subsequently shot and killed. I am afraid that a passer by was also injured, although not seriously. The identities of the three men have been released by the RUC.
After the shooting, the soldiers recovered the sub-machine gun which had been in the gang's possession. A crowd immediately began to gather and a number of vehicles, including black taxis, began to block adjoining roads. The soldiers accordingly drove immediately to an RUC station in order to report the incident. Subsequently, they were interviewed by the RUC. Meanwhile, the RUC, supported by the Army, moved immediately to the scene of the shooting and took control within a few minutes.
The House will be aware that the sub-machine gun used by the robbers was in fact a replica. In addition, a replica pistol was recovered from the betting shop. These were not toy guns, but exact-scale replicas, convincing in every detail—so convincing that only very careful examination shows that they cannot fire live rounds. Clearly, the availability and use of such realistic replica weapons for criminal and terrorist purposes poses a serious problem for the community, particularly in Northern Ireland. It is a problem which is treated seriously by the courts. In a recent case, two men were sentenced to seven years imprisonment for robbery carried out with imitation firearms. In that case the judge expressed concern at the fact that such weapons were easily obtained in Northern Ireland. I share that concern and have been considering whether there are any further steps that can be taken to deal with this issue.
I should like to place the incident in its proper context. As the House knows, there exists in Northern Ireland a serious terrorist problem which requires the continuous deployment of armed forces in support of the RUC. No one regrets that more than I do. I particularly regret any deaths which, directly or indirectly, have been caused by terrorism. Terrorism has encouraged other types of violent crime, such as armed robbery. In combating such violent crimes, the security forces are required to operate within
22
the rule of law, using such force as is reasonable in the circumstances. Specific instructions and thorough training are given to the security forces to help them carry out their duties. The instructions make it clear that firearms are a last resort, to be used only when life is likely to be endangered and when there is no other way of preventing the danger.
Finally, I think it is only right to remind the House of the often dangerous circumstances of Northern Ireland—circumstances in which we expect the security forces to act in accordance with the very highest standards on every occasion. That is only right and proper. We expect them to evaluate a situation, judge the risks to their own lives and those of others, and act appropriately within the law, often in a matter of seconds or less. We should not under-estimate the difficulties that they face. The RUC is conducting a full and thorough investigation. This must now take its course. I hope that nothing will be said in this House that could hinder or prejudice the completion of this important task.
Mr. McNamara: I thank the Secretary of Sate for his answer. However, I very much regret that the Government failed to volunteer a Statement on such a sensitive issue, which has aroused a great deal of controversy throughout these islands, not least because of the questions that it raises about the rule of law, the relationship of the Army with the RUC and the minimum use of force.
The Opposition are well aware of the difficulties that the security forces face in Northern Ireland, but it is precisely because incidents of this nature have the capacity to inflict great damage on public confidence in the rule of law and in the security forces, and to make their task that much more difficult, that the circumstances of last Saturday's shootings must be subject to the fullest possible scrutiny.
A number of questions must be answered. First, can the Secretary of State inform the House of the rules of engagement under which the Army operates in Northern Ireland? Did the yellow card rules apply—aimed shots only, and only sufficient to prevent escape?
Secondly, may we have a commitment again to the primacy of the RUC? Was the RUC aware of the presence of the Army unit undercover squad in the area and of the instructions under which the unit was operating? Were the soldiers tasked by the RUC for this duty?
Thirdly, can the Secretary of State tell us why the RUC and the Army were not able to issue a Statement on Saturday evening at the end of a special meeting held by them to discuss these shootings? Why was it possible for the Army yesterday heavily to brief selected members of the press on the very issues which today the right hon. Gentleman is asking the House not to pursue?
A number of more specific questions arise from the briefings given yesterday. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the driver of the car was the first to be shot; that he was not challenged; that no arms, either real or replicas, were found in the car; and that no paramilitary uniforms were there, either? Was the Army unit in radio contact with its immediate superiors, what information was sent forward by it, and what instructions may have been relayed to it?
Can the right hon. Gentleman refute the most serious allegations of witnesses, some of whom we saw on television on Saturday, that the other two men were administered the coup de grace while lying on the ground?

23
Will he confirm that the soldiers involved were members of the 14th Independent Company? Can he tell us the purpose of this unit, when it was formed and what its particular duties are? Can he say whether there was any connection between this incident and the reported shootings which occurred at approximately 11 pm on Friday in the near vicinity and the markedly increased heavy military presence in the area over the preceding 24 hours?
Many other detailed questions need to be asked, but I am conscious of the time. What is most important is that we should be able to maintain confidence in the security forces. That is why we need an early and speedy answer to these many difficult and awesome questions that have been raised by the sad events of last Saturday evening.
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a series of questions, the first of which related to the rules of engagement. He specifically asked a question about the yellow card. It represents operating instructions for use by the security forces in their duties in Northern Ireland. As it is an operational instruction, it would not be appropriate to publish it. The other questions of that nature which the hon. Gentleman asked come within the same area of operational details.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions about the RUC and its awareness of the presence and the tasking of the soldiers. That brings us back to the inquiry in which the RUC is engaged.
The hon. Gentleman asked why a Statement was not issued. He probably knows that a short Statement was issued by the RUC on Saturday night. He also asked questions relating to the driver of the car, radio communication and the condition of the men after they had been shot. They all come into the same area of operational details. I made it perfectly clear in my Statement that I was not going to enlarge on those matters to the House. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the unit to which the men belong. It is not our policy to reveal the units to which soldiers belong.
As to the hon. Gentleman's final question about the reported shootings the previous evening and security force activity in the neighbourhood, there is no connection whatsoever between them. I go back to the remark that I made, that the car containing the soldiers passed by chance.
Mr. Ian Gow: Is not the area of the Falls road and Whiterock road among the most dangerous in the whole of Europe—a danger posed by continuing terrorist action? Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the inquest into the deaths of the three people who were killed on Saturday will be held at the earliest date, consistent with the proper process of law?
Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I share his views about the neighbourhood of which he spoke. I reassure him that the inquest will be conducted under the due process of law.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State agree and accept that the rules of engagement do not require the security forces to hesitate when they apprehend that their lives are endangered? Does he also accept that many will wish to
24
suspend judgment until the inquiry that is clearly necessary has been carried out? When the Secretary of State has seen the report of the RUC inquiry, will he consider whether a wider inquiry that does not directly involve the security forces may be appropriate, since at least one of the issues is the extent to which the armed forces were acting on instructions from the RUC?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments about the circumstances in which members of the armed forces have to take decisions in Northern Ireland. I cannot discuss details of the incident without risk of prejudicing the RUC inquiry. I am happy to say that the RUC will of course be passing its conclusions to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration. In the context of the present investigation and the hon. Member's question about subsequent action, I have every confidence that the RUC will conduct the investigation in the most thorough and painstaking way.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Sad and tragic though the whole matter is, does my right hon. Friend agree that any criminal who pursues his activities on the streets of west Belfast, armed and masked, must expect to meet more than an unarmed British policeman? I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he must have the matter thoroughly investigated. Will he please not be diverted from his important announcement, and the efforts that he can make to bring parties together in Northern Ireland to remove the basis for the terrorism that has caused the tragedy to happen?
Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend makes comments about the circumstances on the streets of west Belfast, and many hon. Members and members of the public will agree with his analysis. I am grateful for his appreciation of the manner in which the matter is being looked into. I confirm that a continuing advance in political development makes a contribution to security. I look forward in the hope that we shall be able to continue those conversations.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Secretary of State will be aware that 12 people have been killed since 1982 in similar controversial circumstances, and in a manner that has caused enormous distress in the North of Ireland. Will the Secretary of State accept that all those incidents have one thing in common—that none of the victims was armed in such a way that they could have perpetrated lethal force on any member of the security services? Will he confirm that such incidents do enormous damage to confidence in the process of justice in the North of Ireland, and also that they give the oxygen of propaganda to the IRA at a time when it needs it most? Most important of all, do those incidents not convince many people that, when it comes to a choice between expediency and acting within the integrity of the law, the Government always seem to choose expediency?
Mr. Brooke: I share the hon. Member's concern about the maintenance of the confidence of the community in Northern Ireland in the security forces. That confidence is likely to be sustained and supported by clear evidence that the security forces are operating under the rule of law, as they understand they must.
Mr. Barry Porter: Does my right hon. Friend share my sadness about the implicit and explicit assumption that is often made by Opposition Members,

25
that the security forces are always wrong, whereas the terrorists are quasi-innocent or hard done by in some way? Can we have any sensible discussions about the issues before the rigorous and much-needed investigation has taken place?
Mr. Brooke: The issue whether anyone is wrong or right in matters relating to the law is for the courts, but I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to what sometimes seems to be an over-bias in one direction.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Would it not have been better to volunteer the interesting Statement that the Secretary of State has made instead of leaving it to a private notice question, and leaving the running during the weekend to the leader of Sinn Fein, who is a former brigade commander? In the past, he has had the nerve to suggest that Amnesty International should investigate the issue. If there is anything in that suggestion, will the Secretary of State ensure that there is an investigation into those who shoot to kill in the incidents that have left 3,000 dead during the past 20 years?
There have been big changes in west Belfast over the years. There are very few British soldiers in Northern Ireland now compared with the past. Irrespective of anything else that comes out of the inquiry, I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that the police are in charge. They have views about the policing of west Belfast. We should not carry out a policy using soldiers, who have a rotten job—few people can comprehend the difficulties that they face—and we should see whether the numbers of soldiers can be further decreased.
Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful for the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman put his question. Statements were made throughout the weekend by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who was on duty in Northern Ireland, and by the RUC. It was a matter of particular concern that in my Statement today I should be able to provide as full disclosure as possible at this stage, and the passage of time has enabled me to do so. I totally concur with the right hon. Gentleman about the exercise of double standards that were apparent in the Statement made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams). The right hon. Gentleman referred to Amnesty. It is worth reminding the House that, in the first 10 months of 1989, 363 persons were charged with terrorist offences; 340 persons were convicted; and only two were killed by the security forces.
Mr. Edward Leigh: My right hon. Friend cannot comment in detail on yellow card procedures, but I suspect that I should not be far from the truth if I said that they do not require a challenge to be given if soldiers suspect that their lives, or other lives, might be in danger. In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members have rather more sympathy for members of the security forces, who put their lives in danger to protect freedom under the law, but rather less sympathy for those who deliberately don the uniform of a terrorist to commit what appears to be armed robbery and thereby spread fear through the community?
Mr. Brooke: For reasons that I gave earlier, I shall not be drawn on the use of the yellow card. References to the Statement that I made will find an echo of what my hon.
26
Friend has said. I am certain that the security forces will be grateful to him for the expression of confidence that he has uttered.
Mr. Martin Flannery: I hope that the Secretary of State will take it from me that, when honourable and searching questions are asked by Labour Members, it is an abuse for Conservative Members to imply that we are all IRA sympathisers. Many of us have fought against that all our lives. There is real and deep worry, not merely among Labour Members but among our people, about what happened, especially after Gibraltar—and in the Stalker affair, in which the police inquired into the conduct of the Army. The result was that Mr. Stalker was taken off the inquiry. May we have an assurance that, if this inquiry is conducted by the police, its findings will be made available to the general public and it will not be just a police inquiry, since such inquiries always seem to come out in favour of the police and Army and to abuse people who ask honourable and searching questions?
Mr. Brooke: It is obviously the duty of hon. Members to ask searching questions, not least when an incident such as this has occurred. The whole country shares the concern simply to get at the truth, as the RUC is trying to. I am sorry that my confidence in the RUC does not seem to be held totally throughout the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard for the subsequent business, in which I shall have to place a 10-minute limit on speeches. I shall call one hon. Member from each side, but then we must move on.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Against the background of almost daily violence in west Belfast, are not soldiers who come upon armed criminals apparently engaged on a criminal enterprise that is endangering the lives of others, including themselves, entitled to fire first?
Mr. Brooke: Other hon. Friends, like my hon. Friend, have drawn attention to the conditions in west Belfast. We are all aware of the dangers that exists there. It would be wrong for me to make any other Statement in this instance.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the interest of those who ask these questions is that justice should be done? In addition to the stifling, of the Stalker inquiry and the lies told after the Gibraltar killings, we recall the false evidence that led to the wrongful conviction of the Guildford Four and the doubts about the Birmingham Six. An internal inquiry will not carry credibility.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the killings in last Saturday's circumstances will increase the conviction of people that the soldiers and security forces in Northern Ireland are running rampage? That impression 'will be widely shared. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman expressed no regret in his statement for the families of the people killed will confirm the impression that anything that the security forces do, whether within or without the law, carries the Government's endorsement.
Mr. Brooke: I do not think that this is an occasion for going back over many previous cases. The finding of the inquest in Gibraltar into the deaths of self-confessed terrorists speaks for itself.

27
The right hon. Gentleman refers to people "running rampage". I think that he knows within himself that those are absurd words to use to describe the manner in which the security forces conduct themselves most bravely in Northern Ireland on behalf of us all. As for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about expressing regret about the deaths, I did in fact express regret in my Statement.
Mr. Speaker: Statutory Instruments?
Mr. David Lightbown: Not moved.

Orders of the Day

  Environmental Protection Bill
  Order for Second Reading read
  [Relevant document: Second report of the Environment Committee of Session 1988–89, HC 22 (Toxic Waste), and the Government's reply thereto, Cm. 679.]
  Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, which is relevant to this Second Reading debate, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Government to pre-empt one of the most controversial aspects of this legislation by announcing today through the Scottish Information Office, rather than in a Statement to the House, the appointment of a chairman to a new Scottish conservation body which does not exist and cannot exist until the legislation is approved by Parliament?
  I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the decision by the Scottish Office to announce at this stage the appointment of Mr. Magnus Magnusson suggests that the special subject of the Secretary of State for Scotland might well be contempt of parliamentary procedure. It represents a declaration that he has no intention of allowing the nature of this proposed organisation to be influenced one iota by the procedures of Parliament. The House is a forum for debate in the process of legislation, rather than an ancillary to the Government's public relations machine.
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot see that there is anything out of order in what has been done. If something ultra vires is alleged, it is a matter for the courts, but it is not one for this debate.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take Mr. Skinner first.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is to do with the Bill. My information is that part VII, which deals with the break-up of the National Conservancy Council—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nature."]—Nature Conservancy Council; I stand corrected—is not complete and that certain parts of the Bill dealing with the Welsh agency aspect have not been finalised either. You will recall that the Government have often come along in the late stages of a Bill with as many as 500 amendments, causing considerable trouble. My information is that this Bill will be subject to hundreds of amendments, because it is not complete.
  It has been drawn to my attention that a rival group of civil servants involving four Government Departments has been set up to deal with the Welsh agency aspect. It has been suggested that, to complete the Welsh agency parts of the Bill, those people will instruct the Minister to give a written Statement to Parliament—not one that is debateable but one that will probably form the answer to a written question by a Conservative Member—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. These are matters that the hon. Gentleman should raise during the Second Reading debate. It is the function of the House and its Standing Committees to amend Bills; there is nothing out of order about that.
  Mr. Skinner: And it is the function of the Speaker—as long delays may otherwise arise on Report and thereafter

  29
  —to establish whether a Bill is complete before it starts on its merry road through the House. It would be a good idea if we knew whether the Bill was complete, and a good idea if the Speaker of the House knew whether the Bill was complete—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall know more about that when we have heard the Second Reading debate.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise a grave matter that will be of considerable concern to the House and the country. In December, I spoke to Mr. Ian Greer of Ian Greer Associates, who told me that he had been making payments not to one but to a number of Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to allege something against hon. Members, on either side of the House, he must draw the matter to the attention of the Select Committee concerned. It is not a matter for me to deal with in the Chamber.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is not quite as simple as that on this occasion, Mr. Speaker. I understand that payments have been made not only by that company but by another public relations company. The payments were made as a commission on first-year fees for work carried out by Mr. Ian Greer's company. I am informed that a number of Conservative Members have been paid. They have used their position to tout for business. Frequently, the payments have not been declared.
  I also—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is once again abusing the procedures of the House by seeking to make allegations against hon. Members on the Floor of the House. That is not part of our procedures. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, if he has such allegations to make, he must make them to the relevant Select Committee. I am not prepared to hear allegations made in this way on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I give the hon. Gentleman that warning—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand that, Mr. Speaker. But you will note that I have not named any hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. And that is just the point. It is just as bad, in my view, to make allegations across the Floor of the House without naming the hon. Members concerned as it is to name them. If the hon. Gentleman has definite information, he should take it to the Select Committee on Members' Interests, of which he is a member.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: You will know, Mr. Speaker, that if I wish to make a complaint to the Select Committee of which I am a member, I must produce names, and Mr. Greer is not prepared to give me the names of the hon. Members to whom he has been paying large sums on first-year commission turnover.
  I understand from Mr. Greer that he has been approached on two or three occasions each year and asked to make such payments. I believe that the honour of the House—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat that what the hon. Gentleman must do is take the matter to the Select Committee, which has the power to send for persons and papers, and let the matter be dealt with there. I deprecate—and the whole House will deprecate—what the hon. Gentleman is now seeking to do in the Chamber.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I give the hon. Gentleman this warning: I am not prepared to tolerate behaviour of this kind.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: In that case, may I ask you to do something, Mr. Speaker? You are willing to deprecate my actions and to ask the House to deprecate them. Would you be prepared to deprecate the practice of companies' making payments to Members of Parliament which are not then registered? Furthermore, would you be willing, in your office as Speaker, to approach the company concerned and ask for the names of the hon. Members to be revealed?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is an obligation on Members of the House to register their interests.
  I announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of—
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet and the hon. Lady must not persist.
  I announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  In view of the number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, I propose to put a time limit on speeches between 6 pm and 8 pm. I appeal to hon. Members who may be called before that time and afterwards to bear that point in mind so that as many of their colleagues as possible may be called.
  Ms. Primarolo: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), Mr. Speaker. Will you advise the House about the extensive and developing use of lobbying, as the rules of the House do not permit an exact debate to be held on that, and tell us how we, as hon. Members, can bring to the attention of the House the fact that this lobbying is occurring and that payments are being made for it?
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Lady will look at Standing Order No. 128, she will clearly see the answer to her question.
  Mr. Tony Benn: But, Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that these points of order delay the debate.
  Mr. Benn: At the beginning of every Session, we pass a Sessional Order saying that it is a "high crime and misdemeanour" to tamper with witnesses, and we take that very seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is alleging that witnesses, and also Members, are being tampered with—and that applies whether or not an hon. Member declares that he has been paid.

  31
  I am not involved in muck-raking, and I have no direct interest in this. However, a Statement from you as Speaker of the House, deprecating and deploring the practice of paying hon. Members to use their powers in Parliament in the interests of a particular cause might be something you should consider—although perhaps not now. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington is right.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order—at the expense of delay.
  Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was to put the matter before his Select Committee, would it be possible for the Select Committee to have the gentleman in question brought before it and ask him to name the names? If that is possible, that is precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Workington should do. The names would be revealed on oath and we would really know what was happening in relation to certain corruption in the House.
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening carefully, he would know that that was exactly what I said to his hon. Friend.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the matter was to be ventilated by the Select Committee, would it be possible to find out precisely which hon. Members are sponsored by trade unions—[Hon. Members: "It is in the Register."]—and the amount of money that trade unions spend on political sponsorship in the House?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Members now rising wants to participate in the debate. It will not improve their chances if they continue to raise points of order on this matter. I have already dealt with this matter at some length. I confirm what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has said that the correct procedure, as I have already mentioned, is that, if the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has allegations to make, he should take them to the Select Committee, which has the power to send for persons and papers and to investigate them.
  Mr. Ron Leighton rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Yes, I will hear the hon. Gentleman, but I will have to bear it in mind when I select the Speakers in the debate.
  Mr. Leighton: I apologise for taking up more time. However, as we are considering this point, do you accept, Mr. Speaker, that there is increasing concern about a practice that seems to be getting out of hand? When hon. Members rise we look at them, but we do not say that that hon. Member represents this or that constituency. Instead, we say that he is the hon. Member for this special interest or that special interest, or this consultancy or that consultancy, or this industry or that industry. That affects the standing and reputation of Parliament and that is something which you above all, Mr. Speaker, should consider.
  Mr. Speaker: The Register of Members' Interests has been in existence for several years. As the whole House knows, there is an obligation on hon. Members with interests to register them. I am sure that that is exactly what happens.
  4.9 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move,
  That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  It is now a commonplace that environmental issues will play a prominent part in the national and international political debate in the last decade of this century. It is therefore particularly appropriate to begin the decade with this Bill. Whatever the arguments about the Bill—a number may, I suspect, be a little cosmetic—it will surely provide us with the basic framework for much of our pollution control in Britain well into the next century.
  Before I refer in detail to the provisions of the Bill, I should like to make four brief points.
  First, environmental regulation and control have a long legislative pedigree in Britain. It goes back to the industrial revolution. On this side of the House, there have been times when it seemed as though we have talked of little other than Disraeli's interest in sewers. More recently, we can recall the Clean Air Acts, the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and last Session's Water Act. Many of the proposals in the Bill—innovatory though they are, both domestically and internationally—have been discussed for a number of years.
  The Royal Commission on environmental pollution, for example, first proposed the integration of pollution , control, so that harmful industrial emissions come under one regulatory system covering land, air and water, 14 years ago. The measures on waste are very much on lines recommended by the Royal Commission in 1985 and, by and large, welcomed by Select Committees both here and in another place I know about our Select Committee's reservations, and I will refer to them later. Our proposals—long and fully discussed—for regulating genetically modified organisms, received a more recent endorsement with the Royal Commission's report on this subject six months ago. I congratulate the commission on having produced a thorough, well-argued and well-presented survey, which will continue to provide a source of guidance and advice.
  I hope that the weight of informed judgment and opinion that lies behind many of the proposals in the Bill, and the extent to which they have already been fully debated, will mean that we can proceed from the basis of a broad measure of agreement on the principal features of this legislation. That is certainly what happened with the last major legislation on this subject in 1973 and 1974. I hope also, therefore, that we shall have a constructive debate today and an equally constructive time in Committee. I cannot for the life of me see why this Bill should produce much acrimony, but I admit that life can be full of surprises.
  Secondly, control and regulation are essential to the improvement of environmental quality, just as they are important to the raising of health standards and the securing of safety at work. But they provide only part of the means for enhancing environmental quality. Our unequivocal view is that the best way of securing that objective is a judicious mix of Governmental regulation

  33
  and market economics. The market and private enterprise are often challenged by regulation to higher technological standards and better performance. I do not believe that the environmental history of eastern Europe or, for that matter, the history of the water industry in Britain, suggest that leaving everything to the State is the best way of improving the environment.
  I am not entirely sure where the Opposition would place the balance. I trust that they will accept that controls are not costless and that incentives other than controls are often the best means of achieving environmental goals in a cost-effective way. Whatever the Opposition's views on that point, they must surely be with us in believing that sensible and sustainable growth is the friend, not the enemy, of a cleaner and greener environment. I find it especially difficult to contemplate a Socialist approach to economics without at least the fiction of growth at its heart.
  Thirdly, it is vital that the sophisticated and coherent system of pollution control that we are introducing should be credible. Credibility requires that such a system should be operated by strong and effective institutions and that it should be open to public scrutiny. We are still to some extent in the painful early stages of establishing some of the institutions to monitor and control pollution. For instance, the National Rivers Authority has been in operation for only a few months, and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution was not established until 1987.
  We have faced real, though I think understandable, problems in getting the inspectorate set up with the right complement and the right recruitment. I hope that some of our recent recruitment problems will be alleviated by the new and much improved salary scales that are now in place. I should like to pay a special tribute to the late Brian Ponsford, who brought to the difficult task of running the inspectorate high intelligence and great personal dedication.
  But these institutional questions will inevitable take some time to get right. We shall naturally be looking at them in the context of the work we are doing on the White Paper that we shall publish later this year. Let me only repeat here once again that there would be little point in having an excellent system of pollution control without the means to implement it. I do not intend that we should find ourselves in that position.
  On public access to environmental information, I shall have more to say later. I have no doubt that greater openness and more information are the best way of combating the sort of charlatanry that can give serious environmental causes a bad name.
  Fourthly, this Bill, important though it is, is far from being our last word on the environment. It would be ludicrous to try to solve every environmental problem in one Bill—doubly so in the case of environmental issues, where we require both more scientific information and also unparalleled international co-operation in order to do what is both wise and workable. I hope that the House can resist the temptation to try to hang every pet environmental objective on the branches of this particular legislative tree. In addition, we should all of us resist another temptation—of casually fabricating environmental policy as we bowl along.
  It is even more dangerous to make environmental policy off the cuff than it is to make policy in other areas—but I do, of course, recognise that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has exceptionally capacious cuffs.
  34
  Let me now turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill. I hope that the House will forgive me if I speak at some length, because it is a long Bill and its detailed provisions need proper attention.
  Part I establishes two innovatory pollution control systems, integrated pollution control and local authority air pollution control. Simpler, less polluting processes will be designated under part I for local authority air pollution control. Up to now, local authorities have had to rely on cumbersome controls after the event. They are costly to local authorities, to the environment and to industry. The new regime strengthens the local authorities' role and gives them the means of tackling air pollution before it occurs. Their powers will cover a range of processes such as smaller power plants, glass works and municipal and hospital incinerators.
  Major processes on the other hand will be controlled by the inspectorate of pollution under integrated pollution control or IPC. Some 3,500 sites, such as oil refineries, major iron and steel works and large chemical works, will be subject to the new system.
  The United Kingdom's existing pollution control system has developed piecemeal over many years. Releases to air, water and land are subject to three distinct sets of controls, with no account taken of the effect of one on the other. IPC changes all that. For the first time, a single authority will control emissions to land, water and air within a single framework. Conditions will be set in the authorisations given to each industrial process which will ensure the greatest protection to the environment as a whole.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend is well aware that, for many years in Lancaster, we have had an animal waste processing plant which emits a certain smell. The owner of the plant has been very good and has always done what the city council has asked in installing the latest anti-pollution techniques; at the moment, he is installing a biological filter. However, my council is particularly anxious about two points relating to the regulations and code of practice under the Bill. First, could the lorries that transport this sort of waste be strictly specified and, secondly, could the waste be collected from the abattoirs within 24 hours to minimise the smell? That would make an enormous difference, but it relies very much on the regulations.
  Mr. Patten: On the second point, it is possible for the local authority, under the aspects of the Bill relating to local authority air controls, to agree to the sort of provisions required by the local authority in my hon. Friend's case. The powers now given to local authorities should ensure that the sort of processes to which my hon. Friend referred can be improved, that pollution can be reduced and that the best technology is installed to ensure that the people who live in the vicinity of such a plant have a more reasonable environment.
  Authorisations will be based, under the IPC system, on the "best available techniques not entailing excessive cost" to prevent or minimise the release of the most dangerous substances and to render all emissions harmless. Therefore, there will be a built-in mechanism for stronger environmental protection. As techniques improve, higher environmental standards will be required.
  The IPC system set out in part I does not apply to Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary

  35
  of State for Scotland has conducted separate consultations on pollution control in Scotland. He intends to table amendments to part I in Committee which will adapt it for implementation in Scotland.
  This will be the first system of integrated pollution control in Europe. We are ahead of the field. Other countries, particularly in the Community, are turning their attention to this question of the integrated nature of pollution control. They will, I believe, be impressed by the advantages of our approach.
  Part I—like other parts of the Bill—contains important new proposals for public access to environmental information. A company's image can all too often be damaged by the activities of less environmentally concerned competitors. Making more information available will change that by identifying inadequate performers and rewarding environmental achievers.
  In a consultation paper on public access to information last autumn, I left open the question whether access should be extended to the raw monitoring data supplied by firms to the enforcing authorities. Having considered the responses, I have concluded that all monitoring data required by the enforcing authorities should be made available to the public, save for necessary exemptions—for example, to protect commercial confidentiality.
  Mr. George Howarth: People can never get such information because the authorities concerned claim commercial confidentiality. The measures that the Secretary of State has announced are meaningless.
  Mr. Patten: I can conceive of few processes where the argument of commercial confidentiality will apply, although I shall not necessarily hold that that is so when we come to discuss the proposals on chemicals and genetically modified organism, because arguments about commercial confidentiality are more likely to apply to those cases. We shall publish regulations, guiding our inspectors and the Secretary of State, about commercial confidentiality, and it is my strong belief that commercial confidentiality will apply in few cases. I cannot honestly believe, although no doubt we shall have an opportunity to discuss this at great length in Committee, that the Opposition seriously think that commercial confidentiality should never be considered in such cases.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I have in my constituency a considerable quantity of a poisonous cocktail, although the substance was not supposed to be contaminated when it arrived from the United States. It came from a firm making fertiliser, and I am told that that company wants to build a similar factory here. When I asked the Department of Trade and Industry whether that was the case, I was told that the information was confidential, and must remain confidential because it is commercial. Some of the rules seem to be preposterous, especially if the Secretary of State's claim that we are at the head of the field is to be justified.
  Mr. Patten: First, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased that we are taking greater powers in the Bill to control the movement of waste both into and out of the country. Secondly, if such a factory operated in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and was subject to the sort of controls that we are discussing in the Bill, it would be
  36
  difficult to imagine circumstances in which commercial confidentiality considerations would apply to the provision of the raw material.
  Such information is asked for by the enforcing authorities and should be available wherever possible to the public in its town halls, local authority offices and the offices of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. It is important that more rather than less information should be available. The argument about commercial confidentiality will apply from time to time. I am sure that there are factories and firms in the constituencies of Labour Members which could make a strong argument for commercial confidentiality in some cases.
  Save for necessary exemptions, for example to protect commercial confidentiality, the rule must be that the public should get what the enforcing authorities get. That should help to ensure that in future public debate on the environment is rather better informed. The public are unlikely to have trust in a system of pollution control unless it is as open as possible and subject to rigorous scrutiny. Part I fully recognises that imperative.
  Part II controls waste management. Our review of waste legislation has been under way for some time. This is a broad subject. It has been investigated both inside and outside Parliament. The latest investigation was the Environment Select Committee's report on toxic waste published early last year under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). I am pleased that there is substantial agreement between the Government and the Committee in this area. The main exception concerns the proposed new regulation authorities, and I will return to these in a moment.
  The measures in part II point to a new approach to waste. In the past, economic development and growth have meant an increase in waste. Now is the time to break that connection. Our aim is that all waste disposal should meet the highest standards. That will be the job of the regulation authorities. The enforcement of higher standards will mean that the true costs of disposal will be felt by everyone. These costs must be passed back to the waste producers, forcing them to reappraise the true economics of their production processes. That will be a powerful encouragement to reduce and recycle waste.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is the Secretary of State aware of the proliferation of applications from commercial waste disposal companies effectively trying to get in before the terms of the Bill can be executed? Will he take action where those applications are referred to him to ensure that they do not slip through the net before he has instituted a strong regulatory regime? The public are worried that toxic waste sites are being developed now, before stricter regulations apply.
  Mr. Patten: I shall follow that up. It is a matter of concern in some areas. We do not want the provisions to be circumvented, perhaps by cowboy operations setting up while we are discussing the Bill.
  For improved regulation, the site licensing of the 1974 Act will be strengthened. In future, operators will be vetted to keep out convicted offenders, those who are unqualified or incompetent and those who cannot afford to finish the job properly. The licensee will not be able to walk away from his licence; once licensed, he will have to see the job through to completion.

  37
  The new duty of care puts responsibility on everyone who produces or handles waste. They will have to make sure that the waste is managed safely by whoever takes it off their hands. Through the application of this duty, the waste regulation authorities should find it easier to trace illegal disposal. Waste producers will have every incentive to make sure that they deal with reputable businesses.
  The House will know my strong commitment to recycling. This is an area where there is an immense fund of good will.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is all very well dealing with the future, but what does the Minister propose to do about the many sites up and down the country where extremely toxic mixtures have been dumped in the past 20 years and more? Methane gas is now escaping from a number of those dumps. Will he ensure that local authorities have the money to clean up the mess left by other people in the past, given that we cannot send the Bill to them?
  Mr. Patten: There are two particular aspects to that problem. The first is the discussions on which we are embarked with the National Rivers Authority about the leaching from some landfill sites into the water supply. In due course resources will be provided to deal with that problem. Secondly, we must ensure that within the capital provision for local authorities there are adequate funds for dealing with some of the old sites to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. This year we have begun on that process with local authorities and I have no doubt that we shall continue to have to ensure that the capital allocations for local authorities contain adequate funds to undertake that extremely important job.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Secretary of State assure us that, in future, we will not accept all the toxic waste from the rest of the world, as happened with the Karin B? Will this Bill ensure that we will not get any more Karin Bs on our shores?
  Mr. Patten: In due course I shall come to the provisions in the Bill that will assist the hon. Gentleman in securing that objective. I do not happen to take the view—it may be an issue on which the hon. Gentleman and I will disagree—that it is possible to ban completely all movement of toxic wastes. We have taken an initiative in the European Community and in the OECD to try to get industrialised countries to agree to deal, as far as possible, with their own waste because we need to reduce the unnecessary movement of toxic waste around the world, even when there are adequate controls on that movement.
  Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Before the Bill becomes law, we on Teesside need more reassurance than the right hon. Gentleman has just given, particularly in reply to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are now six applications on his desk for incinerators on Teesside. Some of those incinerators will deal with hair spray from West Germany and paint spray from Switzerland. We need some reassurance now that those applications will not go through as they would ruin still further the environment in which many on Teesside must survive.
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Lady would be surprised were I to give her an answer on those planning applications at the Dispatch Box—conceivably delighted, but certainly
  38
  surprised. As my former boss, Lord Joseph, might have said in these circumstances, I hear what the hon. Lady says.
  Mr. Tim Devlin rose—
  Mr. Patten: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but then I must move on.
  Mr. Devlin: I believe that four rather than six applications have been submitted at the same time, regarding Teesside. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need for them to be considered together? Although the House accepts that he cannot give an answer from the Dispatch Box now, we would at least expect that any decisions will be delayed until after the Bill has gone through the House. Does he accept that all applications across the country should be dealt with at the same time, so that we can develop a proper national strategy on how to deal with such problems?
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend's final point is rather difficult, but I shall bear it in mind. I shall consider seriously what he said about Teesside, and I understand the concerns he has expressed.
  To increase recycling, what is needed is local leadership and organisation and an effective industry that can turn the waste to profitable use. The measures in the Bill will increase the effort devoted by local authorities to recycling, particularly the waste collection authorities. They are in the best position to tackle the recycling where it is most effective, at the point of collection. That should lead to real progress towards our target of recycling half of all recyclable waste by the end of the decade.
  Improved regulation and the need for better value for money amply justify the measures in the Bill to reform the waste disposal authorities. The separation of disposal from regulation will enormously benefit the water environment, and will also ensure more effective wage management.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Patten: I shall give way, but this will be the last time for a bit.
  Mr. Corbyn: In that case, I particularly thank the Secretary of State. Does he not agree that his arguments in favour of recycling, particularly of paper waste, would be far stronger if something was done about reducing the amount of paper used, the size of newspapers and the amount of unnecessary packaging, particularly in supermarkets and other shops?
  Mr. Patten: There is certainly a case for reducing the amount of packaging—which causes many people concern—to the minimum necessary. In due course, market pressures will probably bear down on this.
  We all feel that, if the hon. Gentleman could specify which newspapers should not appear from time to time, we might have more sympathy with the proposal. I sometimes think that we are better off looking at trees than newspapers. However, we live in a plural society, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to suggest that we should reduce the free flow of information.
  The regulation authorities will be free to concentrate their efforts on improved monitoring. They should make use of their improved powers to demand high standards. I am sorry not to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for

  39
  Hornsey and Wood Green about this. It is right to leave regulation with the local authorities, which are run by elected members. In my judgment they can do the job, and the best of them are already doing it. To ensure that they do ail that we want and expect of them, the Bill contains measures to ensure that their performance can be properly judged.
  The job of disposal will be put out to tender. Local authority companies will compete with the private sector on even terms. This will ensure that disposal costs are accurately charged in the public as well as the private sector. The companies will be subject to full licensing and will be able to compete for business outside the local authority. The disposal authorities will retain the function of arranging for getting rid of the waste collected by the collection authorities. They will want to set high environmental standards for the tenders for carrying out this work, but these standards will have to apply both to in-house and private sector bids.
  I do not shirk the point that higher standards cost money. The Bill makes provision for the regulation authorities to recover the costs of regulation from charging. Moreover, in 1990–91 we shall nearly double permitted capital spending by waste disposal authorities in London and the metropolitan areas. To take up the point under discussion a moment or two ago, we shall also be making a special sum of £33 million available next year for remedial works on landfill gas sites.
  Overall, part II of the Bill provides a strong framework for the better management of waste well into the next century.
  Part III of the Bill strengthens the powers of local authorities in dealing with nuisances such as noise and smells. By and large, their powers have stood the test of time, but circumstances change, and following consultation, it is clear that their powers need to be streamlined and strengthened. So part III of the Bill enables local authorities in England and Wales to deal more expeditiously with statutory nuisances. As one example, we are proposing to cut out an unnecessary legal stage in the abatement proceedings.
  Mr. Robert Adley rose—
  Mr. Patten: I shall give way, but the more often I give way, the longer I shall be and the smaller the number of hon. Members who will be able to speak in the debate.
  Mr. Adley: Most of my hon. Friends enjoy listening to my right hon. Friend so that will not be a great problem.
  When talking of part III of the Bill, my right hon. Friend referred to premises and any trade. I can see nothing in part III which refers to many of the nuisances that are emitted by vehicles, be they lorries or coaches. Is it possible that, for the purposes of the Bill, vehicles could be considered premises on wheels?
  Mr. Patten: That would be a legal definition which A. P. Herbert might be able to manage. However, we had better leave further discussion about the way in which a vehicle might be premises or part of premises until we discuss the matter in Committee.
  Local authorities will also gain a useful new power, under part III, to deal with transient nuisances—not vehicles—such as dust from demolition. Part III also
  40
  removes doubt concerning the application of nuisance powers to tackle smells. It paves the way for bringing offensive trades—for example, blood boiling—under the new system of air pollution control in part I.
  We all know that there is a good deal of public concern about noise from a variety of sources. We have decided to undertake a comprehensive review of noise legislation and controls. I expect our working party to report and bring forward its recommendations by the summer.
  Part IV deals with an issue which has rightly risen up the list of national concerns. For many people, care for the environment begins with the condition of their streets and neighbourhood rather than with what is happening to the ozone layer. Litter is an issue which causes mounting public anger, and we are determined to act decisively to deal with litter and filth on our streets.
  Our first concern must be to persuade people not to drop litter in the first place. If we cannot do that, we shall always be fighting a losing battle. A concerted programme of education should help convince people of the virtues of keeping their neighbourhoods clean. That is why we have given the Tidy Britain Group £33 million this year. We have promised further substantial funds for next year.
  For those who ignore their responsibilities as good citizens and good neighbours, we intend to increase dramatically the maximum penalty for littering, from £400 to £1,000. If arguments fail to convince them, perhaps an assault on their wallets will do the job. I have considerable sympathy with those of my correspondents who despair when they read of convicted litterers escaping with derisory fines. I hope that magistrates will take into account the growing public concern when they impose penalties for littering. Paltry fines are unlikely to deter.
  However, I fear that litter will continue to be dropped; once dropped, it must be efficiently cleared up, and it is here that local authorities are in the front line. One aspect that is apparent is the disparity between the standards of cleanliness achieved by different local authorities. Some do their ratepayers proud; others satisfy themselves with at best indifferent standards and at worst, appalling ones. So we intend to place all local authorities under a new duty to keep their open-air public streets and land free of litter. I will shortly publish a code of practice on litter clearance. It will describe the standards that should be met and advise on the best ways of achieving them.
  Mr. Tony Banks: One of the reasons why some boroughs are cleaner than others is that the people in those boroughs are cleaner. It gives me no pleasure to say that, in Newham, I have one of the dirtiest populations, as measured by the amount of litter that people throw down on the street. What additional resources will the Secretary of State make available to local authorities so that they can enforce these welcome increased penalties? What will he do about those who litter the streets, as they do in London, by digging them up, leaving behind filth that no one appears to be responsible for clearing up?
  Mr. Patten: I imagine that we shall have a good deal of opportunity to discuss resources with the local authority associations in the context of the code of guidance, which we shall certainly publish before we reach these provisions in Committee. Some local authorities with lower rates manage to clean up rather better than others with higher rates. Nevertheless, we are prepared to undertake studies

  41
  of the implications of the code of guidance with the local authority associations, and if there is an argument for more resources, we shall have to face up to it in the revenue support grant negotiations next year.
  Those who pay for their neighbourhood to be cleaned should he able to call their local authority to account if it neglects to discharge its duty. We shall therefore give citizens the right to apply to the magistrates court for a litter abatement order compelling a defaulting authority to clear up litter.
  A similar duty will also fall on certain statutory undertakers such as British Rail and the owners of other land. In addition we shall give local authorities the power to extend the duty to certain types of land in other ownership, such as supermarket car parks, by designating them litter control areas.
  Finally, we look to commercial operators, especially retailers and take-away food shop owners, to take their responsibilities seriously, as a great many already do. As a powerful back-up to moral persuasion we propose—we shall add this to the Bill in Committee—that local authorities should be able to serve on businesses which fall down on the job of litter abatement notice requiring them to keep their frontages clear of litter. I hope that all businesses will behave responsibly; after all, that is in their own interests—filthy frontages are bad for business.
  Mr. Marlow: When this Bill was trailered, there was going to be a measure to deal with that most revolting of all forms of litter: dog mess. I understand that clause 70 provides potential enabling powers to allow my right hon. Friend to bring measures before the House. What is in his mind at the moment? How long does he intend to take to bring those measures forward, and what will they encapsulate?
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill also covers the duties of clearing up dog mess. That subject, like others, will be covered in the code of guidance that we shall issue later this year. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have his comments to make on that code, particularly as it relates to dog mess, a subject in which I know he has shown a commendable interest down the years.
  I also look to manufacturers and retailers to reduce packaging to what is really needed. That will do a great deal to help—
  Mr. Leighton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Patten: Yes, but this will be the last occasion for some time.
  Mr. Leighton: Is the Secretary of State aware that I have organised a meeting for tomorrow night with the Tidy Britain Group in Newham? One of the issues that will be discussed will be that of fines and the attitude of the police. What discussions has he had with the police? Existing legislation provides for a fine of £400, so what is the point of increasing the fine if the present law is not enforced? How many prosecutions have there been, and what discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the police to ensure that the law is enforced?
  Mr. Patten: We have discussed all these issues with our colleagues in the Home Office, who have been in touch with the police. I referred earlier to magistrates courts and
  42
  to the importance of not imposing derisory fines when people are convicted of littering. I do not think that I can add anything to what I said then.
  Part V amends the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, which controls the keeping and use of radioactive materials and the accumulation and disposal of radioactive wastes. At the moment, no radioactive material can be kept or used unless a registration is first granted by my Department or the relevant territorial Department. Similarly, no radioactive waste may be accumulated or disposed of unless that is first authorised.
  Our view is supported by the results of our public consultation exercise. It is that the Act continues to provide an effective control mechanism. The system of registrations and authorisations will remain, but a number of amendments will be made to this part of the Bill to improve its operation and extend its scope.
  Part VI provides new safeguards against risks from genetically modified organisms. It lays the foundation for a comprehensive consent system for the control of the import, keeping or release to the environment of such organisms. Against the background of the increasingly rapid development of technology, the powers that we a re seeking are innovatory, apt and timely.
  Our approach, which has received wide public support, closely reflects the main recommendations of last July's report by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. It is also consistent with European Community directives on a harmonised system to regulate genetically modified organisms.
  Techniques for artifically altering an organism's genes have been exploited only within the past 20 years; yet biotechnology based on these techniques is today an established industry. Substances such as insulin could be produced only with great difficulty by other means.
  Biotechnology has an excellent safety record. Increasingly, however, GMOs may be expected to have a wider environmental impact. Development has already reached the stage at which GMOs are routinely employed in contained factory processes. They may thus reach the wider environment in waste streams, or by accident. Other GMOs are being developed for specific functions such as pest control in the environment at large. Such products offer the prospect of great benefits, but progress depends on their safety being maintained. This part of the Bill is designed to ensure that the environmental risks are properly controlled and that the good safety record continues.
  At the heart of the proposals is a requirement for any person who intends to import, keep or release a GMO to the environment to carry out a risk assessment. When necessary, my Department must be notified and in prescribed cases our consent must be obtained. I envisage making a comprehensive set of regulations setting out the details of the regime. We shall establish a unified system of control in which the new provisions will interlock with existing health and safety and product controls.
  My right hon. Friends and I, and the Health and Safety Commission, will be advised on notifications and consent applications by a Committee whose terms of reference will cover all safety and environmental aspects. I am pleased to announce that Professor John Beringer of Bristol university, who has wide relevant experience, has accepted an invitation to chair the Committee.
  I come now to the Government's proposals to strengthen the protection of the countryside. The Bill

  43
  establishes strong new conservation agencies in England, Scotland and Wales to take on the functions of the Nature Conservancy Council, and, in the Principality, those of the Countryside Commission. These provisions have been carefully designed to build on the experience and knowledge which the NCC and the Countryside Commission have built up over the last 40 years. They will ensure that their inheritance which includes a network of national nature reserves, sites of special scientific interest, national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty—is passed on smoothly to the three successor bodies.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Patten: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to get through most of what I intend to say about the countryside agencies, after which I shall gladly give way to him and other hon. Members.
  The reforms are essential if we are to establish a more sensitive and accountable framework for conservation. It should be easier to co-ordinate the work of the new agencies rather better with those of Government. There will be clear lines of responsibility to the three Secretaries of State who have the task of integrating conservation with other land use policies. The NCC is a major executive and advisory agency, responsible for protecting more than 7 per cent. of the land surface of Great Britain.
  I believe that the House will agree that the reporting lines to Ministers should be as clear as possible. It is Ministers who have to account for the use of those powers, and for the broad framework of policies and priorities for conservation policy. The framework for public regulation must also be sensitive to local needs and concerns. The voluntary approach to conservation in this country depends critically on obtaining the co-operation of individuals, local organisations and communities. We believe that the country agencies will be better placed to achieve this, as conservation continues to rise in importance on the public agenda.
  The current arrangements for the NCC—hallowed though they may be by the passage of time—are actually anomalous in comparison with most other executive non-departmental public bodies acting in the environmental arena. In almost every other arena within my Department's ambit—the built heritage, water, rural development, sport, housing associations—there are separate non-departmental public bodies for Scotland, and in some cases for Wales, too. They report to my right hon. Friends. Where co-ordination is necessary—outside or inside Government—the necessary steps are taken.
  This is a prosaic but fundamental aspect of the machinery of Government and its relationship with non-departmental public bodies, which critics have largely overlooked. They seem to assume that wildlife in Wales and Scotland should be governed from Peterborough and Marsham street, rather than by the people and institutions in those countries. It is a strange and, frankly, patronising argument, which we reject. It is extraordinary for the party that wants a Parliament for Scotland, to argue that the Scottish people cannot be trusted to protect their own environment.
  The new country agencies will be able to tailor the delivery of conservation more closely to regional and local
  44
  needs. Nevertheless, the Government's conservation policies remain as strong as before, as we have demonstrated not only by passing the 1981 Act but by financing it to the tune of an increase of over 160 per cent. in real terms in the NCC's grant over the last decade. We shall also ensure that the new agencies receive funding which fully meets the conservation programmes that they will be required to undertake. There will be no return to the dark days experienced by the NCC as a result of the cuts that were forced on it by the last Government.
  The Bill provides for the new Countryside Council for Wales to have responsibility for countryside issues as well as nature conservancy. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is to assume direct responsibility for nature conservancy in the Principality, it is only logical that he should assume responsibility for the complementary functions of the Countryside Commission. However, as the commission has only 14 staff in Wales, a separate body would not be viable. The Bill therefore establishes one body in Wales to deal with both the wildlife and countryside functions.
  It will be essential for the new agencies to have the right leadership and commitment to their objectives. It is therefore with great pleasure that I am able to tell the House today that Lord Cranbrook has accepted my invitation to serve as the first chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council for England. He is a zoologist with a long track record of achievements in the conservation world, and he was a member of the Natural Environment Research Council from 1982 to 1989. He has always been a clear and independent voice for conservation, and I look forward to working with him. He has kindly agreed to serve in a shadow capacity in the run-up to the reorganisation, and I shall be making a formal announcement about the details shortly. Sir William Wilkinson, who has made a major contribution to the subject, has accepted my invitation to remain as chairman of the NCC until reorganisation.
  While on the subject of appointments, I am now in a position to tell the House that we propose to appoint a most distinguished and independent scientist to be the first chairman of the joint Committee, on which I will have more to say in a moment. Professor Fred Holliday, who is currently the vice-chancellor of Durham university, has accepted my invitation to serve in that capacity. I am sure that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will welcome this news.
  Professor Holliday has had a most distinguished career. He is an outstanding zoologist and has already served a period as chairman of the NCC, from 1977 to 1980. I am sure that he will bring this expertise to the joint Committee, to the benefit of the three new bodies and to nature conservation as a whole. I also hope to appoint him in a new capacity shortly, so that I can have the benefit of his advice as the detailed arrangements for the work of the joint Committee are put in place over the coming months.
  Finally, before I leave the subject, I am delighted to say—this point was referred to before we began our debate—that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has separately announced that Mr. Magnus Magnusson has accepted his invitation to serve as the first chairman of the new NCC for Scotland.
  The English, Welsh and Scottish agencies will operate within a firm statutory framework which will ensure that Great Britain and international issues are dealt with, and that there are comparable standards and protocols for

  45
  scientific work and the designation of sites. I have had many representations about maintaining these aspects of the current NCC remit. These are legitimate concerns which must be met under our plans.
  The wider view is vital—whether to meet our European Community responsibilities to monitor endangered species, or to assist Government in implementing international wildlife conventions. This was recognised from the outset, and the options for meeting these objectives were discussed during the autumn with the NCC itself, and with a wide range of scientific opinion. As a result I was able to announce in the House in November that certain key responsibilities for international and Great Britain nature conservation issues, for setting scientific standards and for commissioning and supporting research on issues which transcend country boundaries would be exercised jointly by the three new country bodies, acting through a statutory joint Committee. The Government's decision to appoint an independent chairman to the joint Committee will enhance the confidence of the wider scientific community and ensure that Great Britain and international matters are viewed from a broad perspective. This will be covered in an amendment to the Bill, which the Government will table in Committee.
  The country agencies will be required to ensure that the joint Committee has adequate resources to provide appropriate scientific advice on matters within its remit. The Bill provides me with reserve powers to direct them to do so, If I believe that their own proposals are not adequate.
  I should emphasise that the arrangements in the Bill, including the establishment of a joint Committee under an independent chairman, meet all the main requirements which the full Nature Conservancy Council itself sought from Ministers, following its meeting to discuss reorganisation last November. The NCC asked for independent and properly resourced agencies for each country, properly backed up by science. Our proposals will set up such agencies. It asked for a co-ordinating Committee with an independent chairman to deal with scientific, Great Britain and international issues. The Bill will establish one. It asked for a secretariat and technical unit to support the Committee, and hence the country agencies. The Bill will allow for this. Furthermore, we will take the opportunity to bring Northern Ireland into the formal arrangements for the first time, so that we can obtain a United Kingdom as well as a Great Britain dimension to nature conservation policies.
  The Bill also delivers two other important commitments. First, it guarantees that every existing NCC scientist—and indeed all existing members of the NCC's staff—will be offered posts in one of the successor bodies. This will ensure that the existing skills and expertise of the NCC are transferred to the new bodies. Secondly, the Bill will provide for the transfer of the NCC's existing property and commitments. This means that the many hundreds of management agreements which the NCC has negotiated will remain in force. It also means that our 235 national nature reserves will be passed on to the stewardship of the country body responsible for the area where they are located.
  Each of the new agencies will inherit precisely the powers and duties of the present Nature Conservancy Council, including those to set up, manage and maintain
  46
  nature reserves. I have been advised that the Bill definitely secures this, but if there is any lingering doubt, I shall be happy to see that it is removed.
  I have no doubt that any reasonable person will view these reforms as a strong and flexible framework for countryside protection throughout the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Ron Davies: It would be churlish of those hon. Members who opposed the original proposals not to recognise the substantial concessions that the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon. I am grateful that he has come such a considerable way from the position outlined by his predecessor when the scheme was announced. However, will he acknowledge that there is still total opposition to the dismemberment of the NCC within that organisation? [Hon. Members: "No."] Perhaps those hon. Members who disagree will have the opportunity to put their point of view later.
  The staff and membership of the NCC are still opposed to its dismemberment. The voluntary organisation is unanimous in its opposition to dismemberment of the NCC.
  Does the Secretary of State recognise that two fundamental questions have not been answered? First, the science base will be undermined by the dismemberment, and nothing that the Secretary of State has said this afternoon has given us any assurances on that. Secondly, nature conservation transcends national boundaries. Issues that are important in Britain are important to the whole of western Europe. The Secretary of State should—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. That is enough for an intervention.
  Mr. Davies: My final point—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is being unfair to the large number of hon. Members who wish to speak.
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ron Davies) said that there was widespread opposition to the proposals within the NCC, and to the proposals that I have announced this afternoon. As far as I am concerned, my proposals meet all the suggestions put to me by the full NCC council.
  I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Caerphilly, and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), to the fact that, among those bodies which appear to support our proposals, are the English, Scottish and Welsh Committees, of the NCC. Indeed, the Welsh Committee of the NCC has enjoyed, or even bathed in, the endorsement of the Leader of the Opposition, who has supported our proposals. As the CID says, I have documentary evidence to support that, should it be required.
  As I said earlier, some issues need to be dealt with on a Great Britain basis, and that is why we are setting up a joint statutory Committee. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly believes that scientists and public servants, such as Lord Cranbrook and Mr. Holliday, would connive to weaken the science base for nature conservancy, I suspect that he does not know as much about the subject as I thought he did.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: If the NCC is so happy, why was Sir John Burnett, the vice-chairman, in the Lobby

  47
  at 2.30, anxious that hon. Members should continue to press the case that some of us have been pressing for months?
  Have Sir William Wilkinson and Sir John Burnett agreed to the Secretary of State's proposals, and could he satisfy one lingering doubt? He talked about the comparable protocols in scientific research. Does that mean that there will be no duplication of scientifically scarce resources between Scotland, England and Wales?
  Mr. Patten: I hope that there wil be no duplication, and that will be one of the tasks that the joint statutory Committee will want to turn its attention to. That Committee will also want to ensure that there is a common scientific base for work throughout Great Britain, but I hope that that does not lead to duplication of scarce scientific resources.
  On the hon. Member's first question, I will not speak for individual members of the NCC, as I am sure that they can speak for themselves—indeed, they have not been slow to do so. The chairman of the NCC wrote to me, on behalf of the council, in November, setting out what he wanted me to do to make the proposals acceptable. I think that, with the best will in the world, I have met the council on every point.
  Part VIII contains a number of small but important measures. In clause 110, we are taking new powers to regulate the trade in waste. I refer to that clause in response to earlier interventions on the subject.
  Clause 111 allows for strengthened controls over the disposal of waste at sea. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, will say more on that subject later, if hon. Members wish.
  In that part of the Bill, we are also giving statutory backing to payments to environmental bodies, such as the United Nations Environment Programme. That has been urged on us on a number of occasions by the Select Committee on the Environment, and I hope that it is pleased with the proposals.
  Having outlined the main elements of the Bill, I shall mention one or two items that time has prevented us from including in the print. At a later stage, we shall introduce an amendment to require information on the environmental hazard of certain industrial chemicals—the so-called "existing chemicals" which have been sold and used for some time—as opposed to new chemicals marketed for the first time. My Department published a consultation paper on the proposals last year. Full account has been taken on the responses in preparing the amendment. I hope that the House will see that as a worthwhile step forward.
  One issue that was covered in the consultation paper, which we have already included in clause 109, is the proposal to broaden the control powers currently contained in section 100 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced to the House on 30 November, we intend seeking powers in the Bill to enable us to prohibit the burning of all crop residues. The intention is that the prohibition will take effect in the late autumn of 1992 to give farmers time to adjust.
  Hon. Members will recall that, before making his Statement, my right hon. Friend conducted a thorough review, which included a careful examination of the
  48
  effectiveness of existing controls. In last year's dry summer, burning straw proved particularly difficult. There were literally thousands of complaints from local authorities, fire brigades and the general public.
  I should emphasise that the problems that arose were not confined to those burns which failed to comply with the byelaws and the National Farmers Union's code of practice. The reduction in public nuisance that a ban would represent will be obvious to anyone who lives, in particular, in eastern and southern England. Our proposals have been warmly welcomed on both sides of the House.
  Hon. Members may have noticed that the Bill does not specifically address the question of Crown immunity. I do not intend that the Crown should be immune from the provisions of the Bill. Far from it: the Government should be seen to be in the lead in protecting the environment. The proposals I will be bringing forward will therefore ensure that where Government Departments do not come up to the required standards, that failure will be plainly identifiable. We will follow the provisions already put into practice in the food safety legislation, that the House is considering at the moment.
  By any standards this is a major Bill. If we judge the importance of legislation by its length—I hope that the same is not true of speeches—I believe that the Bill should be seen as a measure of particular note. It will lay the foundation for pollution control well into the next century. The Bill is a demonstration of our commitment to improve and protect the environment of our own country and to play a major role in international environmental policy.
  No-one can sensibly argue that we can cope with every environmental problem at home and abroad through some great green contraption, wheeled into the heart of Government to provide comprehensive answers to every environmental question. To secure those environmental objectives which most of us share, we need a number of things. We require a good scientific base for our policies; we need to take a precautionary approach whenever it is justified; we require a sensible attitude to environmental economics; we need a sound legislative framework, which this Bill helps to provide; and we need a coherent intellectual framework for coping with all our environmental problems, and that we intend to set out in terms in our White Paper later this year.
  When the time comes, as come it inevitably will, the Government will be content to be judged on their record in working for a cleaner and a greener Britain, and on their plans for contributing to the solution of general environmental problems.
  The Bill is a central part of our strategy for the environment. I apologise for having spent so long setting out its merits to the House. I wanted to go through the provisions in detail, and to respond to every question, if I was able to do so. Therefore, I commend the Bill with enthusiasm to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move,
  That this House declines to give a second reading to the Environmental Protection Bill because of its failure to address the urgent and major problem of global warming; its failure to establish a comprehensive system of integrated pollution control administered by a fully independent, properly staffed and resourced Environmental Protection Executive; its failure to provide sufficient safeguards on the release of genetically

  49
  engineered organisms to the environment; the inclusion of hasty, ill conceived and arbitrary proposals to restructure the Nature Conservancy Council, and because it fails to incorporate into British law proposals arising from the European Community's Fourth Action Programme on the Environment and other international agreements.
  There is no doubt that we need a Bill to protect the environment; unfortunately, this Bill is not it. The environment certainly is in grave danger, and action is urgently needed. The need for an environmental protection Bill has never been greater, but the Government's response to the major threats to the environment, such as global warming, is not to be found in the Bill. Unfortunately, it is still to be found at Noordwijk, where the Minister for the Environment and Countryside committed the Government, yet again, to refusing to accept an internationally agreed timetable and targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish intentionally to mislead the House. I was pleased and proud to lead the United Kingdom delegation to the Noordwijk conference. I therefore assure hon. Members that I was a party to the brokering of the declaration, which fixed a date for the reduction of CO2, emissions to the year 2000. I should be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his comment.
  Mr. Gould: I am afraid that the record simply says otherwise. The Minister may wish to adhere to his position, which he has taken since he returned from Noordwijk, but the record says otherwise, as do other independent observers who were present.
  Mr. Trippier: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, rather than reading some of the selective material produced in certain newspapers by journalists who did not attend the Noordwijk conference, he should read articles that appeared in The Times and The Independent which were written by journalists who were present? I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was a party to the signing of the declaration, which included that date, and played a significant part in brokering the deal.
  Mr. Gould: As I suspected, the Minister will continue to adhere to his position. My information comes from those who were present and who participated in the conference. No doubt that argument will rumble on.
  The Government's failures relate not only to their weaknesses in international negotiations but to their failures in domestic policy. Their response to these grave problems is to be found not in the Bill but in their difficulties in international negotiations and their continuing inability to adopt domestic policies on energy and transport to enable them to commit themselves to reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.
  Mr. Robin Squire: If the hon. Gentleman is unable to accept the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister, will he accept that almost all the measures in the Bill have been widely discussed over several years, and that to introduce proposals on the greenhouse effect, however desirable or important, that would not be discussed or canvassed would lead to the sort of botched legislation that we should not support?
  Mr. Gould: I shall deal with botched legislation, of which the Bill is a prime example.
  50
  The Bill fails to address those major issues. The claim that it is a "green Bill" is vainglorious nonsense. In so far as it has any colour, it is at best mottled, and blue rather than green. It owes more to Tory dogma and ideological obsessions—the free market, an antipathy to local Government and to public spending, the protection of powerful vested interests and all those familiar landmarks of the Tory political landscape—than to any appreciation of the true scale and urgency of the threat to our environment.
  That is not to say that there are no worthwhile or welcome provisions in the Bill. Much of the Bill is welcome—we shall try to improve on those parts in Committee—but overall it is a disappointment.
  Mr. Keith Mans: As the hon. Gentleman likes so little in the Bill, perhaps he will tell the House, apart from the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which was largely a Conservative measure, how many environmental measures the last Labour Government enacted?
  Mr. Gould: If the hon. Gentleman considers the record of the last Labour Government on matters such as energy conservation and public transport, which are crucial to environmental concerns, he will find that the comparison is favourable to that Government.
  The Bill is disappointing because it is little more than a rag-bag of measures drawn from disparate sources, many of which have been dusted down and brought to life again simply to be cobbled together to give it a lick of green paint and the impression of action and cohesion. That is all designed to conceal the fact that the Government have neither the will nor the conceptual ability to understand what is truly required to protect our environment against modern challenges.
  Even judged by those unheroic standards and as a rag-bag, hotch-potch measure, the Bill is still a disappointment. It fails, even in those terms, to legislate on some of the welcome, laudable and relatively minor commitments that the Tory party gave in successive manifestos. For example, where are the measures to protect common land and to safeguard public access to footpaths? Why was not the opportunity taken to legislate on those matters, given that the Government were clearly scrambling around for small measures to sustain their green reputation?
  The problem is that the Bill is such a hotch-potch that it has ended up hopelessly and appallingly badly drafted. Everyone who has considered its provisions—including, I suspect, the Secretary of State's civil servants—agrees that it is riddled with imprecision, conflicting definitions and straightforward drafting errors. It gives the impression of a measure that has been hastily cobbled together and not properly thought through.
  Even when the Secretary of State published the Bill, he had to announce that there were omissions in it that would be made good. Every time he opens his mouth on the subject, he announces yet another series of additions and amendments, and he was at it again today. I note that with gloomy foreboding, because I have seen the Government produce ill-prepared legislation that has required literally hundreds of Government amendments as it has proceeded through the House. I speak as a veteran of the Financial Services Bill and the Insolvency Bill, and my hon. Friends are veterans of the Local Government and Housing Bill.

  51
  We know what a burden is placed on the House and on Committee when the Government introduce badly thought out proposals such as these.
  The Bill exhibits the other characteristic of a measure that has been badly thought out and badly drafted—it is replete with general powers to be created by the Secretary of State, with little sign of how they will be exercised or little assurance that they will be used. For all those reasons, we shall vote against the Bill, on the grounds specified in our reasoned amendment.
  We have more detailed and specific reservations. Even in its major objective—the control of pollution—the Bill is seriously deficient. The introduction of integrated pollution control is welcome but long overdue, as the Secretary of State conceded. It was first recommended by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution as long ago as 1976. Even this part of the Bill is vitiated by a failure to understand the problem. There is little attempt to prevent pollution, merely an attempt to regulate it. The approach is to cast the Secretary of State in the role of the man who comes along with a shovel after the lord mayor's show—in other words, pollution is treated as something to be cleaned up afterwards rather than prevented from the outset.
  There is little recognition that this will often be too late, that environmental damage is increasingly operating on a ratchet which clicks forward but cannot be turned back. What is needed is what the Labour party recommends in its policy review—a presumption against pollution. The benefit of the doubt must be given to the environment. We need to apply a precautionary principle: if in doubt, do not do it. It is not good enough to rely on the "polluter pays" principle—welcome though that may be—as evidence that even the Government recognise the need to intervene in the market and ensure that environmental costs are not always simply externalised.
  There will be some forms of pollution which cannot be tolerated, whoever pays for it. The same point can be made in respect of the BATNEEC principle enshrined in the Bill—the obligation to use best available techniques not entailing excessive cost. How much unacceptable pollution is to be tolerated on the ground that prevention would be excessively costly? Costly to whom? What is excessive, and who is to judge?
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman has talked about the Labour Government's record. Why, when ordering the Drax power station, did they not fit flue gas desulphurisation equipment, although the problem was known? It was left to this Government to retrofit it at much greater cost.
  Mr. Gould: I wish that the Government would proceed with that programme with rather more dispatch than they have shown.
  The experience with other similar phrases in the statute, such as "best practicable means", and the interpretation placed upon them by the inspectorates that apply them do not inspire confidence that the community and the environment will be offered effective protection.
  Similar doubts arise about other provisions in part I. Why will integrated controls apply to such a narrow range of pollutants? Why is the red list so restricted, applying to only 22 chemicals rather than the hundreds that are
  52
  regulated in the United States? Why will it be so slow to take effect? Why are the standards that have been set so low—sometimes they are lower than current practice—that we will lose the advantage of what the experts call "technology forcing", whereby higher regulatory standards compel the development and application of new technology?
  Are we still lumbered with the outdated view that fixing higher environmental standards means imposing a competitive burden on British industry, whereas our more successful rivals in Germany and Japan have repeatedly demonstrated that fixing higher standards confers upon them a technological lead and competitive advantage?
  Why is there such imprecision in the relationship between Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and other authorities such as the National Rivers Authority? Do not those potentially damaging administrative problems show all too clearly the need for an environmental protection executive with comprehensive jurisdiction? Is not this omission from the Bill one of its primary flaws and defects?
  What is the point, as the Secretary of State conceded, of creating a regulatory structure if there is no adequate machinery to enforce it? What reliance can be placed on Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution when it is notoriously under-researched and understaffed and its morale is consequently at rock bottom?
  Are the Government ready to accept the recommendation of Friends of the Earth that a threefold increase in the staff of Her Majesty's inspectorate will be needed if the Bill is to be effective? Will the Government pay attention to their friends in the CBI, the Chemical Industries Association and even in the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors, all of which in their different ways have expressed grave fears and reservations about the inspectorate's effectiveness in its current State in regulating and monitoring the regulatory structure?
  Why is there no overriding commitment to freedom of information? I listened with great interest to what the Secretary of State had to say on this subject. In common with, I suspect, all my hon. Friends, I was amazed at his initial remark on this subject, but I am afraid that our amazement turned to an all-too-familiar disappointment when we heard the weasel words, "subject to the exception of commercial confidentiality".
  We know all too well, even if the Secretary of State does not, that that exception is so wide as to render virtually nugatory the fine words with which he tried to blind us. Why is no duty imposed on industry to carry out waste orders? These are some of the points in part I on which we wish to press the Government in Committee.
  We have similar reservations about part II.
  Mr. Chris Patten: I am following the hon. Gentleman's comments closely and should like to clear up one point. Is he saying that commercial confidentiality should never be taken into account in deciding whether to make environmental information available?
  Mr. Gould: I am glad to answer that point. Of course we are not saying that. We say that a commitment to freedom of information—to public access to information provided to the inspectorate—is rendered nugatory if it is subjected to an unspecified and undefined exception in respect of commercial confidentiality. We will need to hear a great

  53
  deal more from the Secretary of State and hear more about the Bill before we can give any credence to his apparently wide-ranging assurances on this subject.
  Mr. Patten: I should like if we can to secure a measure of agreement, because it seems as though we are not as far apart as I had thought. We will certainly publish the guidance of which we think the inspectorate and Ministers should take account in determining what constitutes legitimate confidentiality. I hope that we can publish that guidance before we reach that part of the Bill in Committee. [Interruption.] I am not sure what the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) is saying to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) out of the corner of her mouth, but perhaps it is part of the consensus building. I hope that, in the light of my comments, the hon. Gentleman will agree that our proposal is reasonable, balancing access to information and those occasional examples of commercial confidentiality which must be honoured.
  Mr. Gould: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, because his intervention concedes the entire point that I was making. He has just admitted that he has yet to publish the information on which we will be expected to make a judgment. As we do not yet have that information and have had no assurances about what it will contain, we are right to be cautious about the apparent amplitude of the assurances that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to offer the House.
  We will carefully look at what the Secretary of State produces. Let us see whether his actions and the words in his guidance note match the breadth of the commitment that he purported to give.
  Mr. David Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware of the situation in my borough involving a firm dealing in toxic waste called Leigh Interests, on which a Select Committee reported, stating that the relationship between the council and that firm was at an all-time low? Is my hon. Friend aware that, although there may be some limited improvements in the Bill, that firm will continue to operate in the borough and cause all the difficulties that it has been causing in the past two or three years? That is far from the substantial improvement that many of us locally would like to see.
  Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend makes a point that I made earlier—the much touted move towards integrated pollution control will take a long time to come into effect and will have a pretty limited application.
  In respect of parts I and II, we welcome recognition of the fact—this is unusual for the Government—that local authorities have a key role to play. We argue, as we have argued in the past, that for a long time local authorities have been local environmental protection agencies. They have been in the front line in the fight against pollution, waste and litter. But there is no point in creating new duties and functions in relation to pollution, waste management and litter unless resources are provided commensurate with those new duties. The explanatory and financial memorandum is laughably over-optimistic on that score. The Government must think again. Any excess of spending—even if mandatory—will fall disproportionately on poll tax payers under the new poll tax arrangements.
  54
  We believe that the Government have been over-optimistic in arguing that local authorities will cover their costs in a variety of ways. If the exercise of the new duties involves extra spending that has not been taken into account in the revenue support grant, the poll tax will rise by four times the amount of every item or unit of that additional spending, as the Secretary of State well knows. That means that the Government have a grave responsibility to ensure that resources are provided to local authorities for every aspect of the new duties and responsibilities that they are being asked to undertake under the Bill.
  There are other aspects of part II with which we are unhappy. If the separation of waste disposal functions from waste regulation functions is so essential—and not merely, as we believe it to be, a prelude to privatisation—why is that not also true for Scotland? What is so different about Scotland? As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) asked in an earlier intervention, why is there nothing in the Bill to deal with waste reduction or packaging? Why are there no measures to deal with the problem at source? Why is there nothing about clean technology? If the Bill is meant to contain the Government's comprehensive Statement of their policy on waste management, that policy is woefully deficient in those respects.
  So far, we have been talking about errors of omission. But there are also errors of commission, the most notable of which is the proposal to dismember the Nature Conservancy Council.
  Dr. Derek Ratcliffe, who recently retired as the NCC's chief scientist, wrote in The Times of 15 July:
  "The Government's proposals to dismember the NCC are a potential disaster for nature conservation in Britain."
  Nothing that has happened since—no expression of opinion from those primarily involved in nature conservancy, and nothing that the Secretary of State has announced today or in recent weeks and months—has changed that basic judgment or the accuracy of the view of that well-respected commentator.
  The measure flatly contradicts any claim that the Bill may have to be a green Bill. It threatens major damage to nature conservancy in Britain. The dissolution of the Nature Conservancy Council will throw away 40 years of experience and scientific effort. The proposal threatens the destruction of an important and painfully constructed Great Britain-wide science base. It will deny the Government an essential expert adviser on matters of national concern and deprive the increasingly important international environmental effort of a powerful partner and participant.
  Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman is totally out of touch with present-day thinking. The majority of members of the Nature Conservancy Council are in favour of the proposal. We have a scientific Committee with a most distinguished chairman and we look forward to the establishment of a satisfactory scientific base in the home countries.
  Mr. Gould: Let me say straight away that I am the first to pay tribute to the heroic restraint shown by the NCC in public. I am absolutely satisfied that the NCC remains implacably opposed to the principle of its own destruction.
  Sir Hector Monro: But I am a member.
  Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman may be a member but he is not entitled to speak—
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Hon. Members: Give way!
  Mr. Gould: If Conservative Members would cease their baying and allow me to hear what is happening on the Opposition Benches, I shall gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Welsh Committee of the Nature Conservancy Council, building on its long experience of trying to extend its own scientific base and working alongside the other nature conservation agency in Wales—the Countryside Commission Committee for Wales—warmly welcomed the proposals? I was lobbied both publicly and privately and asked to ensure that the Welsh Office does not surrender any of the ground that the commitee regards as a major strengthening of environmental conservation in Wales.
  Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman is referring to a different matter. [Laughter.] Conservative Members' response shows how little they understand what is truly at issue. They do not understand the central concern of the Nature Conservancy Council. What is at issue is not the degree of devolution or arrangements in Wales or Scotland for the protection of the Welsh or Scottish environment.
  The Opposition would welcome a substantial element of devolution, as I shall shortly say in terms. But we say, "Devolution, yes, but destruction and dissolution, no." Why is it necessary to dismember, destroy and dissolve the Nature Conservancy Council? That is the central question that the Secretary of State, for all his manoeuvring, has yet to resolve. He has not yet been able to square that circle, and I shall explain why in a moment.
  The proposal moves in the opposite direction to the trend of international and European co-operation and standards throughout Europe and elsewhere, which is increasingly being regarded as the way forward in environmental protection. The proposal was introduced without consultation. It came as a bombshell to the NCC. It has few friends, if any, among conservationists. Virtually all the major conservation bodies oppose it, and that includes the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, a body whose name has been taken in vain by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who listed it as a supporter of the measure. That has been flatly contradicted by the APRS.
  This provision, above all others in the Bill, is badly drafted. It fails—at least, it arguably fails—to provide the necessary power in the hands of the new council. In trying to deal with the question whether the Bill transfers to the council the absolutely essential power to establish, maintain and manage nature reserves, even the Secretary of State had to concede that he would need to take further advice to ensure that the Bill achieved that objective. It is hard to believe that such an omission or defect could be the consequence of mere incompetence.
  Mr. Chris Patten: Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the legal advice that we have received from draftsmen is perfectly clear: we do not need to write that provision into the Bill. But if it is felt in Committee
  56
  that we need both belt and braces, and if that point can be made overwhelmingly, I am content to write into the Bill what I am told at the moment is not necessary.
  Mr. Gould: I am glad to have that assurance from the Secretary of State, but the very terms of his assurance and his earlier remarks show that even in his mind there remains a doubt that may have to be resolved.
  Part VII of the Bill is unequal and complicated in its effect. It is internally inconsistent. It creates different structures for different parts of the country, and those structures are to be created according to different timetables.
  Why has this friendless measure been introduced? The game was given away in the September edition of Forestry and British Timber. [HON. MEMBERS: "Really!"] Ah. Conservative Members believe that that is not a source on which one can rely. Nevertheless, I suspect that this is, indeed, the truth of the matter. An article in that publication makes it clear that Ministers have acted in this matter because they disliked the robust stance taken by the NCC against afforestation in the flow country. It says:
  "One of the tasks of the new Scottish natural heritage agency will be to investigate all SSSIs and sweep away the dross created by indiscriminate conservation."
  There, I suspect, is the truth of the matter. That is the pressure that has been brought to bear on the Government to produce the measure, which has no logic or support to commend it.
  Mr. Adley: I gather that the Welsh nationalists, the Scottish National party, the Social and Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party all take the same view on this issue. The sole exception is the Labour party. Do I take it, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman regards splendid isolation on political issues as matter for commendation?
  Mr. Gould: Clearly the hon. Gentleman was not listening to me. It is perfectly clear that on this issue the Labour party is supported by all those involved in nature conservancy and the protection of the environment. That remains the case. Even today I received a copy of a lengthy letter addressed to the Secretary of State for Scotland by the Worldwide Fund for Nature's Scottish conservation office which expressed again, on behalf of that organisation and others which have been involved in conversations with the Secretary of State, fundamental reservations and opposition to the measure.
  The Government may look for political allies, and that confirms my view that the Bill is a political measure. However, when we judge the measure according to nature conservancy and protecting the environment, I am content to look to allies with some expertise in that area.
  Mr. Chris Patten: While the hon. Gentleman is on this point, will he clear up the issue about where the Leader of the Opposition stands in relation to this matter? Does the Leader of the Opposition agree with the political consensus referred to by hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), or has the Leader of the Opposition changed his mind? As the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) will be aware, on 6 November the Leader of the Opposition's Secretary told one of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents:
  "Mr. Kinnock was grateful for the information provided and welcomes the proposal to establish a Countryside Council for Wales."
  Is that still the position of the Leader of the Opposition?
  Mr. Gould: The Secretary of State is being uncharacteristically slapdash. He failed to understand my earlier point, and his advisers have failed to draw his attention to Hansard of 7 December. In an Adjournment debate on that date, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) referred to the point in the same terms that I have dealt with it.
  The Secretary of State continues to confuse the extent of devolution in Wales and Scotland in nature conservancy and protection and the separate point about the destruction of the Nature Conservancy Council. We regard the latter point as being unacceptable and that destruction is condemned in Britain as a whole and in Scotland by such bodies as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Friends of the Earth and vast majority of the community concerned with such issues.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: How can the Labour party support the devolution of nature conservancy to Scotland without recognising that we must create a separate Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland? It is not convincing to claim that the two issues are separate.
  Mr. Gould: I will gladly deal with that point. We are not opposed to some element of devolution and we would welcome that and intend to bring forward our proposals when we return to Government. However, any element of devolution must be genuine devolution. It must not be achieved through the creation of a non-accountable quango based on a deal cobbled together between the Scottish Office and a minority of vested interests. It must be based on a genuine devolution affecting all of Scotland's interests, not just those of a powerful minority who want afforestation to proceed.
  The devolution must be motivated by a genuine desire to improve the Scottish environment and it must not damage or fragment the increasingly international breadth of the conservation efforts being made throughout Europe and beyond. The Government's proposals fail on all those counts, and that is why we oppose the Bill.
  The Secretary of State recognises the force and justice of our arguments. We must be clear that the proposals are not like other proposals that the Secretary of State inherited in other parts of the brief. We can perhaps forgive the Secretary of State for feeling himself to be locked in on such matters as the poll tax and water privatisation. We can understand that he may feel that he cannot do much about those matters. However, the Secretary of State must bear the responsibility for the proposals under consideration today.
  The Secretary of State is unable to buck the deal which has been made. He has been unwilling to face up to the possibility of a Cabinet battle in order to rid himself of these unpopular and friendless measures. That is why he has come forward with an absolutely typical response. He has recognised the force of the argument and the need to maintain a national body to maintain the scientific base to participate in international arrangements and to advise the Government on national policy.
  In recognising that, the right hon. Gentleman pulls the rug from under the proposals. In his attempt to deal with the force of the argument, he comes forward, typically, with a cosmetic arrangement which appears to give back what has been taken away, but really leaves the substance of the proposals unchanged. That is what is wrong with this part of the Bill, even with the changes announced by
  58
  the Secretary of State today. Having destroyed the Nature Conservancy Council, he is trying to undo the damage with a device that will satisfy no one and which falls far short of what is required to make the new co-ordinating body effective.
  That is why so many questions have been left unanswered. The RSPB wants to know where is the independent budget for the co-ordinating Committee, where are the staff to carry out Great Britainwide functions and where are the powers to direct the agencies as to priorities in conservation matters. It is not too late for the Secretary of State to withdraw this ill-considered measure, and I urge him to do so now.
  There is much more to be said. With regard to litter, the Secretary of State and I agree that filthy streets in our cities are one of the major and most viable manifestations of what is going wrong in Britain today. There is no point in willing the ends without willing the means.
  With regard to genetically modified organisations—[Laughter.] I am sorry, I meant genetically modified organisms. However, we are well accustomed to dealing with such organisations when dealing with the Government. Part VI is also very important, and it is badly drafted. We will have to pay particular attention to that issue in Committee.
  With regard to dumping at sea, the Bill perpetrates a confidence trick which diverts attention from the fact that Britain remains the only country which continues to dump dangerous chemicals in the North sea, and that should be a cause of shame and regret. However, the Government persist in refusing to accept any timetable in that matter or any commitment to ending that practice.
  The Bill is defective, and it will provide an enormous amount of work for the Standing Committee if it is to be made effective and workable. We face that task with good will, and we intend to improve the Bill in Committee. We believe that it can be made more effective and that some of the deficiencies can be made good. If the Secretary of State will listen to reason, we believe that some of the Bill's mistakes and errors of commission can be remedied.
  We do not give up hope on the Bill. That is why we are not flatly opposing it by simply voting against the Second Reading. We are opposing it on a reasoned amendment which sets out the basis of our disquiet, concern and disappointment. That is why we ask the House to support our reasoned amendment and to vote against the Bill.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. Members of Mr. Speaker's announcement that the 10-minute limit on speeches will operate from 6 o'clock.
  5.49 pm
  Sir Hugh Rossi: I cannot for one moment accept the hyperbole of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) or the Labour party's ridiculous posture in imposing a three-line Whip on a Bill of this sort. I can only assume that, after a disastrous and dismal record of neglect in Government, the Labour party is now trying to prove to the country that it is like the proverbial fig—green on the outside while remaining red on the inside.
  I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has only recently come to these issues, but he should be far more careful about his sources than he clearly was in the preparation of

  59
  his speech. It is no good relying on sources reporting what the Minister said at a meeting which the Minister does not recognise, or relying on what the Nature Conservancy Council has said internally when all its public Statements are quite to the contrary. The hon. Gentleman diminishes his arguments by making such a speech.
  I must confess that I am a little disappointed with the Bill—[Interruption.] I should like to know what Bill is not a disappointment to most hon. Members. I am disappointed that the Bill does not contain all that I should like to see in it. Nevertheless, it contains a large number of useful and long-needed measures which it would be totally irresponsible to vote down.
  I welcome part I because of the integrated pollution control regime that it introduces. As has been said on previous occasions, it is impossible to separate the interrelationship between land, water and air and the effect that emissions into one has upon all the others. Environmentalists outside the House have generally recognised that part I will introduce the most stringent form of pollution control to be found in Europe. That is something to be proud of, not to be thrown away lightly or for party political reasons.
  However, I wish to put some questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the implementation of IPC. The burden of ensuring IPC will lie upon Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. In recent months, many worrying reports and rumours have circulated about the State of morale in HMIP. There have been successive resignations, overshadowed by the recent tragic death of its latest head, Brian Ponsford, to whom the Secretary of State rightly paid tribute. Does that not underline the existing lack of morale in HMIP? Can the prevailing idea that IPC can be achieved by asking one inspector to look after all aspects of pollution control on an industrial site be sound? Instead, would it not be better for separate disciplines, knowledge and training to be involved, quite apart from the distinct traditions of the different inspectorates that have been brought together to form HMIP? Surely IPC should not mean one man trying to tackle all the problems of air, land and water. It means multi-disciplinary teams of experts working together over a common problem.
  I should like that idea to be promulgated within HMIP, and I should like my right hon. Friend to take charge of HMIP strategy, structure, formation and resources, to make sure that the present unhappy State can be corrected. My right hon. Friend referred to the number of inspectors in post and the Bill envisages the creation of 15 new inspectors, but the announcement in October 1988 that more inspectors will be recruited has not been implemented. My right hon. Friend has sought more money from the Treasury and has increased salary scales, but even now, because of the overall position of HMIP, he has not been as successful as he would like in the recruitment of a vital force to ensure that the legislation has teeth and is effective.
  The difficulty of interface between HMIP and the National Rivers Authority must be resolved if difficult demarcation disputes are not to arise and affect the morale of one or other of those bodies. These are serious administrative matters for the Secretary of State. Hon.
  60
  Members cannot deal with them on the Floor of the House—it is not within our competence to do so—but we can ask my right hon. Friend to give them personal attention.
  I welcome, too, in part I the reinforcement of the principle that the polluter pays. The most significant provision in part I is the requirement for the payment of, I hope, substantial fees for authorisations. If a polluter finds that he must pay a lot of money to emit pollution, he will look at ways within his processes to reduce emissions so that he can get a cheaper authorisation in future. That is how I hope the system will work.
  Like the hon. Member for Dagenham, I am a little troubled by the wording of the condition that processes should use the
  "best available techniques not entailing excessive cost to prevent, and minimise releases of, prescribed substances".
  On the face of it, the requirement seems admirable and should encourage waste minimisation, which is essential. It is certainly an advance on the old formula of "best practical means". However, I am not clear about the words "excessive cost". Do they mean excessive in proportion to the cost of the processes being carried out or excessive in proportion to the cost of cleaning up the environment or making good damage that is caused by processes?
  The difference in definition is crucial and will make a great deal of difference to the way in which industry's attitudes are fashioned and altered by our legislation. I hope that that matter will be clarified in Committee to the satisfaction of hon. Members.
  Part II deals with the control of waste management, a matter to which the Select Committee's report on toxic waste, which was published more than a year ago, is highly relevant. I warmly welcome those aspects of the Bill which strengthen controls on waste management. They are very much along the lines of my Committee's recommendations. In particular, the concept of duty of care from cradle to grave in respect of all waste is of outstanding importance.
  It is important that we do not delay the passage of the Bill for other considerations. My right hon. Friend knows that I should have preferred the principle of strict liability, rather than reasonable care, to be imposed. Reasonable care raises the concept of negligence and all the defences that can arise in negligence cases. Again, the Standing Committee might care to examine that matter further. I should like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Minister of State to tell me when the code of practice, which is at the heart of the duty of care, is to be issued for consultation because people outside the House are waiting anxiously to see the extent of the advice that is to be given about the duty of care.
  My right hon. Friend referred to my next point and he knows that I must do so, too. He knows that I am more than disappointed that the Government have not accepted the Committee's recommendations for larger licensing units. We suggested that there should be 10 regulatory authorities for the United Kingdom, structured along the lines of the successful London Waste Regulation Authority, rather than continuing the existing framework of local authorities which, as was clearly shown in the evidence adduced by my Committee, has largely failed in the task given to it. Although some local authorities are obviously better than others, the bad ones are very, very bad.

  61
  We are left with the anxiety of how, when there are 173 authorities dealing with these matters, we can achieve the uniformity of practice and standards throughout the United Kingdom that is essential if we are not to perpetuate the current situation of rubbish and waste being moved from one part of the country to another simply because in that other area the regulations and controls are less strict and the local authority does not care or charge enough. I expect that we shall return to this matter in the future.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Hugh Rossi: I should like to, but if I am not careful I shall overstray the time limit.
  There is an attempt in part II to meet our criticism of the poacher-gamekeeper regime that is operated by the current structure of local waste authorities, which are based partly on the county councils and partly on the district councils. However, the provisions seem to leave in place the system under which the variations in standards are so worrying.
  My attention has been drawn to clause 41, which it is suggested will cause considerable confusion and difficulty—especially in London—the area with which I am most concerned as I am a London Member of Parliament. In Greater London, the waste disposal duties will be carried out by the four statutory authorities and 12 local authorities; the duties for waste collection will be carried out by the 33 London boroughs and the duties for waste regulation will rest, as now, with the London Waste Regulation Authority. It is proposed that the duties for preparing waste disposal plans will rest with the waste regulation authorities for the whole of the United Kingdom, except in London. There, the duty will rest with the 33 London boroughs, which are the collection authorities, not even the disposal authorities. I cannot see the logic behind that framework.
  The duty of the collection authorities to produce waste recycling plans requires consultation with the waste disposal authorities where the duties differ. However, in Greater London there is no requirement for the London boroughs to consult the London Waste Regulation Authority about either waste recycling plans or waste disposal plans.
  Mr. Paul Marland: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Hugh Rossi: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I should rather not give way because I do not want to detain the House for too long.
  The provisions that deal with the preparation of these most important plans do not lay down a timetable although we have had the experience of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Today, 15 years later, a disgracefully large number of local authorities have still not submitted their waste disposal plans to the Department. However, a Bill has been presented to us in which local authorities are to be required to produce further plans but which does not lay down a timetable. This matter requires remedy.
  I could continue to discuss many other aspects of the Bill, but I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate and I do not want to abuse my opportunity. Generally speaking, the conclusions of the hon. Member for Dagenham about the Nature
  62
  Conservancy Council are unfounded in view of the Statements that my right hon. Friend has made today. My right hon. Friend has met all the objections that have been raised hitherto about the proposal for the creation of three regional bodies. I welcome especially the imposition of a duty on local authorities to keep their streets clean, rather than them merely having a power to do so. The residents of Haringey and the constituents of Hornsey and Wood Green will bless my right hon. Friend for that. I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I shall endeavour to discuss my party's attitude to this big Bill in the 10 minutes available to me, but I shall obviously be unable to cover some points. First, I must make it clear that we shall support the Bill and that we do not support the Labour party's rather spurious opposition to the Bill as it stands. We should certainly like a more radical Bill, but that is different from whether one should support the Bill as it stands. There are urgent environmental problems in this country and it would be appropriate to ensure that the Bill addresses them. We shall table amendments accordingly.
  The Bill does not address the need to change attitudes and habits. Nor does it deal with the problems of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions which it could address. The Bill does not take the action on chlorofluorocarbons which the West German Government already have in hand. It does not set adequate targets for recycling, although that may be achieved in Committee. The Bill does not reduce the pressure on local communities faced with an upsurge of new toxic waste disposal applications, to which I referred when I intervened in the Secretary of State's speech. The Bill does not set standards or codes of practice; it only enables those standards to be set. Such standards and codes of practice should be published while the Bill is in hand.
  The Bill falls short in terms of actions taken by councils that the Liberal-Democrats control or influence. We are doing things that other authorities should be doing, and it is a pity that at this stage the Bill has not adopted the best practice that Liberal-Democrat councils have established throughout the country, which has been acknowledged not only by our party but by environmental organisations.
  The Bill does not deal with public transport policy—legitimately I am sure that the Secretary of State will say—or the need to achieve the dramatic increases in energy efficiency that the Department of Energy says can be achieved but has no plans to set in hand. The Bill does not address the need to change manufacturing technology so that we eliminate many waste disposal problems and ensure that recycling is a characteristic that is built into product manufacture in the future. But although there are many gaps in the Bill, there are also many elements that we support and that we shall seek to strengthen by amendments.
  It has already been said that the integrated pollution control section of the Bill is only an enabling section and that its real value will depend on the measures that the Secretary of State introduces and on the codes of practice and standards that are established. It is acknowledged that the present position has been reached by a piecemeal approach that needs sorting out. Unfortunately, now,

  63
  before the Bill is law, we have a proliferation of applications for planning permission and for new licences for existing toxic waste sites.
  It looks like a break for cover before the new regulations come into effect. Most local authorities are understandably ducking out. Nobody wants to give planning permission or to issue licences for new toxic waste sites, and most of the applications will land on the Secretary of State's desk, if they have not already done so. Therefore, it is in the right hon. Gentleman's own interest to establish those standards so that he can use them as a means of judging applications.
  In the past few weeks, I have visited a number of existing and proposed sites, in places like Doncaster, Walsall and Matlock, and the Rechem facility at Pontypool. I have seen how contentious those sites are, and how much local opposition there is. In Doncaster, Matlock and Walsall, there is concern about toxic waste getting into the water system, about processes that do not fulfil the claims that were made for them and about gases and carcinogenic materials being released into the atmosphere. The public are not sure that the existing set-up gives adequate safeguards.
  The Rechem plant at Pontypool uses a system that I understand would be banned in West Germany. I was not happy to see a door through which toxic wastes and polychlorinated biphenyls were being loaded left open without a canopy. There had been a blow back, and I could see smoke seeping out while I was watching. Although the management told me that the draught would pull this through, I was not reassured by what I saw. I should like a system that would give more public assurance and more control.
  I am also concerned about the fact that local authorities will be responsible for long-term monitoring of sites tht have been developed by commercial interests. It is not right that commercial interests should secure the profit and leave the public sector to underwrite the long-term protection of the environment and the costs of environmental damage that might be so produced.
  Litter is not very exciting, but it causes widespread concern, and there is no doubt that the politicians who can solve the problem of dog excrement will be one of the most popular people in the country, because this problem continually recurs with no adequate resolution. The habits of many of our citizens are less than the best in dealing with their litter and environment. Without singling them out, I have to say that I am concerned when I walk and drive round the streets of Aberdeen to see the citizens throwing litter out of car windows and dropping it on the pavement without regard to the mess that they are causing or the cost of cleaning it up. We must encourage people to be more litter-conscious.
  We have to be cautious about genetically modified organisms. There is a temptation to believe that we can play God and fix the environment. These processes should be treated on a case-by-case approach, and carte blanche should not be given to even the most reputable of organisations.
  The most contentious issue is, predictably, the reform of the Nature Conservancy Council. My party has long called for the devolution of nature conservancy to Scotland and Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for
  64
  Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) was the first to call for the creation of a Scottish nature conservancy council. Therefore, we welcome the proposal, although we shall table some detailed amendments.
  It is extraordinary that the Labour party opposes this move. Because this proposal was introduced by the previous Secretary of State, whom they understandably did not like, many of the environmental groups have not worked out the logic of the argument. I have asked them to explain why it is impossible for a Scottish body, a Welsh body and an English body to establish nature conservancy standards that meet the needs of the local communities and the environmentalists.
  The issue is how these are constituted, whether they are genuinely independent and whether they can ensure that the local community and conservation interests are properly represented. We shall press to ensure that that is the case. We want adequate funding, and where there is a United Kingdom-wide case for joint research and advice, that should be produced. The Government have responded to many of the representations, and we look forward to clearing up the details in Committee.
  As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I find some of the arguments against this proposal patronising and arrogant, and based on the assumption that people in England have a greater commitment to the environment than those of us who live, work and have our being in Scotland. Many do not realise that, in large parts of Scotland, people are the endangered species. They should be taken into account and their interests should be monitored. Fish farming must be done in an environmentally sensitive way, forestry must be to scale and in a way that takes account of local needs and species must be protected; a body based in Scotland and staffed by Scottish people would be capable of doing that.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will go even further in his devolution and establish the body in the north of Scotland, because many of the most contentious environmental issues are there. Furthermore, the Government should accept that a Scottish body should be based outside the central belt and in the rural areas that it is designed to serve.
  I have cantered over this long and detailed Bill as quickly as I can. It is useful, in that it gives us an opportunity to deal with legislation on environmental issues. It is not the radical Bill that is needed to tackle the global and major environmental problems, but it can address some of the other issues. We shall be tabling amendments to strengthen the Bill and to clarify the Government's points. We shall introduce some means to ensure that the Bill is more radical. However, we do not see any justification for opposing the Bill. The opportunity to legislate on environmental matters should be welcomed and the Labour party has made a tactical mistake in deciding to oppose it. It will be labelled a party that is not prepared to legislate on the environment and to use the opportunity presented by the Bill. Instead, it is trying to frustrate it.
  6.15 pm
  Sir Charles Morrison: I am glad of the support of the Social and Liberal Democrats for much of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is proposing, and I agree with what the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said about nature conservation—a

  65
  subject that will occupy most of my speech. However, I shall start with a few remarks about other aspects of the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the White Paper on the environment to be published later this year. I hope that, before he draws his conclusions about what should be included in the White Paper, he will take account of the views that may be expressed by the many voluntary environmental organisations, and perhaps even go so far as to consult some of them.
  Meanwhile, it can be reasonably claimed that the Bill is State-of-the-art legislation. It is good for environmental protection, for conservation, for the appearance of town and country and for my temper because, for once, I can give a Bill my wholehearted support—somthing that I have not been able to give to a lot of other legislation that we have had recently.
  I am glad that the powers of local authorities to deal more easily with local nuisances, particularly noise, are to be strengthened. Noise is one of the most insidious and infuriating interferences in people's private lives, so I hope that local authorities will not hold back in the use of their new strength and power. I welcome the statutory duty on litter to be put on local authorities.
  What will be the position with litter on roads and motorways? Will litter on motorways be the responsibility of the local authority through whose area the motorway runs, or will it be the responsibility of the Department of Transport? For the next three months, when grass and undergrowth are at their lowest, it will be evident that motorways are a disgrace. I hope that the duties imposed on local authorities to control litter will also apply to the Department of Transport.
  I am glad to note that, since my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced his proposed ban on straw burning, plans for the construction of factories to make use of straw in paper production have been mooted. That shows yet again that necessity is the mother of invention. None the less, the Government must realise that, in some parts of the country, the ban on straw burning will result in difficulties, particularly where soils are thin and the incorporation of straw is difficult.
  Farmers will wish to use more nitrogen to increase the breakdown of straw, and that will lead to difficulties with water purity. Additionally, areas such as Salisbury plain and the Cotswolds have thousands of adjacent acres of straw at harvest time. My right hon. Friends will have to give careful consideration to the possibility of a licensing system, if only to create fire breaks for fear that there may be a huge conflagration covering many thousands of acres.
  In considering the proposed changes for nature conservation, I wish that we did not have to be where we are. In theory, the Nature Conservancy Council meets the need. It provides the Government with advice on conservation, it manages national nature reserves, informs and warns the public, and initiates inquiries and research. Annually it produces an excellent report, albeit not as attractive or as readable as that published by the Game Conservancy, of which I am chairman.
  Why, therefore, propose changes in the structure of the NCC, amending the manner in which England, Scotland and Wales are to be dealt with? The answer is that the NCC is not working out in practice as well as it should or as well as it needs to. Based at Peterborough, it is virtually
  66
  impossible for it to take full account of the delicate sensitivities of people in Scotland and Wales, let alone in some parts of England.
  Too many of those who work for the NCC—I am sorry to have to say this—appear to have forgotten that, in advancing the cause of nature conservation, one cannot disregard or even discount the influence, interest and interests of the most important mammal on earth, man. Even when account has been taken of the importance of mankind, too often NCC personnel on the ground have not taken adequate account of mankind's interest and interests.
  If we want successful conservation, we must take account of farmers, farm workers, landowners, foresters, forestry workers, gamekeepers and local councillors who are elected to represent local people and their opinions. I do not claim for a moment that all those people are right all the time. Far from it. Often they are wrong. If nature conservation is to proceed effectively, the feathers of all those assorted birds must be smoothed, not ruffled.
  Far too often, feathers have been ruffled when some NCC employee, often young, perhaps still wet behind the ears and with limited experience and a limited view of life, lands on an important site for conservation, like Christopher Columbus having just discovered America, and behaves as if no one has ever been there before and certainly as if no one has paid any attention to its conservation. Yet, often, the basic reason why the site has retained the characteristics which give it its significance is that, by his action or purposeful inaction for the past 10, 20, 40 or even 50 years, the farmer or landowner has maintained the site, only to discover that from now on he is to be treated as a threat to its preservation.
  When that happens, there is bound to be a political reaction. In this case, it has meant that many people do not have the confidence that they should have in the existing NCC structure. The moral to be drawn by all organisations and Government Departments is that they must pay attention to the people on the ground.
  The Government are right to propose an alternative structure based on the component parts of the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that in future people in Scotland and Wales will be able to take pride in their council as they cannot do in the NCC at present. I have no doubt also that the Secretaries of State will compete furiously with each other to extract more money from the Treasury for the benefit of conservation.
  The establishment of the joint Committee is of fundamental importance, but there is a bit of an anomaly in that the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales has responsibility for nature conservation as well as the countryside, whereas the chairmen of the Nature Conservancy Council for England and for Scotland do not have countryside responsibilities. What consideration has my right hon. Friend given, if not to the amalgamation of the NCC and Countryside Commission, at least to their close involvement, perhaps through the joint Committee?
  What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to the advancement of nature conservation via the European Commission? It will become increasingly necessary to have the equivalent of a Nature Conservancy Council, perhaps on a mini basis, available to the Commission to advise it as the NCC advises our Government. If that council does not exist, it will be to the disadvantage of nature

  67
  conservancy throughout Europe. It will make the task of producing sensible European legislation more difficult than it needs to be.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: Like many others, I welcome many of the provisions in the Bill but, as they have said, it is extremely limited. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, the crucial issues of global warming and acid rain are not mentioned—
  Mr. Chris Patten rose—
  Mr. Oakes: I am sorry not to give way, but I am under the 10-minute rule for speeches. Perhaps the Minister who replies can deal with the matter.
  I am surprised that the Secretary of State said that the Bill was central to the Government's strategy for dealing with environmental pollution. Many people will be surprised at that because, as many Tory Members realise, we are talking about what will probably be the major battleground of the next general election. The British people are extremely worried about the environment. They voted massively, in protest, for the Green party at the European elections. I do not think that they will do that at the general election, but they will compare Conservative and Labour policies. If this Bill is central to the Government's strategy for dealing with environmental pollution, I am afraid that the electorate will find the Conservative party considerably wanting.
  Although many of the aims of the Bill are laudable and well intentioned, I fear that the Government will not put money where their mouth is. It is clear from the explanatory and financial memorandum at the beginning of the Bill that the mean way in which resources are planned will not match the considerations that local authorities will be asked to express. These ideas have been around for a decade and some for longer. To use appropriate language, this is legislative uncontrolled tipping. All the matters are swept together in one Bill.
  In particular, I welcome the provisions on recycling. I congratulate the Secretary of State on having got the word recycling and any idea of it into the Bill. Fifteen years ago, when I was Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, I had the duty of preparing a Green Paper on recycling. Out of it arose a waste management advisory council, which I, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) chaired. Both of us were keen on recycling. The public were keen on it. Industry was somewhat ambivalent. If my memory serves me correctly, local authorities were not at all keen, and civil servants hated the whole idea. That is why I congratulate the Secretary of State on including recycling in the Bill.
  There are many problems. The Bill does not answer all the questions about recycling.
  Mr. Marland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Oakes: I should like to, but I cannot, because of the 10-minute limit.
  We should tackle recycling by naming the substances to be recycled—paper, plastics, bottles, cardboard and aluminium—in the Bill.
  Mr. Marland: Not scrap?
  Mr. Oakes: Scrap is dealt with by recycling agencies other than local authorities.
  Mr. Marland: The right hon. Gentleman made a mistake in his Bill. Will he give way?
  Mr. Oakes: No. The 10-minute rule is in force and I must make my speech in that time.
  The Government should consider placing receptacles at all supermarkets of a certain size and at off-licences so that those shops' waste materials can be collected. The public are keen on recycling if the facilities are provided for them to do so. I wish that the Government had used the Bill to impose a duty on existing supermarkets, new super-markets and off-licences to make provision for such collection points in the curtilages of their car parks.
  A deposit system on bottles should also be reintroduced. That may not be within the purview of the Department of the Environment, but that was the system that operated when I was a young chap. One could return beer bottles, pop bottles and all the rest and one received a penny or tuppence on them. I am certain that the public would welcome the reintroduction of that system, but I am not sure about the retailers. The Government, however, should take the initiative.
  When I was a Minister, various local authorities pointed out to me—the rule still applies—that the market for such things as waste paper is fickle. The Government should consider the possibility of the bottom falling out of that market. That happens from time to time, and the local authorities that recycle paper are left with vast stacks of it. That occurs because, at the time, it so happens that it is cheaper for manufacturers to use virgin trees and forests than recycled paper. The Government should stabilise that market by insisting that certain products are made from recycled paper only.
  I am glad that there are provisions on litter in the Bill as we have become a filthy nation. Foreigners always remark on the State of our streets, particularly in cities. A British citizen who has lived abroad for a length of time, and who comes back, is appalled at the State of our streets, public places and Underground stations. An initiative undertaken in the city of Westminster has supposedly made great strides, but Westminster is still filthy.
  The public are, of course, to blame for dropping litter. The Government, however, bear some blame as they have borne down so heavily on local authorities that those authorities are unable to spend the money that they did on cleaning up the streets, or emptying the bins. Local authorities provide litter bins at capital cost, but they do not have the money to spend on the manpower needed to empty them. When that happens, the worst of all situations arises, with overflowing litter bins causing litter to be blown across the streets. The Government should carry some blame for our little problem.
  The explanatory and financial memorandum of the Bill States:
  "The duty to keep land clear of litter and refuse may entail some additional costs for some authorities."
  There is no doubt that that duty will entail additional costs for all authorities. When the Secretary of State attends the next revenue support grant meeting, he should bear that in mind. The Government have omitted to recognise that the

  69
  collection of litter is manpower-intensive. The only capital plant that is needed is a sack and a spike, but many people are needed to pick up the litter.
  There is no mention in the Bill of one of the principal causes of pollution—dogs.
  Mr. Chris Patten: Dog faeces are mentioned.
  Mr. Oakes: That may be so, but there is nothing about what should happen to dog owners. It is no use putting up notices about prosecutions should a dog foul a pavement—there are many loose dogs and they are notably illiterate. Unless something is done to provide a dog registration scheme, the problem will get worse. That would be the suitable answer to deal with people who turn their dogs loose on school playing fields for the purpose of fouling that area.
  There is much in the Bill that I like, but there is much more that should be included.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Robin Squire: I give a broad, genuine welcome for a substantial measure that covers a number of important areas.
  The major items in the Bill have been out for discussion for two or three years, so it is right and proper to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). Sometimes he is not the obvious model for every conservationist, but, as originator of the Bill in draft form, he deserves full tribute.
  I also pay tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), who has temporarily left the Chamber. In a good speech, he set out precisely why many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber who speak after him will no doubt sound like Little Sir Echo, such is his command of the subject. The leadership that he gives to the Committee is extremely good.
  Integrated pollution control represents the central part of the Bill, and associated with that is waste minimisation. When the Select Committee visited the United States during its inquiry, it was brought home to us that waste minimisation is the starting point for tackling waste disposal. It is no use looking at what one has at the end: one must find ways in which to reduce the waste in the first place. I welcome the emphasis on waste minimisation in part I.
  When we move on to the best available techniques for such waste minimisation, we shall need detailed definitions within the regulations so that industry and commerce have some reasonable idea about the route that they should follow. Arguably, waste minimisation could also crop up with advantage elsewhere in the Bill. In Committee, we may discover other ways in which to extend that process.
  Hon. Members have already spoken about the need for adequate resources at the centre of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The Bill speaks of the financial impact of an increase of 30 members to that inspectorate, but I believe that that increase will be the bare minimum in terms of the work that will be needed from that body in the future.
  There is also a particular need to clarify the relationship between parts I and II of the Bill. In that regard, I am picking up points not only made by the Confederation of
  70
  British Industry, but by the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors, whose members are the major operators in this sphere. I have received a letter which States:
  "Part I introduces integrated pollution control for prescribed processes and prescribed substances, to be applied by authorisations granted by…HMIP or, in cases to be designated in respect of air emissions only, by a local authority. IPC is intended to control pollution caused by the release of substances into air, water or land. But, most substances released into land are likely to be waste materials—which are to be dealt with under part II of the Bill."
  There is some uncertainty about how parts I and II link together, particularly as part I will be the responsibility of HMIP, whereas part II will be the resposibility of the waste regulatory authorities. The House would not want unfairly and unneccessarily to burden businesses with two totally separate lots of controls if that can be avoided.
  On waste disposal, my right hon. Friend's earlier comments show that he has taken on board that fact that parts of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 were simply inoperable. That was, and is, the central criticism of the Act. It is welcome to see in clause 31 that he is tackling the nonsense whereby the operator of a site taking waste disposal material may simply surrender the licence and walk away as if he had no other responsibilities. It is extraordinary that we passed such legislation all those years ago, and its rectification is overdue.
  I give an unqualified welcome to clause 40, which deals with recycling and the necessity for local authority plans. As many hon. Members know, this country produces 18 million tonnes per annum of domestic waste, of which we currently recycle 2·7 million tonnes—about 15 per cent. That compares with 50 per cent. in West Germany and 60 per cent. in Denmark. My right hon. Friend has taken on board the necessity to improve those low figures, which are partly the consequence of the highly variable skills of local authorities—which were referred to by previous Speakers. Some local authorities are very good indeed, while others have hardly started to tackle the issue.
  My right hon. Friend must ensure that the plans which the local authorities are required to produce, are produced. We would not want to be coming back here 15 or 16 years after this Bill is enacted, as we are having to do because a number of plans under the 1974 Act are still not being produced by local authorities.
  I shall introduce what may be a minority view when I comment on clauses 109 and 110, which deal with the control which the Secretary of State is to have over the shipment of waste. I am concerned that it is easy, in an emotional response, to say yes, the Government and my right hon. Friend or his successors must have such powers. I pause and suggest that proper, good and safe waste disposal does and will require substantial capital investment, some certainty of market and all the proper skills expected in a developed market and science. it requires some certainty.
  If there are materials such as chemicals that we do not wish to import or tranship, we should spell that out in legislation. Logically, that is the way to do it. We should say that we want no truck with such materials. My fear is that under clauses 109 and 110—I see from one or two nods that I may not be in the minority—whoever is in my right hon. Friend's position will find that he or she has created a rod for his or her own back. At the first hint of something different coming in—it may be less dangerous than many things that we currently import for a wide

  71
  variety of uses—my right hon. Friend will be pressurised into banning it. It may be right to do so, but a better approach is to spell out in advance what we want and do not want.
  As the originator of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, I can only welcome as overdue the inclusion in the Bill of clauses 18 and 54 which deal with public information registers. They face up squarely to the need for the public to be better informed about such matters and provide an opportunity for discussion, when it takes place, to be rational rather than emotional. The exchanges between my right hon. Friend and Opposition spokesmen marginally improved my knowledge of this matter. I recognise that there will be grounds for commercial confidentiality. However, I urge my right hon. Friend to resist stoutly any suggestions that he faces bloodcurdling fears and tremors from industry. In my experience, most of the forebodings about public information and availability turn out to be groundless once the system is in operation.
  My last detailed point relates to noise pollution. Clause 64 could be taken to refer to noise pollution, among various other forms of pollution. It simplifies the procedures for abating nuisances. I welcome that, but I fear that it will not be enough on its own. Noise, particularly in city areas, is all-pervasive, and arguably one of the biggest pollutants of all after poverty. There is an enforcement problem, which may be partly due to the absence of a simple and agreed measurement of what constitutes unacceptable noise. I note that a Committee is to report to my right hon. Friend in due course. Its findings may not be included in this measure, but I hope that they will be included in a future measure.
  My right hon. Friend wrote a good book, "The Tory Case" which I read over Christmas. In it, he said:
  "We may stand a better chance of encouraging man to have more respect for nature than of inducing man to have more respect for man".
  The Bill encourages that respect. I give it my full endorsement and look forward to serving on the Committee.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: As Chairman of the Welsh Select Committee currently undertaking an inquiry into toxic waste disposal in Wales, I was grateful for this opportunity to make, first, some introductory remarks. The activities of the Department of the Environment must be watched carefully. Its ducking and diving on the 1976 directive on bathing water of the EC is a classic example of its activities. To avoid implementing the directive, the Department defined a bathing beach in such a way that not a single bathing beach existed in Wales. The directive was therefore rendered inapplicable in Wales because it applied only to beaches used for bathing.
  The Association of County Councils says that it is over-optimistic for the Government to assume that the Bill will have no significant cost implications for waste disposal authorities. There will be a need for extra skilled staff, which will involve increased costs. The revenue support grant arrangements are so tightly set that the spending incurred under the Bill will mean that those additional costs will cause councils to incur penalties which have to be paid for by poll tax payments.
  72
  The Government's response to environmental matters during the past 10 years was summed up in one word in last year's report on toxic waste produced by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. The word was "dilatory". Massive gaps in the legislation have remained for 10 years, causing major environmental damage.
  Many varied tests on many aspects may be applied to the Bill. I shall confine myself to asking the Secretary of State whether he is satisfied that the following three issues will be resolved following the passage of this measure.
  First, on 8 December 1989, a technical report, due to have been published in 1988, appeared from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. It established the background levels of PCBs, furans and dioxins in British soils. For PCBs, the range was between 1·7 and 32 parts per billion. Six of the 78 random sample points in Britain suggested local contamination because the samples were significantly higher than the background level. The highest of those was at ordnance survey grid reference number SN 51350100, which is near Bryntirion hospital, Llanelli. The PCB level is 1,199 parts per billion, rather higher than the maximum background range of 32 parts per billion. Twelve of the 78 sample points were significantly above background levels of dioxins and furans. SN 51350100 has the highest readings of all the sample points in Britain for four dioxins and two furans. Will the Bill contain provisions for establishing the source of local contamination at each of these sites, to assess the environmental or health effects of such contamination and to make the resources available for any necessary remedial action?
  In June 1988, the hazardous wastes inspectorate produced its third report. On page 14, it mentions visits that the inspectors made to 15 hospital incinerators in four counties examining the compliance of hospital incinerators with waste management paper No. 25 on clinical waste. It concluded:
  "if the hospitals visited are typical of the national picture then the situation is deplorable. Those seen operate to standards which would not be permitted by a similar operation in the private sector unprotected by Crown immunity."
  As small hospital incinerators are still protected by that immunity, will the Bill remove Crown immunity from all hospital incinerators so that the public can have full confidence that all the micro-organisms in clinical waste are safely destroyed by this method of disposal?
  HMIP has frequently emphasised the problems associated with landfill waste disposal sites, and I have a number of questions to ask the Minister about them. Will the Bill make it a legal requirement for the waste regulation authorities to conform to the frequency of site visits laid down in the waste management papers issued by the Department? Secondly, will the Bill make it a condition for the issuing of a site licence that the applicant has to demonstrate a certain defined minimum standard of waste management education, training and experience? Thirdly, will the Bill provide for ensuring that waste regulatory officers hold a specified minimum standard of education, training and experience in waste management?
  Fourthly, will the Bill make it impossible for any public footpath to cross a landfill site? Fifthly, will it enable a waste disposal authority to refuse to issue a licence when a landfill is proposed on a site of special scientific interest? Sixthly, will the Bill provide funds for research into co-disposal, so that, within the European Community,

  73
  Britain will have, for the first time, substantive scientific evidence to show the suitability of this method for the disposal of industrial waste?
  Seventhly, will the Bill provide funds for research into safe alternatives to CFCs, so that harmful materials can be banned at the earliest opportunity? Eighthly, will the Bill provide funds for research into cheaper methods of removing all CFCs from refrigerators and freezers, including those present in the insulating material, before these consumer durables are landfilled? Ninthly, will the Bill make funds available for research into new methods of microbiological degradation of PCBs in old closed landfills? Lastly, will the Bill give statutory backing to voluntary groupings of waste regulation authorities to pool their skills and powers so that they can operate consistent and coherent policies?
  The Bill is of great public interest, yet there must be serious doubts about the degree to which it meets the needs that have been clearly spelt out in the various reports from the Department of the Environment inspectors—
  Mr. Trippier: In view of the questions that the hon. Gentleman has asked me, may I ask him one before he sits down? What is his view on the reorganisation of the Nature Conservancy Council?
  Mr. Wardell: The Minister has asked me a question that I have not dealt with at all and taken up some of my valuable time in so doing. As I briefly mentioned, I hope very much that a site licence will be able to be refused by a local authority if a site of special scientific interest is on a proposed landfill site.
  It is crucial that the number, quality and morale of members of HMIP are kept up to standard; that is vital to enable its responsibilities to be fulfilled. The proposed increase of 30 in the complement of HMIP, mainly to deal with a newly integrated pollution control regime under part I, is wholly inadequate.
  As for access to information, I hope that the Government will alter their view. Under the Bill as drafted it will not be possible for a member of the public to appeal against a decision when reasons have been given in terms of commercial confidentiality for denying him access to the public register.
  The Bill has the potential to become a great Act, but before it can, the Secretary of State must be ready to improve it. I sincerely hope that he will.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Robert Adley: Before I start my speech, I hope that it is not out of order to say that the person whom we miss on the Conservative Benches is our former colleague, John Heddle, whom I know would have been here today. Perhaps I may be allowed to pay a passing tribute to him and to offer our sympthy to his family.
  I thought that the speech by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was dreadful; he did himself and the House no good. I have been looking at the speech by Edith Summerskill, who led for the Labour party on Second Reading of the Clean Air Act 1956, and I commend it to the hon. Member for Dagenham as the way in which a serious and sensible Opposition might present a more constructive approach when we are trying to grapple with environmental problems.
  74
  The Clean Air Act was a Government Act, but its godfather was Gerald Nabarro. The Conservative party, Government members and Back Benchers, has a good record on environmental matters. It was the Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) who established the Department of the Environment through their White Paper on 15 October 1970, and the Secretary of State was my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker).
  The establishment of the Department of the Environment encompassed transport matters. The White Paper said:
  "It is increasingly accepted that maintaining a decent environment, improving people's living conditions and providing for adequate transport facilities all come together in the planning of development."
  Although I find it slightly regrettable that there is little mention of transport in this Bill, I certainly hope that we shall find ways of including transport industries in the definitions in some of the clauses.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's speech to the Town and Country Planning Association on 27 November last year was important, and it set out the essential guidelines for incorporating transport matters in the ambit of the environment. I share his view that we must wholly reassess the criteria for choosing whether to invest in roads or rail if we are to reach the correct environmental decisions while grappling with our transport policy. Environmental considerations must be a priority in transport policy—something that we have never yet achieved in legislation in this country.
  The principle in the Bill that the polluter pays is one with which I am sure all hon. Members agree, but will my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside accept the proposition that, if private pleasure and convenience conflict with public health and welfare in environmental matters, the Government must uphold the latter?
  The oil companies and manufacturers of motor cars, trucks and buses will resist any suggestion that the transport industries should come within the purview of the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will stand up to whatever powerful interests may try to oppose what he is attempting to do.
  Little attention is paid in the Bill to oil pollution at sea. The rubric to clause 111 refers to
  "Deposits of substances and articles in the sea, etc."
  The hon. Member for Dagenham, who unfortunately left the Chamber as soon as he had finished his speech, joined me in voting for a new clause that I tabled in Committee when the Merchant Shipping Bill was being considered in 1979. Its purpose was to make the owner rather than the carrier of the substance—oil at sea—liable for any pollution. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider introducing a provision in clause 111 to cover oil pollution.
  As I read the clause, dumping at sea presupposes a deliberate act. We must also try to ensure that accidents do not occur because of inadequate vehicles—the rusty buckets that are still used by certain people as they carry their oil cargoes across the oceans of the world.
  I am also interested in clause 63, about which I intervened when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was speaking. The clause refers to smoke, smell and noise from premises. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) that noise is an

  75
  extremely serious form of pollution. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) was sitting beside me when I intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He told me that under the Theft Act "vehicles" are considered as "premises". Is it the Minister's view that the activities which are outlined in clause 63 encompasses vehicles? Other colleagues have referred to legislation for which they can claim parentage. I mention in passing the Motor Cycle Noise Act 1987, which I understand is now a candidate for European legislation. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me something about that, though not necessarily this evening.
  Air pollution affects us all. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that we could not legislate for the whole of Europe, let alone the whole of the world. I hope, however, that Ministers will draw the European Commission's attention to the fact that, although this country has its air pollution problems, those in other EEC countries are far worse than ours. I have had the opportunity recently to see and smell the atmosphere in Bilbao and Barcelona. If the Government and the Conservative party sincerely adhere to the European cause, we must try to persuade the European Community, and Mr. Delors, to spend more time on environmental matters, particularly air pollution. No one is taking much interest in that at the moment.
  As for clause 71, I mention it entirely on my wife's behalf. She has a bee in her bonnet about plastic sacks of fertiliser littering the countryside, particularly those ghastly midnight blue sacks. Will the "Offence of leaving litter", the rubric to clause 71, apply to those ghastly eyesores, plastic sacks of fertiliser? Will proximity to footpaths and other public places be a sufficient means of catching people who insist on littering the countryside with such eyesores? Presumably the Government believe that it is necessary to exclude private property from the Bill. However, a good deal of public property is visible from private property, and vice versa. I hope that consideration will be given to making sure that those who litter the countryside with those wretched sacks are caught under clause 71, either as it stands or as it might be amended.
  This is a very important Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Dagenham will come to recognise that his speech was not worthy of the occasion. Every hon. Member ought to recognise that half a loaf is better than none. The hon. Gentleman's proposition that no loaf is better than half a loaf is not one on which he will carry the rest of the House with him.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not agree with the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), but I agree with his wife about blue plastic sacks. There was a lot to be said for the old jute ones. They were almost always returnable and they made for profitable recycling.
  I judge the Bill against my background. I was born in Manchester. I was a wartime evacuee to the Ceriog valley in north Wales where I spent my early years on a hill farm. I returned there regularly on holiday until I was about 18. I was struck by that hill farmer's ambition. It was not to make vast profits, but to make a living for himself and his
  76
  wife and in particular to pass on the farm in good heart to the next generation. His farm was run on that basis. A small number of farmers still apply that principle. What that farmer did on his farm coloured my political thinking.
  The present capitalist system fails completely to meet that ideal. That is why I am a democratic Socialist. Every time I returned from north Wales to Manchester, I saw the effects of 200 years of capitalism and the pollution—the sulphurous fumes from coal tips and the rubbish—that it had created. All the rivers around Manchester had been polluted. When bleach works were set up in the 19th century, they leapfrogged each other up the rivers in their search for clean water. All of them were only too happy to pollute the rivers. Smoke and dirt from factory chimneys has polluted Manchester for more than 100 years.
  Capitalism is based on the idea that profits must be made. There has to be an alternative to that system. We need something better than a capitalist system based only on profits. It is not only capitalism in the western world that is causing pollution. State capitalism in eastern Europe is just as defective. As soon as the democratic element is taken away and people no longer have the right to know about and debate these matters, major problems are created. We have faced similar problems. Secrecy surrounded the nuclear power industry because of its links with defence, with the result that all sorts of things went on which would never have happened if there had been proper democratic debate.
  We have to ask whether the Bill will tame capitalism and we must ensure that it does not replace private capitalism with State capitalism. People need free access to information, the skill to evaluate it and the self-confidence to argue their case. They need to be on an equal footing, so that their decisions cannot be bought or sold. Democratic Socialism offers that alternative. I measure the Bill against that background.
  Does the Bill offer us the prospect of handing over this country, and our planet, in good heart to future generations? Does it control the greed of companies? Companies have to make profits to survive, but do they make profits at the expense of somebody else? Does the Bill ensure that people have the necessary knowledge to evaluate what is good for them, the country and the planet? The Bill falls far short of those requirements.
  My first criticism is the way that the Government abolished the Greater Manchester council, which had responsibility for waste disposal. Councillor Dennis Fogg, the chairman, and the other members of the new Manchester waste disposal authority and their officials have done their best, but when one reduces the democratic element, one makes it harder for them to be affected.
  If we are to tackle the problems of waste disposal in Britain, we have to involve people. Greater Manchester waste disposal authority can get rid of rubbish, but the real question is how to stop creating so much of it. The authority is considering turning rubbish into oil. It has a system for reclaiming tin cans and paper, and there are plenty of bottle banks in Greater Manchester. There are many voluntary schemes to collect paper and aluminium cans. Engine oil is being reclaimed, and refrigerators are being collected. However, unless we go further and convince people that they must stop creating so much waste, we shall not solve the problem.
  People must be asked to examine what they buy, and how it is packaged, used and disposed of. We have become

  77
  a throwaway society. Only by getting people democratically to debate the issues will we create a society in which we demand that goods are made to last and we will start to cherish them.
  The leisure and pleasure industry is, in many ways, as big a polluter as industry. We all have more leisure time, and we must ensure that we do not create the problems that industry used to create.
  Many people enjoy keeping pets. As other hon. Members have said, one person's dog is another person's problem with dog excreta. One person's chance to admire the Lake District—as hundreds of thousands of people do each year—becomes somebody else's traffic jam. One person's opportunity to enjoy a run along the Pennine way will cause erosion problems and someone else, perhaps an elderly or disabled person, will have to struggle up a different path.
  One may enjoy a drink of Coca Cola on a mountainside, but find that someone else does not take the trouble to take his can back with him. Someone goes rock climbing, puts a hand into a crevice, finds a rusty tin can, and gets a nasty cut. Leisure causes many problems.
  I am disappointed by the proposals in the Bill to reorganise the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. The Bill does not seem to tackle the problems. There should have been a more radical consideration of how to link national parks and conservation and leisure interests in the countryside. The measures in the Bill owe something to Scottish Ministers' desire to make profits out of the countryside.
  I have to watch the time, so I shall move on to one issue about which I am particularly concerned—the destruction of peat lands in Britain. It is nice to go to the garden centre, pick up a bag of peat and put it around the flowers. One feels that one is doing one's little bit for greenery, but one is destroying a natural habitat. We must use more compost.
  Huge amounts of limestone pavement are being torn up for people's gardens. That is appalling. Right hon. and hon. Members fought hard on wildlife and countryside legislation, and we got assurances from the Government, but nothing has happened.
  Let us consider areas in Greater Manchester that have been polluted. For example, there are the problems of methane gas seepage from tips, to which I referred. We must find the resources to clean them up.
  There is also the problem of having enough sufficiently qualified staff to enforce the process, because if one does not have the staff, one will not get a solution.
  I am disappointed that the Government did not include provisions for proper access to the countryside in the Bill. Time and again we had promises from the Government that they would do that, but they ran away from them. The Government ought to introduce a clear measure to enable people to have access to the countryside.
  The Bill merely tinkers at the edges of green issues. It is not a truly green Bill and it will not leave Britain in good heart for the future. Nor will it give the people in Britain the democratic opportunity to understand green issues and to influence them by their decisions. The Bill is a great missed opportunity.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I disagree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who said that his experiences in Manchester had led him to believe that environmental problems were a failure of capitalism. One need only visit eastern Europe to see the failures of Socialism, and to learn the real lesson—not the one given by the hon. Gentleman—that democracy and open Government are necessary to prevent environmental deterioration and that there is a link between wealth, economic growth and the ability to do something about the environment. The lack of those factors has caused the failures in eastern Europe. They will be a challenge for the European Community and for Britain, as a member of the Community, although it will be difficult to tackle the problem in the next few years. How do we help eastern Europe to tackle its environmental problems, without subsidising it to pollute further?
  I welcome the Bill. As the speeches of other members of the Select Committee on the Environment have made clear and, no doubt, will make clear later in the debate, the Bill has our fingerprints all over it. The Bill must be seen against the background of the Water Act 1989 and the promised White Paper on environmental pollution which is due in the autumn. Step by step, we are moving towards an integrated environmental policy, and I think that that is right. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) that the policy must include energy and transport.
  As an environmentalist who has served on the Select Committee for six years, I view today's debate, and other debates on the environment, wrily. That is partly because there has been much attention from the media and politicians on the subject, and I fear that they will move to other issues when the next bandwagon begins to roll. But one must not be too cynical. Any politician who is interested in an issue is pleased when it reaches the top of the political agenda and some attention is focused on problems that might otherwise be neglected.
  The attitude of people giving evidence to the Select Committee has changed, and that has been pleasing to see. We have moved on from the complacency of the Central Electricity Generating Board when we first considered acid rain in 1974 to the ready acceptance by nearly all witnesses today that there are serious problems in the environment which need to be tackled nationally and internationally.
  What criteria should be used to judge the proposals? The Bill is a hotch-potch, although all the measures should be welcomed. One should judge it against some guiding principles which I hope will influence the White Paper later this year. It is important that there should be an arm's-length relationship between the Government and those who cause pollution. That was the trouble with the water industry. Until recently the Government both owned the polluters and tried to regulate them, and that is never satisfactory.
  The National Rivers Authority is a tremendous step in the right direction. The Bill maintains that principle through integrated pollution control, which I welcome. Britain is the first country to set that example and I hope that others will follow.
  There is widespread recognition that land, water and air cannot be separated in the way that they are treated, because pollution spills from one to the other. I welcome

  79
  what was said earlier about the staffing of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The unhappy background to the matter has worried the Select Committee more than once. I hope that what I read in newpapers at the weekend about additional funding, partly through the "polluter pays" principle, was a correct interpretation of the Government's intentions. No doubt we shall explore that in Committee.
  I am not happy about the reliance on county councils operating as waste disposal authorities, even through companies set up for that purpose. I should prefer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said earlier, a system involving large regional authorities, which would be freer from the NIMBY syndrome and could consider more strategically the issues of waste disposal.
  The logic of the arm's-length relationship should eventually lead the Government to embrace the case for an environmental protection agency, not necessarily in the form of the United States body but in a form that leads steadily to a more important role for HMIP. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about that general principle when he replies to the debate.
  The "polluter pays" principle is right because its market approach will lead to companies examining their pollution sure in the knowledge that they will have to pay if they do not minimise emissions into the atmosphere, on to land or into water.
  Environmental legislation should be performance, not design, based. One difficulty with European legislation is that it is obsessed with one means of securing an end rather than trying to set a target that can be steadily lowered to try to tighten the screws on polluters. The catalytic converter may improve some environmental problems, but it worsens others. It would be far better if EC and national legislation set emission control standards but left industry to develop the technology necessary to achieve them. The reliance in the Bill on best available techniques may eventually become an infectious concept that will get into the European bloodstream, and we may see improved legislation from Europe in due course.
  Internationalism should be one principle by which we judge the Bill and other environmental legislation. There is no doubt that one country's pollution causes problems for another country. It is difficult to foresee how we shall legislate at national and international level on the great problems of acid rain, the greenhouse effect and chlorofluorocarbons. That was one of the weaknesses of the inadequate case advanced by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) It is also the reason why many measures do not appear in the Bill but must instead await a more co-ordinated international approach.
  Most of the Bill's provisions are welcome. If I had been asked a few months ago what I thought about reorganisation of the Nature Conservancy Council, I should have been inclined to say that I opposed it, but I am happy with the arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend because they will achieve the two most important objectives of those who were worried—to maintain the scientific base and to ensure that what may not be an important environmental issue for each of the constituent countries but is important to Britain as a whole and to
  80
  European countries is considered. That body is chaired by a very fine man, who is supported by other highly qualified appointments at national level. I very much welcome that.
  I am delighted that at long last a ban on straw and stubble burning has been included in legislation. Over the years, I have listened to the National Farmers Union provide excuse after excuse, but most responsible farmers do not burn stubble. In my constituency, despite farmers being told that they needed to burn stubble, we have reached the stage where it is very rare, and in the summer there was practically none. It is not only an environmental problem but a safety problem. It causes accidents on the roads and difficulties and unpleasantness for pedestrians and cyclists. I welcome that provision, although it is long overdue.
  This is an excellent Bill. It is only a step towards an environmental policy and environmental legislation of which Britain can be proud, but it will become a model for other countries to follow in years to come. I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: I speak not only as a member of a political party but perhaps more as a west highlander, whose region has frequently been the cockpit of controversy on environmental issues in recent years. There is no doubt that those controversies influenced the Government in bringing forward the proposals in part VII. I wish to devote my remarks to the proposals to reorganise the Nature Conservancy Council.
  Let me make it quite clear from the outset that I believe in a decentralised—indeed, federal—structure for the NCC, because I believe in the widest possible discussion on and involvement in the matters covered by the Bill.
  Although the Government have justified their proposals on the ground of better involvement of local interests, the sad irony is that they did not consult, discuss with or involve anyone before introducing their proposals on the NCC. Their methods have been at odds with their declarations. Consequently, they have managed to arouse a quite spectacular degree of opposition, suspicion and confusion about their plans.
  Even those who support decentralisation in principle, as I do, must be leery of the Government's motives. They certainly have not been conspicuous enthusiasts of Scottish devolution in other sectors, so why in this one? Do they want to create a conservation body that more genuinely involves community opinion in Scotland, or are they creating yet another quango stuffed with political placemen that will be subservient to landowning interests, who already carry too much weight within the Scottish Office?
  Those are real and disturbing questions, and the Secretary of State's announcement today, although welcome, does not answer them fully. My right hon. and hon. Friends are quite right to withhold their support for Second Reading on that ground, among others.
  Having said that, it may be possible, through hard work in Committee, to achieve the generally independent, locally rooted, properly resourced and properly co-ordinated conservation bodies that we should wish to see. I keep an open mind about that, and genuinely hope that some consensus will emerge in Committee on that important issue.

  81
  In the time remaining to me, I should like to address myself more directly to bodies outside the House such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Friends of the Earth and others, which have been so outspoken not only on this issue but on general environmental and conservation issues affecting the Highlands and Islands.
  If the Government have gone about the reorganisation of the NCC in a clumsy manner liable to arouse justifiable suspicion about their motives, it must also be said that the initial reaction of much of the conservation lobby has been at fault, particularly in the patronising assumption that is too often displayed, and which has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), that forces outside the Highlands and Islands know better than highlanders what is good for them.
  Highlanders are all too familiar with that attitude. Two hundred years ago, we were forbidden to speak our own language—we were told that it was for our own good to learn English. One hundred years ago, highlanders were cleared from their homes and packed into emigration vessels to America. Again, we were told that that was for our own good.
  Today, high-minded and well-intentioned bodies are again trying to tell us what is good for us. Although we undoubtedly have much to learn from them, I hope that they will appreciate that it is a two-way process and that it is simply not acceptable to dictate solutions to the ordinary people of the Highlands and Islands.
  We acknowledge the superior political power and resources of these lobby and interest groups—the RSPB, for example, has more members than the Highlands and Islands have people—but I hope that in turn they will acknowledge the importance of the principle of local democracy and will be prepared to work with the grain of local feeling. Too often, I am sorry to say, the southern-based environmental lobby, including the NCC, has been seen by ordinary highlanders as alien, aloof, insensitive, remote and sadly devoid of any appreciation of the special history and culture of the Highlands and Islands. Too often, it has failed to acknowledge what Frank Fraser Darling so clearly recognised as long ago as the 1940s—that one cannot understand the natural history of the Highlands without comprehending its social and political history, which is exactly why he subtitled his magisterial "West Highland Survey", "A Study in Human Ecology". In protecting the ecology, we must not forget the human.
  I feel that sometimes "conservation" can be a misleading term. As Fraser Darling also pointed out, the Highlands and Islands are in many ways a "man-made desert"—the product not of natural processes but of the ill-treatment of nature by man, particularly in the past three centuries and particularly by the great landowners who held unchecked sway and who, unfortunately, are still too influential in the Conservative party. We should be concerned not with the simple preservation of the existing environment but with the enhancement and regeneration not only of its natural resources but, equally important, of its social and cultural communities.
  That is why I deplore the almost complete lack of reference in any of the submissions that I have received on this issue and in articles that I have read to the feelings and opinions of the local communities. This appalling blindness among too many of the environmental opinion-formers explains why the stock of so many environmental pressure groups is so low in the Highlands.
  82
  This lack of mutual understanding is profoundly damaging. It cannot form the pattern for the future if the true interests of areas such as the Highlands are to be safeguarded.
  I want to State two principles that should inform thinking and debate on these issues. First, we should take a much broader view of conservation; we should see it as enhancing and regenerating the environment and not simply preserving it, and we should accept that social, economic and cultural issues must all have a part to play in this broader conception, including, apparently, political issues such as the structure of land ownership.
  Secondly, we should work to create a genuine green alliance, not between one environmental pressure group and another but between such groups and the local communities whose lives they hope to influence. If these two sides can start to talk to each other, learn from each other and work together, we can at last begin to restore the depleted resources that we have inherited from the malpractice of the past.
  7.32 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: I should have thought that everything that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) said showed support for a Scottish Nature Conservancy Council, because it would be much nearer his constituency, but it is up to the hon. Gentleman how he votes.
  I welcome the Bill. It is a major step forward and a continuation of the programme that the Government launched in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Every clause in the Bill is important, but I want to concentrate: on the Nature Conservancy Council, of which I am a member. I attend the United Kingdom council meetings and as many as possible of the Scottish Committee meetings. Naturally, I see the English and Welsh papers and those of the Committee on science and on birds. Tonight I am speaking for myself.
  The NCC has evolved from a small conservancy council allied to the Natural Environment Research Council into a major organisation employing 1,100 people. The chairman and staff have done well, particularly in the urgent work of notifying sites of special scientific interest and implementing the Wildlife and Countryside Act, but that does not mean that we could not do much better.
  Many criticisms made of the Bill were made of the Wildlife and Countryside Act—it would not work; the Government got it wrong; the voluntary organisations and the other place were against it; and so on. A positive and constructive Committee stage meant that it turned out to be a pretty effective Act. Of course there are imperfections but, by and large, it is well regarded, and I am sure that we can do the same with this Bill.
  For a number of years, I have been advocating change informally within the NCC and last spring I spoke more emphatically at a conference. I included these words in a press release:
  "The NCC was enormously strengthened by the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981. It was the first measure of this Government to secure the proper conservation of the habitat of wildlife and marine life. I believe we should work towards developing a separate Scottish NCC with a full scientific staff to back up our Edinburgh headquarters and Regional offices."
  I am pleased that we will do just that.
  We seem to be becoming a nation that resists every change, almost on principle. I can only believe that some

  83
  of the governing bodies against change this time have acted on first impressions, not on current facts. Perhaps, too, they have been misled by some press releases and Statements from Peterborough that gave the impression that the NCC was against the Bill. The majority of those on the council are in favour of the Bill. Many are strongly in favour, especially the Welsh and the Scots, but I emphasise the English Committee as well.
  Mr. Dalyell: Was this matter ever voted on in the NCC?
  Sir Hector Monro: No; the NCC does not operate by voting, but anyone who sits in the council chamber knows exactly who is on one side and who is on another.
  Mr. Dalyell:It was not voted on.
  Sir Hector Monro: Most sensible councils do not have votes left and right. They decide what is the consensus.
  The major points of concern were requests for a co-ordinating scientific Committee and for an independent chairman. Both requests have been met by the Government and, dramatically, by the announcements today. I cannot imagine a better person as the chairman-designate than Professor Fred Holliday, an academic and previous chairman of the NCC. He would not have given his name as chairman of the new co-ordinating Committee unless he was satisfied that he had the powers, authority and resources needed.
  The decision to have Magnus Magnusson as chairman of the Scottish Committee was a master stroke, which will be warmly welcomed in Scotland because of his knowledge of its heritage and of conservation. Lord Cranbrook, who is to be the chairman of the English Committee, has an outstanding reputation in the other place and throughout the country for conservation. The calibre of those names should dispel the Opposition's criticism of the Government's appointments. It is hard to understand how the Labour party can vote against the Bill when there is such strength of opinion in favour of it.
  In Scotland, the Bill has been welcomed—of course, not by every organisation but certainly by a majority. This should not be a political issue. It is one of common sense and improved conservation. I have expressed my disappointment at the lack of enthusiasm from Peterborough. Naturally, the position of the staff had to be safeguarded, and that was quickly confirmed by the Government. I accept that there must be some movement away from Peterborough and some disruption of domestic life, but perhaps the high quality of life in Scotland and Wales will be some compensation.
  I have felt some resentment at the Statements by some governing bodies and others that Scotland and Wales were not capable of running their own nature conservation organisations even with a strong scientific base and adequate resources. Of course we are capable of doing that. We will play a full part nationally and internationally. Each area will provide effective input either to the co-ordinating Committee or directly to the Government, who after all are responsible for the legislation and our international conservation arrangements. The Nature Conservancy Council is an adviser to the Government. It must exercise statutory duties in
  84
  relation to sites of special scientific interest and other matters but the Government are ultimately responsible for ensuring that its duties are carried out.
  Scotland looks forward to having its own scientific base—perhaps in Edinburgh or at Battleby. I am sure that we shall be able to provide a quicker response to some of our perennial problems, such as the flow country, afforestation, fish farming, recreation in the hills, ski-ing and marine nature reserves. The Scottish Committee, under Alex Trotter and its director John Francis, has done an excellent job, and I am sure that it will look forward to commissioning further research from the Scottish universities, as well as providing its own scientific back-up.
  Conservation officers in Scotland are thin on the ground. The regional officer for the west and south-west of Scotland, for example, is based at Loch Lomond. That is a long way from the Solway, which has an equally important interest in conservation. Having our own base will enable us to have more offices nearer to the people in Scotland and to keep much more sensitively in touch with local affairs. We shall also be able to keep in touch with FWAG, the farm and wildlife advisory group and the conservation groups. The jewel in our crown, the island of Rhum, is administered from Inverness, which is a very long way away. The nearer that we can get in dealing with local matters such as those of which the hon. Member for Western Isles spoke, the better. We should also seek to establish a much closer link with the Red Deer Commission, which will have an important part to play in Scotland in the immediate future.
  We must also look to the next Session, when we shall forge a link between the NCC and the Countryside Commission. The Countryside Commission has given a valuable and detailed response to the merger and great credit is due to Roger Carr and his colleagues for their outstanding work at Battleby. We shall be able to remove any existing overlap of responsibilities, and I can see nothing but good from our coming together. With bodies such as the National Trust for Scotland and many enthusiastic governing bodies, the future looks good, and I believe that the developments will be a success. We shall have a heritage and conservation body of remarkable quality. The Countryside Commission has been consulting many people in Scotland about the future of the national parks, and I hope that it will be very cautious in how it proceeds.
  I am confident that the Bill is right. Conservation of British wildlife, habitats and landscape will be in good hands, and we may have the best arrangements in the world coupled with the best legislation. The Bill will establish local control but allow for international influence and leadership, and I wish it well.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: It is a year ago to the day since I presented the Hedgerows Bill. I presented it on the occasion of the centenary of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and I was on King's Cross station that day to hear the Prime Minister call for the protection of hedgerows as we had lost 120,000 miles of hedgerow in the preceding four decades. I was deeply distressed—as were some Conservative Members—when the Government decided to block the Bill.
  Occasionally, though, we have had successes. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)

  85
  managed to steer through the House a Bill to improve the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. He did so in the teeth of hostility from the Department of the Environment, which, in Committee, removed four of the six parts of the Bill and emasculated the fifth. The House of Lords, in its wisdom, improved the Bill by restoring it to the condition in which my hon. Friend had presented it to the House, and I hope that, if we cannot secure the necessary improvements to the present Bill in Committee, they will be secured in the other place.
  Two days after the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields was passed, the Government issued a press Statement proclaiming that it was a Government Bill. No doubt that has gone down as one of the pieces of evidence that the Government have successfully and consistently promoted the interests of conservation and the environment.
  That view was expressed when the NCC headquarters in Peterborough was opened a few years ago. I was greatly honoured to be asked to speak at that opening, along with the Secretary of State, who announced at that gathering that every conservation Bill that had gone through the House in the previous quarter of a century had come from a Conservative Government. Presumably the Government were taking credit for having thought of Bills such as that introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields years before.
  I have a high regard for Sir William Wilkinson and the staff of the NCC, and I was therefore horrified by the dismemberment proposals. The present Secretary of State has gone a long way to repair the damage that his predecessor caused when he introduced similar proposals in a rather less well-considered way. The fact remains, however, that in Committee the Minister will have to provide a little more evidence of his commitment. I note, for example, that the last sentence of the Statement issued by the NCC on 7 November said that the new Committee
  "must…be capable of driving forward nature conservation…as a whole".
  The Committee and all the bodies and individuals concerned will need convincing of that.
  I hope that the Committee will be able to promote and directly object to private Bills. I know that it has petitioned against private Bills in the past few years. During the past 18 months, we have witnessed the spectacle of private Bills being pushed through with Government majorities. We have watched hon. Members led through the lobbies by a rejoicing Secretary of State—not the present Secretary of State—gleefully dismissing the advice that he had been given by statutory organisations.
  I do not want to say much more than that about the nature conservation aspects of the Bill, although I hope that, during the passage of the Bill, something will be done to improve sections 28 and 29 of the 1981 Act and the provisions of that Act relating to species protection.
  The Minister will be well aware that my main interest this evening is a matter that is also of grave concern to my constituents. As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have 2,711 drums of toxic waste in my constituency at present. The waste came from the United States. It has been in our area for many months. It had to be placed in secure drums, and I am grateful to the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities who was on duty when I saw him in August, for giving orders that it should immediately be securely drummed. I am also grateful to the Minister for the Environment and Countryside for receiving a
  86
  deputation from my area in September. He will be aware that we have had the waste for a long time now and that there is deep anxiety that it is still here and could be here for many months to come.
  There is a particular reason for my anger this evening. Last week, the Minister courteously sent me a note and a copy of the summary report of the American Environmental Protection Agency. The agency had led the Department, which should have known better, to believe that the waste was not toxic because an American statute said that it was not toxic because it was to leave the United States. If it had stayed in the United States, it would have become subject to another American law, which would have said that it was toxic. That means that the waste is not toxic while it is in Britain, but would be toxic if it were in the United States.
  If a British firm had done to the United States what that American firm has done to Britain, the American response would have been far more vigorous and positive than ours has been. The American warships would already be sailing up the Humber with marine band playing—that should appeal to the Minister—and guns pointed.
  The American attitude really is an outrage, not least because the EPA took its samples at the same time as samples were taken by British Rail and the local authorities in south Yorkshire. The Minister is aware of that. We were aware of the contents of that material last July and I wrote to the American ambassador in August and, as I received no reply, I wrote again in November. Both letters were extremely courteous. At the end of November, I was informed that the EPA was analysing the material, samples of which it had had since July.
  I then discovered from the American media that it was not the Americans' fault. The American media reported that the poison was added while the waste was in Wath upon Dearne, a mile from my home. The Minister will be aware that the material at Wath was of the same type as that which did not reach Wath, which has not been touched and is in a British Rail depot near Leeds. I have kept in very close touch with my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) about this matter.
  The American authorities are aware that it is a canard to suggest that the American company is not responsible. It is also unacceptable for the American authorities to describe the cocktail of poisons as non-toxic. They cannot deny that the analysis carried out by British scientists is perfectly respectable and accurate. The material was said to be free of harmful impurities when it reached Britain. The analysis found that it contained 4·5 per cent. contaminated matter, including xylene, 7 hydrogen, 23 dioxyroxy-2.2 dimethylbenzofuran and other contaminated material. It is outrageous that the activities of an American company should apparently be endorsed by the American Government.
  I have been critical of the British response and of the Department of the Environment. However, the greatest criticism is due to the Foreign Office. I was assured by the Minister of State, Foreign Office, last September that the Foreign Office was pursuing the matter vigorously. A number of checks have been made and no one of any significance or importance in the State Department in Washington has any recollection of representations made on behalf of the British people. If the material had been

  87
  dumped in Surrey, Sussex or in the more salubrious areas favoured by the Conservative party, perhaps a little more concern would have been shown about it.
  As I told the Minister last September, this case illustrates the most inadequate regulations. I remember telling the Minister that I hoped that, when the green Bill was before the House, the appalling loopholes demonstrated by the Wath upon Dearne experience would be closed. I said that I hoped that the Bill would be bipartisan and that we could support it. Unfortunately, the Bill States only that the Minister will take powers to effect regulations. There are no guarantees that the loopholes will be closed so that the dumping to which I have referred will not be repeated in my area or elsewhere. Until there are clear assurances that the present pathetically inadequate regulations will be improved, the House has no right to give automatic support to this Bill.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. David Evans: The Bill has my enthusiastic support. It is a wide-ranging and far-sighted measure. Given the constraints on time, I shall confine my remarks to the part of the Bill which deals with a problem that is more important than many people realise. It constitutes a stain on Britain's reputation. British lager louts abroad besmirch the proud name of Britain and foreigners acquire a poor image of Britain. When they visit our shores, they find a once green and pleasant land cluttered with muck and litter. The centre of London is a particular disgrace. The streets are not so much paved with gold as with the remains of last night's pizzas. My hon. Friend the Prime Minister reflected the importance of this subject last year by collecting litter in Hyde park.
  We are right to be committed to the atmosphere, but the British people are very concerned about their streets, highways and fields. The people of Welwyn and Hatfield in particular believe that it is important for local authorities to be more responsible for clean streets. The people of Welwyn and Hatfield have not had their rubbish collected for months because they have an ill-trained, incompetent, Labour-run authority. The same problem does not exist in Wheathampstead, which is only a few miles down the road. That is a clue for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In Wheathampstead, the local street cleaner and local dustmen know all 7,000 or 8,000 people who live in the town. The people do not want to throw litter into the streets because they respect each other.
  People who drop litter are physical polluters. They leave discarded waste in our fields and on our streets. But they are also moral polluters. They encourage others by sending out signals that they do not care. They are irresponsible and give no thought to the effect of their actions. They make the landscape unsightly and create dangers for other people. Some people even throw away toxic waste and medicines, which are a threat to adults and children alike.
  The Bill deals with an important part of the problem, but only part of it. That is all that it can do. The Government could help to combat the problem by giving magistrates and the police powers to deal with litter louts. But legal penalties cannot solve the problem; only society as a whole can do that.
  88
  People must be taught not to litter. The process is primarily one of education, and that means parents instilling the necessary sense of responsibility in their children. If children litter, the blame lies in part with their parents. Schools, as well as other public bodies, must educate children about the perils of littering and citizens must be vigilant and prepared to tell litter louts to stop. A large part of the problem at the moment is that we turn a blind eye to people who litter our streets. Pressure and public embarrassment are essential to stop them. In short, we all have a part to play.
  The Government are doing their bit with this Bill. But we must go beyond that. Magistrates must be prepared to use the powers given to them. It is useless increasing penalties if those penalties are not imposed. The Bill increases the maximum penalty for littering from £400 to £1,000. It may interest hon. Members to know that in 1988 only two people received the maximum sentence which represented 0·1 per cent. of the total number of people who were fined. Yet that was a 100 per cent. increase on the year before, when only one person received the maximum penalty. I hope that a Home Office circular will follow the enactment of the Bill to guide magistrates in making use of their new powers.
  Local authorities must also comply with their obligations, not just with the minimum requirements laid down by statute, but with the regulations under which they will be more accountable in the Bill. They must educate people and provide the means by which litter can be collected effectively and easily. There are often too few litter bins and they are often inadequate. Bins are invariably too small and open-topped. Litter overflows and is blown about. Local authorities must engage in extensive rethinking with a greater emphasis on education and on extending the availability of the means for collecting litter.
  Local retailers and shopkeepers must also assume a greater responsibility for keeping their frontages litter-free. In particular, fast food retail outlets should realise that they are as responsible as their customers for the discarded food trays and wrappings that litter pavements outside their premises. They should also try to educate their customers and ensure that the street is kept clean. Failure to do that should be actionable. If we cannot get them to do those things voluntarily, let us have litter wardens who could fine offenders on the spot.
  Recycling can provide a real, practical solution to pollution problems. For that reason, I welcome the Government's decision to give local authorities clear guidance on the priority that they must attach to recycling, as well as a statutory duty to include provisions for recycling in their waste disposal plans.
  The serious national problem of litter can be resolved only by everyone doing something about it. We need to restore a sense of personal and civic pride. The Bill is a move in the right direction, and it sends the necessary message. It is up to all of us to make sure that the message is heard and acted upon. Please note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that before I resume my seat, I am folding my notes and putting them back in my pocket, and not letting them be strewn about the Chamber, as many hon. Members are prone to do. In any event, I hope that I will need to refer to them in Committee.
  I support the Bill and recommend it to the House.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Although it is 8 o'clock, many hon. Members will be disappointed unless other hon. Members can sustain the brevity of their speeches. I appeal to hon. Members to try to keep their speeches brief.
  8 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I shall try to follow your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and keep my speech within 10 minutes.
  I am somewhat disappointed with the Bill because it does not go as far as one would wish. Opposition Members look forward to the White Paper and hope that the Bill to follow will deal with some omissions. In November last year, before the Bill was published, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that an amendment on straw stubble would be tabled. Today, the Secretary of State said that he would table an amendment to deal with the Nature Conservancy Council and the co-ordinating body. That is an encouraging move in the right direction. The previous Secretary of State was not prepared to listen to sensible proposals. There will be an opportunity in Committee to make important and positive improvements to the Bill.
  I sat on the Select Committee that reported on toxic waste. We must remember that the Government have been in office for more than 10 years. It is surprising that more Government action was taken on waste and that more consultation documents went out last year than in the previous nine years. The Minister will not be able to deny that fact. Even before they report, Select Committees at least spur the Government into action.
  It is useful to look at the Select Committee's report and the evidence to ascertain why some conclusions were reached. The Select Committee recommended the establishment of 10 national bodies for regulation of waste disposal. County councils gave evidence. It was appalling that three different sets of evidence were given by three political parties and that a fourth version came from council officers. It was not surprising that there was some concern. It is true that some local authorities are extremely good at waste disposal and regulation, but the bad authorities are very bad, and the Committee referred to that point in its report.
  The Secretary of State referred to contaminated land. A report on contaminated land will he published within the next month or so. As there are sure to be some useful proposals for the Standing Committee, I hope that the Government will be able to give a speedy response to the report. If they are not able to respond before Report, they will certainly be able to do so before the Bill is considered in another place.
  If we are to confer duties on local authorities, we should be sure to give to them the powers and financial resources to enable them to carry out their responsibilities. Hon. Members have said that they doubt whether that will be the case.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) that the public must be educated to stop throwing litter around and that fast-food outlets and others have a responsibility. Many councils have cut cleansing and litter collection services because of the financial restraints that have been imposed on them. The Minister may say that privatisation and competition will enable those services to be carried out more efficiently. I do not wish to go into
  90
  great detail, but the Bill allows councils to enforce required standards. I have been to some local authority areas where such services are carried out by the private sector. The situation is appalling—there has been no difference. The authorities that are spending money and doing the job themselves, are doing a good job. Opposition Members want local authorities to be provided with sufficient resources to tackle the problem.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) referred to dog fouling. Many hon. Members get letters about that problem and want it to be resolved. Unless there is an enforceable registration scheme, it will be extremely difficult to eliminate problems caused by dogs. There is widespread feeling on the matter. I hope that the new Secretary of State will think again about rejecting the existing power to impose such a scheme.
  We must remember the problems of the National Rivers Authority. Hon. Members who debated the Water Bill in Committee doubted whether it would have the resources and powers to do the job that it was established to do. On two occasions, the NRA has told the Select Committee on the Environment that it doubts whether it has the resources to do the job. It is no good passing this Bill without ensuring that the necessary resources are available. I brought a pollution problem in my constituency to the attention of the National Rivers Authority. It said that the power to deal with that problem has been excluded from the Water Act 1989 and that it must use the power of persuasion. We all know the power of persuasion when it comes to dealing with certain problems. It does not work.
  Some aspects of the Bill are limited, and do not go as far as Opposition Members would wish. We want properly enforceable powers and adequate resources.
  Despite what the Secretary of State said, there is concern about the Nature Conservancy Council. That point has been mentioned by several hon. Members. It is well known that there is hostility to the NCC by certain vested and landed interests in Scotland. Mr. Ian Prestt, the director general of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, said:
  "what they want is a body which does not stand up for conservation and cannot press the conservation case."
  One of the main battlegrounds between those vested and landed interests and conservationists has been the flow country of Caithness and Sutherland. The Government sold out when they accepted a report of Highland regional council and agreed that at least 100,000 hectares should be afforested. The NCC was opposed to further afforestation. It was overruled and, to add insult to injury, the Secretary of State for Scotland decided to change the rules. In future, the NCC is to be allowed to give its opinion on afforestation only when a site of special scientific interest is directly affected.
  That victory for landowners and foresters sowed the seeds of this Bill. Despite what the Secretary of State has said, we are still concerned about protection and conservation because we can already see the dangers. We should like the provisions to be considerably tightened.
  In the Government's 1989 document entitled "Environment in Trust", they Stated:
  "The environment knows no boundaries. Many… issues go beyond the borders of individual countries".
  That is one reason why we believe that the bodies involved should not be split up. I am not against devolution, but we must look at all the aspects involved with great care to

  91
  ensure that we achieve conservation and protection measures that work in the interests of the nation as a whole. We are reminded on so many occasions in the House when we are debating different issues that we must look at things on the basis of the national interest and ensure that we protect what we have, whether it be in England, Scotland or Wales.
  The Bill may be a step in the right direction, but it is an extremely small step. Many issues will be the subject of interesting and long debate in Committee as we try to strengthen the parts of the Bill that deal with pollution, conservation and the other matters that are of great concern both to hon. Members and to the country as a whole.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: Unlike the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), with his mealymouthed comments, I enthusiastically welcome the Bill, which is an important measure to protect the environment in which we live. Just as the Education Act 1944 stood out as a beacon for many years in education, I believe that this second step in the Government's protection of the environment will stand out as a landmark and a benchmark by which we show our commitment to the environment. As a Government, we do not mouth platitudes about problems and what should be done. This Government are seeking to come up with constructive policies and ideas about the way to tackle the problems of the environment, such as pollution—both industrial and litter—waste disposal and the ruination of our towns and countryside.
  I shall concentrate on the anti-litter aspect of the Bill. Serious concern has been expressed throughout the country and within the House this evening about the declining standards of cleanliness in this country. Last year a Department of the Environment poll showed that almost 75 per cent. of the people surveyed were worried about the litter problem, and an FDS Market Research poll has shown that 76 per cent. of the British public think that there is more litter on our streets and in our countryside now than 10 years ago.
  Britain is in danger of becoming the dustbin of Europe. Our inner cities and towns are riddled with litter that has been abandoned by thoughtless and selfish litter louts. Our countryside suffers from the dumping of litter and our roads and motorways are ruined by people emptying waste from their motor car as they drive along. Fast-food packaging, crisp bags, disposable drinks containers and cigarette stubs mar our environment. We are a nation that wallows in filth.
  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the strong lead that she provided long before other green campaigners jumped on the bandwagon, by identifying the problems and coming up with the constructive measures that the country demands to try to tackle them. It is obvious that the green crusaders are on the warpath. The Bill gives us the power to wage that war successfully.
  I particularly welcome clause 72, which extends to all local authorities the powers that Westminster city council took under private legislation to empower its workers to issue fixed penalty tickets to litter louts in its streets. The
  92
  logical conclusion was that the Government should adopt the contents of my Control of Litter (Fines) Bill of last year, so that all local authorities that have desperately wanted those powers do not have to queue up to introduce private legislation, which takes up time and costs a great deal of money to implement. With one fell swoop, clause 72 gives all local authorities genuine powers to wage war against the litter louts.
  However, I make a plea to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they think again about one aspect of the provisions. I believe that the money that will be collected in the magistrates courts from fixed penalty tickets should be given to the local authorities rather than the Treasury being allowed to get its grubby paws on it. I accept that we are not talking about millions of pounds, but if we were to give the local authorities any money gained from fines, it would greatly encourage them to enforce even more vigorously the new powers that they are being given. That money would also help them with the cost of fighting the litter problem.
  I know that the stock answer from the Treasury is that over the past 30 years or so, since the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, all fines for offences taken by the courts are given to the Treasury. However, just because something has been done for the past 40 years, does not necessarily mean that now, in the 1990s, it is the correct procedure for us still to follow. It should not be forgotten—I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends are aware of this—that before the 1949 Act, certain moneys from fines were directed towards the local authorities. The Government should seriously reconsider that matter so that we can get back to the old and preferable system.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) mentioned increasing the maximum fine for litter offences outside the fixed penalty system. I am sure that, like me, all hon. Members warmly welcome the increase, raising the maximum fine from £400 to £1,000. However, as my hon. Friend correctly identified, there is a problem because at present the imposition of the penalties in the magistrates courts is a joke.
  In 1987, just over 1,800 people were brought before the magistrates courts and fined for litter offences. As we have a population in England and Wales of about 50 million, that is a negligible number of people, considering the litter in our country. However, what is even worse is that the average fine imposed on those convicted was a mere £35 of the maximum £400 fine. When the figures are broken down, they show that the average has been bumped up to £35 only because there were a few large fines and that without those large fines the average would have been about £19.
  There is little point in increasing the fine to £1,000 unless something is done to impose larger fines in the magistrates courts, so that they act as a deterrent to ensure that people do not commit offences with impunity. Under the old system, offenders were only rarely caught, and even if they were caught, they knew that the punishment dished out by the courts would be pitifully small. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to have a gentle word with our noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, to see whether he can tactfully contact the magistrates courts and point out to them that the law will be changed when this legislation is on the statute book and that the maximum fine will be £1,000.
  It is time that the courts reflected the wishes of the country and the Government who have set the penalties

  93
  and imposed larger fines on the serious litter louts and on those who throw away their cigarette packets or whatever, so that they know that the Government and the country mean it when we say that we want to stop litter louts. On top of the battery of other powers and the duty that is to be placed on a local authority to keep its area clean, a few hefty fines would soon create a deterrent that would make people think twice about causing pollution.
  Education is also important. We can legislate as long and as often as we like, but legislation only creates a deterrent—people do not like to commit offences because they do not like the punishment. People must also be educated. Thirty years ago, children were brought up to respect the police, do what their elders told them, and not to throw litter. There is a lost generation between then and now. The parents of today have never told their children not to drop litter because most of them are dropping litter or emptying their ashtray through their window as they drive along.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the junior Minister at his Department have introduced initiatives in schools—Chelmsford has such initiatives—to make children care about the environment, and to teach them to clean up the playgrounds and the school buildings before they go home and not to throw litter. Soon, children will be teaching their parents not to be litter louts, because those initiatives come too late for one generation of parents—the lost generation—to teach their children.
  I warmly welcome the Bill. The hon. Member for Dagenham will come to regret his mealy-mouthed speech. It will be shown to be irrelevant to the achievements that the Bill will make when it comes into force. When the Government introduce more steps in the process, he will also appreciate that this step-by-step approach is designed, once and for all, to go to the heart of the problem and to tackle it realistically, although not overnight.
  8.21 pm
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) in his discourse on litter, but I shall follow some of the themes already explored by Scottish colleagues on both sides of the House in debating the future of conservation agencies and the Nature Conservancy Council in the United Kingdom.
  We are seeing a strange turnround in the politics of devolution. The official Opposition apparently support the continued centralisation of an agency for the United Kingdom, while the Conservative party—particularly in the person of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who has knowledge of the internal workings of the NCC—is advocating the devolution of the science base to Scotland and to Wales because this would result in a more effective conservation policy.
  I was particularly attracted by the speech of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) because he touched on the essential link between conservation policy, economic policy and the political structure. It can be summed up on the real meaning of the work ecology. By that, I mean not just the plant, flora and fauna ecology, but social, cultural and political ecology.
  The debate on the future of the NCC has been conducted by the environmental lobby on a United Kingdom-wide basis in apparent ignorance of the practical
  94
  work on the ground, particularly in the part of the world that I have had the privilege to represent for 15 years—Snowdonia national park. The early pioneering work of R. E. Hughes and others in establishing the nature reserves in that geologically valuable and unique area was undertaken entirely on a voluntary basis because the people on the ground—scientists of the National Environment Research Council and subsequently of the NCC—were acceptable to the local farming community.
  Similarly, the current director of the NCC in Wales, Professor Tom Pritchard, has continually used voluntary methods to obtain agreements so that the statutory compulsory powers available to the NCC over sites of special scientific interest did not have to be used. On a number of occasions, I and others have been involved in ensuring that agreement was reached between the farming community and the scientific interests so that the people in charge, in the NCC, the national park and other conservation agencies, worked together, alongside the landowners, the tenant farmers and the community.
  We cannot have effective conservation or environmental policies without the support of the local community. I heard the Prime Minister make this point when she was opening an exhibition for Survival International. She said that one could not talk about ecological survival without talking also about the survival of the humans who were part of the ecology. If that is true of the more extreme conditions with which Survival International deals, it is certainly true in the highly developed environment and economy of Scotland and Wales.
  Those in favour of a centralised body have ignored the active co-ordination between the countryside agencies in Scotland and Wales. The devolution of the Countryside Commission from Cheltenham to Wales and the establishment of the Countryside Council for Wales have been the subject of debate for 10 or 12 years. My predecessor, Mr. William Edwards, tabled amendments to what was then the Countryside Bill. The staff of the NCC Committee for Wales and the Countryside Commission have discussed the transfer of powers and co-ordination, not to achieve yet another Welsh quango but to ensure an integrated approach towards conservation, and so that the special contribution and the scientific expertise of the NCC can stand alongside the policies pursued by the Countryside Commission within and outside the national parks.
  In Wales, there is genuine, near-universal support, with the exception of the Labour party, for the proposal for the Countryside Council for Wales. We see it as the conclusion of the process of co-ordination, working together arid integration on the countryside issue. We look forward to the body developing ecology policies within Wales to strengthen the scientific base in a way that will enable us to contribute more effectively to conservation on the European mainland and elsewhere.
  I fail to understand the logic of those who say that, by maintaining a centralised scientific base in Peterborough, we are maintaining a higher level of scientific expertise in the United Kingdom. I know that, for example, Peterborough has had to request geologists to deal with the unique geology of north Wales, and that is absurd. As a result of the reorganisation, it will be possible to maintain a more devolved scientific base closer to the community and to co-ordinate the various bodies more effectively.

  95
  Co-ordination does not stop at the Channel. European co-ordination is also important. Representing a mountain area, I am aware that the ecology of large parts of my constituency has much more in common with the alpine ecology of mainland Europe that it has with Peterborough. Therefore, for me it is important that the scientific expertise developed in mountain ecology throughout Europe is available, and that the work in Snowdonia is part of a far more broad-based scientific approach and is not confined to Great Britain or even the United Kingdom: I am pleased that conservation policies in Northern Ireland will be related to what has happened on the Great Britain level through the co-ordinating Committee, because there was an anomaly in the relationship between the NCC and Northern Ireland.
  All those arguments create controversy which should not be there. We are strengthening the scientific base generally and relating it more closely to the needs of the community. Similarly, the Countryside Council for Wales will provide an opportunity to develop countryside policies in which conservation and environmental considerations are an integral part.
  The Minister knows that we support the Government's conservation policy. This is one of the rare occasions when we support the Government. My final plea to the Minister is that the Welsh Office must adopt an integrated policy-making approach. The Scottish Office has taken a lead in that by designating a Minister for rural affairs. I can only echo the hon. Member for Western Isles who talked about the need to integrate an approach which concerns the economic well-being of a community and the ecology and habitat of an area. The Welsh Office has failed to become the territorial Department that it should be, and that probably applies to the Scottish Office, too.
  Although responsibilities for forestry, tourism, recreation, national parks, transportation, social policies, housing, agriculture and the Development Board for Rural Wales reside in the Welsh Office, it does not have an identifiable countryside policy. I do not think that the Department of the Environment has one for England either.
  I want to see the liberation of England—indeed, I have spent many years arguing for it—from the failure to have a co-ordinated policy. I should like to see the Welsh Office, through the new Countryside Council for Wales, adopting and implementing an integrated countryside policy so that the conflicts between access and conservation are mitigated and, particularly, so that the contribution of hill farming to conservation can be properly recognised and funded. Sheep farmers and others face an incomes crisis. There is an opportunity for the farming community to become more than ever the stewards of the whole countryside and ecology, but they need effective policy and income support to do that.
  For the reasons that I have outlined, my party supports the objectives of the Bill. We shall certainly not support the official Opposition amendment tonight because yet again they have failed to see the potential for effective devolution of policy to Wales and Scotland.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I hope that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) will forgive me if I do not pursue the lines and angles that he has introduced into the debate. I do not have his specialised knowledge on those points. I should like to widen the debate. I was most interested in what he said and certainly did not substantially disagree with him on any particular issue.
  As a member of the Select Committee on the Environment I find immediate common ground with our Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), and with my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) who have already spoken. No doubt my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and they, too, may find common ground with my points.
  The Bill is surely to be warmly welcomed and strongly supported at least in two respects. The propositions relating to integrated pollution control and waste management seek to establish standards clearly in advance of anything that prevails in Europe now, and they are greatly to be welcomed for that. The implications are far-reaching. There is scarcely an industrial process and certainly no waste management process which will not be affected by the proposals.
  As there are still restrictions on time I shall confine my remarks to integrated pollution control and waste management. In so far as my comments are critical, it is only in the sense that a good Bill can become even better through work in Committee.
  I am not entirely convinced from the Bill, Ministerial comment or the consultation process that the Government have fully grasped the enormity of what they are undertaking. We gather from consultation and Government Statements that the Government believe that about 3,000 industrial sites may come under integrated pollution control. One can summon two strong witnesses who will challenge that: the Chemical Industries Association and the Confederation of British Industry. Such bodies believe that that is a gross underestimate. The question whether the integrated pollution control mechanism will be suitably qualified and experienced has not yet been answered. Where will the people come from? What will be the numbers? Have the Government fully appreciated the financing and manning required to operate an effective integrated pollution control system?
  A second question must be asked about integrated pollution control. The system could easily become a bureaucrats' paradise. In its negotiations with the Government the CBI has tried to make this point something of a reductio ad absurdum, but it is a valid debating point. It argues that an industrial process involving HMIP, the National Rivers Authority, the privatised water utilities, waste regulatory authorities, the Health and Safety Executive and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will result in a confusion of authorities concerned with pollution control. To avoid that there must be one enforcement agency and, arguably, the Bill insufficiently gives that role to HMIP.

  97
  The bureaucrats' paradise can be further promoted by the lack of definition within the Bill. One or two hon. Members have already drawn attention to that. One expression which will feature greatly in Committee is
  "the best available techniques not involving excessive costs."
  Who defines "best"? Why "techniques", not "technology"? Who decides what costs are excessive? Answers to those questions are not found in the Bill and I hope that they will be found speedily in Committee.
  For a long time the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors, the Select Committee on the Environment and the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology have demanded strengthened controls over the generation of waste, it disposal and its continuing control in landfill sites. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green pointed to the fragmented nature of waste management control in the Bill.
  Local authorities are to be waste regulatory authorities. There are 173 such authorities in Great Britain and a further 26 in Northern Ireland, making a grand total of 199. In West Germany there are 25 waste regulatory authorities and in Italy 30. There seems to be overkill in the United Kingdom. How can 199 authorities act consistently and coherently? How can 199 authorities each have a full range of scientific, technical and legal skills? The answer is that they cannot, and one does not blame them for that. One day this Government or another Government will have to acknowledge what the Select Committee on the Environment has been saying clearly—that we need to move to regional waste regulatory authorities.
  A further point has already featured in the debate and I do not apologise for referring to it again. That is the confusion in relating part Ito part II of the Bill. Part I talks about integrated pollution controls controlling pollution caused by the release of substances into air and water and on to land. Part II sets up the WRAs, but most of the substances released into the land will be waste materials. Who will be responsible for those? Will it be the IPC or the WRAs? That confusion could undermine much of the good intention behind the Bill.
  With many other hon. Friends I warmly welcome and strongly support the Bill. It is a good one and I believe it could become infinitely better by positive work in Committee.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: On behalf of my constituents, I welcome the Bill in one respect, as it gives us the opportunity to debate environmental protection. That is a matter of great concern nationally, but it is of particular concern to my constituents who, in recent months, have had a cloud of sulphuric acid pass over them and a paint works explode near a residential area. They are also aware of a growing queue of applications to build waste incinerators in Kirby. Concern about environmental issues in my constituency, therefore, has been heightened. My constituents are well informed and they take a great interest in the subject.
  Although I welcome the idea of the Bill, a detailed examination of its proposals reveals that there are two fundamental deficiencies in its approach. One of those deficiencies has been highlighted by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). Clause 6 in part I and clause 64 in part III respectively refer to integrated pollution control
  98
  and statutory nuisances and clean air. Those parts of the Bill use the phrase which has been repeated today by the Secretary of State and several of his hon. Friends—"not entailing excessive cost". It is a matter of great concern that that phrase is tagged on to some of the protections provided in those parts of the Bill.
  If it is left to operators and to manufacturers to decide what is and what is not excessive cost—the Bill is far from clear who will determine that—one can be sure that almost every item of environmental protection required for incinerators, chemical works and other places will be considered excessively costly. That is what will happen unless the Bill is tightened up in Committee.
  Another problem at the heart of the Bill relates to clauses 18 and 54, concerning public information. The Bill States that, in cases of commercial confidentiality, the public, local authorities, Members of Parliament and so on will not have access to information. That seems reasonably innocuous, but I suspect that, in the past, many hon. Members, like me, have tried to find out exactly what is going on at a chemical works near or within their constituencies.
  If the Secretary of State or any of his Ministers have never tried to find out such information, I recommend the exercise to them. If a firm does not want what it is up to broadcast and if one approaches various responsible authorities, such as the fire authority, the pollution inspectorate, the Health and Safety Executive or the local authority, one is told that the information is commercially sensitive or confidential.
  Even now, Members of Parliament and local councillors, never mind local residents, cannot find out what is going on at various factories. When the Government talk about commercial confidentiality, I get extremely worried. After all, this is the Government who decided that we could not know how much it cost to advertise the water privatisation, as it was a matter of commercial confidentiality. They also decided that we could not find out how much money was spent on promoting housing action trusts for the same reason. They used the same argument to prevent us from knowing how much money was spent on publicising and promoting the docklands developments.
  It is apparent that commercial confidentiality is erected, and will continue to be erected, as a great barrier against public access to information. People should be allowed to find out what is going on in their area.
  I worked for about five years as an engineer in the chemical industry. I know that, if anyone believes that there is something magically secretive about what goes on at most chemical factories, they are living in a dream world. Often, what is going on at a chemical manufacturing plant has more to do with cookery than chemistry, and if any competitor wants to find out, it is fairly easy to do so. A few telephone calls and a few orders will enable the competitor to piece together what is going on.
  Firms often claim that they cannot give information because it is commercially sensitive, or a matter of commercial secrecy, and because of the fear of competition. Firms know that it is easy for competitors to discover what is going on. They use that excuse because they do not want local residents, local authorities and others to know that. Unless the argument for commercial

  99
  confidentiality as outlined in the Bill is clarified, I, and most members of the public, will be deeply suspicious about its use.
  The Bill sets up a sort of framework against which waste management proposals and incineration proposals can be judged. The report of the Select Committee on the Environment on toxic waste and the Department's response to it have shed some light on the problems, the possible answers and some of the available technologies.
  The truth of the matter, however—any reasonably competent practising engineer will confirm it—is that none of the technologies available can guarantee that the burning temperature of municipal and medical incinerators can be guaranteed to remain at 1,300 deg C, which is required to kill off dioxins. If that cannot be guaranteed, any local population are right to be deeply suspicious about proposals to build any type of incinerator to burn waste in their backyard. The Bill does not cover that matter in any detail and I do not have any confidence in the Government's intention to get the matter under control.
  One of the most feared pollutants is the toxic waste emission of dioxin. A local community is right to believe that it is in danger if an incinerator is built nearby. Unless and until technology is produced, or some more effective method of monitoring is introduced, I shall not countenance the development of the incinerators currently proposed for my area.
  Although I welcome the fact that environmental protection is at last the subject of debate and legislation, many areas do not warrant a mention in the Bill. I am bound to say that our reasoned amendment is a good response to the Bill. I shall vote for it, because the Bill leaves too much unsaid and too much uncovered.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: The environment can be a large subject—the hole in the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect—or it can be a small subject such as the State of local streets or whether local wildlife in the streets is cared for, and that may mean something as humble as a blackbird or a robin. Often, it is the small things which cause the most annoyance to local people. I shall concentrate on one matter briefly mentioned in the Bill—noise.
  Noise comes under the heading of a statutory nuisance. Last summer, which was long and hot, I had more complaints from my constituents about noise than anything else. It seems that when the weather is hot, people like to get outside and party, but the trouble is that they like to do so all through the night. In two roads in my consistuency—Pearl road and Morgan avenue—the residents' lives last summer were made miserable for months on end by one family in each street. Those families had music playing all through the night, friends arriving at 3 am and 4 am, and cars arriving with their radios blaring—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members, who are laughing, wanted to be constructive, they could come to Walthamstow and beat up those people. They would have had the thanks of my constituents if they had done so.
  The present statutory provisions for dealing with noise are not strong enough. The burden is placed on local authorities. Some of these have noise controls, but they
  100
  tend to be out only on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday, not during the week. Therefore, people suffering from noise caused by others have no remedy other than to ring the police, who have no powers because causing such a noise is not a criminal offence.
  When I looked at the Bill I was disappointed to see that, once again, the responsibility for trying to deal with this menace is placed on local authorities, but that there is no duty on local authorities to deal with it. When people come to see me at my surgery and say, "Mr. Summerson, the entire street is being kept awake night after night and week after week; we cannot sleep in our front bedrooms but have to go to the back bedrooms because these people come and make such a noise; what are we to do about it?", I say, "Have you rung the police?" They say that they have rung the police, who come and tell those making the noise to keep it quiet and to turn the music down. The police go, and 10 minutes later those people are at it again.
  Those who complain would not mind so much if they had to put up with a party on a Saturday night. Nobody minds if the party goes on until 2 am if it happens only once or twice a year, but when it goes on night after night for weeks on end, people feel that there must be a statutory provision to enable them to live their lives in peace and quiet. They cannot do so at the moment, as I have discovered from my own experience.
  I have a flat just down the road here in Westminster. A man who lives only a few yards away comes back from the pub drunk. I see him coming back and know what will happen. He will turn up the volume of his music, open his windows and blast the street with it. It can be country and western, Irish national or rock music—I never know what he is going to play, but I know that he will play it until 3 am, 4 am or 5 am. I ring up the police, who arrive looking weary and fed up. They go and have a word with him, and 10 minutes later, when they have gone, the music starts again. I ring up Westminster city council, for which I have the greatest admiration, but on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights, it does not have a noise patrol. That is the problem.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider giving powers to the police so that they can come along, perhaps with a noise meter, and institute criminal proceedings against whoever causes a nuisance.
  I shall turn from one nuisance to another. The subject of dog mess has already been mentioned. I see from the memorandum to the Bill that clause 70
  "empowers the Secretary of State to include any description of animal droppings in the definition of refuse for this part of the Bill."
  The problem is that, until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that dog mess will be included in the definition of "refuse" in the Bill, dog mess will not be counted as refuse. That could mean that, when the street cleaner comes along and sees the dog mess, he will say that, according to section 70 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, dog mess is not refuse, so he will carefully sweep around it. If he is at all legally minded and looks at his copy of the Environmental Protection Act, that is what he will see.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will see fit to include—
  Mr. Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Summerson: I am sorry: I would give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I am running within the 10-minute time limit.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will include dog mess in the definition of refuse.
  I hope that the house will not consider me frivolous, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will also include bird mess within the description of refuse. In my constituency, pigeons nest underneath the bridge where the railway line crosses wood street. They have done so for years. When someone walks underneath, he or she finds it quite revolting—[interruption.] The hon. Member for Islington, north (Mr. Corbyn) asks, "why?" if he walked under that bridge—
  Mr. Corbyn: I said that it was called guano.
  Mr. Summerson: I thought that the hon. Gentleman asked, "why?" and I was going to recommend that he stood under the bridge for five minutes; then he would find out why it was revolting.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear these points in mind and realise that, if he includes bird and animal droppings within the definition of refuse, he will make life a lot happier for those urban dwellers among us.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Alan w. Williams: As many hon. Members want to speak I shall confine my remarks to one part of the Bill—the first part on integrated pollution control. As has been said, since 1976 the principle of integrated pollution control has been accepted as something for which we should work. I am glad to say that it is now to be implemented.
  In practice, it is difficult to find people who are expert in all forms of waste control—water waste, solid waste, air pollution and radioactive substances. They are different disciplines, and to find inspectors expert in all of them is like finding professors of chemistry who can also teach physics, biology and computing. The goal is very ambitious.
  It is disappointing that integrated pollution control is to be based on the present HMIP which, as several hon. Members have said, is suffering badly from low morale. It is in a shambles; two directors have resigned, and the late brian Ponsford committed suicide under the stress of the job.
  HMIP is grossly understaffed; its 199 members of staff face the enormous task of overseeing air pollution, waste control and radioactive substances. I have studied air pollution carefully over the past three or four months while serving on the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which has been looking into toxic waste and taking a particular interest in Rechem's incinerator in Pontypool
  A cowboys' charter seems to regulate air pollution in this country. There have been only nine prosecutions in the past 10 years, so effectively, the law does not operate. The director of the western division on HMIP gave evidence to us in November and I asked him about monitoring Rechem in Pontypool. Its incinerator is the largest in Britain, although there are three other large ones. More than half its trade is in burning imported PCB wastes. As everyone knows, there is serious anxiety in the local community about possible contamination of the neighbourhood by PCBs and dioxins in the flue gases.
  102
  HMIP has been visiting the incinerator for sampling only twice a year and it carries out an analysis of the flue gases which looks only for particulates and carbon monoxide. Analysis of PCBs and dioxins is carried out by Rechem itself, and that is appalling. It is do-it-yourself pollution control.
  Because of poor staffing levels, HMIP's inspections of premises across Britain have been cut by 40 per cent. In the past four years. On average, industrial premises are sampled once every two years. That contrasts with the NRA, which takes samples at least monthly, and sometimes even weekly or daily, from large industrial premises.
  There are only 32 air pollution inspectors in Britain, compared with 1,000 in the netherlands and 20,000 in the united States. What comes out of chimneys in the form of air pollution is just as important as what pollutes our waterways. The NRA has more than 6,000 members of staff: HMIP a mere 200. It is nonsense to transfer some of the responsibilities of the NRA to HMIP, as this Bill does. HMIP lacks the necessary organisation.
  We support and advocate integrated pollution control, but only if it has the necessary resources. I looked through the Bill carefully to discover its financial implications. The budget for the enlarged HMIP will be only £3 million or £4 million a year—peanuts compared with the budgets of the chemical industry which produces the waste. The money will mean an additional 15 members of staff for HMIP. Given those scant resources, how can we expect integrated pollution control to work?
  The Government have been in power for 10 years and this, their first Bill on the environment, contains nothing about the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide emissions, acid rain and other global environmental issues. Too little and too late, the Bill offers very little and very late.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Keith mans: I intend to say a few words about the administrative framework of pollution control as outlined in the Bill. I intend also to refer to some of the objectives that should be incorporated in any sensible environmental policy. Before I do so, I should contrast the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the environment with that of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). I agree with a number of the points made by opposition members, but the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham was slightly unfortunate. He criticised the measure without suggesting that parts of it might be good. That may be connected with his party's record during the past 30 to 40 years.
  It is relevant that about 48 acts of parliament since 1945 have had a large environmental content. Of those, 32 were passed under conservative administrations. A mere 15 were passed under labour administrations. For every year, therefore, under Governments of the two parties, well over one act went on to the statute book under a conservative Government, whereas rather less than one act went on to the statute book under a labour Government. Since 1974, labour Governments have passed five acts of parliament, whereas conservative Governments have passed 11.
  This is one of a series of measures that go back for many years, if not decades. I welcome the use of the term "integrated pollution control". That must be the way forward. However, my experience as a member of the

  103
  Select Committee leads me to believe that it is one thing to talk about integrated pollution control but quite another to make it a reality. Some of my hon. Friends have already said that it will be difficult to implement all facets of integrated pollution control.
  Although I am happy about integrated pollution control, I am less happy about the job that local authorities will be asked to do. As the collectors and disposers of waste, their record is good. Wyre borough in Lancashire already operates a forward-looking policy for the collection of waste and the clearing up of litter. Its policy is well ahead of what is provided for in the Bill. Many other boroughs and districts will, I believe, take up such a policy with relish.
  I am also less happy about the regulatory nature of some of the roles that county councils will have to play. It is not sensible to vest the regulation and disposal of waste in the same authority, however much at arm's length the arrangements between the two may appear to be. There are three main reasons why that is not the right way forward. The first relates to the record of county councils over their waste disposal plans. A waste disposal plan was sent to me recently by a county council. I hasten to add that it was not my own. The covering note provided some fairly specious reasons for taking 15 years to produce the plan. It boiled down to a lack of resources and, most important, the lack of priority that was given to the preparation of the plan. That does not bode well for the regulatory tasks that county councils will have to perform.
  Secondly, I have already referred to the fact that the same authority will be both poacher and gamekeeper. Water privatisation means that the department of the environment has got rid of those two functions, and it is unfortunate that the poacher-gamekeeper relationship is to continue within the county councils.
  Thirdly, I am worried whether the best method to dispose of waste will be used when, as my hon. Friend the member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said, up to 199 different authorities will be putting forward their own best methods for waste disposal. That is far too many.
  The boundaries between county councils are administrative, not natural. However, I agree with my colleagues on the select Committee on the environment that we must consider waste disposal in terms of regional authorities based on natural boundaries—river basins. I would like to see a move towards combining the functions of her majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the national rivers authority to create a proper environment protection agency, rather than give responsibility for waste disposal to county councils.
  I hope that the white paper that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will issue later this year will point us towards such a combined function in the future. Provided that such a body were responsible to the Secretary of State, in precisely the same way as the health and safety inspectorate is responsible to the Secretary of State for employment, there would be an element of accountability. I understand that lack of accountability was a reason for not following that route.
  We can see that there will be problems with duplication of effort in the route that we are following. I was pleased to read in the paper today that the problem of different areas of responsibility between the NRA and HMIP has
  104
  Been reconciled. I suspect that there will be problems with the various disposal agencies and the county councils in their regulatory role and their relationship with HMIP.
  Several county councils are setting up organisations to deal with the environment, and that is probably laudable. Often, the first thing that they do is communicate with the NRA, which has to explain what the councils should do. Then they often decide to do something slightly different, based on the advice of another set of experts. HMIP is having difficulty recruiting staff, and the scarce numbers of environmental experts should not be used up arguing with each other. One organisation should be responsible for the overall control of pollution, and that would make the best use of the expertise that is available.
  A sensible environment policy should include three main objectives—recycling, minimisation of waste and safe waste disposal. Some mention has been made this evening of the need for manufacturing processes that acknowledge the importance of the environment. We should see more of that in the future.
  I am pleased about the role of local authorities in the recycling of waste. However, I am slightly disappointed that the Bill is not printed on recycled paper. I am certain that that will be the case in the future.
  Safe methods of waste disposal are important. I am convinced that the costs of disposal will have to be increased to meet safety needs, particularly for refrigerators and other items that contain what are considered to be dangerous chemicals.
  The Bill is a good one. It is only a step in the right direction, and a considerable amount will need to be done in the future, but the Bill deserves the support of hon. Members on both sides of the house, as it points the way towards integrated pollution control, and it will put us in the forefront of the protection of the environment.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: In many ways, the Bill is a rather sad affair. It is a response to much pressure from ordinary people who want to live in a decent and clean environment.
  The Bill includes a series of pollution control measures, some of which are likely to be effective, but some of which are likely to be ineffective. It does not attempt to address the wider environmental questions of which the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have been speaking over the past few months. It says nothing about the amount of money that may be given to the united nations environmental programme, nothing about support for international initiatives on the ozone layer, protection of the rain forests and the savannah grasslands, and little about the future of the world's environment, its ecosystems and what contribution the Government will make. For those reasons, its objectives are limited. A further Bill may be necessary, or a Statement from the Secretary of State on the resources that will be devoted to those important issues.
  If we do not address those major issues, we are heading for a serious climatic and ecological disaster. Indeed, much evidence suggests that it is already occurring. The creation of new deserts where rain forests once stood, the destruction of much of the savannah grassland and the changes in the climatic systems in central and south America and parts of Africa and Asia prove that. The droughts, storms and flooding of the past few years were

  105
  not freaks but were part of a climatic change that has occurred as a result of the activities of the human race. Those issues must be addressed in the Bill.
  Together with other hon. Members, I support controls on pollution, the principle that the polluter must pay and the right of the public to know who is causing pollution and damage. Emphasis should be placed on who and what is causing waste. It is all very well to speak of the need for controls on litter and of the need for greater recycling, but should we not be examining the need for the production of paper?
  In an intervention to the Secretary of State, I did not call for massive censorship of newspapers, but pointed out that we are an incredibly paper-wasteful society. If one buys a sweet in a shop, why must it be wrapped three, four or five times? Why must packaged food in supermarkets be wrapped at least three times and enveloped in a plastic bag that cannot rot because it is not biodegradable? Our approach must acknowledge that, even if we recycle paper, we are still using energy resources. The question should be: is it necessary to manufacture that paper? The same applies to glass and tinned cans for soft drinks, with all the problems of recycling that they pose. I should like to see a system that does not produce waste, that produces not solely for profit or for consumerism, but for the needs of people.
  The largest single polluter in this country is the motor car. It produces more carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and other dangerous and noxious gases than almost any industrial process. Cars fitted with catalytic converters produce more carbon dioxide, yet the Department of Transport quite happily accepts that car usage will increase. Indeed, it encourages the use of private cars by underfunding British Rail and regional transport systems and by pursuing an anti-public transport strategy. I ask the Government to adopt a different approach to those matters.
  I represent a densely populated inner-city area. The borough of Islington has the least amount of open space of any urban area in the country. What little space we have has been fought for by the people who live in the borough. Many of my constituents live in grossly overcrowded housing. They live in a poor environment, partly because of that overcrowding, partly because of pollution and partly because of the lack of open space. Their worries about the world's environment are the worries of us all. Their worries about access to the countryside and the preservation of the rural and wilder areas and of the planet are our worries, because they rightly demand access to open space.
  I hope that when we again discuss environmental protection we shall go much further than the proposals in the Bill and that we shall not miss the great opportunities offered by the Bill to make a serious contribution to the future of the world's environment. The situation becomes more serious day by day. The free enterprise policies that produce solely for waste and for profit and that promote a consumerist mentality rather than one of need are damaging to the environment. I am in no sense defending the centralised economies of eastern Europe. They have polluted the north sea and rivers just as industries in Britain and North America have destroyed rivers, wasted natural resources and ruined people's lives by their form of pollution.
  It is not good enough to promote an economic system that produces for waste and to promote environmental
  106
  controls in western Europe and North America to look after our environment if at the same time we transfer that destruction of the environment to poorer Third-world countries, either by exporting toxic waste and letting those countries get rid of it by whatever means they can, because they are desperate for foreign currency, or by promoting the destruction of the rain forests, through raping those countries to collect debt payments, when they can make them only by destroying all their natural resources.
  We live in an age when we have an opportunity to improve our environment and save ourselves from mass destruction through climatic change and environmental disasters. The Bill goes some way towards meeting some of the worries about pollution controls, but it misses the great opportunity which we should grasp and to which the House will have to return repeatedly if we are to contribute towards saving the 'environment rather than destroying it.
  9.22 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On listening to the contributions to the debate, one might be forgiven for thinking that we have a serious environmental problem in Britain. Nothing could be further from the truth. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) implied that market forces were somehow responsible, that affluence leads to effluence, but that is not so. We need only look at eastern Europe to see that Socialism leads to effluence and that the toxic waste produced by an unregulated but highly subsidised Socialist economy causes pollution problems. There, the air is not fit to breathe, the water is not fit to drink and even carrots grown in allotments are allegedly not fit to be eaten. Those problems are produced not by the capitalist society that we have the good fortune to have, but by Socialism or by the remnants of Socialism even here in our country.
  Water pollution, in so far as the water industry has been in the hands of the public sector, is largely the issue about which we complain, but the Government are changing that with their new legislation. The more we bring industries into a capitalist system, the fewer pollution problems we shall have to complain about.
  An enormous divergence of issues is subsumed in the Bill. No one could possibly suggest that litter or dog droppings are in the same category as the disposal of industrial waste, global warming or acid rain—there is clearly a great difference in the scale of the problems. One problem is possibly environmental pollution and the other is simply a matter of training people into better habits. A different regime of regulation should be applied to each.
  We are well aware of the need to recycle renewable resources such as wood and paper, so we must guard against having another regime of regulation that might make that a less attractive option for the private sector. There are also non-renewable resources, such as oil and coal, and the way in which to protect those resources and to make them last is to price them appropriately. As the resources are used up, they become more expensive and the market finds more economical ways of operating. The way in which to conserve non-renewable resources is through the price mechanism, not through yet more regulation, inspectors and administrative burdens placed on industry.
  We must start not where we should like to be, in the utopia of a pre-industrial society, but from where we are now. We must be careful not to construct a regime of regulation that will make it impossible for our industries to

  107
  continue to develop and grow. That could easily happen. It would not be the first time in our recent history that we had identified a problem and so regulated matters that we had made it worse.
  In that regard, I draw the attention of the house to housing. A few decades ago, housing was identified as a problem that needed control and Government intervention and regulation. What has happened? We have made matters ten times worse. We have regulated housing in which people do not want to live, unattractive council estates and more homelessness than we have experienced for a very long time. All of that came out of good intentions and the problem was exacerbated by the imposition of a vast administrative and regulatory regime.
  What concerns me about the Bill is the number of new regulatory bodies that it proposes for our industry. I urge the Minister to bear it in mind in Committee that one gains more converts with honey than with vinegar. We must guard against over-regulating our industries and making it difficult for them to produce consumer goods at prices that people can afford, by making it almost impossible for them to conduct their business profitably and sensibly.
  We have heard talk during the debate about packaging, but the private sector already has a council that is examining the matter. We do not need more regulation; we just need better co-operation. Private sector organisations are already producing data banks of information on which the better management of raw materials can be based.
  Before we start spending taxpayers' money on environmental agencies—part of the Bill's proposals—I urge the Minister to take a good look at what the private sector is already doing and at how the private sector can be helped to regulate itself. Then the measures that we introduce will go with the grain of industry rather than against it. They should be industry-friendly, as well as environment-friendly, and we should ensure that we do not drive our industries into a corner so that they can no longer meet people's expectations. We must remember that when parliament gets its teeth into what is alleged to be a new problem, it sometimes ends up making things worse.
  I view the Bill with caution. I trust that the Minister has a sensible attitude to the beneficial aspects of industrialisation and the private sector, and I hope that in 10 years' time the house will not look back and wonder why we allowed the strangulation of so much of our industrial framework under the guise of protecting ourselves from something that is not nearly as much of a problem as opposition members and many environmental agencies would have us believe.
  9.28 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) introduced a novel note into the debate. Alone of all the Speakers whom we have heard, she believes that environmental pollution is not a problem. She says that if there is a problem, it is all the fault of socialists and that pollution control is a burden on industry. Perhaps the hon. Lady made an old speech because she had not been made aware that there has been a change of Secretary of State and that the attitude of the
  108
  current Secretary of State is somewhat different from that of his predecessor. I am sure that the new Secretary of State will update her.
  The Bill has one of the grandest titles of any Bill to come before the house for a long time. Its title, "Environmental Protection Bill", is a sweeping Statement of intention which no one, except perhaps the hon. Member for Billericay, would want to oppose. For many people, few issues loom larger on the horizon than the need for urgent action now to protect our environment. That need is central to the health and well-being of all of us, and it is crucial to the future of our children.
  As the problems are so great and people are aware that the dangers have intensified so much, any Bill with this title is to be welcomed. However, the problem and the sadness is that the Bill's content does not match the aspirations of its title. A Bill to tackle the major environmental problems facing us now must, in simple logic, deal first with the most significant and major threats to our environment.
  Ministers have identified and pontificated on the problems. The Prime Minister has referred to the problems of global warming. She has complained that we are adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate, and she has spoken about the scale of the damage. However, the Bill is completely silent about that issue.
  In his television interview in "On the Record", the Secretary of State came up with many ideas and comments which showed that he had taken on board the magnitude of many of the problems facing us. He won much praise for his comments, and they induced high hopes among those concerned with these issues. We hoped for the best from the Secretary of State.
  However, since the Bill's publication, we have had to revise our expectations and realise that anyone who followed the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) as Secretary of State for the environment would have produced high expectations. It would be hard for anyone to be more anti-environment than the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, although the hon. Member for Billericay is trying.
  This Bill, the first product of the efforts of the new Secretary of State, does not answer the expectations which his reputation has created. It reorganises some aspects of pollution control, concentrates on somewhat gimmicky approaches to litter, and opens the door for competitive tendering for waste disposal. It also reconstructs the Nature Conservancy Council because of certain vested interests, but without proper consultation. Such a Bill could probably have been introduced by the Secretary of State's predecessor; I can think of no worse condemnation than that of the new Secretary of State's green mantle.
  The Bill can be described only as an incredible disappointment and wasted opportunity. The Bill has some worthy parts and, as my hon. Friend the member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said earlier, we will seek to clarify, strengthen and support those parts in Committee. However, the great and glaring gaps in the legislation are staggering.
  If I mention some of the areas which should have been covered by the Bill, perhaps the Minister for the environment and countryside will take them on board. After all, the Government have promised to table many new clauses and to take up many other issues such as straw burning, crown immunity and dumping at sea. Perhaps there will be room for more. I fear that the Bill that we are

  109
  discussing tonight will bear little resemblance to the final legislation. In that context, I hope that the Government will respond to our constructive amendments in the way that they hope we will respond to theirs.
  The Bill should have contained the basic principles of environmental protection. We must quickly adopt the principle of a presumption against pollution. We cannot assume that the environment can always take the pollution that we create.
  Before we seek to control pollution, we must seek to prevent it by changing methods and by examining our use of resources. Coupled with that, we must have clearer timetables and targets, not just good intentions. Therefore, it is not enough for the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State to be worried about global warming. The Government have agreed to peg carbon dioxide levels to those that are reached by the year 2000, but they can increase until then. As was said earlier, they should have stabilised them within five years, but they did not because it goes against the grain of 10 years of Thatcherism.
  The Secretary of State tells us that we must wait for the white paper. He forgets that the Government have already had 10 years in which to deal with environmental problems and that a lot more would have been achieved and the problems could have been minimised if there had not been many negative moves by the Government in the past 10 years. I refer to the Government's failure to invest in public transport and their dismal record on energy conservation. In 1986–87, the energy efficiency office budget was £26 million. This year it is £15 million. Next year it will be £12 million. In view of the problems that we face, they are absolutely senseless cuts.
  If the Government and the Minister were committed to tackling environmental problems we would not have seen such a drop in spending, nor would we have seen the end of the television campaigns on energy saving, for the first time since 1973. The Government were keen enough to spend taxpayers' money to sell the water industry, but they were not keen enough to use taxpayers' money to promote energy saving. Of course, only last year, the Government rejected the energy conservation duties that the labour party tried to put into the electricity Bill. It seems that the Government are keener on privatising the meteorological office than they are on introducing legislation to tackle global warming. While that remains the case, the Secretary of State will have a long way to go to deliver the action that is required to justify his reputation.
  The Secretary of State wants hon. Members to accept that many things should be left to the white paper, but, when the white paper is produced, he will want to consult further. He is in danger of becoming one of the few tories—if not the only Tory—who hope that the election will not be deferred for too long, or he himself will run out of excuses for not taking action on these problems. We will watch his efforts with interest.
  Part I, dealing with integrated pollution control, is accepted in principle by most hon. Members, but there are still some outstanding problems. The Government's proposals concentrate on the control, rather than the prevention, of pollution. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept some of our amendments for strengthening that part of the Bill. The list of processes and substances to be covered by IPC is minimal. Many dangerous chemicals that are listed in other countries are not covered by the legislation. Moreover, existing polluters will not face more stringent controls and will not be considered under IPC
  110
  until their existing consents come up for renewal. That could be five years away. Opposition members share many of the concerns about that part of the Bill.
  Opposition members also share the concern of the hon. Member for Hornsey and wood green (Sir H. Rossi) about BATNEEC, which, for the uninitiated, is the best available techniques at no extra cost. It begs the question of no extra cost, and it also begs the question whether pollution inspectors should be letting firms off the highest standards simply because of judgments of that kind. Is it the inspectors' job to judge cost, or is it their job to lay down standards? Certainly, laying down standards must come first.
  We have seen examples of the old alkali inspectorate acknowledging that different standards of pollution were allowed in different circumstances depending on the size and profitability of a company. I question whether that is the best way to protect the environment. We must, of course, promote best available techniques, but we must not provide large loopholes, which is what seems to be happening.
  I remind the Minister of State, who is from the north-west, of what happened in Bolton, where a company manufacturing lead batteries wanted to expand and to build a factory locally. The local authority did not accept the inspectorate's view that the best practicable means had been planned for and entered into an agreement with the company which meant that it provided better standards of pollution protection, even than the inspectorate had accepted. That is an example of what can be done if the principle of pollution prevention comes first. I hope that the Minister will give some credit to that local authority.
  Similar arguments can be used about the future of environmental assessments. I hope that we shall come to that matter in Committee.
  The other great concern about part I relates to resources. The work of HMIP, which is to supervise the integrated pollution control provision, has received a great deal of comment in the recent past. The latest reports show that the standards and frequency of inspections are falling. The target of 1,070 inspections for radioactive substances was not met. Indeed, HMIP itself States that the target should have been 1,900. Fifty waste disposal authorities should have been visited, but only 20 were. In a letter from the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the right hon. Gentleman admits that in minis 10 it is recognised that the targets for HMIP are generally below those of previous years.
  Mr. Trippier indicated assent.
  Mrs. Taylor: I note that the Minister of State is agreeing. The Government's neglect of this area for so long, especially in relation to training, has finally caught up with them. The Bill provides for 15 extra staff for HMIP, but HMIP is unable to police its existing operations. Much of what is wrong with the Bill is typified by that example of resources.
  There are many sound principles in the Bill, but the opportunity for their proper implementation has been lost time and time again previously because of a lack of the proper resources. This is causing concern to the local authorities that are keen to take on many of the extra duties of the Bill, but whose confidence in the Secretary of State's willingness to resource them has not been

  111
  Improved. The Secretary of State's decision not to make a Statement to the house this year on the revenue support grant has not increased their confidence.
  I turn to another important area of the Bill and to one that the Secretary of State himself mentioned. I refer to freedom of access to environmental information. There now seems to be some agreement in principle that information should be available as much as possible, but that agreement is only stage one. The Bill will have to be amended if it is to provide the raw data throughout that the Secretary of State announced earlier.
  There is a problem because the let-out of "commercial confidentiality" will still divide us when we discuss this provision in Committee.
  I look forward to the Secretary of State's guidelines, but we want to see where the burden of proof is to lie. Should we really trust the fine words of the Minister when it comes to defining commercial confidentiality in the public interest? After all, it was his department that refused in a parliamentary question to give the house the cost of the housing action trust study carried out by coopers and Lybrand. Why? Because of commercial confidentiality. It was his Government who, in answer to a parliamentary question asking about the loss to the exchequer of the tax concessions on the docklands scheme, refused to tell the taxpayer on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. It was his Government—his very Department—who refused to tell us the cost of advertising for the water nationalisation on grounds of commercial confidentiality. We shall watch the Government's actions on that carefully.
  We are short of time, after an interesting debate that has opened up many subjects that we shall want to discuss further in Committee. With the best will in the world, no one could say that the Bill will save us from the dire environmental damage that is being done daily. No one has opposed the intention of the Bill, but no one has spoken about it with much enthusiasm. We all regret the wasted opportunity and the fact that the Secretary of State has missed the chance to show that he will tackle the problems of the environment. We shall try to strengthen the Bill in Committee so as to fill the gap left by the Secretary of State. That is why we have tabled the reasoned amendment.
  9.45 pm
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): contrary to what the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) alleged, I appreciate the fact that, with relatively few exceptions, there has been general support for the principles and provisions of this important Bill. With the notable exception of the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), I welcome the many positive comments made in the debate, especially from the vast majority of my hon. Friends and from opposition members such as the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike). I gladly take that as a clear signal that the Bill will be considered constructively and positively in Committee.
  It is interesting that hardly any labour member referred to the opposition amendment. Whatever happened to the fourth action programme on the environment or global warming? I admit that the hon.
  112
  Member for Dagenham found a friend in the hon. Member for Islington, north (Mr. Corbyn)—if he can be considered one of his hon. Friends. That goes to show that even a friend in need can be a blithering nuisance. For the life of me, I cannot think why anyone can vote for an amendment that nobody has thought it important enough to discuss.
  Protection and improvement of our shared and fragile environment is a cause that is attracting enormous public interest and support—more now than at any time in the history of this nation. It is right that the house should reflect that awareness and concern in its deliberations. This is a Bill for a cleaner and greener Britain.
  Despite the misgivings of the hon. Member for Dagenham, the Bill provides a thorough-going overhaul of our regulatory system for not only protecting but enhancing our environment. It will deliver better accountability, clearer responsibilities and higher standards. Enforcement of environmental controls will become easier and penalties for transgression will be tougher. The power, role and responsibility of individuals and local authorities will be increased. Local authorities will be able to exercise greater powers in the regulation and control of pollution, reflecting the importance of local democracy in the cause of environmental enhancement.
  I point out to the right hon. Member for Halton that the new system for cost recovery charging should cover the full cost to local authorities of implementing their new powers. Because public access to environmental information will be increased substantially every individual in Britain will become an environmental watchdog in his own right. These are the central tenets that contribute significantly to the overall impact of the Bill and that will enable us to deliver an effective system to take us through the next decade.
  Today's debate has reflected the support that we have received from all interested parties for the new system of integrated pollution control and the tighter controls that local authorities will have over air pollution. Like my hon. Friend the member for Hertfordshire, west (Mr. Jones), many people have welcomed our proposals to reform waste disposal to separate ownership from regulation. In view of the reasonable requests of my hon. Friend the member for Hornsey and wood green (Sir h. Rossi), the chairman of the select Committee on the environment, about those recalcitrant local authorities which have yet to submit their waste disposal plans, I assure him that I will move an amendment in Committee to meet his concerns. We shall also deal with the code of practice to which he referred in his excellent speech. It will be available for the Committee stage.
  Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I welcome the excellent work discharged by the royal commission on environmental protection, genetically modified organisms and integrated pollution control. It grieves me to say that I agreed with the hon. Member for Godon (Mr. Bruce) in his summary of the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham. I agreed, too, with my hon. Friend the member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) when he said that the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham was not worthy of the occasion. I say that it grieves me because I have great regard for the hon. Gentleman, but it is clear to me that on environmental matters he suffers from delusions of adequacy.
  The hon. Member for Gordon made the speech that the hon. Member for Dagenham should have made. The hon.

  113
  Member for Dagenham completely and utterly misjudged the mood of the house. His main complaint was not about what was in the Bill but what was not. He was worried not about the direction in which the Government were moving but that they were not moving even faster.
  I am afraid that my enthusiasm for the refreshing novel approach from the opposition waned somewhat when I heard the long shopping list of extra items that the hon. Gentleman actually wanted.
  I would be staggered if the hon. Gentleman ever missed even a spurious opportunity to demand more money for local authorities, but his list of additional demands grew so long that I fully expected the labour party's policy review demands for 100 new quangos, 10 regional assemblies and a ministry for women to pop up somewhere along the line. Perhaps we shall get that in Committee. I am looking to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to introduce it.
  Mrs. Gorman: I hope that my hon. Friend is not in any way suggesting that women are a pollutant.
  Mr. Trippier: I have a high regard for the approach of British women to environmental matters. I am the first to pay them warm tribute and to compliment them on the way in which they have spearheaded the consumer-led reduction in the use of CFCs. I am glad to have this opportunity to put that on the record.
  Perhaps in Committee we can examine what the hon. Member for Denton and reddish (Mr. Bennett) meant when he talked about State capitalism, which is a new term used to describe those Governments, if they can be called Governments, in eastern Europe who are being emancipated. It is State capitalism that many of us do not understand, and perhaps we can study it in Committee.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Bill is not our final word on the environment. As a result of his personal initiative, we shall publish a major white paper on the environment later this year. I assure the house that every aspect of environmental protection will be fully and comprehensively covered. That will include the environmental protection commission to which my hon. Friends the members for Hertfordshire, west and Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) referred.
  Mr. Dalyell: in a case where there is argument as to what is a Scottish issue and what is an issue for great Britain—I think particularly of the flow country—who, under the Minister's proposals, decides?
  Mr. Trippier: we are going a little wider than great Britain—we are talking about the United Kingdom, not great Britain, as I shall make clear later. The issue would be decided by the statutory joint Committee which will be set up under the powers of the Bill, the chairman of which, professor Holliday, was announced today.
  The call of the hon. Member for Dagenham for measures to comply especially with the fourth environmental action programme of the European community and with other international commitments overlooks the fact that many of the clauses ensure compliance with that programme. In several cases, the Bill goes much further.
  Part I allows us to implement the large plants directive and to control discharges in line with community legislation. IPC puts us in the lead in Europe with a philosophy that is attracting much overseas attention. Part II strengthens the licensing provisions that implement EC
  114
  legislation on waste and the controls on the imports of hazardous waste are stronger than community legislation. I know that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) will particularly welcome that.
  The proposed new powers and duties on recycling will put us in good stead with forthcoming community legislation, as my hon. Friend the member for Hornchurch said. The control of genetically modified organisms puts us ahead of the game, as do the provisions on public access to information and the provisions, writ large in the Bill, on studying existing chemicals. Those provisions will give us greater powers than those proposed in the draft directive. All that does not look to me as though the Government are ignoring their international obligations—quite the opposite. The same is true of the commitments that we have made outside the Bill.
  Mr. George Howarth: How will the provisions on commercial confidentiality facilitate public information?
  Mr. Trippier: I am delighted to repeat the assurance that my right hon. Friend gave. We shall be rigorous, not only in Committee but, given our responsibility as Ministers, to ensure that commercial confidentiality is not used as an excuse for keeping information which is vital to the public off the copies of registers to be held in every town hall.
  I have referred to what the Bill does, but we are not just talking about the Bill. We have already signed the Montreal protocol and the Noordwijk declaration. Given the fact that the previous labour Government spent five years in office without even implementing part II of the control of pollution act 1974, I find it impossible to stomach the strictures and allegations of delays made by the hon. Member for Dagenham.
  I am still amazed at Opposition Members criticising our proposals to devolve responsibilities for conservation to new bodies in Scotland, England and Wales. It seems that it is the policy of the labour party to foist new parliaments on the people of Scotland and Wales, but not to trust them to run and staff their own nature conservation agencies. I remind the house that the NCC had a raw deal under the previous labour Government. We inherited expenditure on the NCC to the tune of £8 million; next year that expenditure will be more than £45 million.
  The Bill embodies our absolute commitment to secure a substantial and permanent reduction in the national scandal of litter which disfigures our streets, desecrates our public places and debases many areas of otherwise spectacular beauty. That was the principal message of my hon. Friend the member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). My hon. Friend the member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) asked me about future responsibility for litter on and at the side of motorways. That will be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for transport, who is reviewing the frequency of litter clearance in those black spots.
  There are still far too many people who do not realise that dropping litter is an anti-social, filthy and personally degrading act. Some local authorities are doing their utmost to tackle litter. The Bill will ensure that they all do so. It will bring nearer the day when those who pollute and litter, and those who suffer as a consequence will know that the British people will no longer tolerate abuse of their environment. We have a responsibility to harness whatever skills we have and pass on to our children not

  115
  only higher living standards and a better quality of life, but a purer, cleaner and safer environment. I commend the Bill to the house.
  Question put, that the amendment be made:—
  the House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 282.

  Division No. 35]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Foulkes, George

  Allen, Graham

  Fraser, John

  Anderson, Donald

  Fyfe, Maria

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Galloway, George

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Ashton, Joe

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Gould, Bryan

  Barron, Kevin

  Graham, Thomas

  Battle, John

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

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

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hardy, Peter

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Blair, Tony

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Blunkett, David

  Haynes, Frank

  Boateng, Paul

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Boyes, Roland

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bradley, Keith

  Henderson, Doug

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Home Robertson, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Hood, Jimmy

  Buckley, George J.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Caborn, Richard

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hoyle, Doug

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cartwright, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clay, Bob

  Ingram, Adam

  Clelland, David

  Janner, Greville

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Coleman, Donald

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Corbett, Robin

  Lambie, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lamond, James

  Cousins, Jim

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cox, Tom

  Leighton, Ron

  Crowther, Stan

  Lewis, Terry

  Cryer, Bob

  Litherland, Robert

  Cummings, John

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dalyell, Tam

  Loyden, Eddie

  Darling, Alistair

  McAllion, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McCartney, Ian

  Dewar, Donald

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Dixon, Don

  McFall, John

  Dobson, Frank

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Doran, Frank

  McKelvey, William

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McLeish, Henry

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McNamara, Kevin

  Eadie, Alexander

  McWilliam, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Madden, Max

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

  Marek, Dr John

  Fisher, Mark

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Flannery, Martin

  Martin, Michael J. (SprinGBurn)

  Flynn, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Maxton, John

  Foster, Derek

  Meacher, Michael

  Meale, Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Michael, Alun

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Short, Clare

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

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

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Mullin, Chris

  Snape, Peter

  Murphy, Paul

  Soley, Clive

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Brien, William

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stott, Roger

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Strang, Gavin

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Straw, Jack

  Parry, Robert

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pendry, Tom

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Turner, Dennis

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Vaz, Keith

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Walley, Joan

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Radice, Giles

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Randall, Stuart

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Redmond, Martin

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Reid, Dr John

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Richardson, Jo

  Wilson, Brian

  Robertson, George

  Winnick, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Worthington, Tony

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wray, Jimmy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Burns, Simon

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Burt, Alistair

  Alexander, Richard

  Butler, Chris

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Allason, Rupert

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Amess, David

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Amos, Alan

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Cash, William

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Atkins, Robert

  Chope, Christopher

  Atkinson, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

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

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Colvin, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Conway, Derek

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Benyon, W.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Couchman, James

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gran, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Curry, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

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

  Boswell, Tim

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Day, Stephen

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Devlin, Tim

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Dover, Den

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dunn, Bob

  Brazier, Julian

  Durant, Tony

  Bright, Graham

  Eggar, Tim

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

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Evennett, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fallon, Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Fearn, Ronald

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Hunter, Andrew

  Forman, Nigel

  Irvine, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Jack, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Jackson, Robert

  Franks, Cecil

  Janman, Tim

  Freeman, Roger

  Jessel, Toby

  French, Douglas

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Fry, Peter

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Gale, Roger

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Gardiner, George

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Kennedy, Charles

  Gill, Christopher

  Key, Robert

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Gow, Ian

  Knight, Dame Jill (EdGBaston)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Latham, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Lilley, Peter

  Gregory, Conal

  Livsey, Richard

  Grist, Ian

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Ground, Patrick

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Grylls, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Maclean, David

  Hague, William

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mans, Keith

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Marland, Paul

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Marlow, Tony

  Hannam, John

  Maude, Hon Francis

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

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Harris, David

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Moate, Roger

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hayward, Robert

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (WoIv' NE)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hind, Kenneth

  Mudd, David

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Neubert, Michael

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

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Norris, Steve

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Howells, Geraint

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Page, Richard

  Paice, James

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Sumberg, David

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Pawsey, James

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Price, Sir David

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Redwood, John

  Thorne, Neil

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Thurnham, Peter

  Riddick, Graham

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Tracey, Richard

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Trippier, David

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Trotter, Neville

  Rost, Peter

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rowe, Andrew

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Ryder, Richard

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Waller, Gary

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Ward, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shelton, Sir William

  Watts, John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shersby, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sims, Roger

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wilshire, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Speller, Tony

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wood, Timothy

  Squire, Robin

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Steen, Anthony

  Stern, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith pursant to Standing Order No.62(Amemdment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No.61 (Committal of Bills).

  Environmental Protection Bill

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

  Environmental Protection Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Environmental Protection Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any administrative or other expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown in consequence of the provisions of that act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other act—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

  10.15 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: It would be churlish not to acknowledge, having listened carefully to the Secretary of State's opening speech, that—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Will hon. Members who are not staying for the money resolution debate kindly leave quietly, please?
  Mr. Dalyell: It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Secretary of State has made a genuine effort to meet the concerns of hon. Members who have been anxious for many months about the scientific integrity of the nature conservancy council.
  However, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, when he said that he had met all the wishes of the NCC, he was inadvertently a trifle misleading? He answered that question on the basis of its current requests, but its prime request was for no alteration in the first place. He answered its letter on the basis that he was going to split the NCC between Wales, Scotland and England, anyway. So, do not let us think that he has given us the best of all possible worlds.
  The money resolution affords the opportunity for specific questions. First, I ask the Secretary of State to look at clause 101 of the Bill, and I am indebted to Sir John Burnett, the former principal of Edinburgh university and the vice-chairman of the NCC, for pointing this out to me. Subsection (4) of clause 101 says:
  "The Secretary of State may give the councils, or any of them, directions of a general or specific character with regard to the discharge of any of their nature conservation functions other than those conferred on them by section 102(1)(a) below."
  I understand that it is the first time that the words "specific character" have been included in such legislation. Could either the Secretary of State or the Minister short-circuit our proceedings by explaining why this should be so? Why have those words suddenly been introduced into legislation, when they have never appeared before in that form?
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): My hon. Friend the under Secretary will reply.
  Mr. Dalyell: I take it that the under-Secretary will reply to that.
  Secondly, how will the existing ongoing national programmes be maintained? I am thinking of the
  120
  geological conservation review, and the marine conservation review. Will they be managed as a whole, and if not who will manage them?
  Hon. Members who are veterans of the wildlife and countryside act 1981, such as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), know what blood and sweat went into the establishment of the principle of the marine nature reserves. Skomer is on its way and the Scilly Isles and Lundy have made progress, but one could hope for faster progress. Under the present proposals, who will manage them? I ask the parliamentary under-Secretary of State for Scotland: will the Scottish section be responsible? That is an important and practical question.
  Thirdly, will the Minister say a little more about the role of the technical unit? Hon. Members should know that that is not a straightforward question. Ministers brought over an eminent scientist from Australia to be the NCC's chief scientist, but he returned to Australia. I have drawn the conclusion that he found that his job specification was not quite that for which he had been lured from down under.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I have the doctor's permission to make available to the hon. Gentleman, or to anyone else who would like to see it, the letter that he wrote explaining why he was returning to Astralia, in which he makes it clear that he was not prompted by decisions taken on the reorganisation. I can make that available to the hon. Gentleman, or my hon. Friend the Minister can read it out in extenso when he replies to the debate.
  Mr. Dalyell: I should be happy to see it. I may have talked to dr. Bridgewater some time before the decision was made, but I received the impression that he was profoundly unhappy.
  Fourthly, how can it be decided what is a Scottish or a United Kingdom issue? I was corrected by the Minister for referring to it as a "GB" issue. Amid the noise, I understood that that would be decided by an independent Committee, but there may be two differences of opinion. I suspect that St. Andrew's house would tell the rest of the United Kingdom to keep out of the flow country of Caithness issue. The authorities, having received more letters on the flow country from "south of Bolton", as they put it, may think that it is a United Kingdom issue. I should like to know a little more about who will decide what is what on the flow issue.
  Fifthly, there will be three scientific assessors to the joint Committee. Will they simply advise, and why should they not be given full membership, which would give them more authority? If they are to be effective, they should be given full membership rather than simply remain as advisors.
  Other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall refer briefly to a briefing paper that has been sent to several hon. Members by angus Stirling, who is director-general of the national trust. Under the heading, "the need for a scientific base of the highest calibre", he says:
  "It is the Trust's strong view that national research programmes and monitoring, together with matters like impact assessment and control of pollution, marine nature conservation and the meeting of our international obligations can only be conducted on a fully integrated Great Britain basis."
  Do the Government claim that they have met fully all the requests that they have received from several bodies for a fully integrated great Britain basis? I do not know the

  121
  answer to that question. I concede to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that hitherto the national trust for Scotland has taken a different view. He knows that Lester Borley and his colleagues have taken a different view. I told them of my criticisms. Which were kindly answered by the Secretary of State during the debate on the Loyal Address.
  What is the response to the NCC's own evidence? On clause 103(2), the NCC Stated:
  "It is vital that the discharge of nature conservation functions relating to great Britain as a whole, and international matters, should be undertaken competently and also that common standards should be established and maintained by the councils. However, the provisions which clause 103(2) makes in relation to the discharge of certain such functions by a joint Committee appear to be deficient. In particular:
  —there is no specific obligation on the councils to establish a joint Committee".
  Under the Bill, apparently there is no specific obligation. According to the comment by the Secretary of State, a joint Committee will be set up. Presumably there are consequential changes in the legislation.
  The NCC went on to State:
  "the Committee is given no express power to carry out the functions set out in 103(2), although there is an implied power"
  Do the parliamentary draftsmen agree with that view? The NCC continued:
  "there is no specific obligation on the councils to refer work to the Committee or any duty on the Committee to carry out work which is referred to it".
  Do the Government's lawyers accept that view? I hope that Ministers will get some advice from their advisers on those questions, preferably before Committee. The NCC Stated:
  "there is no provision for the joint Committee to appoint a chairman".
  Presumably that point is now covered.
  As for the choice of lord Cranbrook as chairman, some of us have been admirers of a succession of house of lords reports. We think that, given his Borneo experience and our personal knowledge of lord Cranbrook, he is an excellent choice. A relative of mine who worked on a Committee chaired by Magnus Magnusson and was a member of one of his previous Committees, thinks that Magnus Magnusson is a good chairman. I make no complaint about the appointments, but we are curious about the chairmen's powers.
  The NCC Stated:
  "there is no provision for the Committee to appoint officers, or to have officers appointed to it; so,
  consequently, there is no provision for the Committee to appoint (or have appointed to it) a chief officer or accounting officer. It is unclear who is responsible for sums expended by the Committee".
  We are considering the money resolution, so I wonder whether that point can be clarified. The NCC continued:
  "there is no duty on the Committee or the councils to report on the discharge of duties by the Committtee.
  It is far from clear how the joint Committee could undertake any of its functions under the proposed legal provisions."
  Do Ministers think that they have overcome those objections?
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am pleased that the Secretary of State for the environment has remained in the chamber for the debate on the money resolution. I raised the issue of opencasting on another occasion. I should
  122
  have thought that when the Government introduce a so-called green, environmentally friendly Bill, that theme would run through the whole of the Government's legislation. Tomorrow the house will debate the report and third reading stages of the coal industry Bill, which contains something that is unfriendly to the environment. The Government, supported by the Secretary of State for the environment, have introduced a Bill that increases the opencast mining that can take place under certain licences from 25,000 tonnes to—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not anticipate tomorrow's debates. We are dealing with the money resolution on the environmental protection Bill.
  Mr. Skinner: I think that you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that allowing the coal industry Bill to pass will mean that certain moneys will be expended. I am drawing a parallel. We are debating the money resolution. It is a complete contradiction to allow that increase from 25,000 tonnes to 250,000 tonnes when the Secretary of State claimed today that this so-called environmentally friendly Bill would protect the environment.
  It is all very well the house making noises about protecting the green belt in Tory-held constituencies in the south. Hon. Members must remember that there are green belts in the north, the midlands, Scotland and Wales, and we want them protected, too. In increasing the licensed tonnages for opencast mining, I hope that the Government will bear it in mind that their policies should be consistent.
  I remind the Secretary of State—I do this deliberately—that one of his first acts as a so-called green Minister when he took office a few months ago was to allow an opencast operation at Clowne and Barlborough in my constituency, which the previous Secretary of State, "old fag ash", who was not well known for defending the environment, had prevented. Let us put it this way: an inquiry held that the opencast operation could only take place for 11 seconds a day. The present Secretary of State had had the job for about 48 hours when he overturned that decision, which his predecessor had allowed to remain in force for nearly two years.
  I am not happy about certain aspects of the Bill because I do not think that it gives a fair crack of the whip to constituencies where opencasting can take place on a massive scale. Opencasting will leave large areas despoiled for many many years. We all know the story. They start with opencasting. They get a mining licence, then another one, and then another. They say, "it will only be for three or four years," but it turns out to be for five or 10 years and more. Those people make a large amount of money extracting opencast coal and leave a great big hole in the ground. They they say, "hello. We've got a big hole here; we'll fill it and make some more money." and there are ships hanging round outside every estuary in Britain waiting to dump their toxic waste.
  I want the Minister or one of his Ministerial allies to tell us that we shall not have toxic waste dumped in holes in areas where opencasting takes place just so that those who make money from getting out the coal can make even more money. I suspect that that is what will happen. The Government will make general abstract noises about the environment. The Prime Minister and all the rest will be making environmentally friendly noises to Terry Wogan

  123
  And the media while at the same time these acts of violence will be committed against our countryside. I want some assurances.
  In our constituencies not so many years ago—
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: our?
  Mr. Skinner: in the Bolsover constituency. It is not mine. I am not like some hon. Members who come here and say, "in my constituency" and refer to "my Asians" and "my" this and "my" that. Constituencies do not belong to members of parliament. We are ships that pass in the night.
  We had an experience in my constituency that we do not want to be repeated. Some opencasting took place in the Morton area. Then there was an explosion at Bolsover Coalite and they wanted to get rid of some dioxin, one of the most toxic poisons that has ever been invented. They dumped it in the hole, and the people of Morton have been complaining ever since. We do not want that repeated. If the Bill is to mean anything at all, it should make sure that private enterprise cannot perpetrate acts of that nature.
  My hon. Friend the member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has an opencast operation in his constituency, which borders on mine. It is called Smotherfly, and it started more than 10 years ago. The local community was told by environmentally friendly British coal and the opencast executive, "it will not take long—a couple of years," but it is still going on. The owners want to expand and dump.
  If the Government mean business, they should stop the incursion into the green belt in British coalfield areas. If it is all right for the green belts to be protected in the south, it is right and proper that the same should apply to the north, the midlands and elsewhere. I hope that the Minister can reassure us about that during our debates. If he can do that, he will help communities that have suffered blight, in some cases for centuries, and prevent such incursions in future.
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend the member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). However, I suspect that it will be nuclear waste that will be dumped in those opencast holes, not toxic. My hon. Friend the member for Bolsover will recall that after a Statement about the dumping of nuclear waste, one conservative member after another rose to claim that such dumping was safe and wonderful. However, when it was announced that such dumping might occur in their constituencies, they said, "no, not here; anywhere but here." some of us suspect that mines were closed deliberately so that nuclear waste could be placed in them.
  It is right that we should scrutinise the Bill's money implication quite closely. The Bill States that the costs will, in many areas, be minimal. However, the environmental problems that the Bill seeks to address are by no means minimal.
  In his opening remarks the Secretary of State said that the Bill would not be the last word on green issues. I hope that it is not the last word. It is certainly the first word on environmental protection in the past ten and a half years of this Government. The Government have just about got
  124
  beyond aardvark, one of the first words in the dictionary, and are moving on to aasvogel. By the way, an aasvogel is a vulture.
  The Government owe allegiance to capitalists and polluting big businesses. They are paying allegiance to the vultures which prey on the public purse through the pollution that they cause. The big businesses can pay, but they will not pay for pollution prevention measures or for compensation to people who suffer from their pollution. They will not pay to clean up their pollution. They will not pay because, quite simply, profits come first. The effects of the Bill on the public purse will be more than minimal. There must be public regulation and tough enforcement of the law and the Bill is lacking in that respect.
  The Secretary of State referred to litter and the Bill refers to the costs to local authorities of litter control as minimal. I suspect that that will not be the case. We are all concerned about litter. However, we have only had gimmicks from the Government. Reference has been made to the Prime Minister picking up litter in Hyde park. Yet it was her entourage—and Denis in particular—who were screwing up the paper and throwing it on to the ground in the first place for her to pick up. Then there was the wonderful gimmick of Richard Branson and his virgin litter soldiers. Mr. Branson and his mates did not do much of a job in that respect. I hope that the Bill will not be another litter gimmick.
  Although this is the first environmental protection Bill, nearly 50 acts of parliament in the past decade have restricted money to local authorities. Millions of pounds have been cut from local authorities' budgets for street cleaning and refuse collection. The Government's gimmicks are a cover-up for that. I suspect that the Government are about to perpetrate yet another gimmick. We shall see about that.
  Part IX refers to waste disposal regulations and States that there will be an additional 15 staff in her majesty's inspectorate of pollution and that
  "There will be a minimal increase in costs falling on local authorities … arising from increased controls over the trade in wastes."
  Again, the word "minimal" appears in the Bill.
  The regulations for safe waste disposal are inadequate. Although there is a duty of care, making producers of waste responsible for the safe disposal of waste at all stages, the same cannot apply to foreign producers—foreign cowboys—who send toxic waste across the high seas.
  We should adopt the clear principle that countries should deal with their own toxic waste. If they cannot do that, we should provide the technology to enable them to do so instead of bringing it to this country. The United Kingdom should not take other countries' dangerous and toxic waste, but we shall continue to do so under the provisions of the Bill. There will not be a minimal cost if an accident arises from the importation of toxic waste. Even policing costs will not be minimal.
  There is an important implication, and I should like the Minister to deal with it, if he would care to listen to the point that I am raising about waste regulations. He is still not listening. I shall make the point in the hope that somebody else is listening, because I want to know the Government's position on waste regulation. I refer to the single market in 1992. Many people are saying that boundaries will not matter in the single market and that, therefore, waste can come to Britain from France, Italy

  125
  and Germany. Will waste be imported without restriction in 1992? The Government owe hon. Members a duty to make their position clear. Each country must deal with its own toxic waste.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that this is a serious matter and that as an indication of the Government's lacklustre indifference to these issues, they have not made a Statement on the rabies case at Rouen? That case was discovered on Friday and is a possible precursor to the spread of rabies to this country, which is only one of two rabies-free countries in the common market. If the Government were not prepared to take any action on that dreadful disease, they will clearly not take any action on toxic waste or other toxic waste and other environmental polluters.
  Mr. Cohen rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In responding to that point, I hope that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will be able to persuade me that it is relevant to the money resolution.
  Mr. Cohen: The importation of toxic waste is relevant because the explanatory and financial memorandum States that the cost to her majesty's inspectorate of pollution will be minimal. I will not deal with the point about rabies, as it was well made by my hon. Friend the member for Bradford, south (Mr. Cryer). However, if there is an accident or if toxic waste becomes a trade across the borders of the United Kingdom, the cost will not be minimal.
  Last summer, there was the Karin B scandal. The Bill has not tackled that properly. We need a clear Statement that the royal navy will escort all such ships away. They should not be allowed anywhere near this country, and if they dump in or pollute the seas even outside the borders of the territorial waters of our coastline, the royal navy should arrest the skippers. Although the companies responsible for those ships should be penalised under British law, the Bill does not State that that will happen. The Government should take a stronger line on that.
  Mr. Trippier: I know the hon. Gentleman well enough to know that he would not in any way wish to mislead the house, but that precise point is adequately covered in the Bill. As I made clear in my reply on second reading, the Secretary of State has unilateral powers that go further than those that have been proposed by the European community on the importation of hazardous wastes. That is enshrined in the legislation. We have met that precise point. The Karin B example that the hon. Gentleman has given is entirely met by the provisions.
  Mr. Cohen: I take the Minister's point. I know that those unilateral powers are available, but I want the Government to give a clear and categorical message to any group or company that in such a situation they will be dealt with in the way that I have suggested—the skipper will be arrested, the navy will go in and see them off and the companies will be penalised. When the Minister replies, I should like him to give some assurances on that point. As I have said, I take the Minister's point about the Bill's unilateral powers, which I should like to see implemented.
  The Minister also referred to businesses pleading commercial confidentiality to avoid providing information
  126
  to the public. Again, the money resolution States that the inspectorate of pollution will have a "minimal" increase in costs. If big polluting businesses thwart the inspectorate of pollution and the public will, the costs will not be minimal as the inspectorate tries to get the information that it should. That huge loophole can be related to the now privatised water companies. If any scandal of water pollution caused by the water companies were to be made public, it could affect that company's share price. Is that supposed to be the commercial confidentiality that would enable a water company not to tell the public the truth—that it has poisoned its local people, for example? That would be appalling. The public interest should come before that sort of thing. The public have the right to know in those circumstances.
  I hope that the Minister will address that point because the notions of "commercially sensitive" and "commercial confidentiality" are much too wide. I hope that in Committee "commercial confidentiality" will be strictly defined and limited to avoid it being used as an excuse to thwart the public interest.
  My remaining point relates to water pollution and to drinking water in London. Again, the financial effects of the Bill State that the costs of the inspectorate of pollution will be "minimal". According to some of the articles that I shall mention, the costs of cleaning up our supply of drinking water will not be "minimal" by any stretch of the imagination. If the EEC directive on drinking water and bathing beaches were implemented, the costs would certainly not be "minimal".
  I refer the Minister to the secret tests that have been carried out at the river lea, which were reported in The Guardian on Saturday. The article Stated that tests for over 100 different chemicals were carried out in the water a t Deephams sewage treatment works. No safe level has been set for those chemicals in the first place. The Bill does not set safe levels for different types of dangerous and toxic chemicals that can be found in the water supply. The article Stated that the chemicals come from factories and businesses that have been encouraged to discharge their waste into the sewage system. Some of the chemicals that have been tested are listed as dangerous by the European community and the world health organisation, but many have not even been tested.
  All this has serious implications that should be taken into account in our consideration of the Bill and the money resolution. There should be a legal obligation for wider and more regular testing. There is no legal obligation to test for these dangerous chemicals in London's drinking water. If there were, it would result in more than a minimal cost. All the results of such tests should be made public, as should the results of the tests going on now, because the public have a right to know. I am afraid that privatisation has made the water industry even more tight-lipped about giving the public information.
  In the autumn issue of Earth Matters, there was an excellent article by Andrew lees, entitled "the troubled Thames", in which he says that, despite the low-quality standards of what can be discharged into the Thames,
  "60 of the 400 sewage treatment works operated by Thames water broke the law in 1988–89 because they discharged substandard effluents."
  He referred to a point that has not yet been mentioned when he said that on 5 July 1986, large volumes of untreated sewage were discharged into the river Thames. This resulted in the deoxygenation of miles of the river and

  127
  the deaths of millions of fish and much organic life. There has been a cover-up of that terrible incident. It will cost money to put that right, so the Bill should address the problem.
  Thames water put a bubbler barge into the Thames—something that cost £3 million. That did not prevent pollution. It was only intensive care for the river, once the damage had been done. Andrew lees argues that to stop such an incident occurring again, interceptor sewers are needed. The ones on the Thames were built in 1874, and are not adequate, so more are needed. Even Thames water acknowledges that, but it would cost hundreds of millions of pounds to protect the water standards.
  That is not the minimal cost suggested by the money resolution and the Bill. That is a lot of money, but it can be put against the multi-million-pound property boom in docklands and elsewhere, which is overloading the system. Money from that should be put into protecting the quality of London water and improving the treatment of sewage, but the Government got nothing for that from the developers. That is another aspect of the Bill that will cost more than a minimal amount in years to come, and with which the Government should be dealing.
  The National rivers authority has no legal powers to require factory owners, developers or farmers to invest in pollution prevention measures, or ways to avoid spillage. All this is serious, because the Thames provides drinking water for 6 million Londoners, and pollution must be prevented. Nothing in the Bill will improve the standard of drinking water and the State of the Thames, or prevent pollution of it, or provide a new sewerage system.
  The Minister said that this is not the last word in green issues. I think that it is more like the first word. It has got past aardvark, which is the first word in the dictionary. I just hope that we get more effective environmental protection measures before we reach abaddon, because that means hell, and we do not want environmental hell.
  10.54 pm
  Mr. Frank Haynes: I shall not take many moments, but I must raise a matter with the Secretary of State. It relates to the money resolution.
  I have a problem in Ashfield. The Secretary of State does not have it in bath, the Minister has not got it in Rossendale and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has not got it in Macclesfield. I have a pollution problem and I want to know whether there is enough money around to deal with it. I raised the problem in the Committee considering the coal industry Bill, as my hon. Friend the member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows. He mentioned Smotherfly opencast working. A massive chemical works has been there since the late 1800s. The opencast executive is planning to transfer toxic waste through a beautiful little village called Jacksdale. I have just recently moved there in preparation for retirement. Now it wants to dump all this toxic waste in that beautiful little village. Millionaires come up from the south to build properties there because it is so beautiful. It looks over the beautiful county of Derbyshire.
  Mr. Skinner: It is Lawrence land.
  Mr. Haynes: It is Lawrence land. The Minister hates Lawrence land. That is what it is all about.
  128
  Millionaires come up to have a look and spend thousands of pounds on their properties. Beautiful mansions, they are.
  Mr. Skinner: And lovers' lanes.
  Mr. Haynes: yes, and lovers' lanes too. But we have ordinary folk living there, too, and they have a problem. Many ex-miners—
  Mr. Bob Hayward: Are they going down lovers' lanes too?
  Mr. Haynes: No, they are not. They are living out their retirement. The hon. Gentleman is outside the chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and cannot make a speech.
  We have many ex-miners living out their retirement there, yet the waste will be dumped right in the village. I have had a word with the new Minister for the environment and countryside. He did not want to know when he was the coal Minister, but now he is the environment Minister and he has some responsibility for Jacksdale.
  I suggest that the Secretary of State brings his Minister to have a look at our problem. The local authority is trying to deal with it, but does not have enough money, equipment or bodies to solve the problem that that organisation is creating for the local people. I hope that the Secretary of State, the Minister and the under-Secretary of State have taken that on board. All three can come if they like. They do not have the problem themselves, but we have it. The people are playing hell at my surgeries on Saturday mornings. They want to see some action.
  It is the Secretary of State's responsibility. He is covered in green, he says. He is worried about the ozone layer and pollution. We have pollution in my constituency and I want him to come and deal with it and, at the same time, find the necessary finance for the local authority to deal with the problem. He cannot solve it. He can only issue instructions and provide the cash. The local authority has to do the work and for that it needs the bodies and the equipment. I hope that the Secretary of State and his Ministers have taken that point on board.
  10.58 pm
  The parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): It has been a wide-ranging debate. If at times I have had difficulty linking the points raised to the money resolution, I shall nevertheless Endeavour to answer them, and I shall certainly write to hon. Gentlemen if I cannot cover their points.
  I am sorry to hear of the pollution problem of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). I would not want in any way to blight his retirement plans, and I shall look into the problem when I return to the department.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the joint statutory Committee for the future nature conservancy councils.
  I am aware that the chairman of the NCC has expressed general reservations about our plans. Other NCC members have expressed other opinions. For instance, the chairman of the English advisory Committee has written to support generally our plans, and the same is true of the welsh Committee.
  I assure the hon. Member for Linlithgow that the joint statutory Committee will have a strong science base. It will

  129
  be able to research and to report on environmental issues affecting Great Britain. Where appropriate, it will be able to regard the United Kingdom as a single habitat. Obviously—
  It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).
  Question agreed to.

  Environmental Protection Bill [Ways and Means]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Environmental Protection Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the imposition of charges in connection with any authorisations, licences, consents or registrations required by that Act or any Act amended by that Act; and

  (b) the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

  11 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is this debatable?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Yes, it is.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to take up the time of the House, although I understand that this debate is open-ended. I just want to give the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment the opportunity to finish what he was saying in answer to the questions I had previously asked.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the House and the hon. Gentleman that this is an extremely narrow motion relating purely to fees and charges. Nothing else is in order on the ways and means resolution.
  Mr. Dalyell: My Questions, as always, were narrow—no one could say that they were not. Therefore, I believe that they were so narrow as to be in order. I am sure that the Minister's answer will be equally narrow.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): Mindful of your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not stray out of order. I must write to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the points that he has raised, unless he has specific points relating to the charges under the Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: The specific question on money is, who will decide what is a United Kingdom issue and what is a Scottish issue? That Question relates to charges as the charges will be carried in one respect by the Scottish Office and in another respect by who knows? Perhaps they will be carried by the joint statutory committee. To whom does that committee respond? Is it to the Secretary of State for the Environment?
  On the narrow issue of charges my question is linked to the lack of responsibility. Where does the responsibility lie ultimately when there is a difference of opinion, as there will be, about the flow country? That was one of the cases—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to relate what the hon. Gentleman is saying with the ways and means resolution, which deals with fees and charges payable under certain clauses of the Bill. It would be out of order to extend the debate beyond that.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am not for abusing the procedure of the House. I therefore hope that the Minister will take note of my questions and answer them, as he has promised, by letter.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Environmental Protection Bill [Ways and Means]

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to standing order no. 101 (standing Committees on
    Statutory instruments, &c.).

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      COMMUNITY DRIVING LICENCE
      That the draft Driving Licences (Community Driving Licence) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this house on 4th december, be approved.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
      Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to standing order no. 102 (standing Committees on European community documents).
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      PROTECTION OF ANIMALS DURING TRANSPORT
      That this house takes note of European community document no. 7871/89 relating to the protection of animals during transport; and supports the Government intention to negotiate satisfactory welfare safeguards.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
      Question agreed to.

  Mr. Ronald Davidson
  Motion made and Question proposed, that this house do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  11.4 pm
  Mr. Alan Meale: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to bring this case to the attention of the house. A grave miscarriage of justice has led to horrific circumstances and insecurity for one of my constituents—Mrs. Molly Davidson of 5 Enderby crescent, Mansfield. Her husband Ronald died of an asbestos-related disease, contracted through his employment in the mining industry. His widow has been denied justice because of a wrong decision by a medical appeals tribunal.
  The background of the case is as follows. My constituent's deceased husband, Ronald Davidson, was 58 years old when he died at 4.40 am on 23 July 1987 in a hospital in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire. He had worked in the mining industry locally straight from school and had continuous employment with British coal for 43 years, working as an electrical engineer at crown farm colliery, Mansfield, until being made redundant in 1986. His death, when it came, was not prolonged and was totally unexpected by his family because of its suddenness. It occurred after a short but debilitating illness lasting less than four months.
  Before his illness, Mr. Davidson had always been a comparatively fit man, particularly for someone who had worked underground in the mining industry for so long. He was an active man who fully enjoyed a healthy family life—a factor which many friends and relatives have confirmed to me.
  The house should be made aware that in respect of this case and the subsequent support claims by Mr. Davidson's widow for compensation and benefit, a number of delays and mistakes have occurred. Considerable delays took place in the processing of the claim. My constituent experienced delays at the start of the process when, after making a claim for industrial death benefit, on advice from various knowledgeable sources, she made a posthumous claim for disablement benefit which required her to act on her late husband's behalf. The Minister is aware that the local office did not ask Mrs. Davidson to do this until 9 September 1987.
  After the form was completed, it was referred to the Sheffield medical board centre for respiratory diseases for certification of death and level of suffering caused, and here again delays ensued. The board sought a consultant pathologist's opinion and it took from October 1987 until January 1988. More delays transpired because the adjudication officer in charge had not been asked to give a decision on the claim for death benefit. An answer to the decision was not given to my constituent until April 1988. It arrived then only because of the swift action of the Minister whom I contacted to intervene on behalf of my constituent, and I am extremely grateful for that.
  Even so, this means that Mr. Davidson's widow—my constituent—had to wait from July until April of the following year to be told of the decision. That is extremely unacceptable in the circumstances.
  Mr. Don Dixon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am dealing with the case of a chap who used to work with me in the shipyards and who died of asbestosis. When he died, the inquest found that his death was caused

  133
  by asbestosis. His widow took a common law case against the firms for which he had worked. As a result of the case taking so long and the traumatic effect of her husband's death, his widow died before the claim was settled. The widow's son got in touch with me after being told by solicitors acting on the family's behalf that because the man's dependant—his widow—had died, the eventual damages would be lower.
  I mention this case because my hon. Friend made the point about the length of time some cases take. It is unfortunate that firms which are negligent in protecting their workers, and whose employees contract asbestosis, should get away with this primarily because of the length of time that it takes to settle a claim, and the fact that the dependant dies. I am dealing with such a case and I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the length of time that such cases can take.
  Mr. Meale: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. He has my sympathy for the case in his constituency.
  Next, I want to raise the decision of the panel that dealt with the case. I found it inaccurate and disturbing, putting into question the sacrosanct nature of post mortem results and coroners' inquest decisions. Ronald Davidson died on 23 July 1987. He was first admitted to hospital in Mansfield on 6 April 1987 because of shortness of breath, a symptom of a few weeks' duration, and a pain in the right side of the chest. Later, in June, he was admitted to the city hospital, examined and found to have a malignant tumour. Soon after being discharged from hospital, he fell at home and was taken to hospital, where he had an operation for a fracture found to have been caused by a tumour deposit in the bone, spread there by the bloodstream. Following the operation, he continued to deteriorate and he died on 23 July.
  The post mortem examination subsequently carried out showed what the pathologist consultant, a Mr. P. J. Stocks, considered to be compatible with a malignant tumour of mesothelioma, an asbestos-related cancer. A microscopic examination was also carried out, and it confirmed this diagnosis.
  However, on hearing the result of the board's deliberations on this case, and being disturbed by its outcome, my constituent's representative, a Mr. Baker, again contacted the consultant pathologist who had carried out the autopsy, to ask again about his diagnosis of mesothelioma. The consultant's reply, in summary, Stated that his impression was that the illness was indeed the cause of death. He arrived at that impression from information that he had been given that Mr. Davidson had a history of exposure to asbestos at work, a factor subsequently confirmed to him by reports compiled since the person's death.
  The report gathered on Mr. Davidson at his workplace showed conclusively that—contrary to Statements made in the examination held by the board and in paragraph 7 of the Secretary of State's own observations, completed on 17 march 1988:
  "The late Mr. Davidson's exposure to asbestos was minimal and sporadic and occurred while working as a chargehand electrical engineer at Mansfield colliery over a period of some 43 years"—
  this is a gross underestimation of his exposure to the deadly substance.
  For instance, the report shows that he regularly came into contact with asbestos while at work—
  Mr. Frank Haynes: This is similar to many cases in the mining industry. The local consultant makes a decision about asbestosis or pneumoconiosis and then the panel in Sheffield seems to be a law unto itself. The law must be changed; when post mortems are carried out on these people and their lungs are inspected, they are found to be 60 or 70 per cent. Gone. These people suffer, while the panel makes the wrong decisions. The cause of illness is established only after people die. We must do something about the many people who suffer from this sort of problem.
  Mr. Meale: My hon. Friend is right. Inquiries into incidents at work involving asbestos show how grossly underestimated the problem was in this case. First, between 1946 and 1951 my constituent worked in an area heavily contaminated with asbestos at Mansfield colliery, during the installation of new electrical winding equipment. Secondly, during 1951 and 1953, my constituent was involved in work connected with the removal of old steam winding and turbine generator gear at the same colliery, including work in confined spaces while substantial amounts of asbestos lagging was removed from the site. Thirdly, he was regularly involved in the removal and installation of cables inducts which also housed pipes insulated with asbestos.
  Fourthly, as an electrical engineer, Mr. Davidson carried out regular maintenance on machinery, checking brake interlock switches, etc. Many haulage and conveyer brakes and clutches have asbestos-based linings that deposit dust on mechanisms, around which my constituent worked. Fifthly, again in his employment he regularly jointed electrical cable, some of which was of the double wire, armoured-cable type that was packed with asbestos string wool. Undoubtedly he regularly handled that substance. Sixthly, he would have been exposed regularly to asbestos fibres when handling asbestos seals and insulation on electrical heaters, resisters and electric fires. Seventhly, he was exposed before his redundancy to asbestos fibres when carrying out maintenance on arc chutes used on electrical switchgear at the colliery in which he worked.
  Finally, as a miner Mr. Davidson would have used the pithead baths every day of his working life, which were insulated with asbestos-based materials. That may have caused contamination on many occasions, due to the replacement of pipes and electrics with which my constituent may have been involved, and/or their insulation.
  As these factors have not, I believe, been fully taken into account, I appeal to the Minister to ask the tribunal to look again at this case or to allow it to go before the commissioner. My reason for such a request is explained by the clear scientific evidence that a single fibre of asbestos can cause cancers and asbestosis more than 20 or 30 years after being inhaled. Further, it is known that the deadly asbestos-related disease, mesothelioma, which affected my constituent can develop more than six years after exposure.
  So dangerous is the substance that professor Irving Selikoff of mount Sinai medical centre in New York, acknowledged to be the world's leading asbestos expert, said recently:
  "just one day's exposure to asbestos could lead to cancer and asbestosis."
  He also warned that it is so poisonous a substance that

  135
  clothing contaminated at work can similarly put the home, and anyone who lives within it, at risk and in extreme danger.
  Another reason for my disquiet in this case concerns the medical diagnosis of the consultant who was engaged by the board to review the case. To say the least, he seems to have approached his task on a "prove it isn't" basis. Since he was employed by the board, he seems to have adopted a doubting attitude from an early stage towards the findings of the local hospital, the post mortem and the inquest findings. In his letter of 4 November 1987, which I have in my possession, to dr. Rahman of the medical board in Sheffield, he Stated:
  "I have noted that there is a malignant tumour involving the pleura and peripheral lung tissue. I am not absolutely certain that it is a mesothelioma, as in some areas it could be a peripheral adenocarcinoma. Before coming to a final conclusion, I think that it is important to examine sections of the tumour stained by Diatase PSA method. As you have commented in your letter, this stain had not been carried out. The block of tumour which you mentioned in your letter was not, in fact, included in your parcel. Could I therefore ask you to send me several paraffin embedded blocks of the tumour, so that I may carry out the stain."
  What he seems to be saying is, "I'm not sure about the findings of the family doctor, hospital, pathologist and coroner but need to have more time to experiment and test another theory I've got."
  What I want to know from the Minister is whether we are after the truth or the theory of an individual. If it is the latter, I think that the structure is wrong, especially as no mention has ever been made in the findings of whether the diagnosis is absolute, or even whether it would be possible for both mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma to be present at the same time. I have been informed by experts that that is possible.
  Either way, the outcome of the decision is that opinions differ. Therefore, I ask again whether the Minister is willing to take another look at the case, particularly as opinion is divided and inconclusive. A third independent opinion should be sought. If not, the whole basis of pathologists' reports and coroners' decisions at inquests hangs in the balance.
  Finally, a widow in my constituency who has lost her husband has been told by the family doctor that he believes that asbestos was the cause, a fact that was substantiated by a pathologist at an autopsy after a vigorous examination and by a coroner at an inquest. The cause of death on the death certificate was Stated to be malignant mesothelioma.
  I beg, urge and appeal to the Minister to use her influence to sort the matter out. She may wish to know that provision is open to her as a Minister in a number of ways. One way is to adopt the method advised in the department of social security's guide on reviews and appeals, which States:
  "A decision made by an mat can be set aside if it appears to the tribunal just to do so,…on the grounds that it is in the interests of justice".
  I believe that, taking into account all the unnecessary delays, mistakes and contradictory views in this case, the Minister can, using her special authority, ensure that justice can prevail for this poor widow, who has already suffered for long enough.
  10.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on raising this important matter in an adjournment debate and I also thank his hon. Friends for their contribution.
  I am grateful to have the opportunity to give the background to social security procedure in this area, and to explain the details of Mr. Davidson's case. I am also glad to have the chance to express my sympathy to Mrs. Davidson and her family, particularly because of the delayed and distressing circumstances that have surrounded consideration of the case.
  I should like first to explain the general procedures as they applied in 1987 for claims where the cause of death was thought to be one of the prescribed respiratory diseases. With the exception of matters relating to adjudication, some of those procedures have changed since the abolition of industrial death benefit for deaths occurring after 10 April 1988.
  Claims for industrial death benefit were determined solely by the lay statutory authorities, in the first instance, the adjudication officer. He had to determine whether the deceased had one of the prescribed diseases and if so, whether death was due to the effects of that disease. In reaching a decision, he could seek medical advice from an independent medical authority called the special medical board, which is made up of specially qualified medical practitioners, who have a wide experience in respiratory diseases.
  I must stress at this point that the board's advice on cause of death did not constitute a decision but formed one of the pieces of evidence on which the adjudication officer based his decision. To help the special medical board determine the cause of death, it was able to carry out examinations on the thoracic organs of the deceased person, and it also received copies of any coroner's or pathologist's reports following the post mortem.
  When notification of a death, thought to be due to a prescribed respiratory disease, is received by the department, action is taken immediately to alert the special medical board so that arrangements can be made for an examination of the thoracic organs. At this stage, there may or may not have been a claim for industrial death benefit. Where no claim was made, but the special medical board considered death was due to a prescribed respiratory disease, the department invited a claim for industrial death benefit and a posthumous claim for industrial disablement benefit.
  When a claim for industrial disablement benefit is received, the adjudication officer refers the question of whether the deceased was suffering from a prescribed respiratory disease to the special medical board. That reference, unlike that on a claim for industrial death benefit, is for statutory decision by the board. If a disease is positively diagnosed, the medical adjudicators assess any resulting disablement.
  The adjudication officer is bound by the decision of the special medical board, which will gather whatever information it requires and consider any evidence supplied by the claimant before giving its decision. When claims for industrial death benefit and industrial injuries disablement benefit were to be determined at the same time by the adjudication officer, he invariably awaited the statutory

  137
  decision of the medical authority on industrial injuries disablement benefit before determining industrial death benefit entitlement.
  Questions determined by the adjudication officer on whether entitlement to benefit exists and, if so, how much is payable, carry a right of appeal to the social security appeal tribunal. Where the adjudication officer's decision is based on a statutory decision given by the special medical board and its decision causes dissatisfaction, the appeal rights lie with the medical appeal tribunal, which is the final arbiter of the medical aspect of a claim for disablement benefit. There is a further right of appeal to the social security commissioner from decisions of the social security appeal tribunal and the medical appeal tribunal, but only on the ground that the decision given was wrong in law. I shall return to that point because it was specifically raised by the hon. Member for Mansfield.
  I shall set out the sequence of events regarding Mrs. Davidson's claims for industrial death benefit and industrial injuries disablement benefit. Before he died, Mr. Davidson was submitting medical certificates to the department of social security, which showed his incapacity as hypertension and coronary artery disease. He was receiving invalidity benefit and mobility allowance at the time of his death.
  Sadly, Mr. Davidson died on 23 July 1987. A post mortem examination was carried out and the subsequent post mortem report listed malignant mesothelioma as the cause of death. The Nottingham coroner then issued a death certificate.
  Mesothelioma is an asbestos-related disease that can be contracted by the inhalation of asbestos dust. It has a long latent period, so exposure to asbestos may have taken place many years before the disease develops and can be diagnosed.
  Mr. Davidson had worked as a chargehand electrical engineer at Mansfield colliery for 43 years, during which time he had been exposed to asbestos. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that was accepted by the adjudicating authorities. In august 1987, following his death, Mrs. Davidson claimed industrial death benefit and industrial injuries disablement benefit. The basis of the claim was that her husband had been in contact with asbestos dust and that death had been certified as due to mesothelioma.
  After making inquiries of British coal, the adjudication officer accepted that Mr. Davidson had been employed in a job where he had been exposed to asbestos dust. The diagnosis of diffuse mesothelioma then had to be established.
  Mr. Davidson's death was notified to the Sheffield medical boarding centre (respiratory desease) on 26 august 1987, and two doctors from the Sheffield MBC, specially qualified medical practitioners, examined the thoracic organs. They established that a carcinoma of the lung had been diagnosed three months before Mr. Davidson died. The pathologist had diagnosed a pleural mesothelioma after the post mortem. The specially qualified medical practitioners considered that it was advisable to have expert opinion on the nature of the tumour because it is impossible to distinguish between a mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma of the lung—another form of cancer—using the naked eye. Indeed, distinguishing between those two conditions, even using a microscope, may be very difficult.
  The board therefore consulted an expert of international repute on the pathology of industrial lung disease. I
  138
  labour that point for the benefit of the hon. Member for Mansfield, who understandably is anxious about the difference in diagnosis between the two medical opinions. That expert was a consultant pathologist, a professor of forensic medicine and a home office pathologist. After extensive tests, with which I shall deal later and which included the sectioning and staining that the hon. Member mentioned, he concluded that the tumour was an adenocarcinoma and not a mesothelioma.
  The special medical board, acting in an advisory capacity, completed its report on 15 January 1988, concluding, on the balance of probabilities, that the cause of death was carcinomatosis, due to an adenocarcinoma in the lung, rather than that the tumour was a mesothelioma.
  The same medical board, consisting of the two specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioners who had examined the thoracic organs, then considered the claim for industrial injuries disablement benefit. They considered all the available medical evidence, including the post mortem examination—I stress that that was taken into account—their own findings, the report from the consultant pathologist and the case notes and X-rays from Mansfield general hospital. It is important to make that point. They concluded that the patient had not been suffering from a prescribed disease or from a consequence of a prescribed disease.
  An appeal against the decision of the medical board, dated 17 March 1988, was considered by a medical appeal tribunal on 25 January 1989. The hon. Gentleman was right to point out that a long time passed between those two events.
  The claimant, Mrs. Davidson, and her son and daughter were present together with a representative of the union of democratic mineworkers. The tribunal was told that Mr. Davidson has worked for 43 years in the coal-mining industry, had been in good health until 1986, had had a clear x-ray in 1985, and that his final illness began just over three months before he died. Post mortem examination confirmed the presence of a malignant tumour of the pleura.
  The post mortem report described the appearance of the tumour. Histology showed these to be entirely in keeping with a malignant mesothelioma. Naked-eye examination of thoracic organs usually confirms the presence of a tumour, but the actual nature of the tumour is usually not diagnosable without microscopic examination of representative microscopic sections of lung tissue. That may require special staining or other techniques. Those tests had of course been carried out thoroughly by the special expert, the consultant pathologist.
  The tribunal considered all the submissions and examined all the scheduled evidence. It considered that the absence of any asbestos-related changes in the lungs and the chest x-ray in 1985, the absence of pain until the terminal stages and the short time between onset and death favoured the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma made by the consultant pathologist. In its view, it was more probable than not that Mr. Davidson died from adenocarcinoma and not mesothelioma.
  The hon. Member for Mansfield has clearly and compassionately expressed the details of this extremely distressing case. I have already said that the distressing nature of the case will have been accentuated by the long period between Mr. Davidson's death and the decision. I have tried to explain how the special medical board came to its conclusions.

  139
  The hon. Gentleman may like to note that I am unable to alter the decision of the independent statutory authorities, but appeals or reviews may be made in cases such as this. The medical appeal tribunal's decision of 25 January 1989 can be appealed against, to the social security commissioner, on a point of law. The commissioner would have to give his leave to such an appeal, because it would be out of time.
  The medical appeal tribunal's decision can also be reviewed at any time by a special medical board under section 110(1) of the social security act 1975 as modified by regulation 67 of the social security adjudication regulations 1986. That avenue of review depends on the statutory medical authority being satisfied by fresh
  140
  evidence that the tribunal's decision was given in ignorance of a material fact or was based on a mistake as to a material fact, although I should explain that a new opinion on the cause of death would not necessarily constitute "fresh evidence".
  I know that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed by my inability to change the decisions made on Mrs. Davidson's claims for benefit, but I hope that I have explained that they received the correct and fullest consideration by the adjudication authorities. I should like once again to take this opportunity to express my sympathy for Mrs. Davidson and her family and to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has brought this matter to the attention of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Primary Schools, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list by school within the Doncaster local education authority(a) the present and (b) the forecast figure for pupils in primary schools; and what additional funding he intends to provide for new schools in this area.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No proposals for new schools in Doncaster are currently before my right hon. Friend for decision. I understand, however, that the Doncaster education authority is intending to publish proposals shortly for a new 9–13 age range middle school in the Balby Woodfield area. Priority is given in the allocation of annual capital guidelines for new school places needed as a result of population growth.

  The following information was provided by the Doncaster local education authority:

  Number on roll

  September 1989

  1993–94 forecast

  First Schools

  Adwick Washington

  316

  317

  Carcroft

  198

  247

  Owston Skellow

  289

  269

  Sprotbrough Orchard

  106

  130

  Woodlands

  178

  231

  Balby Central

  292

  322

  Balby Nightingale

  371

  461

  Balby Waverley

  255

  262

  Hexthorpe

  226

  200

  Woodfield

  325

  360

  Askern Littlemoor

  209

  253

  Askern Moss Road

  192

  157

  Norton

  194

  211

  Intake

  520

  534

  Kingfisher

  172

  198

  Park

  366

  351

  Sandringham

  207

  235

  Town Field

  216

  288

  Bentley High Street

  156

  178

  Bentley Kirkby Avenue

  161

  208

  Bentley New Village

  217

  264

  Scawthorpe Castle Hills

  160

  203

  Edlington Hill Top

  222

  201

  Edlington Victoria

  203

  216

  Tickhill

  137

  171

  Warmsworth

  104

  117

  Warmsworth CE

  79

  65

  Bessacarr

  190

  175

  Cantley Hawthorn

  147

  172

  Cantley Sycamore

  115

  114

  Hyde Park

  307

  352

  South Cantley

  270

  302

  Stirling

  151

  182

  West Bessacarr Willow

  280

  242

  Fishlake Endowed

  24

  36

  Hatfield Crooksbroom

  207

  225

  Hatfield Dunsville

  169

  181

  Hatfield Sheep Dip Lane

  253

  228

  Hatfield Travis CE

  247

  347

  2

  Number on roll

  September 1989

  1993–94 forecast

  Hatfield Woodhouse

  89

  84

  Stainforth Eastgate

  109

  150

  Stainforth Kirton Lane

  147

  184

  Stainforth Westgate

  220

  290

  Sykehouse

  10

  10

  Barnby Dun

  116

  139

  Doncaster St. George's CE

  56

  60

  Kirk Sandall

  257

  251

  Grange Lane

  269

  346

  Tornedale

  290

  317

  Scawsby Rosedale

  128

  147

  Scawsby Saltersgate

  218

  248

  Sprotbrough Richmond Hill

  230

  295

  Greentop

  266

  220

  King Edward

  285

  413

  Moorends

  200

  197

  Moorends west road

  186

  212

  South Common

  147

  163

  Infant Schools

  Armthorpe CE

  58

  51

  Armthorpe Shaw Wood

  221

  211

  Armthorpe Tranmoor Lane

  159

  151

  Conisbrough Rowena

  201

  1.85

  Denaby Main

  128

  143

  Doncaster Road

  96

  122

  Park Road

  168

  188

  Infant/Junior Schools

  Armthorpe Southfield

  178

  167

  Conisborough Balby Street

  180

  200

  Conisbrough Ivanhoe

  256

  270

  Conisbrough Station Road

  258

  204

  Auckley

  169

  128

  Bawtry Mayflower

  189

  187

  Branton CE

  140

  149

  Finningley CE

  93

  79

  Finningley Hayfield Lane

  223

  274

  Highwoods

  225

  369

  St. John's CE

  219

  176

  Windhill

  296

  308

  Armthorpe Our Lady of Sorrows

  154

  151

  Bentley Our Lady of Sorrows

  139

  143

  Conisbrough St. Albans

  224

  230

  Doncaster our Lady of Mount Carmel

  225

  273

  Doncaster St. Francis Xavier

  203

  261

  Doncaster St. Peter's

  275

  301

  Edlington St. Mary's

  195

  209

  Rossington St. Joseph's

  211

  259

  Stainforth Holy Family

  218

  248

  Woodlands East

  154

  189

  First/Middle Schools

  Brodsworth CE

  36

  34

  Highfields

  156

  190

  Hooton Pagnell CE

  54

  54

  Arksey

  180

  169

  Bentley Toll Bar

  126

  137

  Scawthorpe Sunny Fields

  252

  240

  Braithwell

  98

  82

  Tickhill Estfeld

  250

  223

  Wadworth

  138

  109

  Edenthorpe Hall

  251

  311

  Edenthorpe Popham CE

  197

  202

  St. Michael's CE

  228

  202

  Barnburgh

  224

  222

  Middle Schools (deemed primary)

  Adwick Park

  278

  316

  Carcroft

  186

  198

  Owston Skellow

  311

  289

  Sprotbrough Copley

  118

  106

  Woodlands

  165

  178

  Askern Sutton Road

  336

  401

  Norton

  170

  194

  Bentley High Street

  158

  156

  3

  Number on roll

  September 1989

  1993–94 forecast

  Bentley Kirkby Avenue

  153

  161

  Bentley New Village

  185

  217

  Scawthorpe Castle Hills

  162

  160

  Edlington Hill Top

  234

  222

  Edlington Victoria

  153

  203

  Tickhill CE

  133

  137

  Warmsworth

  167

  183

  Barnby Dun

  166

  116

  Doncaster Curlew

  43

  56

  Kirk Sandall

  255

  257

  Holmscarr

  218

  269

  Pheasant Bank

  270

  290

  Scawsby Rosedale

  126

  128

  Scawsby Saltersgate

  255

  218

  Sprotbrough Richmond Hill

  195

  230

  Junior Schools

  Armthorpe Shaw Wood

  325

  362

  Armthorpe Tranmoor

  212

  213

  Conisbrough Morley Place

  208

  267

  Denaby Main

  186

  184

  Doncaster Road

  111

  138

  Montague

  194

  220

  Total

  24,524

  26,508

  Footnote; The total pupil capacity of the schools listed above was 32,271 in September 1989.

  School Building (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what level of funding he has made available for the Doncaster local education authority for new school building for the years 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 20 December 1989,(Official Report, columns 254–58, with the correction that "Primary" should be substituted for "Private"). ACGs are made on an annual basis. It is for Doncaster LEA to decide how to use the resources available and to make decisions on expenditure on school buildings in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Human Frontier
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will name the board of trustees and the council of scientists administering the Human Frontier science programme.

  Mr Jackson
  The information is as follows:

  BOARD OF TRUSTEES
  Canada

  Dr. Henri C. Rothschild,

  Director General, Technology Policy Branch,

  Department of Industry, Science and Technology

  Mr. Allan S. Pool,

  Director, Science and Technology Division, Department of External Affairs

  France

  M. Jean de Gliniasty,

  Director of Development and Co-operation for Science and Technology, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

  M. Claude Amiel,

  Director, Division of Biology, Medicine and Health, Ministry of Research and Technology

  4
  Federal Republic of Germany

  Dr. Helmut Klein,

  Head of Projects Management for Biology, Ecology and Energy, Nuclear Research Centre, Julich

  Dr. Heinrich Pfeiffer,

  General Secretary, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

  Italy

  Mr. Michele Lener,

  Multilateral Units Manager, International Relations Office, Ministry of University and Scientific Research

  Professor Alberto Albertini,

  President of the Scientific Committee of the National Research Council's Finalised Project on Advanced Biotechnologies

  Japan

  Ambassador Hiromichi Miyazaki (Chairman), Committee on Policy Matters, Council for Science and Technology

  Dr. Kozo Iizuka,

  Special Adviser to the Agency of Industrial Science and Technology, Ministry of International Trade and Industry

  United Kingdom

  Mr. Robin Ritzema,

  Head of International Science Division, Department of Education and Science

  Dr. Victoria Harrison,

  Head of Policy Planning and Assessment, Agricultural and Food Research Council

  United States of America

  Dr. Katherine Bick,

  Deputy Director for Extramural Research, NIH

  Dr. Mary Clutter,

  Assistant Director for Biological, Behavioural and Social Sciences, NSF

  COUNCIL OF SCIENTISTS
  Canada

  Dr. Francis S. Rolleston,

  Director of Scientific Evaluation Division, Medical Research Council

  Dr. James D. Friesen,

  Department of Biochemistry, Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute

  France

  M. Pierre Chambon,

  Professor, Louis Pasteur University, Strasbourg, Director of a Joint CNRS-INSERM Laboratory

  M. Jean-Pierre Chageux,

  Professor, College de France, Director of Research at the Pasteur Institute

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Dr. Dieter Oesterhelt,

  Max-Planck-Institute for Biochemistry

  Dr. Ernst-Ludiwg Winnacker,

  Institute for Biochemistry, Ludwig-Maximilian University

  Italy

  Professor Glauco Tocchini-Valentini,

  Director of Cellular Biology, Laboratory of CNR, Rome

  5

  Professor Giorgio Parisi,

  Professor of Theoretical Physics, II University of Rome (Tor Vergata)

  Japan

  Professor Masao Ito,

  Institute of Physical and Chemical Research

  Professor Akiyoshi Wada,

  Faculty of Science, University of Tokyo

  United Kingdom

  Sir Walter Bodmer,

  Director of Research, Imperial Cancer Research Fund

  The Lord Adrian,

  Professor of Cell Physiology, University of Cambridge

  United States of America

  Dr. Joseph E. Rail (Chairman),

  Deputy Director of Intramural Research, NIH

  Dr. Joseph E. Varner,

  Professor of Biochemistry, Washington University in St. Louis

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in issuing guidance concerning the responsibilities of governors of state schools under the Data Protection Act and the purposes for which the governors may hold personal data; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The necessary guidance will be issued as soon as possible.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the way colleges and universities respond to requests from a community charges registration officer concerning students; whether he will allocate additional grants so that these institutions need only disclose information about students resident in a particular charging authority area; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Apart from the question asked by the hon. Member on 26 October 1989 (Official Report, col. 536), my right hon. Friend has received no representations concerning the way colleges and universities respond to requests from community charges registration officers (CCROs) about students. As I said in reply to the earlier question, the information needs of CCROs are a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  History and Geography Working Groups
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many copies of the interim report of the geography working group and the history working group were sent to local education authorities for consultation.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Each of the 104 local education authorities in England and Wales were sent 10 copies of the history and 10 copies of the geography interim reports 6
  at the time they were published. Further copies were offered to authorities and others on application to the Department and many availed themselves of this offer.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many people with inner-city school experience are members of(a) the history working group and (b) the geography working group in the preparation of the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Two members of the history working group and three members of the geography working group have had experience either of teaching in inner cities or of working closely with school teachers in inner-city areas.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many people with primary teaching experience are members of(a) the history working group and (b) the geography working group in the preparation of the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Four out of 12 members of the history working group and four out of 12 members of the geography working group have had teaching experience in primary schools or are employed as advisers with responsibilities for primary schools.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many school pupils aged 14 to 16 years are currently studying(a) history and (b) geography expressed in total numbers and as a percentage of the total numbers of school pupils.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The latest readily available information—taken from the 1988 secondary school staffing survey—dicated that the following numbers and percentages of pupils were studying history, geography and combined courses which might include history and geography in the third, fourth and fifth secondary years in England:

  Year group

  3

  4

  5

  Pupils studying history number

  490,000

  225,000

  250,000

  as a percentage of all pupils in the year group

  90

  40

  42

  Pupils studying geography number

  490,000

  260,000

  275,000

  as a percentage of all pupils in the year group

  90

  46

  46

  Pupils studying combined courses within the arts/humanities/social science fields number

  60,000

  50,000

  45,000

  as a percentage of all pupils in the year group

  11

  9

  7

  The secondary school staffing survey was carried out in March 1988 based on a representative 10 per cent, sample of maintained secondary schools in England.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which organisations, other than local education authorities, have been sent copies of the interim reports of(a) the history working group and (b) the geography working group; and how many copies were sent to each organisation.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Copies of the interim reports of both the history and the geography working groups were sent to
  7
  over 200 organisations. A total of 17,500 history and 26,000 geography reports have been distributed up to 31 December last.

  Special Educational Needs
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what account he has taken in considering schemes from local education authorities for local management of schools, of special educational needs provision.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In considering schemes for local management of schools submitted by local education authorities, my right hon. Friend has been concerned to ensure that appropriate and effective provision is made for pupils with special educational needs. This follows the requirement in circular 7/78 on local management of schools that LEAs' schemes should reflect the incidence of pupils with special educational needs in their schools.

  Financial Delegation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will identify those local education authorities for which he has agreed schemes for financial delegation of colleges where the costs of premature retirement, severance and dismissal are treated as exceptions to the scheme; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will number those local education authorities for which he has agreed schemes for financial delegation of colleges where the costs of premature retirement, severance and dismissal are treated as exceptions to the scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Of schemes approved to date, the following local education authorities allow for the costs of premature retirement, severance and dismissal to be treated as an exception to the scheme:

  Tameside

  Northamptonshire

  Cheshire

  Governing Bodies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list and identify only those further education and higher education colleges for which he has agreed revised instruments of government where the size of the governing body is in excess of 20 persons.

  Mr. Jackson
  To date the Secretary of State has approved for the following institutions instruments of government which provide in each case for a governing body in excess of 20 members:

  Bradford and Ilkley Community College;

  Croydon College;

  Newcastle College;

  Sandwell College of Further and Higher Education;

  Solihull College of Technology;

  South Tyneside College;

  Suffolk College of Higher and Further Education.

  For three further colleges my right hon. Friend has indicated that he would be prepared to approve instruments of government which would provide for a governing body in excess of 20 members.

  Bradford City Technology College
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science who appoints trustees of the Bradford city technology college trust; if he will list the names and designations of trustees, the total amount of private sector funds received by the trust, to date, the names of persons or companies who, to date, have contributed and the amount each has contributed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The members of the Dixons city technology college trust are appointed by the principal sponsor or the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The initial members are:Mr. Stanley Kalms, the chairman of the Dixons Group pic, as the principal sponsor;
  Mr. Richard Andrews, the group personnel director of the Dixons Group pic, as the designated nominee for the principal sponsor; and
  Mr. Edward Simpson CB, and educational consultant, as the designated nominee of the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
  The total amount of private sector funds received to date is just under £1·3 million. This is made up of £1 million from Mr. Haking Wong; £220,000 (the first of five equal instalments under a five-year covenant) from the Dixons Group pic; and other contributions totalling just under £50,000.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for the disabled students' allowance.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend currently has the operation of the disabled students' allowance under review in the context of the annual review of the awards regulations. He envisages announcing the outcome of this in time for any changes to take effect from 1 September 1990.

  St. Dunstan's School
  Sir Neil Macfarlane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are his Department's latest proposals for the rebuilding of St. Dunstan's Church of England school in Cheam; what discussions his officials have had with officials from the London borough of Sutton; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is not for the DES to make proposals for the rebuilding of a school. In June 1988 the Southwark Diocesan Board of Education published proposals under section 13 of the Education Act 1980 to establish in September 1989 a new Church of England voluntary-aided primary school in substitution for Cheam Church of England junior boys' school and St. Dunstan's Church of England primary school. The explanatory notes published with the proposal said that the new school would be accommodated in the existing premises of Cheam junior boys' school and St. Dunstan's primary school pending the construction of new school buildings. The previous Secretary of State for Education and Science approved those proposals in December 1988 and it is for the promoters and the local education authority to implement them. The Department indicated that the Secretary of State was prepared in principle to pay grant of 85 per cent, on the promoters' share of the cost of building the new school premises.
  9
  I understand that the promoters have since had difficulty in obtaining planning permission from the London borough of Sutton. Officials from the Department have attended a number of meetings, at the request of the promoters, at which representatives of both the diocesan board and the borough have been present. The most recent meeting was on 3 January. This has allowed officials to be kept informed of the reasons for the delay in providing the new school building and of the potential cost implications of alterations to the building project which might be required by the planning authorities.

  Until the promoters are able to submit to my right hon. Friend a finalised version of their building project for which they have obtained planning permission, he cannot decide whether to give detailed approval to it under the Education Acts or whether to make grant payments on it. The promoters have, however, been warned that the offer of a grant is not unlimited and that if the scheme eventually presented to the Department is much more expensive than that originally envisaged, it may not be possible to fund a full 85 per cent, of it through grant.

  CERN
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science from which Department's Votes it is intended to fund CERN.

  Mr. Jackson
  The United Kingdom subscription to CERN is borne on Class XI, Vote 5, subhead B2 of the Department's Estimates; this subhead covers the international subscriptions of the science and engineering research council.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the United Kingdom's contribution to CERN in 1989–90 and 1990–91; what percentage of the total is attributable to the devaluation of sterling; and what administrative economies have been introduced by the secretariat.

  Mr. Jackson
  Estimates provision for the United Kingdom's contribution payments to CERN during the United Kingdom financial year 1989–90 is £48·897 million; Estimates for the United Kingdom financial year 1990–91 have yet to be presented to Parliament.

  Under the revised contribution system recently introduced by CERN, the annual contribution of individual member states can be affected by a number of year-on-year variables. These include changes in the relative GNP of all member states each of which is re-assessed each year, movements in international exchange rates against the Swiss franc, and the annual rate of inflation in Switzerland, which is the host nation. The total sum payable in any particular year cannot readily be disaggregated to identify those elements attributable to each of these and other factors.

  Following the report of the CERN review group, the CERN management has undertaken a continuing programme of implementation for the report's recommendations aimed at securing more efficient and cost-effective management. These include a phased reduction of 500 (some 15 per cent.) in the number of staff employed by the organisation, improved budgetary and financial control arrangements, improved project control systems, and the development of a revised system of personnel management suited to the organisation's future needs.

  Haberdashers' Aske's Schools
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide details of the amount, date and recipient of any payments by his Department to support the preparation of plans to establish a city technology college on the site of the Haberdashers' Aske's schools in Deptford.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has an agreement with the Haberdashers' company covering the establishment of the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college. Under this, the Government have agreed to meet reasonable transitional costs, including the payment of a project director's and an educational consultant's salaries. We are currently in discussion with representatives of the Haberdashers' company about the scope and commencement date of the transitional costs and envisage making payments shortly. No expenditure has been incurred by the Department to date.

  Trafford Borough Council
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will ask Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools to investigate the circumstances which led to the cancellation by Trafford borough council of its 11-pi us examination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Officials have written to Trafford education authority to seek an explanation.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the Student Loans Company Limited has appointed a managing director.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Student Loans Company Limited proposes to appoint Mr. Ronald J. Harrison as managing director.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table giving the amounts for England of capital allocations for(a) county and voluntary-controlled schools, (b) voluntary-aided schools and (c) the total of (a) for each financial year from and including 1978–79 to 1990–91, expressed in (i) current prices, (ii) constant prices and (iii) an index of (ii) where 1978–79=100.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 13 December 1989]Not all the information is available in the form requested. Table A shows figures from 1981–82. Prior to 1981–82, local education authorities did not receive block allocations, but were notified annually, in the context of a rolling programme, of a limit on the value of building starts in the following year. From 1981–82 to 1989–90 allocations for spending on capital works have been made to local education authorities for schools and colleges of further and higher education, in accordance with the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. It has been for each local education authority to decide how to use its allocation, including apportionment as between schools and colleges, and the extent to which it wishes to supplement it through the use of capital receipts and other
  11
  sources of revenue. The availability of capital receipts for this purpose has increased substantially over the period. Table B shows the resulting actual outturn gross expenditure by LEAs from 1978–79 in cash, constant and index terms.

  Figures for 1990–91 (in Table A) are not strictly comparable with previous years. With the introduction of

  Table A

  Total allocations and annual capital guidelines for England in cash and constant terms

  Local authority schools and colleges

  Voluntary aided and special agreement schools

  Local authority schools and colleges and voluntary aided and special agreement schools

  Cash

  Constant 1981–82 prices

  Index 1981–82 prices

  Cash

  Constant 1981–82 prices

  Index 1981–82 prices

  Cash

  Constant 1981–82 prices

  Index 1981–82 prices

  1981–82

  355

  355

  100

  24

  24

  100

  379

  379

  100

  1982–83

  338

  315

  89

  22

  21

  87

  360

  336

  89

  1983–84

  295

  263

  74

  19

  17

  71

  314

  280

  74

  1984–85

  300

  255

  72

  25

  21

  87

  325

  276

  73

  1985–86

  315

  254

  72

  31

  25

  104

  346

  279

  74

  1986–87

  297

  231

  65

  28

  22

  92

  325

  253

  67

  1987–88

  306

  227

  64

  32

  23

  97

  338

  250

  66

  1988–89

  387

  267

  75

  43

  30

  123

  430

  296

  78

  1989–90

  352

  227

  64

  56

  36

  149

  408

  263

  69

  1990–91

  485

  298

  84

  71

  44

  182

  556

  342

  90

  Notes to table A

  1. All figures are in £ million.

  2. Constant prices are calculated at 1981–82 prices using the GDP deflator. The index for 1981–82 is set at 100.

  3. The Department provides grant-aid at a rate of 85 per cent, on governors capital expenditure at voluntary aided and special agreement
  schools.

  4. Capital grant figures for the voluntary aided sector for the year 1981–82 are not separately indentified from a single building grant figure which included repairs and maintenance. The capital figures shown for this year are based on an apportionment of the building grant figure using the average ratio between capital and repairs during 1982–83 and 1985–86.

  5. Prior to 1981–82 local authorities did not receive block allocations, but were notified annually in the context of a rolling programme of a limit on the value of building starts in the following year.

  6. From 1981–82 to 1989–90 allocations have been made to LEAs for spending on schools and colleges of further and higher education.

  7. Figures for 1990–91 are Annual Capital Guidelines and cover other educational services as well as schools and colleges. They are not directly comparable with the allocations given in earlier years.

  8. Local authority allocations for 1989–90 and ACGs for 1990–91 exclude institutions which were transferred to the PCFC sector in 1989–90.

  9. Figures are rounded.

  Table B

  Gross capital expenditure for England in cash and constant terms

  Local authority schools and colleges

  Voluntary aided and special agreement schools

  Local authority schools and colleges and voluntary aided and special agreement schools

  Cash

  Constant 1978–79 prices

  Index 1978–79 prices

  Cash

  Constant 1978–79 prices

  Index 1978–79 prices

  Cash

  Constant 1978–79 prices

  Index 1978–79 prices

  1978–79

  338

  338

  100

  19

  19

  100

  358

  358

  100

  1979–80

  379

  324

  96

  24

  20

  106

  403

  345

  96

  1980–81

  532

  385

  114

  26

  19

  97

  558

  403

  113

  1981–82

  385

  254

  75

  28

  19

  96

  413

  272

  76

  1982–83

  425

  261

  77

  26

  16

  83

  451

  277

  78

  1983–84

  444

  261

  77

  22

  13

  68

  466

  274

  77

  1984–85

  473

  265

  78

  29

  16

  84

  502

  281

  79

  1985–86

  503

  267

  79

  37

  19

  100

  539

  286

  80

  1986–87

  544

  279

  82

  33

  17

  89

  577

  296

  83

  1987–88

  556

  271

  80

  37

  18

  94

  593

  289

  81

  1988–89

  668

  304

  90

  50

  23

  119

  719

  327

  91

  1989–90

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1990–91

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. For Voluntary Aided and Special Agreement schools capital grant figures for 1978–79 to 1981–82 not separately identified from a single building grant figure which included repairs and maintenance. The capital figures shown for this period are based on an apportionment of the building grant figure using the average ration between capital and repairs during 1982–83 and 1985–86.

  2. For the Voluntary sector, gross expenditure includes Governing Bodies' 15 per cent, contribution.

  12
  the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the Department has issued an annual capital guideline to each local education authority for 1990–91, which is one element in the calculation of each local authority's basic credit approval for 1990–91 announced by the Department of the Environment.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Records
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will identify, by computerised reference number, the Public Record Office pieces or files which have been released for public inspection in January following extended closure for(a) 50 years, (b) 75 years and (c) 100 years.

  The Attorney-General
  Nearly 700 items, previously closed for longer than 30 years, became available for public inspection in the Public Record Office at the beginning of January 1990. I am making arrangements for a listing of the references of these items to be made available in the Library in due course and on request to members of the public.

  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor will invite his Advisory Council on Public Records to undertake a quality check of those papers due for release in 1990, following extended closure of 50, 75 and 100 years, to ensure that Departments have released as much material as possible.

  The Attorney-General
  The advisory council is consulted before the Lord Chancellor agrees to any records remaining closed beyond 30 years. The records which became available at the beginning of this year in the Public Record Office, after previous closure for longer than 30 years, were originally closed, under the provisions of s.5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958, as amended in 1967, after consultation with the Advisory Council on Public Records. The records concerned number nearly 700, and it would be impractical for material in this quantity to be checked by the advisory council, but the items referred to are all now open to public inspection in the Public Record Office reading rooms. The role of the advisory council in relation to the operations of s.5(1) of the Act is set out in paragraphs 38 and 39 of the White Paper, "Modern Public Records: The Government response to the Report of the Wilson Committee", Cmnd 8531, March 1982.

  "War Without Honour"
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received concerning the legal implications of the book "War Without Honour", by Fred Holroyd.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  Kincora Boys' Home
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will reconsider the appointment of an inquiry into events at the Kincora boy's home, with specific terms of reference to consider allegations of criminal activities by Crown employees.

  The Attorney-General
  No.

WALES

  Homes for the Elderly
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of people aged(a) over 75 years and (b) over 85 years in Wales live in (i) nursing homes and (ii) residential homes.

  Mr. Grist
  As at 31 March 1989, the proportion of the 75 and over age group living in residential homes in Wales was 60·7 per 1,000 relevant population. For the 85 and over age group the proportion was 157·3. Information on the age of patients in nursing homes is not held centrally.

  Children's Institutions
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future provision of care at children's institutions in Mid-Glamorgan following recent announcements of changes to the funding and accommodation arrangements at these institutions.

  Mr. Grist
  We are not aware of any recent announcements on proposed changes to funding and accommodation arrangements of child care institutions in Mid-Glamorgan. The future provision of such establishments is an issue for Mid-Glamorgan county council to address.

  Polytechnic of Wales
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the talks held recently between his Department and representatives of Mid-Glamorgan county council on the future management of the Polytechnic of Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Officials from the Department have recently discussed with officers of Mid-Glamorgan county council the detailed provisions to be included in the new instrument of government for the Polytechnic of Wales required by the Education Reform Act 1988. The Act requires a revised instrument of government setting out the constitution of a new governing body to be in effect by 1 April 1990.

  Arts Project, Llandudno
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's funding of the proposed North Wales opera house project to be based at Llandudno.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The proposed new arts and leisure centre at Llandudno was the subject of an application by Aberconwy borough council for support in 1990–91 as a project of regional or national importance. It was reluctantly decided that the project could not be accommodated within the package of schemes for assistance because of demands from competing schemes and the fact that it required such a high level of support from public sector resources. It is of course open to the sponsors of the scheme to come forward with revised proposals if they wish to do so.

PRIME MINISTER

  Part-time Appointments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister from whom members of her personal staff paid from public funds seek approval for paid part-time appointments before accepting them.

  The Prime Minister
  All members of my staff, paid from public funds, are governed in this respect by the general principles of conduct which apply to civil servants. Approval would be sought from the appropriate senior officer, depending on the level of the person concerned and the nature of the appointment.

  Ministerial Changes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list by year to date since June 1979(a) the number of ministerial changes in Her Majesty's Government (b) the Departments concerned and (c) the names of the hon. and right hon. Members concerned.

  The Prime Minister
  Information on changes of Ministers can be found in the Cabinet Office publication "List of Ministerial Responsibilities", published annually at the end of the summer recess. Copies are available in the Library of the House. Further editions are issued during the year if there are substantial changes in ministerial appointments.

  British Rail
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will obtain a copy of the speech by the chairman of British Rail on 8 January; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have a copy of Sir Robert Reid's speech, and urge all hon. Members to read it. It is an excellent account of the progress made by British Rail during the period that he has been chairman. In that time investment has doubled in real terms to a level which Sir Robert describes as"about the maximum rate we can physically manage".
  British Rails's need for subsidy has halved as the number of passengers has reached the highest level since 1960.
  As Sir Robert Reid says, British Rail is now
  "in an unprecedented position of strength".
  He points to the essential part played in bringing about this change by the Government's action since 1983 in setting the board clear objectives.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister to what extent the remuneration and conditions of service being offered to general practitioners in rural areas will improve primary care in those areas in future.

  The Prime Minister
  All the changes to the GPs' contract will benefit patients in rural areas. Doctors will be encouraged through their terms of service and remuneration system to raise standards and extend services. In particular more care will be available for the very young and elderly patients. There will be greater emphasis on health promotion and the prevention of disease for all patients. New services will include minor surgery and regular check-ups. Overall the family doctor services will be more responsive to the needs of patients.

  Top Salaries Review Body
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Prime Minister what restrictions are placed upon the top salaries review body in respect of the level of its recommendations.

  The Prime Minister
  The top salaries review body is an independent body. It takes evidence from the Government and other interested parties and makes recommendations which it thinks appropriate. The TSRB's report is considered by the Government who then decide whether to accept or modify its recommendations.

  Kincora Boys' Home
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will list the documents made available by her office to the Hughes inquiry into the Kincora boys' home;

  (2) if she will take steps to establish a Cabinet Office inquiry into the allegations of Mr. Colin Wallace and Captain Fred Holroyd, retired, concerning illegal activities by the security forces and other Crown employees in Northern Ireland since 1972;

  (3) if she will establish a Cabinet Office inquiry into illegal activities by Crown employees documented in the book "War Without Honour", and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received from January 1989 to the present date concerning the Kincora boys' home.

  The Prime Minister
  The representations I have received about Kincora have been mainly from the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

  Captain Fred Holroyd
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she has received a copy of the book "War Without Honour" by Fred Holroyd; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will acquire for the library of 10 Downing street a copy of the book "War Without Honour", by Fred Holroyd.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates were the allegations of Colin Wallace and Fred Holroyd relating to events in Northern Ireland last considered.

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Wallace and Mr. Holroyd have made a number of allegations in relation to Northern Ireland, some of which have been raised in the House and in correspondence by the hon. Gentleman and others. In the course of dealing with this parliamentary business, Departments have examined relevant matters on numerous occasions.

  Article 100A
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the use by the Commission of article 100A of the treaty for the purpose of directives.

  The Prime Minister
  I do not plan to do so.

  Whales
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make representations to the Japanese Prime Minister about the slaughter of minke whales by Japanese whalers in the Antarctic.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 12 January 1990]: The Japanese Government are well aware of our strong views on this matter, as was evident from my discussions with Prime Minister Kaifu.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many outside accountancy firms are employed by his Department; whether such employment is subject to guidelines; and whether he takes steps before employing an accountancy firm to discover whether that firm has been censured by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors in their inquiries under the Companies Act.

  Mr. Cope
  Forty-three outside accountancy firms are employed; such firms are invited to tender for the provision of advisory services on the basis of their suitability to provide the relevant advice. In making such appointments inquiries are carried out as necessary and, where appropriate, in the light of advice given by Her Majesty's Treasury on the appointment of consultants.

  RUC Reserve
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average length of service of all full-time Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve officers presently serving in the force.

  Mr. Cope
  The average length of service of all full-time reserve officers presently serving in the Royal Ulster Constabulary is six years.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer, taking into account all factors including their position in respect of the police pension fund, of employing(a) a full-time Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve officer and (b) a regular Royal Ulster Constabulary officer.

  Mr. Cope
  The annual cost to the Police Authority of employing a full-time Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve constable or a Royal Ulster Constabulary constable varies according to the age of the officer and his length of service. The estimated annual average cost of employing an 18-year-old constable in the full-time Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve is £18,624 and £18,068 for a constable in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The corresponding figures for officers with six years' service are £23,592 for the reserve constable and £23,837 for the regular officer. The difference in cost is accounted for by higher employer's national insurance contributions payable in respect of the full-time reserve constable who is not in a contracted-out pension scheme; and the fact that his salary increases at a slower rate than that of a regular constable. These costs represent basic salary, Royal Ulster 18
  Constabulary allowance, flat rate rent allowance, average overtime and employer's national insurance contributions and, in the case of the Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve officer with six years' service, the gratuity payable on completion of his second contract.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the longest period of service of any full-time Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve officer; how many Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve officers have served for more than 12 years; how many between nine and 12 years; and how many between six and nine years.

  Mr. Cope
  The longest period of service of any full-time Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve officer is 17 years nine months: 256 full-time reserve officers have served for more than 12 years; 947 have service between nine and 12 years; and 685 have served between six and nine years.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of full-time Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve officers; and if he will express this as a percentage of all Royal Ulster Constabulary constables who normally carry out their duties in uniform.

  Mr. Cope
  At 31 December 1989 the total number of full-time Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve officers was 3,018. This represents approximately 28 per cent. of all constables in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Royal Ulster Constabulary full and part-time reserve.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans the Government have(a) to provide access for full-time Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve officers to the police pension fund and (b) to approve the payment of an employers' contribution to a private pension scheme for full-time Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve officers.

  Mr. Cope
  None.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans the Government have to incorporate full-time Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve officers into the regular force after a specific period of service.

  Mr. Cope
  None.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what system of negotiation, conciliation or arbitration exists for full-time Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve officers; and what are the rules under which this system operates.

  Mr. Cope
  There is no formal system of negotiation, conciliation or arbitration but before the Secretary of State makes regulations about pay and conditions of service for the RUC reserve he consults the Police Authority, the Chief Constable and the Police Association.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether full-time Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve officers are(a) precluded from negotiating their conditions of employment, pay, pension, etc. under the normal terms of industrial relations legislation and (b) excluded from the joint police negotiating board of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  19
  Mr. Cope
  RUC reserve officers, like their fellow officers in the regular force, do not come within the terms of industrial relations legislation. The RUC reserve is not included within the remit of the police negotiating board for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Government have any plans to replace or modify the present short-term contract system of employment for full-time Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve officers.

  Mr. Cope
  No.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Government intend to replace or amend the system of negotiation, conciliation or arbitration for Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve officers.

  Mr. Cope
  No.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government are committed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and to the principles it embodies. As recorded in paragraph 29 of the report of the review of the working of the conference:"If in the future it were to appear that the objectives of the Agreement could be more effectively served by changes in the scope and nature of the working of the Conference, consistent with the basic provisions and spirit of the Agreement, the two Governments would be ready in principle to consider such changes".

  Captain Fred Holroyd
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will acquire for the library of the Northern Ireland Office a copy of the book "War Without Honour" by Fred Holroyd.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Northern Ireland Office already possesses copies of Mr. Holroyd's book.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now allow independent inspection on Privy Councillor terms of the records of his office relating to contacts with Fred Holroyd.

  Mr. Brooke
  No.

  Minister's Car (Theft)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any Government papers were included in the recent theft from the motor car being used by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  None.

ENERGY

  Energy Exploration, Doncaster and Rotherham
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the sites in the Doncaster and Rotherham areas that are due to be drilled by geologists seeking oil and gas.
  20
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Proposals to drill for oil and gas are subject to approval by my right hon. Friend. No such proposals have been submitted to him by current holders of petroleum licences in the Doncaster and Rotherham areas.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will name the 30 companies that have been granted Government licences to explore in the Doncaster and Rotherham areas for oil and gas.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  There are 19 companies with interests in petroleum licences within a radius of five miles from Doncaster and Rotherham.

  These are as follows:

  Exploration Licence EXL 050

  Fina Petroleum Development Ltd*, Blackland Exploration

  Ltd, Eaglestone Petroleum Ltd

  EXL 100

  Clyde Expro plc*, Phillips Petroleum Co UK Ltd

  EXL 138

  Sovereign Oil & Gas plc*, Coalite Group plc, LASMO (TNS)

  Ltd, Union Texas Petroleum Ltd

  EXL 182

  Teredo Petroleum plc*, East Midland Oil & Gas Ltd, Croft

  Exploration Ltd

  EXL 183

  Pentex Oil Ltd*

  Production Licence PL 161

  Kelt UK Ltd*, Candecca Resources plc, Elf Oil & Gas (UK)

  Ltd, James Finlay plc, Marinex Exploration Ltd, Pict

  Petroleum plc

  * denotes operator

  Of these, EXL 182 and EXL 183 were awarded in the third onshore licensing round, announced on 14 December 1989.

  Condensate Boilers
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimates he has made of the reduction of carbon dioxide from condensate boilers.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  It is very difficult to give a precise figure as performance of gas condensing boilers used in space heating applications varies according to specific circumstances. However the average efficiency of a new non-condensing boiler in the domestic sector can be taken as 70 per cent. and that of a condensing boiler as 85 per cent. leading to a reduction of the CO2 emitted of 18 per cent.

  Renewable Energy
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to re-evaluate the role of(a) renewable energy technologies and (b) combined heat and power and biomass energy production in the context of environmental damage from fossil fuels.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Energy paper No. 55 laid out proposals for the development of renewable energy technologies and these are reviewed annually. An initial assessment of the contribution to reducing the impact of greenhouse emissions from a range of energy technologies, including CHP and biomass, was included in the United Kingdom study for the inter-governmental panel on climate change. This report "An Evaluation of Energy-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Measures to Ameliorate Them" was lodged in the Library of the House last November and will be published shortly as a
  21
  Department of Energy paper. Further re-evaluation may be required as more information on greenhouse emissions becomes available.

  Plutonium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what action he is taking to assess the current location of all plutonium created in United Kingdom electricity board magnox reactors since the nuclear programme began.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the details of plutonium produced at Britain's civil nuclear power stations which were published by my Department on 5 December 1989. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mining Subsidence
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he has any proposals to change the present arrangements for appeals against decisions by British Coal on claims concerning the effects of mining subsidence brought by individuals and organisations against that company;

  (2) if he will set up local arbitration panels to resolve all claims concerning mining subsidence in respect of private dwellings, and up to ·50,000, index-linked, in respect of other property.

  Mr. Baldry
  In line with the recommendations of the Waddilove report, the Government, in the White Paper "The Repair and Compensation System for Coal Mining Subsidence Damage", Cm. 235, undertook to review in November 1990 the procedures for resolving disputes over subsidence damage. In view of the Government's intention to legislate at the earliest practicable opportunity, this review has been brought forward and is presently under way.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of mining subsidence claims, by coalfield or British Coal administrative region, currently being processed by British Coal.

  Mr. Baldry
  Details of British Coal's subsidence claims for 1987–88 are contained in an annual report to the Secretary of State for Energy, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I hope that the annual report for 1988–89 will be available shortly.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy further to his answer to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras of 8 January,Official Report, column 475, if he will give the output capacity of each of the gas-fired projects listed together with the likely annual gas consumption in each case.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The applications from the CEGB for section 2 consent under the Electric Lighting Act 1909 are for gas-fired stations, of the following proposed capacities:

  Megawatt

  Killingholme A

  1000

  Little Barford

  700

  Killingholme (PowerGen)

  700–1000

  Rye House

  700

  22
  The capacities of the stations proposed by independent generators are matters for them.

  The projects are at early planning or development stages and gas contracts are in most cases not yet in place.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) how many applications for consent to build gas-fired power stations have been received but not yet granted;

  (2) whether he has refused any applications for consent to build a gas-fired power station.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have received four applications from the CEGB for my consent to construct combined cycle gas turbine power stations. I shall announce my decisions on these applications in due course.

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about the absence of any obligation to supply electricity once electricity supply is privatised.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The area boards will continue to have an obligation to offer terms for a supply. Every customer will be able to find a supplier and regulations will continue to prescribe the quality and safety of supplies. Licence conditions on all suppliers will ensure current standards of security. I regularly receive correspondence and hold meetings with individuals, trade associations and other interested bodies on all aspects of the workings of our proposals for the privatised electricity market.

  Gas Leaks
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are current levels of natural gas leakages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 26 October last.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what research his Department has commissioned or proposes into the incidence of natural gas leakages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department has already published estimates of United Kingdom methane emissions, including those from natural gas leakage. Discussions on further work with interested parties are in hand.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps are being taken to reduce overall levels of carbon dioxide emissions within the natural gas industry in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The natural gas industry itself is responsible for only a small proportion of total carbon dioxide emissions. British Gas puts a substantial engineering and R&D effort into technologies to improve the efficiency with which gas is used, thereby helping to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of its customers.

  Natural Gas
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much natural gas he estimates will be used for the production of electricity in the United Kingdom in 1995 and 2000.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The amount of gas used for the production of electricity in the United Kingdom in 1995 and 2000 will depend on many factors. The attractions of gas to power generators together with the availability of competitive UKCS gas supplies seeking new markets suggest that gas burn in electricity generation will increase in the 1990s.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the average cost of producing natural gas from the United Kingdom continental shelf; and what information he has as to the cost of the most economic method so far recorded of gasifying coal.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  To date some £12 billion has been spent in developing our natural gas resources on the continental shelf and some 260 billion therms of gas have been produced. This gives a simple average cost over the past two decades, excluding exploration costs and a return on capital, of some 5·0 pence per therm.

  The Watt committee report number 20, published last year with financial support from my Department, provides a comprehensive assessment of the costs of coal gasification. The production costs of the cheapest method are about twice the cost of the coal feedstock used. The average price of coal purchased by large United Kingdom industrial consumers in the third quarter of 1989 was 15 pence per therm.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is prepared to authorise connection with the European gas grid to supplement gas supplies from the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  It is for the private sector to bring forward proposals for the financing and construction of a connection with the European gas grid. Known reserves of natural gas in the UKCS are, as presently assessed, capable of meeting the needs of the United Kingdom gas market competitively for the foreseeable future. The Government will give full consideration to any proposal to build a marine pipeline link to the European gas grid on the merits of the case.

  Underground Miners
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many men were working underground in mines operated by British Coal in 1978–79 and each succeeding year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The numbers of underground wage earners on British Coal's colliery books at the end of the following years were:

  Year

  '000

  1978–79

  185·1

  1979–80

  185·8

  1980–81

  181·0

  1981–82

  171·9

  1982–83

  164·4

  1983–84

  147·5

  24

  Year

  '000

  1984–85

  139·2

  1985–86

  113·7

  1986–87

  91·1

  1987–88

  74·6

  1988–89

  68·7

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Traffic Wardens
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will outline the main role of traffic wardens.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The main role of traffic wardens is to assist the police in the enforcement of parking regulations.

  Fixed Penalties
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to alter the fixed penalty level for illegal parking.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on 20 December 1989 at column 275.

  Centrally Funded Information
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish details of centrally funded information prepared by his Department, or by the Central Office of Information on his Department's behalf, supplied to police forces in England and Wales, in each year since 1983; and if he will indicate the languages of publication for this material.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Following is a list of the publications produced by the Home office public relations branch since 1 April 1986 for issue to police forces in England and Wales. Where the publication was produced in other languages, as well as English, this is shown. Details of publications for earlier years and of those which were produced without the assistance of the public relations branch are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Description

  Title

  Crime Prevention

  Burglary/Theft Poster

  Watch Out

  An Open Invitation

  Autocrime Posters

  Who Forgot

  Give a Thief an Inch

  Police Warning

  Don't Make Your Picnic

  Police Warning

  Vandalism/Juvenile Posters

  Suddenly It's Not So Funny

  Suddenly It Comes Home to You

  Do You Know

  Vandalism is Pointless

  Bicycle/Motor Cycle Posters

  Coded Cycle

  Lock It or Lose It

  Lock & Chain

  25

  Description

  Title

  Theft Posters

  Thieves Do a Roaring Trade

  Preventing Office Theft

  By the Time

  Game Set & Snatch

  Bogus Callers Poster

  Someone at the Door

  Bomb Warning Poster

  Bombs … Be Alert

  Xmas Theft Posters

  An Unlocked Car

  Keep a Hold on Your Bag

  Autocrime Posters (Weatherproof)

  You are at Risk

  There Has Been a Spate

  Car Thieves Operate

  Have You Locked Your Car

  Home Security Booklet

  How to Protect Your Home

  Home Security Leaflet

  How to Protect Your Home (Magpie)

  Home Security Leaflet

  As Safe as Houses

  Home Security Leaflet

  Coded for Keeps

  Vandalism Leaflet

  Facing up to Vandalism

  Armed Robbery Leaflet

  Protection Against Armed Robbery

  Caravan and Boat Leaflets

  Keep Your Caravan Safe

  Keep Your Boat Crimetight

  Autocrime Leaflet

  Your Car is at Risk

  Bogus Callers Leaflet

  Knock Knock

  Leaflet for Farmers

  The Big Steal Is On

  Holiday Advice Leaflet

  You Can't Take it With You

  Video Theft Leaflet

  Video/Theft Alert

  Retail Theft Booklet

  Profit from Prevention

  Crime Leaflet

  Crime Prevention Makes Sense (Punjabi, Hindi, Gujerati)

  Crime Leaflet

  Crime Prevention Makes Sense (Bengali, Urdu)

  Booklets for Industry

  Design Solutions Autocrime

  A Guide to the Security Homes

  Community Programme

  The Community Programme

  Violent Crime Leaflet

  Violent Crime

  Police Advice for Women

  Practical Ways to Crack Crime

  1st Edition

  2nd Edition

  3rd Edition

  Practical Ways to Crack Crime

  The Family Guide

  Crime Leaflet

  Police Advice on Preventing Crime

  Neighbourhood Watch/Homewatch Material

  A Guide to Community Action

  Incident Report Card

  Window Sticker

  Burglars Beware Sticker

  Logo Sticker

  Door Sticker

  Xmas Theft Sticker

  Keep a Hold on Your Bag

  26

  Description

  Title

  Cycle Coding/Locking Material

  Lock and Chain—Bookmark

  Coded Cycle—Sticker

  Have You Locked Your Bike—Lamppost Sticker

  4D Special Agent Material

  Bookmark

  Sticker

  Membership Card

  Door Sticker

  Stop! Chain the Door

  Anti Burglary Sticker

  Burglars Beware

  Autocrime Sticker

  Watch Out

  Jigsaws

  Police Jigsaw

  Pack

  Peter Pan

  Pack

  Protecting Your Home (Magpie)

  Booklet

  Crime Prevention Publicity Catalogue

  Booklet

  Crime Prevention News

  A Quarterly Magazine

  Criminal Justice

  Working Paper 1986

  Criminal Justice

  Key Statistics

  Crime Booklet

  Tackling Crime

  Crime Leaflets

  Tackling Crime

  Miscellaneous

  Shotgun Booklet

  Shotguns—A Guide to the Law

  Gun Permit Leaflet

  Gun Permits for Visitors

  Gun Clubs Leaflet

  Approval of Gun Clubs

  Gun Sense Leaflet

  Gun Sense is Good Sense

  Firearms Folder

  Firearms Buy in Scheme

  Witness in Court Leaflets

  Witness in Court

  Victims of Crime Leaflet

  Victims of Crime

  Knives Amnesty Poster x 3

  Amnesty for Knives

  Crossbow Leaflet

  Crossbows Act

  Interception Leaflet

  Interception of Tele-communications

  Firearms Leaflet

  Firearms—Changes in the Law

  Firearms Poster

  Amnesty—Firearms

  Security Leaflet

  Complaints Against Security

  Booklet

  Police National Computer Unit

  Booklet

  Scientific Research and Development Branch

  Booklet

  Civil Protection

  Booklet

  Protect and Survive

  Leaflet

  Complaints Against the Police (Welsh, Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi, Gujerati, Hindi, Chinese)

  Leaflet

  The Police are Ignorant

  27

  Description

  Title

  Booklet

  Homes Security Booklet

  Leaflet

  The Work of the Coroner

  Leaflet

  The New Fixed Penalty Scheme

  Leaflet

  The Forensic Science Service

  Police Recruitment

  Poster

  Undergraduates

  Poster

  Special Constabulary

  Poster

  Get Yourself a Real Job

  Poster

  A Job That Earns Respect

  Poster

  Serving the Community

  Poster

  Preserving the Peace

  Booklet

  Police Career—Graduate

  Booklet

  Police Officer

  Booklet

  Special Constabulary

  Booklet

  The Police Staff College Bramshill

  Leaflet

  The Police—A Career for Ex-Servicemen and Women

  Leaflet

  Police Special Reserve

  Leaflet

  Police Ethnic Recruitment

  Leaflet

  Police Cadets

  Card

  Police Recruitment Pay Scale

  Card

  Police Force Address List

  Schools Pack

  The Story of our Police

  Disclosure of Information
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the disclosure of information from the electoral register without the consent or knowledge of the voter; whether he has any plans to introduce regulations to allow voters to consent to the sale of their name and address; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  During 1989 we received two letters from members of the public and one from an hon. Member about disclosure of information from the electoral register without the elector's consent. We have no plans to introduce regulations to require the consent of electors to the sale of their names and addresses. The operation of the electoral registration system requires that all the information in the register should be freely available to the public. The provisions of the Representation of the People Regulations 1986 governing the publication and supply of the register reflect this fact and the conclusion that its use by commercial organisations could not effectively be prevented.

  Police Assaults (Wales)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the figures, on a force by force basis, of police officers who suffered violent assaults over the recent Christmas and new year period in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constables concerned that, during the period from 22 December 1989 up to and including 1 January 1990, the numbers of police officers in Wales who were physically attacked were as follows:

  Number

  Gwent

  8

  Dyfed Powys

  5

  North Wales

  19

  South Wales

  33

  Cigarette Sales
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Government propose to take to enforce the law on the prohibition of selling cigarettes to children under the age of 16 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The enforcement of the law is a matter for trading standards officers and the police. However, we are concerned that the prohibition on sales of tobacco to children should be effective and are currently considering what steps might be taken to strengthen the law in this area.

  Birmingham Six
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusion he has reached as a result of the meeting he had this week with the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs about the Birmingham Six.

  Mr. Waddington
  I explained to Mr. Collins when I met him on 8 January that I was giving very careful consideration to further material which had been submitted to me on behalf of the Birmingham Six. I will decide as soon as possible whether that further material justifies any intervention on my part.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet members of the European Parliament Committee set up to consider the soundness of the conviction of the Birmingham Six.

  Mr. Waddington
  As I said in my reply to a question from my hon. Friend on 30 November 1989, I understand that the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament has not yet decided whether to conduct an inquiry into the case of the Birmingham Six, and if so, what its terms of reference should be. We believe that it would be inappropriate for the European Parliament to inquire into the convictions of the Birmingham Six, which we regard as a matter wholly outside the Parliament's competence.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now had an opportunity of considering fresh evidence presented to him before Christmas by lawyers representing the Birmingham Six; and if he has reached a conclusion.
  29
  Mr. Waddington
  I am considering very carefully the further material which has been presented to me by a solicitor on behalf of the Birmingham Six, and will decide as soon as possible whether it justifies any intervention on my part.

  Mr. Albert Baker
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet able to make a further statement as to the case of Mr. Albert Baker and his request for a transfer to a prison in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Mellor
  Mr. Baker was informed in a petition reply dated 24 November 1989 that, because of the risk to his own safety if transferred to Northern Ireland, it had been decided to refuse his latest request.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent petitions have been received from Mr. Albert Baker, Her Majesty's prison Full Sutton, No. 241254.

  Mr. Mellor
  Mr. Baker last petitioned on 12 September 1989, when he wrote about the withdrawal of his special category status in 1973 following his transfer from a prison in Northern Ireland. A reply was sent on 22 November.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates, and for what reasons, Mr. Albert Baker, Her Majesty's prison Full Sutton, No. 241254, was held in a punishment unit.

  Mr. Mellor
  Mr. Baker was removed from normal association under the terms of prison rule 43 when, on reception at Full Sutton prison on 23 November 1989, he refused to wear prison clothing. When he agreed to do so on 2 December, he was placed on ordinary location.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he intends to reply to the correspondence sent to him by the hon. Member for Brent, East and from Mr. Cohn Wallace in August 1989 concerning the case of Mr. Colin Wallace; and if he will make a statement as to the reason for the delay in replying.

  Mr. John Patten
  I hope to be able to reply shortly to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and to Mr. Colin Wallace. It has not been possible to send earlier substantive replies pending completion of our consideration of relevant material contained in Mr. Paul Foot's book, "Who Framed Colin Wallace".

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has concluded his consideration of the conviction of Mr. Colin Wallace for manslaughter in the light of evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice set out in the book entitled, "Who Framed Colin Wallace", by Paul Foot, referred to in his written reply of 15 May 1989,Official Report, column 96; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend hopes shortly to complete his consideration of the material contained in Mr. Foot's book.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will institute an inquiry 30
  into the conduct of the Sussex police force when investigating the murder charge against Mr. Colin Wallace in the light of allegations of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice made in the book, "Who Framed Colin Wallace", by Mr. Paul Foot and if he will make a statement.

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

  Replies to Correspondence
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken to reply to correspondence sent from(a) hon. Members and (b) the public.

  Mr. Waddington
  The average time taken in my Department during the fourth quarter of 1989 to reply to letters to Ministers and to the Secretary to the Immigration and Nationality Board, the great majority of which were from hon. Members, was 37 days. Information is not held centrally on the time taken to reply to letters from members of the public.

  Prison Diets
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of Her Majesty's prisons in the United Kingdom supply diets in accordance with religious belief on a regular basis; and what preparations are being made by prisons to supply such diets, on request, on a regular basis;

  (2) if he will issue instructions to the governors of Her Majesty's prisons to make necessary arrangements to enable prisoners who wish on religious grounds to eat particular diets, to be able to receive such diets on a regular basis; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations he has received over the past year, including from those detained in prison, about difficulties in obtaining halal and kosher food on a regular basis.

  Mr. Mellor
  Other than the annual census of religious registration in prisons each February, details are not recorded centrally of inmates who belong to religious faiths or of their location. In total about 144,000 meals are served daily to inmates in prison service establishments in England and Wales, of which about 6,500 (5 per cent.) are estimated to be variations from the normal dietary on account of religious belief.

  All meals are prepared according to centrally determined dietary scales designed to meet published nutritional standards. Each establishment prepared special meals and also varies its standard menus to take into account recognised food preferences.

  The number of meals served each day to certain minority faiths is estimated as follows:

  4,700 for Muslims

  1,000 for Jews

  400 for Sikhs

  300 for Hindus

  160 for Buddhists

  Halal meat may be purchased locally on an occasional basis in recognition of those Muslims who do not wish to eat non-halal meat. Substitutes for bacon and pork are provided and vegetarian margarine is issued. Alternatively, Muslims may apply either for a vegetarian diet or a vegan diet which excludes all animal and dairy products.
  31
  A kosher diet is not provided in prison service establishments in England and Wales. The arrangements are that substitutes for bacon and pork are issued in their place and kosher margarine is issued in lieu of the ordinary margarine. Orthodox Jews may apply for a vegan diet if this is considered preferable.

  The Home Office is engaged in ongoing discussions with the Muslim and Jewish authorities as part of the continuous review of the facilities which are offered to prisoners belonging to these faiths.

  Mr. Rupert Taylor
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis on the disciplinary proceedings taken against the Metropolitan police constable, found by a High Court jury on 5 December 1989, to have planted cannabis on Mr. Rupert Taylor.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. I understand that following the award to Mr. Taylor an investigation into the circumstances of his case is being carried out by an officer from the Thames Valley police under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority. No decision has yet been taken as to whether any officer connected with the case will face disciplinary proceedings.

  In order for an officer to be found guilty at a disciplinary hearing the offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not, as in civil proceedings, on the balance of probabilities.

  Detective Superintendent John Moore
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to when Detective Superintendent John Moore retired; and what his age and length of service were at the time of retirement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  West Midlands Police
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to where and in what capacity(a) Detective Superintendent Alan Watson, (b) Detective Sergeant Michael French, (c) Detective Constable John Brand, (d) Detective Constable Thomas Sutcliffe, (e) Police Constable George Cole, (f) Detective Sergeant David Millichamp, (g) Detective Constable Terence Woodwiss, (h) Detective Constable Douglas Bell, (i) Detective Sergeant Richard Bryant, (j) Detective Constable Colin Morris, (k) Detective Constable Frederick Jennings, and (l) Police Constable William Coltey are still serving.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Detective Superintendent David Palmer-Hall
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if during his service with the Metropolitan police, Detective Superintendent David Palmer-Hall was seconded for work with the Jordanian Government.
  32
  Mr. Waddington
  No.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the Metropolitan police as to how long and in what capacities Mr. David Palmer-Hall was employed by the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Mr. Palmer-Hall joined the Metropolitan police in 1950 and retired in 1980. He served in Special Branch from 1952 until his retirement.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for reports from the chief constables of Surrey and Hampshire on the progress of their investigations into the disappearance over 24 hours of former Detective Superintendent David Palmer-Hall.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable of Surrey, whose force was in charge of the inquiry into the disappearance, that the police have completed their investigation and it has not revealed any criminal activity relating to former Detective Superintendent Palmer-Hall's brief absence from home.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what employment Mr. David Palmer-Hall has had with Her Majesty's Government since 1982.

  Mr. Waddington
  There is no record that Mr. Palmer-Hall was employed by the Home Office during the relevant period. My Department does not maintain records of employment in other Departments.

  Sikh Priests
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement setting out his policy in respect of priests of the Sikh religion applying to enter the United Kingdom for the purposes of carrying out religious duties for a specific period; and whether the policy has been discussed with the Government of India.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The provisions in the immigration rules (HC. 388) for the admission of ministers of religion apply to all religions.

  Civil Emergency Centres
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account he has taken of developments in East-West relations in reviewing his policy on the building of civil emergency centres by county and district councils.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 12 January 1990]: The Government keep under review their civil defence planning assumptions in the light of the possible threat of hostilities. Such assumptions must take into account military capabilities as well as likely intentions and the climate of relations between East and West. In the present rapidly changing situation it would be premature and irresponsible to reduce our basic preparedness for ensuring the protection of the population and the continuity of government in war.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many outstanding applications from local authorities over television concessionary
  33
  licences are currently being considered by the National Television Licensing Records Office in Bristol and how many of these were submitted (a) six months ago and over, and (b) three months ago and over;

  (2) what is the average time the National Television Licensing Records Office in Bristol aims to deal with applications from local authorities for concessionary television licences on behalf of their residents.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 January 1990] : Of the 33,000 schemes submitted since the regulations were changed in 1988 25,000 have been dealt with, a further 4,000 will shortly receive their licences and 4,000 remain unresolved pending further information which has been requested from the local authorities concerned. Statistics of waiting times are not readily available, but many original applications took a long time because of their number and the need for further detailed inquiries. NTVLRO now aims to resolve new applications within three weeks of receiving all the necessary information from the local authority concerned.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many representations have been received from local authorities in the past 18 months regarding difficulties over concessionary television licences being granted to those living in old-age pension accommodation;

  (2) if he, or any Minister in his Department, will receive a deputation from the Walsall metropolitan borough council over the difficulties it is having in obtaining television concessionary licences for residents living in old-age pension designated accommodation.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 January 1990] : Between the change in the regulations in May 1988 and the end of December 1989 we received 83 letters from local authorities, 68 forwarded by hon. Members, about the concessionary television licence scheme. Ministers also received two delegations from local authorities.

  I would be happy to consider any letter from, or on behalf of Walsall metropolitan borough council, setting out why a meeting would be useful.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the annual cost of granting the concessionary television licence available to sheltered housing residents to every pensioner in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 January 1990] : Reduction of the annual licence fee for all pensioner households to the £5 concessionary rate would cause a revenue loss estimated at £365 million a year. To make up the shortfall the fee for all other colour licence payers would have to increase from £66 to £98.

  Vehicle Smoke Tests
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police prosecutions, under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, of vehicles producing excessive smoke, have taken place in each of the last five years.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 12 January 1990] : The available information is given in the table for 1985 and 1986. The emission of smoke proceedings were brought under the Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations 1978.
  34

  Proceedings at Magistrates courts in England and Wales

  1985

  1986

  Emission of smoke etc. causing danger

  286

  338

  Other emission of smoke offences

  389

  309

  Sources: Offences relating to motor vehicles England and Wales 1985, 1986 Supplementary tables. Published by the Home Office.

  Since 1987, the statistics collected no longer separately identify offences of emission of smoke. Since October 1986, vehicles defect offences can also be dealt with by the use of fixed penalties, but emission of smoke offences are not shown separately in these statistics.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Official Duties
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list his official duties for 15 January.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  This morning I had meetings with the Prime Minister and other colleagues, and with Duchy of Lancaster officials. This afternoon I shall spend time attending to Duchy business.

  Bolton
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to visit Bolton.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I last visited Bolton in November 1988. I have no plans to visit again in the immediate future, but I am always willing to come and support my hon. Friend.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Order Paper
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what measures he is considering to reduce the amount of material printed on the Order Paper.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  A significant reduction in the average size of the daily Vote bundle has already been achieved as a result of the new arrangements introduced last April for printing early-day motions. That is expected to result in at least 4,000 fewer pages being printed each year, and in savings in production costs of at least £300,000 a year. I have now also initiated a general examination of the form of the Vote bundle, including the Order Paper, and if my hon. Friend has any specific suggestions for reducing further the amount of material printed, I hope that he will not hesitate to put them to the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

  Prime Minister's Press Secretary
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will establish facilities in the House for the Prime Minister's press secretary.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have no plans to do so.

  Public Accounts Committee
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to relieve overcrowding in the Committee Room Corridor prior to and during sittings of the Public Accounts Committee.
  35
  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I am aware of the great interest that both the press and the public have shown in sittings of the Public Accounts Committee. I have asked the authorities of the House to ensure that those waiting for admittance to the Committee do not impede access along the Committee Corridor.

  Souvenir Kiosk
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what were the takings at the House of Commons kiosk in(a) the four weeks to Christmas 1989 and (b) the year to 31 December; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Kiosk takings for the four-week period to Christmas 1989 were £207,647 and the figure for the 12-month period to Christmas was £645,325. Both amounts include VAT.]

  Parking (Disabled)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make more car parking facilities available in the precincts of the House for those who are disabled including staff employed by right hon. and hon. Members.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  As I advised the hon. Member on 26 October, column 524, the parking arrangements for disabled drivers were confirmed by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee in January 1988. At that time it was found that the spaces available were sufficient to meet the requirement, but if the hon. Member will let me have details of any specific difficulties being experienced, I shall invite the Sub-Committee to consider them.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he proposes to make any changes in the level of financial support given to the provision of British Rail local services.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government show their firm commitment to maintaining essential local services by paying substantial subsidies to British Rail, amounting to some £500 million in the current financial year. By 1993 Network SouthEast should no longer require revenue subsidy, but we shall still be paying well over £300 million per year in today's prices to subsidise provincial rail services.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I plan to meet the chairman of British Rail on 17 January when we will discuss a variety of railway matters.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss matters of safety.

  Mr. Portillo
  We expect to receive next month the chairman's first report on the implementation of Sir 36
  Anthony Hidden's recommendations following the Clapham junction accident. My right hon. Friend hopes to discuss this report with the chairman soon afterwards.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on plans for the high-speed railway line to the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Parkinson
  British Rail is now negotiating a detailed agreement with its joint venture partners and developing its plans for the Channel tunnel rail link. It aims to introduce a Bill for the new line later this year.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to improve transport links between Yorkshire and the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  Improvements to the M 1, A1(M) and A 1 will upgrade links to the Channel tunnel from Yorkshire and the north-east via the M25 and M20. British Rail published its proposals on 14 December, and a copy has been sent to all hon. Members.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has met the chairman of British Rail to discuss plans for international rail services through the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend has discussed a wide range of issues at his meetings with the chairman of British Rail. These have included the board's plans for international rail services through the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. John Evans
  ?: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on plans for the high-speed rail link to the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail is now negotiating a detailed agreement with its joint venture partners and developing its plans for the Channel tunnel rail link. It aims to introduce a Bill for the new line later this year.

  Rural Transport
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about rural transport.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have received very few recent representations about rural transport services. Bus mileage in country areas has increased since bus deregulation. The investment in British Rail's provincial sector is such that we shall shortly be in the position where four fifths of the rolling stock has been renewed.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the present state of rural transport.

  Mr. Portillo
  Bus mileage outside London and the metropolitan areas has increased by some 21 per cent. since bus deregulation, with some 83 per cent. run commercially. The investment in British Rail's provincial sector is such that we shall shortly be in the position where four fifths of the rolling stock has been renewed.

  Urban Transport
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department is taking to assist inner urban areas.
  37
  Mr. Parkinson
  Our measures to assist inner urban areas include financing local road schemes through transport supplementary grant; constructing trunk roads where appropriate; providing grant under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 for public transport; and consolidating the regeneration of London's docklands with the approval of the Jubilee line extension.

  Urban Traffic
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about traffic congestion in urban areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I receive regular representations on the problem of congestion in urban areas, particularly in London where it is most acute. I have recently published a discussion document "Traffic in London" inviting comments on my proposed initiatives for tackling congestion in London. The proposals aim to improve the quality and capacity of the capital's transport network to benefit public and private transport users, residents and businesses.

  Electronic Road Pricing
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies have been undertaken by his Department as to the feasibility of introducing electronic road pricing in the United Kingdom's major cities.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My Department monitors a wide range of measures for dealing with traffic congestion, including road pricing, and has undertaken some preliminary background work into the possible implications of introducing electronic road pricing in London.

  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has arranged any surveys of public attitudes towards road pricing; and whether he has any plans to do so.

  Mr. Atkins
  No.

  Bridge Operation
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's one-man bridge operation at night project.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The first phase of the project has been completed and a second phase is being considered.

  Coastguard Service
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek additional means to improve the efficiency of the coastguards and other search and rescue services along the north Devon coast and the Bristol channel.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Following the closure of the coastguard centre at Hartland in December 1988, a number of measures have been taken in order to ensure that there is adequate provision of resources for maritime search and rescue in the area. The facilities available to Her Majesty's coastguard as the co-ordinating authority are equal to those in other areas of the United Kingdom 38
  coastline. The enhanced watch levels at Swansea have been maintained since the closure of the Hartland centre. Swansea now has a greater staff level than some centres which handle a larger number of incidents per annum.

  London Regional Transport
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of London Regional Transport; and if he will discuss matters of safety.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I frequently meet the chairman of London Regional Transport and discuss various matters including safety.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of London Regional Transport; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of London Regional Transport on 21 December. A range of issues was discussed.

  London Buses
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on plans for the deregulation of buses in London.

  Mr. Portillo
  We are committed to the deregulation of bus services in London in the 1990s.

  Marchioness
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement regarding progress of the inquiry into the collision involving the Marchioness and Bow Belle dredger on the River Thames.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The inquiry into the collision involving the Marchioness and the Bow Belle has reached an advanced stage. It is expected that the inspector leading the inquiry will be in a position to submit his findings to the chief inspector of marine accidents very soon. The report of the chief inspector will then be published at the earliest practicable date.

  Tyneside
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to visit Tyneside.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend visited Tyneside on 24 November 1989. I last visited it on 26 October 1989. We have no plans for further visits in the near future.

  Motorway Delays
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how his Department measures the finiancial cost of delays on motorways; and what is the figure for the latest year.

  Mr. Atkins
  There is no way of making accurate estimates of the overall cost of delays on motorways. The Department does, however, use computer programs to assess the cost of traffic delays on particular stretches of motorway under specific conditions.

  Underground Services (South-East London)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning future plans for new underground railways serving south-east London.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Jubilee extension to docklands will improve accessibility to Southwark and Bermondsey. London Regional Transport is also considering further the case for extensions of the East London line and the docklands light railway to parts of south-east London.

  Thames Riverbus
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the reduction in the Riverbus service on the Thames and on the levels of Government subsidy offered for this service.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government have made a grant of £500,000 available to the consortium responsible for the riverbus service. The revisions to the service, which come into operation today, are intended, in the light of operating experience, to tailor the service more closely to demand. I am pleased that the plans are for a fast, frequent and reliable riverbus service on the River Thames.

  Railway Stations
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a special grant to enable British Rail to staff rail stations that are currently unstaffed.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. Decisions on the staffing of individual stations are management matters for the board in the light of the overall objectives set by the Government and local requirements. Decisions on staffing levels at stations in the metropolitan counties are a matter for the local passenger transport executives. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has written to the hon. Member on this matter.

  Traffic (London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any proposals to relieve traffic congestion in London.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to the House on 14 December 1989.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on consultation to date following publication of the London assessment studies proposals in December 1989.

  Mr. Atkins
  Full public consultation is currently under way. The deadline for comments is 28 February 1990.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has sent copies of the London road assessment studies to the leaders of local community road action groups, as promised by him when he met the London Labour group of hon. Members; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Copies of the consultants' reports have been supplied free of charge, to all representative local organisations which so far have been identified by hon. Members as being based within their constituencies.
  40
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on sending an official from his Department to meetings called by a borough council or a local community roads action group to explain his road option preferences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department has informed each borough council that officials are able to attend one local authority-controlled meeting in their area and has asked them to nominate the venue. That programme is now being firmed up with the local authorities concerned.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many local authority road schemes will be started next year with a transport supplementary grant.

  Mr. Atkins
  Local highways authorities have indicated that construction work on 74 major road schemes (each costing £1 million or more) which have been accepted for transport supplementary grant support will start in the financial year 1990–91.

  A1
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the road safety benefits which could arise from dualling of the A 1 throughout its length.

  Mr. Atkins
  Current traffic flows on the single carriageway sections of the A1 do not justify dualling throughout.

  Road safety benefits are part of the criteria taken into account in the cost benefit analysis when decisions are made on which schemes to undertake. The safety and accident situation on the A1 in Northumberland, as with all trunk roads, is monitored continuously and checked.

  M1 (Junction 21)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the disruption at junction 21 of the M1.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave on 28 November 1989 at column 186. The Department has since received two further representations.

  East London Assessment Study
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what responses he has received to the east London assessment study stage 2 consultants' report.

  Mr. Atkins
  Comments are being received from a variety of sources, including right hon. and hon. Members, local authorities, interested groups, national organisations, and members of the public.

  European Community Model Driving Licences
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the new-style European Community model driving licences will be introduced in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  The new-style European Community model driving licence will be issued from early April 1990 to drivers with a full ordinary driving entitlement due to come into force on or after 1 June 1990.
  41
  Existing driving licences will remain valid after that date—there will be no need for drivers to exchange them for the new-style licences.

  Learner Drivers
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning changing the law governing the supervision of learner drivers.

  Mr. Atkins
  Over 200 representations have been received. These were taken into account in formulating the proposals contained in the consultation document to which I referred in my answer to a question from my hon. Friend on 20 December (Official Report, Volume 164, column 278).

  Road and Bridge Maintenance
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much spending on roads and bridge maintenance will increase in each of the next three years.

  Mr. Atkins
  For national roads, planned expenditure on the maintenance of roads and bridges for the current year and for each of the next three years is as follows:

  Capital maintenance £ million

  Current maintenance £ million

  1989–90

  1337

  199

  1990–91

  412

  120

  1991–92

  444

  127

  1992–93

  448

  135

  1 Forecast outturn.

  The Government no longer make plans for local expenditure on highway maintenance. However, the standard spending assessment for local highway maintenance for 1990–91 will be £1,578 million, compared with the needs assessment of £1,478 million used in the 1989–90 rate support grant settlement.

  Investment
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much will be invested in road and rail
  over the next three years.

  Mr. Portillo
  The figures requested are as follows:

  £ billion

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Total

  National roads12

  1·7

  1·8

  1·8

  5·3

  Rail13

  1·6

  2·1

  2·3

  6·0

  1 Local authorities also invest in road and rail, including expenditure on structural maintenance of local roads which falls within authorities' current expenditure budgets. The level of investment undertaken is a matter for the authorities concerned. For 1990–91 estimates of probable investment in local roads and non—BR rail systems are over £950 million and over £60 million respectively.

  2 Including structural maintenance.

  3 British Rail and London Regional Transport. Future investment by London Regional Transport has not yet been allocated between rail and non-rail expenditure (which is currently running at £50 million per annum).

  Priority Routes
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what restrictions he proposes to apply to his proposed red routes; and if he will make a statement.
  42
  Mr. Atkins
  The basis of our proposal is that there should be no stopping on the red routes during peak periods. Stopping, loading and unloading may be permitted at certain times at some strictly limited and clearly marked places where the flow of traffic would not be impeded. Consideration will be given to legitimate interests of frontages, and to the case for exemptions, which will need to be minimised. Final decisions will be taken in the light of consultation and a pilot scheme starting in summer 1990.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road miles will be involved in the priority route network announced in December.

  Mr. Atkins
  The network proposed in the "Traffic in London" discussion document covers approximately 300 miles of roads.

  Airports
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the percentage growth in passengers in the two years 1988 and 1989 in each United Kingdom airport handling more than 3 million passengers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The following is the information:

  Millions of terminal passengers

  1987

  1988

  Percentage increase

  Heathrow

  34·743

  37·510

  8·0

  Gatwick

  19·381

  20·744

  7·0

  Manchester

  8·609

  9·504

  10·4

  Glasgow

  3·365

  3·634

  8·0

  Millions of terminal passengers

  1988 (January-October)

  19891 (January-October)

  Percentage increase

  Heathrow

  31·763

  33·472

  5·4

  Gatwick

  18·452

  18·763

  1·7

  Manchester

  8·527

  9·127

  7·0

  Glasgow

  3·166

  3·369

  6·4

  1 Full year figures not yet available. 1988 period adjusted for comparison.

  Source: Civil Aviation Authority.

  Hydrography
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the payments made to the hydrographers' department for charts for the last five years by his Department: and if he will list the number of charts ordered by his Department for the last five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Vehicle Inspectorate Agency
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what specific financial, efficiency and quality of service targets he has approved for the vehicle inspectorate agency for the current year and for the longer term,

  Mr. Atkins
  When the Vehicle Inspectorate became an executive agency on 1 August 1988 it was set a key performance target to improve the cost efficiency of its
  43
  main activities by 3·7 per cent. over a two-year period from 1 April 1989. Full details of the inspectorate's 1989–90 financial performance and service targets are given in its business plan, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The targets for 1990–91 will be included in the next business plan, which should be available shortly. A copy of that plan will also be lodged with the Library.

  London Assessment Studies
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many invitations to speak at public meetings on the London assessment studies have been received by his Department; and how many he has(a) accepted and (b) refused.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department has informed each borough council that officials are able to attend one local authority-controlled meeting in their area and has asked them to nominate the venue. This programme is now being firmed up with the local authorities concerned. Groups asking for officials to attend other meetings are being referred to the local authorities concerned.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to which voluntary organisations his Department has sent free copies of the appropriate London assessment studies.

  Mr. Atkins
  Copies of the consultants' stage 2 reports have been supplied free of charge, to all representative local organisations that have been identified by Members as being based within their constituencies. Further requests for free copies submitted in that way will be actioned as they are received.

  "The Road User and the Law"
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to implement the recommendations of the Government's White Paper "The Road User and the Law"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsible road user behaviour is fostered by effective and fair traffic laws. We are currently consulting on detailed aspects of the White Paper proposals with a view to introducing legislation as soon as time is available.

  BBC Travel Information
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the British Broadcasting Corporation regarding the setting up and introduction of a national travel information service; what action he intends to take; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I plan to visit the BBC travel unit next month. My predecessor and officials from the Department have had several discussions with the BBC and with others involved in the provision of travel information about ways of improving the co-ordination and dissemination of information. Our aim is to facilitate more economical and efficient road travel by improving the quality of information available to drivers both while planning journeys and while on the road.

  Satellite Communications
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what storm warnings, distress warnings, urgency messages or other broadcasts on satellite communication in the Indian INMARSAT coverage area were received before, during and after Typhoon Gay in the Gulf of Thailand; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The promulgation of storm warnings is by coast radio stations. INMARSAT satellities are at present not used for such broadcasts. If INMARSAT was used for distress and urgency messages, they would not have been monitored by the United Kingdom Rescue Co-ordinating Centre.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies are being undertaken into the incidence of satellite communication failure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The question of communication failure is an operational matter for INMARSAT.

  Oil Discharges (Liberian Ships)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response has been received from the authorities in Liberia to three cases of possible illegal discharges of oil from Liberian ships in 1986 and 1988.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Liberian authorities have submitted a copy of their interim investigative report on one incident but the final outcome is not yet known. In the other two cases, we are advised that investigations have not yet been completed.

  Greater Manchester Relief Road
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange for public consultation for the Worsley section of the schematic route of the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road to be undertaken in advance of consultants having finalised any route options.

  Mr. Atkins
  We expect to consult the public next year. We shall need to indicate broad options. Detailed design would only follow the formal announcement of a preferred route.

  Driver Licensing
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received over the EEC directive on driver licensing harmonisation from people providing community transport in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Twenty-eight bodies interested in community transport responded to the consultation paper on the future strategy on minibuses published in August 1989. Since then representations on minibuses have also been received from 62 hon. Members some of which were concerned with the implications for community transport. The views expressed will be taken into account in the negotiations in the Council of the second directive on the driving licence.

  Rumble Strips
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy with respect to laying down of rumble strips on trunk roads to curb excessive traffic speed; and what advice he gives to local authorities.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department seeks to facilitate the safe and free flow of traffic on trunk roads. At places with a history of accidents caused by excessive speeds, rumble strips can be an effective measure, used either on their own or in combination with other measures. In or near built-up areas, the increased traffic noise which rumble strips generate has to be taken into account in devising appropriate measures.

  Similar considerations apply to local authority roads. Advice to local authorities is published in "Roads and Traffic in Urban Areas" (HMSO) and DTp circular Roads 17/78, together with departmental standard TD 6/79, dealing with transverse yellow bar markings at roundabouts.

  Chester Road, Manchester
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what specific issues concerning traffic management on the A56 Chester road, Manchester between Longford bridge and Great Stone road have been raised with his Department by Trafford borough council; and what was the response.

  Mr. Atkins
  The council's agents asked for our agreement to modify the timings at the pelican crossing here, and to set back the stop lines, instal overhead signal poles and increase the zig zag markings. We have already agreed to all those measures: formal authoritisations will be issued in the next few days. We have not agreed to the council's suggestion that the light source at this and other such crossings should be changed.

  Yellow Lines
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to remove yellow parking lines in London.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for providing yellow lines rests with the local authorities on local roads and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on trunk roads. In "Traffic in London", published on 14 December 1989, the Government propose new marking and signing arrangements for a priority route network for London, which will comprise trunk roads and certain major local roads. We also propose that the local authorities in London review the provision of yellow lines on their other local roads in accordance with guidelines to be set by my right hon. Friend and the results of a study by the Department of Transport into more positive systems for designating kerbspace.

  Channel Tunnel Safety Authority
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority will publish its first annual report.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority has today published its first annual report, covering the period 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989, and has arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Vehicle Smoke Checks
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of(a) buses and (b) heavy goods vehicles, tested by his Department's Vehicles Inspectorate failed the visual smoke check (i) in the annual test and (ii) in roadside checks in the 1988–89 period; and what is his estimate of the total number of vehicles producing excessive smoke in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 12 January 1990]: In 1988–89 1·42 per cent. of PSVs and 1·057 per cent. of HGVs failed the visual smoke check in the annual test. Information concerning vehicles found emitting excessive smoke at roadside spot checks is not available. A random survey of heavy goods vehicles carried out in May 1988 showed 3·6 per cent. were emitting excess smoke. If that were reflected in the vehicle fleet as a whole, approximately 20,000 heavy goods vehicles might be producing excessive smoke in Great Britain. The Department has no figures for Northern Ireland.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State For Transport how many vehicles were(a) banned and (b) received vehicle rectification notices as a result of visual smoke checks in the 1988–89 period.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 12 January 1990]: Following is the information:

  (a) Information is not available to identify the number of vehicles banned for smoke defects.

  (b) The vehicle defect rectification scheme is administered by the police. The Department has no data on this.

  Cyclists
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has in regard to the number of people who cycle to work in London and as to what proportion of the total number of commuters this constitutes.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 11 January 1990]: The 1981 Greater London transportation survey of London residents indicated that some 155,000 work journeys were made by pedal cycle. That represented about 3 per cent. of all work journeys by London residents; estimates from the Department's 1985–86 national travel survey suggest that there has been little change in that proportion.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing Industry (Competitiveness)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library the results of any studies his Department has conducted into the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry as against other OECD countries.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In 1989 my Department commissioned a study by the PA Consulting Group entitled "Manufacturing into the late 90's". A copy is available in the Library.

  Sub-Post Offices
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list by location for the counties of Yorkshire and Humberside, any proposed closure of small rural sub-post offices due to take place during the coming year.

  Mr. Forth
  This is a matter for the Post Office, but I understand that it has no plans to close any rural post offices. Post Office Counters Ltd. is committed to maintaining the rural network and only when it is impossible to find a sub-postmaster, even working reduced hours, does a rural office close.

  Companies House
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what specific financial, efficiency and quality of service targets he has approved for the Companies House agency for the current year and for the longer term.

  Mr. Redwood
  Targets for Companies House covering the two-year period to 1990–91 were announced by the Secretary of State in March 1989. These are:

  (i) A 10 per cent. reduction in the proportion of companies which have not filed all the accounts and annual returns required by the Companies Act, so that by June 1991 the compliance rate will be increased to 83 per cent.;

  (ii) A 20 per cent. reduction in the time taken to process documents, so that by April 1991 documents are on average available to the public within 18 working days of being delivered to Companies House;

  (iii) A 12 per cent. increase in output per member of staff;

  (iv) A 7 per cent. decrease in unit costs in real terms. Companies House's targets are currently being reviewed in the context of the agency's 1990 corporate plan.

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what specific financial, efficiency and quality of service targets he has approved for the National Weights and Measures Laboratory agency for the current year and for the longer term.

  Mr. Forth
  In May 1989, Lord Young, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, approved the corporate plan of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory executive agency. This plan, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House, contains specific targets for the current year. Targets for the longer term will be approved by the Secretary of State in subsequent corporate plans.

  Warren Spring Laboratory
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what specific financial, efficiency and quality of service targets he has approved for the Warren Spring Laboratory agency for the current year and for the longer term.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be announcing the performance measure targets for the Warren Spring Laboratory agency before the beginning of the next financial year.

  Government Chemist
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what specific financial, efficiency and quality of service targets he has approved for the laboratory of the Government chemist for the current year and for the longer term.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I expect to announce targets for the laboratory of the Government chemist before the beginning of the next financial year.

  Maluku Islands
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about United Kingdom trade links with the Maluku Islands, Indonesia.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department has no knowledge of any specific United Kingdom trade links with the Maluku Islands, Indonesia. United Kingdom firms usually tend to adopt a comprehensive marketing policy towards Indonesia, largely through agents in Jakarta, Surabaya and Medan.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to monitor employers' compliance with the requirement in section 235 of the Companies Act 1985 that firms with more than 250 employees must include a statement in their annual report and accounts, outlining their policy on the employment of disabled people.

  Mr. Redwood
  Responsibility for the content of accounts and directors' reports rests with the directors, with auditors required to state whether the accounts meet the statutory requirements. Companies House staff carry out certain checks on annual accounts, but do not arrange for the contents to be scrutinised in detail except in response to specific complaints.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what requests he has received from ASEAN countries for an agreement of trade in rain forest timber, along the lines of that negotiated with New Zealand; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  No such requests have been received.

  Smoke Detectors
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to introduce safety regulations covering smoke detectors containing radioactive Americum 241.

  Mr. Forth
  These products will be subject to the proposed Radioactive Products (Safety) Regulations which I propose to take in March 1990. They will come into force in September 1990. These products are at present subject to the general safety requirement of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

  West Germany (Trade)
  Mr. Wareing
  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 the first 11 months of 1989 imports of manufactures from the Federal Republic of Germany exceeded United Kingdom exports to that country by £9 billion.

  Merger Controls
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the adoption of the European Community merger control regulation.

  Mr. Redwood
  I welcome the adoption of this regulation which followed major progress over past months on a number of issues during which the United Kingdom played a constructive role throughout. The adoption of this regulation provides a welcome clarification of powers, giving business greater certainty about which jurisdiction will be exercised and how it will be exercised.

  As from 21 September 1990 mergers with a Community dimension involving large companies—broadly those mergers with a combined worldwide turnover of more than 5 billion ecu (around £3·7 billion) and with a Community turnover in excess of 500 million ecu (around £370 million)—will be subject to examination by the European Commission. We expect this to include about a dozen United Kingdom mergers per year. Mergers which primarily concern one member state in that more than two thirds of the turnover of each company concerned is in one and the same member state remain subject to national control.

  The United Kingdom was successful in ensuring that the criteria for the assessment of mergers are strongly competition based. Mergers which create or enhance a dominant position and significantly impede competition must be prohibited. Technical and economic progress can be taken into account so long as they do not pose a barrier to competition.

  The United Kingdom's objective that there should be a clear separation of the roles of the Commission and member state authorities has also been substantially achieved. Normally the Commission will have exclusive competence over those mergers with a Community dimension as described above. The United Kingdom was successful in limiting the scope for member states to intervene on competition grounds in such mergers. A member state may intervene only where it demonstrates to the Commission that a dominant position significantly impeding competition exists in a distinct market in its territory and the Commission is satisfied that the market cannot be adequately protected under the regulation.

  A tight line has been drawn round the grounds other than competition on which a member state can intervene in mergers. Only public security, prudential controls and media diversity are recognised as legitimate national interests allowing intervention.

  Outside the thresholds mentioned above, the Commission can intervene under the regulation only at the specific request of a member state and then only to remedy competition defects in that member state. The merger
  50
  regulation disapplies regulation 17, thereby restricting the Commission's powers to intervene under treaty articles 85 and 86. This should reduce the uncertainty which currently exists and which is an unwelcome hazard to business.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Internal Market Council held on 21 and 22 December 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Council made important progress on almost all items on a long agenda. Agreement was reached on the EC merger control regulation, to deal with mergers with a Community dimension. Political agreements were also reached on the second life insurance services directive, three directives on rights of residence for non-economically advice persons, and on testing and certification. Common positions were agreed on measures concerning package travel, active implantable medical devices, nutritional labelling of foodstuffs and permitted residues of veterinary medicinal products.

  The Council agreed to consider further the Commission's analysis of barriers to takeovers once the Commission's programme of specific recommendations is published at the end of March. A helpful statement on implementation of single market measures was also agreed.

  The proposed directive on public purchasing (excluded sectors) was discussed. Although agreement was not reached, useful progress was made. It may be possible to agree the directive during the Irish Presidency.

  The Council also discussed the proposed European company statute, transEuropean infrastructure., the "social economy" (the co-operative, mutual and nonprofit making sector), legal protection of computer programmes, irradiation of foodstuffs and mutual recognition of professional qualifications.

  Knitwear and Textiles
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give further details of the collaborative ventures to which the Minister for Industry referred on 12 December,Official Report, column 984, in which the Government are prepared to play a part to assist the knitwear and textile industries.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Support is available to the knitwear and textile industries for pre-competitive collaborative research under the four main schemes covered by the research and technology initiative.

  The schemes are:
  LINK, which encourages firms to collaborate with universities and polytechnics in pre-competitive research
  EUREKA, which encourages firms to enter collaborative ventures with firms in other European countries Advanced technology programme (ATP), which assists companies to collaborate in selected fields of new technology
  General industrial collaborative programmes, which provide support for projects at research and technology organisations and for other collaborative projects not covered under the above headings

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the total sum allotted in each of the next three financial years referred to by the Minister for
  51
  Industry on 12 December, Official Report, column 984, as available for collaborative ventures between the Government and the knitwear and textile industries.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No specific sum is allocated to collaborative research ventures by the garment and the knitwear and the textile industries. Proposals put forward, either by companies in these industries or by the research and technology organisations serving them, are judged on their merits and given appropriate support under the terms of the research and technology initiative.

  Merchant Shipping
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of British merchant shipbuilding capacity.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 9 January,Official Report, column 598.

  Albania
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on United Kingdom trade with Albania.

  Mr. Redwood
  Over the last three years United Kingdom trade with Albania has totalled between £2·5 million and £4 million a year. My Department gives advice to British companies interested in the market, but the assistance we can give is limited by the absence of diplomatic relations and the scarcity of market information. The London chamber of commerce organised a trade mission to Albania in 1988 and hopes to develop closer links with the Albanian chamber.

  Romania
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on United Kingdom trade with Romania.

  Mr. Redwood
  Her Majesty's Government of course warmly endorse the political changes which have recently taken place in Romania. We hope and expect that these changes will lead to a strengthening of our relations, particularly in trade. Between 1982 and 1989 (up to and including October) our exports to Romania declined from £115 million to £30 million. Significant improvements to this figure will depend, inter alia, on the availability of hard currency, but we note and welcome Romania's intention to aim for a better-balanced trade with the United Kingdom. We share that intention and will do our best to help. We are also investigating ways of facilitating United Kingdom investment in the economies of eastern Europe, including Romania.

  Immediate Romanian requirements include food, fertilisers, pesticides, animal foodstuffs, seeds, agricultural equipment and some consumer goods. There is also likely to be a demand for photocopiers, typewriters, TV studio equipment and film material. My Department is in touch with potential British suppliers. In the longer term we would hope for improvement in the aviation sector where the Romanians are building civil aircraft under licence from British firms.

  China
  Dr.Thomas
  To ask Secretary of Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on United Kingdom trade with the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Redwood
  Normal commercial business relations with China continue, although the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Community have suspended bilateral ministerial and high-level exchanges, trade in arms and concessional finance for new projects, following events in Peking in June last year.

  In the first 11 months of 1989 the value of United Kingdom exports to China was £363 million.

  Foreign Shareholdings
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what occasions he or his predecessors have used their powers under the Industry Act 1975 to restrict the size of foreign shareholdings in British companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 12 January 1990]: The powers under section 13 of the Industry Act 1975 have never been used.

  Industrial Decline
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what factors account for the decline in output of the textile, footwear, metal goods, motor vehicle and mechancial engineering industries since 1979; and in which other countries there has been a comparable decline.

  Mr. Redwood
  The period 1979–88 has witnessed rapid structural change both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Some industries have experienced a rise in output while in others output has fallen. The changes reflect the shifting pattern of demand, the changing nature of international competition, and the ability of individual countries to respond to these developments. Such structural change is an integral part of the process by which economies develop and grow.

  The pattern of structural change has not been very different in the United Kingdom from that in other major industrial countries. Thus, according to published OECD data, output of textiles, footwear and metal products all fell in at least several of the major seven OECD countries over the period 1979–88 and in no case did the United Kingdom suffer the greatest reduction. The OECD includes mechanical engineering in the wider category of non-electrical machinery, United Kingdom output of which rose at a rate broadly comparable with that of the other major European countries. Only in motor vehicles was United Kingdom output growth over the period 1979–88 significantly below that of all the other major OECD countries. However, the decline in United Kingdom motor vehicles output was reversed in the mid-1980s and prospects for further recovery are excellent.

  Accounting Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how, and in consultation with what bodies, he formulates the accounting policy for the corporate sector;
  53
  (2) if he will list the non-Government bodies, committees or institutes which are permitted to make the accounting policy for the corporate sector in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Redwood
  Company accounts are regulated in Great Britain by provisions in the Companies Act 1985 (to be amended by the Companies Act 1989), which reflect both European Community obligations and certain domestic considerations. Significant proposed changes to this legislative framework are usually the subject of wide consultation. In addition, accounting standards are promulgated by the members of the consultative committee of accountancy bodies, on the basis of proposals developed by its accounting standards committee. The professional accountancy bodies also issue technical guidance to their members.

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any disciplinary action has been taken within his Department against officials involved in handling any aspect of the Barlow Clowes case.

  Mr. Ridley
  The question of any disciplinary action against individual civil servants is one for my Permanent Secretary. The House was informed last year that the then Permanent Secretary had considered whether the facts set out in Sir Godfray Le Quesne's report would give rise to a case for disciplinary action, and had decided that they did not. The matter was reviewed in the light of the PCA's report and my Permanent Secretary decided that there was no case for disciplinary action, a decision with which I concur.

  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any of his Department's officials or former officials have been told that they may be asked to give evidence in any legal proceedings initiated by the Department against third parties in respect of Barlow Clowes.

  Mr. Ridley
  No, because it is not yet clear which officials or former officials, if any, will be required to give evidence in any actions which are brought.

  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any of the officials consulted by Sir Godfray Le Quesne, QC for his report into Barlow Clowes have been promoted or have retired prematurely since the time they were responsible for the Barlow Clowes case.

  Mr. Ridley
  Three officials have been promoted and one has taken early retirement.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the number of former members of the Shanghai municipal council still alive who have lodged claims under the Foreign Compensation (People's Republic of China) Order; and how many of these claims result from loss suffered through detention in Japanese prisoner-of-war camps.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Twenty-four living former employees of the Shanghai municipal council have lodged claims with 54
  the foreign compensation commission under the Foreign Compensation (People's Republic of China) Order 1987 in respect of either pay or pensions. The United Kingdom/China claims agreement under which the order was issued does not extend to claims arising from detention in Japanese prisoner-of-war or civilian internment camps.

  Know-How Fund
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will extend the know-how fund to include Czechoslovakia;

  (2) if he will extend the know-how fund to include Romania.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The extension of the know-how fund for Poland and Hungary to other reforming eastern European countries is under consideration.

  Human Rights
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, and to what extent, the human rights situation in a foreign country is taken into account in evaluating licences for the export of military or police equipment to that country.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who will reply as soon as possible.

  Eastern Europe
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the allocation of Government aid to research and combat the causes and effects of environmental pollution in the newly emerging democracies of eastern Europe.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are fully committed to improving the environment in the whole of Europe. We believe that environmental problems are best tackled through international co-operation, and we are working within the EC to establish how best we can help in eastern Europe. The European Communities' £210 million assistance budget for 1990 to Poland and Hungary includes the environment as a priority area. The G24 countries, which are co-ordinating their assistance for eastern Europe, are also looking at ways to help in this area.

  Dolphins
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations are being made to the Governments of Japan, Peru and Sri Lanka to reduce their annual kill of dolphins, porpoises and other cetaceans.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Japanese Government have told us that they are concerned to conserve the Dall's porpoise, the main species caught in Japan. They estimate that new regulations introduced at the beginning of 1989 will have reduced the annual catch by more than 20 per cent. and from this year the regulations will be further strengthened and consideration given to a further reduction in the numbers caught. We have asked the Governments of Peru and Sri Lanka for further information and I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what research is being done or has been commissioned by his Department in respect of initiatives to be taken at the fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As a depositary power of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the United Kingdom is naturally keen to work for the success of the review conference. To this end, a considerable amount of research has been undertaken by the Department into matters covered by the treaty, and there have been a number of discussions with the other depositary powers, and with other parties to the treaty.

  NATO
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 8 January,Official Report, column 511, what factors account for the discrepancy between the official North Atlantic Treaty Organisation figure for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation combat-capable aircraft of 6,700 and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation total of 6,600 provided in his answer.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The 6,600 figure is a misprint. The correct figure is 6,700.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 8 January,Official Report, column 511, whether he will list those versions and variants of types of combat aircraft listed in footnote 1, page 27 of "Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts" that are in addition to those aircraft included in footnotes 1, 4 and 5.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A list of the types of combat aircraft included in the NATO CFE proposal of 13 July is being placed in the Library of the House.

  All the types of aircraft included in the publication "Conventional Arms Control: The Facts" are covered in the footnotes on page 27.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list the types of aircraft that have been added to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation total of combat-capable trainers in addition to those included in footnote 5, page 27 of "Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts".

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A list of the types of combat aircraft included in the NATO CFE proposal of 13 July is being placed in the Library of the House.

  All the types of aircraft included in the publication "Conventional Arms Control: The Facts" are covered in the footnotes on page 27.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the current North Atlantic Treaty Organisation arms control proposals for reductions in the number of combat aircraft include any sub-ceilings according to(a) member country and (b) type of combat aircraft.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Nimrod 56
  is a version or variant of one of the aircraft types listed in footnote 1, page 27 of "Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts".

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Nimrod is included in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation total of combat-capable aircraft.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes.

  Missile Technology Control Regime
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has concerning the policy of(a) the Soviet Union and (b) the People's Republic of China towards the missile technology control regime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are not aware of any policy statements by the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China on the missile technology control regime. However, we believe that all potential supplier countries are increasingly concerned by the problem of missile proliferation. We have called on all states to tighten their policies in this area, and have said that we would welcome their adherence to the missile technology control regime guidelines in the interest of international peace and security.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the imposition of sanctions upon countries and companies that transgress the terms and conditions of the missile technology control regime.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Export controls in the United Kingdom are designed to ensure that companies do not act in contravention of our international commitments, including those under the missile technology control regime. Appropriate legal action is taken against any company which is found to infringe these controls. It is not our policy to seek to impose sanctions on any other countries or foreign companies which might be thought to have transgressed the terms and conditions of the regime. Controls under the regime remain the national responsibility of each participating country.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the terms of the missile technology control regime have constrained any United Kingdom companies from exporting certain technologies or components.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A number of export licence applications have been refused by the Department of Trade and Industry as a result of our commitments under the missile technology control regime.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Government Departments are involved in ensuring the implementation of the terms of the missile technology control regime.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for the issuing of export licences
  57
  under the Export of Goods (Control) Order, in consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments as appropriate.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what means of control are exercised by his Department upon United Kingdom companies in reference to the implementation of the terms of the missile technology control regime.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Such control is exercised by means of export licences under the Export of Goods (Control) Order, which are determined by the Department of Trade and Industry. Export licence applications for equipment and technology to which the missile technology control regime applies are referred to this Department by the Department of Trade and Industry before a decision is taken on whether to issue a licence.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government policy towards the retention, by any other country, of a minimum offensive chemical weapon capability in the aftermath of a chemical weapon convention being concluded.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's assessment as to the implications for the chemical weapon convention talks of the United States' policy to retain a limited stockpile of chemical weapons after a chemical weapon convention has been signed.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is envisaged in the negotiations in Geneva for a chemical weapons convention that there will be a transition period following the entry into force of the treaty. During this period any chemical weapons stocks possessed by states parties will be destroyed. President Bush's proposal at the United Nations General Assembly for retention of a small stockpile until all CW-capable states are party to the convention is not inconsistent with this.

  Middle Fast
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's assessment as to the implications for regional security of the deployment of(a) ballistic missiles and (b) anti-tactical ballistic missiles in the middle east; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As a founder member of the missile technology control regime, we are naturally concerned about the proliferation of ballistic missiles in regions of tension. We also question the wisdom of deploying anti-tactical ballistic missiles in response to such proliferation.

  Iraq
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's assessment as to whether Iraq has developed the capability to deliver an inter-continental ballistic missile; and if he will make a statement.
  58
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Iraqi Government announced on 7 December that they had launched a rocket capable of carrying satellites into space. Reports have also suggested that Iraq is developing a military missile with a range of 2,000 km. There is no further information that I can give to the hon. Gentleman. However, we are concerned about the destabilising effect that such a programme, if it exists, could have on the middle east region.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's latest assessment as to Iraq's anti-tactical ballistic missile capability; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Iraq has claimed to be developing an anti-tactical ballistic missile. We have no reason to doubt this claim.

  Romania
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will propose to his European Community counterparts the lifting of regulations on the export of powdered milk and rice and other food aid to Romania on humanitarian grounds as a matter of urgency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Since the revolution in Romania, the European Community has responded speedily to requests for emergency food and medical aid. On 29 December the Commission announced and began deliveries of emergency food aid. So far £4·6 million has been allocated by the Commission for food and medical aid. The Commission is urgently considering a request by the Romanian Government for a large quantity of food aid and is expected to make a proposal after Vice-President Andriessen has visited Bucharest. There are no regulations which prevent the export of powdered milk, rice and other food supplies to Romania.

  Ukraine
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has made representations to the USSR about contravention of human rights pursuant to the Helsinki and Vienna accords in the Soviet Republic of Ukraine.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have regularly and frequently pressed the Soviet Union to comply fully with its CSCE obligations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised our continuing concerns about human rights in the Soviet Union with Mr. Shevardnadze when he was in London on 19 December. A senior official, Mr. David Ratford, visited the Soviet Union from 8 to 11 January for a full exchange with the Soviet authorities on all aspects of human rights issues.

  Kai Tak Refugee Camp
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the conditions in which the 50 Vietnamese held in the special camp outside Kai Tak refugee camp are held; how long they have been held in these conditions; and what plans there are for their future.

  Mr. Maude
  The 52 Vietnamese held in the camp at Kai Tak are people who had left Vietnam to settle in China,
  59
  but who had subsequently entered Hong Kong illegally. Such people are normally returned to China; but in the case of this group, who are ethnic Vietnamese, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is exceptionally arranging for them to be resettled overseas. The conditions under which they are held is similar to those of other Vietnamese illegal immigrants from China. The group of 52 have been in Hong Kong for over three years.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Refugees
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what funds the Church Commissioners devote to helping(a) refugees and (b) other immigrants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  None, because the Commissioners' funds are not by law available for those purposes. Their primary duty is the support of the full-time parochial ministry of the Church of England and the bulk of their income is used for that purpose.

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages Council Inspectors
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to increase the number of wages councils inspectors.

  Mr. Nicholls
  None.

  TABLE I

  Graded breakdown of staff employed at Doncaster and Mexborough unemployment benefit offices-January 1990

  Doncaster A

  Doncaster B

  Doncaster C

  Mexborough

  Permanent

  HEO

  1

  1

  1

  1

  EO

  9

  8

  7

  —

  AO

  25

  25

  26

  17

  AA

  4

  5

  4

  3

  Messenger

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Casual

  Casual AO

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Casual AA

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Total

  39

  42

  39

  26

  Notes:

  HEO =Higher Executive Officer.

  EO = Executive Officer.

  AO = Administrative Officer.

  AA = Administrative Assistant.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list(a) the jobcentres and (b) unemployment benefit offices that are (i) to be closed and (ii) transferred to agencies.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) on 1 December 1989{Official Report, col. 461–62). It is the intention that the employment service (ES) should be

  Local Offices, Doncaster and Mexborough
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many claimants signed on each week of 1989 at(a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough unemployment benefit offices; what delays there were in interviewing them; what requests have been received for additional staff; and what has been his response.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information about the number of claimants who signed on at these offices each week during 1989 is not available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current establishment at each grade at the unemployment benefit offices at(a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough; how many deal directly with interviewing of new claimants; and what representations he has received concerning the lack of staff to deal with claimants.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A graded breakdown of the staff employed at Doncaster and Mexborough unemployment benefit offices is given in table 1.
  New claimants are normally interviewed by an executive officer (new client adviser). In each of the Doncaster unemployment benefit offices four executive officers are directly involved with interviewing and counselling new claimants. In Mexborough unemployment benefit office three executive officers interview and counsel new clients.
  Additionally in each office two clerical staff provide support services for the new client advisers, which includes making appointments for unemployed people to make their claims.
  No formal representations have been made to local management about staffing levels in these offices.

  launched as an executive agency in April 1990. It will establish a new network of offices, bringing together the full range of employment service activities in single locations wherever possible.

  Plans are being developed for this new network and when decisions have been taken the hon. Member for the constituency concerned will be informed.

  Job Interview Guarantee Scheme
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made on the job interview guarantee scheme; how many claimants and employers have become involved; how many claimants and employers have participated in the work trials on offer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The job interview guarantee was formally launched in 20 pilot areas in November 1989. The latest available information is that 1,088 individuals and 258 employers have participated in the initiative. So far, two employers have signed agreements to participate in work trials, although many employers have indicated their interest in taking part, and two individuals are currently participating in them.

  The progress of the pilots has been encouraging. So far, 473 people have been placed in jobs. Almost 60 per cent. of participants in job preparation courses have found employment.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether there are any restrictions on where trainees in employment training can take their holiday entitlement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are no restrictions on where trainees in employment training can take their holiday entitlement.

  Ex-Trainees
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Training Agency has taken any action to recover payments made to ex-trainees who have,

  Average Expenditure by employers on vocational training

  ECU per employee per year

  Production and construction

  Wholesale and retail distribution

  Credit institutions

  Insurance (excl. social insurance)

  Denmark

  390

  630

  840

  540

  Germany

  390

  490

  850

  540

  France

  330

  240

  580

  380

  United Kingdom

  260

  110

  140

  170

  Ireland

  220

  210

  100

  60

  Portugal

  90

  60

  70

  170

  Luxembourg

  90

  110

  120

  30

  Netherlands

  90

  20

  150

  100

  Belgium

  80

  80

  340

  380

  Italy

  60

  70

  70

  60

  Employment Provision (Disabled)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to announce the conclusions of the ministerial review of employment provision for disabled people.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 13 November(Official Report, column 58). The review is at an advanced stage. The consultative document which will follow the review will be published as soon as possible.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department's current review of
  62
  for whatever reason, failed to sign on at the end of their training and have continued to receive their benefit and training premium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Training Agency has in appropriate cases taken steps to recover payments of ET training allowances paid to people no longer entitled to them.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 29 November,Official Report, column 271, in what ways a preventive inspection visit is different from a basic inspection visit.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The term "preventive" is synonymous with "basic" in describing inspection visits made to assess employers' compliance with the requirements of health and safety legislation and to provide advice about the various ways in which employers can monitor, maintain and improve health and safety standards.

  Industrial Training
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the most recent available extracts of the average expenditure per employee on industrial training by each nation of the European Community, split by major industry group and by source of funds.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows employers' expenditure on training for 1984, and is derived from the Eurostat publication "Labour Costs 1984, Volume 1 Principal Results", a copy of which is in the Library. These estimates are of limited value since they exclude the major costs of training, in particular wages and salaries of instructors and all but full-time trainees.

  services for people with disabilities will consider the need for legislation to outlaw unjustifiable discrimination on the grounds of disability.

  Mr. Eggar
  Successive Governments have judged that education and persuasion of employers is the most effective approach to improving employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The role of legislation is being considered in the review of services to people with disabilities which this Department is currently undertaking.

  A consultative document covering the conclusions of the review will be published soon.

  Employees' Rights
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for compliance with the European social charter of fundamental rights of employees in respect of the aspects covered by his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it quite clear at the European Council meeting in December in Strasbourg that the Government could not endorse the proposed charter of fundamental social rights of workers. The question of compliance does not, therefore, arise.

  Action for Jobs
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much of the total expenditure on the Action for Jobs campaign in 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 was attributed to printed material in each year; how much was attributed to television advertising in each year; and how much was attributed to other expenditure in each year.

  Mr. Eggar
  Expenditure on Action for Jobs television advertising in 1985–86 was nil; in 1986–87, £9·3 million; and 1987–88, £3 million. Expenditure on producing, printing and distributing the Action for Jobs booklet in 1985–86 was nil; in 1986–87, £1·2 million; and in 1987–88, £0·5 million. Other expenditure relating to the Action for Jobs campaign in 1985–86 was £40,000; in 1986–87, £3·4 million; and in 1987–88, £4·5 million.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of employment in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the rest of the European Economic Community and (c) the countries covered by the European Free Trade Association.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest available information is shown in the table:

  Employment in the European Community and the European Free Trade Association

  Thousands

  a. Civilian employment

  b. Civilian workforce Labour force3

  Employment rate (a/b) per cent.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

  1987

  United Kingdom

  24,747

  27,739

  89

  Belgium

  3,660

  4,126

  89

  Denmark

  2,609

  2,765

  94

  France

  20,988

  23,519

  89

  Germany

  25,456

  27,864

  91

  Greece1

  3,598

  3,884

  93

  Ireland

  1,074

  1,306

  82

  Italy

  20,584

  23,416

  88

  Luxembourg2

  164

  167

  99

  Netherlands

  5,251

  5,830

  90

  Portugal

  4,226

  4,452

  95

  Spain

  11,383

  14,332

  79

  EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION

  1987

  Austria1

  3,300

  3,430

  96

  Finland

  2,413

  2,544

  95

  Iceland

  129

  129

  100

  Norway

  2,090

  2,135

  98

  64

  a. Civilian employment

  b. Civilian workforce Labour force3

  Employment rate (a/b) per cent.

  Sweden1

  4,337

  4,421

  98

  Switzerland1

  3,273

  3,297

  99

  1 Figures are total employment and total labour force as no civilian employment and civilian labour force figures are available.

  2 Figures shown are for 1986 which are the latest available.

  3 Figures are civilian labour force except for United Kingdom which are civilian workforce.

  Source Labour Force Statistics 1967–1987 (OECD) except United Kingdom (ED)

  Health and Safety Inspectorate
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factory inspectors are currently employed by the health and safety inspectorate; and how many were employed in the same month of 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 January 1990, 624·5factory inspectors were in post in the Health and Safety Executive. On 1 January 1979 the total was 709·5.

  Private Licensed Coal Mines
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the private licensed coal mines known to the mines and quarries inspectorate, giving the numbers employed below ground in each case.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Following is a list of private licensed mines held by Her Majesty's inspectorate. Figures for persons employed at individual mines are not readily available.

  County and mines

  Country code

  Fife

  Lassodie No. 2 mine

  Strathclyde

  Viaduct 'A' LM

  Cumbria

  Mainband mine

  Central

  Rashiehill mine

  2

  Fife

  Harviestoun mine

  4

  Lassodie mine

  4

  Saline mine

  4

  Lothian

  Blinkbonny mine

  7

  Strathclyde

  Backshot mine

  10

  Craigman mine

  10

  Glenview mine

  10

  Polnessan LM

  10

  Viaduct 'B' LM

  10

  Clwyd

  Coed Talon M2

  21

  Tan Llan M2

  21

  Lodge Drift LM

  21

  Dyfed

  Brynglas mine

  22

  Blaengrennig No. 2 mine

  22

  Bodyst Uchaf mine

  22

  65

  County and mines

  Country code

  Bwlch mine

  22

  Dynant Fach No. 1 mine

  22

  Dynant Fach No. 2 mine

  22

  Graigddu No. 2 mine

  22

  Royal Oak

  22

  Tan-y-Garn mine

  22

  Waunhir No. 2 mine

  22

  Ystrad Anthracite mine

  22

  Penywaun No. 2 mine

  22

  Oak mine

  22

  Gwent

  Blaencuffin mine

  23

  Cwm Glo mine

  23

  Little Cwm

  23

  Nant Merddog

  23

  Old Unemployed

  23

  Pantygasseg

  23

  Pantygasseg No. 3

  23

  Rithan

  23

  Tai Level Lo mine

  23

  Upper-Rha-Bryn-Oer mine

  23

  Winstone mine

  23

  Blaentillery No. 2 mine

  23

  Blaentwina Drift mine

  23

  Mid Glamorgan

  Caeglas level mine

  25

  Fforch-y-Garran mine

  25

  Ffynonau Duon No. 2 M

  25

  Ffynonau Duon No. 2 S

  25

  Ffynonau Duon No. 3 M

  25

  Ffynonau Duon No. 4 M

  25

  Garnwern mine

  25

  Glo Mynydd mine

  25

  High Street

  25

  Nantglas Newydd

  25

  Scranton mine

  25

  Mid Glamorgan

  Wern Tarw No. 2 mine

  25

  Tyn Wern mine

  25

  Craig-y-Pant mine

  25

  West Glamorgan

  Pentwyn No. 3

  28

  Nant-y-Cafn

  28

  Lyn

  28

  Abbey mine

  28

  Blaenmerrig mine

  28

  Blaenpergwm mine

  28

  Brawds Level mine

  28

  Bryndulais No. 2 mine

  28

  Bryn-y-Garn mine

  28

  Byrnant Varteg mine

  28

  Crugau mine

  28

  Crugau No. 2 mine

  28

  Darrell mine

  28

  Elwyn mine

  28

  Evawill mine

  28

  Evans No. 4 mine

  28

  Forest No. 3 mine

  28

  Glanderi mine

  28

  Gleison mine

  28

  Glen mine

  28

  Graig-y-Llyn mine

  28

  Gwynfryn No. 2 mine

  28

  Heol Hen mine

  28

  Hirfynydd mine

  28

  Ivyrock No. 2

  28

  Llechart No. 2

  28

  Meudwy

  28

  Nanthir

  28

  New Penrhiw

  28

  Parc Level

  28

  Rhaeadr No. 2 mine

  28

  Rheola

  28

  66

  County and mines

  Country code

  Sarn Helen

  28

  Tyn-y-Graig

  28

  Venallt mine

  28

  Nant-y-Glo mine

  28

  Cam Cornel No. 2 mine

  28

  Danygraig No. 3 mine

  28

  Ivy Rock No. 3 mine

  28

  March Hywel No. 2 mine

  28

  Nant-y-Mynydd No.2

  28

  Ponty mine

  28

  New Parc mine

  28

  Nantmely No. 2 mine

  28

  Penhydd Newydd mine

  28

  Cumbria

  Ladysmith M3

  39

  Clrghyl Drift mine

  39

  Blenknsopp Castle M

  39

  Wrytree Farm Drift M

  39

  Barhaugh mine

  39

  Ayle East Drift mine

  39

  Blagill mine

  39

  Derbyshire

  Amber Valley mine

  40

  Derbyshire

  Doe Lea mine

  40

  Moorside mine

  40

  Strathfield mine

  40

  Durham

  Lonnen drift mine

  43

  Greenland drift mine

  43

  Drovers drift mine

  43

  Middridge drift mine

  43

  Newfield No. 2 drift

  43

  Smithy Dene mine

  43

  Woodside drift mine

  43

  Barras Hill mine

  43

  Greenland drift mine

  43

  Woody Close drift mine

  43

  Eldon drift mine

  43

  Osmond Croft mine

  43

  Eldon drift mine

  43

  Gloucestershire

  Addis Hill mine

  46

  Cannop drift mine

  46

  Cannop engine mine

  46

  Danby Lodge No. 2 mine

  46

  Favourite mine

  46

  Hayners Bailey mine

  46

  Hopewell in Wimberry

  46

  Morses level

  46

  New Road (Forest) level

  46

  Quidchurch No. 5

  46

  Reddings level No. 2

  46

  Stapledge No. 1

  46

  Stapledge No. 2

  46

  Wallsend mine

  46

  Addis Hill mine No. 2

  46

  Beech drift mine

  46

  Old Park No. 2 mine

  46

  United Mining Parkhill

  46

  Hamblin Gale mine

  46

  Quidchurch No. 7 mine

  46

  Lancashire

  Grime Bridge M7

  55

  Dyneley M7

  55

  Merrills Vale M7

  55

  Royd Wood M7

  55

  Thieveley M

  55

  Merseyside

  Castle M7

  58

  Quaker House M7

  58

  67

  County and mines

  Country code

  Northumberland

  Falstone mine

  61

  Shadfen Park drift mine

  61

  Tows Bank drift mine

  61

  Falstone No. 2 mine

  61

  Whittle mine

  61

  Staffordshire

  Above Park M10

  68

  Acres Nook M10

  68

  Apedale 1 to 4

  68

  Apedale 5 to 6

  68

  Bank Top No. 2 M10

  68

  Draycott Cross M10

  68

  Haying Wood No. 2 M10

  68

  Little Sheriff M10

  68

  New High Carr No. 3 mine

  68

  Parklands No. 5 M10

  68

  Podmore Hall M10

  68

  Apedale 7 to 8

  68

  Hulme mine

  68

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the prosecutions mounted by the mines and quarries inspectorate against the owners of private mines in 1978–79 and each year since, giving the outcome in each case.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is as follows:

  Outcome

  Fine (f)

  1979 Ystrad Mine, Dyfed

  Guilty

  2,800

  1980 Danygraid Mine, West Glamorgan

  Guilty

  7,400

  1982 Nant Medlyn Mine, West Glamorgan

  Guilty

  1,500

  1985 Darran Mine, West Glamorgan

  Guilty

  9,200

  1987 Lassodie Mine, Fife

  Guilty

  1,500

  1987 Saline Mine, Fife

  Guilty

  300

  1988 Hall of Auchincross Mine, Ayrshire

  Guilty

  650

  1989 Wrytree Drift Mine, Northumberland

  Guilty

  5,400

  1989 Robin Rock Mine, Northumberland

  Guilty

  3,000

SCOTLAND

  Shotts Prison
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had about his plans for Shotts prison.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In October 1988 we published a discussion paper, "Assessment and Control", on the management of violent and disruptive prisoners, which included proposals for a new facility at Shotts prison. Responses were received from 34 organisations and individuals. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are still considering the responses received and last month I met a delegation from the Shotts local community to hear their views.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of inmates presently in Shotts prison; and if he will make a statement on the numbers planned for the next 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At the end of December 1989, there were 455 places available at Shotts prison and 68
  442 prisoners. A further 12 places will become available in a new unit to be opened in April 1990. Plans for a new maximum security complex, providing a further 60 places, were discussed in the consultation paper "Assessment and Control", published in October 1988. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are still considering the responses to the discussion paper,and no decision has yet been reached on further developments at Shotts.

  Native Pinewood
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is his most recent estimate of the area of genuinely native pinewood in Scotland that is owned by the Forestry Commission; and how this has changed since the definitive survey by Steven and Carlisle, published in 1959;

  (2) what is his most recent estimate of the area of genuinely native pinewood in Scotland; how this has changed since the definitive survey by Steven and Carlisle, published in 1959; and what were the principal causes of these changes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are some 12,500 hectares of native pinewood in Scotland, of which the Forestry Commission manages about 2,500 hectares. It is not possible to say how this has changed since 1959 as the survey by Steven and Carlisle was not undertaken in a way which enabled areas to be measured.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when the Forestry Commission expects to complete its first register of native pinewoods;

  (2) what plans the Forestry Commission has to monitor the extent and nature of changes to the native pinewoods in Scotland following the announcement of the new grants arrangements; and what plans it has to monitor the progress of this part of the woodland grant scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Forestry Commission's register of native pinewoods will be an open one to which qualifying pinewoods will be added as further evidence becomes available. The commission anticipates that the main areas of native pinewoods will be registered in the next six months.

  Entries on the register will be reviewed periodically which will enable the extent and nature of any changes to be determined. The commission collects detailed information on all proposals made under the woodland grant scheme, and this includes any applications for grants for native pinewoods.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans the Forestry Commission has to restore and regenerate native pinewoods in its ownership; whether the commission has set an area target and timescale for this work; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Forestry Commission will follow its recently published "Guidelines for the Management of Native Pinewoods" in managing its own native pinewoods. Management is a continuous process and the commission has not therefore considered it appropriate to commit itself to target areas or timescales.

  Forestry Commission
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of every piece of land and buildings, owned by the Forestry Commission in Scotland, which has been sold in the last 10 years; and if he will give such details by district location.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 6 November 1989 at columns 486–87 and on 3 February 1989 at column 415, to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on 5 December 1984 at columns 139–50 and to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 25 July 1984 at columns 665–83. These gave lists of all the forest areas sold between 27 July 1981, the date the Forestry Act 1981 came into force, and 31 March 1989.

  A list of all the other areas of land and buildings sold by the Forestry Commission over the last 10 years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Blind Persons' Privilege Tickets
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in securing the continuation of blind persons' privilege tickets from those companies which will succeed the Scottish Bus Group following privatisation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This matter is currently under consideration but I hope that it will be possible to reach a conclusion shortly.

  Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the numbers and percentages of unemployed persons removed from unemployment registers as a result of changes that took effect in August 1989 in the redundant mineworkers payments scheme, by region.

  Mr. Lang
  The latest estimates, which are subject to revision as later data become available, suggest that the unemployment figures for Scotland have been reduced by some 1,200 as a result of mineworkers taking advantage of changes in the redundant mineworkers payments scheme. This is equivalent to 0.5 per cent. of those unemployed in Scotland at August 1989.

  Figures for local authority regions within Scotland are not available.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what information he has on the cost of the collection of debts arising out of the non-payment of rates in the 12-month period prior to the introduction of the community charge;

  (2) what are the (a) current and (b) projected costs for the collection of poll tax debts.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Although local authorities make returns to my Department of the administrative cost of collecting the community charge and previously made similar returns in respect of rates, the returns do not show separately the cost of collecting debts.
  70
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether all local authorities in Scotland have offered the facility of single payment by one member of the household on their community charge payment forms; and what the response to this facility has been.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In order to increase the accountability of local authorities to their electorates, the community charge legislation requires every person who is liable to pay the personal community charge to be sent a demand notice. Where more than one person in a household receives a demand notice it is a matter for members of that household to decide whether each individual should pay his or her own bill or whether to adopt some other arrangement.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance his Department has issued to Scottish local authorities on use of the debt recovery mechanisms outlined in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and the application of the provisions of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 in relation to the recovery of poll tax payments from those who have defaulted on such payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 January 1990]None. It is for local authorities to consider the most effective method of recovering debt, including community charge arrears.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds for mentally ill patients have been taken out of service over the last 10 years, showing the closed beds by health board area in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not centrally available in the form requested. Figures given in the table show the change over the last 10 years in the available staffed beds in psychiatric specialties in Scotland:

  Average available staffed beds

  Health board

  1979

  1989

  Argyll and Clyde

  1,505

  1,266

  Ayrshire and Arran

  781

  807

  Borders

  325

  272

  Dumfries and Galloway

  881

  579

  Fife

  880

  942

  Forth Valley

  925

  850

  Grampian

  1,580

  1,543

  Greater Glasgow

  4,146

  3,314

  Highland

  876

  562

  Lanarkshire

  1,754

  1,404

  Lothian

  2,176

  2,090

  Orkney

  1

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  Tayside

  1,694

  1,342

  Western Isles

  8

  3

  Scotland

  17,531

  14,973

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all new day care facilities and other residential projects for the mentally ill currently being planned by health boards or social work departments in the coming year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information, set out by health board location, is as follows:
  71

  Day care facilities

  Residential accommodation

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Garnock Day Hospital, Irvine

  Core and Cluster Development, Irvine Group Tenancy House, Ayr

  Argyll and Clyde

  Joint development between Health Board, Local Authority and Church of Scotland in Elderslie

  Cluster Accomodation, Paisley

  Borders

  Firholm Day Unit, Peebles

  Day Unit, Hawick

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Day Care Unit, Dumfries

  Domus Unit, Stranraer

  Fife

  Day Care Unit, Glenrothes

  Day Care Unit, Cowdenbeath

  Forth Valley

  Day Unit, Clackmannan County Hospital

  Various locations in Falkirk. Joint venture with Health Board, Local Authority and Voluntary Organisations

  Grampian

  Joint development between Health Board, Local Authority and Voluntary Agencies. Location still to be determined

  Greater Glasgow

  Day Care Centre at the Scottish Association for Mental Health, Training Centre, Glasgow

  Queen's Cross and Belleisle Street, Glasgow—Joint ventures with Voluntary Organisations

  East End and Drumchapel, Woodside "E" and Priesthill, Glasgow—Core and Cluster projects in association with Voluntary Organisations

  Anniesland and Allerton, Glasgow—Joint developments with Voluntary Organisation

  Highland

  Day Centre, Bruce Gardens, Inverness

  Day Centre, Royal Northern Infirmary, Inverness

  Travelling Day Centre—use of mini-bus to visit different locations outside Inverness

  Day Centre, Inverness—joint venture with Alzheimer's Scotland

  Timbury Unit Day Centre, County Hospital, Invergordon

  Lanarkshire

  Day Hospital, Motherwell

  Blantyre—Joint venture with Health Board and Voluntary Organisations

  Day Centre, Motherwell. Joint venture with Health Board and Alzheimer's Scotland

  Halfway House, Carluke

  Lothian

  Day Care Unit, Herdmanflat, Haddington

  Uphall, West Lothian. Joint venture with Health Board, Local Authority and Voluntary Organisation

  Day Care Hospital with respite care facilities at Restalrig, Edinburgh. Joint venture with Health Board and Local Authority

  Various locations in Edinburgh. Joint venture with Health Board and Local Authority

  Day Hospital, Newbattle, Midlothian

  Myreside, Edinburgh. Joint venture with Health Board and Church of Scotland

  Mental Health Centre, Midlothian. Joint venture with Health Board and Local Authority

  Tayside

  Dudhope House, Dundee

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the change in the number of sight tests carried out in Scotland after the introduction of charges for the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The results of a survey on the total number of sight tests in the first quarter of 1990 compared with earlier periods should be available after Easter.

  RENAVAL Programme
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the areas which meet the criteria qualifying them for European regional development fund assistance under the terms of the RENAVAL programme; what applications he has submitted for any of these areas; which have been successful; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Bids to establish eligibility for Strathclyde and Fife under RENAVAL were submitted to the European Commission in May 1989. We still await a response. Providing a favourable decision is reached,
  73
  detailed programmes of measures will be drawn up by Government in consultation with the relevant local authorities and other public agencies.

  Correspondence
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow can expect to receive a substantive reply to his letter of 30 November 1989, which was addressed to the Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment, concerning Mr. A. Renaud, 2 Shaw place, Greenock.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I replied to the hon. Member on 11 January.

  Environment
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what specific research projects and studies regarding(a) environmental pollution, (b) climate changes and their effect on (i) the health of the people and (ii) wildlife in Scotland his Department is funding or sponsoring.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 December 1989]The main sources of funds for research in the broad areas of environmental pollution and climate change are United Kingdom Departments and research councils. Scottish Departments, however, have funded a range of projects in the areas in which the hon. Gentleman has expressed an interest and these reflect their own policy and programme responsibilities.

  Research funded by the Scottish Development Department deals with issues particular to Scotland and is designed to be complementary to that sponsored through United Kingdom Departments. Annex A shows projects related to environmental pollution currently being funded by SDD.

  The broad objectives of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland are to ensure that the work undertaken makes a significant contribution to and, where appropriate, leads the agricultural R and D effort in the United Kingdom, while including work of special relevance to the soils, crops and livestock of northern Britain. Some of this research is concerned with aspects of environmental pollution—for example, how soil processes affect nutrient availability particularly as regards element cycling and flows; the effect of pollutants from the atmosphere entering the soil-plant-animal system; and how soil water is affected by fertilisers and pesticides. Annex B lists currently funded agricultural and related research concerned with environmental pollution.

  Research on fisheries and the aquatic environment is undertaken by DAFS as part of a Great Britain programme co-ordinated with the main stocks of fish and shellfish in Scottish waters, and also investigates the impact of natural and manmade changes on those stocks and on the environment which supports them.

  The marine research programme involves study of the hydrography, chemistry and biological productivity of the sea, and includes examination of the effects of pollution from disposal in the sea of materials such as oil compounds, dredge spoils, industrial waste, materials from marine fish farms, and sewage. DAFS also commissions work on seals and fish-eating birds.

  On the freshwater side, where the DAFS interest is primarily in salmonid fish, research is commissioned into the impact of environmental stresses generated by surface
  74
  water acidification, coniferous afforestation, fish farming, and land use change upon both freshwater fisheries and the freshwater environment.

  The Scottish Home and Health Department, through its chief scientific office, aims to identify, encourage, promote and support good quality research relevant to the improvement of health and the National Health Service in Scotland. One project related to environmental pollution is currently funded by SHHD—"A study of neuropsychological function in children exposed to low levels of lead in the environment".

  At present, Scottish Departments are not funding work directly related to climate changes and their effect on (i) the health of the people and (ii) wildlife in Scotland where given the global nature of such changes lead responsibility rests with other United Kingdom Departments.

  Annex A

  The Scottish Development Department is currently funding the following research projects in the environmental pollution arena.

  Trace Element Toxicity in the River Don

  Acidification of Inland Waters

  Environmental Effects of Fish Farming

  Monitoring of Phosphorus, Chlorophyll and Water Clarity on Loch Leven

  Effect of Afforestation on Catchment Yields

  Radionuclide Transfer in Heather-Dominant Ecosystems

  Annex B

  DAFS—Relevant Agricultural Research

  Predictive models of losses of nitrogen from the soil-plant system.

  The retention or movement of heavy metals in polluted soils and their availability to herbage.

  Effect of organic matter content of soil on the cycling of radio-caesium and its availability to various upland plant species.

  Factors affecting the uptake of radio-caesium by sheep.

  Lead deposition from the atmosphere on Scottish soils.

  Polychlorinated biphenyl congeners in hill and upland environments.

  Proton budgets for hill and upland soils under sown grass pasture and grazed indigenous vegetation.

  The extent of acidification and pollution of Scottish soils in hill, upland and marginal areas in recent decades.

  The role of individual soil properties on the relationship between soil acidity and aluminium.

  The ameliorating effects of selective liming on acidified catchments.

  Movement of nitrates and pesticides in soil and water and gaseous soil emissions.

  The effects of afforestation of blanket peat on water quality.

  The hydrological and hydrochemical consequences of various forestry practices.

  The effects of hill farm management systems on soil hydrology and hydrochemistry.

  Reduction of the potential for silage effluent pollution.

  The chemical and biological properties of animal wastes.

  Environmentally acceptable animal waste management systems.

  Systems to minimise the pollution of the environment by agricultural inputs and wastes.

  The detoxification and use of organic wastes.

  The evaluation of algal culture on settled effluent from aerobic treatment of pig slurry.

  Biomass composition and nutrient cycling in algal ponds.

  The physiological regulation of microalgal growth in multi-pass fermenter systems.

  The potential for integration of farm waste treatment and aquaculture.

  The improvement of energetic efficiency of aerobic treatment of farm waste.

  The potential of nematodes and selected micro-organisms as indicators of pollution.
  75
  Inputs and outputs at a series of long-term environmental monitoring sites.

  Elimination or reduction of silage effluent.

  Extracts of Convictions
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to make mandatory the availability of extracts of convictions in the Scottish courts, including the district courts, at reasonable cost to members of the public and their advisers who can demonstrate a legitimate interest therein.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 January 1990]Extracts of conviction are already available to those with a legitimate interest in them. Problems which have arisen in respect of records stored on computer are at present under consideration.

  Random Breath Tests
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now introduce a system of random breath tests for drivers in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 January 1990]Earlier last year the Government embarked on a public consultation exercise on whether police breath testing powers should be extended. A considerable number of representations was received proposing a variety of measures including support for the introduction of random breath testing. The Government are still considering the important issues which would be involved in giving the police increased powers in this area.

  Warrant Sales
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many warrant sales were carried out on behalf of regional councils against those defaulting on domestic rate payments in each year since 1979 until the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 January 1990]This information is not available.

HEALTH

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of cases where hypothermia was mentioned on the death certificate for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and how many of each annual total were people aged(a) 65 years and over (b) 80 years and over.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of deaths with mention of hypothermia on the death certificate for persons of (a) all ages (b) 65 years and over, (c) 80 years and over, in England and Wales, 1979–1988 were:

  Year

  All ages

  65 years and over

  80 years and over

  1979

  863

  688

  374

  1980

  596

  497

  237

  1981

  685

  574

  326

  1982

  664

  541

  319

  1983

  538

  450

  261

  76

  Year

  All ages

  65 years and over

  80 years and over

  1984

  555

  462

  257

  1985

  827

  708

  417

  1986

  837

  698

  439

  1987

  559

  448

  276

  1988

  440

  354

  205

  Fostering, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by age the number of children currently in foster care in the Doncaster area; and what the figures were(a) 10 years ago and (b) five years ago.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The most recent data available relates to 31 March 1988; 1981 is the earliest that such data is available. The number of children in the care of Doncaster district council, boarded with foster parents is given in the table showing those children boarded out in the Doncaster district area and in other areas. Information is not available about the numbers of children in the care of other local authorities who are boarded out in the Doncaster area.

  Boarded out by Doncaster

  31 March 1981

  31 March 1983

  31 March 1988

  Age band

  Own area

  Other areas

  Own area

  Other areas

  Own area

  Other areas

  Under 1

  7

  0

  5

  0

  6

  0

  1 to 4

  49

  2

  46

  2

  36

  1

  5 to 9

  48

  6

  57

  4

  45

  0

  10 to 15

  79

  18

  77

  13

  68

  2

  16 and over

  12

  2

  26

  5

  17

  0

  All children

  195

  28

  211

  24

  172

  3

  Resource Management Initiative
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the six pilot sites of the Government's resource management initiative scheme; and if he will list for all sites the number of times they have been updated and the dates.

  Mr. Freeman
  The six acute hospital pilot sites for the resource management initiative (RMI) are:

  Arrowe Park Hospital (Wirral)

  Freeman Hospital (Newcastle)

  Guy's Hospital (Lewisham and North Southwark)

  Huddersfield Royal Infirmary (Huddersfield)

  Pilgrim Hospital, Boston (South Lincolnshire)

  Royal Hampshire County Hospital (Winchester)

  During the early part of 1988 Clatterbridge hospital (Wirral), originally a pilot site, withdrew from the RMI but work resumed as a result of a merger with Arrowe Park hospital in the summer of 1989. The Pilgrim hospital, Boston, was adopted as a pilot site in April 1988. On 20 March 1989 I announced the extension of resource management and the names of 50 hospitals to prepare for it in this financial year. On 14 December 1989 I announced the names of 20 hospitals, from the list of 50, which will implement the main resource management process in 1989–90.

  Psycho-geriatric Provision, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the numbers of psycho-geriatric and geriatric beds in each hospital within the Doncaster area health authority on 1 January 1980, 1 January 1985, 1 January 1989 and at 1 January 1990.

  Average daily number of available beds, Geriatric and Psycho-geriatric specialties National Health Service hospitals, Doncaster district health authority

  Year ending:

  Hospital

  31 December 1979

  31 December 1984

  31 March 1989

  Geriatric

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary

  20·5

  21·6

  20·0

  Fullerton Hospital

  0·0

  34·0

  34·0

  Tickhill Road Hospital

  171·0

  178·2

  121·8

  Conisborough Hospital

  101·0

  99·0

  96·2

  Montagu Hospital2

  25·1

  25·4

  21·0

  TOTAL

  317·6

  358·2

  293·0

  Psycho-geriatric1

  Tickhill Road Hospital

  44·5

  88·3

  98·1

  Loversall Hospital

  30·0

  0·0

  0·0

  TOTAL

  74·5

  88·3

  98·1

  1 In 1979 beds for psycho-geriatric patients were not always separately identifiable from those designated mental illness.

  2 Transferred from Rotherham district in the 1982 reorganisation.

  Sources: 1979, 1984: SH3 return (geriatric, psycho-geriatric specialties); 1989: KHO3 returns (ward classifications: general patients—elderly, mental illness-elderly).

  Food Hygiene (Military Aircraft)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what food hygiene regulations apply to military aircraft operated by(a) the Royal Air Force and (b) foreign air forces operating out of the United Kingdom that are equipped for carrying passengers.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. The Food Safety Bill proposes the removal of immunity from food safety law from most Crown premises from 1 April 1992. Ground-based military catering establishments (but not the aircraft themselves) will then be within the scope of the food hygiene regulations.

  The Bill also seeks powers to enable Ministers to make an order extending the definition of premises to include aircraft of any specific description for the purposes specified in the order. The Government have no plans at present to make such an order in respect of military aircraft.

  Social Factor Questions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure confidentiality, after general practitioners have asked social factor questions of new patients from April 1990, when they are passed on to the local family practitioner committee.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Many general practitioners, in accordance with their training, already seek and record information about their patients concerning social and
  78
  Mr. Freeman
  The available information is given in the table:

  lifestyle factors relevant to their health, for example housing circumstances, diet, exercise, use of tobacco and consumption of alcohol.

  General practitioners will be obliged to record from April 1990 the history and findings arising from a health check-up to ensure that a full medical record is maintained. However there is no requirement that specific information about social factors should be passed on to family practitioner committees.

  General practitioners have always been obliged to return patients' records to the family practitioner committee so that they can be forwarded to a new doctor. Both general practitioners and family practitioner committees have a duty to maintain confidentiality and there is no suggestion that the arrangements to be introduced from April 1990 will result in a greater likelihood of breaches of confidentiality.

  1991 Census
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the various issues of the Census Newsletter., in respect of the 1991 census of Great Britain, are freely available to members of the public; and where they can be obtained.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes. Copies of the Census Newsletter can be obtained from Census Division (Room 823), Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, St. Catherine's house, 10 Kingsway, London WC2B 6JP or Customer Services, General Register Office, Ladywell house, Ladywell road, Edinburgh EH12 7TF.

  Migrants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many inquiries have been received by his Department regarding migrants and the Child Migrants Trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has received 22 inquiries since 1987 about child migrants and the Child Migrants Trust.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial contribution his Department is making to the costs incurred by Nottinghamshire county council in seconding Margaret Humphries from her normal duties to work connected with migrants and the Child Migrants Trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department is making no financial contribution.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department first received the request for grant funding from the Child Migrants Trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department received an initial inquiry from the Child Migrants Trust about financial assistance on 16 June 1988. A formal grant application was received on 26 January 1989.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department first requested additional information on the grant funding of the Child Migrants Trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Officials from the Department requested additional information from representatives of the Child Migrants Trust at a meeting to discuss the grant application on 29 August 1989. This information was received by the Department on Thursday 11 January 1990.

  Tobacco Products
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department has received about the amounts spent by the tobacco industry as part of its campaign to encourage retailers to support the law prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to children under 16 years; and if he will give the amounts spent for the years 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on this campaign is contained in the first and second reports of the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship.

  These reports, copies of which are held in the Library, show that approximately £1 million was spent in each of the years, 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  Details of expenditure in 1988–89 are not yet available but will be included in the committee's third report.

  West Midlands RHA
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority to discuss the budget for the forthcoming year.

  Mr. Freeman
  No.

  Sir James Ackers
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will dismiss Sir James Ackers from his position as chair of the West Midlands regional health authority.
  80
  Mr. Freeman
  No.

  Income Support Exemptions
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidance to local authorities that people on income support or an equivalent level of income should be exempt from charges for services such as home help.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no plans to do so.
  Anyone who feels unable to afford local authority charges for domiciliary care can make representations to the authority which may reduce the charge to the amount it considers reasonable for him or her to pay.

  Community Care
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that standards of community care are of a national minimum quality.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The need to secure and safeguard the necessary quality of community care is integral to the proposals set out in the White Paper "Caring for People". A wide range of measures will be taken. Some are provided for in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. In particular we are seeking powers to require local authorities to draw up and publish plans for community care services, and to assess the needs of people requiring social care.

  In drawing up contracts for service provision from independent suppliers, local authorities will need to specify the quality and standards expected. Authorities will also be required to set up independent inspection units charged with inspecting and reporting on local authority residential care homes, as well as registering and inspecting independent residential care homes.

  The Department proposes to issue guidance on the establishment of these units and the assessment of quality of provision.

  These arrangements will be monitored by the Department's social services inspectorate whose advisory and supervisory functions will be strengthened.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to promote and encourage independent advocacy schemes for disabled people.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has approved a grant under section 64 of the Health and Public Services Act 1968 in 1989–90 towards the administrative costs of national citizen advocacy, which aims to promote the development of high quality citizen advocacy for mentally handicapped people in the United Kingdom. We are also contributing towards the cost of a project run by "one to one", an organisation which recruits and trains volunteers to act as friends, enablers and advocates of mentally handicapped people. We have no plans for formal independent advocacy schemes for other groups of disabled people.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will take steps to ensure that local authorities are authorised to make payments to disabled people for the purchase of care or personal assistance services.

  Mr. Freeman
  Local authorities are not authorised to make such payments and we have no plans further to do
  81
  so. Nevertheless the White Paper "Caring for People" proposes that local authorities should set up systems for assessing the care needs of disabled people and arranging packages of care to meet them. Disabled people and their carers should be fully involved in this process.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has just published a Command Paper, "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" containing proposals for improvements in the structure of social security help for disabled people. These improvements, which will increase social security spending in 1993–94 by some £300 million as announced last week, reflect the Government's aim of ensuring a better life for Britain's disabled people.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department is funding any independent case management schemes for disabled people.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 20 December at column 339.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date he now intends to implement section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter on 19 December 1989 at column 170.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many health authorities have now decided to take local action to fund increases for NHS clerical and administrative staff who were previously paid above the maximum of their former grade and who have assimilated to the minimum of their new grade;

  (2) how many health authorities must now decide to take local action to fund increases for NHS clerical and administrative staff who were formerly paid on the maximum point of their salary scale and who have assimilated to the penultimate point of their new salary scale;

  (3) if he will now consider issuing a variation order to the regrading structure national agreement relating to NHS clerical and administrative staff;

  (4) what representations he has received from local health authorities regarding the need to issue a variation order to the regrading structure national agreement relating to NHS clerical administrative staff.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Such information is not held centrally. We have received no representations from health authorities about the need to issue orders varying the agreement reached last year in the administrative and clerical staffs Whitley council and have no plans to do so.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the change in the number of sight tests carried out after the introduction of charges for the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Figures on the number of NHS sight tests carried out between 1 April and 30 82
  September 1989 will shortly be available. The results of a survey on the total number of sight tests in the first quarter of 1990 compared with earlier periods should be available after Easter.

  Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for the years 1987 and 1988 the estimated percentage of women delivering in(a) England and (b) England and Wales whose deliveries were (i) spontaneous, including abnormal presentation of head and breech spontaneous, (ii) instrumental, including forceps vacuum and breech extractions, (iii) caesarean section and (iv) other and unspecified means.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not available for the years requested nor for England and Wales. The information for the latest year available, 1985, is given in the following table:

  Deliveries Percentage of deliveries by method of delivery: 1985 England

  Mode of delivery

  Percentage of all deliveries

  Spontaneous delivery

  (including breech spontaneous and abnormal presentation of head)

  78·8

  Instrumental delivery

  (including forceps, vacuum and breech extraction)

  10·7

  Caesarean section

  10·5

  Other and unspecified means

  0·1

  Note Percentages do not total 100 because of rounding.

  Source Hospital In-Patient Enquiry 1985.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for the years 1987 and 1988 the estimated percentages of women delivering in(a) England and (b) England and Wales (i) whose labours were induced, (ii) whose labours were of spontaneous onset and (iii) who had elective caesarean sections.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not available for the years requested nor for England and Wales. The information for the latest year available, 1985, is given in the following table:

  Deliveries Percentage of deliveries by method of delivery: 1985 England

  Mode of delivery

  Percentage of all deliveries

  Induced labour

  17·5

  Spontaneous onset

  65·5

  Elective caesarean section

  4·9

  Accelerated labour

  12·1

  Source Hospital In-Patient Enquiry 1985.

  NHS Working Party
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state(a) the members of the working party on National Health Service costing and their expertise, (b) the terms of reference of this working party, (c) when the working party expects to report and (d) whether he will place its conclusions in the Library.
  83
  Mr. Freeman
  The working party is made up of a number of health authority directors of finance and departmental officers, including accountants and an economist.

  Its remit is:

  (i) to assist the NHS Management Executive in developing the principles for costing and pricing hospital services; and

  (ii) to provide guidance to the NHS on the application of these principles.

  The NHSME will shortly issue a discussion draft on the cost allocation principles for contract pricing. More detailed guidance will follow later in the year.

  When the guidance exists in final form it will be placed in the Library.

  Working for Patients
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance(a) for computerisation and information technology and (b) otherwise, he proposes to offer to general practitioners of medicine to carry out additional duties arising from the implementation of his White Paper, "Working for Patients"; and, in each case, what is his estimate of the cost of such assistance.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) on 28 November 1989 at columns 228–231. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation, in recognition of the additional work which practices will need to undertake in 1990–91 to prepare for fund-holding, costs incurred on these tasks will be reimbursed up to a maximum of £16,000. Practices which join the fund-holding scheme will be eligible for an annual management allowance of up to £32,000. The cost will depend on the number of fund-holders.

  Prescription Pricing Authority
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional capital and revenue provision he has made in 1989–90 and succeeding years in the budget of the Prescription Pricing Authority for England; and what proportion of this is accounted for by the additional work for the authority arising from the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Freeman
  The revenue allocation for the Prescription Pricing Authority for 1989–90 is £2·64 million higher than for 1988–89. The capital allocation is £0·9 million lower. Allocations for future years, including sums for work which the Prescription Pricing Authority is undertaking in respect of White Paper initiatives, have not yet been finalised.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he and his predecessors have taken since 1984 to identify alleged false prescriptions or overprescriptions; and what action has been taken as a result.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Arrangements exist for the Prescription Pricing Authority to forward to family practitioner committees, for their consideration, investigation and appropriate action, prescriptions where some irregularity is suspected. No central record is kept of the action taken by family practitioner committees in these cases, or in others which may come to their attention. Since 1984 doctors of the Department's regional medical 84
  service have visited over 2,800 practices whose prescribing costs overall were significantly above the local average. This has led to an estimated saving of around £15,000 per practice in a full year in 1989–90.

  Census
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to amend procedures relating to the disclosure of information from the next census to take into account access to (i) the electoral register, (ii) the extract of the poll tax register and (iii) anonymous poll tax data; whether access to any of these could undermine the confidentiality of the census; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  As in past censuses, no information on identified individual people or households will be passed to anyone other than employees of the registrars general. Thus current procedures already prevent such information being passed to electoral registration officers or community charge registration officers. Furthermore, stringent measures already exist to guard against possible indirect disclosure of information on individual people or households through the published statistics and no incidents of such disclosure have been reported from the 1981 census. It is planned to strengthen these measures further for the 1991 census by doubling the minimum thresholds, below which no statistics, other than a simple total of people and households will be released for any area, to 16 households and 50 people.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reassure individuals who complete the census that they will not be identified from the information subsequently disclosed by his Department; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Reassurance on confidentiality will be given on the front page of the census forms in the message addressed to heads of households and others responsible for completing the forms. It will also be reinforced in publicity material issued before the census.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will describe the uses of census data that specifically require the collection of the date of birth rather than the age of a person; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The question on date of birth is asked primarily because it has been found to give more accurate statistics than can be obtained by a question simply on age. As the census is taken in April the information on date of birth is used to produce the mid-year population estimates by age as at 30 June. Also, four dates of birth have been used to select the OPCS longitudinal study sample from the 1971 and 1981 censuses. OPCS plans to include in this study the appropriate sample of records from the 1991 census.

  Birmingham Health Resources
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assurances have been given to the West Midlands regional health authority about the availability of the resources which will be required to implement the latest proposals entitled "Building a Healthy Birmingham."
  85
  Mr. Freeman
  The overall level of resources available for the Health Service is determined each year in the public expenditure round. All RHAs are then told what resources they will be allocated in the next financial year. No Secretary of State could give any RHA assurances beyond this period because this is dependent upon the outcome of subsequent expenditure surveys.

  999 Calls
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the average response time for the 999 calls for December 1989 in each of the health authorities covering south Yorkshire.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Details for activation and response times are not held centrally for December 1989. I suggest the hon. Member contacts the chairman of Trent regional health authority for the information he seeks.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been carried out on the impact on the number of people seeking eye tests of the introduction of a charge.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have recently commissioned a survey of the volume of sight tests. The survey will collect information on the numbers carried out during the first quarter of 1990 and the results compared with demand in earlier periods.

  The findings should be available after Easter when we would expect to provide a summary for the Library.

  Mentally Ill
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on the provision of community care for the mentally ill.

  Mr. Freeman
  In addition to the initiatives referred to in "Caring for People" (Cm 849), we have recently announced the establishment of a National Health Service loans fund, which we hope will enable the early provision of community facilities for people with a mental illness or handicap.

  Hospital Capital Spending
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on future hospital capital spending.

  Mr. Freeman
  Exchequer provision for health authority capital spending for the next three years was announced in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. Government spending on capital in the NHS will amount to some £1,086 million next year, a real terms increase of 12·4 per cent. over 1989–90. In addition health authorities will continue to benefit from receipts from land and property sales.

  The Government attach the highest priority to improving and modernising health buildings and throughout England over 500 schemes each costing over £1 million with a total value of over £5 billion are at various stages of planning, design and construction.

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated cost of printing stationery changes involved in changing the name of family practitioner committees in the first year of implementation.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the cost of this proposal. The amount involved is likely to be very small as FPCs will be able to run down existing stocks in advance of the change and, where appropriate, use existing stocks until they are exhausted.

  Perinatal Deaths
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department proposes to take to reduce the perinatal death rate in those health authority areas where that death rate is higher than the national average.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the Government reply to the First Report from the Social Services Committee, Session 1988–89 on Perinatal, Neonatal and Infant Mortality (CM 741), a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Air Ambulances
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for how long he has committed Government resources to the London Air Ambulance.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has committed resources for three years from January 1989.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Government are contributing to the financing of(a) the Cornwall First Air Ambulance and (b) the London Air Ambulance.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department is contributing from central funds £673,000 (revenue) and £1,349,000 (capital) to the London Air Ambulance.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions(a) the London Air Ambulance and (b) the Cornwall First Air Ambulance have been called out.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held centrally by the Department.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision there is for carrying journalists or photographers on(a) the London Air Ambulance and (b) the Cornwall First Air Ambulance.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is no provision for carrying journalists or photographers on either of these services.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he, or one of his Ministers, has met representatives from(a) the Cornwall First Air Ambulance and (b) the London Air Ambulance, or has plans to do so.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have met representatives of the Cornwall First Air Ambulance Service operating company. I have no plans at present to meet other representatives.
  87
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he, or one of his Ministers, has visited or plans to visit(a) London Air Ambulance and (b) the Cornwall First Air Ambulance.

  Mr. Freeman
  Neither I nor my colleagues have visited either of these services and there are currently no arrangements to do so.

  Personal Stereos
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any evidence to suggest that the use of personal stereos causes a hearing loss; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are aware of the recent report by the National Deaf Children's Society which warns that personal stereos may be causing damage to the hearing of children and young people. However, we have not yet seen a copy of this report. There is evidence that prolonged exposure to loud noise may constitute a risk to hearing.

  Unregistered Homes
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people currently live in unregistered homes, with fewer than four occupants.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Registered Homes Tribunals
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many tribunal cases there have been where it has come to light that the proprietor of a registered home has previous criminal convictions which would have made him unsuitable or ineligible to run a home.

  Mr. Freeman
  As at 31 December 1989 there have been six tribunal decisions confirming an authority's decision either to cancel or to refuse an application for registration because the appellant is not considered to be a fit person to be running a home in the light of a previous criminal conviction.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he gives to the decisions of the registered homes tribunals and whether he has accepted any of their recommendations.

  Mr. Freeman
  The registered homes tribunals are independent statutory bodies. They are mainly concerned with appeals against the decisions of district health authorities and local authorities which are the registering authorities for nursing homes and most independent residential care homes respectively.

  The Secretary of State is the registering authority only for voluntary children's homes and no appeal against his decisions has been made to the registered homes tribunal.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where the decisions of the registered homes tribunal are circulated.

  Mr. Freeman
  Distribution of decisions of the registered homes tribunal includes the following:

  Directors of Social Services Local Authorities England

  General Managers District Health Authorities England

  88

  Association of County Councils

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  British Federation of Care Home Proprietors

  Council on Tribunals

  MIND (National Association for Mental Health)

  National Care Homes Association

  National Council for Voluntary Organisations

  Social Care Association

  Welsh Office

  Libraries of the Houses of Parliament

  Residential Care
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures he has for 1984–85 and for the latest available year of the average annual cost per client in residential care for the elderly in(a) Somerset, (b) Devon, (c) Dorset and (d) Wiltshire.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]The annual gross cost per client/place (excluding capital charges) for the elderly accommodated in the residential care homes operated by each of the local authorities in question is:

  1984–85 £

  1989–90 £

  Somerset

  5,138

  7,564

  Devon

  4,837

  7,263

  Dorset

  5,477

  6,460

  Wiltshire

  4,662

  6,724

  The figures for 1989–90 are estimates only and are the costs per place filled, whereas the 1984–85 figures are the actual cost per resident.

  The figures are taken from the "Personal Social Services Statistics" publications of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures he has, for 1984–85 and for the latest available year, of the average annual cost per client in residential care for children in(a) Somerset, (b) Devon, (c) Dorset and (d) Wiltshire.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]The annual gross cost per client/place (excluding capital charges) for children accommodated in community homes operated by each of the local authorities in question is:

  1984–85 £

  1989–90 £

  Somerset

  14,862

  22,323

  Devon

  14,990

  21,387

  Dorset

  15,557

  15,654

  Wiltshire

  13,667

  17,477

  The figures for 1989–90 are estimates only and are the costs per place filled, whereas the 1984–85 figures are the actual costs per resident child.

  This and other information on the unit costs of children in residential care can be found in the "Personal Social Services Statistics" publications of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Health Targets
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has adopted targets for the reduction in consumption of(a) saturated fats, (b) sugar, (c) sodium chloride and (d) alcohol; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 21 December 1989]The Chief Medical Officer's Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA) has considered the consumption of saturated fatty acids and sodium chloride in relation to cardiovascular disease and dietary sugars in relation to general health and made the following recommendations which we have accepted:

  (a) saturated fatty acids—the maximum intake for saturated plus trans fatty acids should be 15 per cent. of total food energy. (COMA Report "Diet and Cardiovascular Disease")

  (b) sugars—as sugars are the most important dietary factor in the cause of dental caries everyone should reduce the amount and frequency with which they take sugars. COMA did not, however, recommend a specific target. (COMA Report "Dietary Sugars and Human Disease")

  (c) sodium chloride-as the dietary intake of salt is needlessly high there should be no further increase in consumption and ways of decreasing current levels should be sought. COMA did not, however, recommend a specific target. (COMA Report "Diet and Cardiovascular Disease")

  Newly diagnosed cases of cancer, rates (per 100,000 population) for female breast1 and the cervix uteri2 by age group for Northern regional health authority, Yorkshire regional health authority and United Kingdom, 1980–84

  TABLE 1

  Malignant neoplasm of female breast

  Year and age group

  Northern RHA

  Yorkshire RHA

  United Kingdom

  1980

  55–59

  154·53

  179·02

  169·40

  60–64

  169·97

  184·29

  178·86

  65–69

  189·92

  211·35

  199·94

  70+

  200·96

  211·15

  229·43

  1981

  55–59

  150·31

  177·90

  161·78

  60–64

  155·90

  176·95

  169·94

  65–69

  161·71

  180·18

  198·30

  70+

  193·70

  221·28

  231·54

  1982

  55–59

  171·76

  175·51

  168·52

  60–64

  167·92

  198·63

  188·24

  65–69

  162·79

  191·07

  200·32

  70+

  178·76

  217·68

  231·39

  1983

  55–59

  138·56

  171·57

  168·01

  60–64

  156·15

  185·43

  177·16

  65–69

  163·89

  194·23

  200·11

  70+

  198·25

  232·22

  235·77

  1984

  55–59

  162·49

  176·41

  167·42

  60–64

  192·38

  171·53

  182·96

  65–69

  213·23

  206·57

  197·79

  70+

  198·68

  225·25

  235·04

  TABLE 2

  Malignant neoplasm of the cervix uteri

  Year and age group

  Northern RHA

  Yorkshire RHA

  United Kingdom

  1980

  55–59

  45·28

  48·82

  35·31

  60–64

  37·25

  43·98

  35·55

  65–69

  35·17

  27·39

  30·36

  70+

  30·92

  34·06

  24·67

  90
  The COMA panel on recommended daily amounts is currently considering setting benchmark figures for intakes by the population of saturated fatty acids, sugars and salt.

  As far as alcohol is concerned we have accepted the views of three medical Royal Colleges that 21 units of alcohol per week for men and 14 units per week for women are sensible limits for the consumption of alcohol.

  We are committed to ensuring that the best possible information about sensible eating and drinking is made available so that individuals can make informed choices.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) on 13 December,Official Report, columns 677–79, he will extend the information provided about rates of cancer of the breast and cervix, and in similar form, for women aged 55 to 59 years, 60 to 64 years, 65 to 69 years and 70 plus years in the Northern and Yorkshire health regions and for the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 8 January 1990]The information is shown in the following tables:
  91

  Year and age group

  Northern RHA

  Yorkshire RHA

  United Kingdom

  1981

  55–59

  28·63

  34·64

  31·09

  60–64

  47·88

  27·30

  33·18

  65–69

  45·18

  37·04

  32·67

  70+

  32·55

  22·72

  24·21

  1982

  55–59

  25·29

  49·18

  29·71

  60–64

  50·59

  44·03

  34·21

  65–69

  47·74

  28·04

  30·96

  70+

  24·87

  31·69

  23·64

  1983

  55–59

  34·37

  28·43

  26·79

  60–64

  34·13

  39·74

  32·41

  65–69

  29·45

  32·18

  28·49

  70 +

  22·14

  27·94

  24·14

  1984

  55–59

  22·90

  31·71

  24·57

  60–64

  38·08

  45·62

  31·79

  65–69

  21·59

  43·43

  30·43

  70+

  27·00

  25·66

  23·63

  Potassium Iodate
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many of the potassium iodate tablets held to counter possible ionising radiation have been held in stock for more than 10, five, two and one years, respectively; and how many are presently in stock altogether;

  (2) what is his estimate for the shelf life of potassium iodate tablets.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 9 January 1990]Arrangements for the stocking and issue of potassium iodate tablets form part of the contingency plans for both civil and defence nuclear installations. It should be noted that iodine tablets are a counter-measure for any long-term adverse health effects of radio-iodine only.

  Contingency planning for civil nuclear accidents is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy (in respect of England and Wales) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, advised by the nuclear installations inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive.

  Contingency planning for defence nuclear accidents is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  The Central Electricity Generating Board has advised that it holds half a million tablets of potassium iodate centrally and another half million tablets distributed to the nuclear generating sites, all stock being batched in September 1989.

  The Ministry of Defence has advised that it holds 2 million tablets of potassium iodate batched in 1986, and 2 million tablets batched in 1980–82 which have been examined and are still in good contition. Shelf life cannot be accurately predicted but stock quality and requirements are continually being reviewed and revised if necessary.

  A further stock of tablets is also held by operators of sites such as British Nuclear Fuels plc and Atomic Energy Authority Technology.

  In addition small stocks of potassium iodate and potassium iodide are held for other medical purposes by some manufacturers, pharmacists and hospitals.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been made of the amount of radiation recorded in Britain arising from the Chernobyl incident; and what assessment has been made of the implications of the amount of radiation recorded for the future incidence of radiation-induced congenital abnormalities and incidence of radiation-induced cancers over the next 30 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 9 January 19901]There have been many studies of the occurrence and behaviour in Britain of radionuclides from the Chernobyl reactor accident.

  Early measurements of dose rates, radionuclide concentrations in air, deposition, environmental materials and foods were collated by the National Radiological Protection Board. More detailed studies of the deposition on grass and soil have been carried out, and aerial surveys have been conducted in some areas. Extensive monitoring of radionuclides in foods has been carried out in England and Wales and in Scotland, and of radionuclides in surface and coastal waters of the British Isles. Studies of the levels in people have also been made. Numerous other studies have also been reported in the scientific literature.

  The radiological impact of the Chernobyl accident has been assessed by OECD for many European countries. Estimates have been made of both the maximum levels of individual exposure and the typical levels of individual exposure for the United Kingdom together with the collective exposure of the entire United Kingdom population. Using the most recent risk estimates the theoretical number of fatal cancers arising in the United Kingdom from Chernobyl is estimated to be about 100 and the corresponding number of non-fatal cancers as 60. The majority of these would be expected to occur within 30 years. These figures can be compared with the annual mortality from cancer in the United Kingdom of around 100,000 to 150,000. The number of heriditary effects arising in the United Kingdom population over all time from the Chernobyl accident is estimated to be a few tens.

  A list of major relevant publications is shown in the table:
  93
  References

  1. Levels of radioactivity in the United Kingdom from the accident at Chernobyl USSR on 26 April 1986. A compilation of results of environmental measurements in the United Kingdom. July 1986, HMSO.

  2. Horrill A. D. et al. Chernobyl fallout in Great Britain. DOE Report No: DOE/RW/88.101, 1988.

  3. Miller G. R. et al. Radioactivity in Scottish soils and grassy vegetation. SDD/NERC project T07006 el, 1989.

  4. Sanderson D. C. W. et al. A feasibility study of airborne radiometric survey from United Kingdom fallout. SURRC report 88–03, 1988.

  5. Sanderson D. C. W. and Scott E. M. Aerial radiometric survey in west Cumbria, 1988. Final report: project NE1, 1989.

  6. Radionuclide levels in food, animals and agricultural products (post-Chernobyl monitoring in England and Wales). Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food/ Welsh Office. HMSO, 1987.

  7. Radionuclide levels in food, animals and agricultural products 1987 (post-Chernobyl monitoring in England and Wales). Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food/Welsh Office. HMSO, 1988.

  8. Scottish Development Department. Statistical Bulletin Number 1(E) 1988. Chernobyl accident, monitoring for radioactivity in Scotland, April 1988.

  9. Scottish Development Department. Statistical Bulletin Number 2(E). Environmental monitoring for radioactivity in Scotland, 1983 to 1987, July 1989.

  10. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Directorate of Fisheries Research. Aquatic environment monitoring report No. 15: radioactivity in surface and coastal waters of the British Isles. Monitoring of fallout from the Chernobyl reactor accident. 1986.

  11. Fry F. A. and Britcher A. Doses from Chernobyl radiocaesium. The Lancet, July 19, 1987.

  12. Bailey, M. R. et al. Measurements of the body content of radioactive caesium in residents of Yorkshire. NRPB-R213, 1987.

  13. Fry, F. A. et al. Radiocaesium in a group of adults resident in Oxfordshire and Berkshire. Radiation Protection—Theory and Practice. 4th SRP Int. Symp. 1989.

  14. East, B. W. and Robertson I. Measurement of radioactivity from Chernobyl in population groups in Scotland. DoE report No. DOE/RW/88, 103, 1988.

  15. Boddy, K. et al. Study of measurements made on a whole-body radioactivity counter installed in the West Cumberland hospital. DoE report No. DOE/RW/89, 045, 1989.

  16. Boddy, K. et al. Monitoring of the general population with a mobile whole-body monitor and installed counters. DoE report No. DOE/RW/89, 064, 1989.

  17. OECD/NEA. The radiological impact of the Chernobyl accident in OECD countries. Paris, OECD, 1987.

  18. Morrey, M. et al. A preliminary assessment of the radiological impact of the Chernobyl reactor accident on the population of the European Community. Luxembourg, CEC. Report No. EUR11523, 1987.

  19. Simmonds, J. R. Europe calculates the health risk. New Scientist, 23 April 1987.

  20. UNSCEAR. Sources, effects and risks of ionising radiation. 1988 report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation to the General Assembly, with annexes New York, United Nations, 1988.

  21. Clarke, R. H. Current radiation risk estimates and implications for the health consequences of the Windscale, TMI and Chernobyl accidents. IN Medical response to effects of ionising radiation (Gittus, J. and Crosbie, W. A., eds.). Elsevier, p. 102, 1989.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who holds stocks of iodine tablets; and how many tablets are in stock per head of population and per head of population under the age of 18 years.
  94
  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 9 January 1990]Stocks of potassium iodate tablets are held at all CEGB nuclear installations and at some nearby sites, chiefly police stations and hospitals. These are specifically for issue to staff and people living in the vicinity of a nuclear installation should an accident occur in which radioactive iodine is released.

  These supplies are in excess of those needed for a reference accident and supplies would be ample for an extended distribution if needed in the event of a more severe accident. In addition stocks held elsewhere could be made available within hours depending on the location of the accident.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer if inheritance tax liabilities in respect of shares in closely held unquoted trading companies were rolled over until the shares were realised as cash or marketable securities.

  Mr. Lilley
  Information on which to base an estimate of cost is not available.

  Gains
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated cost to the Exchequer if all gains pre-1985 were to be exempted from tax instead of gains pre-1982.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that a reliable estimate could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  British Rail Investment
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the cost to the Exchequer of British Rail's investment programme of £3·75 billion over the next three years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  British Rail's investment: programme of £3·75 billion over the next three years will be financed from its own internally generated cash flow, which does not constitute public expenditure, and from external finance, which does. The Government's public expenditure plans for the next three years provide for a total of £2·2 billion of external finance for British Rail, of which grants account for £1·25 billion.

  HMSO
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what specific financial, efficiency and quality of service targets he has approved for Her Majesty's Stationery Office Agency for the current year and for the longer term.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) on 21 December 1989 (Official Report, col. 372) in respect of the financial target of £2·9 million for 1990.

  Other performance targets I have agreed for 1990 are as follows:

  95

  Value for money

  2 per cent. improvement in 1990 on 1989 for purchases of stationery and paper; office machinery and printing and binding.

  Service and Quality

  Print orders delivered to time

  Vital 100 per cent.

  Overall 95 per cent.

  Print orders delivered without fault

  100 per cent.

  Print production jobs delivered to time

  Basic: 100 per cent.

  Overall: 95 per cent.

  Print production jobs delivered without fault

  : 100 per cent.

  Stock catalogue items

  90 per cent. of customers orders despatched within five days of receipt.

  95 per cent. of all items and 97 per cent. of priority items despatched "first time" from stocks

  Publications—80 per cent. of customer orders and telephone orders from Publications Centre despatched within four days and 90 per cent. within five days of receipt.

  In the longer term these targets should, where appropriate, become progressively more demanding.

  Construction Company Earnings
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average annual increase in the net earnings of construction companies between 1974 and 1979; and what has been the average annual increase since 1979.

  Mr. Major
  Based on figures extracted from published accounts, the average annual increase in net income of large construction companies was 12·5 per cent. between accounting years 1974 and 1979 and 11·6 per cent. between accounting years 1979 and 1988. Net income is defined as gross trading profit plus other revenue income less depreciation. The underlying figures are published in the MA3 series of business monitors "Company Finance".

  Inflation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's target for inflation for the last quarter of 1991.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government do not set specific targets for the rate of inflation. Tight monetary policy, supported by a firm fiscal position, will ensure that inflation moderates from its current level.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions have taken place between the Treasury and the National Audit Office concerning the Government's proposal to reorganise the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 12 January 1990]There have been no discussions between the Treasury and the National Audit Office on these proposals.

ENVIRONMENT

  Inland Waterways
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the present state of inland waterways.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The British Waterways Board is responsible for most of the inland waterways in Britain. The board is committed to realising the full potential of its waterways as an environmental and leisure resource and, where practicable, for freight transport. The Environment Select Committee, which reported on the board last August, found that the canals appeared to be in a better state overall than for many years previously.

  Housing Exhibition
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to housing to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Chope
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 12 to 16 March 1990.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities in England which had compiled their community charges register by 1 December 1989 as required.

  Mr. Chope
  All 366 charging authorities in England and Wales had compiled a community charges register by I December. Details of individual authorities' excellent register returns have been available from the Library of the House since 13 December.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the £10 premium received by
  97
  unemployed people who are participating in the employment training scheme is disregarded for community charge purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The training premium paid to those participating in the employment training scheme is disregarded in the calculation of community charge benefit.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether 18-year-olds on the YTS are liable for the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Those people who are on the youth training scheme and aged 18 or over are subject to the community charge. They will be able to apply for community charge benefit to help them with their payments.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the purposes for which a charging authority can use the information disclosed to it by a community charge registration officer for purposes other than those associated with the community charge; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Charging authorities derive their powers and duties from the Local Government Finance Act 1988, and in that capacity they have no functions other than those conferred in that Act.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the disclosure of anonymous poll tax data without the consent or knowledge of the poll tax payer; whether he will summarise the representations and place them in the Library; whether he plans to consult other organisations before introducing any regulation that allows for the disclosure of anonymous poll tax data; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Office of the Data Protection Registrar has written seeking assurances about the disclosure of anonymous community charges register data and asking to be consulted on the regulations. Our intention is to consult other organisations before introducing any regulations allowing community charges registration officers to release non-personal data to third parties.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authorities on the need to disclose anonymous poll tax data; whether he will place a copy of the representations in the Library; what plans he has to ensure that the regulations that allow disclosure of anonymous poll tax data protect individuals from identification; and whether he will make a statement.

  Member

  Nominating Body

  Yorkshire Regional Rivers Advisory Committee

  Mr. J. Whitworth (Chairman)

  —

  Mr. J. C. Cooke

  Country Landowners Association

  Mr. R. Pigg

  National Farmers Union

  Mr. J. Armitage

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  Ms S. Marsden

  Eye on the Aire

  Dr. S. A. Bucknall

  Countryside Commission

  Dr. P. Knights

  Nature Conservancy Council

  Mr. P. Andrew

  Confederation of British Industry

  Mr. M. Wright

  Central Electricity Generating Board

  Councillor C. D. Swinglehurst

  North Yorkshire County Council

  Mr. I. White

  British Waterways Board

  Councillor R. Mitchell

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Mr. C. Hawkesworth

  Sports Council

  98
  Mr. Chope
  One representation has been received on this subject from a local authority, making a case for allowing officers of the authority other than those involved in community charge registration to derive aggregate information from the register for planning and research purposes and for allowing the transfer of aggregate data to other authorities. The intention is that the regulation governing the release of data by community charges registration officers will enable them to release statistical data; there is no intention to create a power that enables an individual's privacy to be breached.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether all local authorities on their community charge payment form are obliged to offer the facility of single payment by one member of the household, in accordance with former normal practice.

  Mr. Chope
  In order to increase the accountability of local authorities to their electorate, the community charge legislation requires every person who is liable to pay the personal community charge to be sent a demand notice. Where more than one person in a household receives a demand notice, it is a matter for members of that household to decide whether each individual should pay his or her own bill or whether to adopt some other arrangement.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total revenue which local authorities in Great Britain expect to receive from(a) community charge and (b) business rates in 1990–91; and what was the income from (c) personal rates, and (d) business rates in 1989–90 in actual terms and as a percentage of (a) and (b) respectivel.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 11 January 1990]The information in the form requested is not available.

  Regional Rivers Advisory Committees
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will name the nominating body for all those who so far have been appointed to the regional rivers advisory committees in(a) Yorkshire Water and (b) Severn Trent Water areas.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am advised by the National Rivers Authority that the information requested as regards the regional rivers advisory committees for its Yorkshire and Severn Trent regions is as follows:
  99

  Member

  Nominating Body

  Mr. G. A. Wilford

  York Waterworks Company

  Dr. A. J. Shuttleworth

  Yorkshire Water Plc

  Miss M. Rooker

  Council for the Protection of Rural England

  Mr. J. N. Thompson

  Peak District National Park

  Chairman Regional Flood Defence Committee—to be appointed

  Mr. J. A. Fawcett (Chairman Regional Fisheries Advisory Committee)

  Severn Trent Regional Rivers Advisory Committee

  Dr. H. Tebbutt (Chairman)

  —

  Mr. D. Grigg

  National Farmers Union

  Lord Guernsey

  Country Landowners Association

  Mr. F. Walmsley

  Countryside Commission

  Mr. J. Thompson

  Nature Conservancy Council

  Mr. C. Nicholson

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  Mrs. V. Gillespie MBE

  Council for the Protection of Rural England

  Mr. B. Scott

  Severn Trent Water Plc

  Mr. M. White

  Confederation of British Industry

  Mr. P. J. Mitchell

  Confederation of British Industry

  Councillor Mrs. P. R. Merritt

  Gloucestershire County Council

  Councillor Sir Richard Knowles

  Birmingham City Council

  Councillor D. R. Jones

  Montgomeryshire District Council

  Councillor P. E. Beeby

  Rushcliffe District Council

  Mr. D. Pryor

  Sports Council

  Mr. S. Sim

  British Waterways Board

  Mr. J. Betteridge

  National Federation of Anglers

  Mr. C. G. Hawthorne (Chairman Regional Flood Defence Committee)

  Mr. F. Jennings (Chairman Regional Fisheries Advisory Committee)

  Environmental Labelling
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his eco-labelling initiative.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 9 January by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) (Official Report, Vol. 164, columns 589–91).

  AIDS
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to carry out research to determine the longevity of HIV AIDS virus carried in untreated sewage into the sea.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Research to date shows that the numbers of HIV AIDS virus particles decrease very rapidly once infected fluids have left the body.

  Sewage
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the cost of compliance with the proposed European Council directive Com(89)518 requiring the cessation of the disposal of sewage into the sea.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department has commissioned a study of the potential environmental benefits to the marine environment that may arise from treatment beyond the preliminary stage of sewage discharged to the sea; and of the costs of such further treatment. The study is expected to be completed shortly.

  Bathing Waters
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if there are any popularly used inland bathing waters in the United Kingdom designated for compliance under the 76/160/European Community bathing water directive.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are no inland waters in the United Kingdom identified as bathing waters under directive 76/160/EEC.

  Pesticides
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring his Department is undertaking of pesticides in streams and water supplies.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Water undertakers are responsible for monitoring the levels of pesticides in water supplies in accordance with the requirements of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989. In addition to the continuing role of local authorities in checking the quality of water supplies in their areas, the new drinking water inspectorate is responsible for ensuring that drinking water quality standards are met. The National Rivers Authority also monitors surface waters for those pesticides that are classified as European Community list I dangerous substances.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made an assessment of the environmental impact of pesticide use on agricultural and other land.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The environmental impact of pesticide use is routinely assessed as part of the approval process specified in the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 made under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. The agreement of the Ministers of six Departments is needed before a pesticide can be approved for use, and Ministers are required to consult the
  101
  independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides, which considers scientific information on all aspects of pesticide use, including the effect on agricultural and other land.

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific financial, efficiency and quality of service targets he has approved for the Historic Royal Palaces Agency for the current year and for the longer term.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Detailed performance measures and targets for the Historic Royal Palaces Agency's commercial and non-commercial operations will be set out in its first corporate plan, which will be submitted for my approval in March. The corporate plan will provide the basis for the agency's performance—oriented management regime in its first full year of operation—1990–91—and beyond.

  For the remainder of the current financial year the agency has continued with the management arrangements inherited from the Department, with the specific financial target of increasing the agency's surplus on its commercial activities from £2·3 million in 1988–89 to £3·8 million in 1990–91.

  Disabled People (Housing)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures his Department is taking to ensure that there is adequate good quality housing suitable and available for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government's housing policies are aimed at securing decent housing provision for all our citizens, able bodied and disabled alike. Within the Housing Corporation programme, a place has always been found for spending to meet the needs of disabled people, and we have recently announced a doubling of that programme over the next three years. The new home renovation grant system, which will come into operation in April, will include special arrangements to facilitate works to enable disabled people to continue living in their own homes.

  Cryptosporidium
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken about the recommendations of Sir John Badenoch's committee as to the result of interim conclusions; and what response he has had from water undertakers, local authorities and health authorities in relation to cryptosporidium.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To discharge the remit of the group of experts on cryptosporidium in water supplies to make an interim report by the end of July 1989, Sir John Badenoch wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 25 July setting out the group's preliminary conclusions on measures to safeguard water supplies and on public health aspects of infection with cryptosporidium. The letter, a copy of which was placed in the Library, made it clear that further substantive reports containing conclusions and recommendations on the control of cryptosporidium would be prepared in due course by the group.
  102
  My Department sent Sir John's letter to water undertakers in August 1989 and endorsed the main recommendations. Copies of the letter were also sent by the Department of Health to the chief environmental health officers of local authorities and to the district general managers of health authorities and to other interests.

  A co-operative research programme has now been put in hand involving Government Departments. water undertakers, the Water Research Centre and the Foundation of Water Research to take forward the expert group's research recommendations.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect chlorination has on cryptosporidium; and what steps are being taken to protect public health from cryptosporidial infections in domestic water supplies.

  Mr. Trippier
  Cryptosporidium is unaffected by chlorine in the concentrations that can be used to treat drinking water. Sir John Badenoch. chairman of the group of experts on cryptosporidium in water supplies, wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 25 July 1989 setting out the group's preliminary conclusions on measures to safeguard water supplies and on the public health aspects of infection with cryptosporidium. The letter, a copy of which was placed in the Library, made it clear that further substantive reports containing conclusions and recommendations on the control of cryptosporidium would be prepared in due course by the group.

  My Department sent Sir John's letter to water undertakers in August 1989 and endorsed the main recommendations. Copies of the letter were also sent by the Department of Health to the chief environmental health officers of local authorities and to the district general managers of health authorities and to other interests.

  A co-operative research programme has now been put in hand involving Government Departments, water undertakers, the Water Research Centre and the Foundation of Water Research to take forward the expert group's research recommendations.

  Toxic Pollution
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to evaluate the toxic pollution dangers of the use of(a) diacid ester hardeners, (b) acrylate, (c) silicate and aqua-reactive acrylic, (d) tanning/formaldehyde and (e)` resoranol/formaldehyde grouts in tunnel construction in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department of the Environment is not taking any specific action to evaluate the toxic pollution dangers of the materials listed in the question used as grouts in tunnel construction. There are general requirements in the Water Act 1989 to ensure that the use of substances, including chemical grouts, does not cause pollution of surface or ground waters. Substances in contact with water that is supplied for drinking, washing and cooking are subject to specific provisions in the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989.

  Landfill Sites
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funds the Government are allocating to enable waste disposal authorities and other local authorities to locate and rehabilitate former landfill sites which now constitute a real or potential health hazard.

  Mr. Trippier
  Provision for credit approvals for local authority capital expenditure already reflects estimated expenditure needs to meet statutory responsibilities, including public health requirements to monitor and take action over potential hazards. For 1990–91 onwards, this will include specific provision for the capital cost of remedial works to deal with landfill gas on closed or completed sites. If a former landfill site is derelict, appropriate schemes may be eligible for reclamation under derelict land grant or through the urban programme.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures the Government are taking to ensure that a clear and comprehensive register is kept of types, quantities and locations of materials currently being deposited in landfill sites and falling under the definitions of materials covered by the special waste regulations.

  Mr. Trippier
  There is an existing requirement under the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980 for landfill operators to keep a register containing details of the types and quantities of special waste received and to record the location of each deposit by reference to the register.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the location of landfill sites known to cause groundwater contamination.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Complete and reliable information on landfill sites known to cause groundwater contamination is not held centrally. Waste disposal authorities and the NRA can advise on instances of groundwater contamination in their areas.

  Oxide Emissions
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures the Government are taking to encourage the reduction of sulphurous and nitrous oxide emissions from oil refineries, manufacturing plants and coking plants.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department issued a consultation paper on 31 August 1989 explaining in detail our proposals for implementing the EC Large Combustion Plants Directive, which applies to plants that are equal to or greater than 50MW thermal. Such plants are responsible for 85 per cent. of United Kingdom emissions of sulphur dioxide and about 40 per cent. of oxides of nitrogen. A copy of the paper is in the Library of the House.

  The Environmental Protection Bill now before the House includes proposals to develop the current control regime operated by HMIP into a system of integrated pollution control. This will require major emitters to use best available techniques not entailing excessive cost (BATNEEC) to minimise releases of all pollutants, including sulphurous and nitrous oxides.

  Motor Vehicles (Dumping)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures the Government are taking to combat the illegal dumping of motor vehicles in rural areas.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Under sections 3 to 5 of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 local authorities have a duty to remove abandoned motor vehicles from any land in the open air provided that they have placed a notice on each vehicle 15 days previously and that the owner of the land raises no objection. In addition, they have powers to dispose of the vehicles and to recover expenses incurred.

  East Sussex County Council
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his standard spending assessment for East Sussex county council has taken account of the recent pay rise of the council's chief executive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The standard spending assessment for East Sussex county council will be calculated in accordance with the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) laid before the House of Commons on 11 January.

  Hylands Park
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if a new date has been announced for the postponed public inquiry into the Hylands park, Chelmsford planning application; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The public inquiry was postponed at the request of Chelmsford borough council to allow further negotiations to take place on these proposals. A new date will be arranged for the inquiry when those negotiations are completed.

  Showmen's Guild
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been taken by his Department since 30 June 1989 to deal with the problems being experienced by members of the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain in the home counties and in particular (i) the Plantation, Redhill, (ii) Salfords, Reigate and (iii) the Turning Wheel, Crawley.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department has been preparing a consultation paper on measures designed to ease the problems experienced by travelling showpeople in obtaining planning permission for sites from which to base their operations. The sites mentioned by the hon. Member have been the subject of enforcement action, including appeals to the Secretary of State, which have been decided. My right hon. Friend has recently received an appeal against a refusal of planning permission for the use of land at the Plantation, Redhill; that will be the subject of a public local inquiry.

  Commercial Properties (Revaluation)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the revaluation of commercial properties since the publication of the details of the revaluations.
  105
  Mr. Chope
  I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and from other sources. A non-domestic revaluation is now essential in order to remove the distortions caused by using values that are 17 years old. Any property tax, such as rates, must be based on up-to-date values if it is to be fair. The revaluation will, of course, reflect the level of market rents.

  Moorland
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase access to moorland in the United Kingdom for walkers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The existing network of 140,000 miles of rights of way in England and Wales already provides extensive opportunities for access to all types of countryside. Local authorities also have the power to enter into agreements with landowners where necessary to secure additional access to areas of open country, including moorland.

  City Grants
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total value of city grants he expects to award in 1989–90.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We expect to approve city grants totalling about £60 million by the end of the financial year.

  National Parks
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he is giving to increasing the number of national parks.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend has no such specific proposal in mind at present, but is always ready to consider suggestions.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he is having with his counterparts in overseas countries concerning the Montreal protocol and the limitations of chlorofluorocarbon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Revisions to the Montreal protocol have recently been discussed by the European Community Environment Council. The protocol is to be revised at the second meeting of its parties to be held in London in June. The United Kingdom Government will be calling for the complete phasing out of CFCs. We are working for the general adoption of this position and to enlarge the numbers of signatories to the protocol.

  Control of Pollution Act
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions occurred under section 3 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in 1988; and how many were successful.

  Mr. Trippier
  In 1988 there were 227 prosecutions under section 3, of which 172 were successful.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to legislate for the replacement of toxic waste incineration emissions with closed loop technology.

  Mr. Trippier
  Emissions to atmosphere from toxic waste incinerators are closely controlled by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The Environmental Protection Bill currently before the House will strengthen those controls by requiring operators of prescribed processes to use the best available techniques, not entailing excessive costs, to minimise releases of prescribed pollutants.

  My Department is promoting awareness of low-waste or clean technology through the environmental protection technology (EPT) scheme. A booklet on clean technology was published in November 1989 describing examples where British industry has successfully introduced new cleaner technology to bring about environmental and economic benefits. My Department will also be hosting in September a three-day seminar on the subject of "Cleaner Production" to promote the exchange and dissemination of information about clean technology at the international level.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to make pollution prevention an integral part of all waste disposal plans.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am considering the need for such a provision.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to make the submission of a detailed waste minimisation plan a pre-condition for the issue of every waste disposal site licence.

  Mr. Trippier
  Waste disposal licences generally control activites at the point of waste disposal, not of waste production. Consequently, it would be inappropriate to require waste licence holders to produce waste minimisation plans.

  Pollution Prevention
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will give details of studies into pollution prevention conducted by his Department in each of the last five years;

  (2) if he will list the amount spent by his Department for each year since 1979 on research into pollution prevention.

  Mr. Trippier
  The figures for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on research on environmental protection, excluding countryside research, between 1979–80 and 1988–89 are as follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  12·6

  1980–81

  18·3

  1981–82

  18·3

  1982–83

  17·5

  1983–84

  17·2

  107

  £ million

  1984–85

  16·4

  1985–86

  20·3

  1986–87

  21·5

  1987–88

  23·4

  1988–89

  22·6

  reports of the studies supported by this expenditure covering the years 1984–88 are listed in the DoE biennial R and D reports, copies of which are held in the Library of the House. The list for 1989 is in preparation and will be published in the next DoE R and D report.

  Plastics (Recycling)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the recycling of plastics within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The recycling of plastics is currently being specifically addressed by an expert working group consisting of representatives from Government, local authorities, industry and the voluntary sector with the aim of improving the rate of plastics recycling.

  Leakage Control
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1989,Official Report, column 211, why he has decided not to publish a further edition of the leakage control policy and practice report.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Decisions on whether to prepare and publish reports on such operational matters are for the water industry.

  Road Building
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of an increased road-building programme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The expanded road programme announced in the White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity", took account of all relevant factors including environmental effects. Individual road projects are subject to environmental appraisal.

  Leigh Interests plc
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Leigh Interests regarding the Environmental Protection Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have received representations from Leigh Interests concerning the responsibility for control of treatment facilities and landfills under parts I and II of the Bill.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Thanet)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account has been taken, in deciding the standard spending assessment figure, of the number of retired residents within the Thanet district council area;108
  and what account was taken in deciding the allowance made for visitors under grant-related expenditure allocation.

  Mr. Chope
  The number of elderly people and the number of elderly people living alone or on income support are included in the component of the standard spending assessment for personal social services for Kent county council. Retired people are included in the estimates of total population used in other SSA components. Details may be found in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) (HC 049) laid before the House on 11 January. Within grant-related expenditure assessment (GREs), 2 per cent. of the control total for the recreation element was distributed on the basis of visitor nights.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the increase in the standard spending assessment for Thanet district council over the 1989–90 grant-related expenditure assessment; and what is the average standard spending assessment increase for the same period for the other Kent districts.

  Mr. Chope
  The 1990–91 standard spending assessment for Thanet district council has increased by 6·5 per cent. over the comparable adjusted figure for the 1989–90 grant-related expenditure assessment. The mean-average increase in 1990–91 SSA over comparable adjusted 1989–90 GREA for the other Kent district councils is 18·2 per cent.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward measures to reduce emission of carbon dioxide ahead of the second world climate conference in November 1990.

  Mr. Trippier
  Effective measures to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide must be taken in the international context and such measures will be considered at the second world climate conference. Nevertheless, within the Department of the Environment we have recently announced changes to the building regulations, which will result in significant improvements in energy efficiency and we shall continue to keep all areas of our responsibilities under review. The principal sources of emissions of carbon dioxide are from the energy and transport sectors, and measures to reduce these are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Transport.

  North Sea
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of radiation from artificial nuclides entering the North sea emanates from(a) wastes from the nuclear power industry, (b) radioisotope production, (c) uses of radioactivity in medicine, (d) teaching and research operations, (e) fall-out from nuclear weapons testing and (f) fall-out from other sources.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is not available in the form requested. Estimated inputs of radioactivity to the North sea from nuclear establishments are contained in the report of the "Quality Status of the North Sea" (1987), a copy of which is in the Library. Also, a European Community study known as "Project Marina", assessing
  109
  the radiological exposure of the population of the European Community from radioactivity in the north-east Atlantic has been undertaken; a report of which should be published in due course by the Commission of the European Community.

  Deer
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the circulation of the Nature Conservancy Council report by V. P. W. Lowe on "Wild and Feral Deer in Great Britain", reference number NCC/NERC contract HF3/05/43.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  This interim report was circulated in 1979 and 1980 among Government Departments, and some other interested organisations, including the British Deer Society and the Institute of Biology.

  Wath upon Dearne (Waste)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the conclusion by the United States Environmental Protection Agency that the toxic elements in the waste held at Wath upon Dearne are not hazardous.

  Mr. Trippier
  As I have already indicated in my letter to the hon. Member, we accept the conclusion of the report by the Environmental Protection Agency that, on the basis of the specific criteria applied under the US Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act, the wastes are non-hazardous. I am considering, as a matter of urgency, what further action can be taken.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the environmental implications of opencast mining operations.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The environmental implications of opencast mining operations can often be considerable. It is for this reason that while it is necessary to recognise the economic benefits of mineral production it is essential that the impact of proposals on the environment is carefully assessed, and where necessary an environmental impact statement prepared. It is also necessary to ensure that sites are well managed in environmental terms and restored to a high standard. All mining operations should take account of best environmental practice. Recently published guidelines on opencast mineral workings set tough environmental standards.

  Gallstone Crushing Equipment
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money is spent annually on ultrasonic gallstone crushing equipment; and where in the south-east these machines are located.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply. Extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripters were used originally for treating kidney stones. With assistance from the Department of Health, Trent regional health authority is carrying out an evaluation of the use of a lithotripter in the treatment of gallstones.
  110
  We are aware of one lithotripter located within a National Health Service hospital in the south-east which might be used to treat gallstones. This is at St. Peter's hospital in London. There are also facilities at private sector hospitals.

  We have no details of the prices paid for these machines, since these are confidential between the buyers and sellers.

THE ARTS

  Wilding Report
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the merger proposed in the Wilding report between the Crafts Council and the Arts Council.

  Mr. Luce
  I shall make an announcement as soon as I have had an opportunity to consider the responses to the Wilding report.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what recent representations he has received about the Wilding report on funding the arts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received about 6,000 responses, of which approximately 4,500 are postcards. I shall be announcing my response to the report as soon as possible.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the regional implications of the Wilding report.

  Mr. Luce
  I shall announce my response to the Wilding report as soon as possible.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received from the north-west about his proposed reorganisation for regional arts administration.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received a number of representations from individuals and organisations in the north-west area about the Wilding report.

  Industrial Museums
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what financial support his Department gives to working industrial museums.

  Mr. Luce
  The many working industrial museums around the country play an important part in preserving our industrial heritage.

  Funding from the Office of Arts and Libraries for local museums in England is disbursed via the Museums and Galleries Commission (MGC) and the network of seven area museum councils and a number of working industrial museums benefit from these funds. Additionally, the Science museum, on behalf of the MGC, administers a grant scheme which has recently expanded in scope to assist with the preservation as well as the purchase of industrial and scientific material. In November 1989 I announced an increase of £1 million over the next three years to the local museums purchase funds, of which this is one.

  The MGC is also able to offer professional advice and operates a capital grant scheme to assist with the cost of

  111
  housing collections. Area museum councils give grants for restoration and conservation and also offer advice on a wide range of subjects, including interpretation, training and marketing and management.

  Library Service
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on public spending plans for the library service.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 11 December 1989 (Official Report, column 447).

CIVIL SERVICE

  Agency Status
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he has any plans to announce further candidates for agency status.

  1988–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Student

  20,000

  20,000

  20,000

  20,000

  20,000

  Student days

  77,000

  76,000

  75,000

  75,000

  75,000

  Course days

  4,900

  4,700

  4,545

  4,545

  4,545

  Ratio of course days to student days

  15·7

  16·2

  16·5

  16·5

  16·5

  Percentage of students at Grade 7 and above

  23·8

  25·5

  27·5

  30·0

  33·2

  Private sector students

  420

  500

  600

  870

  1,200

  Percentage

  2·1

  2·5

  3·0

  4·4

  6·0

  Course evaluation indicators in top two (of six categories per cent.)

  76

  77

  78

  79

  80

  In addition, there are targets for "cost per student day".

  For 199073x2013;91 and subsequent years, additional targets will be set in respect of an overall value-for-money indicator, the percentage of students studying for externally validated qualifications, examination pass rates, and the college's incomes from consultancy as a percentage of total incomes.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Funeral Payments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for funeral payments were granted from the social fund during the last 12 months for which he has figures available; and what was the average amount paid.

  Mr. Scott
  In the 12 months ending November 1989 a total of 41,247 funeral payments were awarded. The average payment was £522.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by location for south Yorkshire, the Department of Social Security offices that are due to close during the coming year; how many staff will be transferred; and to what locations.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A review of the organisational pattern of all local offices is under way, including those in south Yorkshire. No firm proposals have yet been
  112
  Mr. Luce
  Ten executive agencies have been established so far, and Departments have announced a further 43 activities as candidates for agency status. In addition, a variety of activities are currently being considered internally by Departments as potential candidates for executive agency status, and I expect that a number of these will be formally announced as candidates in due course.

  Civil Service College
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service, what specific financial, efficiency and quality of service targets he has approved for the Civil Service college for the current year and for the longer term.

  Mr. Luce
  The Civil Service college executive agency's primary measure of performance will be its ability to cover its costs from income. Other targets for the current and next four years are as follows:

  produced. Full consultation with all interested parties will take place in the normal way at the appropriate time if any changes are proposed.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what account is taken of the wind chill factor in determining the temperature information for cold weather payments.

  Mr. Scott
  None.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list individually the new description of the areas covered by national climatological message stations, in relation to cold weather payments.

  Mr. Scott
  The changes to the descriptions of areas linked to the national climatological message stations in the schedule to the Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Regulations 1988 (SI 1988/1724) are listed in regulation 3 of the Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Amendment Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/2388).

  Income Support
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number of people living within the(a) Doncaster and (b) Wath-on-Dearne Department of Social Security areas, are in receipt of income support for the latest available date for which he has figures; and what are the figures for 12 months ago.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is set out in the table:
  113

  Local office

  Numbers in receipt of Income Support on

  30 November 1988

  30 November 1989

  Doncaster (East)

  10,164

  10,039

  Doncaster (West)

  12,951

  13,388

  Wath-on-Dearne

  7,118

  7,552

  Source: 100 per cent count of cases in action. The figures given include a small number of cases not actually in receipt of benefit.

  Resettlement Agency
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what specific financial, efficiency and quality of service targets he has approved for the Resettlement Agency for the current year and for the longer term.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Resettlement Agency was initially set the following specific targets, which are subject to annual review:Efficiency and effectiveness of Units

  (a) To achieve a cumulative reduction of a least 1·5 per cent. per annum in the running costs of DSS resettlement units net of accommodation charges over the next three years (ie 1989–90 to 1991–92) without reducing standards. The savings will be made available for redeployment within the Agency budget, in accordance with nil cost package. The chief executive will produce proposals for use of the 1989–90 savings to the July 1989 meeting with Under-Secretaries.

  (b) To establish a training strategy for staff, by March 1990.

  (c) To present manpower proposals, based on the 1988–89 staff inspection to the September 1989 meeting with Under-Secretaries.

  (d) To devise a scheme to assist resettlement units' managers to compare the effectiveness of units on a common basis, with an interim report in March 1990.

  Replacement programmes
  As provided for in the financial plan, to close:—

  1990–91 2 Units

  1991–92 4 Units

  Efficiency and effectiveness of replacement provision
  To commission and mount a research study to monitor the 36-bed direct access hostel opened in January 1989 and run by the London borough of Lewisham as part of the scheme to replace the Camberwell resettlement unit in 1985. The objective will he to examine the service provided both to ensure value for money and that a good standard of care and resettlement results.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment his Department is making of the adequacy of disability benefits to meet daily living costs and extra costs of disability.

  Mr. Scott
  The findings of the surveys of disability carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) between 1985 and 1988 clearly showed that in general the benefits paid to meet the extra costs of disability, attendance allowance and mobility allowance, are more than sufficient to cover the average extra costs of disability. The initial results of a follow-up to the OPCS surveys in the family expenditure survey confirm these findings. The OPCS surveys provided comparisons between the incomes of disabled people and their counterparts in the general population but did not assess the adequacy of income maintenance benefits paid to disabled people.
  114
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether, in the last six months, his Department has issued revised guidelines to doctors assessing fitness for work of people in receipt of disability benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  No.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to revise restart interviews, availability for work tests, and actively seeking work requirements, as they affect people who receive benefit as a result of their disablement.

  Mr. Scott
  Payment of most benefits for the disabled does not require disabled people to be available for, or actively seeking, employment. In the case of unernployment benefit and income support on the basis of unemployment, regulations provide for full account to be taken of any limitations imposed by disablement. We have no plans to alter this approach. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has responsibility for the administration of the law governing claims for unemployed people, including the conduct of restart interviews.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, pursuant to his statement on benefits for the disabled of 10 January, the new disablement employment credit will be available to all those who gain low-paid work after claiming a state benefit relating to their disablement; if there will be a child care addition; and if those on the benefit will receive additions for work expenses related to their disablement.

  Mr. Scott
  The Government propose that the new disability employment credit to be introduced in April 1992 will be available to people receiving the new disability allowance or to those who were receiving invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance or the income support or housing benefit disability premium before starting work. Claimants will also need to satisfy a doctor that they are only partially capable of work. Precise details of the new benefit are still to be considered.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider extending the scope of the mobility allowance scheme to cover applicants who can show that they would have qualified for the allowance if they had made application before becoming 66 years of age and are now prevented from receiving the allowance only because they were unaware of the cut-off age of 66 years; and if he will estimate the costs involved in any such extension.

  Mr. Scott
  Although mobility allowance can be claimed during the year in which a person is aged 65, the medical eligibility criteria need to be fulfilled before the person reaches that age. We regard a year as a reasonable period to allow for making a claim, especially as the steady growth in the number of recipients indicates that the existence of the allowance is widely known. I regret that it is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the cost of an extension of the upper age limit for claiming.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further plans he now has to increase the availability of mobility allowance; and if he will make a statement.
  115
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he is giving to the introduction of a costs allowance for disabled people not helped by either mobility allowance or attendance allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 10 January, at columns 941–52, that the Government propose to introduce a new disability allowance for people of working age and below which will extend help with the extra costs of disability to people with moderate to severe disabilities who do not at present qualify for mobility allowance or attendance allowance. For people whose disability begins before age 65, the new allowance will subsume the help currently given through attendance allowance and mobility allowance within a common structure and extend help to people with care and mobility needs who do not currently qualify for attendance allowance or mobility allowance.

  Disability Income
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment his Department has made of the cost of implementing a comprehensive disability income scheme along the lines proposed by the disability benefits consortium.

  Mr. Scott
  The comprehensive disability income scheme described by the disability benefits consortium in its paper circulated on 15 December 1989 is not described in sufficient detail for a reliable estimate of its cost to be made.

  Statistics
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether his Department has produced advice on the disclosure of statistical data which are derived from information that concerns living individuals, so as to ensure that the disclosure in question does not identify individuals; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This Department has not produced advice on the disclosure of statistical data. The Government statistical service produced and published in 1984 a document which provides strict guidance in this area and the Department closely follows this advice—"The Government Statistical Service Code of Practice on the Handling of Data Obtained from Statistical Enquiries", Cmnd. 9270. A copy is available in the Library. The relevant sections are contained in pages 5 and 6 of the paper.

  OPCS Reports
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to which organisations his Department has circulated copies of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys reports for comment.

  Mr. Scott
  Copies of the OPCS reports dealing with the prevalence of disability and the financial circumstances of disabled people were sent by the Department to the following organisations of and for disabled people:

  Access Committee for England

  Action for Research into Multiple Sclerosis

  Age Concern1

  Arthritis Care

  116

  Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus

  British Diabetic Association

  British Epilepsy Association

  Centre on Environment for the Handicapped

  Disability Alliance2

  Disablement Income Group

  Disabled Living Foundation

  Help the Aged1

  Multiple Sclerosis Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

  National Association for Mental Health

  National Council for Carers

  Parkinson's Disease Association1

  Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  Royal National Institute for the Deaf

  Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults

  Scottish Council on Disability

  Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped

  SENSE—National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association Spastics Society

  Wales Council for the Disabled.

  1 These organisations received only copies of the reports dealing with the circumstances of adults and not those dealing with children.
  2 A federation of over 80 organisations of and for disabled people.

  Copies of these reports were also sent to a number of other bodies with an interest in issues concerning disabled people such as Motability and the local authority associations.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations have been made to his Department about the accuracy of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys findings on extra costs incurred by disabled people as a result of their disability.

  Mr. Scott
  The findings of the surveys of disability carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys were based on a sample of over 10,000 people. Representations have been received from the Disablement Income Group, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, and the Spastics Society. These organisations carried out three separate studies based on 10 or 13 cases, which suggested that the extra costs of disability were higher than the averages found by OPCS.

  Ombudsman Reports
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many reports his Department has received from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on matters referred to the commission by hon. Members concerning the administration of his Department in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is provided in the table:

  DHSS and DSS cases investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to conclusion, with reports issued

  Year

  Number

  1985

  176

  1986

  186

  1987

  182

  1988

  162

  1989

  260

  These cases include only two-three DH cases each year.

  Source:

  1Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Annual Reports 1985–88.

  2Provisional figure, DSS only.

  Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the membership and functions of the joint working group on occupational and personal pensions; when it was set up; if he will place a record of its proceedings in the Library; and whether it has considered the need for advice to members of personal and other money-purchase pension schemes on the age at which they should consider discontinuing their contributions to those schemes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The occupational pensions schemes joint working group was set up and is run by representative bodies in the pensions industry. Its members are the Association of British Insurers, the Association of Consulting Actuaries, the National Association of Pension Funds and the Society of Pensions Consultants. Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security nor departmental officials have any involvement with the group. Inquiries concerning group proceedings should be directed to the group members.

  Quite separately, from time to time officials in the Department consult representatives of various organisations concerned with occupational and personal pensions through a consultative group which meets when the need arises. The bodies circulated are the following:

  Association of British Insurers

  Association of Consulting Actuaries

  Association of Pension Lawyers

  British Bankers Association

  Building Society Association

  Friendly Societies Liaison Committee

  Government Actuary's Department

  Inland Revenue

  National Association of Pension Funds

  Nationalised Industries Pension Group

  Occupational Pensions Board

  Securities and Investments Board

  Security of Pensions Consultants

  Unit Trust Association

  Discussions are informal. No minutes are kept.

  On the question of advice to pension scheme members, it is for an individual member of an occupational or personal pension scheme to seek advice appropriate to his or her needs.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for the reform of the system of national insurance contributions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A reform of the system of national insurance contributions for employees was introduced last October. We have no current plans for further major reforms. Some minor changes are proposed in the Social Security Bill.

  Claimants
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants registered as of no fixed abode there were in England and Scotland in each year from 1979 to 1989.
  118
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Social Security Spending
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount spent on social security in the United Kingdom, in actual and at 1989 prices, for each of the years 1978–79 to 1990–91, or for the latest year available; and what was the percentage increase for each year.

  Mr. Scott
  The information for Great Britain is set out in the table. Information about costs of benefits in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  DSS total expenditure

  Cash (£ million)

  In 1989–90 prices (£ million)

  Real terms percentage increase over preceding year

  Outturn

  1978–79

  16,437

  38,677

  —

  1979–80

  19,416

  39,119

  1·1

  1980–81

  23,463

  39,978

  2·2

  1981–82

  28,582

  44,319

  10·9

  1982–83

  32,451

  46,930

  5·9

  1983–84

  35,159

  48,579

  3·5

  1984–85

  38,119

  50,176

  3·3

  1985–86

  41,487

  51,826

  3·3

  1986–87

  44,424

  53,685

  3·6

  1987–88

  46,265

  53,094

  -1·1

  Estimated outturn

  1988–89

  47,595

  50,919

  -4·1

  1989–90

  52,600

  52,600

  3·3

  Planned

  1990–91

  55,600

  52,952

  0·7

  1991–92

  59,900

  55,119

  4·1

  1992–93

  63,500

  56,729

  2·9

DEFENCE

  HMS Conqueror
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now place in the Library a copy of the captain's narrative of HMS Conqueror's Falklands deployment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. The narrative concerns classified operational matters.

  Military Training
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many episodes of injury attributable to excessive heat or insolation have occurred to members of the forces since 1978 and the last year for which figures are available; how many of these occurred during military exercises and other forms of training; and how many deaths were recorded from such causes in the same period.

  Mr. Neubert
  The figures requested relating to episodes of injury and death attributable to excessive heat or insolation within the Services area are as follows:
  119

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Total 1978–88

  Injuries only (males and females)

  Tri-Service

  Total

  25

  42

  51

  26

  34

  86

  83

  73

  81

  100

  62

  663

  Non accidental

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Accidental:

  Off duty

  2

  3

  8

  4

  9

  9

  6

  6

  11

  6

  2

  66

  Exercises

  4

  16

  7

  4

  4

  15

  13

  12

  4

  21

  12

  112

  Other training

  6

  6

  23

  11

  12

  44

  48

  28

  46

  54

  23

  301

  Other on duty

  3

  16

  12

  7

  9

  18

  16

  27

  20

  19

  25

  172

  Not known on/off

  10

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  Fatalities only (males and females)

  Tri-Service

  Total

  2

  2

  3

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  12

  Non accidental

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Accidental:

  Off duty

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Exercises

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  7

  Other training

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  4

  Other on duty

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Not known on/off

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the forces have(a) collapsed and (b) died while taking part in a mud run in the last five years.

  Mr. Neubert
  Statistical information specifically relating to injuries on the mud run is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Only one death is recorded in the period 1983–88 which can be attributed to a mud run.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men taking part in the combat fitness test have collapsed and required medical attention; and how many have died, since April 1984.

  Mr. Neubert
  Statistical information specifically relating to the combat fitness test is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if external medical advice has been sought regarding health dangers from mud runs.

  Mr. Neubert
  No, but due consideration is given by tri-service medical authorities to any advice or information, from whatever source, which might prove beneficial to the health and safety of service personnel.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions when there has been a collapse of a service man due to heatstroke, disciplinary action has been brought against the senior or junior officers involved.

  Mr. Neubert
  None over the last 10 years for which records are available.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information was given to the family and the solicitor of Sub-Lieutenant Simon Rowland regarding the circumstances of his collapse; and if he intends to make publicly available any information on this case of heatstroke.

  Mr. Neubert
  No approach has been made to my Department by a solicitor acting on behalf of Sub-Lieutenant Rowland. My officials have, however, written to Mr. and Mrs. Rowland to say that a full and 120
  comprehensive summary of the Board of Inquiry report will be sent to them as soon as it is possible to do so. It is not Ministry of Defence policy to release outside the Department information of a personal or medical nature, other than to the person concerned or to the nominated next of kin.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what medical advice he has received regarding the body temperature likely to be generated on a mud run.

  Mr. Neubert
  Advice relating to heat injury, its prediction, prevention and treatment is provided by the defence medical services. It does not specifically relate to mud runs.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with the disciplinary investigation that was ordered after the collapse from heatstroke of Sub-Lieutenant Simon Rowland.

  Mr. Neubert
  As a result of the Board of Inquiry held to consider the collapse of Sub-Lieutenant Rowland, the Flag Officer Naval Air Command directed that the Naval Provost Marshall carry out a disciplinary investigation. The report has now been received and is being studied by the Flag Officer Naval Air Command. A decision on any further action will be made as soon as possible.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will introduce automatic courts-martial of training instructors in all cases of death or permanent injury due to heatstroke in training or assessments.

  Mr. Neubert
  No. In any such case it is the responsibility of the relevant service authority to determine what, if any, disciplinary action should be taken.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his Department defines episodes of injury attributable to excessive heat or insolation.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Department defines "episodes of injury attributable to excessive heat or insulation" with reference to two statistical classifications; the "Manual of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases,
  121
  Injuries and Causes of Death (ICD)" and the "NATO Armed Forces Supplement to the Manual of the ICD: External Cause of Injury Code, STANAG 2050".

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what cause of death was given by the post mortem in the case of Timothy Lester, a sapper in the Royal Engineers who died in a British military hospital in Hanover, West Germany, on 27 May 1989; and how his death was recorded.

  Mr. Neubert
  The report of a post mortem examination on Sapper Timothy Lester recorded the cause of death as shown by examination appearing to be:

  (a) cerebral oedema

  (b) hepato-renal failure

  (c) heat-stroke injury

  which was recorded on the death certificate.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the case of the lieutenant in REME who died in Hong Kong on 11 July 1980 was included in the figure of 11 deaths from heatstroke given in the letter of 29 June 1988 to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South.

  Mr. Neubert
  Yes.

  Weapons
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Government's policy on the introduction of new weapons into service that are known to be banned under bilateral treaties between NATO and Warsaw pact countries to which Britain is not a signatory.

  Mr. Neubert
  The United Kingdom does not possess any such weapons, nor have we plans to acquire any.

  Service Schools
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the conditions of service and methods of determining pay of locally employed teachers in service schools are being reviewed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Neubert
  The pay and conditions of service of all locally entered staff employed by the MOD overseas are kept under regular review.

  European Defence
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the considerations which have prompted him to decide that the United Kingdom should participate in the European co-operative long-term initiative for defence;

  (2) what benefits will accrue to the United Kingdom from participation in the European co-operative long-term initiative for defence;

  (3) what sums of money have been committed to the European co-operative long-term initiative for defence; and what sums are likely to be committed in the next five years.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much money Her Majesty's Government have committed to the European co-operative long-term initiative for defence; and if he will make a statement;
  122
  (2) when parliamentary approval was given for funding for the European co-operative long-term initiative for defence; under what Vote subhead it appears; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  EUCLID was launched by the Defence Ministers of the Independent European Programme Group in June 1989 to establish a European defence research and technology programme in a number of key areas for the future. Its aim is to improve the value for money from defence research by making more efficient use of the resources available in Europe. This is turn should facilitate co-operation on resulting projects.

  No money has yet been committed by any nation to EUCLID. It is expected that the first detailed collaborative programmes will be agreed in the course of this year. The precise extent of United Kingdom funding will then be determined, and will come from moneys voted for by defence research.

  I refer to the replies given to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 24 July 1989 and to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 14 December 1989.

  laser Weapons
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose of the laser weapon fitted to HMS Coventry; what is its applicability as a weapon for all services; whether the manufacturer is British; and if he will make a statement about his policy on the introduction of the laser weapon.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Laser dazzle devices have been developed as an additional, non-lethal means of self-defence for Her Majesty's ships. They are supplied by the British company, Irwin-Desman Limited. The Government's aim in equipping Royal Navy ships with such devices is to safeguard the lives of British service men.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his Department's policy on the use by Royal Navy ships of the laser dazzle sight system during naval exercises;

  (2) whether Royal Navy ships have used the laser dazzle sight system during naval exercises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The laser dazzle device is not used by the Royal Navy during naval exercises.

  Weapons (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy as to the use of weapons not officially issued by the Army serving in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Only authorised weapons should be used by the Army in Northern Ireland.

  Captain Fred Holroyd
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will acquire for the library of the Ministry of Defence a copy of the book "War Without Honour" by Fred Holroyd.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A copy is already held in the Ministry of Defence library.
  123
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to ascertain from Major-General McGhie the precise contents of the statement referred to in the Adjournment debate on 29 November 1989,Official Report, column 818.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. Major-General McGhie died in 1985.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations have been received concerning a request for a second medical opinion by a doctor, military or civilian, regarding the case of Captain Fred Holroyd, retired.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am not aware of any recent representations.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what undertakings have been given to Captain Fred Holroyd (retired) since September 1976 concerning investigation of his allegations relating to events in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am not aware of any undischarged undertakings.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there have been any developments relating to the case of Captain Fred Holroyd following the Adjournment debate on 29 November 1989,Official Report, columns 812–20.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am not aware of any.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 9 January,Official Report, column 805, whether a decision on the procurement of a radar for the European fighter aircraft will be made prior to his meeting with the West German Defence Minister.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No. A decision on the choice of radar is a matter for the four participating countries.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to the need to maintain sufficient industrial capacity to meet future defence requirements in the procurement plans for the radar for the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In accordance with our procurement policy, the objective of the procurement strategy for the radar for the European fighter aircraft (EFA) has been to obtain a radar which meets the operational requirements of the partner nations at the best possible value for money. We always take into account the availability of suppliers to meet future requirements when assessing the value for money offered by competing bids.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the inclusion of aircraft in the CFE negotiations has had any effect on the procurement plans for the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There has been no change in the declared production offtake of 250 aircraft.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there have been any changes to the projected in-service date of the European fighter aircraft in the last two years.
  124
  Mr. Alan Clark
  Our aim remains to bring EFA into service in the mid-1990s.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects a decision to be taken on which industrial consortium will be allocated the contract to develop the nose radar for the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I cannot forecast when a decision on the choice of radar might be made; but am anxious for the negotiations to be concluded as soon as possible.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to discuss the development of the European fighter aircraft with the Governments of the other three nations participating in the programme.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. Friend meets his colleagues in the EFA project at regular intervals in a variety of fora. He expects to meet his German counterpart shortly for discussions on a wide range of issues.

  West German Defence Minister
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his West German counterpart.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. Friend will be meeting Dr. Stoltenberg shortly for discussions on a wide range of issues.

  Ambulance Duties
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost per Army man hour of deploying the Army on ambulance duties.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 8 January 1990] : I am replying on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Only extra costs directly attributable to the ambulance dispute are reported for recovery from other Government Departments. Such extra costs are not directly related to the number of man hours worked. The estimated extra costs up to 30 November 1989 are £0.85 million.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  New Forest (Hunting)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library(a) copies of the licences to hunt issued by the Forestry Commission for each of the last four years in respect of the New Forest and (b) in respect of each licence a copy of the special list of conditions.

  Mr. Curry
  The documents requested by the hon. Member have today been placed in the Library of the House.

  Bovine Spongiform EncephaIopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the north Yorkshire trading standards department concerning bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
  125
  Mr. Maclean
  None, but my officials met the county trading standards officer for north Yorkshire in his capacity as secretary of the local authorities national animal health panel on 27 October 1989 to discuss various issues concerning BSE and will be meeting him again shortly.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of cows with bovine spongiform encephalopathy that have been identified(a) on farms, (b) in slaughterhouses, (c) in auction markets and (d) in other places, by county.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 11 January 1990]The information is not available in the form requested. It should be noted that as a result of the measures which my right hon. Friend announced on 8 November, those bovine tissues most susceptible to harbouring the BSE agent must be removed from human consumption for all animals more than six months old. So even if infected animals, or those suffering from pre-clinical infection, find their way to the slaughterhouse, these vulnerable tissues will be removed from them. The total number of cases of BSE in cattle confirmed in each county/region of Great Britain up to 5 January 1990 is set out in the following table (as these figures relate to confirmed cases, they differ from those for reported cases):

  County/Region

  Cases

  Cleveland

  8

  Cumbria

  140

  Durham

  26

  Humberside

  25

  Northumberland

  40

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  Yorkshire North

  272

  Yorkshire South

  13

  Yorkshire West

  24

  Cheshire

  149

  Derbyshire

  102

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  173

  Lancashire

  142

  Leicestershire

  193

  Manchester

  4

  Merseyside

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  47

  Salop

  223

  Staffordshire

  139

  West Midlands

  8

  Warwickshire

  83

  Bedfordshire

  26

  Cambridgeshire

  29

  Essex

  34

  Hertfordshire

  40

  Lincolnshire

  83

  Norfolk

  111

  Northamptonshire

  76

  Suffolk

  102

  Berkshire

  81

  Buckinghamshire

  60

  Hampshire

  403

  Isle of Wight

  57

  Kent

  232

  London

  2

  Oxfordshire

  147

  Surrey

  100

  Sussex East

  119

  Sussex West

  240

  Avon

  145

  Cornwall

  790

  Devon

  1,139

  126

  County/Region

  Cases

  Dorset

  779

  Gloucestershire

  336

  Somerset

  674

  Wiltshire

  563

  Clwyd

  75

  Dyfed

  290

  Glamorgan Mid

  18

  Glamorgan South

  39

  Glamorgan West

  4

  Gwent

  80

  Gwynedd

  33

  Powys

  78

  Borders

  10

  Central

  11

  Dumfries

  42

  Fife

  10

  Grampian

  52

  Highland

  18

  Lothian

  9

  Orkney

  3

  Shetland

  2

  Strathclyde

  67

  Tayside

  22

  Total

  9,048

  In the period 21 June 1988 (when BSE became notifiable) to 30 September 1989 (the most recent date for which information is available), 79 confirmed cases occurred at slaughterhouses and 56 at markets. This information is not available on a county basis.

  Two confirmed cases have occurred at an import lairage in Dorset and five at artificial insemination centres in Devon, Dyfed, East Sussex, North Yorkshire and Somerset.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy have been notified in each county for each year up to the end of 1989;

  (2) how many cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy have been notified each year in each county of the United Kingdom up to the end of 1989;

  (3) if he will list the number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases notified for each year up to the end of 1989.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 11 January 1990]BSE became a notifiable disease in Great Britain on 21 June 1988. The details of suspect cases of BSE notified since then are as follows:

  21 June 1988–31 December 1988

  1 January 1989–31 December 1989

  Cleveland

  2

  11

  Cumbria

  49

  131

  Durham

  4

  26

  Humberside

  10

  32

  Northumberland

  21

  30

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  1

  Yorkshire North

  77

  280

  Yorkshire South

  6

  14

  Yorkshire West

  11

  24

  Cheshire

  38

  152

  Derbyshire

  28

  97

  Hereford and Worcester

  54

  163

  Lancashire

  59

  132

  Leicestershire

  55

  181

  Manchester

  2

  8

  Merseyside

  2

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  8

  51

  Salop

  53

  217

  Staffordshire

  43

  126

  West Midlands

  2

  7

  Warwickshire

  17

  89

  Bedfordshire

  2

  25

  127

  21 June 1988–31 December 1988

  1 January 1989–31 December 1989

  Cambridge

  7

  28

  Essex

  2

  43

  Hertfordshire

  11

  36

  Lincolnshire

  34

  71

  Norfolk

  27

  101

  Northamptonshire

  12

  80

  Suffolk

  31

  86

  Berks

  27

  62

  Bucks

  10

  71

  Hants

  116

  379

  Isle of Wight

  13

  51

  Kent

  55

  205

  London

  0

  5

  Oxon

  53

  139

  Surrey

  39

  81

  Sussex East

  26

  122

  Sussex West

  85

  213

  Avon

  21

  161

  Cornwall

  256

  642

  Devon

  292

  941

  Dorset

  184

  747

  Gloucestershire

  113

  286

  Somerset

  171

  605

  Wiltshire

  158

  561

  England

  2,286

  7,518

  Clwyd

  13

  90

  Dyfed

  67

  273

  Glamorgan Mid

  7

  12

  Glamorgan South

  8

  40

  Glamorgan West

  2

  7

  Gwent

  23

  69

  Gwynedd

  10

  32

  Powys

  24

  94

  Wales

  154

  617

  Borders

  1

  11

  Central

  4

  13

  Dumfries

  17

  53

  Fife

  0

  14

  Grampian

  18

  59

  Highland

  3

  20

  Lothian

  6

  9

  Orkney

  2

  7

  Shetland

  0

  1

  Strathclyde

  16

  87

  Tayside

  10

  31

  Scotland

  77

  305

  Northern Ireland

  4

  54

  Totals

  2,521

  8,494

  1 Became notifiable 29 November 1988.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last discussed with the National Farmers Union compensation payments on cattle suffering from bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will increase compensation payments to 75 per cent.

  Mr. Maclean
  I meet representatives of the National Farmers Union frequently to discuss agricultural matters. As regards compensation, we believe that 50 per cent. is fair, given that the animals are terminally ill and worthless for all practical purposes, but are valued as though unaffected by BSE. This means that in many cases owners receive more in compensation than they would get if they were able to sell the animals. One hundred per cent. is paid for animals which are not confirmed as having BSE.

  Organic Produce
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of organic(a) root vegetables, (b) other vegetables, (c) apples, (d) beef and (e) lamb sold in the United Kingdom is satisfied by domestic production.

  Mr. Curry
  This information is not available.

  Enzymes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what analysis has been conducted to establish the implications for animal welfare of the use of the meat tenderiser papain.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the full statement I made on this matter during the Adjournment debate on 7 November 1989.

  Infected Place Notice
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in relation to the issuing of an infected place notice by his Department, on Lansdowne Farm Ltd., East Retford, Nottinghamshire, what conclusion was reached as to the origin of the group C organisms which were discovered in the liver, ovaries and oviducts but not in the intestines.

  Mr. Maclean
  No conclusion was reached as to the origin of the group C organisms found in the livers, ovaries and oviducts but not in the intestines of the birds taken during the investigation at Lansdowne Farm Ltd.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in relation to the issuing of an infected place notice by his Department on Lansdowne Farm Ltd., East Retford, Nottinghamshire, on what basis birds were selected for slaughter.

  Mr. Maclean
  The birds taken were randomly distributed throughout each house. The birds were selected by a MAFF official of the veterinary investigation service assisted by representatives from Lansdowne Farm Ltd.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in relation to the issuing of an infected place notice by his Department on Lansdowne Farm Ltd. East Retford, Nottinghamshire, the phage type of the enteritidis strain alleged to have been recovered and the serotype of the group C organism recovered.

  Mr. Maclean
  Following is the information:

  (i) The group D isolates were all identified as Salmonella enteritidis phage type 4.

  (ii) he group C isolates were identified as Salmonella infantis.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in relation to the issuing of an infected place notice by his Department on Lansdowne Farm Ltd., East Retford, Nottinghamshire, whether the hen carcases remained in the sacks in which they were placed at the farm; at what temperature they were stored; and whether any other material was stored in the same refrigerator.

  Mr. Maclean
  Following is the information:

  (i) The hen carcases remained in the sealed plastic bags into which they were placed at the farm.

  129

  (ii) They were stored at 8.5 deg C.

  (iii) T other material was stored with the birds.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in relation to the issuing of an infected place notice by his Department on Lansdowne Farm Ltd, East Retford, Nottinghamshire, whether any person who moved the unopened bags to the post mortem room took part in the post mortem procedures; in which room the examinations were carried out and under what circumstances; and whether any other work was carried out in the same room at the same time or immediately before.

  Mr. Maclean
  One person who moved the unopened bags to the post mortem room took part in the post mortem procedures.

  The examinations were carried out in the post mortem room at Sutton Bonington veterinary investigation centre on 8 November 1989. The post mortem room was cleansed and disinfected on 7 November and no work was subsequently carried out in that room until the birds were examined post mortem on the morning of 8 November. Post mortem tables were cleaned and disinfected between each batch of birds examined and fresh sets of gloves and sterile instruments were used to collect and examine samples of different organ types from within each batch.

  The birds were examined on the morning of 8 November and no other work was carried out in the post mortem room at the same time or immediately before these examinations took place.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in relation to the issuing of an infected place notice by his Department on Lansdowne Farm Ltd, East Retford, Nottinghamshire, how many salmonella colonies were examined from each plate subcultured for typing; how many colonies were identified as type D; how many times and over what period the plates were examined; and after how many examinations the group D types were isolated.

  Mr. Maclean
  Not less than three non-lactose fermenting colonies were examined from each plate showing typical salmonella growth characteristics. Four colonies were identified as group D salmonella. Each plate of brilliant green agar was examined twice at 24 and 48 hours after incubation at 37 deg C. Group D salmonellas were isolated from three subcultures at 24 hours and one subculture at 48 hours.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in relation to the issuing of an infected place notice by his Department on Lansdowne Farm Ltd, East Retford, Nottinghamshire, whether the investigation concluded that the group C organism was present.

  Mr. Maclean
  The investigation concluded that group C organisms were present.

  Bovine Animals (Head Meat)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ban the use of head meat from bovine animals whose crania have been opened for the purpose of brain removal.

  Mr. Maclean
  The offal ban prohibits the use of brains for human food but allows meat from bovine heads to be 130
  utilised. It is not my intention to change this policy. Whatever method is used to remove the brain every precaution should be taken, in all circumstances, to avoid cross-contamination of the meat.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the risk of cross-contamination from bovine brains of the use of head meat from bovine animals as a result of abattoir practices.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is incumbent on operators and enforcement authorities at all times to ensure that cross-contamination is avoided from any source during the preparation of meat for human consumption. Brains from adult cattle may not enter the human food chain and the risk of cross-contamination where the crania has been split is extremely small so long as good hygienic practices are followed. The Southwood working party concluded that the risk to humans from BSE is remote.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he gives to environmental health officers about the danger of cross-contamination from animal brains on to other head meat as a result of abattoir practices.

  Mr. Maclean
  My staff are always available to advise environmental health officers on hygienic practices. The advice will depend on the circumstances of the case.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had from producers in relation to the policy of environmental health officers from Carrick district council and other authorities in the south-west to prevent the use of head meat from bovine animals whose crania have been opened for the purpose of brain removal.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am not aware of any such representations.

  Lead Contamination Tests
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he hopes to publish the results of the lead contamination tests made on 14 December on calves at Higher Norton farm, East Allington, Totnes, Devon.

  Mr. Maclean
  The results of these tests were made available to the owner of the holding on 5 January.

  Fish Fanning
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if grants for the establishment of fish farming facilities are to be made available through the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service.

  Mr. Curry
  Grants for approved fish farming projects, jointly assisted by my Department and the European Commission, may be made under the provisions a Council regulation (EEC) No. 4028/86 on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector. I shall be writing shortly to the hon. Member about points raised recently by one of his constituents.

  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest estimates in pound sterling of the annual costs of crop damage in the United Kingdom resulting from sulphur dioxide emissions.

  Mr. Curry
  Such estimates are not available and could not be provided on the basis of existing data. Crop damage due to sulphur dioxide is unlikely to be detectable at current ambient concentrations.

  Coffee
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress the Director General of Fair Trading has made in investigating the retail price of coffee.

  Mr. Curry
  The investigation is still in progress. We understand that it is proceeding satisfactorily.

  North Sea
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those countries which in 1989 conducted operations to incinerate toxic wastes in the North sea.

  Mr. Curry
  Complete information about other countries' incineration activities in the North sea in 1989 is not yet available. In 1988 waste originating from Austria, Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom was incinerated in the North sea.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those countries which in 1989 conducted operations to dump sewage sludge in the North sea.

  Mr. Curry
  Only the United Kingdom dumped sewage sludge in the North sea in 1989. There was no environmentally acceptable land-based disposal option for the sludge. Strict controls were applied to ensure that the disposals met national and international requirements and that no harm was caused to the marine environment.

  Organophosphorous Sheep Dip
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence has been received by his Ministry regarding immune system damage from organophosphorous sheep dip; and what further investigations are now being conducted.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. If any evidence of immune system damage from the use of organophosphorous sheep dips were to come to light, this would have to be fully investigated by Ministry scientists and the independent veterinary products committee, under Medicines Act procedures.

  Lime
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers in the United Kingdom during 1988 and 1989 were reported to have 132
  used large quantities of lime for the first time in order to preserve their crops from the effects of increased pH acidity levels in soils; and whether these reports originate from clearly defined geographic areas.

  Mr. Curry
  Data are not available in the form requested. However, ADAS, which has close contact with the situation in the field in England and Wales, has received no reports of farmers using larger than normal quantities of lime for the first time in 1988 or 1989.

  Importation of Bees Order
  Sir Dennis Walters
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the Importation of Bees Order 1980 can be retained after the completion of the single market in 1992; and what discussions are taking place within the Community on the future of the order.

  Mr. Curry
  The Commission has proposed that after 1992 national measures on animal health, including bee health, should be replaced by EC controls. The proposals for bees would not, as drafted at present, permit a total ban on imports to the United Kingdom. Discussions are at an early stage, and we shall continue to press for the highest level of safeguard.

  Free Foodstuffs (EC)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the products underused when Economic Community surplus food is made available for free distribution to pensioners in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  In 1988 the United Kingdom's full allocation of produce was taken up under the EC surplus food scheme. All the produce allocated in 1989 had been released from intervention stores and I believe that it will all be used.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in the Official Report the types of food, the quantities ordered and the locations of the distribution of all free foodstuffs received from Economic Community states for free distribution to pensioners in the United Kingdom over the past six months.

  Mr. Curry
  In the six months from July to December 1989 some 1,495 tonnes of beef, and 2,000 tonnes of butter were delivered to designated organisations participating in the EC surplus food scheme in the United Kingdom. The distribution arrangements are a matter for those organisations, but they are required to notify officials of their planned distributions. I will supply details of those notified over the last six months as soon as possible.

  The hon. Member refers to distribution to pensioners, but pensioners as a group are not eligible. Those eligible to receive produce under the current scheme are people on income support or family credit and those living in welfare hostels or who have no fixed abode. Pensioners falling into one or other of these categories are, of course, eligible.

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

Tributes to the Late Lord Gardiner
2.35 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I know the whole House will have heard with sadness of the death of Lord Gardiner, formerly Lord Chancellor, on 7th January this year.
Lord Gardiner was unique in our times in that he came to the Woolsack without having served in the House of Commons or on the Bench. He held the post of Lord Chancellor with great distinction from 1964 to 1970, and during those years he initiated many of the projects of law reform which have, in the intervening years, entrenched themselves in our system of justice.
There will be many of your Lordships who know more intimately than I the scale of his achievements. Lord Gardiner presided over the creation of the Family Division of the High Court, of the Law Commission, and of the ombudsman. As many of your Lordships will recall, it was he who started the first compulsory training for magistrates. Passionate and unshakeable in his beliefs, he worked tirelessly over the years towards further humanising and liberalising the law.
After his tenure of office, his concern for penal reform endured, as his chairmanship of Justice, his membership of the International Committee of Jurists and his presidency of the Howard League for Penal Reform testified. Yet he still found time not only to become Chancellor of the Open University but to achieve an Open University degree as well.
Lord Gardiner brought a fine presence to the office of Lord Chancellor. As many of your Lordships will remember, he was a courteous and most persuasive speaker, as befits a man who had acted professionally on the stage in his youth with Gerald du Maurier, and was one of the most formidable advocates of his generation.
In recent years he had been able to take less part in the work of the House, but I know that your Lordships will wish to join with me in offering every sympathy to Lady Gardiner and in expressing the belief that his memory will live on in his achievements.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his generous tribute to our late noble friend Lord Gardiner. The noble Lord referred to the milestones of the distinguished career of Lord Gardiner which culminated in his elevation to the Woolsack in 1964. He will be remembered as one of the great lawyers
408
of this century; but it is of interest that he was also attracted to the stage, as the noble Lord has just said, and that Gerald du Maurier, for whom he acted in a West End production, had a high regard for his talents as an actor. There seems to be a certain affinity between the stage and the Bar, as we have observed in this House from time to time.
We remember Gerald Gardiner's impressive progress in the years after he took silk in 1948 during which he gained a reputation as a formidable and fearless advocate. It was an experience to hear his calm and lucid exposition of a case. But Gerald Gardiner did not stop there, as he might well have done. He pursued other causes, notably law reform, and his work both in and out of office will be remembered in years to come. He was indeed the natural choice to be Lord Chancellor when my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx formed his first administration in 1964.
We were fortunate to have a man of his distinction and intellect in so crucial an office. As the noble Lord said, Lord Gardiner was the first Lord Chancellor in modern times not to have served in the House of Commons nor to have sat on the Bench. The appointment was more than justified because he presided over so many radical changes. Those changes will need a number of books to do them full justice. He was more the great lawyer than the politician, as I discovered when I had the privilege of sitting in Cabinet with him. When dealing with political issues, he was always brief and to the point. That set him apart from the rest of us!
He was not aloof and cold, as some have said. He was kind and considerate to me as a younger colleague, although there was also a shyness about him and an innocence too. He did not cultivate publicity and never sought to be a household name; but he will nevertheless go down in history as one of the great reforming Lord Chancellors as well as a man of great dignity, charm and generosity. We send our deep sympathies to Lady Gardiner and to his daughter.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, this is the second melancholy occasion within a few weeks that we have paid tribute to a departed Lord Chancellor. Gerald Gardiner, who was 10 years older than Lord Elwyn-Jones, had not been recently among us in the way that Lord Elwyn-Jones had been. I do not think that I was ever present in this House with him, but there was nonetheless a time when I had just as close an association with him.
He was Lord Chancellor when I was first Home Secretary. That was in the swinging 'sixties which are sometimes now portrayed as the fount of all evils. I do not know whether or not this will be taken as a tribute by the majority of your Lordships, but I can say that he and I were always at one on the life and liberty legislation of those days. That was in some ways surprising for we were not otherwise at all alike in background, cast of mind, attitudes to politics or pleasure, shape or anything else. It was a great sustenance for a young and perhaps impetuous Home Secretary to have a Lord Chancellor who was 20 years older and of high legal repute, although

409
occasionally of a little impetuosity himself, protecting his flank.
Nor was it only on the softer side of legislation that he sustained me. I remember that when I was deciding whether to introduce majority verdicts in criminal trials—then a very controversial step—I was much encouraged to discover that Gerald Gardiner agreed with me. So did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. So did the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I thought that if I was protected by Lord Gardiner and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, I could not be affronting civil liberties very deeply.
Lord Gardiner was immensely diligent. He once told me that he almost never got to sleep before 2.30 or 3 a.m. because he read all his Cabinet papers, word for word, after midnight. Paradoxically, he spoke very little in Cabinet, but his lasting impact was probably greater than that of those of us who chattered away.
The Law Commission, and the reforms which have stemmed from it, is his principal monument. I feel increasingly that to be the author of a major statute which sets up a continuing institution and which, because of its inherent sense and utility, is not tampered with by subsequent governments is of more influence than matters which occupy the foreground of politics, such as the management of the economy, where everything is quickly washed away by the next wave of improvidence or misjudgment.
I remember not only Gerald Gardiner's achievements and words of wisdom and encouragement but also his shy charm and the peculiarly sweet smile which frequently illuminated his otherwise austere countenance.
In a winter in which we have bade farewell to the last two of my former party's five Lord Chancellors, it is perhaps appropriate to recall that there was not a single one of them who did not look every inch the part. Gerald Gardiner did not perhaps have Haldane's Edwardian authority and massive experience of men and affairs, or Jowitt's features cast in an almost Roman parchment, but on the Woolsack he certainly epitomised not only liberal conscience but also legal distinction. I do not know what the future may hold or who will be the sixth, if ever there is one, to join that formidable gallery, but it is a very formidable one to join. In that gallery no one has left a greater reforming imprint or was a nicer man than Gerald Gardiner.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, at the request of our Convenor I should like to associate all noble Lords who sit on these Benches, including my noble and learned colleagues, with the moving tributes that have been paid to Lord Gardiner as Lord Chancellor, and the expressions of sadness at his passing.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I, who come from a very different part of the political spectrum, may add three points. The first relates to Lord Gardiner's war service. He was, I suppose, a pacifist. He served in the Friends
410
Ambulance Unit because he was too proud not to expose himself to considerable danger, rather than rely simply upon his opposition to fighting.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, referred indirectly to the Law Commission. That will go down to history as Lord Gardiner's most enduring and valuable achievement. All of his successors have made use of it, to the infinite advantage of the public. The third point, which has been touched upon by all, is his immense uprightness of character, his intellectual honesty, and his courage and impartiality as a member of my profession. I shall miss him very much indeed.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, as someone who introduced Gerald Gardiner into this House and was later Leader of the House when he was Lord Chancellor, perhaps I may be allowed to add a few words to the fine tributes that have already been paid. I shall not attempt to go over his career but I shall put on record my own conviction that no one did as much to bring about the abolition of capital punishment—though many did a great deal—as Gerald Gardiner.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may introduce a slightly lighter note. When I introduced Gerald Gardiner into the House my fellow sponsor was Lord Silkin. Thereby hangs a tale. Not long before, Lord Silkin had brought an action for libel against the Sunday Express. He had noticed that the late Randolph Churchill had won an action against the Sunday Express. What he had not noticed was that when Randolph Churchill won his action Gerald Gardiner was acting for him but that by that time he was acting for the Sunday Express.
I remember Lord Silkin joining me at lunch in the House of Lords after he had been cross-examined by Gerald Gardiner. Lord Silkin was a very honest man and revealed his feelings totally. He was very perplexed by the whole business. He said, "Gerald began by asking me in cross-examination: 'Don't you think this is a silly action to bring, Lord Silkin?'" Lord Silkin said to me, "Put like that, I thought that he was absolutely right". Not surprisingly, he lost the action. It was a great credit to both of them that when Gerald Gardiner came to take his seat the two sponsors he chose were myself and Lewis Silkin.
When I resigned from the Cabinet because of the failure to raise the school-leaving age—that is history and occurred before most people here were born; but at any rate it happened—other colleagues expressed mild regret. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said six months later that he nearly wrote to me. That happens to be true. I was grateful for that expression of what might have happened.
Gerald was the only person who made a serious effort to dissuade me. He came to see me at my flat. He was a very shy man, as we all recall. It cost him a great effort, but he called on me at my flat and tried to dissuade me. He adopted the same kind of tactic as he had adopted with Lewis Silkin. He said to me, "If you could be absolutely sure that the school-leaving age would be raised in two years' time, would you resign?" I felt like the late Lord Silkin. Perhaps he was in the right there, but luckily

411
I had already committed myself publicly so there was no way back. I tell that story only to show how extraordinarily kind he was, as we all know.
Along with Lord Attlee, the late Lord Gardiner was to me a truly great man. No one could have looked less like Lord Attlee than he did. In each case, there was the same emphasis on efficiency and total selflessness and dedication. My thoughts at this moment are with Muriel, Carol and Leonora. I know that they will be greatly heartened by all that noble Lords have said today.
Lord Walston: My Lords, perhaps I may speak briefly from these Benches and, as a former very junior colleague of the late Lord Gardiner, pay my tribute to him. As has been said, he was a great reformer—a persistent, almost stubborn reformer—yet he combined with that persistence and stubbornness great gentleness, humanity and goodness. He was in every sense of the word a gentleman, and all of us who had the privilege of knowing him and working with him are the better for it.

Bank of England: Role
2.52 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering giving the Bank of England a more independent role.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Government have no such plans.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that there is a trend, particularly within the European Community, for central banks to achieve greater independence? In the light of that trend, would it not be desirable that we in the UK responded to it and made our central bank less an arm of the Treasury and more an independent body directly answerable to Parliament?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. The primary concern is to bring down inflation. That is the Government's responsibility which they will not abdicate.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the relationship between the central bank and the Government is a very delicate one, and that it depends substantially on who occupies the important post of Governor of the Bank of England? May I have an assurance that, in any subsequent appointments to that great and important position, a distinguished banker with experience in that field would be a candidate, but not necessarily with political ties?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. I shall not give the noble Lord that assurance; but I shall certainly pass his thoughts on to my right honourable friend.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree, as I am sure he will, that bankers have no monopoly of wisdom? Regarding the supplementary
412
question put by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, would it not be better if, rather than be required to react to what our colleagues think about these matters, we asked our colleagues to react to what we in Britain think?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's first point. On the second point, that matter was discussed fairly extensively in our recent debate on the Delors Report. I am sure that noble Lords will recall that it was not the mood of the House that there should be an independent bank in this country.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, without necessarily having enough old Treasury feeling to be sure that one wants the central bank to go off on its own and without necessarily endorsing that point of view, will the noble Earl tell us how he pursues his argument that there cannot be independence for the central bank because the Government's priority is to bring down inflation? Surely it is a striking and observable fact throughout the world that it is the countries with independent central banks—Germany, Switzerland and even the United States—which have notably lower inflation rates than those with more dependent central banks.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I wish that the matter was as simple as that; but, as the noble Lord will be aware, there are constitutional differences and a different attitude, particularly in the countries mentioned by the noble Lord, which affect the situation.

Friendly Societies: Green Paper
2.55 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in the unfortunate absence, due to illness, of my noble friend Lord Banks, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper:
Whether the Government are now ready to publish a Green or a White Paper on their proposals for the future legislative and tax regime for friendly societies, bearing in mind that an internal review on the subject was established in September 1988.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we plan to lay a Green Paper before Parliament tomorrow.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that positive response. However, is he aware of the eagerness with which the friendly societies await a positive response from the Government in this matter which has now been subject to discussion for several months?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I appreciate the eagerness for the Government response. If the friendly societies would only wait for another 24 hours or so, that will be satisfied.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Earl give the House an assurance that the paper will fully take into account the unfair position in which low income depositors with a building society are put as a result of the existing composite rate? Can he give any hope that that injustice will be amended?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a question which is rather tangential to the Question on the Order Paper; but I should not like to commit myself in advance of what is said tomorrow.

Hearing Aids: NHS Service
2.57 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the provision of hearing aids by the National Health Service is satisfactory and the referral of such patients to ear, nose and throat surgeons in hospitals is necessary.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the National Health Service has provided and continues to provide a very good hearing aid service to large numbers of hearing-impaired people. A variety of proposals for hearing aid services announced last year included the setting up and evaluation of pilot projects which will involve the direct referral of patients from their general practitioners to the hospital audiology department without the need for a prior examination by a consultant. However, there are some patients with a hearing loss caused by an underlying medical condition who may need to be examined by a consultant before being referred for a hearing test and fitted with a hearing aid.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she believe, as I do, that every senior citizen should be offered an audiogram at suitable intervals? There is a growing practice for the machines to be available in general practice, and one hopes that in future large general practices will have that facility. Does the Minister agree that the ideal person to operate the machine would be the practice nurse? Does she further agree that the overcrowding of ear, nose and throat departments with so many additional patients is burdensome?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the screening of elderly patients in particular, which is proposed in the new GP contracts, will go some way to meet the noble Lord's anxiety. We encourage testing and dispensing services in community centres in order to cope with geographical problems, but under the control of the hospital unit. If GPs have the necessary expertise and equipment, there is no reason why that service should not be carried out by them.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the old-fashioned National Health Service
414
hearing aid has brought millions of people immense happiness and relief? Is she further aware that there now exist on the British market exceptionally super hearing aids which could be a further blessing to those who are very hard of hearing? Is it not possible for the Government to make them available on the NHS? If a doctor believes that a patient's problem is caused primarily by a hearing aid deficiency, is it not possible for the patient to go direct to the hearing aid department, and for the patient to be referred to the other departments only if that department believes that there is an additional problem? Could at least that prospect be examined?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, we believe that the National Health Service hearing aid service has provided and continues to provide a very good service. As a result of the proposals announced last year by my right honourable friend we shall be looking to increased co-ordination. As regards choice of hearing aids, there is a wide range of National Health Service hearing aids available to meet a variety of needs. In a few cases however a patient's clinical need may only be met by a commercial hearing aid which may be purchased and supplied free of charge to the patient by the National Health Service hearing aid centre.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether it is understood that the general practitioner who supplies a hearing aid through his own clinical diagnosis without sending the patient to the hospital will have that charge come out of his practice money? If for one reason or another that is not possible because the general practitioner does not supply that service, and the patient has to be referred to the hospital, will that come out of the practice budget and will he have to pay a hospital charge for that patient?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as said, testing outside hospitals will continue to take place whether in community centres or via GPs under the control of the hospital unit. Therefore we have no plans at present to make the kind of arrangements that the noble Baroness suggested.
Lord Peston: My Lords, clearly hearing problems and remedial work are subjects which noble Lords take very seriously. Did I understand the Minister to say that the NHS would provide whatever state of the art hearing appliance that was required by the patient and that there is no restriction on the ability of the medical profession to provide under the National Health Service the exactly correct hearing aid? In other words, is the noble Baroness saying that the stories that one hears to the effect that the very best hearing aids are not available on the NHS are not true?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, what said was that there is a wide range of hearing aids available under the National Health Service. In fact the Mersey Regional Health Authority which is responsible for the procurement and distribution of all National Health Service hearing aids has recently negotiated with the hearing aid industry for a reduction in the

415
cost of commercial hearing aids supplied free of charge to NHS patients. That means that in future National Health Service hearing aid centres should be able to supply even more commercial hearing aids and that is certainly the intention.
Lord Peston: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to clarify her answer? I agree that I used the cliché "state of the art". Nonetheless I asked in the case of a person going for a hearing aid under the NHS and who required the very best available technologically advanced hearing aid, whether that would be prescribable under the NHS? Is she able to say categorically "yes" in answer to that question?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, our firm intention—and I wish to emphasise it—is that National Health Service hearing aids should remain free at the point of issue. The vast majority of hearing aids come within that definition, which is being expanded as a result of the procurement and distribution arrangements being made by the Mersey Regional Health Authority. We certainly hope to have the widest possible choice available for patients.

Training and Enterprise Councils: The Disabled
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that sufficient resources are available to Training and Enterprise Councils to provide special training for disabled people to enable them to secure employment; and what steps are being taken to ensure this.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) will have responsibility for improving arrangements for training in their areas and will have substantial and sufficient resources for this task. As part of that, each TEC will be required to set out how it intends to provide in its business plan for the needs of people with disabilities. That will form the basis of its contract with the Secretary of State for Employment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, which is encouraging. On the other hand, is he aware that training disabled people is an expensive, though very worthwhile, process? In fact I understand that it can cost as much as between £10,000 and £20,000 a year to train a badly disabled person. Would it not be a good idea to have a national TEC with that kind of responsibility, able to co-ordinate and with specialist resources and specialist personnel to carry out that task?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, superficially the proposal of the noble Baroness is attractive, but the whole idea of the TECs is that they are locally responsive and flexible to local training requirements. I believe that the employment opportunities of people with disabilities will best be
416
served by having training provision made for them by TECs at a local level.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the training board for the construction industry is probably one of the most efficient in the country? Can he tell us what, if anything, it does about training disabled people, recognising that disablement more often than not comes from employment in the building trade? I refer to those disabled who are confined to a wheelchair but who can in fact carry on working. What is done to help them retain their position?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not sure what the construction industry training board does to help people with disabilities. The Question deals with Training and Enterprise Councils. However, I agree with the noble Lord that people with very severe disabilities—people in wheelchairs—can play a full and very valuable part in the whole economy.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that throughout the whole of England there are only 39 groups of employers who receive development funding and that means that there are very wide areas of the country in which no training at all is conducted? That affects particularly the disabled in the way that my noble friend described. When will the Government do something about setting up TECs throughout the whole country and when are they likely to complete the programme?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord. The figure is not 39; 51 groups have been awarded development funding as of 18th December last year. That is out of a total of about 85. There has been an excellent response from employers. We are two years ahead of schedule and the first TECs will start operating early next year. That will help all people to get training for jobs.
Baroness Turner of Camden:My Lords, considering his earlier reply, perhaps I may come back to the Minister and ask him, in view of his statement that local activity is all important, whether TECs have been urged to establish contacts with their local committees on the employment of disabled people or other local groups concerned with the disabled.
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords. The noble Baroness will be pleased to hear that TECs are being greatly encouraged to negotiate and consult with their local committees for employment of disabled people. The Department of Employment will be monitoring the situation over the coming years to make sure that training provision is adequately given.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, perhaps I may come back to the Minister a second time. He said that he had disappointed me. He only disappoints me because the figure that he gave is grossly at odds with the Written Answer that I had from him two weeks ago.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that was written two weeks ago. The new figure is 51. It might have been 39 then, but it is 51 now.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that the Committee stage of the Food Safety Bill will be adjourend at about 7 p.m. for about an hour and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Trade Union Act 1984 (Amendment) Bill will be taken.

Food Safety Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Meaning of "food" and other basic expressions]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I, line 7, after ("food") insert ("means any substance which, taken into the body, is capable of sustaining or nourishing the living human being and").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment are grouped Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Falkland.
There seems to be a gap in this very important and in many ways admirable Bill. It is in the definition of food. The Bill deals with food safety. The first clause purports to deal with the meaning of food. Yet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said in introducing the Second Reading, it is indeed droll that it should start by defining food as including drink and chewing gum.
There are many definitions of food. I have chosen one from one of the dictionaries, the New English Dictionary, which seems to me to be very satisfactory. If it is not suitable, there could be another definition. In a Bill of the importance of this one, dealing with the subject of food, the first clause of which is intended to give the meaning of food, we should include such a definition. I therefore beg to move.
The Viscount of Falkland: I speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Amendment No. 2 is a technical amendment on which the other two follow.
These amendments relate to an element of doubt on which the Minister will perhaps be able to help me. Amendment No. 3 relates to the considerable concern about the increase in technological aids—the use of enzymes in particular—used in food production. As everyone knows, tastes in foods and methods of production become mores
418
sophisticated. There has been considerable change in flavour technology. An enzyme, papain, which is injected into cattle prior to slaughter has the effect of tenderising meat. Other technological aids are used in flavour technology. There is some doubt as to whether they will be caught by this Food Safety Bill. I should welcome any guidance that the noble Baroness can give me.
Amendment No. 4 concerns the habit of changing diet. People decide for one reason or another to become vegetarian or to go on diets. Various products are available— they are sold in increasing quantities—in the shape of vitamin supplements which can be bought freely across the counter in chemist shops and elsewhere. We move the amendment because they fall into a legislative black hole. Perhaps the noble Baroness can guide us. The Department of Health regards vitamin supplements as food. The Ministry of Agriculture considers that they are in the province of the Department of Health. In the meantime, sales increase without any regulatory process to control the standards. I do not suggest at this time that standards in the production of these supplements are deficient in any way. However, the amendment seeks to plug the black hole to which I have referred.
Perhaps I may also refer to mineral supplements. They are a popular supplement to the diets of not only those people who decide to become vegetarian but those who acknowledge that because of the pressure of their lives they eat what is popularly known as junk food which has little nutritional value. People often supplement this diet with these products. Are mineral supplements covered by the original food Act or is that a further gap? I look forward to the guidance of the noble Baroness.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Can the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, explain why these additions are necessary? Drink, chewing gum and other items which one chews and spits out are included in the Bill, as are food and,
"articles and substances used as ingredients".
The items to which the noble Lord referred are catered for under subsection (1)(c). Whether vitamins are already in the food which one eats or are added, they become part of the product. I should not think that they need necessarily be mentioned separately. Is it necessary to enumerate all additives? Is that what is being proposed? Are they not covered by subsection (1)(c)? It would be helpful if the noble Lord could reply on that point.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I find Amendment No. 1, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, slightly dangerous when it refers to "any substance which, taken into the body". Although under subsection (2),
"articles or substances used only as drugs",
are excluded specifically, feeding of a patient could be included under "any substance …taken into the body" by the intravenous route. I feel that that phrase is opening the issue up much more widely. I regard food as an ordinary, every-day item, as opposed to medicinal intravenous treatment, which should come under a different Act.
Baroness Trumpington: In Amendment No. 1 the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has proposed a general definition of food. Perhaps I may explain why we have not included such a definition. I quite agree with my noble friend Lady Carnegy. It has never proved necessary in the past and the present wording of the clause covers any reasonable definition of the word "food". However, we are prepared to consider amending the clause to bring in items not normally regarded as foods but which have nonetheless been marketed for the purpose of consumption, such as slimming aids. I do not know why noble Lords should laugh. What a terrible start to the Bill!
In Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has suggested adding enzymes and other biotechnological aids and vitamin supplements to the Bill's definitions. These are already covered. Enzymes and biotechnological aids are covered by the word "substances" and "vitamin supplements" are covered by the word "food". Therefore the amendments of the noble Viscount are unnecessary. In view of this brief explanation and the Government's intention to amend the clause I hope that these amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: This may be a pedantic and perhaps even a foolish point, but I should like my noble friend to give some enlightenment. Since we are talking about the amendments of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, with that of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in subsection (2)(a) we read the words,
"live animals or birds, or live fish which are not commonly used for human consumption while they are alive",
as things which are not included as food. Can my noble friend tell me what live fish are commonly used for human consumption, other than perhaps oysters?
Noble Lords: Oysters!
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: But are oysters fish? I always understood that they were molluscs. What about John the Baptist and his locusts? Are they animals?
Baroness Trumpington: I am not sure whether St. John ate his locusts while they were alive. However, I believe that my noble and learned friend is right in saying that oysters are the only food that one eats while they are alive.
Lord Ezra: I thank the noble Baroness for her comments on my amendment. I am still a little surprised that the Government are so reluctant to include in the Bill a general definition of food. I have read carefully the notes on clauses. As background there is reference to the Food and Drugs Act 1938. That Act defines foods comprehensively as being any article used as food or drink for human consumption. I should be happy with a similar definition.
It is odd that we forbear to give any definition of food of any kind. It is merely implication of what is commonly attributed to be food on which the whole
420
Bill is based. I am not pressing for my particular amendment but hope that in reconsidering the matter the Government will return to the definition contained in the Food and Drugs Act 1938.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Baroness for clearing up our doubt about the status of vitamin supplements and indicating that they are food. I hope that her remarks will be carried over into other quarters so that the situation is fully understood.
I turn to the point made by my noble friend Lord Ezra. The definition of food, which was tucked away and to which he referred, was probably satisfactory. There have been changes in taste and there are now greater varieties of food and substances which are considered to be food. Therefore, it is perhaps desirable to have on the face of the Bill the definition put forward by my noble friend although it may not be perfect. Nevertheless, I accept the points made by the noble Baroness in respect of my Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 and indicate that I shall not move them.
Lord Ezra: In the light of the comments which have been made, and in the hope that we can return to the matter at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4A:
Page 1, line 15, after ("fish") insert ("except insofar as those animals, birds or fish are likely to be offered for human consumption").
The noble Lord said: The amendment follows on from the previous group and is intended to probe the definition of food, particularly to see how far along the food chain the Bill will operate. It will help to establish at the outset of our discussions that the Bill is not concerned with the whole food chain and contains no provisions in respect of animal feed.
In interviews in the media Ministers have claimed that the Bill is concerned with the whole food chain. That is not the case and our amendment points to that fact in order to establish at the outset the scope of the provisions that we shall be discussing. For example, much of the controversy over salmonella in chickens and eggs, which some of us remember with feeling, is centred on the recycling of poultry remains in animal feed.
The amendment does not seek to suggest that such practices are unregulated, because they are covered by a different system of regulation under different legislation. However, recently there has been considerable concern about the patchy monitoring of such regulations and about the extent of reliance on voluntary codes within the industry.
The point of the amendment is to focus attention on the fact that the Food Safety Bill contains no improvements or proposals in respect of one of the most controversial areas of food production. It is extremely important to consumers, manufacturers and farmers because the rendering of waste animal remains is a siginificant means of disposal.
Therefore, it is important that at the outset we understand exactly how far along the food chain the Bill will operate. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The exclusion from the Bill of animal fodder and feeding stuffs is quite deliberate. Controls already exist under the Agriculture Act 1970, the Animal Health Act 1981 and in EC regulations. Emergency powers are included in the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.
The arrangement is well established. Members of the Committee will be aware that the emergency powers were used when dealing with recent difficulties concerning lead in cattle feed. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was able to issue directions covering suppliers' and compounders' premises as well as to make emergency prohibition orders covering farms.
I hope that, in view of that explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister. I understand exactly what she is saying but the problem lies in the words "fodder or feeding stuffs". The amendment refers to animals or birds and we wish to be clear that the Bill is not intended to deal with the rendering of animals or birds as a form of feeding stuffs.
Baroness Trumpington: I add only the fact that feeding stuffs legislation has never been considered appropriate to food law. For that reason existing controls are not found in the Food Act but in the other Acts which I mentioned.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert ("for the purpose of sale").
The noble Lord said: The provisions appearing at the bottom of page 1 of the Bill deal with commercial operations. All other definitions of commercial operations, except for that relating to importing and exporting, are qualified as being for the purpose of sale. It is strange, therefore, that the words "for the purpose of sale" do not appear within that classification.
Without such an amendment the definition relating to importing and exporting would encompass some goods not intended for sale; for example, commercial samples, raw materials intended for further processing and possibly materials transferred within companies. Some companies have factories in many countries, some of which are inside the EC and some outside. They may wish to make such transfers which would fall within the general definition of exporting and importing.
Therefore, I suggest that such activities relating to such products would more suitably fall outside the
422
definition of sale as provided for in Clause 3 of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will be sympathetic towards the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I appreciate my noble friend's concern to avoid unwarranted restrictions on those who import and export food. However, I do not believe that his proposal is appropriate. Members of the Committee will readily understand why, in some instances, the best way to keep unsafe food from reaching consumers and thus endangering health is to keep it out of the country. Our ability to do so should not depend on being able in every case to prove that the food is intended to be sold. Such proof could be very hard to establish in some instances. For example, if contaminated food came here from abroad—that is, contaminated either in the country of origin or during transport by being next to something such as lead which made it dangerous—there might be an argument about whether the contaminated assignment was intended for sale. If challenged, the owner might argue that he was not planning to put it on sale for human consumption. Any regulations or emergency control orders that we had made would then be ineffective. It appears to us to be wrong to risk putting public health at risk in that way.
As regards domestic supplies, it is safe to work on the presumption in Clause 3 that this will not necessarily apply to goods in the ports in the kind of circumstances that I have described. Controls relating to imports and exports will be put in place through regulations. In most cases there will be a statutory requirement to consult interested parties. The only exception is where Clause 18(1)(b) is used to prohibit the import of food of a specific class where action may have to be taken too quickly to permit consultation. In all cases we will of course be at pains to avoid creating unnecessary controls. I hope that my explanation is satisfactory to my noble friend.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for her very detailed explanation which I shall read with great care. My immediate thought is that it probably satisfies the point which I tried to make but I reserve the right to come back if I find that is not so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("article or substance which") and insert ("material or article, which is in its finished state,").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to make the definition consistent with the materials and articles in contact with food regulations for 1987 which themselves give effect to the relevant EC directive. It seems to me important that the Bill should be consistent with such other legislation and I hope my noble friend agrees that that is so. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I have no difficulty with the principle behind my noble friend's amendment which would bring the Bill's definition of contact material into line with that in relevant European

423
Community legislation. However, I believe that it is desirable to have a rather broader definition in our domestic legislation. There may be cases where we need to take action in the UK beyond the scope of EC requirements; for example, the wider definition in the Bill as drafted would cover substances such as water used to wash food and the ingredients used to make contact materials. We do not wish to create potential loopholes by making our definition unnecessarily restrictive. For that reason I prefer not to narrow the definition in the way proposed by my noble friend and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend and I understand her argument. However, it appears to me inconsistent. For the past 12 or 15 years, whenever one has sought to change definitions, one has been told not only by this Government but also by Labour governments that we must follow precisely what is laid down in the directive. Ministers have said that repeatedly. I believe that the logic of my noble friend's argument is quite good but perhaps she should go to Brussels and tell them to alter their legislation. If she could give me an indication that she has that in mind, I should be very happy. However, I do not wish to press the matter at this stage but again I reserve the right to come back if I feel that we can usefully wag this tail a little more.
Baroness Trumpington: There are horses for courses but perhaps my noble friend and I could have a chat together outside the Chamber on this matter.
Lord Mottistone: I welcome that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("or mineral").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to add the words "or mineral" to the definition of food source. It may seem rather strange to Members of the Committee to add those words. Animal, vegetable or mineral is a well-known game which we are not seeking to play during this Committee stage. However, food contains ingredients which are minerals. A very good and common example of that is salt. It seems to me that it would be relevant and appropriate to include such minerals within this general definition of food source. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: Again, I understand the reason behind my noble friend's proposal. His objective to ensure that minerals intended for use in food such as salt can be subject to controls under the Food Safety Bill is one which I share. However, the definition of food in subsection (1)(c) includes substances used as ingredients for food so that minerals such as salt intended for use in food are already caught by all the main provisions in the Bill. To redesignate such minerals as food sources rather than food would weaken rather than strengthen our controls because we would have to make special regulations to apply the provision to minerals. I hope that my noble friend sees my point on this matter.
Lord Mottistone: Yes, I do see my noble friend's point. However, I am not entirely happy that the result will be exactly as she wants it to be, so I may return to this matter at a later stage. However, at present I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert ("or any raw, unprocessed or incompletely processed articles or substances derived from the same from which food is intended to be derived;").
The noble Lord said: This is a further and rather more detailed amendment to the definition of food source. The current definition combined with a lack of clear definitions of food and food ingredients, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, drew attention on Amendment No. 1, could lead to an assumption that immediately farm produce moves forward in the food supply chain, it becomes food within the meaning of this Bill and controlled as such.
Historically, that has not been so. The Bill does not change the position that food and food ingredient do not include materials which are still not, or not sufficiently, processed to be regarded as a food or food ingredient; for example, unrefined vegetable oil is a raw material from which a food ingredient is still to be prepared although it has ceased to be a food source. This matter is complicated but it is very important to get right this part of the Bill dealing with definitions. It would be helpful if those detailed points could be taken by my noble friend.
The Bill rightly claims to control food safety at every point in the food chain from the farm gate to the point of sale for human consumption. That could be achieved by broadening the definition of food source, as suggested by this amendment, so as to encompass what has ceased to be a food source as currently defined but which has not as yet become a food or food ingredient.
Without such an amendment certain businesses—for example, oil seed milling—would not be a food business and would go uncontrolled. I hope that my noble friend will agree that that needs to be looked at carefully even if she does not agree with the amendment as it is phrased, and that perhaps we may tackle this at a later stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I understand my noble friend's wish for clarity but in practice this amendment would weaken rather than strengthen the provisions of the Bill. I understand that there is concern that there may be a gap between food and food sources; for example, as regards crops such as cereals. However, I am satisfied that there is no gap.
Under the definitions in the Bill as it stands, live things are food sources but they automatically become food the moment they are harvested, slaughtered, picked or gathered, even before they have undergone any processing. The effect of this amendment would be to reclassify certain unprocessed or incompletely processed foods as food sources. As food sources they would be subject to fewer contols than they would as food, because special regulations have to be made to bring them into the full system in the main clauses of the Bill.

425
I hope my noble friend will not press this amendment, but I bet that he will wish to have a further bite when he has read what I said.
Lord Mottistone: I am indeed grateful to my noble friend for her explanation. I will certainly read with great care what she said. I hope she will also read with great care what I said, because I think there is probably still a gap here. We shall perhaps come back to it at the next stage of the Bill. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Extending meaning of "sale" etc.]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 32, leave out from ("business") to end of line 34.
The noble Lord said: This amendment is of a different nature from the one about which we have been talking. Have we not moved on to Clause 2? Are we not going to have Clause 1 stand part?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: That has been dealt with.
Lord Mottistone: I apologise. I was worrying too much about my next amendment. I thought I had a little more time to worry about it.
We are trying to leave out paragraph (b), which will enable Ministers to make an order with regard to practically anything relating to food that they have not thought of in preparing the Bill. What is more, as we discussed at Second Reading, all the orders are subject to the negative procedure and therefore are harder to interfere with.
It seems to me that this is a catch-all little bit of legislation which the Government have put in to make sure that they are never caught out. I expect that my noble friend will say, "Of course things may happen and we have to work quickly", and so on. However, my noble friend referred earlier to Clause 18(1)(b), which seemed to me to be the sort of area in which the Government would have the extra powers that they are looking for. I should think it unwise for the Committee to give the Government such far-reaching powers. There may be other ways of wording this so that they do not have quite such carte blanche to make any legislation they want without us finding out until after it is done.
I should have thought, from the point of view of the Committee as a whole rather than the details of what the food industry might think, that it would be better to delete paragraph (b) and replace it with something more subject to parliamentary control than in the event Clause 2(1)(b) may give the Government an opportunity to do. I hope the Committee will agree with me that this is a dangerous subsection which governments should not be let loose with, and that we can perhaps put it another way. I beg to move.
The Earl of Radnor: I support this amendment, because as well as paragraph (b) being a little
426
dangerous it is covered perfectly adequately in Clause 13 where the emergency food orders come into play. That gives Ministers roughly the wide, sweeping powers that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, mentioned. Not only does it seem a little sweeping and powerful but it does not seem to be needed at all. If Clause 13 were altered and there were an alteration here, there might be more cause for argument.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: I support my noble friend Lord Mottistone in inquiring a little further concerning the procedures which will be adopted for the regulations that will be introduced, because one has the impression from the Second Reading debate that, this being an enabling Bill, there will be sweeping regulations which may affect the retailers of food and will certainly widely affect those purveyors of food in the restaurant trade.
Can my noble friend say clearly what will be the procedure for dealing with the regulations when they come to this Chamber? Will they be debated or will we simply be subject to government diktat which will be difficult to avoid and where, after the debate has taken place, very little more can be done? If that is the case, obviously this amendment or something in its place will be necessary.
Baroness Phillips: Perhaps the Minister can assist us by giving an example of,
"any such other thing done with respect to food as may be specified in an order made by the Ministers".
Can the noble Baroness think of a situation where a Minister would make an order that is not already covered in the Bill?
Baroness Trumpington: While I fully recognise the concern that Ministers should not be given open-ended powers, it is necessary to allow Ministers to make orders which extend further the meaning of "sale" in order to meet Community obligations which go beyond simply regulating commercial supply. This applies particularly in the area of meat imports and exports and in relation to pesticide residues.
It will enable the free distribution of food to such groups as senior citizens to be covered by food law. There is no intention of including food prepared in the home for domestic purposes. Food sold by organisations such as women's institutes which is proved to be unfit is already caught under current legislation. We will be considering carefully the position of such organisations when looking at the details of the new provisions in the Bill, such as registration of premises and training of food handlers.
One of my noble friends—I think it was the noble Viscount Lord Montgomery —asked whether orders would be debated. The answer is that it is not at present so intended, but in the light of what my noble friend said I am prepared to consider whether there is a case for consultation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Can my noble friend say whether there is anything under Clause 2(1)(b)

427
to prevent the government of the day making an order to the effect that none of us may boil eggs other than hard-boiled? The Minister said the Government have no intention of telling us what to do at home, but is there anything to prevent that? If there is not, should this clause not be amended to make quite clear that it has nothing to do with what we do in our own homes? It is just a thought.
Baroness Phillips: I do not want to press the Minister, but I did not get an answer to my question. I am particularly concerned about the strange reference to senior citizens. I could not quite decide whether they came under the order of food, if necessary, or whether they are going to be fed something specially.
Baroness Trumpington: It is proposed to delete Clause 2(1)(b). This power, as it exists in that paragraph, will enable Ministers to expand by order what is deemed to be "sale". It was added because of the need to control food in certain circumstances when it is supplied otherwise than by sale or in the course of a business; for example, the free distribution of food which EC directives have provided for in the past. That is the reason I brought it in.
Lord Lyell: Before my noble friend sits down, can she assist me on a point raised by my noble friend Lord Radnor, who referred to Clause 13 dealing with emergency control orders? I confess to my noble friend as well as the Committee that it escaped my notice that these emergency control orders can be made, particularly in Scotland, by a sheriff. Am I right in thinking that once an emergency control order had been made it would have to be debated as any other order in this Chamber?
If that is so, I believe that the point raised by the noble Earl is covered by what has been said so far by my noble friend the Minister. It seems that an emergency control order would have just the same obstacles and problems as well as the same benefits as those outlined by the Minister. Perhaps she will clarify that point for me.
Baroness Trumpington: I do not believe that my noble friend is right in this context. I am sorry that I did not answer my noble friend Lady Carnegy. My answer to her is no, the measure does not mean that one would not be able to boil an egg within one's own house. I hope I have explained why I put in the free distribution to old age pensioners. That was because the whole purpose of the clause is the
"Extended meaning of 'sale' etc".
In addition, as I said in my original remarks, there are the EC provisions which go beyond commercial supply.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Does my noble friend also include facilities such as meals on wheels in that category, or does it relate only to distribution from the EC? I know that it is a grey area.
Baroness Trumpington: It is not free but paid for. I was speaking about the free distribution of food.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: With respect, meals on wheels can be paid or unpaid.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: At the risk of trying my noble friend's patience, can she tell me whether the provision of food by the Lord Chancellor at his annual breakfast is covered by the Act? I note that Clause 54 of the Act binds the Crown, but I remember that before the war drink was certainly provided in the smoking room of the House of Commons, but it was held to be outside the provisions of the then current legislation because this is a Royal Palace.
Baroness Trumpington: As regards Crown immunity, this building being a Royal Palace, at the moment it is outside the provisions. For the time being, that answers my noble friend's question.
Lord Ezra: Does the noble Baroness accept that there is a good deal of concern expressed on all sides of the Committee by the wide manner in which Clause 2(1)(b) has been drawn? It appears to give the Minister virtually unlimited powers, though the noble Baroness has said that in some ways he would not exercise those; for example, in connection with what goes on in the home. Nevertheleless, would she be prepared to take the matter away and to consider it again as to how the problem might be represented in ways such as to allay some of the fears which have been expressed?
Baroness Trumpington: No, I would not. There is one other point that I failed to answer concerning Clause 13. I believe my noble friend Lord Lyell asked me about that. Emergency control orders can only be used where there is an imminent risk of injury to health. An emergency prohibition order is made by sheriffs or magistrates, and they can be applied only to individual businesses. In addition to what I said to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, Royal Palaces will come under the provisions of this Bill from 1992 onwards. However, food would not be sold or supplied in the course of business.
Lord Mottistone: I am not at all happy with what my noble friend has said. We have heard something from the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, but nothing from the Opposition Front Benches. I wonder what they feel about this matter.
Lord Gallacher: I have not intervened because, in reply to an earlier comment, the noble Baroness seemed to indicate that she was amenable to consultation on this clause. That satisfied me though I would have welcomed a closer definition of the form of consultation which she has in mind. However, later on she appears to have departed from that proposition because she was adopting a somewhat negative stance on the issue. That was commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
It would be helpful to the Committee to know that if this amendment were to be withdrawn—and that is entirely a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone—is there to be consultation? On the other hand, if the noble Lord withdraws the

429
amendment does that indicate that the situation is now final regarding the Bill?
Baroness Trumpington: I thank the noble Lord for reminding me that I had said that we would consider consultation. I stand by that.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not wish in any way to be unhelpful. However, for the sake of clarity, I read what the Bill says:
"For the purposes of this Act—any such other thing done with respect to food…shall be deemed to be a sale".
That must be nonsense.
Lord Mottistone: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for his contribution. I had forgotten that my noble friend had indicated that she might consult. She was very definite when replying to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. That is fine. I hope that consultation will be more successful because it seems to me that Members on all sides of the Committee are not happy with the wording as it stands. We ask the Government to think again very carefully. My noble friend gave examples of the meat industry and of old age pensioners and all kinds of important people of that nature. If there are special examples they can be specified. It is the unqualified coverage which sticks in the gullet. I hope that we shall have a successful discussion and that we shall return with a government amendment on the issue. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert—
("(3) This Act shall not apply in relation to any food which is exposed for sale, offered as a prize or reward or given away in connection with any function or social gathering to which the public are admitted whether on payment of money or not at any premises other than at premises registered under section 19 of this Act organised by any person or body established for charitable or benevolent purposes according to the law of England, Wales or Scotland.").
The noble Lady said: This is a probing amendment drafted in order to clarify the position of charities, though I fear that the amendment will possibly not have the effect that I had hoped. It seems that Clause 2 as it stands may affect the position of charitable organisations selling or offering as prizes food or drink which has been donated for that purpose at fund-raising events.
On such occasions the donated food is often mixed up with other food. Therefore, it would not be possible later to identify the donor of sandwiches which have caused the food poisoning. Will liability rest with the charity, the donor or with whom? I appreciate the Government's obvious wish that functions such as large charity balls held in London hotels should not be exempted in any way regarding the refreshments purveyed. As the hotels' premises will presumably be registered under Clause 19 of the Bill, liability will therefore fall on the proprietors of the hotels whose charges will reflect the liability. Can the noble Baroness say who will be liable on those occasions for any mishap caused by food or drink which is raffled or given away as a prize?
Another very important aspect is that at a simpler level charitable functions, particularly in Scotland, often take place in the function suite of the local hotel where the proprietor makes his premises available to the charity for a nominal consideration. The charity provides the food, and staffs the event, using the kitchen of the function suite which, I presume, would be registered premises under Clause 19. Can the Minister tell the Committee who will be liable for damages under the Bill? If it is the charity or the donor, all well and good because I think that that maintains the status quo. But if it is the hotel, there can be serious implications for charitable functions all over Scotland. If hotels are sudden] y to be liable for damage caused by food over which they have no control, they will not be prepared to allow their premises to be used in this way in the future. That could ring the death knell of a vast number of fund-raising events. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to the noble Lady for her explanation of the proposed amendment. I fully understand her desire to clarify the position at this stage. Nevertheless I feel sure that she does not wish to step backwards in regard to protecting the consumer. In fact she admitted that the amendment may not achieve what she intends.
Events run by charities or benevolent organisations are already covered by the Food Act 1984. As far as I am aware this has not been burdensome to charities. Enforcement officers have powers to enter premises where events are being held, inspect food being sold, take samples if necessary and, most importantly, investigate any outbreaks of food poisoning. The amendment would remove these existing provisions and I am sure that the noble Lady does not intend that. It is essential that we retain our current ability to investigate problems. For example, in 1987 environmental health officers were involved in investigating food poisoning which resulted from a lunch for more than 70 people given on behalf of a church charity in Alton in Hampshire. The lunch was given in the church hall. If the amendment were accepted, the environmental health officers would not have been able to investigate that problem. In fact in that case I understand that no prosecution took place.
I am not aware that the existing legislation has had any detrimental effect on events run by charities. I know that the noble Lady is concerned that food law should not restrict these events. I am confident that it will not do so. We shall consider carefully what impact if any may be caused by the new provisions of the Bill on charities and other benevolent organisations. In particular I would emphasise that we do not want to impose heavy burdens through the new requirements resulting from this Bill. The registration of food businesses and the training of food handlers will be introduced through regulations for general food premises. We have already said that registration will apply to commercial and permanent food premises. This should not affect the majority of charities.
Furthermore, we already have exemptions from some regulations made under food legislation.

431
Exemptions have been used in the past and we would not hesitate to make use of them again if that proved necessary. For example, the food labelling regulations already exempt charities and other organisations from their provisions. Therefore the vigorous standards of those regulations do not apply to food sold at a WI bring-and-buy sale. The noble Lady quoted the example of an hotel. It seems to me that it is the registered business and that the food is in fact sold. There is therefore no difficulty there. The charity would be liable if there was a problem with food poisoning which resulted from activities that had taken place not on the premises. I hope that this undertaking will help to reassure the noble Lady and that she will therefore agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am grateful for that reply but I am still not absolutely clear on this point. I did not quite hear what the noble Baroness said about liability when food poisoning occurs as a result of bad sandwiches being sold by a charity on the registered premises of an hotel, the food having been provided by the voluntary workers of a charity and not by the hotel.
Baroness Hooper: The charity itself, not the premises, would be liable if there was any problem with food poisoning.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am grateful for that reply. It sets my mind at rest. I was very much concerned that the hotel would be liable for something over which it had no control and therefore that such premises would no longer be made available to charities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Presumptions that food intended for human consumption]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 20, leave out ("until the contrary is proved").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is concerned with the words in the clause regarding a presumption about intention for sale. There are doubts about intent. By way of probing what the Government have in mind we suggest that the words "until the contrary is proved" be deleted.
The purpose of the probe is to discover just what type and weight of proof will be required to avoid liability for any foodstuff on the premises; for example, ingredients awaiting clearance prior to food use or food removed from retail sale. We are asking whether in those circumstances a notice or a label saying "not for sale" or "not for human consumption" would be enough under the clause. It has been represented to us that certain foods are injurious to health prior to processing. In this connection, red kidney beans have been quoted as an example. The manufacturers are asking how they are protected under the clause from prosecution for possessing them before they are processed. The
432
purpose of the amendment is to probe these important points for the satisfaction of people who may be vitally concerned with them. The amendment harks back to Amendment No. 8. Nevertheless it raises a slightly different issue and is worthy of the Committee's attention. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I am reassured by the fact that this is a probing amendment. From the point of view of food manufacturers, if this portion of the clause is removed it could remove the opportunity for a manufacturer to demonstrate that certain goods, including those which he has rejected through his quality control procedures, are not intended for sale. I hope that the substance of what the noble Lord is seeking to remove from the Bill will be left within it and that my noble friend will be able to reassure us on that point.
Baroness Trumpington: I do not believe that this proposal would give greater protection to consumers. Perhaps I may explain by way of background that Clause 3 ensures that, where appropriate, food should be presumed to be for sale for human consumption. This clause largely repeats the presumption provisions in the existing legislation but is placed more prominently in the Bill so as to highlight their importance.
If no such provision existed it would be possible for a person to claim that food kept on his premises was not intended for sale to the public. For example, a restaurant owner could claim that defective food kept in his kitchen was to be fed to his cat or dog even though the food in question was obviously intended for sale to the public. The enforcement officer would have to establish beyond reasonable doubt, sometimes in quite difficult circumstances, that the substance was food and was intended for sale. With the presumptions in Clause 3 the onus is on the defendant to establish on the balance of probabilities that a disputed substance is not food and is not intended for sale. That seems a reasonable balance. To go further, as the amendment suggests, would prevent him establishing that fact in his defence and would be unfair and unreasonable.
I think that I am now taking in the point raised by my noble friend. For example, if the quality control system informed such a person that food should not go on sale and if he had taken proper steps to ensure that it did not enter the human food chain—for instance, by recalling supplies before they reached the supermarket shelves—he could still be prosecuted, convicted and possibly imprisoned. In the circumstances, therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply which I shall study with care. I am reassured by what she said; I can only hope that those who advise me will be similarly reassured. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Food authorities and authorised officers]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 11A:
Page 3, line 45, at end insert—
("(1A) For the purpose of facilitating the exercise of functions conferred by this section, the Minister shall within three months of its coming into effect, consult each food authority as to the additional activities which it considers likely to arise in each of the succeeding five financial years as a result of the functions conferred by this Act and the likely cost of those functions").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to focus attention upon the Government's announcement of an additional £30 million per annum to fund additional regulation and monitoring work undertaken by local authorities through environmental health and trading standards officers.
The amendment suggests that the Minister should seek to identify after Royal Assent the actual level of additional activity which local authorities expect to undertake in each individual area on the basis of five-year projections. The purpose would be to identify the real cost which is likely to arise. The proposal would help to establish a clear commitment that the announced £30 million represents genuine new money to local authorities which will not be clawed back or compensated for elsewhere in revenue support grant settlements. It would also enable local authorities to fit the additional resources precisely to take account of local variations in need. For example, some urban and resort authorities have much larger numbers of restaurants and eating establishments than others. The variation in need may not be fully reflected in the existing mechanisms for the allocation of grant moneys.
It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate that the purpose is to identify needs in terms of food safety. Such an indication would help to show the extent to which the £30 million is sufficient to improve standards of food safety over the next five years.
If the exercise suggested by the amendment were carried out it would doubtless point out variations in the levels of monitoring as between one part of the country and another. That situation would undoubtedly arise if authorities had fears as to the likely resources available in relation to the needs of their areas.
I should like to make a comment as regards the figure of £30 million in relation to regulation and monitoring. It is an annual commitment. I was struck by paragraph 1.3 of the White Paper on food safety where the Government point out that the food industry contributes nearly 10 per cent. of the gross domestic product. I think that that means a turnover in the order of £40 billion per year. Moreover, in paragraph 2.10 the Government seem to take some pride in the fact that they have,
"a growing commitment to research on food safety…spending over £8 million a year on this work".
That means a turnover of over £40 billion for industry. It is a curious ordering of priorities which is prepared to spend £30 million on regulation and monitoring and yet only £8 million on research into food safety. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: Despite the fact that I have not had much time to digest the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I know that I cannot accept it, but that is not because I am opposed to consultation; it is quite the reverse. My officials have already held consultations with organisations representing authorities to discuss the probable cost of enforcing the additional requirements which the Bill will introduce. Moreover, if I may say so, the figure of £30 million mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was based on information received and seems to be a reasonable estimate.
The Bill also provides for statutory consultation with interested parties, which would include local authority organisations, on many of the regulation-making powers which could have financial implications for local authority enforcement. Moreover, I believe that there is an amendment to Clause 6, tabled by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, which calls for statutory consultation on all orders under Part I of the Bill, including those allocating functions to food authorities.
I intend to accept the principle behind what is proposed and I undertake to bring forward an appropriate government amendment. It will mean that whenever food authorities are faced with any change in their responsibilities and activities they will be given a formal opportunity to comment on the matter. However, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to write in here a formal requirement to discuss activities and costings with each of the food authorities individually, of which there are more than 600. That would be an enormously cumbersome, time-consuming and expensive exercise. In any case, there are already extensive discussions taking place between officials of government departments and local authority associations about spending pressures which culminate in a meeting between the local authority associations and Ministers.
Food authorities will be free to make their normal representations in the context of the revenue support grant and to take the added cost of the Bill's requirements into account. To a large extent a separate exercise of the kind proposed by the noble Lord would simply duplicate existing arrangements. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord, Carter, appreciates the point I have made.
Lord Carter: I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. In my view, if the amendment had been accepted it would have given the Government the chance to deal with many of the problems and concerns in connection with local authorities which have been brought to our attention. I must say that consultation is not the same as a five-year projection or commitment. Further, as I understand her answer, it would be possible for the money to be clawed back. I trust that I understand the position correctly.
Baroness Trumpington: No.
Lord Carter: Is the Minister saying that it cannot in fact be clawed back?
Lord Carter: In that case, it would mean that in negotiations on the rate support grant there is no way that the money could be reallocated so that the £30 million was not in fact available—
Baroness Trumpington: Perhaps the noble Lord will excuse me if I intervene here for a moment. A commitment has been made as regards the £30 million. I stand by that fact.
Lord Carter: If I may say so, that is a most welcome assurance. However, I shall read with care what the Minister said and perhaps return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 2, after ("islands") insert ("regional").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to bring Scotland into line with the provisions contained in Clause 5(1) as regards the definition of "food authorities". In that subsection,
"food authorities in England and Wales",
include,
"each London borough, district or non-metropolitan county".
In other words, subject to ministerial approval contained in subsection (4), the functions under the Food Safety Bill will be "exercisable concurrently".
It has been suggested to us that a similar formula ought to be devised for Scotland. The purpose of the amendment, tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, would be to give Scotland the same kind of treatment.
To the best of my recollection, the situation which exists in Scotland followed a change which took place there because of a review on the working of local government reform in Scotland. I believe that this was undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston. Part of his recommendation for change was that the enforcement of the environmental health function should be transferred from regions to district councils. At the time there was some apprehension about the reform among those people affected by it. However, I think that it is now generally conceded that it has worked well. For that reason it is not envisaged that there should be any question of a reversal of that arrangement by way of this amendment. Nevertheless, to give Scotland the same enforcement formula as that which applies to England and Wales would be good in its own right, and, for that reason, I beg to move. I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
Lord Ezra: I support the amendment to which my name is attached. The Government must surely agree that it is right that arrangements in Scotland should be on all fours with those proposed for England and Wales and that therefore the reference to "regional bodies" should be introduced.
Baroness Trumpington: The amendment is inappropriate and unnecessary. It seeks to effect a
436
change in the responsibilities of local authorities in Scotland, and that is inappropriate for a Bill of this nature. Rather than clarify, it could fudge the lines of responsibility between the various layers of local government. I understand that Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 are grouped together.
Responsibility for food matters in Scotland is exercised by environmental health departments. General trade descriptions and weights and measures are however the responsibility of trading standards officers employed by regional councils. That can lead to an element of overlap but the solution lies not in bestowing a statutory responsibility for food matters on the latter but rather in ensuring better co-ordination between the two bodies. The definition of "authorised officer" in Clause 5(6) which permits the food authority (district or islands council) to authorise
"any person (whether or not an officer of the authority)…to act in matters arising under this Act".
provides the vehicle for this better co-operation.
There is a further objection to the proposed amendment. Its effect would be to alter local government responsibilities. The division between different layers of local government is a subject which continues to generate debate in Scotland and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State feels, and I am sure the Committee would agree, that the Food Safety Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for tackling that particular issue.
Nevertheless, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is aware that there can be an overlap, but the solution to that lies not in extending statutory responsibilities but rather in ensuring that there is proper co-ordination. The definition of "authorised officer" in Clause 5(6) which allows the food authority to authorise any person, whether or not within its employ, to act in matters arising from the Act—and this means that a district council could appoint a TSO—provides the means for such co-operation. I can assure the Committee that my right honourable friend will give every encouragement to local authorities to explore such means of carrying out enforcement in an efficient and cost effective way.
There is one exception that I should like to mention which relates to the second amendment which leaves out "or" in line 20. I can happily accept that amendment. With that little bit of comfort, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I listened with great interest to what my noble friend had to say, but I had some difficulty in understanding what she and the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said. Is my noble friend saying that the Secretary of State for Scotland has studied this point and is happy about it, and the fact that, for example, public analysts are employed by the regional councils while others involved are employed by the district is allowed for in the Bill? The noble Lord said that he in no way wanted to change the responsibilities of the tiers of local government, which would be inappropriate under the Bill. We want to be sure that the wording is correct for Scotland so that the whole matter is

437
replicated in Scotland. I did not pick up that that was what my noble friend was saying. Is she sure of that point? If she is, I am happy for her not to accept the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland feels, as I said, that the Food Safety Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for tackling that issue.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I was asking my noble friend whether she was happy that the Secretary of State has examined the Bill closely and is assured that it is doing the same thing for Scotland as is being done for England and Wales.
Baroness Trumpington: I am not sure that "happy" is the word, but a happy little man from Scotland has given me this briefing.
Lord Ezra: Perhaps I may probe a little further. As I understood it from what the Minister told us when rejecting the amendment, the Government's opinion is that the wording properly mirrors the situation in Scotland. As I recall, she then went on to say that some of the monitoring staff are employed at district level and some at regional level. The whole purpose of the amendment is to include regions. If some of the staff are employed at that level what can be the objection to including the word "region"? I fail to see where any constitutional issue arises; it is a matter of fact.
Baroness Trumpington: It may be my fault, but in Scotland responsibility for food matters rests solely with the environmental health departments of districts and island councils. TSOs have no responsibility for food law in Scotland. That unitary approach is seen by many as the strength of the Scottish system. Contrary to the aims of the sponsors of the amendment, and notwithstanding the provision which would allow my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to make orders laying down which of the authorities should do what, extension of the definition of food authorities to include regional councils could serve to fudge the lines of responsibility, creating additional confusion in the minds of consumers, food businesses and so forth. The Secretary of State considers the single-tier system to be the best and most appropriate means of enforcement. The public and the officials responsible for enforcement are in no doubt about the effectiveness and clarity of the arrangements; in other words, Scotland does not wish to accept the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her remarks which I shall read carefully. Anglo-Scots intervene in Scottish affairs at grave risk. I am aware of course that Anglo-Scottish footballers are often booed at Hampden Park before they have touched the ball. That being so, I shall look at what the Minister said, in particular at her references to the views of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the point she made that the district councils in Scotland could, if they wished, appoint trading standards officers. I shall also take into
438
account the position and function of public analysts in Scotland because, while the present situation works well, as I said when I moved the amendment, perhaps it could be made to work a little better. We reserve the right to return to this matter on Report if we feel that there is a case for so doing. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 13.
Page 4, line 20, leave out ('or").
The noble Lord said: In the certain knowledge that Amendment No. 13 will be accepted. I have much pleasure in moving it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) The power of the Ministers to make orders under subsection (4) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and, notwithstanding any general provision elsewhere in this Act, such instrument shall not be made until it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 15 concerns the power provided by the subsection which touches on the very sensitive area of local government reorganisation. We are advised that the transfer of the powers of one tier of local government to another has considerable constitutional implications, as was the case in Scotland when the transfer of which we have been speaking took effect.
The local authority associations consider that in the interests of the better administration of the country such reorganisations, however minor, should be fully debated before they are implemented. For that reason I move Amendment No. 15.
Baroness Trumpington: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for raising this amendment. I believe, however, that the first part, calling for orders to be in the form of statutory instruments, is unnecessary. Clause 48(1) already requires that orders under the Food Safety Bill, including orders under Clause 5(4), must be made in the form of statutory instruments.
The second part of the amendment calls for such orders to be subject to affirmative resolution. That process places heavy demands upon the time of this Chamber and of another place. By convention it is reserved for powers substantially affecting provision of Acts of Parliament, powers to increase taxation or other financial burdens or other especially important powers such as those creating new varieties of serious criminal offences. I do not believe that the order-making power in Clause 5(4) falls into any of those categories.
However, in practice we would not wish to use this power without taking the views of relevant outside interests into account. I believe that my noble friend Lord Mottistone has tabled an amendment to Clause 6 that would require Ministers to carry out statutory consultation before exercising any of the order-making powers under Part I of the

439
Bill, including this one. I am minded to accept that proposal in principle.
In view of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment that stands in his name.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for confirming what she has already stated in regard to the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. This Bill raises again and again the question of regulatory powers which the Minister is necessarily taking. In general, the Government are adhering to the view that such regulatory powers shall be subject to the annulment procedure. That forces us to be selective in our approach to this question because we accept that there are limits to parliamentary time for discussing orders affirmatively. Nevertheless, in respect of this amendment I will look at what the Minister stated to see whether, in the light of the assurances given by the noble Baroness about consultation, we can withdraw it with the leave of the Committee and avoid the necessity of returning to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 33, leave out ("whether or not") and insert ("being").
The noble Lord said: Clause 5(6) defines the authorised officer. My amendment is a simple one. It would ensure that the authorised officer in relation to a food authority would be an officer of that authority. I understand that the food authorities might seek to call in experts who would not at that time be officers of the authority. However, the extensiveness of the powers granted to the authorised officers and the seriousness of some of the issues involved make it very important that people who are going to have that authority should be properly accountable to the enforcement body which is the food authority in this instance, and that they should be appropriately qualified. If, for some extraordinary reason, the Government agree to Amendment No. 17, then it is even more important that they should agree to Amendment No. 16. Amendment No. 17 seeks to remove the last three lines so that local authorities would have the people with qualifications. No doubt the Government have an explanation for that matter, but it seems rather strange.
The powers given to food authorities are very important. Authorised officers should be proper servants of the food authorities. It might be possible for arrangements to be made, as is the case in other fields of local and central government, for the experts, if brought in, to be given temporary status as officers of the authority. If my noble friend can give that kind of assurance, I will not seek to press this amendment at this stage or later. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I understand my noble friend's wish to require enforcement authorities to act only through their own officers, and his anxiety not to give them a power to appoint possibly
440
unsuitable outsiders. I believe however that I can reassure the noble Lord.
We have included the provision in question so that enforcement authorities have access to expertise or manpower which they may not have in-house. As an example, I understand that a private veterinary surgeon may be appointed to carry out meat inspection on behalf of a local authority.
There are safeguards to prevent the provision from being abused. Under Clause 5(6) Ministers may make regulations to set out the qualifications required of those acting on behalf of food authorities. This power already exists in the meat hygiene area, Section 73(2) of the Food Act 1984. I hope that I have reassured my noble friend.
Lord Mottistone: That is partly a reassurance, but I reserve the right to come back at a later stage, when we have heard what my noble friend states with regard to Amendment No. 17. I am not quite happy, but jolly nearly so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 35, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 37.
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to challenge the introduction of a power for central government to prescribe the qualifications of local authorities' employees, and queries whether that represents a needless intervention by central government into the general autonomy of local government. I have a considerable degree of sympathy with the view that it is for the local authority to decide how its function should be carried out in the most efficient, effective and economical manner. That freedom will be restricted if the Minister can impose constraints on the staff who can be used for enforcement purposes.
The recruitment of staff over the next 10 to 15 years is likely to become more difficult. Artificial constraints, if that is what is envisaged, will not lead to the greater protection of the public. The European Community directive states that its aims are,
"not to interfere with systems of proven worth which are best suited to the particular situation in each member state".
The arrangement whereby the enforcement of these matters is in the hands of environmental health and trading standards officers has been proved over the years to be worthwhile. There is a clear understanding about where the various responsibilities lie. It is in that spirit, and in no sense in a spirit of seeking to weaken enforcement under the Bill, that I beg to move Amendment No. 17.
Baroness Trumpington: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for the explanation of this proposal to remove the power of Ministers to prescribe in regulations the qualifications for authorised officers of food authorities. However, this would represent a serious weakening of the Bill. I wish to assure the Committee that we intend to consult interested parties before we make any use of these powers. However, it is necessary that we provide for the prescribing of qualifications. Not only

441
does proper consumer protection require it, but the EC Directive on the Official Control of Foodstuffs may well oblige the UK Government to move towards declared qualifications for food inspectors.
A study is being carried out to examine the training provisions of food inspectors in member states with a view to proposing harmonisation measures in this area. In view of those remarks I hope the noble Lord will recognise that the Bill is aiming here at effective standards of consumer protection and will therefore not press this amendment.
Lord Gallacher: Again, I thank the noble Baroness for explaining to the Committee what is in the Government's mind and what appears to be in the mind of the European Community as regards harmonisation of the law for food inspectors. We have been under the impression, perhaps the somewhat out of date impression, that the Community was happy enough to leave this matter to member states. That has certainly been the situation in the past.
If the Community is seeking some uniformity of qualifications throughout the member states we are of course, in the time-honoured phrase, in a new ball game, because on the previous occasion that the Select Committee on community affairs of this Chamber looked at this matter it was somewhat shaken at the wide variety of qualifications which currently obtain throughout the Community. In that respect the United Kingdom had a standard which was certainly immeasurably superior to that currently acceptable in other member states.
If there is to be a Community initiative in that respect, we must await its outcome and allow the parties affected by it to make representations. We are all strongly in favour of qualified people and we are equally in favour of having enough qualified people to do a thorough job. Unless that situation occurs as a result of the Bill, much of the best features of the Bill will not be realised.
I am reassured to some extent by the advice of the noble Baroness that consultation is envisaged with interested parties in this area. I hope that with that assurance we can accept what has been said, but nevertheless if we receive contrary advice, particularly in the context of what I regard as a new European situation, it may be necessary to return to this matter, albeit in different terms, at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Enforcement of Act]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 44, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This amendment arises from a failure to understand why it is necessary for a default power such as we now have in the Bill to be included in legislation. County councils, for example, are large, responsible and democratically-elected organisations. They are acutely aware of their responsibilities under the food
442
safety legislation. The same can be said for district councils. That applies to legislation as it now stands and as it is proposed under the Bill.
County councils wish to hear from Government Ministers the circumstances in which they envisage such a power as the clause now gives being exercised. If such circumstances are unrealistic, county councils consider that the power should be omitted, as it is wrong for unnecessary powers to be included in legislation simply as an exercise in itself. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, may be concerned that Clause 6(3) may signal the advent of excessive ministerial intervention in enforcement work. I can reassure him however, that that is most certainly not the intention behind this subsection. We have included the subsection because there may be circumstances where food authorities lack the expertise to address a specialised food safety problem; for example, the use of a brand new technology. In those circumstances it could be vital for Ministers to be able to step in and carry out a particular enforcement role. The power in question is not a default power. Default powers are contained in Clause 41. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I thank the noble Baroness for the reassurance which she has given me, particularly on the point that excessive intervention is not intended under this clause. I note what she said about circumstances in which local authorities may lack the expertise to carry out particular work; for example, in the area of new technologies. We have tabled a later amendment about novel foods and new technologies in general which may give us an opportunity of returning to this question. I am reassured by the remarks of the noble Baroness that the power is not a default power, as that is covered in Clause 41. In the light of those remarks and the assurances I have been given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 18, at end insert—
("(6) Before making any orders under this Part, the Minister; shall consult with such organisations as appear to them to be representative of interests likely to be substantially affected by the orders.").
The noble Lord said: We already know from hints that have been loudly dropped that this amendment is one the Government like the look of. I am simply delighted at that and I only wish to emphasise the point that in Part I, particularly under Clauses 2 and 5, Ministers have the power to make orders on unspecified and important subjects. In Clause 26(1), the kinds of powers that I am seeking with this amendment to insert in Part I already exist in Part II. Therefore, it seems logical that consultation should also be provided for in Part I. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment. It seems to me to be very much in line with what she has said repeatedly during our deliberations so far. There are a number of

443
bodies in this field, including the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, with which I am connected. Such bodies should be consulted about a number of the issues which have been raised in this part of the Bill.
Baroness Trumpington: I had already indicated to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that I was prepared to look favourably on this amendment. I am grateful for his proposal to require consultation. We have already provided for consultation on orders under Clause 1(3). I understand the strong feelings on this subject. In view of the discussion we have already had about the affirmative resolution procedure, I am prepared to agree to extend consultation to the other two order-making powers in Part I.
We shall of course ensure that the views of food authorities and other interested parties are heard before we make orders that affect their interests. In the circumstances I am prepared to see that written on the face of the Bill. We may need to make special transitional provisions because the first order under Clause 5(4) will be needed immediately the Bill comes into force. If the Committee agrees I shall look into that point and table a government amendment at a later stage. I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: Is the noble Baroness happy with the proposed words "as appear to them", in other words which appear to the Government "to be representative" or would she accept the words:
"such organisations as are representative of interests likely to be substantially affected by the orders"?
Baroness Trumpington: I shall have to depend on parliamentary counsel for the wording of any amendment that I table.
Lord Mottistone: I am indeed grateful to my noble friend for accepting the principle of the amendment. I hope that the Government will be able to put down an amendment at the next stage of the Bill and not leave it until later.
Baroness Trumpington: I agree.
Lord Mottistone: That would mean that if we do not like the wording we can talk about it and improve it at an even later stage. With that reassurance I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Rendering food injurious to health]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 22, at beginning insert—
("(1) Any person operating a food business is required to operate the said business so as to ensure the fitness of the food and the health and safety of the consumer").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen the Bill on behalf of
444
consumers by inserting before the existing Clause 7(1) a new subsection which would read:
"Any person operating a food business is required to operate the said business so as to ensure the fitness of the food and the health and safety of the consumer".
We are of the opinion that the Bill is much stronger than the legislation which it seeks to replace. We welcome the duty which Clause 6 of the Bill, which we have just dealt with, places upon food authorities to enforce and execute the provisions of the Bill. However, we believe that the interests of the consumer would be well served if Clause 7 imposed a general duty of care in the operation of food businesses.
I do not believe that food retailers in general do not operate their businesses in such a way at present. Indeed those of us who have had any connection with the food trade are in general thrilled with the way in which food retailers face up to the challenge in a realistic fashion, given the diversity of the trade, the number of lines, the requirements of the public and the state of competition. Such offences as occur (regrettable though they may be) in the context of the many transactions which take place daily, are not significant statistically, or in any other way.
Nevertheless, we feel that as we are embarking upon a new Bill such an additional obligation could be written into the legislation. It would strengthen the hand of the enforcement authorities and in the long term would be beneficial to consumers. It is for that reason that I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
Baroness Hooper: I have sympathy with the aim of the amendment since the whole of the Bill which we are now considering has as its objective the supply of safe food. We believe that the Bill will achieve that objective in a number of ways. First, of course, it will be an offence to supply food which does not meet food safety requirements. Secondly, we shall be making regulations under the enabling powers in the Bill which will, among other things, improve the standards of hygiene in food businesses and ensure that people handling food are trained in hygienic practices. We believe that the provisions of the Bill will achieve the aim of the noble Lords who tabled the amendment.
The amendment is not necessary, in our view, because the provisions of the Bill will secure the fitness of food and the health and safety of the consumer by excluding all unsafe food from sale, supply or possession for sale in the various ways set out in Clauses 7 and 8. We are confident that there is no gap. The changes to the defences in Clauses 20 and 21, which we shall be discussing later, also provide a greater safeguard.
Further, we believe that the amendment would cause problems for the enforcement authorities. It would be extremely difficult to enforce a general requirement that a person should operate a food business so as to ensure the fitness of the food. The provisions elsewhere in the Bill will be legally stronger, clearer and more easily enforceable than those in the proposed amendment.
I hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for her remarks regarding the amendment. We see the subsection as a general affirmation of purpose which would be reinforced by the specific provisions in the Bill to which she has made reference. On this side of the House we have never quarrelled much with affirmations of purpose. Nevertheless I take the Minister's point that the Bill is strong in a number of areas and that it is the strength of those particular provisions which is likely to make the Bill enforceable in a way in which existing legislation does not and which will add weight where that is regarded as being necessary.
I was mildly amused when the noble Baroness said in her final sentence that the amendment would create problems for the enforcement authorities because it was to placate the said enforcement authorities that I added my name to it. Thus humbled and humiliated I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 22, after ("who") insert ("knowingly").
The noble Lord said: The fact that Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 inclusive and 26 have been grouped together has taken me somewhat by surprise, since the amendments, with one exception, do not hang or fall together. It would be perfectly possible for the Committee, if it so chose, to accept, for example, Amendment No. 21.
Lord Tordoff: It is entirely the noble Lord's choice as to whether the grouping is accepted. Should he wish to move the amendments separately I am sure that the Committee would not stand in his way.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing that out. I have decided to deal with the amendments together at this stage. However, it would be possible to accept some and not others without making a nonsense of the clause. I concede that the amendments have a common purpose. That common purpose is to make Clause 7 rather more of a rapier, or better still a surgical knife, than the clumsy blunderbuss that it undoubtedly is at present.
The purpose of Amendment No. 21 is self-evident. Even the most brilliant chemist or biologist cannot be certain of what is injurious and what is not. When I was a small boy I was made to eat up every scrap of fat on my plate. Nowadays fat is considered to be almost a deadly poison. Cyclamates were once thought to be the ideal substitute for sugar but they are now banned in this country, as are numerous food colourings which were once thought to be safe.
Turning to non-edible products, both aluminium and asbestos were thought less than 20 years ago to be God's gift to mankind. Now everyone is busy throwing away as fast as possible their aluminium cooking utensils for fear of contracting Alzheimer's disease. Asbestos is regarded with much the same horror as nuclear waste.
Therefore, when government departments with all the massive resources at their disposal, cannot
446
always get it right how can the average food manufacturer manage to do so?
Still less how can the small food manufacturer do so with fewer research facilities at his disposal?
Amendment No. 22 may need a little more explanation. Perhaps I may give just one example. Liqueur chocolates are not harmful to healthy adults in moderation. However, they contain spirits or liqueurs with an alcoholic content of approximately 40 per cent. by volume. Clearly they are injurious to the health of small children or to adults suffering from certain conditions or who are taking a certain course of drugs. It is clear that those people are not generally likely to consume such food. Advertising and point-of-sale displays are not aimed at such people. Nonetheless, they may, however unwisely, consume it; hence the need for the safeguard in Amendment No. 22, or something very like it. I do not say that the wording is necessarily 100 per cent. right.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 go together, Amendment No. 24 being consequential upon Amendment No. 23. There is practically no foodstuff to which someone somewhere is not allergic or which is not harmful when taken in conjunction with certain medications, whether we happen to be talking about cheese, eggs, wheatflour, milk, tea, coffee, chocolate, citrus fruits or a host of other foods. Hence the vital necessity for the phrase "average person"; otherwise every food manufacturer and processor and most food retailers in the country will find themselves in court almost every week of the year.
The purpose of Amendment No. 26 is also self-evident. We should remember that for the purposes of the Bill food includes drink. I invite the Committee to look at line 8 of page 1 of the Bill to confirm that. I am not being flippant when I say that even a healthy person may well incur a hangover from quite a modest amount of alcohol. A hangover may be defined as temporary impairment to health. Someone suffering from jaundice or who had recently recovered from jaundice would have his or her health impaired to a considerably greater extent, as would anyone taking certain types of drugs prescribed by his or her doctor. This example is also extremely germane to Amendment No. 22.
I should say that I am attracted by Amendment No. 25 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Mottistone and Lord Lucas. That may well be an even more satisfactory way of dealing with the problem that I have just mentioned, but I nevertheless proffer Amendment No. 26 as a compromise amendment which may therefore be more acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Since Amendment No. 25, in the name of my noble friend Lord Mottistone and myself, is grouped together with and covers the same subject area as all those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, it seems sensible to discuss them together.
My contribution to Amendment No. 25 is of a probing nature. I am trying to find out exactly what the Government mean by the terms "injury" and "injurious to health", in much the same way as the

447
noble Lord, Lord Monson, gave examples. At Second Reading on 5th December, my noble friend the Minister said in col. 745:
"The terms 'injurious to health' and 'unfit for human consumption' are enshrined in current food law and thus have the advantage of established case law".
However, she did not say whether that case law—it would be interesting if she could tell us exactly to which case she referred—had determined what would not be regarded as "injurious to health" within the meaning of the Bill. Can one assume that anything outside the case on which the Minister relies is deemed to be injurious? Obviously, it is in everyone's interest to ensure that time and expense are not wasted on unnecessary prosecutions.
Perhaps I may add one further injurious effect that one might see. Let us take the example of a packet of a curried meal which is popped into the pot and brought to a temperature making it fit for human consumption. If it contained too much curry powder, it might have an adverse effect on someone who was suffering from haemorrhoids. If as a result of eating that food, the person is caused to be taken to hospital and to have an operation, is that considered to be injurious to health? What would happen if the injury had occurred some four or five months before the operation? How far does one go?
In Amendment No. 25 I am seeking clarity so that those of us who are not lawyers and do not have easy access to the law—there may be many hundreds of small traders in that category—will understand exactly what this and related terms mean.
Lord Mottistone: I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 25. If subsection (3) is to remain in the Bill, what seems to be missing is what the Government mean by "injury". The use of the word in that subsection is very imprecise. The definition could embrace not only injury such as food poisoning but such instances as coronary heart disease from fats and saturated fats, dental caries from sugars and fermentable carbohydrates, food intolerance from milk, gluten and tartrazine. There is no qualification as to the seriousness of the risk or hazard not only in this subsection, but in the Bill as a whole. Raw food might contain listeria or salmonella which would be destroyed on cooking. Due account must be taken of the sources and conditions of production. It is important to know what the Government mean and what sort of injuries they are thinking of.
My noble friend Lord Lucas called our attention to what my noble friend said at Second Reading about case law on the subject. I have examples here, although I shall not dwell on them now, to show that food is not injurious merely because exceptional people are liable to be injured by it. That point must be made much clearer in the Bill. For example, it is important to know whether figures which show that about 15 per cent. of people are intolerant to something, that between 0·5 and I per cent. of people are intolerant to food and that between 0·03 and 0·15 per cent. of people are intolerant to additives are thought to be substantial. If so, foods such as milk, wheat and eggs would be unfit for us all to eat. That is ridiculous.
448
As presently worded, subsection (3) states that
"'injury', in relation to health, includes any impairment, whether permanent or temporary".
That is extraordinarily powerful. I should have thought that it was a case of using a great big sledgehammer to protect the Government from being accused of not doing their job properly. I hope that my noble friend will consider taking away subsection (3) with a view to tightening it up considerably and making quite certain that a large number of unreasonable and unnecessary law suits, such as have already been dealt with, do not come about.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I think it very important that a genuine medical allergy should in no way be classified as a food problem. It is specific to a particular individual. It is a reaction of his or her auto-immune system to a particular protein. Some people have such a reaction with shellfish, strawberries and various other foods. The same strawberries or shellfish could be eaten by any one of us without having any effect. However, such a degree of allergy might be reached that one could be approaching the anaphylactic shock point and that person's life could be at risk by eating that food.
It is remarkable how many people with genuine allergies go ahead and eat the food to which they are allergic. They are not of course at that extremely serious and dangerous point; but they know that they cannot eat a particular food. Yet because they are at a social gathering or dinner party and do not want to be unpleasant they go ahead and suffer the adverse effects. Surely it is their responsibility to ensure that they do not eat food to which they are genuinely allergic; yet it would be wrong to classify the food itself as at fault for that reason.
Lord Tordoff: From these Benches we support the general tenor of what has been said from the Cross Benches and the Government Back Benches. This subsection seems extremely wide. The reasons for objecting to it have been put very clearly.
I want slightly to pull the tail of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, if one is allowed to do that in this Chamber, by suggesting that under no circumstances could I accept Amendment No. 23. I am astonished that the noble Lord should refer to an "average person". I should have thought that he of all people would have recognised the diversity of people in this world. For instance, does he consider that Members of this Chamber are average persons? They may very well be considered to be less than average. I do not know. I cannot see legislation going in for an average person.
Seriously, I believe that reference to persons in normal health or some such phrase might be appropriate.
Lord Walston: I should like to emphasise what has already been said by other Members of the Committee; namely, the danger of accepting Clause 7(3) as it stands. Clearly, it is much too wide and embraces far too many potentially harmful results from eating different types of food, particularly, as has been pointed out, with regard to allergies, of

449
which there is an enormous and ever-growing number, and various other relatively and statistically unimportant, if not always unimportant to the individual, harmful effects which affect a minority of people.
I certainly support the general thrust of Amendment No. 25 which seeks to delete the whole of subsection (3). One is in favour of anything which makes food more safe for the general consumer. However this provision goes much too wide and too far. In its present form it is entirely unacceptable.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Auckland: I believe that the Committee has some difficulty here. First, Amendment No. 21, seeks to insert the adverb "knowingly". It is unusual, to say the least, that a manufacturer would knowingly implant in food something injurious to health. We have heard of supermarkets where something has been maliciously inserted: glass implanted into baby food is an extreme case. I do not know whether that is the target of the amendment.
Amendment No. 22 is very vague. How can any health inspectorate or indeed anybody know who is likely to consume a certain product?
With regard to allergies, when one eats at home one knows the allergens. Eating out at a dinner or banquet it is possible that even the plainest of food can contain substances which trigger an allergy. That is a risk that one must take. I believe that on the whole Clause 7 has things about right.
Baroness Trumpington: I have listened with great interest to the various views expressed by the Committee. There is nothing sinister in our decision to add a definition of "injury" and "injurious to health" in subsection (3).
As the Committee will know, the offence provisions in Clause 7 have been taken almost word for word from Section 1 of the existing Food Act. We were not intending to expand on those in any way but rather to assist in interpretation. We feel that a definition is needed now that the concept of "injury to health" occurs much more frequently in the legislation. Our definition is simply based on normal usage.
I can understand concerns that food traders could be made liable for causing harm to the consumer which is really beyond their control. We certainly do not want to impose any unfair liabilities on anyone. In the case of Clause 7 perhaps it would help if I pointed out that the offence is all about rendering food injurious to health. It would not apply to most instances of microbiological contamination.
Of course it is very difficult to anticipate the sort of effect that food will have on different sectors of the population. We know already from existing case law that a food will be "injurious to health" if it affects a substantial portion of the community.
There is one example of case law that I could quote for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Lucas; namely, Cullen v McNair which concerned a pot of cream found, by the presence of preservatives, to
450
be injurious to a substantial portion of the public, namely children and invalids. It would not be injurious if only exceptional people such as those suffering from a pretty rare intolerance were likely to be harmed. Clearly there are all sorts of different ways in which people can be harmed. Honestly, it would be impossible to anticipate them all. It seems right that the courts should take decisions as and when necessary: they will do so in a commonsense way.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked whether a hangover was a temporary impairment to health. Yes, but the cause—in this case alcohol—would not be caught by Clause 7. The courts would interpret the clause in a commonsense way. Alcoholic drink is not deemed to be injurious just because some people drink too much of it. No sensible court would find against a manufacturer of whisky even though in excess it can, I am told, cause injury to health.
I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to those Members of the Committee, who, mainly obliquely, support these amendments, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, who speaks with such great knowledge. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. It is very difficult to get the wording right. If one were to specify "the majority of the people", one would be up against the dilemma mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. How does a manufacturer know what sort of people will eat any given batch of food produced?
I agree that the wording may not be perfect—for instance, it may be that "recklessly" would be a better word than "knowingly" in Amendment No. 21—but I am still not happy with the noble Baroness's answer. The fact remains that there will always be someone somewhere who is adversely affected by some perfectly normal foodstuffs. The fact that the courts can say that if 20 per cent. of the population are affected they are caught but with a figure of 10 per cent. they are not caught leaves the matter far too open. It seems to me that there has been a certain economy with precision in the drafting. It is far too all-embracing and would, I believe, catch perfectly innocent and respectable manufacturers who have done their best to produce what they believe to be a totally safe and wholesome product. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider carefully what has been said and whether some safeguard can be inserted at a later stage in Clause 7. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 38, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak briefly on Amendment No. 25. I was disappointed at my noble friend's remarks on this group of amendments. I do not think that subsection (3) is satisfactory in its present form. I shall reserve the right to come back on this point at a later stage. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Selling food not complying with food safety requirements]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 6, line 7, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) it is injurious to health;").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to reassure consumers that the law provides a safety net which can catch all unsafe foods. The amendment goes a long way to ensure that objective. For that reason we commend it to the Committee.
The amendment would mean that suppliers could be prosecuted not only for actively causing food to be unsafe but also for failing to do something to ensure that food reached acceptable safety standards —for example, not heating food to the correct temperature during the preparation process. As the Bill is presently drafted, food which is injurious to health will be covered by the food safety requirement only if it has been rendered so by one of the operations set out in Clause 7. The main worry of consumers is that food may be unsafe. The reason that it becomes so is of lesser importance.
We consider that consumer confidence can be fully restored if the public know that there are mechanisms to control all food that is injurious to their health. In our view the amendment is the simplest, most effective and comprehensive way of making the supply of unsafe food an offence. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I should like to oppose the amendment. It would bring into the scope of Clause 8(2) all injurious food rather than that which had been rendered injurious by the means set out in Clause 7(1). That would include naturally occurring injurious components and natural contaminations not able to be controlled or foreseen at any point in time—for example, the discovery of the dangers of eating uncooked red kidney beans.
I question whether there is need for the amendment. Notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, so eloquently proposed, I question the intention. Subsections (2)(b) and (c) of Clause 8 deal with unfit and contaminated food. It would be of interest if the noble Lord could explain the real purpose of his amendment. I hope that the Minister will not accept the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: It is very nice when my noble friend and I see eye to eye. I very much regret that I cannot agree to the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. While I appreciate his concern to provide the maximum amount of protection for the consumer, I do not feel in this case that it is necessary. The scope of the offence of non-compliance with food safety requirements in Clause 8 is already very broad. If we remove the idea of rendering food injurious to health we shall be left with a much less specific
452
offence which will overlap to a very large extent what we have already. We need to remember also that the amendment will appear to manufacturers as placing a much greater burden of liability than at present. I am not sure that that is the correct impression to give.
In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will agree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone and myself.
Lord Gallacher: I thank the noble Baroness for what she said and for the assurance she gave that the clause as it stands is likely to be more effective in protection of the consumer than the more general amendment that we would wish to see replacing the existing lines 7 and 8. Those who are advising me must take the point of view on board and ask themselves whether it has validity. Because I ride two horses in this particular circus, I can see that there is a very substantial element of validity. When the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, quotes back at me the red kidney beans argument with which I opened the batting, all I can say is, "Thank you very much". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 6, line 9, leave out ("or").
The noble Viscount said: Perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 29. I apologise to the noble Baroness. I have only just spotted that they should have been grouped together, Amendment No. 29 being consequential upon Amendment No. 28.
We are seeking to introduce a general safety requirement which would bring the Food Safety Bill in line with other consumer protection law, which includes the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The proposed amendment is based on the same wording in the Consumer Protection Act. Such a duty as we recommend is also included in the draft product safety directive which extends to food and takes account of the intended use, consumption, packaging, transport and storage of a product according to normal circumstances. If the directive is passed as it stands, it will require governments to include such a duty in national legislation. We think it is appropriate and right that such a duty should be included in the Food Safety Bill.
Such a safety requirement will provide a catch-all clause to cope with future eventualities. Although the food safety requirements as defined in Clause 7 are very thorough and carry with them a history of case law, general safety requirements must surely be essential to cover any loopholes which may emerge in the future. That is particularly relevant in relation to food safety, where technology is changing very rapidly.
The proposed amendment would ensure that any potential risk presented by the product is appropriately indicated in order to make the consumer aware of such a risk and to allow an individual assessment of its seriousness. It would take into account any foreseeable and intended use, consumption, packaging, transport and storage of a

453
product. It would ensure that any relevant warning could be perceived at all stages of use, consumption and disposal of the product.
The need for a general safety requirement in this Bill is perhaps best illustrated through the recent speculation and publicity over how effectively microwave cooking kills listeria. Although in the light of this concern some manufacturers have seen fit to withdraw microwave instructions from products, they offered no explanation for the removal when they suspected that these products might not be suitable for microwave cooking. They provided no warning that such products might not be suitable for microwave cooking.
It is understandable and probable that people in the habit of buying food for heating in microwave ovens will continue to do so unless they are protected under a general safety requirement. That would require manufacturers to explain the removal of microwave instructions or specifically to label the product as being unsuitable for microwave cooking. These are early days in this area because it is only recently that certain models of microwave ovens have been shown to be inadequate for the cooking of food which it is usual to heat for a longer period.
The number of prosecutions that have taken place under the relevant section of the Consumer Protection Act have been illuminating. In a number of cases brought under that Act unsafe ladders with rubber strips on the steps and unsafe light bulbs have been the subject of complaints, and prosecutions have resulted. The effect has been that consumers are now protected against such faulty goods.
Although I cannot claim that my amendment has the support of the Institute of Trading Standards Officers and the Institute of Environmental Health Officers, their members have indicated their support for such a duty in principle. It is clear that officials who drew up the current framework of food legislation which dates back for approximately 35 years, could not have known that the Government would now be facing problems of food safety. They have evolved with time and now bring about their consideration of genetically engineered food and food irradiation with which we shall deal later.
I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness's remarks on the catch-all phrase. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: I was extremely interested to hear of the distinguished bodies which support the amendment because, quite frankly, I find it difficult to follow and believe that it is unnecessary. Clause 8 already prohibits the selling of unsafe food, which must be taken to include all the factors which have a direct effect on the safety of the final food, including the factors set out in the amendment.
Clause 15 deals with labelling and presentation. We have extensive regulation-making powers in Clause 16. They appear to be a more targeted way of dealing with such problems. In my view, the amendment would introduce unnecessary detail into the clause. I hope that my explanation has been helpful and that the noble Viscount will withdraw his amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks, albeit that they were brief and not very encouraging. At this early stage perhaps she does not wish to become involved in such detail, and she is right in saying that some of the background to problems are dealt with in other parts of the Bill. Nevertheless, there appear to be loopholes. There is a general feeling in this country and in the EC that such protection is required for consumers. I do not intend to press the amendment but reserve the right to consult my advisers and perhaps come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("lot or consignment").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Clause 8 refers to batch, lot or consignment. We are trying to discover what is implied by those three terms. For example, could they mean as much as a shipload or something less? If less? how much less? How will it be identified and described in using the powers now given by Clause 8?
In that sense I ask the Minister to describe what will be in the minds of the inspectors in interpreting the terms, batch, lot and consignment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I shall try to supply the information requested by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. While I recognise his concern that the terms lot and consignment can go wide, it is an important provision which must be fully retained. The expressions batch, lot and consignment can have separate meanings. The first (batch) tends to mean similar foods produced at the same time under the same conditions. The second (lot) could be a collection of batches. The third (consignment) could mean a group of products which are being moved at the same time; for example a lorry load.
In order to be caught by the clause, all would have to be food of the same class or description. I firmly believe that powers should be available to seize all of those—whether batch, lot or consignment—if a part does not comply with safety requirements.
I shall give an example of the need to have power to cover batches, lots or consignments. In the past there have been occasions where fire and related damage in the holds of ships carrying a wide range of foods to this country have led to the contamination of the whole of the contents of particular holds covering batches, lots and consignments. Where the nature of the contamination makes it unlikely that the entire lot or consignment would be affected, it is relatively easy for industry to establish that and thus avoid total seizure.
In those circumstances, I hope that I have sufficiently clarified the matter for the noble Lord, and he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I thank the noble Baroness for the information which she has given. I shall study it with care because the object of tabling the amendment

455
was to seek information. I gather that within the batch, lot or consignment delivered there is information. I shall do my best to study that and to discover whether those who raised the matter with me are reassured. If they are, it is to be hoped that we have heard the last of the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Inspection and seizure of suspected food]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 6, line 41, leave out ("it appears to").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 32. Amendment No. 31 is a paving amendment, and therefore I shall speak to the substance which is contained in Amendment No. 32. We now move into the area of inspection and seizure of food. Clause 9 provides powers for inspection at "all reasonable times", and where
"it appears to the authorised officer that any food fails to comply with food safety requirements".
There is no objection to that in principle. In subsection (2) the clause provides that the giving of a notice to restrict the use of food or its seizure may also take place where
"otherwise than on such an inspection, it appears to an authorised officer of a good authority that any food is likely to cause food poisoning or any disease communicable to human beings".
However, subsection (2) would also enable the seizure of food on the merest suspicion—and what one might almost call a gut feeling—of an authorised officer or inspector without any requirement on him or her to demonstrate that there are good grounds for the action. For example, if a food manufacturing plant was inspected, the inspector might find something which leads him to decide to seize a batch, lot or consignment—and I must use the term which the noble Baroness so exquisitely described as the right terminology in discussing the last amendment—on that day. He might then decide, frankly without any reasonable cause or suspicion, that all food in a retail chain or, indeed, perhaps in only one outlet supplied by that manufacturer should also be seized and there need be no evidence put forward to prove the rightness of such a seizure.
In fact, subsection (7) provides for compensation by the food authority—the inspectorate—should a justice of the peace, or a sheriff in Scotland, refuse to condemn the food which has been seized; in other words, food which was prevented from getting into the supply line. However, I do not believe that that is a sufficient safeguard because short shelf-life food would have to be destroyed at some considerable loss.
The amendment requires the authorised officer, the inspector, to have reasonable grounds for suspecting that any food is likely to cause food poisoning. He must have and show those reasonable grounds before issuing a notice or indeed seizing food from premises, and particularly from premises which he has not examined but which are somewhere
456
else in the food chain; for example, through the wholesaler into the retail shop. It may be that he has not examined the premises or the food there.
In Amendment No. 32 I have included the phrase "reasonable grounds for suspecting". Those are the words used in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred a few moments ago. It seems to me that those words were acceptable in very similar circumstances. Those Members of your Lordships' Committee who recall the 1987 deliberations will recognise that there is a great similarity between the arguments then laid out and the arguments which I am laying out this afternoon.
If my noble friend is unable to accept those words, then I must ask a particular question: namely, why have we used different words to produce in effect, the same end? That is the purport of Amendment No. 32 which I suggest to the Committee is quite reasonable and gives fairness on all sides without in any way affecting the purpose of the Bill. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I sympathise with my noble friend's intention, which is to ensure that local authorities restrict their enforcement action to food which is genuinely suspected of being unsafe. However, I can assure the Committee that this amendment is unnecessary. Local authorities already have the power to seize and detain food which has not been inspected, and Clause 9 does not contain anything new in this respect. Local authorities use this power to detain suspect food if the grounds for suspicion do not arise from an inspection, but from some other cause, such as an outbreak of food poisoning associated with a particular food—an important consideration.
No enforcement officer would be able to justify seizing or detaining food to a justice of the peace which he must do, unless he had very good grounds for suspecting that it presented a risk to health. A substantial body of case law already exists on this subject, and is well understood by enforcement officers and magistrates. The wording of Section 9 of the Food Act 1984 has been retained in Clause 9 of the Bill. That wording is as wide as possible to enable consumers to be protected as much as possible. I hope that my noble friend will be reassured by what I have said and will agree that in the interests of continuity and ensuring the maximum protection for consumers, the current wording of the clause should stand.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am reassured to a certain extent by what my noble friend said. However, I do not feel that this clause covers a situation which can and does exist from time to time. I was chairman of the health committee in this immediate area. One of the food inspectors attempted to take food which he thought was definitely unfit for sale, whereupon the person selling it seized it and flushed it down the toilet.
If one is arrested for drinking and driving and refuses to give a breath test, then there is a penalty for that in the same way as if one had been guilty of

457
the offence. However, this clause does not seem to cover that which the local authorities found most difficult; namely, ensuring that it is possible to get a sample. If that is refused, then it should be considered as bad in itself. Therefore, although I am somewhat reassured, I am not satisfied with the clause as it stands.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am sure that my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes will forgive me if I say that I do not wish to become involved in what she sees as a shortfall in Clause 9, nor do I wish to confuse the Committee because I believe that her point is not associated with my amendment but is a clause stand part point.
I do not wish to confuse the issues because the Minister said that an inspector would have a good deal of trouble in justifying his actions to a JP or sheriff, as the case may be, if he had seized the food unreasonably. However, by that time it will be too late and the damage will have been done. The media will have pounced and alarm and despondency will be created along with a great deal of cost.
My noble friend then said that the local authorities already have power to make such seizures if there is evidence of an epidemic. I ask my noble friend whether those powers are contained in the 1984 Act.
This is something quite different because the Minister said quite clearly that where there is evidence of an epidemic there is then power to seize the food. My amendment proposes that the inspector, the authorised officer, must demonstrate that there is a reasonable need for the seizure. The case which the Minister put before the Committee is quite different. This subsection does not require any reasonableness to be displayed at all.
We argued that in 1987 and I cannot see why we cannot have precisely the same words—as indeed Parliament agreed with regard to unsafe goods and toys—in this Bill which is dealing with unsafe and injurious food. I have to say that I am not reassured by what my noble friend says. I had hoped that she would suggest that there is something a little more in what I am saying that would encourage her sympathy and that she might consider whether there is a similarity in the points that I have made.
Baroness Phillips: Will the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, agree that there is a slight difficulty if these words are added to this clause? Speaking as a magistrate, I think that too many Acts of Parliament already have phrases like, "have reasonable grounds for suspecting", which is an extraordinarily difficult statement to justify in a court. You could have reasonable grounds for suspecting because you could smell the food as you entered the shop and it was obviously bad.
You will have people making up lists of what constitutes "reasonable grounds for suspecting". It seems to me that the simpler you leave this, and if you have responsible officers who are quite capable of handling it, the more likely it is to be carried out. Surely we can see in another connection the policemen who seem to be in trouble because they did not know that the guns the men appeared to be
458
using were imitation guns. In other words, they did not have reasonable grounds to suspect. You can make legislation almost impossible to carry out if too many almost non sequitur comments like that are added.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I suggest that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has just contradicted herself. A policeman may take a certain course of action against a criminal who is carrying an imitation gun because he had no reason to suppose that it was not a live firearm. That is precisely the same as I am suggesting.
Baroness Hooper: My noble friend asks why we cannot have precisely the same wording as in the Consumer Protection Act 1987. I wonder why we cannot have precisely the same words as in the Food Act 1984, on which a substantial body of case law has been built up and with which both enforcement officers and magistrates are familiar.
I submit that food poisoning is different from the effect of other consumer goods such as toys, to which my noble friend referred. Food can be widely dispersed; for example, tins of sardines—an example which has not been used in the debate so far. If part of a consignment of sardines was found to be unfit the rest of the consignment, which might be dispersed all over the country, could be seized. Without looking into the cans enforcement officers would not be sure that they were all contaminated, but seizure would protect the public until the tins could be checked.
On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: As I do not think I am going to get any further with this matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 32A:
Page 6, line 43, at end insert—
("(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, the Minister shall, after consultation with food authorities, issue to them guidance as to the meaning of 'food poisoning"').
The noble Lord said: Clause 9 of the Bill contains no definition of food poisoning as such, despite its being used as the basis of the exercise of powers by an authorised officer in Clause 9(2). It would be helpful to local authorities if Ministers could give some indication of the information which would need to be available to an authorised officer before he or she could exercise the powers in Clause 9(2). For example, would a certified case of food poisoning need to have occurred apparently caused by food sold by or on the premises in question? Would medical judgment need to be applied to a given case before the authorised officer could act, or would a reasonable apprehension be sufficient to justify the exercise of powers?
The word "likely" is not qualified by the requirement of reasonableness. It will be helpful if the Minister can indicate whether, in the view of

459
the Government, the term "food poisoning" is sufficiently clearly defined to answer this query, which has been raised by professional advisers to a local authority association. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I appreciate the concerns that have given rise to this amendment, which are to ensure that food authorities are competent to recognise when food is likely to cause food poisoning. However, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
In taking action under this clause the intention is that the authorised officer of the food authority will be an environmental health officer whose training includes a study of the various organisms and other causes of food poisoning and when any food is likely to cause food poisoning. In spite of this, we propose to set up an implementation advisory committee on which enforcement interests will be fully represented. The scope for codes of practice affecting the implementation of Clause 9, including the possible need for a definition of food poisoning, can, we believe, be considered in that context. In view of this I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gallacher: The assurance that an implementation advisory committee is contemplated allows me to beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 7, line 8, at end insert ("within a reasonable time, having regard to the life of the product, and in any case within 14 days").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is designed to ensure that either a definite decision should be made within a certain amount of time or that the matter should be dropped. The reason is that it seems very unfair to manufacturers that unlimited time should be allowed.
It is possible that my specification of 14 days may not be the correct length of time because scientific or bacteriological tests can take variable lengths of time, depending on the tests that are required to be carried out. As the time may vary, perhaps 14 days is not the best wording to use. Nevertheless, there should be a definite, reasonable time having regard to the life of the product and the nature of the test to be carried out.
While we all approve of food being seized and tested where there is reason for suspicion—every good manufacturer would uphold that and it is only the most suspect people who would oppose such a measure—it would not be good for officers to be able to give notice of taking food, or take the food, or give notice that no food should be sold within a certain time, without further action. This amendment is designed to reduce the delay and therefore the loss for manufacturers. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this important point. Clearly we need to ensure that the owners of food which has been seized
460
are not subject to unreasonable delays when awaiting a decision from the local authority on whether food is fit to be sold or whether it should be referred to a magistrate. However, I am also concerned that local authorities should be allowed sufficient time to carry out their investigations and I am not certain that 14 days would be enough for their purposes, as indeed my noble friend said.
I hope therefore that my noble friend will not press her amendment at this stage but will agree that we should consider this matter further and deal with it at a later stage.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank my noble friend for that reply. I propose to return with the amendment deleting the 14 days and inserting instead a reasonable time at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 7, line 21, leave out ("may, but need") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This amendment alters subsection (5)(b) of Clause 9. In the rest of the clause the justice of the peace is being asked to deal with the question of the seized food. The subsection states that the,
"justice of the peace may, but need not, be a member of the court before which any person is charged with an offence".
It seems that it is not in the interests of the bench that in the ordinary course the justice of the peace should perform the function of being both the chief investigator and be one of the justices who deals with the case when the potential offender is brought before the court. It would not be in the interests of the justice of the peace. It would normally be the case, presumably, that the justice would take advantage of the subsection which states,
"but need not, be a member of the court".
If this subsection is to remain, I prefer that it states bluntly that the justice of the peace may not be a member of the court.
I wonder whether it is necessary to have subsection (5)(b) in the clause. I note from subsection 9(b) that subsection (5)(b) does not apply to Scotland. I believe it is being a little bossy to tell the bench what it can and cannot do. It is its own business to see that it does its job properly. I am sure, as any magistrate in the Committee will know, that it is very important that the local bench is well regarded in the local community and is seen to be doing the job properly. If subsection (5)(b) is included, then we should be thoroughly bossy, if we are to be bossy at all, and say that the justice of the peace may not be a member of the court which takes the case. I personally believe that it would be better to get rid of subsection (5)(b) altogether. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: As my noble friend has explained, this amendment seeks to prohibit a justice dealing with a prosecution where he has been involved in the initial condemnation of food. In spite of the explanation given by my noble friend

461
Lord Mottistone, I still cannot see any reason for this prohibition. A justice who has become prejudiced in the course of hearing the application for the condemnation of food would in practice always withdraw from any subsequent proceeding in relation to the food.
There are examples of that. I understand that this is a situation which is the exception rather than the rule in any event. Moreover, the amendment could create unnecessary complications for courts in rural areas where benches are frequently very small, reducing the already small number of justices available to deal with the cases. For these reasons I trust that my noble friend will understand that I cannot accept his amendment and that he will not press it.
Lord Mottistone: I take issue with my noble friend about the size of benches. At the moment there is very great pressure for the very small benches to amalgamate with others. There is no doubt that within the next five to 10 years there will be none of these mini-benches left with only 10 magistrates sitting on them. That is a small point.
I hope that my noble friend will think about this amendment in the meantime. I shall return with an appropriate amendment. I believe the best answer is to follow what has been done in Scotland, to cut out subsection (5)(b) altogether and to leave it to the magistrates to use their own judgment. I am sure that they will do the right thing because they are as interested as anybody that their local reputation should be high. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) If it appears to a justice of the peace, on the basis of such evidence as he considers appropriate in the circumstances, that any food falling to be dealt with by him under this section fails to comply with food safety requirements, he shall either—

(a) condemn the food and order—

(i) the food to be destroyed or to be so disposed of as to prevent it from being used for human consumption; and

(ii) any expenses reasonably incurred in connection with the destruction or disposal to be defrayed by the owner of the food; or

(b) make such other order as he shall consider appropriate to ensure to his satisfaction that the food shall be made to comply with food safety requirements.").

The noble Baroness said: In this amendment I am not seeking to undermine what I believe to be the purpose of subsection (6); namely, that unfit food should be destroyed and that the owner should pay. There is quite a similarity between my suggested text and the original. But it appears that there is no provision in the Bill for a justice of the peace to exercise any discretion in taking due account of any future or further processing to which a suspect food might be subjected. I believe that it would be better if a magistrate had discretion to make some other order that he might consider appropriate to ensure to his satisfaction that the food will be made to comply with the food safety requirements.
For example, carrots pulled from the ground will still be covered in earth and will need to be washed prior to their use as food. Unless the law recognises that there are intermediate stages of processing the possession of such raw materials appears to be an automatic offence under Clause 8. Can the Minister clarify for the Committee whether that is true and whether my amendment is necessary. Perhaps she will also look into the matter of whether it would be appropriate—as I believe it would—for the magistrate to be given some degree of discretion in any case. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I assure my noble friend that we do not intend that food should be condemned or taken before the justice of the peace if the food can be made safe. Under current legislation the owner of the food has the right to appear in court and to call witnesses to make a case against condemnation. That right will continue under the Bill. If the owner wishes to subject the food to further processing he must say so. If he convinces the magistrate that in all the circumstances the food is safe the magistrate will not condemn the food. In fact, magistrates and enforcement officers already have a body of case law to guide them in this area as well as their own common sense.
For example, raw ingredients may be a source of food poisoning. But enforcement officers would not seize raw ingredients at a soup factory, for example, on those grounds because the ingredients would be subsequently cooked and made safe before consumption. In view of what I have said I hope that my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank my noble friend for those remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 7, line 35, after ("value") insert ("and other commercial loss").
The noble Baroness said: Subsection (7) addresses the question of what happens when food which is perfectly fit for human consumption is wrongfully seized and how the owners of that food are compensated. As drafted the subsection stipulates compensation for any depreciation in the value of the goods resulting from the wrongful seizure. That might relate to the entire goods if they have perished completely or it might be a part of the value. But the subsection makes no provision at all for any other commercial loss than that relating to the food itself.
The other commercial loss I suggest might greatly outweigh the value of the goods. For example, if baked beans were seized from two major supermarkets there would undoubtedly be publicity that this had occurred. All over the country people would stop buying baked beans and possibly stop going to the particular supermarkets that had been named in a television programme. Their loss of trade might be very great.
This amendment does not propose enormous damages. It is most important that the authorities should have the right to adequately test the food; they should not be deterred in any way from doing so. I accept that a very good job is being done by the health inspectors except for the type of case which I have mentioned where they have been obstructed from doing so. I shall raise the matter when we come to the debate on clause stand part.
In some cases it must be right for extra compensation to be available—not automatically, but by special claim and by proving the loss. That would have to be quantified in detail. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I support my noble friend Lady Gardner on this point. It is often not realised that loss that can occur after seizure. This is a real cause for concern. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench who showed great consideration to my noble friend Lady Gardner in regard to Amendment No. 33 will recognise the importance of the amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: I support the amendment. If a mistake has been made and a justice of the peace acknowledges it, full recompense should be paid. I can see great difficulty in deciding what constitutes full recompense but there must be a way in which to quantify it. I hope that my noble friend will be able to direct her mind towards that end. I support the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: On this Bench we sympathise with the case so ably advocated by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. A considerable loss of reputation can occur. This may sometimes be quite long lasting and in a number of instances very damaging to a business in the circumstances which she described. While we have no desire to see the provisions of the Bill weakened in such a way as to render it less effective than it needs to be, nevertheless the circumstances set out by the noble Baroness need to be addressed by the Government and sympathetically replied to.
The Earl of Radnor: I wish to add one point which has not been mentioned. If there is a delay in the sale, interest on the money outstanding should at least be taken into account.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to my noble friend for her explanation of the amendment and I note the support given to it by other noble Lords. Local authorities are already required to pay compensation to cover any depreciation in the value of the food resulting from a seizure, if the food is not condemned. This provision will continue under Clause 9(7). I believe that the provision strikes the right balance between the need to protect food businesses from wrongful seizure of their property, and the need to ensure that enforcement officers are not deterred from seizing suspect food by the threat of a hefty compensation bill.
464
As noble Lords will know, responsible food businesses are in the habit of taking out insurance to cover any other consequential losses. They also have recourse to a local government commissioner if they feel that they have been unfairly treated, and may sue the local authority if they believe that it has acted in bad faith. A number of measures therefore exist to protect food businesses from the wrongful seizure of food. In saying that I must emphasise that one of the main aims of the Bill is to ensure the effective enforcement of food safety law for the better protection of public health. I hope it will be agreed that we should not build in a deterrent to effective enforcement by accepting this amendment. I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before my noble friend replies or takes a decision in this matter, perhaps I may make one point. My noble friend on the Front Bench mentioned insurance. We have been over this ground many times, not least during consideration of the 1984 Act. It is almost impossible to insure in those conditions. No insurance company likes to insure against government incompetence, if I may put it that crudely.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I put this down as a probing amendment. We have had a very good discussion. Perhaps further thought can be given to the matter before the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 7, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) A food authority shall —

(a) maintain a register, which shall be adequately indexed, containing—

(i) a copy of any notice issued under section 9(3)(a) above; and where such a notice has been withdrawn under section 9(4)(a) above a statement to that effect;

(ii) a copy of any order made under section 9(6) above;

(iii) any written statement submitted to the authority for inclusion on the register by the person on whom a notice has been served or by the owner of the food to which an order applies;

(b) enter a copy of any notice, order or statement to which this section refers on the register not later than seven days from the date on which it was issued (or, as the case may be) made or submitted; and where a notice has been withdrawn the authority shall enter a statement to that effect not later than seven days from the date on which it was withdrawn; and

(c) ensure that the register is open to inspection by any person without charge at all reasonable times; and supply to any person on request a copy of any entry in the register for which a reasonable charge to cover the cost of copying and supplying the entry may be made.").

The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendment No. 52. With these amendments I should like to move into the area of secrecy and freedom of information. I am advised on them by the Campaign for Freedom of Information and I have the support of the Consumers' Association. With later amendments I shall return more generally to the question of secrecy but I am presently dealing with Amendments Nos. 37 and 52.
The intention of the amendments is to ensure that the public has access to information about enforcement of notices which we believe it has a right to know. Under Clause 9(3) notices prohibiting the sale and use of food can be served where it is likely to cause food poisoning, but these notices would remain secret. Under Clause 10(1) improvement notices can be served where a food business is breaking statutory safety or hygiene requirements, but these notices would remain secret. Only where enforcement action takes place in court, involving, for example, the destruction of dangerous food under Clause 9(6) and the provisions of Clauses 11(1) and 12(2) which deal with prohibition orders, will the details become public knowledge. That is wrong. We believe that publicity is a powerful weapon in the hands of the consumer. That powerful weapon should not be blunted.
We believe that publicity would help to alert the public to unsafe premises and enable it to assess the safety record of firms and premises. What is more, it would help to ensure compliance with formal requests for improvements. Such registers could in time also provide systematic records of compliance. That would be valuable when the proposed system of registration under Clause 19 is introduced.
There is nothing new in the type of register suggested in these amendments. It would bring the Bill into line with other provisions. Under the Environment and Safety Information Act 1988 public registers of improvement and prohibition notices served under health and safety, fire and pesticide legislation have been established. Furthermore, the Government's Environmental Protection Bill extends this approach to enforcement notices about other forms of pollution. This Bill does not contain similar provisions. We firmly believe that it should.
Amendment No. 37 deals with the provision of a register of those cases where a notice has been issued under Clause 9(3) requiring food not to be used for human consumption, or an order made under Clause 9(6) by a justice of the peace for the destruction or disposal of food. In fairness, it also makes provision for withdrawals of notice to be registered within a period of seven days. This is an important safeguard for the producer. We have been talking about safeguards for people who are wrongly, improperly or incorrectly assessed as having done something wrong and subsequently turn out not to have done it. There is the opportunity for inclusion of written statements by the person on whom the order or notice has been served so that he can state his side of the case if he wishes to do so.
Similarly, Amendment No. 52 makes provision for registers of improvement notices, prohibition orders and emergency orders and notices under Clause 10(1), Clause 11(1) and Clause 12(1). If I am to be perfectly fair to the Government, as I am sure the noble Baroness would expect me to be, it would be possible under the Bill to make regulations for public registers—Clause 26(3)(c) gives that enabling power—but there is no guarantee that that will take place. Its extent is very much unspecified. Moreover,
466
such regulations would not be amendable by Parliament. Therefore we believe that the provision does not give sufficient certainty that members of the public will be properly informed about matters which are vital to their health.
What is proposed is a weapon which is not likely to be very much used by the public directly. However, it would be of enormous use to the press, and especially to the local press. In my view the local press is an important weapon regarding the public under these circumstances. The press would have the opportunity to consult such registers and where there are flagrant breaches, both as regards individual instances and those where a firm has been a regular offender, such matters would be brought to the notice of the general public.
We believe that the suggested provision should be on the face of the Bill, and that it should not be left to regulations. Therefore, in view of the benefits which such publication would bring, these amendments are most necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I should like to suggest to the Committee that this amendment is neither necessary nor desirable. I would not normally accuse the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, of naiveté. However, on this occasion he has displayed a remarkable example of that quality. The fact is that the entry upon a register of any notice is in itself sufficient to attract adverse press attention. Moreover, the successful appeal against such a notice is not reported; that is not the way the press operates. Therefore it would bear harshly and unfairly upon the person concerned.
In my view we should move away from the use of the media as a positive attacking force. However, to use them as a passive force is something quite different. I think that there is another far more important implication in what is suggested by these two amendments. In the Bill we are looking for greater safety in the production, the retailing and the handling of foodstuffs to avoid injury, human misery and all the accompanying factors. I expect responsible people who are handling foodstuffs and products to seek the advice of an enforcement agency. For example, a person could say to an official, "I am not too sure about this, can you help me?" It may well be that the inspector will visit the premises and say, "I am sorry, but you are contravening certain regulations. Therefore you must undertake this building work". Or he may say, "You must install this piece of equipment". The person then says, "I am most grateful for your help and I shall get on with the job".
However, the inspector then says, "I am sorry the matter cannot end there; I must serve a notice upon you". According to the noble Lord, Lord Todoff, such a notice would be entered on the register for all to see. Such an occurrence would only deter others from seeking advice from enforcement agencies. It is largely upon those grounds that the amendment is both pernicious and unwarranted.
Lord Mottistone: I strongly support the remarks made by my noble friend. As he made clear, the fact that the names of firms would appear on a town hall blacklist is potentially dangerous. Moreover, when the notice is withdrawn, that fact is also recorded; but it is not something which people will necessarily remember, regardless of how the publicity is handled. In any event, such publicity is very dangerous in a local community.
The situation outlined by my noble friend where inspectors are invited into factories does happen and it is customary. Such requests are made to obtain advice and sometimes to ask such agencies to issue a notice in respect of defective raw materials so as to facilitate insurance claims. All such information would be included and the notices would be publicly available. However, they would probably give the wrong impression. Instead of conveying the fact that the firm concerned had very good quality control and was using its close relationship with the local authority to enable it to obtain better raw materials, it would be seen as one of those firms which had received even more notices than others.
The intention behind the amendment lays itself wide open to misuse and misinterpretation. Apart from anything else, the danger is that the increasingly good relationships between respectable firms of all kinds and sizes and their local authority, which are so important for the proper implementation of the Bill when it becomes enacted, would be weakened. People would be cautious as to how they relate to the officials who would in certain circumstances provide notices which would not mean what people may interpret them to mean.
Finally, what is proposed would be a great bureaucratic exercise. Surely this is not what the Campaign for Freedom of Information wants. From what I know of the members of that campaign, it seems to me that they do not like bureaucracy. However, that is what they stand to create if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, or anything along those lines, is accepted. I hope very much that Members of the Committee will reject this amendment and also Amendment No. 52
Baroness Hooper: While I sympathise with the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in tabling these amendments, I believe that they are unnecessary and that they could be harmful. I shall speak first to Amendment No. 37 which concerns Clause 9. If the seizure of food led to a prosecution under Clause 8, the details of the seizure would become public knowledge in court. The amendment would not add anything in that case. On the other hand, if the notice detaining food pending investigation is withdrawn or the magistrate finds in favour of the owner of the food, it would be quite wrong to make details of any such detention public. To do so would damage the owner's reputation, as we were reminded when we discussed this matter in connection with the last amendment, even though he had not been found guilty of an offence. I cannot believe that Members of the Committee would wish to support such a provision.
Applications to a single magistrate acting administratively are normally heard in private. That
468
applies to all legislation and not just to food safety law. It would be wrong to single out food safety law as one area where this confidentiality should be removed. The amendment would also lead to considerable confusion. Food may be detained pending investigation for very short periods and keeping a register of such matters up to date could pose administrative problems for local authorities.
I turn now to the proposed new clause suggested in Amendment No. 52. In the case of prohibition notices, emergency prohibition orders and most emergency prohibition notices, open court proceedings automatically take place. Prosecutions for failure to comply with an improvement notice would also be in open court, to which the press has access.
The amendment would simply produce a mountain of paperwork which would not in practice be read. Further, and most important—and my noble friends Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Mottistone have both given us examples of the importance of the good relationships which can and do exist between some businesses and the enforcement officers—any register of improvement notices could destroy the co-operation which is currently offered to enforcement officers when visiting food businesses.
Proprietors could become resistant to the inspection of their premises if the result of an inspection were an improvement notice which would appear on a public register. It is essential that everyone concerned is committed to raising food safety standards. We believe that the amendment would destroy that commitment. Apart from improvement notices, there are other reasons why we should not publish details of cases which do not come to court. Emergency prohibition notices, for example, might be lifted before the court hearing takes place because the risk to health has been removed. The emergency notice could in fact be of short duration. In other cases the local authority might decide that it does not have sufficient grounds to proceed against a proprietor. Again, it would then be most unjust to damage his reputation by publishing details of the case.
Both amendments would add to the local authority's duties. Public interest would be better served if local authorities directed their resources towards enforcing the food safety provisions of the Bill instead of towards a bureaucratic exercise of this kind. I am therefore unable to accept the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw it.
I should like to finish by making a general point and saying that the Bill is not a vehicle for an unnecessary degree of secrecy. In particular, Clause 26(3) provides us with powers to require a register such as, for example, those made under the provisions of Clause 19(a), to be open to the public. Detailed requirements on registration of premises will be laid down in regulations which will be subject to consultation. Any organisation is free to make representations during the consultation exercise. I hope that they will accept that it is not our intention to introduce any unnecessary secrecy by means of

469
the Bill. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: We seem to have touched the spot with the amendment. When we have such a vigorous response from noble Lords on the Government Back Benches who tend to be interested in the producers' rather than the consumers' interest, I feel that I may be getting close to the point.
Baroness Trumpington: No.
Lord Tordoff: I did not say the Government Front Bench. I absolved it on this occasion.
All kinds of reasons have been thrown at us as to why we should not have this provision. It seems to me that the interests of the general public are being overlooked by those who oppose the amendment. I shall not press the amendment tonight. The amendments clearly need to be looked at in the light of what the Minister has said. She said that she was not without sympathy for the reasons behind them.
I have dealt with the last point the Minister made about Clause 26(3)(c). I accept that that requirement is available, but I am not sure that regulations are the best way in which to deal with the matter because, as I say, Parliament has little or no chance of doing anything with them when they come forward. I still believe that the minimum of secrecy is important when dealing with such matters if the public is to be genuinely protected. The fact that some nasty journalist will say things in his newspaper which will offend some producer who has undoubtedly had some action taken against him during the processes which precede the list being made, is a weak reason for not allowing it. Nevertheless, I believe that I should take the amendment away, think about it and see whether I cannot come back with something that deals with its central point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I oppose the Motion on the grounds that there is no provision for the clause to deal with the person who deliberately obstructs and prevents a local authority food officer from obtaining the samples necessary for testing. The case I quoted earlier is not an isolated one. During my term of office as chairman of the local health committee there were many cases of devious vendors, rather than suppliers or preparers of food, who developed the most incredibly clever and devious ways of preventing the local health officer from taking the necessary samples.
As I said earlier, just as it is an offence for one to refuse to give a sample when one is suspected of drunken driving, so it should be an offence deliberately to obstruct the food officer in his duty. I realise that I could have tabled an amendment to bring the matter to the attention of my noble friend the Minister. I failed to do so and I understand that this is the only other procedure by which the matter
470
can be brought forward at this stage for my noble friend's attention. There should be some way in the public interest of dealing with cases of deliberate obstruction.
Baroness Hooper: Clause 9 gives powers to inspect, detain or seize food suspected of not complying with food safety requirements and to condemn food which does not comply with food safety requirements. The clause combines and strengthens the powers which already exist under Sections 9, 28 and 31 of the Food Act 1984 which allow a council's authorised officer to examine food intended for human consumption and seize it if he suspects that it is unfit for human consumption and likely to cause a disease communicable to humans or food poisoning. He has then to notify the person in whose possession the food was found and take it before a justice of the peace who decides whether the food should be destroyed. If the justice of the peace decides that the food should not be destroyed the authority is to compensate the owner. However, the current system is not sufficiently flexible to allow enforcement officers to choose a course of action appropriate to the circumstances of the particular case. Clause 9 therefore includes some additional powers.
We have discussed many of those powers in the course of dealing with the amendments to Clause 9. Obstruction is an offence under Clause 33. The penalty is three months' imprisonment and/or a fine of £2,000. Having said that, I hope that the Committee will agree that Clause 9 represents a much needed strengthening and streamlining of the powers of the existing Act and that it should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am pleased to hear that obstruction is an offence under Clause 33. Nevertheless, I do not know whether that power is sufficient to enable the officers to carry out their duties. Will my noble friend give careful thought to the matter between this and the Bill's next stage. I too should like to give thought to it to see whether an amendment to Clause 9 should be tabled.
Lord Tordoff: I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has said. Although in general terms Clause 33 deals with obstruction of a person acting in the execution of his duty, Clause 33(2) talks about people furnishing false or misleading information and recklessly furnishing false and misleading information. It does not say much about withholding information or material. It seems to me that the provision could do with a little strengthening at that stage.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to thank the noble Lord for his contribution. He makes the point that the Bill deals with recklessly furnishing false information or misleading material, but it does not deal with concealing information or preventing people from obtaining that information. Perhaps we should consider the matter again in relation to Clause 33 or at the next stage of the Bill, when we deal with Clause 9.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Improvement Notices]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 8, line 10, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

("(a) state the grounds for believing that the proprietor has failed to comply with specified regulations;

(b) specify the failure or failures; and

(c) require that reasonable steps be taken within a specified period (not being less than 14 days) to comply with those specified regulations.").

The noble Baroness said: I welcome the provision in Clause 10 for improvement notices to cover issues of safety and hygiene. My concern relates to an authorised officer being able to specify the steps which the proprietor must take in order to comply with regulations.
In most cases there may be a choice of a number of equally effective alternative steps. Surely the objective should be to ensure a compliance with the law rather than to set out details of a specific means by which compliance is to be achieved. I consider that it would be more appropriate for the officer to state the grounds for believing that the proprietor has failed to comply with regulations, to specify such failures and to require the proprietor to take reasonable steps within a specified period in order to comply.
My amendment would illustrate this situation. For example, it might be that a certain area in a factory was considered to be unhygienic because a brick wall existed. It may be necessary to produce some type of hygienic cladding for the brick wall so that it could be easily washed down with a sterile solution. The officer may have suggested tiling the wall; the owner of the factory may say that he would rather have a stainless steel cladding. One cladding could be just as effective as the other. It would be a matter of personal choice and availability of material. It should not be relevant to this Bill which solution is used. This amendment would give a choice of a number of alternatives that could be considered. The same result in terms of safety and hygiene would be achieved. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: Although we are concerned to ensure that defective food premises are brought up to standard, we do not intend to involve food businesses in unnecessary expense. This is particularly important to the smaller business. Therefore I am happy to accept the principle of this amendment. However, I am sure that my noble friends will understand and, hopefully, agree that it is vital to ensure that the drafting of the clause fully achieves our aim. I should therefore like to take more time to consider the wording and return to it at a later stage.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to thank my noble friend for that remark; it demonstrates what a lot of common sense she and the Government have. I shall be pleased to consult as regards the wording. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 8, line 12, leave out ("14") and insert ("28").
The noble Lord said: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. Whatever the outcome of her consultation may be, perhaps she and the Minister will take on board what I had in mind in Amendment No. 39, which I beg to move.
There are powers contained in the clause for the authorised officer to issue an improvement notice where there are grounds for believing that the owner has failed to comply with the regulations. We believe that 14 days is too short a period. Subparagraph 10(1)(b) requires compliance within a period specified, not being less than 15 days. It could be 28 days or longer. Nevertheless, to a company with no in-house capability, 14 days may prove to be too difficult. For example, I wonder how many of your Lordships have attempted to get a plumber to replace a wash-hand basin in London. I suspect that it could be considerably longer than 14 days. I wonder how many of your Lordships have attempted to obtain a fridge freezer of a particular make. I did so the other day and I was told that delivery would take a month to six weeks.
There is a potential cause of hardship to a smaller businessman who has no in-house capability to get a builder or a particular piece of equipment. If he does not comply within the specified time—perhaps it is 14 days or 21 days—he shall be guilty of an offence.
Where the receiver of a notice accepts the rightness of the case, surely he should have a reasonable time. I suggest to the Committee that 28 days might be a more reasonable time for the lower limit. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to my noble friend for his proposal. Regrettably, I cannot accept it. The minimum period laid down in Clause 10 for compliance with an improvement notice is 14 days. I am informed by technical experts that for most purposes 14 days is ample. Environmental health officers are not unreasonable people. The clause gives them a discretion to allow such longer period as may be required. If steps were required which were complicated, a longer period would be allowed. In many cases 14 days could be more than sufficent to enable matters likely to be the subject of an improvement notice to be put right. Unlike some of the examples quoted by my noble friend, they would mostly be minor matters which could be rapidly put right. I trust that in the light of that assurance, my noble friend will not insist upon his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I do not find the Minister's answer very helpful to those unfortunate people who may have a notice put upon them for some minor or major infringement.
In the light of what the Minister stated to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, I should like to see how that amendment turns out and relate it to the purport of Amendment No. 39. It is right and proper to tell the Committee that I should like to look at further developments before deciding on

473
whether I wish to pursue this argument. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 8, line 14, leave out ("guilty of an offence") and insert ("liable to prosecution").
The noble Lord said: This is a very small amendment. Clause 10(2) states that
"any person who fails to comply with an improvement notice shall be guilty of an offence"
The amendment proposed that it should state, "shall be liable to prosecution". That may appear to be nit-picking comment, but there is a difference. Clause 33 to which my noble friend Lady Hooper drew attention, relates to people who are positively doing things, intentionally obstructing etc. However in this case the person is not doing something; it is negative. He may not be guilty of an offence. His non-compliance with an improvement notice may be such a small issue that nobody bothers to take him to court, and therefore he has not been guilty of an offence. However, he would be liable to prosecution. Then the great "they" may decide not to prosecute him. It seems to me better common sense to accept this amendment rather than to leave the Bill in its rather untidy present state. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: This may be a small amendment in the opinion of my noble friend, but it would effectively remove the teeth from the improvement notice procedure. The Committee will be aware that we consider that procedure to be very important. It will raise standards of hygiene in food businesses. Prosecuting an offender may not be such an effective way of raising standards as we believe the improvement notice procedure to be.
The words "guilty of an offence" which my noble friend seeks to change in Clause 10(2) are customarily used to indicate that an offence is created in certain circumstances. I must assure the Committee that they do not imply that the defendant is in any sense prejudged. I hope that on that basis my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I shall certainly not press the amendment. However, it would be helpful if my noble friend were to read my comments. I shall certainly read what she had to say. I am not sure that my solution is not more logical. However, it is getting a little late and close to dinner for us to have a long argument about the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 8, line 18, leave out ("or any class of food").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 41, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 53, 54, 64, 65, 66, 68, 101, 102, 157, 168 and 169. This apparently formidable group of amendments is entirely technical in that it seeks to produce consistent terminology throughout the Bill by
474
deleting references to classes of food and food sources. Except in Clause 13, such references are unnecessary. However, in that clause the reference to classes is required because of its purpose.
Ministers may wish to prohibit activities in relation to classes of food, food sources or contact materials rather than to prohibit activities in relation to all foods, all food sources or all contact materials. We have also taken power in Clause 47 to make different provision regarding different areas and different classes of business. I wish to reassure the Committee that none of these amendments will reduce the power of Ministers to take appropriate action in urgent cases. In these circumstances, I commend the group of amendments to the Committee and I trust that they prove acceptable. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 8, line 21, at end insert—
("(4) Where an appeal under section 37, in relation to an improvement notice is successful, the enforcement authority shall compensate the proprietor of the business in respect of any loss suffered by reason of his complying with the notice within the 14 days period laid down.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important amendment in that it deals with compensation. Clause 37(1) of this Bill provides a right of appeal against an improvement notice. That is right and it is to be welcomed. However, I and I am sure other Members of the Committee can envisage circumstances in which in order to avoid any possibility or even probability of committing an offence under Clause 10, the owner of the premises may well carry out alterations or take such action as he sees fit. That process may injuriously affect him; in other words, it may cost money. Here I must refer to the remarks that I made a short while ago on the time element, particularly if a building alteration were involved. That may all happen before an appeal is heard as there is no provision that. I am aware of which states that appeals against an order will have any kind of priority treatment in a court or a tribunal.
If an appeal were succesful, the owner of the premises concerned might in all probability have spent money unnecessarily. Perhaps he did so purely to avoid committing a further offence, if the appeal were not upheld. It seems to me that if the appeal is successful and moneys have been unnecessarily expended, there should be a right of compensation. That is the purport of this amendment.
Notwithstanding what my noble friend the Minister has said in relation to the Consumer Protection Act 1987, what I am suggesting here is in essence precisely the same as the provision in Section 34 of that Act. I think the amendment is reasonable, particularly as the Minister has given us no extension of the time limit either to comply with an order or for an appeal to be heard. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I have sympathy with the intention of my noble friend which is to safeguard proprietors from being forced to go to unnecessary expense by overzealous enforcement officers.

475
However, the question is whether it would be right to build into the Bill a provision to compensate those few proprietors caught by such circumstances. Enforcement officers are unlikely to prosecute for failure to comply with an improvement notice if they know that an appeal has been lodged, because a court would probably not impose a substantive penalty. It might well also criticise the authority for misusing its discretion. Failure to comply in those circumstances is therefore unlikely to lead to prosecution. Most proprietors will realise this and will not rush to comply with requirements against which they are appealing.
Nevertheless, I recognise that this situation is far from ideal. We shall therefore consider bringing forward a government amendment to ensure that a proprietor is not guilty of an offence if he fails to comply with an improvement notice pending an appeal. I hope in view of that assurance my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful for the Minister's remarks about a government amendment. However, any such amendment would deal only with one aspect of the matter. That is one of the reasons for tabling the amendment. It deals with those circumstances where, pending an appeal, the receiver of a notice would not be guilty of an offence if the improvement, whether it involved building or equipment, were not in place at the time specified in the original notice. Nevertheless, the nature of a notice may well inhibit a business and a proprietor, so causing monetary damage for which, if an appeal were successful, he should be compensated.
The time is just before seven o'clock, and as this is the first day after the Recess I have the feeling that the Committee is not used to going through the Lobbies. That process will recommence later in the Session. Therefore, I think it would be wrong to disturb the peace of the Committee in that way this evening.
I hope that the amendment that the Minister has promised will come in sufficient time for us to debate the general position regarding improvement notice and compensation. It would be appropriate for me to test the opinion of the House at that time. Having been taught by your Lordships many years ago never to look a gift horse in the mouth, perhaps your Lordships' Committee will allow me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage on this Bill be resumed at 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Trade Union Act 1984 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS LOCKWOOD in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of s. 10(3)(c) of Trade Union Act 1984]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved the following amendment:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert ("up to a maximum of six weeks").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment perhaps I may remind the Committee briefly of the contents of the Bill and of the purpose of the amendment. The Committee will remember that the Trade Union Act 1984 stipulates that in order for a strike to be lawful it must fulfil two conditions: an affirmative ballot in accordance with Section 10 of the 1984 Act, and authorisation or endorsement of that ballot by the appropriate union body.
The critical issue from the point of view of the Bill before us and the amendment is that the 1984 Act goes on to say:
"after the date of the ballot and before the expiry of four weeks beginning with that date".
That is what has come to be called the 28-day rule. You must get your strike off the ground. It is not just a matter of authorising the strike. You cannot authorise it and put it on the shelf; you must get your strike off the ground and airborne within 28 days. A strike must take place.
The Committee will recall that the purpose of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is to allow the courts, probably in connection with an injunction, to extend the four week period. The noble Lord wishes that period to be extended so that it would be indefinite. The Bill says:
"for such period as the court may direct".
There would then be a 28-day rule plus an unlimited extension period. It should be clear that the purpose of the amendment is to place a limit on the period of extension to a maximum of six weeks. If the amendment were included on the face of the Bill and the Bill were to become an Act we should have a 28-day period with a further 42 days at the discretion of the judges, giving an overall period of 10 weeks within which a strike could take place under the terms of the 1984 legislation.
Those who were present when we discussed the Bill at Second Reading—and I see that most of those noble Lords are here today—will recall why the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and a considerable number of other distinguished lawyers who participated in the debate, thought the Bill necessary. Their reasons related to the case of the recent

477
national dock strike. Therefore I shall recapitulate briefly the crucial dates in that strike, to which the amendment and the Bill itself relate.
On 6th April 1989 the Government announced the repeal of the dock labour scheme. On 7th April there was a First Reading of the Bill repealing the scheme. On 11th April the Transport and General Workers' Union decided to oppose the Bill and on 18th April the employers refused to discuss a negotiated alternative by means of collective bargaining. There was a failure to agree. On 2nd May the Transport and General Workers' Union decided to ballot its members on a national strike to achieve a negotiated alternative to the legal framework which was to be abolished. On 8th May the employers issued a writ.
The employers' writ alleged that the strike was unlawful and did not involve a trade dispute. Various other points were made which need not concern us now. The union decided to press on with the ballot. The ballot was conducted with commendable dispatch over a period from 10th to 17th May and resulted in an overwhelming vote in favour of the strike. The day the ballot ended and before the union was able to declare the result of the ballot the general secretary of the union found himself in court rebutting the case for an injunction.
Ten days later at the court of first instance, before Mr Justice Millett, the court decided in favour of the union. As the Committee will know the employers went on to appeal. On 7th June the Court of Appeal decided against the union, on rather different grounds, so the union went to the House of Lords. On 21st June the union obtained a decision from the House of Lords in its favour and on 27th June it went back to hear the reasons. The critical point is that by then the union was out of time. The 28 days ran out on 14th June and so the union needed another ballot.
The central argument, and the argument which we made at Second Reading, is that that was not the Government's intention in passing the legislation. I have read again the replies of the Minister both when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, introduced the Bill in the previous parliamentary Session and again in December. At no time did he say that the Government intended what has now happened. He said that this was the only case and that in five years this was the only occasion on which a union had run out of time. He also argued that there was a central reason why the Government could not accept the Bill as it stood.
The Minister's argument was that the Bill proposed an extension for an indefinite period. A great deal was made by the Minister of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was asking for an ability for the judges to extend the statutory period of four weeks indefinitely. After admitting the concern which had been expressed in the debate by the Master of the Rolls and others about the problem of finding priority in the queue in order to remain within the four week period, the Minister said that he was not entirely convinced because:
"there remains a fundamental difficulty about the proposition that the court should have discretion to extend the 28-day period".
I believe that I am being fair to the Government in saying that that was the central argument against the Bill. The Minister went on to say that:
"To allow an unlimited—or unduly lengthy—period of time risks creating a situation in which the ballot result no longer accurately represents the views of the union members". [Official Report, 6/12/89; col. 961.]
He said that, if that happened, the ballot,
"would … no longer be valid".
He went on to say that, if that were to happen,
"it is right that the union should be required to re-ballot its members to make sure they are still content for it to call on them to take industrial action".
From the Government's point of view, we can see why they argue that way. We can see why they say that they do not want a Bill which gives unlimited periods of discretion to the judiciary. That is what I am trying to deal with tonight in the amendment. It tries to deal centrally with that point. It states that there will no longer be an unlimited period and that it will be an overall period of 10 weeks. That is the maximum by which a valid ballot may delay the process of a strike.
In the case of the Transport and General Workers' Union—I use that example because it is the only example we have had, although, as many noble Lords said, there could be many other examples—that would have given it about four or five weeks at the end of the period in which it could have organised a strike; in other words, something similar to the period which it would have had if there had not been legal intervention.
Perhaps the Minister will say that 10 weeks is too long and that he will accept eight weeks. I have consulted on the matter. People who know more about it than I do believe that a six-week discretion of that kind would give us a slight leeway as the courts were extremely expeditious in moving from the court of first instance through the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords and may not be able to do so at quite that speed next time. It would give the union a slight leeway if there were a small falling away if there were several cases of that kind; yet it is still entirely up to the judges as to whether they want to give that period. I stress that it is the maximum period. The judges might well decide that, if the matter were settled at the court of first instance, all the union would need is another fortnight. It would be up to the union to make the case at the time as to what period of extension would be legitimate for it in that case.
We must reject the arguments made by the Government to the effect that this is an isolated case which cannot come about again. Most of the time, employers do not take cases all the way through the system, but they might do so in future, as might unions. There might not be in most cases, and probably have not been in past cases, outstanding issues about which, at the injunction stage, there could be said to be a question of legality in which case neither side would go for an injunction. However, there might well be a tendency to take the case through its various stages.
I return to the basic point which the Government do not challenge. This was not the intention of the Bill in 1984. It was not the intention of the Bill to

479
make unions run two ballots, one after the other, simply because they had got themselves into the legal process.
The only other argument with which I must deal very quickly was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, at the end of his speech on 6th December. In col. 962 of Hansard he seemed to imply that the problem which had produced the Bill was in some way the fault of the Transport and General Workers' Union because it failed to start the strike soon enough. It did not take advantage of the fact that it could have held the strike between the employers giving notice of their intention to seek an injunction and the courts deciding the case. The noble Lord said that
if the union had taken advantage of that opportunity, "it would then have satisfied the requirements of Section 10(3)(c)…Even if it had subsequently withdrawn its authorisation when an injunction was awarded, the union would have been able to organise the action without the need for a further ballot".
I ask the Committee to consider what is suggested. It is suggested that the leadership of the Transport and General Workers' Union should have started the strike between the declaration of the ballot result on 19th May and the court's decision on 27th May, a period of eight days. It should have declared the strike within those eight days in advance of the decision in case the decision went against it, or, if it went in favour of the employer, it should have done it before it went to the Court of Appeal.
One can imagine what the public reaction to that course of action would have been. One can imagine what the Government would have said. One can imagine what Fleet Street, or whatever it is now called, would have said; namely, that a union authorised a strike and a union leader conducted a strike on the very day that he went along to a court to defend his decision against the charge of illegality. That is what is suggested as an alternative to the Bill and to the amendment.
That is no solution at all. If it ever became the general practice of unions, employers would stop giving early notice of their desire and intention to ask for injunctions. If it operated at all, the courts would be under even more pressure than they are now to hold an expeditious hearing. As the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, the judges would be under pressure to hold up an injunction in order to give the unions time to start a strike. What kind of argument is that? In the heyday of the Department of Employment that kind of argument would never have been put into a young Minister's brief. That is how far we have gone. It is irresponsible and sick. The Government know that the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, Mr. Todd, was absolutely right not to threaten strike action until he knew that if the strike took place it would be perfectly lawful. He would have been absolutely wrong to start it otherwise.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: This is Committee stage and we are dealing with the noble Lord's amendment. We
480
are discussing only whether we are to change the period up to a maximum of six weeks.
Lord McCarthy: I do not disagree with the Minister, but I do not see why I am not making a valid point. When the Minister was last on his feet, he said that we did not need the Bill, and therefore presumably the amendment, because there was an alternative open to the union. I ask the Minister to have the courtesy to say this evening that on reflection he now accepts that that is no kind of argument at all and therefore that there is no argument against the Bill or the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Noble Lords will remember that the first time around at Second Reading I canvassed the long stop extension of four weeks, making eight weeks in all. I said that if, for example, it were the wish of government to limit to four weeks the period of extension proposed by the Bill, then so be it. The second time around at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy said:
"As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, if that is the Government's primary objection to the Bill they could let the Bill go forward and in Committee propose amendments along those lines".—[Official Report, 6/12/89; col. 955.]
Then the noble Lord asked me whether I would support an amendment along those lines. Indeed I do support his amendment which allows for 10 weeks in all as a maximum.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for having tabled this amendment. I hope that it will meet with the approval of the Committee and also with that of my noble friend the Minister. It meets the second and third categories of objections of my noble friend the Minister, to which I referred at col. 945 on 6th December. The first head of objection that he raised—that this was a one-off situation—has been disposed of by the weight of reasoned argument and has been exposed as a misconception. The fourth head of objection was unintelligible and misconceived because it rested upon the premise that the 28-day period was under attack when indeed it was not.
But then my noble friend the Minister in his winding-up speech took a new head of objection, to which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has just referred, at col. 962. He said that there was no need for the Bill at all because if within 28 days from a ballot the union authorises the action before an injunction is granted, the requirements of the statute would have been satisfied and there would be no need for any further ballot once the injunction had been lifted.
That was a point of legal construction which had not attracted the attention of any noble Lord who had spoken in either of the debates on this Bill. It was not raised by my noble friend the Minister or any other noble Lord the first time around. It was produced by my noble friend the Minister with the prestigious charm of a practised conjuror who taps the departmental hat and up pops the rabbit. He then suggested that this rabbit was a viable objection to the Bill. Noble Lords blinked in utter astonishment and we all went on our way.

481
But, having considered the matter, the Master of the Rolls wrote to my noble friend the Minister the next day, on 7th December. The Master of the Rolls concluded that although the rabbit existed—in other words the point of strict construction was well founded—it was only, so to speak, by a trick of mirrors that it could be seen as a viable objection to the Bill. Quite the reverse, for if this point of construction were right—and it is open to question, there being no judicial decision as yet—the need for the Bill, in the view of the Master of the Rolls, was no less than imperative, as appears from his letter of 7th December to my noble friend the Minister, which I have the permission of the Master of the Rolls to quote. I quote the letter as it supports the need for the Bill as amended, if such be the Chamber's wish.
The letter speaks for itself. It will command the authority and respect which all noble Lords would wish to accord to the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls. It is addressed to the Lord Strathclyde and reads as follows:
"Following the good humoured debate last night on this Bill, I looked into the point which you raised when stating the Government's attitude".
This is the point that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was making towards the end of his remarks.
"I rather think that the legal advice which you received was correct. Under section 10(3)(c) of the 1984 Act, the "relevant act", i.e. the strike or other industrial action authorised by the ballot, has to take place within the 28-day period. At first I thought that the whole of the relevant act had to take place within that period, but clearly that is not correct, because this would mean that no strike could lawfully last beyond the end of the period. It follows, as you were advised, that all that is required is that it shall start within the period. Once it has been started, it could theoretically be suspended in response to a court order and resumed at a later date, if and when it was held to be lawful".
In effect it is getting pretty near Mr. Justice Cocklecarrot in some aspects.
"If I may respectfully say so, I think that you have been misled into scoring an 'own goal', for two different reasons".
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, picked one of them, but there are two.
"(1) As you will know, it is difficult for trade unions to call off a strike on a temporary basis once it has started."
This was the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy's, point—the practical point of view.
"These things have a momentum of their own. In encouraging unions to rush into industrial action when a legal challenge is threatened or anticipated, you risk creating a situation which will damage the authority of the courts. The union will no doubt issue instructions for the industrial action to be suspended and so will not be in contempt, but the industrial action will continue on the ground.
(2) The courts will be asked to enable the union to qualify under section 10 by leaving them free to start the industrial action. This could be achieved if any injunction granted at first instance was suspended pending an appeal or if the claim to an injunction failed on its merits at first instance, by refusing relief designed for the limited purpose of preserving the position pending an appeal. In the light of your advice this would be difficult to resist.
Surely it would be better to give the courts the power proposed in the Bill, which would enable them to deal with the matter on a straightforward basis without regard to the tactical position of the parties.
482
I am copying this letter to Alan Campbell and Derry Irvine, both of whom were, I know, very interested in your point".
It is surely right that we should deal with the matter according to its substance, according to its merits and according to what I and all noble Lords have understood to be the general intendment of government to pass the Bill.
Baroness Turner of Camden: As the Committee will know, we on these Benches support the Bill. We supported it in both Second Reading debates. I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord McCarthy. I do not want this evening in the limited time at our disposal to go over the history of the reasons for the Bill which he has done very effectively. However, my recollection of the Second Reading debate is the same as that of my noble friend Lord McCarthy and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. A prime point made by the Government was that as drafted the Bill was open-ended and it would give a union the opportunity to call a dispute when the mandate that had already been given by a vote was in effect exhausted because so much time had elapsed since the ballot had taken place.
At Second Reading I made the point that it is never in the interests of a union, following a ballot vote, to prolong the time for calling a dispute. I speak as someone with experience of these matters on the ground. I can assure the Committee that once there is a ballot vote in favour of dispute action, one has to get up and go because at that stage the membership is all prepared and waiting for the next step to be taken and union instructions on what to do. Once one has lost that impetus it is very difficult to get it back again. That is where he unfairness exists which has already been described by my noble friend Lord McCarthy.
In the amendment he has tried to meet—I think very reasonably—the Government's objection. If the amendment were accepted there would be a maximum of 10 weeks. If the court had discretion, that would be the maximum amount of time available for a union. It would be reasonable because in normal circumstances a union would be able to get on with the organisation of the dispute in that period. The amendment is a reasonable and modest measure that is attempting to address an injustice which I do not think was originally envisaged when the legislation was promulgated.
In this Chamber we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for being so persistent on this question, and for bringing back the Bill a second time; and to my noble friend Lord McCarthy for attempting to meet in a very genuine way the objections that have been voiced by the Government.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Brightman: I entirely support the Bill. However, I feel that I ought to enter a caveat on the wording of the amendment. It occurred to me rather late in the day; otherwise I should have had a word with the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, about it.
Members of the Committee know that, under the existing Act, to be lawful a strike must begin within

483
four weeks of the close of voting. Under the Bill the period of four weeks may be extended for such period as the court directs. The amendment seeks to add the words, "up to a maximum of six weeks". With very great respect to the noble Lord, that formula is capable of meaning either that the court may extend the period of four weeks up to a maximum of six weeks inclusive of the basic four weeks, or, as is intended, that the court may extend the period of four weeks by adding to such four weeks a further period not exceeding six weeks.
I have spoken to my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington. He authorises me to say that he also considers that the proposed wording of the amendment is ambiguous. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, whether he will consider the wording between now and Report stage if the amendment is accepted by the Committee.
Lord Renton: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has raised a very important point. However, with respect to him, I am not quite sure that we can deal with this by leaving it to Report stage. Under our rules there is no Report stage unless the Bill has been amended in Committee. If I am wrong about that I shall be happy to be corrected. I was borrowing from experience in another place which perhaps does not apply here.
Lord Brightman: I envisaged that the Bill would be amended in Committee in the form which was advocated by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I was seeking that a further amendment be brought at Report stage.
Lord McCarthy: I fully accept the arguments made. It was my intention that it should read 10 weeks. In other words, it is the larger period rather than the smaller. If there is an ambiguity, I am perfectly willing to let the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, dictate the amendment which I shall bring in at Report stage.
Lord Strathclyde: In order to avoid confusion, I understand that an amendment could be brought forward at Report stage even though there had been no amendments at Committee stage.
Lord Renton: I am very glad to hear that correction. It shows that procedure in this Chamber is more liberal and shows a better understanding of circumstances than the procedure on this point in another place. It is therefore not necessary for the amendment to be accepted this evening in its present form. It can be put right to remove the ambiguity. I was very glad that the noble and learned Lord drew attention to it. I was puzzling in my mind whether it meant six weeks altogether or four weeks plus six weeks, making 10 weeks. We have to get the provision right.
Having said that, perhaps I may say this, I hope without being pompous. It is very refreshing on a delicate trade union matter to find open-mindedness on both sides of the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, made a very valid point when he said
484
that it would be wrong to have an indefinite period where as the Bill stands, the judge could say, "Let it run on for months". I believe that very few judges in their discretion would be likely to do so. However, we have to enact the laws on the basis not of optimism but of possibility. Therefore it is a point that ought to be put right.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is to be congratulated both on the introduction of the Bill and on his attitude towards the amendment. I make a plea to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I very much hope that the Government will show the same sense of co-operation that both sides have shown towards each other on the Bill. I hope that the Government will accede to amendment of the Bill on the lines suggested and that the Bill will reach the statute book.
Lord Rochester: Like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I am glad that the ambiguity to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, referred earlier has been picked up by the Committee. I had a word today with the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord McCarthy, on this point. I am relieved to learn—as no doubt are other noble Lords—that it can be put right at Report stage.
The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that the relevant period might be extended by up to six weeks to make an overall period of 10 weeks is a fair and reasonable attempt to reconcile the views of government, the judiciary, employers and trade unions. I am therefore pleased from these Benches to support the amendment of the noble Lord. Like other noble Lords, I very much hope that in the interests of political consensus—which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, earlier said he was seeking in first introducing the Bill—the Minister will now find it possible to accept the amendment on behalf of the Government.
Lord Carr of Hadley: Perhaps I may very briefly add my support to the purpose behind the amendment. I supported the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, the first time round last Session. I should have done so again had I been able to be here on the evening of 6th December. I was disappointed at the Government's reaction at that time. I could use a stronger word than disappointed but I shall not. However, I felt that there was this one point of substance in their objection which the purpose behind the amendment corrects. I very much hope therefore that the Government will accept the amendment in principle, taking note of the uncertainty that at present it contains and the need to put the uncertainty right, presumably with some further amendment at Report stage.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I should like to underline one point. The acceptance of the proposal would reduce the danger of strikes rather than increase it. If a union which has taken a ballot intended in part to induce a period of reflection and it is then faced by court proceedings which are terminated in favour of the union, there could be a danger of the union unduly precipitantly engaging

485
in strike action. If a limited additional period is given, there will be much greater opportunity for discussions and negotiations to take place. Given the certainty on the part of the employers that a limit will be imposed, it will be mutually advantageous to have a period during which the union can talk rather than activate the strike decision.
Lord Strathclyde: As is customary when dealing with this subject, we have had an interesting and varied debate. I have listened with great care to the speeches that have been made. As I said during the Bill's Second Reading, we are keeping this aspect of the law under close review, and will continue to do so whatever the fate of this particular Bill. However, I shall limit my words to the amendment on the Marshalled List.
I have to say that I do not find the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, attractive. In order to explain that view, it may be helpful if I once again describe the essential purpose of the present four-week limit on the period allowed for the first authorisation or endorsement of industrial action by a union following a proper ballot.
In requiring a union to hold a ballot of its members, the law simply ensures that union members can expect to have a vote in a proper ballot before being induced to take industrial action by their union. To allow an unduly lengthy period of time to elapse between such a ballot and the union's first authorisation or endorsement of industrial action risks a situation in which the ballot result no longer accurately represents the views of the union members as recorded in the ballot. The 1984 Act fixed the limit at four weeks from the date of the ballot.
The principle I have just described is really at the heart of the matter. The noble Lord's amendment would constrain the ability of the courts to grant an extension of more than six weeks on top of the four-week limit, but it does no more than that.
If a ballot was still an accurate representation of relevant members' views more than four weeks afterwards, I wonder why it should cease to be so after 10 weeks. If a ballot is to be held to continue to represent the view of relevant members more than four weeks after it has taken place by virtue of what a court decides, why should that depend on a court's decision and not simply be applied as the norm?
If there were to be changes in this area of the law, the Government believe that the right approach would be to preserve the principles upon which the present legislation is founded. The noble Lord's amendment fails to satisfy this test, in my view.
There is no question of whether the Government should accept the amendment. It is entirely up to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway to decide what to do with the amendment. I repeat the fact that the Government will keep the matter under close review.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With respect—and there is nothing personal in my comment—my noble friend speaks with two voices. With one voice he
486
makes plain the fact that the Government are totally opposed to the Bill. With another voice he says that the Government are keeping an open mind. Then I am asked what I propose to do. Frankly, at this precise moment I have not the slightest idea. The only honourable course is to continue the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House. In a sense, it is the joint responsibility of all sides of the House and it is not in the area of political dispute. The only dispute is between your Lordships' House and Her Majesty's Government, and I suppose we continue.
One other aspect arises and it is right. I was not consulted in the drafting of the noble Lord's amendment, and there is no reason why I should have been. An ambiguity is raised and I respectfully suggest that we pass his amendment accepting that fact. Perhaps the noble Lord will speak with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, or even with me and we can devise a form of words which will clarify the ambiguity on Report. Perhaps that would be an acceptable way of dealing with the matter.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: If the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is in any doubt about proceeding with the Bill, I should like to encourage him to do so. I genuinely believe that he is doing more for good industrial relations than anything that has been said today from the Government Front Bench. I sincerely believe that the Government would be wise to accept a similar amendment and allow the Bill to pass.
If there has been one matter that has made me feel uncomfortable in recent years it has been the strongly held view within the trade union movement that, however strong a case it may make, however forceful its arguments, however unjust its position, it can receive no remedy. That is bad for the Government of this country and for the constitutional arrangements under which we work.
Although I do not believe that the passage of the Bill will remove all the complaints of the trade unions, nor do I believe for one moment that it will abate their opposition to the Government in general, it will be for the good health of our constitutional arrangements. They should believe that a case can be made. If a Bill can be put forward by a Conservative peer and receive support from all sides of the House, we are still in a position where the Government will bow to the view clearly expressed. I was deeply impressed by the speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who gave the view of the Master of the Rolls.
I am sure that I am speaking to a sympathetic audience when speaking to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and I hope that he will continue with the Bill. By all means let us pass the amendment now that we have received an assurance that it can be amended. I am sure that with the combined wisdom of everyone present a suitable amendment can be found. I sincerely beg the Minister to convey to the Government the sentiments that have been expressed from all sides of the Committee, and I hope that they will allow the Bill to go through. The Minister may say that it is a matter for his noble friend Lord Campbell. However, I fear that the view of the Government, and those who have not heard

487
the argument but come only to vote, will prevail unless the Government put their weight behind the Bill. I urge them most strongly to do so.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. In view of his encouragement I undertake to continue with the Bill.
Lord McCarthy: I accept everything that has been said, except the comments of the Minister. Strangely enough, my experience has been that in all our debates on the Bill no one has supported the Government at any stage in this House. The Minister has been entirely alone.
I accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, as to what should happen. The Committee should accept the amendment, imperfect though it undoubtedly is. I shall undertake to go away with noble friends and others and find a form of words which is unambiguous.
The problem we have is that the Minister assures us that the crux of his objection is that he cannot move away from the position in which the period between the ballot and the strike must not be unduly lengthy. He has said so repeatedly. It appears that four weeks is the definition of "unduly lengthy". Even if the union has only two weeks or has run out of time and has to have another ballot, four weeks is the limit. If we had taken the minimal definition of my amendment so that it did not give 10 weeks but an additional two weeks, I do not believe that the Minister would have been any more welcoming. He tells us that this is unduly lengthy but will not tell us what is unduly lengthy.
I should like to warn the Government —as did my noble friend Lord Callaghan —about going too far down the road of saying that unions should have second and third ballots. In another place the Secretary of State for Health, Mr. Clarke, was quite right to say that part of the problem of the ambulance drivers' dispute is that there were two ballots. They had one ballot and then another ballot. Two affirmative ballots close together reinforced their determination to fight. It is not in the Government's or anyone's interests to force people who have once balloted to ballot again in a period when they feel they have been cheated by a law of this kind. In such circumstances it is in everyone's interests to give a little more time for those conducting the strike in an impeccably legal way —as did Mr. Todd —before they start their dispute. Therefore I should like the Committee to pass my amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.53 to 8 p.m.]

Food Safety Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 11 [Prohibition orders]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 8, line 27, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: Clause 11 relates to the impostion of prohibition orders. The complication is that if everyone was terribly sensible and made no mistakes prohibition orders could be applied in a reasonable way. But problems become evident as you read the clause. My amendment seeks to allow a court to make an order if it wishes rather than it being ordered to make an order as proposed by the present wording of subsection (1).
The problem arises where a single item of defective food or the adverse reaction of an individual, medically intolerant to an ingredient, could result in the full imposition of the clause shutting down an entire company. Let us suppose that a company has just bought another business and there are premises which are not built as they should be. The investigation into it and the conviction which previously occurred would put it under subsections (2)(b) and (3)(b). Subsection (3)(b) states:
"prohibition on the use of the premises or equipment for the purposes of the business or any other food business of the same class or description".
A court which was not presented with all the facts or which did not listen —courts are not always perfect, as we know —might shut down the whole business just because one part of the premises was not within the terms required for its construction.
My probing amendment is designed to see whether we cannot modify this rather stiff clause to make it more responsive to what one might call practical common sense. A possibility, therefore, would be to insert the word "may". Another possibility would be to put other qualifications elsewhere in the clause. I hope the Government see the point of what I am trying to put across. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: I have a great deal of sympathy for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I referred specifically to the rather stringent nature of the clause as drafted when I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill. Some form of discretion should be available to the court to take account of circumstances that none of us, quite frankly, is capable of envisaging in an area as complex as this.
I often ask myself whether the substitution of "may" for "shall" gives that discretion. When this much used amendment is aired, it is often used in reverse order; that is to say, people want to take out "may" and insert "shall". They are then confronted, as I recall, by the lawyers' opinion that there is in any case no difference in the words. For that reason I am not certain that "may" will do the trick in this particular circumstance. Nevertheless, to non-legal minds it reads less mandatory than "shall". I believe this is an area where the court needs an element of discretion: I hope the Government will find it in their heart to give it that element of discretion. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Airedale: It occurs to my rusty legal mind that a good case can nearly always be made for the legislator not telling the judiciary what the judiciary

489
"shall" do. "May" is a much more appropriate expression. The independence of the judiciary is beginning to be threatened if its members are told by the legislator what they "shall" do.
Baroness Hooper: The use of "shall" or "may" has taken up a considerable amount of your Lordships' time over the years. Perhaps I may begin my response, with all due deference, by trying to explain why we have used the word "shall" instead of the word "may".
A court could impose a prohibition order only if a proprietor had been convicted of a food safety offence and if it was satisfied that the health risk conditions were fulfilled. In our view it would be quite wrong if the court did not then close all or part of the business. That is the reason for using the word "shall".
I sympathise with my noble friend's intention. The amendment is to ensure that the courts are not compelled to impose prohibition orders as a result of minor isolated incidents. However, I think I can reassure the Committee that minor isolated incidents will not be caught by the provision.
In order to make a prohibition order the court would need to be satisfied that the health risk condition was fulfilled both at the time of the offence and at the time of the hearing. Common sense would tell it that this was not so. I hope the Committee will therefore feel reassured that minor incidents of this kind will not lead to prohibition orders under the Bill as drafted. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for explaining the situation as seen by her at this stage. I am also most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for his support. I am still not entirely happy that there is a fair basis for treatment of all sorts of companies under all sorts of circumstances. However, this is not the time to press the amendment. As everyone has said, it does not make much difference whether it is "may" or "shall". We will try and find another amendment which may push the point a little further. For that reason I reserve the right to come back at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardener of Parkes Baroness Gardener of Parkes moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 9, line 1, leave out ("also includes") and insert ("may also include").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment appears to be rather like the last one moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, but in a way it is rather different. As it stands, Clause 11(4) states:
"The appropriate prohibition also includes, in a case falling within subection (2)(c) above, a prohibition on the carrying on by the proprietor of the business of any food business".
I appreciate that there are occasions when that is absolutely essential. In my health committee capacity I have seen cases whereby a man who had one set of premises closed down rapidly reopened almost next door and carried on in just as bad a way. Therefore, I can see there will be occasions when this power is required.
However, the major food manufacturers are very concerned. They say that a situation could exist whereby they acquire a tiny subsidiary, along with other assets or some other business transaction, but that little subsidiary becomes part of their concern. They are the proprietors of that little subsidiary, which is found to be defective. It may well be that the major manufacturers looked at the premises themselves and closed them down in next to no time. Instead, this prohibition order comes forward and, under this clause, they believe it would close down their entire manufacturing business for the whole of the United Kingdom.
That appears to be a most alarming prospect and I am sure that can never have been intended. That is why my amendment adds, "may also include". That would mean that the court would have discretion to see that cases of the kind I have been speaking about are included where there has been a scandalous attempt to avoid proper control in food terms. However, it would not penalise a group that was running 99.9 per cent. of its establishments perfectly and which had just one problem in one spot. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: One of our main aims in this Bill is to catch the real offender. This applies to prohibition notices as much as it does to any other provision. I assure the Committee that it is not our intention to prohibit an entire company from carrying on a food business because of an offence committed in a single outlet which may not be typical of the company as a whole. Perhaps I should have reassured my noble friend Lord Mottistone more specifically on this point in the course of our discussion on the previous amendment.
In this kind of case the court would have to be satisfied that the health risk condition was fulfilled with respect to each and every branch. Unless that was so, no court would close down several branches of the same business. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the issue in this way. I do not feel that her amendment necessarily achieves the aim that she has outlined. We intend to review the clause carefully to ensure that there is no risk of it being interpreted in the way she suggests. We shall therefore give it more consideration. In those circumstances I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw her amendment on that basis.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am greatly reassured by what my noble friend has said. I am sure that the industry will also be grateful. The point was raised very strongly at the all-party meeting we had outside the Chamber. It is very good that the Minister intends to review the clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 9, line 17, leave out ("14") and insert ("3").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 49 because that amendment is consequential on Amendment

491
No. 45. In some ways these amendments go along with what my two noble friends have just been discussing. Clauses 11 and 12 provide for the courts to issue prohibition orders where a proprietor is convicted under regulations made under the clauses.
The prohibition may apply to a part or the whole of the business including the use of equipment or a certain process. Clause 11(6) states:
"a prohibiton order … shall cease to have effect on the issue by the enforcement authority of a certificate to the effect that they are satisfied that the proprietor has taken sufficient measures to secure that the health risk condition is no longer fulfilled".
The Bill provides that the certificate shall be issued within 14 days of the authority being so satisfied.
In these circumstances 14 days is quite a long time because when the satisfaction is established the proprietor will want to return to business. In circumstances where the business is a small one it may well be that 14 days with the non-execution of business makes the difference between staying in business or not. In other words, it makes the difference between survival or non-survival.
When the inspection is made and the authorised officer is satisfied that that which prompted the issue of a prohibition notice has been remedied, surely it should be no more than a matter of course that the notice is lifted. In other words, there is no reason why the inspector cannot reach into his briefcase, pull out the appropriate form, write on it and deliver it. I do not see that it will take 14 days for that to happen because the inspector knows precisely what he has come to look for or look at.
The inspector may not be able to attend the premises within a day or two days, if it is the weekend or a bank holiday, after a proprietor has given notice that the infringement has been remedied. It is not unreasonable to suggest that Clause 11 should state that three days is quite sufficient to issue the notice.
Amendment No. 49, on Clause 12, is pretty well the same because it gives powers to officers to serve emergency prohibition notices which impose an appropriate prohibition while the officer waits for the magistrates' court or the sheriff to impose the order. The technical difference between the amendment to Clause 11 relating to prohibition orders and Clause 12 dealing with emergency prohibition orders does not need to be considered in relation to either of these amendments because the principle of relief from either the notice or the order is precisely the same. I have suggested to the Committee what should be done about that.
As regards Amendment No. 49, we are looking for a reduction of the 14-day limit to three days concerning the issue of certificates by the authorities to lift the emergency prohibition orders once they are satisfied that the risk condition is no longer there. In the former case concerning Amendment No. 45 there should be three days to lift the prohibition notice once the authorities are satisfied that the condition is no longer there. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I am happy to be able to say that my noble friend has convinced me he has a good case. I agree that it would be very unfair to
492
require a business to remain closed for up to two weeks after it has been judged fit to reopen. Once an environmental health officer has inspected premises to his satisfaction and has reached a decision, it should not be difficult for the local authority to issue a certificate within three days. I am therefore happy to accept both my noble friend's amendments.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to my noble friend. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 9, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) Within 14 days of an application by or on behalf of the proprietor of the business, the enforcement authority shall decide whether to issue or to refuse to issue such a certificate and in the latter event, shall give in writing its reasons for its refusal.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 50. Amendment No. 46 relates to Clause 11 and Amendment No. 50 to Clause 12. In each case the intention is to avoid undue delay by requiring the enforcement authority to issue the certificate or give grounds for its refusal within a reasonable time—within 14 days —of an application by the proprietor. If there has been a problem and a proprietor has taken all reasonable steps to put it right, thus obviating any health risk, why should he not be allowed to seek the lifting of the prohibition within a reasonable time? The only possible justification for delay would be as a form of punishment for failing to comply with the regulations in the first place. That is not the motive because other forms of punishment are set out in the clauses. In regard to Amendment No. 50, I agree that it is right that there should be provision for such emergency powers, but again I do not see why people should have to wait an unreasonable length of time. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My noble friend has raised two very fair points, which once again I feel I can accept in principle. It is important, as I said in replying to the previous amendment, that businesses which no longer present a risk to health should not be forced to remain closed for longer than is reasonable while the enforcement authority makes up its mind about them. Fourteen days does not seem an unreasonable time to allow them to do this.
It must be to everyone's benefit if the authority is required to set out its reasons for refusing to cancel a prohibition order or an emergency prohibition order. The proprietor will then know exactly what is expected of him, and will be able either to address outstanding problems or to appeal if he feels the refusal was unreasonable.
I should like to take advice on how best to accommodate the principles of the amendments within Clauses 11 and 12. There may be some residual renumbering and so on. I should therefore be grateful if my noble friend would agree to

493
withdraw her amendments on the understanding that we shall bring forward two similar amendments in due course.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Emergency prohibition notices and orders]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 9, line 47, leave out ("such injury") and insert ("danger to health").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (4) of Clause 12 sets out the reasons for subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 11 applying. Under those circumstances, it would probably be more appropriate if the seriousness of the situation in which such powers could be exercisable was conveyed. I believe that it would be better to terminate the subsection with the words "danger to health" instead of "such injury". It is a small point but it conveys better the sense of what is required. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I regret that in this case I cannot accept my noble friend's amendment. I understand his concern that the definition of "injury" as it appears in Clause 7 may seem too wide. I cannot see, however, that substituting the word "danger" for "injury" would help in any way. Both words amount to more or less the same thing. The Government are concerned to ensure the proper protection of the public. I am not sure that I could in any case support any substantial weakening of these provisions. For the reasons which were explained earlier, I hope my noble friend will understand that the concept of injury to health is by no means as wide as he fears although it is wide enough to cover circumstances where emergency action is required. In the light of my remarks, I trust that my noble friend will not wish to press the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I do not wish at this stage to press the amendment. However, it is not a question of weakening the provision. I reckon that I am tightening it up and strengthening it. I agree with my noble friend that we need to do that rather than weaken it. The whole matter spins around the definition of "injury" in Clause 7. We shall return to that at a later stage when we can pick up this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 10, line 25, leave out ("14") and insert ("3").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment, which I understand my noble friend the Minister will accept. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 10,.line 39, leave out subsection (10)
The noble Baroness said: This is the last of my amendments to address the need for urgency in determining whether or not provisional orders or notices should be confirmed and remain in force. The amendment deals specifically with the public holiday issue. Clause 12 deals with emergency prohibition notices and orders. As I said earlier, there is a need for such powers. However, subsection (10) would exempt Bank Holidays and weekends from the period of three days provided for in Clause 12(7)(a) within which an officer, having served an emergency prohibition notice, has to apply for an emergency prohibition order.
I understand the difficulties which enforcement authorities may face but many businesses, including manufacturers, retailers and caterers, operate during weekends and during public holidays. The law should surely recognise the practicalities of businesses tuned to meeting consumer requirements. Thus my amendment suggests omitting this subsection to bring the timing into line with the type of industry involved.
A further point is covered by the amendment. As drafted, subsection (10) would curiously seem to preclude action in England on a Scottish Bank Holiday and in Scotland on an English Bank Holiday. Is that so? I shall be graceful for the Minister's comments on that. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I support my noble friend's amendment. Most of this country works for only about three days a week. As she pointed out, some of us have to work for seven days. She is absolutely right in moving the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: In spite of the support for my noble friend, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment. Courts' normal sitting days are weekdays. We see no reason for departing from usual practice in this case. These days therefore cannot be counted as sitting days for the purposes of the clause. However, I would point out that businesses are able to insure themselves against losses sustained in these circumstances.
I should also like to point out that Clause 12(10) works in the proprietor's favour. I am sure that no proprietor would like to be told on Christmas Eve that his local authority would be applying for an emergency prohibition order against him in court on Christmas Day. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for him to get the legal advice and representation he needed over the Christmas holiday. Some unfortunate proprietor might be put in that position if the amendment were to be adopted. I think my noble friend is right in her point about Scotland. However, I shall have to look into the matter. I hope that in view of what I have said, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: Surely my noble friend is aware that magistrates' courts often sit, where necessary —in the case of there being a public

495
disorder or some such other occurrence—on Saturdays, Bank Holidays and, under real pressure, on Sundays. However, the latter is very rare. In my view it is about time one or two other people were obliged to sit on those days.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My noble friend mentioned the point about insurance against loss of profits. It was also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley when we discussed an earlier amendment. He said that insurance in those circumstances is nearly impossible. It is true that you can certainly insure almost anything at some kind of rate and a loss of profits insurance is not overly difficult to obtain. However, a loss of profits insurance that involves an action by a proprietor would almost certainly make void his loss of profits claim.
It may be that I am being a little pernickety this evening and perhaps what I have to say does not greatly affect the purport of my noble friend's amendment. However, if the Minister is going to give such a reply, then I think that it should be couched in terms which are more accurate than those contained in the statement that she made.
Baroness Hooper: I believe that the loss of perishable food under those circumstances is an insurable risk. However, I shall look into the matter in the context of my noble friend's remarks.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: It may well be that my noble friend Lord Lucas meant that if the loss of food was in any way the fault of the proprietor, then that would be a different matter and the insurance policy may then be void. However, we have had a most useful discussion on the matter, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Emergency control orders]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 53 and 54:
Page 10, line 45, after ("any") insert ("class or").
Page 10, line 48, after ("that") insert ("class or").
The noble Baroness said: These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to. Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Compensation.
(1) This section applies where any person makes a complaint to a justice of the peace on the ground that he is aggrieved by an emergency control order made under section 13 above, or by an emergency order made under section 1 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.
(2) If a justice of the peace is satisfied, on the basis of such evidence as he considers appropriate in the circumstances, that there was no imminent risk of injury to health from the carrying
496
out of commercial operations with respect to food or food sources at the time when an order under section 13 above was made, or that food was not unsuitable for human consumption at the time when an emergency order under section 1 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 was made, the Minister shall compensate the owner of the food or food sources for any depreciation in the value of the food or food sources.")
The noble Lord said: The proposed new clause is intended to provide a means to debate the need to look after the interests of those persons who suffer financial loss as a result of the use of emergency powers to protect the public from food which is, or which is thought to be, hazardous to human health, but who are innocent parties with no effective remedy for recovery of their losses. The amendment would include food sources as defined in Clause 1 to mean,
"any growing crop or live animal".
During the passage of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 I supported my noble friend Lord Radnor in a series of amendments which would have solved the problem of compensation to producers in circumstances outside their control. Shortly after the passing of that Act, such a case occurred; namely, the Chernobyl disaster. Moreover, such a risk still remains in connection with lead in cattle feed.
If my noble friend has the time she will be able to find the relevant amendments to that Act. The proceedings started on 6th December 1984 and are to be found at col. 1470 of Hansard. The debate continued throughout the passage of the legislation right up to Third Reading. Although my noble friend and I had the sympathy of noble Lords, and indeed that of my noble friend Lord Belstead, the Government refused to accept that such a situation —which later occurred in Chernobyl —would ever occur.
The Government argued that emergency powers under the Act could be revoked immediately. Perhaps we should try using that argument when speaking to sheep producers in Wales or in Cumbria who are today still suffering the effects of Chernobyl. They also argued at the time that the polluter, not the Government, should pay and that he would be responsible for the cost of safety measures under the emergency order. Perhaps we should try telling Mr. Gorbachev that even in today's climate.
The Government also argued on that occasion that if Ministers acted excessively, the courts would provide redress. Perhaps we should try telling that to farmers who are today suffering from the effects of lead in foodstuffs. The Government further argued that the farmers should insure themselves against such a risk. We have discussed the matter today, and I suggest to Members of the Committee that they read what my noble friend Lord Radnor said about the ability to insure during the passage of the 1985 Act.
So much then for the history and the reason for my moving this amendment. It would provide a means for a person aggrieved by an emergency order to receive redress. I hope that Members of the Committee, and my noble friend, will see the sense and justice of what I am trying to achieve. I want, as I hope do Members of the Committee, to avoid

497
a repeat of the Chernobyl fiasco. I also want to avoid a similar fiasco as regards lead in feed which is already happening today.
If such an amendment to the Food and Environment Protection Bill had been accepted it would have solved the problem. I very much regret the fact that I persuaded my noble friend Lord Radnor at that stage not to divide the Chamber. I suppose that I was in a more than usually pathetic mood, no doubt because of the persuasiveness of my noble friend Lord Belstead who was then the Minister of State. Moreover, its acceptance may even have saved the jobs of certain Ministers.
The drafting of the amendment may well be faulty, but the purpose of it — which is fair play —is not. I feel strongly that some such amendment which is in any event in line with the Government's new view, as expressed in Clause 9, should be considered. Indeed, the remarks made by my noble friend on the Front Bench in reply to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes on Amendment No. 33 support my case. I beg to move.
The Earl of Radnor: I suppose almost inevitably I must support the amendment. I do so in a most wholehearted way. However, I do not propose to bore Members of the Committee by repeating what I said a few years ago. Indeed, I have purposely not reread the debate. I agree with everything that my noble friend has said. A great deal of trouble could be caused in this connection. We must face the fact that such a situation could arise again. A producer of a food source who is aggrieved should have recourse to a justice of the peace, and have the chance to recoup from the Government some of the losses for which he was in no way responsible.
The latter point has been covered very well this evening and it was clearly mentioned in 1985. However, I should like to dwell a little upon the situation where an emergency control order is placed upon some produce or other for certain reasons. It is then decided —because such an order must be issued in a hurry —that the order was imposed in error and thus the food could be released for sale. Of course with certain foodstuffs the rate of deterioration is very rapid. I am thinking especially of fruit and fish. The goods may well then no longer be of any value whatever, or their value may be very reduced.
The producer could suffer just as much loss from emergency control orders as he could from the prohibitions that occur in Clause 9. Clause 9(7) provides a good recourse for people who have suffered loss. They can go in front of a justice of the peace, produce witnesses and be compensated for the loss in value of the food. We have already debated a detail of that clause because it was felt in some quarters, including speakers in the Chamber, that the contingent loss should also be paid.
A degree of logic might well be injected into the Bill if Clause 13 were to follow the same pattern as Clause 9. I can see no reason why it should not do so. There are two distinct points here. There is the error which occasions loss, and there is the loss for
498
which the producer is not responsible. I hope that no one will say that the latter is an insurable risk. The one thing I do remember from 1985 is asking various brokers whether the risk was insurable. I was told that for all practical purposes it was not. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider the amendment carefully. I suspect that it is not perfectly drafted; but the logic of Clause 13 following the same pattern as Clause 9 and allowing recompense is almost unarguable. I give the amendment every support.
Lord Carter: From these Benches we support the new clause because it is a reasonable and sensible proposition. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has drawn attention to the considerable injustice that can result where restrictions are imposed and it is then shown that there was no danger in the food.
The Government are no doubt concerned about the possible cost implications of the proposal. I hope that they will recognise the justice behind the amendment and agree to consider it. An interesting sideline to the amendment was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. I discovered by putting down a Question for Written Answer that if a farmer has had his milk impounded due to the risk of lead contamination in the feed, that amount of milk will still be taken into account in the calculation of his milk quota and his liability under the super levy although he may not be paid for the milk. If I have understood the amendment correctly, it would also help to deal with that problem.
Lord Ezra: We, too, should like to support the amendment from these Benches. It is important that in the Bill we seek to have an even-handed approach to the various problems. Those who are shown not to have been guilty of the fault indicated and who can get a magistrate so to agree should be dealt with in the way proposed. We therefore support the amendment.
Lord Avebury: When the Minister replies, will she deal separately with two of the points that have been raised? The first relates to what happens when the Minister has erroneously exercised the power to make the order when it is subsequently shown that there is nothing wrong with the food in question, or when there would have been no risk to the public from the continued use of those foods. Secondly —and this is a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, when he moved the amendment —what happens when the emergency control order is validly made in the case of food-stuffs which have been contaminated to an extent which makes them unfit for human consumption but where no fault can be attributed to the producer of the foodstuffs?
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, properly drew attention to the enormous losses suffered by farmers due to the Chernobyl disaster. I do not know whether there is any provision in the Bill to deal with such circumstances, but in future emergency control orders may be made in respect of food which has been contaminated by a nuclear disaster somewhere else in the world. In those circumstances, the farmers

499
could not look for protection to the amendment moved by my noble kinsman because that requires it to be shown that the consumption of the food could not have involved any risk of harm to the consumer.
Regarding Chernobyl, there would have been great risk if people had unwittingly consumed meat that had been contaminated by nuclear explosion. I should be grateful if the Minister would refer to any provisions in the Bill which would take care of the losses sustained by farmers from such a disaster as well as the losses sustained by an emergency control order which has been made erroneously by the Minister.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. It would place an unjustifiable further burden on justices of the peace. The law already holds Ministers accountable if they exercise their powers negligently or unreasonably. That may be an answer to the first question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The practical effect of the amendment could well be that anyone subject to an emergency control order would immediately complain to a justice of the peace who would then have to make a judgment, often on the basis of incomplete information or inadequate technical evidence, on the degree of risk which existed. The essence of emergency powers is that they may have to be exercised speedily, sometimes before all the facts are established with total certainty. Moreover, it would introduce the possibility of the Minister or his representatives having to defend the action before a justice of the peace or any number of justices of the peace.
The amendment could deter Ministers from taking swift action. The inevitable result of that would be to put consumers at greater risk. That is clearly unacceptable. As I have already indicated, Ministers must act reasonably. They know that, and they know that if they act unreasonably, the citizen can go to the High Court for a judicial review. In line with established policy on matters of public safety, there will be no statutory provision for government compensation. The onus must remain on those producing or handling food to exercise the greatest care over their selection and handling. In addition, traders can insure against such risks, and once the provisions are enacted may be better placed to seek legal redress from negligent third parties.
We hope not to have to use the powers in Clause 13, but believe that consumers will be reassured to know that in the last resort the Government have adequate powers to take immediate action when consumer safety is threatened.
Hazard notices are issued by the Department of Health. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration may award compensation against the department and that has happened at least once. I accept that there may occasionally be a genuine case of compensation. If so, we could pay it under other legislation. Farmers affected by FEPA
500
restrictions imposed after the Chernobyl accident received compensation.
It was unfair of my noble friend to mention lead in foodstuffs. The Government have taken every possible prompt action to prevent adulterated food from getting into the food chain. That adulterated food was in no way the result of action in this country. My noble friend, with his NFU connections, should know what is going on. The Government are out of pocket because of the prompt and correct action which they took at the time.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I cannot agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench. We appear to be very, very far apart. For once, I feel totally confident that I am right. It is not often that my noble kinsman supports me, and when he does, I feel that I am probably on the right lines. I do not think that my noble friend answered his questions.
I am sorry that my noble friend on the Front Bench does not have confidence in justices of the peace deciding this problem. That surprises me because in Clause 9 the justices of the peace are given that responsibility.
Baroness Trumpington: I never said that I did not have confidence in justices of the peace. Indeed, I was one myself for quite a long time; therefore I have total confidence in them.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: That is fine. If my noble friend has total confidence in the justices of the peace, I cannot see why my amendment is at fault. At least we are at one on that point. If she feels that they are not capable of doing the job which they are given in Clause 9, then I am sure that we can think of somebody else who might take the job.
For producers and retailers, food is a very volatile commodity. It perishes very quickly. A High Court review is very expensive and time-consuming. I need hardly remind my noble friend of what is happening in regard to lead in food. That brings out the problem. Farmers are put in a very unpleasant position. They may be able to obtain compensation in the long run —perhaps after they have gone broke —from the supplier of the food. However, if they have not used that food for particular animals, they will not get compensation. They are in an invidious position.
I shall not delay the House any longer. I shall however return to this point. I hope that my noble friend will give the matter very serious thought. I hope that there is no prospect of the same trap into which my noble friend Lord Belstead forced me over the Chernobyl incident. I do not intend to leave the matter this time. I made a mistake on that occasion; I do not wish to make another. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Selling food not of the nature, substance or quality demanded]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 11, line 29, leave out ("to the purchaser's prejudice").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 56 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos.
57 and 58. These amendments deal with the curious phrase in Clause 14(1), "purchaser's prejudice". Under the provisions of the Bill which reflect the existing law, an offence is committed under Clause 14(1) only if the purchaser himself or herself is prejudiced. That is a curiously restrictive phrase.
Many people buy food for their family —infants or elderly people, for example, who do not attempt to buy their own food. If they are "prejudiced", they are denied access to redress under the clause as presently drafted. Equally, elderly and diabetic people have the right to expect that the special food they need —bought for them by a friend or a carer —is of the nature, substance or quality which suits their special needs. The Bill is intended to close as many gaps in the food law as possible. This amendment would clarify the law and make possible the prosecution' of traders who might otherwise escape prosecution where they sell food "not of the nature, substance or quality demanded".
Another example is that of a catering manager or the chairman of a refreshments committee who might be a purchaser of food. Others would be the consumers of the food. The Bill seems to prevent the consumers of the food seeking redress from the seller of the food if the purchaser decides not to do so.
We feel that consumer protection measures must serve to protect all consumers. The amendment is intended to close a loophole which prevents the legislation from doing just that. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: I should like to support the amendment in view of a similar amendment which I shall move later. The Bill causes confusion in the mind. There has been a case of a can of peas containing a caterpillar. If that were purchased by one's wife and served to the rest of the family, it is not clear whether there would be any recourse by those who ate the intruder in the can of peas by failing to observe it soon enough.
We should be clear about the matter. If any food is purchased that prejudices a person other than the purchaser, that other person should be in a position to take redress. What we should like to hear from the noble Baroness is whether our interpretation of this restrictive wording is correct or whether it means that any person who is prejudiced by that purchase can take action to safeguard their interests.
Baroness Trumpington: I am not sure that I absolutely understand the noble Lord's intentions in proposing these amendments. Clause 14 is based on Section 2 of the current Act which has been used for the majority of prosecutions under the Food Act and its predecessors. It is a very well understood offence which has stood the test of time.
I believe that to widen the clause in the way suggested would be confusing without offering any additional protection to the consumer. Food which is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser would still be to the purchaser's prejudice, even if that food was bought for or consumed by someone else who was adversely affected by the purchase. In any event, if injury to health were at issue, Clause 8 would apply. This
502
applies to all points of the chain and to anyone who is affected. The new offence at Clause 8(2)(c) covers the contamination elements of nature, substance or quality. The suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that we should leave out the words "to the purchaser's prejudice" seems to imply that when the food sold is better than the purchaser demanded, that would also be an offence. I cannot believe that that is what the noble Lord had in mind. It would not be right.
I hope that I have read the amendment correctly. If not, perhaps the noble Lord will further enlighten me. If necessary, I shall write to him.
Lord Carter: The drafting may be at fault because we are obviously not understanding each other. This amendment is intended to show that if the purchaser is not himself or herself "prejudiced" but someone else is, that other person can take action. At the moment the third party who is affected by the unsafe food is not able to take action.
Baroness Trumpington: I think that I should write to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on this matter.
Lord Carter: In the light of that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 11, line 30, after ("nature") insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 59 standing in my name. With the permission of the Committee I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 62 which is consequential. The amendment provides for the offence of selling food not of the "nature of substance or quality" demanded. This subsection of the Bill repeats the provision in Section 2(1) of the 1984 Act. However, I suggest to the Committee that there is a subtle difference in the wording. The Bill provides an offence where a person sells food,
"which is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded".
My noble friend the Minister just referred to the words in the 1984 Act. I shall remind my noble friend what she said just now in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. She said that the provision which she was discussing in Amendments Nos. 56 to 58 was the same as that in the 1984 Act. She said that it had stood the test of time.
Baroness Trumpington: I mentioned the offence.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My noble friend mentioned the Bill.
9 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: I shall reread what I said, which was that Clause 14 is based on Section 2 of the current Act which has been used for the majority of prosecutions under the Food Act and its predecessors. It is a very well understood offence which has stood the test of time. I should also pre-empt my noble friend by saying that we shall look favourably on his amendment. Therefore, I suggest he does not bang on too much.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am obviously grateful for the advice that I have received from my noble friend. As I suspect she knows, the point is that there is a subtle difference in wording. The 1984 Act deals with a person who sells food which is not of the nature or of the substance or of the quality required. Thus a prosecutor under the 1984 Act must specify which of the three categories is applicable. In this Bill there does not seem to be that necessity. That is the purpose of these two amendments. However, I take heart from what my noble friend said a few moments ago and I look forward with eager anticipation to her response to this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: While I do not believe that the amendments of my noble friend are necessary and will not change the meaning or intention of these clauses, I am happy to accept his proposal. I believe that whether we used the wording proposed by the noble Lord or the wording used in the Bill, it would be necessary to specify which concept out of nature, substance or quality the offence related to. It might be one of those concepts or a combination of them. However, we shall need to ensure that the amendments of my noble friend are carried through the Bill so that it is consistent. I shall bring forward an appropriate government amendment on this matter.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to my noble friend. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 11, line 35, at end insert —
("(3) On conviction of any person under this section the court shall have the power to order the seizure and destruction of any food that may be held by the seller which is of the same nature, substance or quality as that which gave rise to the offence.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to introduce a new subsection into Clause 14. The Bill as drafted provides for the inspection and seizure of suspected food under Clause 9. However, for the court to be able to order the destruction of the food, the food must be in accordance with the requirements of Clause 8(2)(a), (b) or (c). This means that the food must be unfit for human consumption.
However, it will be recalled that some years ago there was a celebrated case involving the contamination of wine by extraneous substances. It would have been extremely difficult to demonstrate that the wine was unfit for human consumption, but, equally, it was generally felt that the wine should not continue to be sold. In the absence of a power to seize and subsequently destroy the material, the wine reappeared on the market for some time. In our view, therefore, the courts should have power to order the seizure and destruction of food which may not be of the quality demanded by the purchaser, in that it has been adulterated, possibly quite considerably.
There is another aspect of this amendment on which I should be grateful to hear the Minister's view. I refer back to Clause 8(3) and food which is,
"part of a batch, lot or consignment".
I have been looking for an opportunity to ask whether any part of the Bill applies to imported eggs. If part of a batch, lot or consignment of imported eggs were found to be contaminated with salmonella, for example, could the rest of the consignment be impounded? Could it be dealt with under the terms of this clause, the previous clause or both of them? I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I wish to assure the Committee that Clause 8 of the Bill already allows enforcement officers to seize a whole batch, lot or consignment of food which is contaminated in the way described, and apply to a magistrates' court to have it condemned. Particular consideration was given to diethylene glycol in wine and similar cases when drafting Clause 8. That is why subsection (2) expressly distinguishes between food which is unfit for human consumption and food which,
"is so contaminated (whether by extraneous matter or otherwise) that it would not be reasonable to expect it to be used for human consumption in that state".
Trading standards officers will have access to these powers. We would not wish to go further and give trading standards officers powers to detain or destroy food which is not up to standard in ways which do not pose a risk to health, such as mince with a fat content which is too high but which could be reprocessed.
As regards the question of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about imported eggs, the answer is that if they were unfit or contaminated Clause 8 powers would apply, as would those under Clause 9, regarding seizure. I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will be impressed with these remarks and will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I certainly wish to withdraw the amendment. However, the answer that has just been given regarding eggs is extremely interesting. As we know, the problem with imported eggs is that the rest of the consignment has disappeared into the food chain while the eggs that are suspected of contamination are being tested. I hope the noble Baroness will write to me to tell me how the Government propose to deal with that problem. I should be interested to know that. However, in the light of the comments that have been made, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: I am conscious of the Chairman's presence in the Chamber in a certain connection.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: Before we leave Clause 14, perhaps I may intervene briefly to ask a question of general interpretation which I indicated to the noble Baroness that I wished to raise at this stage. However, I appreciate that she may not be able to give me an immediate reply. My question concerns the Bill in general as it affects the restaurant trade, which has some relevance to consumer protection. These two clauses are concerned with consumer protection and as the Bill is a catch-all Bill

505
it is difficult to know when one should intervene to ask questions of a specific nature.
It is all very well to have consumer protection, and some of us on these Benches have been very ardent in our pursuit of consumer protection. However, if consumer protection is allowed to run not, it could have a detrimental impact on small businesses. The noble Baroness, in a previous incarnation, was a great champion of small businesses. Restaurants fall into that category.
The restaurant trade is concerned about where it stands under this catch-all Bill and to what extent the regulations that may be published later will affect it. To give some examples, the Minister apparently has powers to curtail the sale of certain types of raw food in restaurants, to limit the type of food processes, to stop the use of clingwrap, to control descriptions and to ban certain foods altogether. I may be wrong, and that is where I should like clarification, but if that is the case the regulations could have a very detrimental effect on a very large number of small businesses.
Earlier this afternoon the noble Baroness gave me a great deal of reassurance regarding the process of consultation. I should therefore like to ask how far that consultation will go. If it means debate in general and full consultation with all interested parties, there will be plenty of opportunity for such preoccupations to be aired. If that is not the case, it is a very serious matter.
I do not wish to delay the Committee and I appreciate that the noble Baroness may not be able to respond now. That is why I intervened at the end of Clause 14. Perhaps during the discussion on Clause 15 she might be able to make inquiries and I could return to the matter at the end of the discussion on Clause 15. Failing that, she could perhaps write to me subsequently. With those remarks, I shall allow the clause to proceed.
Baroness Trumpington: I am happy that my instinct about my noble friend's question was right. We shall be consulting interested parties, including restaurant interests, about proposals for regulations of the kind he has described. I hope that that is a helpful reply.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Falsely describing or presenting food]:
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 11, line 40, after ("describes") insert ("or depicts").
The noble Viscount said: In Amendment No. 61, by inserting the words "or depicts", we seek to strengthen and reinforce what is clearly one of the Government's main aims in this Bill; namely, to outlaw misleading descriptions. We feel that to be thorough and complete in achieving that aim the provision should be extended from the written word to cover visual representations. Otherwise it would be possible to have a visual representation on a package which was plainly misleading.
There are people in a hurry who go to supermarkets. There may be old people who cannot
506
get close to the shelves; they may be myopic or have reading difficulties. Whatever the reason, they are more likely to be persuaded by the pictures or the graphics on a tin, if it were a tin of figs let us say, than they would be by the words on the tin. The graphics could suggest that the contents were larger than they actually were by clever use of contrast. The purchaser could make a sombre purchase and make a sad discovery on reaching home.
We feel that the amendment would provide an added protection which has not been fully recognised. As such, it should be non-controversial. I beg to move.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: This is an amendment of no great substance, but it would plug a possible loophole which the noble Viscount described. We believe that it would be anomalous if a seller of food was able to mislead by means of a picture and so escape the penalty which the clause provides in other cases. I hope that the Government will have no difficulty with the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: I hope that I can reassure both the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley. Clause 15(1) not only prohibits false descriptions of food, but also prohibits labelling of food likely to mislead as to the nature, substance or quality of the food. Those prohibitions are sufficently comprehensive to cover all the information, both written and pictorial, which may be given on the food label. In addition, European Community food labelling legislation specifically defines labelling as inclusive of pictorial matter. That definition is carried forward into the Food Labelling Regulations 1984.
The amendment would have the unfortunate effect that references elsewhere to "describes" might be construed as excluding pictorial matter. I therefore ask the noble Viscount and the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I do not wish to contradict her, but in my understanding and, I suggest, in the understanding of the average purchaser, "describes" means the use of words. However, I take what she says and am reassured by that. I hope that other noble Lords, including the noble Earl, are equally reassured. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 12, line 14, at end insert —
("(6) For the purposes of this section a label or advertisement which is likely to mislead as to the nutritional or dietary value of any food is likely to mislead as to the quality of that food.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a label or advertisement which is likely to mislead as to the nutritional or dietary value of any food is likely also to mislead as to the quality of that food, and therefore to bring that within the meaning of subsection (2)(b).
It is slightly surprising that words to that effect are contained in Section 6(4) of the Food Act 1984 and it is not clear why those words were not repeated in

507
the Bill. The risk is that if that is not done by way of interpretation and the meaning of the clause, it might be argued in defence in future prosecutions that false nutritional claims were not offences. I am sure that the Government will be at one in wishing to avoid people making false nutritional claims and to have that point covered effectively within the meaning of the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: I should like to support the amendment because it is relevant to my Amendment No. 67 which asks for the word "health" —that implies nutritional claims—to be specifically mentioned in the Bill. If I understand it correctly —I may be wrong —the offences specified in Clause 15 would be committed by contravention of the regulations allowed in Clause 16.
Baroness Trumpington: I am grateful for the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to clarify further the provision of misleading labelling by specifying some of the elements which would be covered by that offence; namely, the nutritional or dietary value of food. I must deal with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, when we reach it. However, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is unnecessary because the necessary clarification is already given in the Food Labelling Regulations 1984 which will continue in force. The noble Lord's anxiety is therefore met and I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ezra: In the light of what the noble Baroness has said —I shall remind myself as to the other piece of legislation —I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

British Film Institute Southbank Bill
Brought from the Commons, read first time, and referred to the Examiners.
New Southgate Cemetery and Crematorium Limited Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

St. George's Hill, Weybridge, Estate Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments agreed to, and with the remaining amendments agreed to with amendments; the Commons amendments to the Lords amendments were considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  SOVIET CITIZENS: UK VISAS
  SOVIET CITIZENS: UK VISAS
  NATO: WEAPONS REDUCTION IMPLICATIONS
  NATO: WEAPONS REDUCTION IMPLICATIONS
  MERCENARIES: UN CONVENTION
  MERCENARIES: UN CONVENTION
  HOTELS AND HOSTELS: PLANNING CONTROL REVIEW
  HOTELS AND HOSTELS: PLANNING CONTROL REVIEW
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: SECONDARY RESIDENCES
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: SECONDARY RESIDENCES
  EASTMAN DENTAL HOSPITAL: ACCOMMODATION COSTS
  EASTMAN DENTAL HOSPITAL: ACCOMMODATION COSTS
  BLOOD PRODUCTS
  BLOOD PRODUCTS
  HERBAL, ETC., MEDICINES: PRODUCT LICENSING
  HERBAL, ETC., MEDICINES: PRODUCT LICENSING
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL, STRASBOURG: SOCIAL CHARTER
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL, STRASBOURG: SOCIAL CHARTER
  DRUG SEIZURE STATISTICS 1985–89
  DRUG SEIZURE STATISTICS 1985–89
  THE SINGLE MARKET: RETENTION OF WORKS OF ART
  THE SINGLE MARKET: RETENTION OF WORKS OF ART
  BSE: TYRRELL REPORT
  BSE: TYRRELL REPORT
  CHOCOLATE: RETAIL PRICE
  CHOCOLATE: RETAIL PRICE
  BREATHALYSERS
  BREATHALYSERS
  CHILDREN BORN TO PRISONERS: AFTER-CARE
  CHILDREN BORN TO PRISONERS: AFTER-CARE
  "CRACK": SEIZURES
  "CRACK": SEIZURES
  FOREIGN NATIONALS: PAROLE ELIGIBILITY
  FOREIGN NATIONALS: PAROLE ELIGIBILITY
  ELECTRICITY GENERATION COSTS
  ELECTRICITY GENERATION COSTS
  SCOTLAND: CRIMINAL LAW PROCEDURE
  SCOTLAND: CRIMINAL LAW PROCEDURE
  KINCRAIG REPORT
  KINCRAIG REPORT