Sitting of 19 June 1990

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

  HASMONEAN HIGH SCHOOL BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be a read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Widows' Additional Pension
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many widows of service men killed in Northern Ireland have not received £40 of additional pension following the recent legislation.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): All widows of service men killed in Northern Ireland before 31 March 1973 should now be in receipt of the new tax-free special payment of £40 per week in addition to their war widows' pension. Widows of service men killed in Northern Ireland on or after 31 March 1973 do not receive the special payment, but are, of course, eligible for an attributable family pension under the armed forces pension scheme in addition to their war widows' pension.
    Mr. Holt: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. In my book, when the Government give an award of £40 to a lady who was widowed at the young age of 20, having been married for four months and who has now been a widow for 19 years, but then take away £28 of the award, because they are balancing the books, the Government's generosity is not to be applauded. Will the Government look again at that matter, bearing in mind the fact that there are only 34 such women in this country?
    Mr. Hamilton: When my hon. Friend raised the matter in an intervention during the Army debate, I did not quite understand him and I apologise for that. When we legislated on the matter, the House meant that pre-1973 widows should all receive £40. I do not think that it was the intention of the House that certain women who had ex gratia payments paid between 1969 and 1973 should be in receipt of moneys above that.
    Mr. William Ross: Does the Secretary of State recall from his own period in Northern Ireland just how emotive monetary compensation is to widows and members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who have suffered? Will he give an undertaking that he will properly compensate the 28 members of the UDR who were arrested for publicity
    784
    purposes one Sunday morning during the Stevens inquiry? Will he not only compensate them for their loss because of moving house and so on, but ensure that such crazy action never happens again?
    Mr. Hamilton: I do not know whether compensation has been considered in that case, because this question refers to war widows before and after 1973.
    Mr. Viggers: While there are always other categories of people for whom hon. Members may wish to campaign, would not it be quite wrong for us not to pay tribute to the Government's generous support for widows, for example for pre-1950 groups and for those who are now benefiting from the increased payment that was recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. What has been done has been very much appreciated. The £40 tax-free payment has gone a long way towards removing the perceived injustice.

    Radar Stations
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about radar stations in the United Kingdom.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): In addition to questions tabled in this House and in another place, I have received representations from many right hon. and hon. Members and from members of the public.
    Mr. Davies: Given that the proposed station at Brawdy covers 7 sq miles of Pembrokeshire national park and that 35 masts are proposed, half of which will be at least 135 ft high, is the Minister of State surprised that there is widespread vocal public opposition? Will the Minister confirm that that station was initially envisaged during the era of the Reagan cold war? Now that even this Government have recognised that the cold war has ended and have started cutting public expenditure, does he agree that it should be one of the first schemes to be scrapped?
    Mr. Clark: Of course, the project is subject to the exigencies of the planning process, and my Department will adhere to them scrupulously. As for the ending of the cold war, this is an essentially non-provocative measure. It is a requirement to maintain the air defences of the United Kingdom at their peak efficiency at all times, and I regard this as an entirely passive and neutral measure.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: May I thank my hon. Friend for addressing 700 people at a public meeting in St. David's last month on this important subject? Has he considered whether alternatives to a ground-based over-the-horizon radar could be used, such as AWACS aircraft? Apart from the investigations of 166 MOD sites, what other locations have been considered?
    Mr. Clark: The AWACS aircraft is an alternative means of getting the same cover, but it would mean that the majority of AWACS were deployed in one particular sector, instead of being free to be used in others. I fully accept that my hon. Friend has articulated the high level of public discontent about the proposal, but if, when the trial period ends, the radar has not been found successful, it will, of course, be removed.

    Major Weapons
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions in planned provision of major weapons or weapons systems he expects to arrange during the next two years.
    Mr. Alan Clark: We are examining options for change in the deployment and structure of our forces, which is likely to affect the balance of expenditure in the equipment programme; it is too early to say what that change might be.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister agree that the reductions that have already been decided or that are in preparation have serious implications for industry and employment? Have meetings, consultations or preparations already commenced or is all to be left either to market forces in the United Kingdom or to perhaps redoubled and less than wise efforts to increase defence sales to the third world?
    Mr. Clark: I always welcome it when Opposition Members draw the attention of the House to the industrial consequences of changes in defence policy. I often wish that they had been more outspoken when their own party argued so irresponsibly for reductions in defence expenditure. We are in constant touch with industry on that subject and confer frequently on every aspect of our procurement programme.
    Sir Antony Buck: Will my hon. Friend confirm that his major consideration in any revisions that he makes will be to ensure that our armed forces are the best equipped, not only in NATO, but throughout the western world—and the eastern world as well?
    Mr. Clark: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend, whose distinguished career as a Navy Minister was characterised by that preoccupation. We intend at all times to maintain the quality of the equipment that we provide for our forces and I emphasise that the changes that my right hon. Friend is contemplating in his options exercise are not resource-driven. They arise out of a general public expectation, plus an opportunity to restructure our forces.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Minister confirm that when he considers the possibility of change, he will not allow himseld to be dictated to by the Treasury, but will ensure that the principle that he employs is that of responding to the substantial political changes that have taken place behind what we used to call the iron curtain?
    Mr. Clark: Of course, the restructuring process arises from an opportunity that itself is a function of the changes in central Europe, the disintegration of the Warsaw pact and other characteristics. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate, the changes and restructuring will take place in consultation with other Departments and Ministers, of whom my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is one.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: All of us recognise that, as the Minister responsible for procurement, my hon. Friend faces a difficult task. Nevertheless, in recognition of the changing circumstances, especially in Europe, may I offer him my appreciation—I am sure that this view is shared my hon. Members of all parties—of the prudent decision that he took yesterday to announce the cancellation of the order for further Tornados?
    Mr. Clark: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. Plainly, there will be changes in our procurement programme to conform with the restructuring as it emerges. However, I should not wish the House to feel that those changes will be precipitate. Their effect will take some time to be felt. There is obviously a requirement that they should be carefully phased and take place in consultation with both industry and the forces.
    Mr. O'Neill: On the last point, will the Minister of State confirm that this morning the Secretary of State expresed his unhappiness about the way in which the Tornado decision was taken? That was on the "Today" programme on the radio. Can the Minister say whether that anxiety was attributable to the Treasury or to the efforts of Minister of State for Defence Procurement?
    Mr. Clark: Plainly, that is a question that should be addressed to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to do so at any time in the next 43 minutes.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is a strange world in which we live? Over the past seven years the Opposition parties have urged Her Majesty's Government to cut defence expenditure. As soon as we obey and do what we think is in the best interests of this country, and cut defence expenditure, both Opposition parties start to whinge and whine about the effects on their constituents.
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right. There is a curious paradox, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I observe with some amusement. I emphasise that we are not talking about cuts. The options exercise is devoted to restructuring our forces in the light of political changes. It might be that incidental to that, resources will be released, but it is not a resource-driven exercise.

    Armed Forces (Restructuring)
    Mr. Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the restructuring of the armed forces; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): I have received several representations from hon. Members and from members of the public. I sought to set out in my speech yesterday the considerations that are guiding our work on "Options for Change".
    Mr. Duffy: The Secretary of State will recall that during his speech yesterday anxieties were expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the way in which he is conducting the review. The need to proceed on an orderly and planned basis and to avoid arbitrary cuts was among the most polite recommendations that came from Conservative Members. Has he considered the impact of all that on morale in the services? One suspects that the professional heads of the services are kept at arm's length despite the Secretary of State's disclaimer last night. What steps is he taking to reassure the service men as well as their professional leaders?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point, which worries me very much. We face a remarkable change in the circumstances in Europe. That provides an occasion for examining options for change. That is being done in what I hope is an orderly and sensible way within the

    787
    Ministry of Defence, by the service official staffs involved. The chiefs of staff are, of course, aware of what is happening. My colleagues and I recognise the earnest importance of letting all service men know what is proposed as soon as we are in a position to do so. We shall also inform the House and our allies in NATO as soon as possible. This is not an easy exercise. It is easy to make criticisms. We are attempting to approach the subject with the seriousness that it deserves.
    Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that whatever new structure is created as a result of "Options for Change", one of the highest priorities will be to make it clear to service men in all three services and at all levels that the armed forces will remain an attractive career for men and women of high calibre and that issues such as overall remuneration, opportunities for house purchase, opportunities for families to find employment and education for service children will be high on the agenda?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend takes a close interest in those matters and I commend him for it. We are anxious to ensure that in any changes and adaptations that we make, we come out with a balanced force structure and that we take proper regard not merely of front-line conditions but of support arrangements and of the conditions under which service men, who continue to be needed and whose work will continue to be important, operate. We must also ensure that they have proper opportunities for accommodation, to which my hon. Friend attaches great importance.

    BAOR (Nuclear Weapons)
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the safety of nuclear weapons assigned to the British Army of the Rhine.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: We are satisfied with the safety of all our nuclear weapons, including those assigned for use by the British Army of the Rhine.
    Ms. Ruddock: Will the Minister confirm, however, that serious defects have been found in the W79 artillery shell—I hope that he will confirm that that is deployed in Europe—as well as in the W88 and W69 warheads in the United States? A serious accident could occur simply if a warhead such as the W79 fell off the back of a lorry, which could result in a large spread of radiation. Is the Minister aware of the seriousness of the matter? Why have the Government been so secretive about it? Is it perhaps because the case for nuclear disarmament is now overwhelming?
    Mr. Hamilton: The Government do not have to be secretive or open about that, as it is a matter of concern for the United States authorities—they are their warheads. I am sure that the hon. Lady realises that we make our own warheads and do not have American ones.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is still a huge imbalance in nuclear, chemical and conventional weapons in Europe? Does he agree that to disband our weapons, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) would like us to do, would be extremely irresponsible?
    Mr. Hamilton: That is absolutely right. There is still an enormous superiority of nuclear weapons held by the other side, but that would not make any difference to members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament or many Opposition Members who have always been against nuclear weapons and have not appreciated the effects of and the advantages that we have gained from the nuclear deterrent.

    HMS Invincible
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has made an assessment of the implications for public safety from the presence of HMS Invincible in British ports.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: The Ministry of Defence would not allow Royal Navy vessels to operate or to make port visits if we considered it unsafe to do so.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister accept that it is no courtesy to the people of London to allow a nuclear-capable aircraft carrier to dock for a week's visit near the centre of our most densely populated city if the public cannot be guaranteed that there are no nuclear weapons on board? Can the Minister tell the House whether—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has a right to express his views on this matter.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister tell the House whether there were nuclear weapons on board HMS Invincible last week when it was in Greenwich? If there were, will he give an undertaking that, in future, there will be no non-operational visits of nuclear warships to densely populated ports around the country?
    Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman must be totally unrepresentative of his constituents in Southwark and Bermondsey if he is decrying the visit to the port of London of one of the finest ships in the Royal Navy. I happen to know that that visit was much appreciated by many people living in the area. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about with such a load of alarmist nonsense. We never confirm or deny whether there are nuclear weapons on ships and the hon. Gentleman should know that. We regularly practise safety routines regarding such things. If there were any nuclear weapons carried on our ships, we are happy that that would be safely done.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my hon. Friend comment on the exhibitionist stupidity of the Greenpeace protestors in their small boats off Gravesend when the Invincible recently came up the Thames? Had those protestors been successful in diverting the course of that ship, considerable danger would have been caused to my constituents had it gone aground and blocked the channel. Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that it did not do so is a credit to the seamanship of the Royal Navy and the river pilots?
    Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not know what Greenpeace was trying to achieve, but it is absolutely true that it caused great danger by its activities. That could have resulted in serious accidents, which would have been extremely regrettable.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister kindly answer the question: can he confirm or deny that nuclear missiles are on the Invincible? Does he agree that every time nuclear-armed vessels are stationed at a port, they pose a danger to the entire population? Should a fire break out on one of those ships, a nuclear dust cloud would be emitted, which could result in the deaths of millions of people throughout the country.
    Mr. Hamilton: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said earlier—we never confirm or deny that there are nuclear weapons on any of our ships. Safety routines and procedures are carried out at all the ports where such ships may go. Exercises that simulate accidents are regularly practised with local authorities. We are confident that it is unlikely that such an accident would occur, but, if there was one, we have the capability to deal with it.

    Namibia
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department made to the United Nations transition assistance group deployed to Namibia.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: British troops, drawn mainly from 30 Signal Regiment, provided communications support for the United Nations transition assistance group deployed to Namibia from March 1989 to April 1990. In addition, the British contingent assisted the UN High Commission for Refugees both in Namibia and Angola, and supplied communications for about half the election stations during the voting that took place in November. The skill and professionalism of those service men and women deployed has rightly been praised by the authorities concerned.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Will he confirm that that was only one of 12 peacekeeping activities undertaken by the British Army this year, and that every year it takes part in many admirable exercises concerned with keeping the peace in the world? Does he agree that it is strange that the British press does not seem to understand the enormous role played by the Army and that, as a result, the British public does not give the Army the credit that it deserves, simply because it does not get the coverage that its activities deserve?
    Mr. Hamilton: There is a problem. We try to make sure that our chief of public relations makes the most of events as they happen. The problem is that many of them become routine activities and cease to be of great interest to the press. The Army is playing a valuable role and I know that it is much appreciated.

    Environmental Protection
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to protect the environment.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Michael Neubert): My Department has an important role to play in the protection of the environment, and an account of our contribution is given in this year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates". My right hon. Friend the Secretary of
    790
    State has recently assigned to me responsibility for the oversight and promotion of good environmental practice, consistent with necessary military objectives.
    Mr. King: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that it must be the aim and objective of his Department to release as much surplus defence land in the United Kingdom as possible? What progress has been made since 1979 on achieving that?
    Mr. Neubert: The Department has large holdings of land, but strictly for necessary military purposes. The extent of the training that is required and the range of modern weapons lead us to need more training land than we have, although we have no major prospects of purchase in the near future. I assure my hon. Friend that when that military need lapses, we dispose of the land in question. A recent example was Gruinard island, off the west coast of Scotland, which was taken over in the darkest days of the war for protection against the then threat. When it was no longer needed, it was decontaminated by the Ministry and restored to the heirs of the previous owners in good condition ready for raising sheep.
    Dr. Thomas: Does the Minister accept that the continued use of national parks for military and defence purposes is contrary to the basic objectives of those parks, which are to conserve the environment and promote public access? For that reason, will the Department now withdraw its proposal to construct a radar station in the Pembroke coast national park, reopen the many acres of Dartmoor that are dangerous to the public because of live ammunition and cease its low-flying exercises over Cumbria and north Wales?
    Mr. Neubert: No. We need to use national parks, and we work closely with the national parks authorities. Where there is a proven defence need for the nation and where there are no alternative sites, we are obliged to conduct some activities in national parks. But in the course of holding land and using land such as national parks, we conserve great tracts of the countryside that otherwise might not survive.
    Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend agree that were it not for the fact that the Ministry of Defence owns large tracts of our most precious countryside, managed by the excellent defence land agent, we should not be in possession of such ecologically valuable land today?
    Mr. Neubert: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and, representing Salisbury plain, he has reason to know that that is an area of countryside that is protected, rather than the reverse, by the activities of the military. For example, there are no fewer than 1,700 ancient monuments on Salisbury plain, and operational restrictions are observed to ensure their continued preservation.
    Mr. Boyes: Will the Minister assure the House, as the Labour party has, that the Government will not dump decommissioned nuclear submarines at sea? Because of the problems of monitoring and retrieval, it is an unacceptable option. Will the Minister reassure the people of this country that the Government will fully accept the London dumping convention that nuclear waste should not, in any circumstances, be dumped at sea?
    Mr. Neubert: We retain the right to dump at sea, which is one of several options currently under review. Policy for

    791
    the decommissioning of nuclear submarines remains open at present, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks today.

    Astra
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions his Department met Astra representatives in the last three years.
    Mr. Litherland: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions his Department met Astra representatives in the last three years.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Officials of my Department have met Astra representatives on a number of occasions in the past three years.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister confirm that officials of his Department knew five months before the public revelations that a super gun for Iraq was being constructed? Does he accept that the main motive of his Ministry at present is to maintain trade and sales with Iraq in order to finance the re-equipment of that country's armed forces, despite Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Kurdish people in Iraq and its appalling human rights record? Does the Minister not believe that a proper relationship with the Government of Iraq would be no trade, no aid and no deals while the present repression continues against people in Iraq?
    Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman is notorious for the company he keeps, so I am surprised that he should be so fastidious about who meets whom—[Interruption.] I know that the House will be irritated by this, but I fear that I have to say that, in the light of charges laid against individuals and in the light of the continuing investigation by Customs and Excise, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on those matters.
    Mr. Litherland: The Minister gives no sign of shock or shame although he must have known that Astra executives informed British intelligence and the Ministry of Defence a long time before action was taken. Does not that smack of gross negligence? If there is anything to be fired, I hope that it will not be the gun, but the stupid, incompetent Ministers involved in this mess.
    Mr. Clark: I am sorry, but I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I have already given.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my hon. Friend explain why the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) who posed that question is so—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not sure that that is the Minister's responsibility.
    Mr. Dickens: Why did the hon. Gentleman pose the question about the gun in Iraq when last week, when there was a bomb in Islington, he left the Chamber before the question and returned afterwards?
    Mr. Clark rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that has anything to do with the Minister.
    Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: This all takes time. What is the point of order?
    Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) to make statements that he knows to be untrue?
    Mr. Speaker: The House and the hon. Gentleman know that we have freedom of speech in this Chamber. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) must take responsibility for what he said.
    Mr. Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The parliamentary record in Hansard will reflect the views of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). If his remarks were inaccurate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has said that they were, he should be asked to withdraw them.
    Mr. Speaker: Every hon. Member must take responsibility for what he says in this Chamber. What the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) said was a personal view, but it is not a matter of order.
    Mr. Rogers: My question is quite separate from the big gun issue, so the Minister cannot plead sub judice in his answer.
    What orders have been placed with Astra by International Military Services, a wholly-owned MOD subsidiary, for export to the middle east, and were those orders authorised by the Prime Minister's office?
    Mr. Clark: Orders placed by my Department are commercially in confidence.

    Dutch Defence Minister
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his Dutch counterpart to discuss European defence and disarmament.
    Mr. Tom King: I next expect to meet Mr. ter Beek when he visits the United Kingdom, at my invitation, in the autumn.
    Mr. Michie: Will the Secretary of State confirm that at the NATO Defence Ministers meeting in Canada in May the Dutch proposed a unilateral withdrawal of all nuclear-tipped artillery shells and Britain opposed that? Will he further confirm that Germany and other central European nations will not have such weapons on their soil and that the Dutch are unlikely to have the strategic air-to-surface missile but that the British Government are falling over themselves to accept it?
    Mr. King: No, Sir. At the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Canada to which the hon. Gentleman refers, we agreed on the need for an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional weapons in Europe—and the agreement was unanimous.
    Mr. Butcher: When my right hon. Friend meets his Dutch counterparts, will he express his thanks to the Dutch authorities for their recent prompt action in making arrests? When he gives them our thanks for helping to preserve the lives of British service men abroad, will he also offer his full support to the necessity for proper co-ordination, functional and organisational, in attacking terrorism in mainland Europe, whether it comes from Northern Ireland or elsewhere?
    Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I shall certainly do as he suggests. We owe a great deal not only to the Dutch, but to the French, Belgian, and German authorities—and the Irish as well—who, with us, are providing extremely effective co-operation against terrorism in Europe and wherever else it may occur. The recent arrests of other terrorist groups to which my hon. Friend may have been alluding were further demonstrations of our interest as democratic countries in standing together to fight terrorism.

    Low Flying
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about low flying below 250 ft.
    Mr. Neubert: It is not possible to identify such representations separately, but during May 1990 the Ministry of Defence received 41 inquiries and complaints about military low flying training from the three United Kingdom tactical training areas during periods when these were active.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that there has been a twofold increase in such flights since 1979, causing unnecessary accidents and distress? Will he now give an undertaking to accept the Select Committee recommendation to phase out such flights over two years and in the interim give special protection to schools and hospitals?
    Mr. Neubert: The hon. Gentleman will know that it is the Government's practice to respond to Select Committee reports within two months, and we intend to do that in this respect. That means that our detailed response to the Committee's recommendations on low flying training will be made by the middle of July.
    There was an increase in the amount of low flying before the introduction of modern aircraft, but the amount has stabilised and there is no reason for the hon. Gentleman's apprehension that such flying might be unsafe. The RAF's record in this respect is very creditable.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Western European Union assembly recently considered this matter in detail and concluded that the legitimate need for low flying training must always be balanced against safeguards for the good of the public down below? Does he agree that standards must be rigorously imposed so that pilots stick rigidly to their routes and never go below the permitted heights?
    Mr. Neubert: We have no evidence to suggest that pilots breach the stringent regulations imposed for low flying training. However, we accept that it is necessary to minimise the impact of low flying on people on the ground. I certainly accept that there is a dilemma which constantly has to be resolved. We shall take into account all that has been said in this connection and respond next month to the report of the Select Committee, which itself recognised the need for low flying training to continue.
    Mr. Hood: While welcoming the decision to try to save £600 million on defence and the cancellation of the new Tornados which were on order, may I suggest that the Minister saves a further few million pounds by stopping the foolish war games with low flying over the borders of
    794
    Scotland? Such games are nonsense—children are wetting the bed because aircraft are flying over my constituency at 100 ft. That is a war game at its extreme.
    Mr. Neubert: We are not engaged in war games but in essential military training which is necessary to qualify our pilots for the exacting task that they would have in war. I am sure that on behalf of his constituents the hon. Gentleman might take some account of the contribution made by those young pilots and navigators in this exacting role.

    Troop Redeployment
    Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will include in any defence review the impact on local civilian communities of redeployment at home of troops from abroad, with regard to both garrisons and training areas.
    Mr. Tom King: While the "Options for Change" exercise is initially concerned with the broad structure for the future, I acknowledge the importance of the aspects raised by my hon. Friend, which we will certainly have in mind.
    Mr. Key: That answer will be of great comfort to my constituents. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any reduction in the number of British troops overseas who are then deployed back home will not only mean more pressure on local authority services but is likely to be accompanied by losses in civilian Ministry of Defence employment? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the greatest care is taken at local level to consult and plan ahead with local authorities?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to these problems, which he well understands because of the close interest of his constituency in this matter. At whatever stage we may need to raise such issues, we shall ensure that there is proper consultation with local authorities and other local bodies.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The Government have conceded that there will be significant troop reductions in the next few years, but what studies are being carried out by the Department in terms of arms conversion? What schemes are being considered to ensure that skills currently in the armed services are made available to manufacturing industry where they are so desperately needed?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman is so busy constructing some sort of social strategy for this that he seems unaware that some companies involved in the defence industry are already doing precisely that. A substantial number are developing alternative activities. The last thing that they need—and which only President Castro and the socialist party in this country would still support—is state planning, which can make no contribution to this exercise.
    Mr. Raison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if there is any question of bringing RAF personnel back from Germany it would be extremely popular in my constituency if RAF Halton could be kept open?
    Mr. King: I fully recognise that as we approach the "Options for Change" exercise and whatever developments may come, while many people broadly support the opportunities for economies in some areas, nobody is very

    795
    keen for such economies to affect them. We shall be conscious of the interests of all hon. Members while the exercise goes on.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have just two more minutes for defence questions.

    International Aerospace Fair
    Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received any report on the international aerospace fair in Chile in March; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Thirteen British companies exhibited at the fair. In addition, two RAF Harrier aircraft and two Lynx helicopters participated.
    Mr. Galloway: Is the Minister of State aware that there was much interest in that aerospace fair and that for at least one person, the journalist Jonathan Moyle, interest in it may well have proved fatal? Can the Minister tell the House whether the late Mr. Moyle, when he was in Chile during the week before his death, at any time visited the British embassy in Santiago and whether any officials there had any discussions with him?
    Mr. Clark: No, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that, but I will refer his question to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have no doubt that he will be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

    West German Defence Minister
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his West German counterpart to discuss European defence and disarmament.
    Mr. Tom King: I met Dr. Stoltenberg for discussions on a range of current defence issues at the nuclear planning group and defence planning committee meetings in May. On current plans, I next expect to meet him at NATO ministerial meetings later this year.
    Mr. Campbell: Now that the two Germanies are to be reunited, does the Minister think that that country should be non-nuclear? If so, why does he keep pressing the Germans to have nuclear weapons on their soil?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten the recent Anglo-German summit in London at which Chancellor Kohl, beside my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, made clear the commitment of the Federal Republic of Germany to an appropriate mix of conventional and nuclear weapons in Europe.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Duffy: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the director general of the International Atomic Agency and another with the
    796
    Foreign Ministers of Bangladesh, Sudan, and Somalia. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with Mr. Attali, president-elect of the new European bank for reconstruction and development, which will have its headquarters in London.
    Mr. Duffy: Did the Prime Minister note the biting comment in the Sunday quality press that the fast-revolving door through which ex-Cabinet Ministers are passing towards the boards of privatised industries that they themselves have set up has become a symbol of greed in high office? As that is an entirely new development for which discretion and restraint are simply not enough, as we saw last week, will the Prime Minister consider extending to ex-Ministers the same restrictions that apply to former civil servants?
    The Prime Minister: There will be 15 months between the noble Lord Young leaving office and taking up his appointment. For civil servants, that period may be shorter. I agree with the Earl of Stockton who, when asked a similar question, said that
    "it is desirable and beneficial to the country that men of considerable experience should be available, when they leave the Government, to the service of industry and commerce. —[Official Report, 20 November 1962; Vol. 667, c. 1000.]
    I quoted last week what the noble Lord Wilson said in a similar vein.
    Mr. Nelson: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to reflect on the interview with the Leader of the Opposition on television—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question should relate to a matter for which the Prime Minister has responsibility.
    Mr. Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a Conservative Government will remain committed, even after the next general election, to reducing still further the direct burden of taxation on individuals, whereas the inevitable consequence of Labour policies, despite what the Leader of the Opposition says, will be to raise significantly the average burden of taxation on the British people?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I confirm that our policy on income tax rates remains to reduce the standard rate of income tax from 25p to 20p as and when it is prudent to do so.
    Mr. Kinnock: What will the Prime Minister do now to stop inflation reaching 10 per cent?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman somehow seems to believe that reducing interest rates will cure inflation, but we shall maintain our policy, because the interest rate of 15 per cent. will succeed in bringing down inflation.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall telling me early last year that the Government were "proceeding" towards zero inflation? We have had 16 more months of her policy since then, but, rather than proceeding towards zero, inflation is proceeding towards double figures. Apart from trying to fix the figures, what is the Prime Minister going to do to get inflation down?
    The Prime Minister: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously maintain his position, and his ridiculous economics, by saying that to get inflation down one needs

    797
    to cut interest rates? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] That would put it up to the rates that Labour Governments were used to having.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is any economic policy more ridiculous than one that produces the lowest growth rate, the highest inflation rate and the worst balance of payments position in the major industrialised countries? If the right hon. Lady wants to talk about ridiculous economics, let her look at herself.
    The Prime Minister: That policy also produces—and has for three years—the highest level of investment in industry that we have ever experienced, the highest standard of living and the highest standard of social services that this country has ever known, and the lowest levels of income tax in the post-war period.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend share my anger about the misery, frustration and expense caused by squatters who occupy privately owned homes? Does she accept that, provided that no damage is done to securely locked houses, there is nothing that the police can do before a court order is obtained? Is it not time that the balance of the law was redressed to favour the innocent home owner, rather than the reprehensible activities of squatters?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, squatting that directly excludes a householder from his home is already a criminal offence. The police can act, and penalties are severe. However, squatting in residential property which does not cause the immediate threat of homelessness can be dealt with only through civil action. I agree with my hon. Friend that there appears to be a defect in the law, and I am looking into the matter further.

    Global Warming
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if she will convene an international conference on global warming.
    The Prime Minister: There have already been several such international conferences in the past year. International initiatives on climate change are dealt with primarily through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Its report will be considered carefully and fully at the second world climate conference in the autumn, which I hope to address.
    Mr. Allen: The Prime Minister may talk green—she may even dress green—but there are the same old blue policies underneath. Will she admit what the people at home know—that her complacency about global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer, the running down of our environment and the degradation of our wildlife have all taken place under the present Government? Instead of bleating at the Dispatch Box, will she come forward with a practical plan of action for our environment, so that her last year in office is not as wasted in environmental terms as her first 11 years?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should look up the record of the last Labour Government, who, after the directive of 1975 was issued by the Commission, did nothing about water or beaches. They did not even identify the problem, let alone clean up the beaches. We have cleaned up three quarters of our beaches, and have a programme to clean up the rest. We are also doing a great
    798
    deal more with the rivers. We have the best record of river cleanliness in Europe—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that. We also have a good record because we have called the ozone conference and set the targets, and there will be a further conference soon. Instead of making such remarks, the hon. Gentleman should examine the record. He will see that the last Labour Government did nothing but cut capital expenditure, and made the environment worse.
    Mr. Rost: Will my right hon. Friend take another look at a number of reputable studies which show that Britain can not only stabilise its greenhouse gases but reduce them without any financial penalty or pain because greater efficiency in the production of energy means that we can achieve cost savings, higher productivity and a more competitive economy?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, yesterday I gave a certificate to a house which had very high energy efficiency and had led the way. It was the first house to secure that particular certificate. I agree with my hon. Friend that industry has already done a great deal to improve its energy efficiency as a way of keeping down costs and will do a good deal more. Particular companies have done a great deal of research, which will make them more energy efficient than ever before. Our target of getting back to 1990 levels by the year 2005 is a good one. It is the right time scale and has been confirmed by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    Ms. Walley: Does the Prime Minister accept that her Government's projections for carbon dioxide emissions are a gross overestimate and misleading? Despite today's green mantle, is not she conning the British public about what she is doing on green issues? Will she give the House a commitment that she will make available for full public inspection detailed information about the Government's scientific reports on the level of emissions of carbon dioxide, which contribute to global warming?
    The Prime Minister: I notice that the Labour party tried to sustain that argument the other day and was completely blown out of the water. The CBI totally agreed with our target, which was confirmed by Dr. Houghton who has the best available evidence. He said that the
    "fifteen year period is an appropriate timescale to set … It represents a significant step towards reducing the rate of climate change during the next 15 years, by the end of which substantial improvements in the accurancy of the scientific assessment should be expected."
    It is all based on sound science.
    Mr. Squire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that CFCs are a greenhouse gas far more damaging in equivalent weight than carbon dioxide, and that the steps that the Government have taken in beating the Montreal protocol target deserve praise even from the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. We have indeed done that, beating the Montreal protocol, and we hope to set new targets at the conference to be held next week. My hon. Friend is quite right that CFCs are a very damaging greenhouse gas, as is methane. Some people wish to take as their target not only the carbon dioxide emissions, but the CO2 equivalent which takes into account CFCs and methane gas.

    Engagements
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michie: Why is the Prime Minister still insisting that the national health service is safe in her hands when there is chronic underfunding throughout the country? In Sheffield, more than £1 million underfunding has resulted in 108 beds being closed and plans to close two more hospitals. Surely the Prime Minister should have the courage to accept that it is better for her to lose face than for patients to lose their lives.
    The Prime Minister: For the taxpayer, because of the rate of growth that we have enjoyed under the Conservative Government, to be able to increase the finance to the health service from £7 billion per year in 1979 to £29 billion per year is a great tribute to the growth that has occurred under this Government and to the way in which we have been able to divert quite a bit of that growth to improving the health service in a way that the Labour party could never have done.
    Sir Robert McCrindle: Reverting to the earlier question, as some organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth seem dissatisfied with our progress on matters such as global warming and other environmental issues, does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for those organisations to be asked to cost their own, more ambitious proposals? Does she agree that we should all like a greener environment but that apparently not everyone is prepared to face the financial consequences?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. R. costs money to make the environment much better, whether in electricity, in gas or in water. We should, of course, be able to improve and reduce carbon dioxide emissions if we had a greater amount of nuclear energy, but those who urge us to reduce the emissions further are often those who detest nuclear energy, or those from the Labour party who want to keep all the coal mines open and to generate all our electricity from coal.
    Mrs. Rosie Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Barnes: In view of the reports in The Independent today about a rift between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health on the timing of the introduction of the community care reforms outlined in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, will the Prime Minister assure the House that if and when the reforms are introduced, their funding will be ring-fenced and that she will not seek to overturn the amendment passed to that effect in another place?
    The Prime Minister: The Government set out their proposals in the White Paper and in the Bill, which has been extensively debated in both Houses. These are major changes in community care, but planning is going ahead well and it remains the Government's intention that the changes will get under way this coming year, as from April 1991. It is not universally accepted, by any means. that the funding should be by specific grant. Indeed, many local authorities prefer it to be in the ordinary aggregate Exchequer grant and not by specific grant.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. David Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had an application from the Government to make a statement on the success of our co-ordination with the Italian police in Sardinia, especially as this House appears to have had two not very near misses from one of the British soccer hooligans in Sardinia?
Mr. Speaker: I have not had such an application.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has a ten-minute rule motion. However, I call him.
Mr. Corbyn: During defence questions, the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) chose to claim, wrongly, that I had left the Chamber before my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) raised a point of order last Monday and that I returned to the Chamber later. He was trying to suggest that by some means I was avoiding being here. I left the Chamber at 3.10 pm last Monday because I had another appointment to which to go. I then went to my constituency and did not return to the House for the whole day. In the circumstances, would you, Mr. Speaker, ask the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth to apologise for his attempt to mislead and misinform the House?
Mr. Speaker: I have already said that the hon. Gentleman must take responsibility for exciting interest in the reasons why hon. Members may leave the Chamber. Such questions, which make allegations, are not helpful to good relations in this Chamber. Does the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) want to say anything about that?
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) left the Chamber just before the announcement at 3.30 pm. I simply asked the Minister, therefore, a question of fact. You did not allow my question to be answered, Mr. Speaker, and I stand by what I said.
Mr. Martin Flannery: In view of the fact that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) has told an untruth and will not withdraw it, will you, Mr. Speaker, go through the proper procedure with him?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has already stated why he left the Chamber. It is not for me to interpret what was in the mind of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth in drawing attention to it.
Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) clearly made an unparliamen-tary remark in relation to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Without in any way challenging your ruling, Mr. Speaker, it must be appropriate to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his remark.
Mr. Speaker: I have already given the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth that opportunity. The hon. Member for Islington, North stated the reasons why he left the Chamber, and that should be good enough for the House.
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A problem to which I have drawn your attention on many occasions is the inconsistency in the way in which points of order can be raised. Historically, you have said when people have tried to raise points of order during Question Time that you will not accept them. Equally, when points of order have been raised immediately after questions and there is a ten-minute rule Bill, you have refused to take them. Why is it that Labour Members are allowed to raise points of order, whereas we are not?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has a very short memory. He should read Hansard. In 1987 I gave a measured ruling—[Interruption.] I gave a full ruling on the timing of points of order. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to column 459 on 12 February. I suggest he should read it.
Mr. Chris Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you and the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) are aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), throughout our responses to the horrifying explosion in my constituency a week ago, has given complete support to me in expressing the horror that we all feel about that explosion. It would be wrong for any hon. Member to suggest anything else.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think we have had enough of this. Let me repeat what I have already said on this matter. It does not help if questions of that kind, which cast aspersions on the motives of an hon. Member, are thrown accross the Chamber. It does not add anything to our debate. It does not go down well in the Chamber and I regret that it was done.
Mr. John P. Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise, but this matter should be pursued. I was present when the remarks were made by the hon. Gentleman. He said that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) did not simply leave the Chamber but that he left the Chamber and came back. That is not right.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is only taking time out of a very important debate, on which in any event I shall now have to place the 10-minute limit. It is frequently the same hon. Members who are not interested in taking part in debates who are trying to steal prime time. We have a very important debate today. I can add nothing to what I have said. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has clearly stated why he left the Chamber. I say again that that should be good enough for the House.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say, in as unsophisticated a way as possible, that it would appear to the House and anybody watching the proceedings that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) lied.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) has put forward his interpretation of what he said, but I repeat that it adds nothing to the quality of our debate. I am equally sure that comments and aspersions of that kind do not go down well in anybody's constituency.
Mr. Andrew Faulds rose—
Mr. Speaker: Oh, God. I suppose that it will be helpful. Come on.
Mr. Faulds: I am most grateful, Sir, that you should call for such aid when I appear. Most of us in this House deserve to be referred to as honourable gentlemen. Would not it be fitting if the hon. Member for Littleborough and wherever pretended to be one for three minutes?
Mr. Speaker: I have already made my views plain on that point.

Abolition of Deer Hunting
3.39 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the hunting and killing of deer with dogs; and for connected purposes.
My purpose in introducing the—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members wishing to leave the Chamber please do so quietly?
Mr. Corbyn: I hope that those hon. Members who have left the Chamber already have not gone hunting as it is the close season.
The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen animal protection legislation. The need to do that arises because the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 excluded cruelty to wild animals. Because of that, blood sports have been able to continue ever since, although legislation has been introduced to prohibit the hunting of some wild animals, such as the otter, and to ban badger-baiting. The badger has been the subject of a Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), which seeks to protect the badger's habitat and environment.
The purpose of my Bill is simply to remove the legal nicety which, at the moment, allows the hunting and killing of deer with dogs, which I believe to be a wanton cruelty. The Bill would not prohibit the culling of deer to restrict the deer population and so to protect the deer's habitat, and it would not prohibit the shooting of deer, but it would prohibit the extremely cruel practice of hunting deer with dogs.
For the benefit of those who do not know much about the matter, I should explain that many people have written to hon. Members asking why we allow this barbarism to continue. Let me give some examples of what happens. The hunters observe deer as they graze in their normal habitat—on Exmoor or in the New forest, for example. They pick out a particular deer, stag or hind to be hunted later that day or on the following day. The animals are then pursued throughout the day by packs of hounds with people following them. The packs of hounds have more stamina than the deer and chase them to exhaustion point. The deer suffer the most appalling stress during the chase, sometimes running up to 25 miles in one day, and the chase can continue for as long as seven hours.
As it nears exhaustion, the deer may try to take refuge behind a gorse bush, in a tree-covered area or even in a river. But they will have been spotted by still more observers of the hunt. A new scent will be started, and the deer pursued once again. Once the deer are totally exhausted and on the point of collapse, they are supposed to be killed with the aid of a gun from the hunt, but often the hunt is so far behind that the person who is supposed to kill the deer with the gun is not available and the hounds tear the deer apart. It is barbarism of the first order.
There is nothing sporting about the practice and there is nothing in the great traditions of the countryside that can defend it. What is involved here is blood lust. That is why the practice is opposed by an overwhelming majority of people—not just by the general public but by many of those who live in the areas where hunting takes place. I grew up in an area where fox and otter hunting were rife. Those who engaged in these so-called sports claimed to

805
have the overwhelming support of the rural community. Their claim was not true when I was growing up any more than it is true today. It is claimed, too, that hunting is part of the great tradition of our countryside and should be protected. I cannot accept that such cruelty is one of our countryside traditions and I cannot accept that we should allow it to continue.
Pressure was brought to bear to ensure that the hunting of deer with dogs was abolished in Scotland, and the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 prevented such hunting. Now only stalking and shooting are allowed in Scotland and they are at least humanely practised. But the appalling barbarism with which my Bill deals continues to exist in England —in the south and south-west particularly.
There is considerable support for my Bill. The last early-day motion on the abolition of deer hunting was signed by more than 200 hon. Members. Opinion polls show that 81 per cent. of the public support calls for the abolition of deer hunting and the protection of deer from such cruelty. Answers to the converse question, when asked by opinion polls, show that only 4 per cent. of the population support the continuation of deer hunting.
More to the point, perhaps, it is claimed that farmers and those who live in the Exmoor area and other areas in which deer hunting takes place support deer hunting. That is simply not the case. More than half of farmers in Exmoor disapprove of deer hunting, because they do not like the cruelty involved and because of the damage that it does to hedgerows, to fencing, to their land, to their crops and to other animals that are pursued by hounds in pursuit of deer. It is simply not true to say that there is overwhelming support for deer hunting.
It has been said to me that I have no right to speak on the subject because I represent an inner-urban constituency. My constituency has almost the smallest amount of open space of any constituency in the country. Many people in my constituency enjoy the opportunity of visiting the countryside. Perhaps many would enjoy living in the
806
countryside. They have deep concern for the countryside and therefore consider it right that they should be able to express their opinions on that barbarism, just as people who live in rural areas or hon. Members who represent rural areas have every right to comment on what goes on in urban areas. They have just as much right as those who represent rural areas to comment on these matters.
There is a growing feeling around the country that something must be done about cruelty to animals. The banning of otter hunting was achieved after a tremendous campaign. I hope that my hon. Friend's Bill to protect badger setts, which goes on the back of legislation that was introduced by other hon. Members to protect badgers from badger-baiting and has been successful, is passed by the House.
This Bill is yet another step forward in making this country's legislation on animals slightly more humane and slightly more civilised. I believe that it has overwhelming support throughout the country. Hunting with dogs and the vile killing for bloodlust in the name of sport should not be allowed in this country. The House must represent the views of the vast majority of people throughout the country and pass this legislation to remove this so-called sport, which I believe to be an obscenity, from legal sanction in this country and to abolish it so that we may have fair legislation that guarantees the safety of animals and prohibits and outlaws the cruelty to animals that is part of so-called sport.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Eric S. Hafer, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Brian Wilson and Mr. Dennis Canavan.

Abolition of Deer Hunting
  ABOLITION OF DEER HUNTING
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the hunting and killing of deer with dogs; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 June and to be printed. [Bill 163.]
Orders of the Day

  Defence Estimates
  [SECOND DAY'S DEBATE]
  [The Defence Committee has reported on the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990 in its Eighth Report, House of Commons Paper 388 of Session 1989–90. The Fourth Report of the Committee on Reliability and Maintainability of Defence Equipment, House of Commons Paper 40, and its Seventh Report on Rapier Field Standard, C, House of Commons Paper 273, are also relevant.]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [18 June]:
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990 contained in Cm. 1022.—[Mr. Tom King.]
  Which amendment was, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'condemns the Government for its failure to take proper account of, and make constructive responses to, the new conditions created by the welcome emergence of the new democracies in Eastern and Central Europe and the prospective unification of Germany; calls upon the Government to play a positive rôle in the reassessment of the future of NATO strategies including flexible response, and to participate effectively and constructively in the processes of negotiated reduction of nuclear and conventional weapons; deplores the failure of the Government to undertake effective assessment of and preparation for the impact of the potential change in defence needs on defence-related industries and on Her Majesty's Forces, and the possible savings and alternative uses of money currently allocated to the defence budget; and calls upon the Government to participate actively in the development of a new and durable system of security from the Atlantic to the Urals.'—[Mr. O'Neill.]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, I must inform the House that, because of the number of applications to speak in the debate, I propose to put a 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 and 8 pm. I hope that hon. Members who are called before that time and afterwards will bear that limit in mind so that their colleagues may have an opportunity of making a contribution.
  3.49 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that during business questions last week I put to the Leader of the House the fact that in this defence debate the House should have before it the paper that has been prepared in the Ministry of Defence by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. Those papers were more than alluded to in yesterday's debate. We cannot have a proper debate on defence, which is vital to the people of this country and to many workers in our constituencies, unless there is full disclosure of what is happening in the Ministry of Defence.
  I apologise for being absent for yesterday's debate because I had to be in Scotland, but I have read in Hansard what the Secretary of State said and I understand that we will get the information in dribs and drabs. We are now approaching the summer recess. All the things that might happen, such as the possible cancellation of orders and the endangering of employment in many areas in our constituencies, could happen when the House will not have the opportunity of discussing them. We know that the
  808
  papers are in the Ministry. Why will not the Minister come clean and make it clear when we shall get the papers and be able to have a proper debate on the issues?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order for me. As the hon. Gentleman correctly said, it is a matter for the Minister and perhaps the Minister will consider what has been said to him.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not "Erskine May" provide that where papers are referred to either by hon. Members or Ministers, they should be laid on the Table of the House for consultation by Members? That has certainly happened in the past when hon. Members have been required to produce papers. Should not that practice be followed in this instance?
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman consults "Erskine May" again, he will see that that is the practice when a Minister quotes from state papers. I understand that these are internal papers. When I was in the Chair yesterday, I did not hear any quotations from them.
  3.51 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): We had an interesting and lively debate yesterday, with many contributions. It was particularly fascinating for me to notice the wide gulf that is appearing between Opposition Members in their views on defence. We had contributions from the old troupers—I do not know whether they are now described as the "hard" or "soft" left—who proclaimed their unilateralist views. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) made it clear that he saw no role for nuclear weapons. I accept that that is consistent with the views that he has held for a long time. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) sees no role for nuclear weapons—or for NATO either. He raised the old cliché, "Better dead than red." No one would accuse the right hon. Gentleman of believing himself better dead than red. Indeed, in the past he has never rated the Soviet threat as serious, in much the same way as he argues that it has now disappeared.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is not in his place. He wants to see a 50 per cent. cut in the defence budget over the next five years and sees no role for the Rhine Army or, presumably, for NATO. I note that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is still demonstrating for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
  Yesterday, therefore, four out of the six Back-Bench Labour speeches came from unilateral disarmers who want our defence budget halved and our nuclear deterrent scrapped. I do not impugn their motives because they have consistently taken those views, which are shared by a substantial number in the parliamentary Labour party, several of whom are vocal on the Front Bench below the Gangway. Are we talking, therefore, about half or three quarters of the parliamentary Labour party holding such views? That raises another interesting question of where it leaves official Labour policy. The answer is, in the hands of the other part of the Labour party, which is not too concerned about principles or convictions. It is what one might call the "Mandelson wing" of the party. It believes that presentation is all and that thorny issues such as

  809
  defence need to be carefully massaged—say one thing and mean another. Those hon. Members are the window-dressers of the Labour party.
  I refer to Labour's most recent publication, "Looking to the Future", in which plenty of consideration is given to pumping taxpayers' money into the defence industries to enable them to diversify from making defence equipment —as though they themselves had no idea how to manufacture new products.
  But what of Britain's nuclear deterrent? I expect that those hon. Members would say, "Ah, that was in the previous document, 'Meet the Challenge: Make the Change', which appeared last year." I suppose that they would claim that it is not worthy of repetition. However, as much of what was in the 1989 document was repeated in this year's publication, why was the future of the nuclear deterrent left out? It was too embarrassing, I suspect.
  "Meet the Challenge: Make the the Change" refers to the early decommissioning of first Polaris, then Trident. I accept that it is proposed to do so through negotiations, but there will be no problem in persuading the Soviet Union to agree to negotiate away our deterrent in the early days of a Labour Government, if we have one. The result would be that we should have no nuclear weapons and the Soviet Union would be left with thousands. Many other countries will conceivably have nuclear capabilities, too. It is not quite unilateral disarmament, but the effect is the same. I suspect that that is why the soft left will go along with it.
  Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister use the same arguments with the 140 non-nuclear nations who have signed the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Under that treaty they have pledged themselves not to manufacture or deploy nuclear weapons. Is not the agreement underlying that treaty that the tiny handful of nuclear states will get rid of their nuclear weapons, provided that the non-nuclear states abide by the treaty? Why does not the Minister get rid of Trident instead of maintaining his stupid, warmongering attitude?
  Mr. Hamilton: Because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, although there are 140 signatories to the non-proliferation treaty, it is not watertight. Several other nations have their own nuclear capability. The hon. Gentleman's policy advocates that we should have no nuclear weapons whatever while other countries in the third world have them. How does the hon. Gentleman explain that to the British public? How does he explain that he wants us to be in a vulnerable position in which we could be blackmailed by Libya because it has a nuclear capability and we have none?
  The window dressers and Labour Front-Bench spokesmen remain pretty coy about what other plans they have for defence policy. Yesterday, whenever we thought that we saw an illuminating chink of light, it disappeared again quickly. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) referred to the American argument that United States troops in Europe need the nuclear umbrella. He quoted, "No nukes, no troops." At that point my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) intervened to ask whether Labour would keep open bases for United States nuclear-capable aircraft in Britain. That, said the hon. Gentleman, would depend on the
  810
  circumstances. But what has happened to the Labour commitment to close United States bases in Britain? Has it been abandoned? Or is it Labour policy to negotiate away the deterrent and then hide under the United States nuclear umbrella? There is not much morality in that, but the window dressing section of the Labour party is not long on morality.
  Mr. David Winnick: The Minister gloats about our possession of nuclear weapons. I recognise that several countries have nuclear weapons which should not have them and that that presents problems. However, every single argument that the Minister uses is used by Gaddafi and the ruler of Iraq. They argue the same case in the context of the middle east conflict. Will the Minister acknowledge that as far as possible the international community should take steps to reduce the number of countries that possess nuclear weapons? Does the Minister really believe that the argument that he and his colleagues use—that we should be proud of our nuclear weapons and that we should have as many as possible—should also be used by all the Gaddafis and Husseins? They could claim that they have as much right to have nuclear weapons as anyone else.
  Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman gets me wrong. I do not gloat that we have nuclear weapons. I gloat about the position of the Labour party. It has a defence policy which is a pathetic fudge and is not supported by a large percentage of the parliamentary party. On the nonproliferation treaty, clearly it is desirable that other countries should not have nuclear weapons. However, despite the nuclear non-profileration treaty, such countries are developing a nuclear capability. That is a reality with which we shall have to deal. Whether it is desirable is immaterial. The unilateral policy advocated by the Labour party is a dangerous policy which will leave us with no nuclear weapons when many other nations have them. That is the reality, whether it is desirable or not.
  Mr. Frank Cook: The Minister states that he is gloating over the possession of a Labour party defence policy. Surely he realises that everyone's defence policy is totally out of date. The circumstances have moved so swiftly and so far that the Government, the Labour party, the United States, NATO and the Warsaw pact are out of date. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should gloat over that so that we can get on to the defence estimates.
  Mr. Hamilton: The quandary of the Labour party is clearly illustrated by the fact that it cannot even agree on an amendment to the debate—there are two amendments on the Order Paper that say totally different things.
  Within the next couple of years we shall have a general election and the country will ask what the Labour party stand for on defence policy. Therefore, it is important to explore that issue to see where it takes us. At the moment the Labour party has two defence policies that advocate dramatically different things, and it is only right that we should say so.
  The hon. Member for Clackmannan got himself in a bit of a muddle about whether Labour felt that the regimental system was worth retaining. This is a matter of great concern to the British Army and I should like to take this opportunity to reiterate that the Government believe in the regimental system and are convinced that it must be

  811
  maintained for the esprit de corps that it brings to our front-line battalions. Regiments may have to be disbanded or amalgamated, but the regimental system will go on.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: The Minister did not understand what I said yesterday, but that is not surprising as there are many defence matters which he does not understand that a child of five could grasp. Is he in favour of the retention of the regimental system with fewer regiments? If so, which ones does he envisage disappearing?
  Mr. Hamilton: I would not have suggested that the hon. Gentleman was in a muddle without carefully reading the Official Report of yesterday's proceedings.
  The hon. Gentleman certainly insinuated that we might have to look again at the regimental system. We will retain that system, but with fewer units, which is accepted in "Options for Change". Obviously we are unable to spell out now which units will remain. As the debate proceeded I was glad that we were able to clear the hon. Gentleman's mind. This is a contentious issue and if one talks airy-fairy about whether the regimental system should be reviewed people see the spectre of the Army suddenly being amalgamated into one enormous corps. I find that that does not go down terribly well with the armed forces.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke yesterday about the hopeful prospects that have been opened up by the momentous changes in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. He also set out the new uncertainties that we face. Those have increased as the old order has crumbled beneath the tide of democracy that now extends across the continent, no longer stopping at the Elbe. Our excitement at the opportunities for remodelling the European security environment must not blind us to the real dangers associated with the instability of a transitional period. The recent violence in Romania is a sobering reminder of the tensions that remain just beneath the surface in eastern Europe.
  In his speech yesterday my right hon. Friend referred to the work that has been going on in the Ministry of Defence on options for change. This work has been carried out against the background of a threat in Europe that is receding both in terms of capability and intention. The Warsaw pact has ceased to be an effective military grouping, although the Soviet Union, its most powerful member, retains a massive military capability, both conventional and nuclear. However, that capability will be greatly constrained if, as seems likely, we see the withdrawal of all 500,000 Soviet troops from eastern Europe in the next few years. At the same time, we should see reductions in the enormous Soviet superiority in equipment, such as tanks and artillery, through the conventional forces in Europe agreement that we hope will be signed by the end of this year.
  In the light of those changing circumstances, it is clearly right that consideration is given to restructuring our force levels and Ministers, working with their key service and civilian advisers on defence policy and the defence programmes, are doing that.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have a practical question which is of concern to many service men. In the light of the probable redeployment of some British units in the Federal Republic of Germany to the United Kingdom, has the Ministry of Defence called a halt to the programme of disposing of married quarters? Is
  812
  not it a fact that since 1979, about 7,000 houses have been sold? Does the Minister agree that if British troops are to be returned from Germany, they and their families deserve to be adequately housed?
  Mr. Hamilton: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about married quarters, but we still have a policy to sell them. All the policies will be looked at again in view of the proposals coming forward and the effect that they will have on logistic matters such as married quarters.
  The House will recognise that changes in direction in defence matters cannot be brought about overnight. The time scale of procurement decisions and the sheer scale of the enterprise mean that we must start now to plan possible future directions against the historic changes under way in Europe. We must take account of the changes that have taken place, those clearly in prospect —such as CFE—but not yet secured, and a range of possible developments in the future, not just the most optimistic or, for that matter, the worst cases.
  We must ensure that our future contribution fits in with those of our allies, within a pattern of a revised NATO strategy, operational concept and force structures which have yet to be established. Inevitably it takes time to work through those issues.
  It is, of course, essential that we are guided in those considerations by a realistic appraisal of the future political scene in Europe, including likely arms control developments. In parallel, however, we must also keep in sight the short-term financial pressures on defence, alluded to by my right hon. Friend yesterday. It would be folly indeed if measures taken to balance the books in the short term took no account of the wider picture.
  As my right hon. Friend said yesterday, we recognise that we have a responsibility to ensure that those most affected in the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence are informed as soon as possible of any proposals. All three services recognise that there must be change in our defence structures. They understand that "Options for Change" is likely to affect all of them and realise that much must be done to plan the way forward. They are impatient to get on with the job.
  Of course, we recognise that events may not pan out exactly as we all hope and expect. Whatever the future holds, the House can be assured that we will continue to keep our defences properly and prudently aligned with the security needs of the nation.
  Mr. Douglas: Am I correct in assuming that we are talking not about clear aims and objectives but about the Government trying to move ahead, incremental step by step, to see where they can go, and that they are trying to reconcile what is happening in the world with Treasury constraints? There are no clear objectives and there is no great option for change. This is a case of making it up as we go along.
  Mr. Hamilton: I regret that the hon. Gentleman puts that interpretation on my remarks because that is not what I have been saying. The threat, in terms of capability and intention, is receding. We know, for instance, that under the current two-plus-four negotiations the whole future of Soviet troops in eastern Germany is being considered. We can assume—we must plan on certain assumptions—that at some stage those troops, about 380,000 of them, will withdraw from eastern Germany. The implications are

  813
  that shortly after the Poles will ask for Soviet troops to be withdrawn. So within that time scale—remembering that the Hungarian and Czechoslovakian troops in those two countries are due to go next year—we can assume that the nearest Soviet troops to western boundaries will be in the Ukraine and the western military districts of the Soviet Union.
  I am spelling out how the capability of the Soviet Union is changing in terms of the threat to us. At the same time, we can see that intentions in the Soviet Union have also changed, though we must be slightly more wary about that, because intentions could change back again should the political leadership in the Soviet Union change.
  Substantial changes are taking place in the capability of the Soviets to inflict damage on the west and, in the light of those changes, it is right, as my right hon. Friend said yesterday, to examine the strength of the Rhine Army, RAF Germany and so on and to start to reorganise the displacement of forces to recognise those future realities. Clearly, as we move into that period—towards the end of the decade—it will be difficult to say at the same time that we want increased funding on defence. The reality will probably be that the money will not be forthcoming and, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said during questions earlier, savings may occur as a result of our planned restructuring.
  Dr. Godman: In the light of the dramatically changing circumstances that the Minister of State is outlining, is it his Department's intention to call a halt to the policy of seeking to acquire an additional 50,000 acres of land for military training?
  Mr. Hamilton: The figure of 50,000 acres is not in my mind. We have always made it clear that our existing training areas such as Salisbury plain are not large enough for our purposes, and have not been for years. Therefore, if possible, it would be satisfactory to add to such training areas. We acquire farms on the borders of areas such as Salisbury plain when opportunities arise and I should like to keep that option open. We do not have enough training areas for what we are now doing and the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) would be the first to recognise that, as weaponry becomes more sophisticated and ranges increase, we need more space for exercising, not less. Therefore, I cannot give him that undertaking.
  I make no apology for the Ministry of Defence buying land. We have as many sites of special scientific interest as anybody else in this country, other than the national parks. We are tremendous preservers and conservers of nature, flora and fauna, and have done nothing but good in the areas that we own.
  The Government consider that NATO has a vital role in Europe and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. NATO was first brought together as a defensive alliance of western nations to resist the threat of Soviet military might. As long as the Soviet Union remains a military super-power with enormous conventional and nuclear capability, that remains the key role of the alliance. The development of Europeanwide co-operative structures—such as the CSCE—complement NATO's role and are not a replacement for it. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield raised that issue yesterday. Of course, we fully
  814
  appreciate the importance of taking account of the Soviet Union's legitimate security concerns. We understand the historical considerations that colour its thinking on the German issue. Indeed, for that very reason the prospect of a united Germany in NATO is one which the Soviets should, in my view, welcome. Therefore, in any restructuring of British defence forces, a significant contribution to NATO generally and British Forces Germany in particular, must remain.
  The central role of nuclear deterrence will also remain. The United Kingdom's strategic deterrent makes an important contribution to alliance security and is the ultimate guarantee of our security—an insurance policy against unwelcome developments in the future. Trident will allow us to maintain a credible strategic nuclear deterrent well into the next century at a relatively modest cost and we remain entirely convinced of the need for it. Although there is clearly a diminishing need for nuclear systems of the shortest range, NATO will continue to review both the quantitative and qualitative requirements for its sub-strategic forces, which will need to offer greater flexibility and longer range. The need to ensure that the basing of nuclear weapons is widespread among NATO nations will also remain an important demonstration of the commitment of alliance members to collective defence and the need to share roles, risks and burdens, as well as the advantages of nuclear deterrence. This burden-sharing is, of course, also important because of the need to offer reassurance to our American allies. The vital importance of a continued United States presence in Europe adds particular weight to that.
  The Labour party discussed, in its recent document, the demise of flexible response, although I am never clear what it would put in its place. Perhaps it sees a return to a tripwire strategy as preferable. Let there be no doubt that NATO remains firmly committed to the central concepts underlying flexible response as the best means of maintaining effective prevention of war, which will be essential so long as the Soviet Union retains its awesome military potential.
  At the same time, post-war history shows that while we retain effective alliance deterrence, conflict is more likely to erupt in other parts of the world, rather than in Europe, and the possibility remains of the United Kingdom's interests out of area being threatened. Therefore, it is important that forces be retained which can contribute to security in other parts of the world. Such forces can, of course, play a key role in peace keeping, as we have shown time and again in our support for the United Nations. As we reshape our contribution to NATO we need to provide forces with sufficient flexibility to contribute to out-of-area operations, should they prove necessary.
  I should like now to deal with the services' commitments in Northern Ireland. In my speech during the Army debate two weeks ago I spoke about security and our anti-terrorist operations in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland. Since then the IRA has callously murdered a former RUC reservist and his wife and planted a bomb at the headquarters of the Honourable Artillery Company—a bomb which injured a number of civilians. The IRA has also blown up a former home of my noble Friend Lord McAlpine and a building at an Army training area in Hameln, West Germany—fortunately without loss of life. Thanks to the vigilance of a local farmer, important arrests have been made in Belgium and Holland. That serves to emphasise, as I have

  815
  often said, that the involvement and support of ordinary people in the community in the fight against terrorism will lead to the IRA's ultimate and inevitable defeat.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: It may have been a slip of the tongue, but I think I heard the Minister say that the IRA had blown up the house of Lord McAlpine. In the press that was attributed to animal liberation groups, not to the IRA.
  Mr. Hamilton: No; as I understand it, Lord McAlpine runs a zoo, so that would be a strange thing for an animal rights group to do. He was always on a list of the IRA—
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): The IRA claimed it.
  Mr. Hamilton: As my right hon. Friend says, the IRA claimed the attack.
  The protection of our service and civilian personnel and of defence establishments against terrorist attack remains our highest priority. As I said during the Army debate, an additional £126 million was provided last year to fund a major package of security enhancements, here and on the continent. The implementation of those security enhancements is continuing, and we are looking at ways to extend security to cover all areas where people may be vulnerable to terrorist attack. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who raised this matter yesterday, that all items of operational urgency and significance, including security measures, are exempt from the temporary period of spending restraint.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: On security, is the Minister aware of the deep concern in the Kintyre area of Argyll, where I understand that Ministry of Defence police are to be withdrawn from the NATO oil depot? As there is increasing traffic—it is welcome—between Kintyre and Northern Ireland, I should be interested to know whether the Minister agrees that that would be a retrograde step, since I believe that the MOD police are to be replaced by private security arrangements.
  Mr. Hamilton: I cannot comment on that case, but I know that in general terms we have to review all our security commitments. Although people find that Ministry of Defence police are the most satisfactory for them, those police are also the most expensive way of providing security. I suspect that budgetary considerations may have been taken into account in this case because we are interested in getting the best value for money from the defence budget—but I shall write to the hon. Lady about this.
  Mr. Winnick: I thank the Minister for giving way to me a second time. Does he accept that those of us who believe that the Birmingham Six are not guilty of the charges against them—I doubt whether any hon. Member thinks that they are guilty—believe nevertheless that those who have carried out crimes against humanity, such as the IRA has, should be brought to justice? Merely because we believe, as some of us have for some time, that certain people in prison are not guilty as charged does not alter our conviction that recent IRA crimes—the soldier who was murdered recently not far from my constituency, the Army major in Germany, and so on—are crimes against humanity, and that those responsible for them should be brought to justice as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I know that the whole House condemns those atrocities. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to comment on the Birmingham Six, although I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has looked at the case, I think more than once, and does not consider that it should be reopened.
  As I said, it is important that ordinary people, and in particular the local population who live around military bases, are involved in our efforts to protect the service men who live and work there. Last night my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) suggested the establishment of neighbourhood watch schemes. I assure him that we are studying all options with the relevant civil authorities and intend to announce our conclusions shortly.
  We shall continue to use a mix of resources to provide guards for MOD establishments. These include service personnel, Ministry of Defence police, in-house MOD guards and commercial guarding companies. We are examining the creation of a Ministry of Defence guard force. All those options, including commercial guarding companies, where they can demonstrate that they can provide an effective service, must be available to meet the terrorist threat.
  I should like to move on to mention the scope of the armed forces' task in Northern Ireland which is, of course, their largest peacetime operational commitment.
  The Army's 10 regular battalions in Northern Ireland are currently split into five resident and five roulement battalions. Maintaining this force level requires thorough support and planning. So far this year two resident battalions have already been replaced—one by another resident battalion and the other by a roulement battalion. Each roulement posting requires three battalions per year as the six-month long tours are not timed to the calendar year. Throughout 1990 approximately 20 units will undertake training in preparation for duties in the Province. In addition, there is always a battalion on standby which, if necessary, could deploy at short notice to Northern Ireland, or elsewhere.
  The extra cost of the service commitment in Northern Ireland is estimated at about £200 million in this financial year. Both Regular and full-time Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers work long hours—more than 60 hours a week on average. Even the average part-timer contributes about 22 hours a week. The UDR's nine battalions provide an indispensable element of the Army's support to the RUC. UDR soldiers are under constant stress because of the danger of murder, both on and off duty. Almost 200 have been murdered since 1970 and almost 50 ex-members have been killed. The full-time element of the UDR has been increasing which is a reflection of their importance within the Army. We will continue to improve the professionalism and training of the UDR permanent cadre soldier.
  We do not often see the statistics about punishment shootings in Northern Ireland. Since 1973 there have been 494 loyalist and 972 republican punishment shootings, making a total of 1,466 people in Northern Ireland who have been shot through the knee-caps and sometimes in the elbows and thighs as well. That is an example of the horrific way in which these extreme organisations carry on in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Keith Speed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those extremely moving statistics. Will he join

  817
  the American ambassador in condemning the mayor of New York for what appears to be happening there in glorifying terrorists?
  Mr. Hamilton: Some unfortunate remarks have been made in the United States by people who do not in any way understand the situation in the Province. They are seeking to pander to a thoroughly ignorant public in New York and some of the remarks made are thoroughly regrettable.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said yesterday, we owe a great debt to our service men and women, whose courage, dedication and fortitude are demonstrated so vividly and, sadly, so frequently as they help to meet the services' commitments in combating terrorism.
  Much has changed in the world, and much is yet to change. We now face a set of circumstances almost unthinkable 12 months ago and certainly not predicted then. We are presented with opportunities to transform the political landscape of Europe from one deformed by confrontation and division to one where democratic freedoms can flourish in a stable security environment. We shall achieve this transformation only if we keep firmly in sight the present realities of the world and are not blinded by visions of utopias just round the corner. We need to keep in check Eurocentric tendencies. There is a wider world. The United Kingdom is part of it and our armed forces and defence activities can help to make it a safer place. The "Statement on the Defence Estimates" sets out our approach to these matters and describes our management of the services and defence resources. I commend it to the House.
  4.24 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: First, I take up the theme on which the Minister of State ended and pay tribute to our service men and women for their work in the past year, often in most dangerous circumstances, and, in particular, those who have to serve in Northern Ireland. In addition, as the Secretary of State did this morning, I too praise the co-operation of those European countries which sought to apprehend the cowardly murderers who were obviously well entrenched in Europe. It is an achievement to have such co-operation. I only hope that none of the countries concerned will do as other countries do on occasion and prevent the extradition of those murderers so that they may receive their just deserts.
  Unfortunately, I missed the beginning of the Secretary of State's speech yesterday, but I caught his statement that the newspaper report about the Minister of State for Defence Procurement's paper, which was referred to earlier today, was true, that it was not secret, that he had seen it and that he had sent it to the Prime Minister as long ago as before Christmas. But what he did not say yesterday was whether he agreed with its contents. Like many of my hon. Friends, I found it remarkable that the Secretary of State found it necessary to deny that there was a rift between him and his Minister of State. However, for the sake of the country, Opposition Members are pleased that they are jolly pals again, even to the extent that today the Minister of State for the Armed Forces duplicated the Secretary of State's speech yesterday.
  818
  The Secretary of State spent a long time yesterday analysing political developments—rather badly I should say, particularly in his distortion of what happened at the end of the first world war, his reference to the 10-year rule and his clumsy attempt to blame the Labour party for the decisions of successive Tory Governments. After his long analysis of events in eastern Europe and the geo-political factors that face us at present which has been reiterated today, he stressed the fact that the Soviets are a huge continuing threat and are re-arming at a frightening pace. If they are true, the statistics that he trotted out yesterday were frightening, and he says that he receives intelligence reports, so I presume that they are.
  But what is the Government's response to the huge, continuing and increasing threat that is developing from the Soviets? They are cutting back because, as the Secretary of State said in another part of his speech, peace has broken out and there is room to cut back. The Secretary of State made a pathetic and illogical speech. He talked about people riding horses, but he is riding more than two horses on this occasion.
  The truth slipped out this morning when the Secretary of State was interviewed on the "Today" programme. He acknowledged that the reason for the present cuts was not what he suggested yesterday and not what the Minister of State for the Armed Forces suggested today—a measured and orderly response to geo-political factors—but the inflation that the Government have created and its impact on the defence estimates.
  The Secretary of State said—it is in Hansard—that he could not get any extra money from the Treasury and he had to live within his cash limits. That is why the cuts are taking place. The Government must cut back, not because they are constructing an orderly response to changes in eastern Europe, but because they have been told to create a peace profit in order to fund the poll tax.
  The Minister of State talked today about a cold and measured response, but yesterday the Secretary of State said that he has already set in train some short-term changes which have largely been decided and that announcements will be made as appropriate, including some procurement changes that were to be announced by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement yesterday evening.
  When I asked the Secretary of State later what short-term changes had already been decided, his response was rather rude, so we thought that we would wait for the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to reply. However, he contributed only three lines about procurement changes. If all those changes have been made, I would expect the Secretary of State to think it appropriate to announce them in the House—or will some of the decisions be delayed until the recess, when there cannot be any parliamentary criticism of the Government's actions?
  The Secretary of State was less than truthful with the House yesterday. As usual, it took the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence—the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates)—to put his finger on the issue. He said:
  "Arbitrary cash cuts and deliberate attrition by inflation make prudent management of the defence budget next to impossible."
  So much for the Secretary of State's claim that the cuts are a reasoned and rational development.

  819
  I was amused yesterday by the Secretary of State's reply to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), who asked whether the suppliers would receive their money for the work that they had carried out. He responded by saying that the computer at the Ministry of Defence had broken down, and that therefore the suppliers could not be paid. I thought that that was the usual Government response to social security claimants; I never thought that it would be a response to suppliers. [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State does not agree, he should read yesterday's Hansard.
  Late in yesterday's debate there was a relatively casual reference to the axing of Tornadoes. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement said:
  "At present, I cannot foresee a place for additional Tornado aircraft in the programme; I have therefore decided not to authorise further work on that order."—[Official Report, 18 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 709 and 771.]
  There has been much speculation on that issue today. Perhaps in his reply the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will elaborate on the matter and tell the House what is going on. Does it mean the axing of 31 or 33 aircraft in the eighth batch? Will the remaining 10 —according to the defence estimates, 43 have been ordered —still be ordered? When will the promised £600 million saving he made? Does the approximate delivery rate of 10 Tornadoes a year mean that the savings will be made over three, four or five years? If 10 are already under construction, when will the savings show up?
  I have examined the estimates for a budget line on the matter. Perhaps the Minister can tell us tonight what will happen to the Tornadoes: he owes that to the workers at British Aerospace, if not to the management. The management said today that it wanted to discuss the cancellation with the Ministry of Defence, although yesterday the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said that his Department had been consulting British Aerospace on the changes. A slight difference of opinion is emerging.
  The mystery that remains is where the immediate £300 million in cuts that the Secretary of State mentioned will be made. How will he guarantee the 3 per cent. savings in this financial year to which he referred? They are not covered by the cutback in the Tornadoes, so where will they be made? We can only assume that the savings will result from the existing moratorium on contracts, civilian recruitment, reductions in planned operations and, I presume, the computer breaking down at convenient times. I look forward to hearing some answers from the Minister this evening.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Tornado order. No doubt he will be aware that that order is important in central and north Lancashire and that the security of jobs there is tied up with the future of the European fighter aircraft. Many Conservative Members are concerned that that project should continue and that Germany should endorse it and continue to develop it as that will benefit British industry and British jobs.
  Mr. Rogers: Obviously that question should be directed to the Government and not to me. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make that point if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that yesterday the Minister
  820
  of State said that the agreement had been signed and that the programme was going ahead. Had the hon. Gentleman been here yesterday, he would have heard that.
  Two significant things have happened in the past week or so. The first was the speech by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to the Royal Aeronautical Society, which fortunately I missed.
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: Has the hon. Gentleman read it?
  Mr. Rogers: Yes. It was a speech for which the Minister was attacked by his officials, especially over his pleas for simpler and cheaper weapons and his suggestion that the A310 airbus could be adapted for use as a medium-range bomber.
  I know that the Minister has a primitive streak and a desire for the simpler things in life such as servants and antique cars, but I wonder whether he was really serious. He said recently—I think that it was in the debate on the Army—that there was no point in being ironic in this place, but his irony and laid-back approach to arms procurement have raised the wrong hackles this time. It has been suggested that the Minister has a radical approach to defence matters, which would obviously bring him into conflict with the more rural and pedestrian Secretary of State. It seems to me that in some of the things he has said he has mistaken lunacy for free thinking and freaking off for parallel thought. However, I agree with his simpler and cheaper approach to defence procurement. I suggest that he starts at home by sorting out the Procurement Executive.
  The second significant event that has occurred in the past couple of weeks was the publication of another substantial report by the Defence Select Committee. Yet again the Select Committee is highly critical of the Government. That is not unusual. It deals with the non-procurement of the Rapier Field Service C—a short-range, low-level air defence guided weapon system. It outlines the sad and sorry saga surrounding the essential fact that Rapier is £300 million over cost and three years behind schedule in coming into service.
  The report's criticisms of the Government seem rather muted in tone considering the confessions of witnesses as a result of acute questioning by the Chairman and members of the Select Committee, particularly the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). The inability to assess the technical risks before full development seems to be at the heart of the problem. Although there was a two-year feasibility study followed by a three-and-a-half year definition study, costing in total more than £18 million, prior to the development phase, it seems that no one except the British taxpayer is picking up the tab. The prime contractor, British Aerospace, has tried to pass on some of the blame to the sub-contractors, Plessey, Marconi and Ferranti—not insignificant companies. They in turn wash their hands of any of the blame. That means that the supervision of the contract by the Ministry of Defence leaves much to be desired.
  I was rather taken aback by the arrogance of the replies in the Select Committee report by the assistant under-secretary of state (ordnance) to the Chairman and to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, who pressed him critically on the issue. Some of the statements in the report are strange. One statement, for example, reads:
  "British Aerospace did not have any incentive to keep the costs to a minimum".

  821
  Does that mean that efficiency or pride in its work were not incentives? Does that mean that the British Aerospace management is so bad that it cannot control costs to a proper level in the production process? Does it mean that British Aerospace can control costs, but that it is overcharging to make excess profits? If that is the case, it means that the supervision by the Ministry of Defence and by the Procurement Executive is deficient and negligent, and that they are guilty of far more than the count of slack control which was mentioned in the report. That could be the case, as the report goes on to say:
  "development work was not monitored against milestones",
  but payments were simply made
  "on the basis of work completed rather than demonstration of achievement".
  Although the programme has been relaunched, matters have gone from bad to worse. The inclusion of £115 million for British Aerospace as a "risk contingency" is another mind-bending decision. Perhaps the Minister can explain it. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the Conservative hon. Member for Hampshire, East, described it as "a sweetener" for British Aerospace. It is one of a long line of those. However, I still cannot understand why such a gratuitous amount was paid to a company that was already contracted to do a job on what was virtually a cost-plus basis.
  The report shows incompetence and inefficiency in the Ministry of Defence and in the Procurement Executive on a scale that would land any local authority manager in gaol. The £300 million cost overrun on Rapier is a scandal that requres an immediate Government reaction. The Crichel Down scandal reinforced the principle that a Minister is responsible for the actions of his Department. Sir William Dugdale, who was the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries at the time, resigned over that incident. He was a man of honour.
  The Ferranti affair resulted in the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who is here with us this afternoon and who was then the Minister of Aviation, refusing to resign because he argued—perhaps properly —that mistakes could be made over contracts at the edge of known technology and that the Minister, therefore, was not necessarily responsible. However, much to his credit, the right hon. Gentleman instituted an inquiry into the Ferranti affair which resulted in a repayment of £4·25 million by Ferranti for overcosting, and that was a significant sum at the time.
  Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, the then Home Secretary, said:
  "The position of the civil servant is that he is wholly and directly responsible to his Minister. It is worth stating again that he holds his office 'at pleasure' and can be dismissed at any time by the Minister."
  Mr. Julian Amery: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for warning me that he would refer to this old story. There is nothing that requires concealment. The contract with Ferranti was made long before I was Minister. Ferranti made a substantial profit on a cost-plus basis. Mr. Basil de Ferranti, who' had been my Under-Secretary, and his brother, who was then chairman, discussed the matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I discussed the matter with Mr. de Ferranti. Ferranti agreed that it had made an excessive profit and, as the hon. Gentleman says, it repaid £4 million, which it did not have
  822
  to do under any legal consideration. I should have thought that the return of £4 million was rather better than my resignation would have been.
  Mr. Rogers: I did not mention the story as a criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. However, the rather casual way in which he describes the events is not quite borne out by the facts. A committee was set up under Sir John Laing to investigate the matter. The investigation was carried out not on a casual, old-school-tie basis, but as a more formal inquiry.
  Mr. Amery: I have not had time to check the documents. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the inquiry was subsequent to the decision.
  Mr. Rogers: I shall bow to the right hon. Gentleman's version as he was involved in that particular scandal, although he was not responsible for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] It was a scandal. The scandal was in overcharging, not in the conduct of the Minister and I have not said that as a criticism of the right hon. Member for Pavilion, as the record will show. If Conservative Members believe that ripping off the British taxpayer is not a scandal, they have a very different standard of morality from ours.
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces talked at length about morality today. However, what has he and his Secretary of State done about the Rapier contract? They will not even do what the right hon. Member for Pavilion did—instigate an inquiry. They have kept their heads down and they have shut their mouths. The whole circus carries on performing. [Interruption.] The Minister of State for Defence Procurement finds it amusing that we should be ripped off for £300 million. He really does not care because the friends of the Tory party in big business will benefit. They probably went to the same school as half the Conservative Members. There has been no expression of regret about the rip-off and no acknowledgement of blame. No one has been chastised and no one has been sacked. The Minister will obviously not resign, but he should at least have the guts and gumption to sack the head of the Procurement Executive—a Tory placeman who has presided over "many costs" in time overruns, over much inefficiency and over much poor performance.
  That man was brought in by the Government to sort out arms procurement, to introduce efficiency through competition and to reorganise procurement procedure. The Secretary of State is mumbling and seems to be asking my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) whether he agrees. My hon. Friend certainly condemns the rip-offs and the number of slippages in arms procurement. He condemns the hugely expensive overruns and the continual reports from the Select Committee on Defence about poor reliability and maintainability. The Secretary of State is squirming. Is he going to get up now and resign?
  Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman is speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, so I assume that his attack on Sir Peter Levene, who is not here to defend himself, is made with the authority of his hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) and that it is the Labour party's policy to criticise a public servant in that way. The hon. Gentleman also knows perfectly well that the contract to which he has referred was placed a considerable time before Sir Peter Levene reorganised part

  823
  of the system of contracts. That point should be put clearly on the record. I was under the impression that Labour Members on the Select Committee also believed that Sir Peter Levene had made a considerable contribution to the procurement process. The hon. Gentleman has now made Labour's view clear. He has made a scurrilous attack, and I hope that he will make it outside the House.
  Mr. Rogers: The right hon. Gentleman protests a little too much. He knows that he presides over a shambles. He knows that he is getting ripped off by the defence industry. He forgets that, although there was a five-and-a-half-year feasibility and definition study, which cost £80 million before 1983, the development side was placed in 1983. In 1986, long after Sir Peter Levene joined the Procurement Executive, the whole contract was renegotiated. The Secretary of State does not know the facts. He should withdraw what he has said, unless he is quite happy. That is typical of this Government. They have been criticised in a report by a Select Committee that is dominated by Conservative Members, yet all the Secretary of State can do is to blame me for making a "scurrilous attack". Why does he not criticise the Select Committee?
  Mr. Julian Brazier: It is a little harsh for a Labour Front-Bench spokesman to castigate the Government for insufficiently adhering to fixed-price contracts as milestones when these are management tools that have been introduced by the Government due to the abysmal lack of control over these matters by previous Governments. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the extent to which the minutes of this debate will be read by foreign arms exporters across Europe and be used against Rapier —a very good British product that has sold well abroad, with competitive tendering?
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Member does not know his facts. He has not read the report. He has talked about the Rapier systems being a good product. They do not even work. The systems have not been integrated. The hon. Gentleman ought to check his facts. He talks about this Government's glorious record. Is he aware that 24 projects have exceeded the initial cost estimates and that another 25 projects are subject to time slippage? Defence procurement is in an utter shambles. Sir Peter Levene, despite being brought in specially to correct this has not done so.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Did my hon. Friend hear the in-depth and searching questions that the Prime Minister endured on the Jimmy Young programme when she castigated overspending by local authorities? Would my hon. Friend care to contrast the situation in local authorities with that in the Ministry of Defence and the overspending on all these projects? What does he think that the Prime Minister should be saying about the gross overspending on Ministry of Defence projects?
  Mr. Rogers: As I have inferred, Ministers and civil servants seem to be outside any criticism. If there is positive criticism, the Secretary of State says it is scurrilous. It is not. I have heard Ministers castigate Labour and Conservative councillors and local authority managers who are not here to defend themselves. It is a shabby trick that the Secretary of State should make such a statement. I am pleased to see that I have offended the Secretary of State. That was one of my ambitions in life.
  Land use in some areas is receiving a great deal of criticism, especially in south-west Wales and St. Davids
  824
  airfield in Pembrokeshire regarding the proposed installation of "over the horizon" American radar. People in this area, and in Wales as a whole, view the proposition with horror.
  The scale of the radar structure is huge, consisting of 120ft high posts, with masts and wires over a mile long. The location is in the beautiful Pembrokeshire national park. The structure is highly intrusive and will have a substantial effect on tourism. It will be visible from the popular coastal footpath and for many miles inland. It will be damaging to the environment. The construction is seen locally as an intrusion and is regarded as an insult because of its presence near St. Davids cathedral, the church of the patron saint of Wales, and in an area where there are many ancient religious sites.
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance on behalf of the Labour Opposition that the scheme would not go ahead if he were the Minister?
  Mr. Rogers: Yes. We would stop the work and conduct the proper survey that has been promised by the Government. A promise was made but has not been fulfilled. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement has met himself coming backwards.
  In a letter to me dated 6 June, he stated:
  "we are currently at the beginning of the decision-making process, not the end."
  He was not telling the whole truth. Another paragraph stated:
  "I have concluded that the only suitable location for the transmitter is the MOD owned site at St. Davids airfield".
  A thorough and proper review of this proposition would be made, regardless of the scoffing remarks of Conservative Members.
  Mr. Cecil Franks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rogers: No.
  Defence exports is a matter only casually alluded to in the estimates. The estimates say:
  "Continuing success in the defence exports field does not imply any relaxation of the strict controls needed to prevent weapons or other sensitive equipment falling into the wrong hands."
  That is right, but many weapons and sensitive equipment fall into the wrong hands.
  Iraq, for example, is not a country known for its commitment to human rights. Certainly it is embargoed for receipt of such goods. How much has gone, directly or indirectly, to Iraq through Jordan? The estimates say that the MOD works closely with other Government Departments. The MOD, through the Defence Export Services Organisation and IMS—a wholly-owned subsidiary—has been active in this area and closely involved with the Midland bank and the Export Credits Guarantee Department, directly and indirectly through Jordan. Subventions from the Ministry of Defence budget have been used to allow the Midland Montagu bank to offer preferential interest rates to Jordan for the purchase of arms and ammunition. What is the total amount involved?
  Under the Jordanian defence packages agreement of 1986 and 1987, £350 million worth of credit was extended to Jordan. In his reply to me dated 2 May, the Minister stated that virtually all the credit has been committed to contracts on behalf of the Jordan armed forces. The

  825
  contracts, valued at £150 million, were traced to military supplies to Jordan. What of the remaining £200 million? Where have those military supplies gone?
  International Military Supplies is a commercial company, wholly owned by the MOD. Are contracts placed by it included in the list on page 15 in Volume 2 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates? If not, where is its trading disclosed? The Minister stated that the Department has used Astra Holdings over the past few years. From where can this information be obtained?
  Serious charges of corruption were laid against senior management of IMS to the previous Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). What action was taken, and will the findings be published?
  Astra Holdings is involved in the arms business, particularly on the explosives side. The major shareholder is 3i—Investors in Industry—a company chaired by Sir John Cuckney, an ex-director of Midland bank and chief executive of Westland.
  Astra purchased PBR, which is a Belgian explosives company and was also involved with the late Dr. Gerald Bull of Big Gun fame. PBR's specialty is shipping explosives to Iraq via Meulebeke airbase on Belgian C130 transports and it is also believed to act as an extra-territorial supplier for IMS—the MOD. But is it also true—as I have been given to understand—that IMS has been involved with South African arms shipments—particularly the shipment last year of 3,000 20 ft containers, transhipped through the Jordanian port of Aqaba to Iraq—and also with the assembly of South African missile components at Wimborne in Dorset, permission for which was given by the British Government?
  What is significant in all these deals is the part played by the Prime Minister in her "batting for Britain" role. Last year I attended a defence study group at which Sir Peter Levene, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Chalfont, who chaired the meeting, eulogised the role of the Prime Minister as being central to the Saudi-Jordan arms deal and also to the deal made with Malaysia. Quite what was the Prime Minister's role in all this? Is she party to the sanctions-busting and arms smuggling and to the supply of weapons to Iraq?
  When I asked the Prime Minister whether her office had authorised the preferential rates accorded to Jordan for the purchase of arms and ammunition under the Jordan defence package, she replied that it was a matter of commercial confidence. What is commercially confidential about it? The amount and rate may be confidential, but the authorisation itself is not, and the Secretary of State's office said that it did not authorise it anyway. Who authorised the preferential rate for the deal?
  Mr. Harry Cohen: My hon. Friend is making an interesting point, but Ministers seem to be nodding off. I hope that they will answer my hon. Friend's point.
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: It is boring.
  Mr. Cohen: The Minister says that it is boring, but I hope that he will answer my hon. Friend's question in his reply.
  Mr. Rogers: In the Army debate some time ago, I drew the attention of the House to the very bad state of much of our service accommodation. The backlog of maintenance and essential and unavoidable repairs to service accommodation stood at £360 million at 1 April this year. That is an appalling state of affairs. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces appears to find it humorous. He probably agrees with the Chairman of the Select Committee that British soldiers perform better if they live in appalling conditions. If so, his attitude is, in turn, pretty appalling. If local authorities behaved in that way—worthy of the worst landlords in Great Britain—there would be a great hue and cry. Ministers are doing nothing, and, in the meantime, our service men and their families have to suffer appalling conditions. Three hundred and sixty million pounds is the sum required for essential and unavoidable repairs to bring the accommodation up to date.
  The Government have been sadly deficient in both the operation and management of our defence and this year's glossy estimates hide a tale of incompetence and mismanagement. That is why we ask the House to support our amendment.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. Julian Amery: A few months ago we had a momentous debate on the registration of dogs. The House was full and there was hardly anywhere to sit. Today we are discussing the more day-to-day problem of the defence of our people and of the western world. The speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) explains why there has been rather less interest in this debate than there should have been.
  I am indebted to Mr. Speaker for reminding me of the pregnant statement made by Mr. Sun Tsu in a famous treatise on strategy several centuries ago. The Chinese general wrote:
  "Supreme excellence lies not in winning battles easily. Supreme excellence lies in winning wars without any battles."
  By that test, we have done quite well in the west and in the Atlantic alliance. It is true that there have been battles in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Angola, but broadly speaking we have won the third world war without the sacrifices of life and treasure that were exacted in the previous two world wars.
  We must ask ourselves what is the explanation for that. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the explanation lies simply in the invention and development of nuclear weapons. I do not think that a confrontation between the conventional forces of east and west would have been possible for a 40-year period without one side or the other bringing matters to a head and without a war which would probably have been even more terrible than the previous two. The burden would probably have fallen most heavily on the democracies, which would have found it more difficult to sustain the necessary expenditure. Without nuclear forces, we should probably have had a bloody third world war.
  The lesson is clear. Whatever else we do—whatever other defence dispositions my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his advisers decide upon—we must maintain the British nuclear deterrent. Hitherto, and in the great confrontation which I hope is now ending, we have relied above all on the American deterrent. But we may not always be able to rely on that. We are living in a world in

  827
  which proliferation has not been stopped but continues apace. The secret of the weapon is out of the bottle. More and more countries will develop it and some are exploring other means such as chemical warfare. It is essential to the safety of our country that we maintain the minimum credible deterrent, which is Trident.
  We may also have to think of a responsibility to Europe as a whole for the maintenance of deterrence, and I hope that we shall work in close co-operation with our French friends who also have a nuclear force. That is not to suggest—I shall come to this in a moment—any separation from our American allies, who are cardinal in the defence structure ahead. Thinking in purely European terms, however, we must accept that we have our own deterrent for our own national defence. We may need Anglo-French co-operation for the defence of Europe and a European-American deterrent for the safety of the world.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out yesterday, the threat of Soviet aggression is receding, but there are still half a million Soviet troops in the heart of Europe. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the Soviets are still producing modern weapons on a large scale and they are still supporting their surrogates in Afghanistan, Angola and, even now, in Ethiopia—with weapons and with moral support. Even if the Soviets withdrew into the Slav heartlands, abandoning the non-Slav republics, they would still represent a formidable military force.
  We have won the war, but we have still to win the peace. Threats can arise quickly. Even Sir Winston Churchill did not fully appreciate the German danger until 1936—only three years before the war started. Modern weapons and trained men cannot be improvised. That is a lesson that we learned even in days when training and production were easier—in 1914 and 1939.
  What should be our peace aims? International disarmament must be agreed before we can disarm, but it must also be achieved. We want to see the Soviet withdrawal from the heart of Europe. That will take time. We want to see a European defence structure in place that will include the united Germany. We want to see a long-term American commitment to the security of Europe. All those things will take time. Therefore, the peace dividend of which we speak and which we seek—my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement issued a small interim dividend last night—will take time.
  What is most necessary is a change in our overall attitude to the strategic problem. For 40 years we related our defence requirement to the Soviet threat. We shall now have to relate it to our responsibilities. When we were the heart of the Commonwealth, we built and maintained a vast Navy—until the 1930s, it was the largest in the world —to meet any contingency and to meet any particular threat. Now the Commonwealth is no longer the centre of our destiny and Europe has taken its place.
  Europe has world-wide interests—in Africa and in the middle east, and in oil and minerals. I shall not detain the House by expanding on the Islamic threat which has been filling our Sunday newspapers beyond saying that interested hon. Members should read again chapter 50 of Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and see how quickly threats can develop. Europe must now face the issue of defence and produce a collective European structure enabling us to protect the vast economic and financial interests that we are putting together in the European Community. Not to do so would
  828
  be irresponsible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues will have to discuss the form that that security will take with their counterparts on the continent. I do not wish to go into detail, but our all-volunteer forces are particularly suited to out-of-area operations.
  At present NATO is the only game in town, and we are quite right to insist on all-German membership of NATO. However, we must look ahead and recognise—it is the Government's business to deal with matters day by day, but it is our business to look ahead—that NATO has its weaknesses. It does not include France and Spain, which are members of the alliance but not of the military structure. We cannot defend Europe without France, or indefinitely maintain communications with the United States without Spain. There is the problem of German public opinion. Today the majority seem to favour membership of NATO, but the official opposition in Germany is rather divided on the issue.
  There is also the problem that NATO has geographical limitations which, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister suggested, do not really apply to the future world to which we are looking. Also, America is not part of the European Community. While I trust that we shall always stand together, the Americans may not always see eye to eye with us, as they have not always done in the past. There is a need to build a European defence structure. At the risk of repetition, I remind the House that I have always believed that the Western European Union might provide such a framework. After all, the Western European Union is the foundation of the European Community—much more than the treaty of Rome.
  Had Britain not committed itself to provide armed forces—ground and air—on the continent of Europe, the French Parliament would never have voted and approved the rearmament of Germany, and I am not at all sure whether the German Parliament would approve rearming Germany either.
  The WEU is the matrix of the European Community. Everything that has followed, such as the treaty of Rome, has come afterwards. That is important for a special reason. I hope that, in the long term, we can develop a European patriotism, but that is some way off. However, the presence of British and French forces in other countries in Europe, including Germany, will be fundamental to the security of Europe. The Germans could not demand the withdrawal of French and British forces from Germany without repudiating the European Community. That does not mean that we cannot diminish or reduce forces there, but equally I see no reason why we should not have German forces in France, Britain or Spain. We must combine defence if we are to make a reality of the European community.
  I stress that I am not suggesting for a moment that we separate from our friends in the United States. I wish to see a global alliance of Europe and the United States. I stress the word "global". In this country, we still tend to think of the Americans as the policemen of the world, but they no longer see themselves in that light. There are enormous claims on their resources, and their resources are not quite what they were. If we want to hold them in Europe and if we want to maintain their commitment, we shall have to give as well as get. Mr. Attlee and his Government understood that point very well—that is why he sent substantial forces to fight in Korea, side by side with the Americans when he thought that the destiny of the

  829
  Commonwealth was at issue. Today the issue is not the destiny of the Commonwealth, but the destiny of Europe. If we want American safeguards for Europe we should be prepared to help them outside Europe—outside the NATO area, perhaps in Africa, the middle east or even in the Pacific.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I have much sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Will he give more details about his concept of Europe? He referred to an alliance between Europe and the United States, but how extended into the present east of Europe is the Europe about which the right hon. Gentleman is talking? For example, would it eventually include the Soviet Union as well?
  Mr. Amery: I shall refer to the hon. Gentleman's last point in a moment. Of course, the European Community is the foundation of what I am talking about, but then there are those who seek association with it—for example, the European Free Trade Association countries. Then, I hope, the emerging democracies of eastern Europe will also join with us, and they should be encouraged to seek membership of the Council of Europe.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) asked about the Soviet Union. We are dealing here with a vast entity. The Soviet Union or Russia—I am not sure what name we give it today—stretches to the Pacific and to the borders of China. This is a different world and its future is wrapped in mystery, as is the future of China. I do not think that I should try to define in detail—it would be foolish to do so—what our relationship with it should be. However, I am sure that if we want a good relationship, we must first build a European structure and a global alliance with the United States.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Hon. Members will have listened to the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) with great interest. He brings a tremendous breadth of experience to such debates. As the right hon. Gentleman was developing his last point about the new security structures in which Europe will enjoy parity with the United States, I found myself wondering whether the framework is not already present in the Atlantic alliance. The right hon. Gentleman inferred that there is an onus on Europe to develop a pillar and to take on obligations that will perhaps considerably relieve the United States. That is certainly an objective to which I warm, but it can be achieved only if we retain NATO. Despite the current developments in eastern Europe, we should regard NATO as being simply in a mid-life crisis and we should now be exploring how to achieve a renewal of life for it.
  Mr. Amery: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's understanding of what I said. The alliance is, of course, fundamental, but the question is whether the existing structure is what we need or whether it should be reformed in various ways to include France and Spain or perhaps to go outside the current area. That is what I was trying to suggest.
  Mr. Duffy: I am in entire sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman and, possibly, almost in agreement with him.
  830
  Many of the factors that have determined western security policy over the past 45 years are, as we know, undergoing fundamental change. The collapse of communist rule in eastern Europe has weakened many of the longstanding assumptions about the order of European security. The Warsaw pact, as an effective military alliance, is already fading into the past. Some people in the west have even expressed doubts about NATO's continued usefulness.
  The Soviet threat may be non-existent, but Soviet military power remains. Thus, prudence should be the rule of the alliance's reaction to events in eastern Europe. The dissolution of the Soviet empire is one thing, but the dissolution of the Soviet Union is another. What if glasnost or openness continues to encourage dissent, protest, turmoil and disruption much faster than perestroika or restructuring can cure the practical, political, economic, ethnic and sectarian problems that Mr. Gorbachev faces? What if centrifugal forces spin out of control? If Mr. Gorbachev fails, who will control the Soviet Union's still awesome military power, and those military weapons, and to what purpose?
  The need for NATO's continued existence is now accepted not only by its members, but by the new eastern European Governments, as I know from personal contact and from visits to all of them, including the Soviet Union. Indeed, even the Soviet political leadership appears to realise that its security is closely bound up with a cohesive western security system.
  It was most interesting a week ago today to listen to the Prime Minister's statement about her visit to the Soviet Union and her account of her meeting with Defence Minister Yazov and the chiefs of staff. A year ago I sat in on a North Atlantic Assembly delegation—which, incidentally, I led—which included not only hon. Members of all parties, but three United States senators and leading parliamentarians from all the member nations. It became a stormy meeting, especially when at least one of Marshal Yazov's generals, quite out of turn and to the obvious embarrassment of the Defence Minister, insisted on shouting at one of the United States senators. Following that two and a half hour meeting, the speculation over lunch was how long that general would have lasted had any of us been in Marshal Yazov's position as Defence Minister. That shows just how far things have changed in just one year in the Soviet Union alone. Some of us are in regular contact with the Soviet Union and can otherwise receive reports—we can all read about what is happening there—and we know that tremendous changes are taking place, some of them perhaps unnervingly fast.
  NATO's role—current and future—transcends merely countering the Soviet threat. In the Gorbachev or post-Gorbachev era, NATO still has four major missions: to prevent world peace from being endangered by a renewal of Europe's civil wars; to establish structures that will ensure the efficacy of the CFE agreements; to establish two-pillar institutions that will permit the NATO Governments to procure affordable armaments while equitably and efficiently sharing both the benefits and the burdens of NATO's defences; and—this next point recalls the profound observations of the right hon. Member for Pavilion—to resume building the Atlantic community that President John F. Kennedy and others foresaw nearly three decades ago. Those four goals of defence, stability, arms control and the building of new, positive security and

  831
  political structures, should provide a large enough agenda for anyone seeking a renewed and meaningful political role for the North Atlantic alliance.
  In a press conference in Paris on 29 March, the Foreign Secretary referred to the creation of
  "policies, doctrines and structures of the new NATO".
  I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that, in doctrinal terms, there is clearly a need to reinterpret the strategies of flexible response and forward defence. It is not enough for hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, simply to dismiss those strategies as irrelevant because of the changes that are now taking place. Not a bit —the changes do not mean that those issues need not be addressed, because they do. The strategies must certainly be changed, but they must first be reinterpreted. Perhaps the crux of the matter before the House is that, until we have done that, what restructuring of our armed forces can any of us seriously consider?
  The change in warning time is the only significant fundamental change that has occurred in so far as it affects tonight's debate. Given that change in warning time, I have no doubt that flexible response, which is quite capable of evolutionary change, as well as forward defence, which is essentially a mobile defence and is also capable of change, will be modified. Thinking of central Europe alone, we must remember that we still have flanks —and some of us have always regarded them as the most vulnerable sectors. As I said, flexible response, forward defence and the size of NATO will all have to be modified.
  I am equally confident that "first use" and the role and future of short-range nuclear forces are under current consideration. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is no longer in his place because I should have liked to have been a little more specific, but his colleagues know that MC114/3, which is General John Galvin's basic doctrine and terms of reference, can be adjusted in its essential "force-generation" role, such as mobilisation and deployment, and similar dynamics.
  In her speech to NATO Foreign Ministers in Scotland two weeks ago, the Prime Minister rightly dwelt on those strategy questions when she asked:
  "Does forward defence in the central region still make sense in these circumstances? Or should we think more in terms of defence in depth and greater reliance on mobility, flexibility and reserves?"
  She said that it would be prudent for NATO countries to retain a capacity to carry out multiple roles, with more flexible and versatile forces. The House will probably agree with the Prime Minister's thinking on that, yet we look in vain for answers to those questions in the pages of the annual defence White Paper. Although we understand why they are not there, only those answers will ultimately determine the size and shape of Britain's armed services, and not merely the forces that we station in Europe.
  Last night's announcement about a reduced Tornado programme was inevitable, was it not, given the unexpected rise in inflation which has brought about a real value cut of about 3 per cent., and continues a trend that began in 1985?
  The Government denied for some time that they were engaged in a fundamental defence review. Then it became known that the Prime Minister was chairing a full-scale Cabinet investigation into scope for defence cuts, entitled "Options for Change". The obvious remit for the inquiry is to determine the main general changes which are evident and which the Government expect for the United
  832
  Kingdom armed forces in this area of diminishing threat. The assessment will be in terms of, first, roles and resources priorities; secondly, procurement patterns; thirdly, recruitment, retention and training of soldiers; and, fourthly, additional tasks such as those which may arise out of verification agreed through CFE.
  The inquiry poses other questions of a largely strategic nature that must be addressed first by not only the Ministry of Defence, but hon. Members who are present, if they wish to understand what recommended changes may eventually be announced from the Government Front Bench, we hope before the recess. Assuming that a CFE agreement is signed this year, how soon, for example, should a second round of negotiations begin? Or are events in eastern Europe making the Vienna negotiations irrelevant? What type of framework of participation should attend CFE 2 and what should be the agenda? Has the collapse of communism in eastern Europe, with the attendant reduction in Soviet forces and the impending unification of Germany, cast any doubt in Ministry of Defence planning circles about the continued military and political efficacy of forward defence as a NATO defence imperative? What are the minimum operating requirements of forward defence?
  Is the Ministry of Defence doing serious analytical work on alternative defence concepts for NATO, premised on defence dominance and a structural inability to attack on the part of both alliances? If so, what are the implications for future national defence procurement programmes, such as the multiple-launch rocket system?
  Are follow-on forces attack concepts still valid? For how long will they be valid? What will be the future determinants to guide such concepts? Will the CFE1 accord make a military integrated structure more or less important? Will the integration include United States forces? How can French forces be included? Should the NATO command structure be changed, and in what direction? Is Lance modernisation dead? What role do short-range nuclear forces play in operational terms?
  Without awaiting the findings of the "Options for Change" inquiry, the Government should take four steps. First, they should reassure the services and engage them as much as possible in the inquiry. They should not be kept at arm's length, as it is believed that the Government are doing now. They should be involved in the inquiry at a professional level. Secondly, the Government should point out that reductions in the central European theatre cannot be equated with cuts in major strategic programmes. The European fighter aircraft, the Apache attack helicopter for the Army and the Navy's continuing need for surface warships are all requirements that cannot easily be ditched because, if ditched, they cannot easily be revived.
  Thirdly, for all Mr. Gorbachev's perestroika, the Soviet Union added substantially to its armed strength last year. It added 1,700 tanks, 400 ballistic missiles, 600 fighters and 10 submarines. As I said, all that has changed so far is that the short-warning threat has been removed. Soviet forces may be becoming smaller but they are almost certainly becoming better.
  Fourthly, the Government should admit the limitations of the peace dividend, given the public expectation, and they should scrupulously avoid seeking to make electoral capital out of it. Fifthly, NATO should retain its present membership and remain primarily a security organisations, although it should undertake an increased political role. It will be essential for stability in Europe that

  833
  Germany remains a full member of NATO and that the alliance continues to be transatlantic based. But NATO will need to adapt, taking on new roles to reflect changing circumstances. Examples of such roles may include the lengthy and complicated implementation of CFE reductions and accompanying verification measures, the adaptation of our strategy and operational concepts to accommodate a unified Germany, and consultations on the management of east-west relations, the future arms control agenda and the possible future role for CSCE.
  The alliance will also be compelled to consider security questions out of area, for example, in the middle east where missile proliferation continues. I agree with the right hon. Member for Pavilion who, in his closing words, said that the alliance will almost certainly have to pay increased attention to the worldwide management of peace.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. Keith Speed: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) on his speech. I agreed with almost every word, as I did with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). They both made thoughtful speeches, to which I hope the Minister listened carefully.
  This debate is timely because we all hope that fundamental reassessments of our defence plans and priorities are taking place. But even this week events in Romania, IRA terrorism on the continent and in the United Kingdom, and Colonel Gaddafi's speech about nuclear weapons in Libya remind us that the world is still an uncertain and dangerous place. The security of our nation and, indeed, of the west demands substantial resources to safeguard it.
  I hope that the review of the armed forces taking place in the Ministry of Defence and about which we have heard so much will have a long hard look at reshaping the forces for the changing threats that lie ahead. Undoubtedly, that will mean increased emphasis on some sections of the armed forces and reduced emphasis on others. I hope that that will be in keeping with the radically changing position in central and eastern Europe.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) have referred to the European security structure. The Western European Union could play an emphasised and substantial role in the developments that lie ahead. The Council of Europe could also play a role, embracing as it does 23 countries stretching from Turkey to Iceland and Finland to Spain, with the Soviet Union, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland as observer states. No doubt other countries from eastern Europe will join those countries as observers. Unlike the CSCE, both the Council of Europe and the Western European Union have parliamentary accountability. I hope that we do not create new and expensive bureaucratic bodies and structures but will adapt existing structures that are accountable to our domestic Parliaments throughout Europe and are more cost effective.
  Looking ahead to possible threats to our national security, we must accept that there are still many problems in the Soviet Union. The threat may be much reduced, but no one—the hon. Member for Attercliffe referred to this —can be sure that if there were a total economic
  834
  breakdown, or if Mr. Gorbachev's position were undermined, there would not be strong military action by the generals or others. When countries go through a revolution, whether economic, political or ethnic—the Soviet Union is undergoing all three—disturbing and strange reactions can take place.
  Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reminded us that the Soviet Union still has substantial superiority in arms and that the CFE treaty has not yet been signed. Arms production continues. The hon. Member for Attercliffe reminded us that there has been substantial production of weapons in the past 12 months. Any unilateral disarmament in anticipation of CFE and the other arms treaties would be a dangerous gamble.
  It is important to consider the threat out of areas, notably in the middle east. It may come from Islamic fundamentalism, but may also appear in many other parts of the world—not least the blackmail that could be exercised by some third world countries which have nuclear weapons or the capacity to make them. We must also remember the threat posed by domestic and international terrorism—no country, airline or people is immune from that.
  An important responsibility is the protection of our national vital resources and trade routes, and the protection of our trading partners in different parts of the world and of those few Commonwealth countries for which we still have external defence responsibilities. We must also protect the minerals and oil in our exclusive economic zone. Those important matters should be taken into account when considering the future. I hope that the Government and their advisers are considering the radical reshaping of our forces which will be necessary to meet those threats and responsibilities.
  Let me put my two-penn'orth in the crystal ball. It is inevitable that there will be a substantial reduction in troops and aircraft on the central front of Germany. I also hope that the support facilities will be reduced as they are extremely expensive to our defence budget and our balance of payments. Undoubtedly the cut in the Tornado order is not the happiest thing for the aircraft industry or many others, but it is the forerunner of other necessary cuts. I envisage that the older jets such as Phantom and Jaguar will be phased out while the Tornado continues in operation. Many tanks will also be decommissioned in central Germany—they will go anyway as a result of the CFE agreement. America, France, Germany, Italy and Britain will require fewer tanks and it is a pity that we cannot get our act together to develop a NATO tank. Fewer tanks will mean that the unit cost of each one, be it Challenger 2 or Leopard 2, will increase. If we had a uniform tank, the production costs could be shared among the countries and cost could be kept down. But that is not possible as chauvinism reigns supreme in that regard.
  There must be a more European approach to the troops who will remain on the continent and I hope that we shall have some multinational forces. I foresee a German, Belgian, United Kingdom force operating at a divisional level in northern' Germany. I know that there are problems with language, communications equipment and interoperability, but the Franco-German brigade, which was launched in Stuttgart, has shown us the opportunities available as well as the problems. I was privileged to attend the inauguration of that brigade a year ago. At a higher divisional level there is great scope for economy, but in the first instance the real advantages of such a multinational

  835
  force would be political, not least following the unification of Germany. We should latch ourselves properly on to Europe, albeit at a lower level than at present.
  The hon. Member for Attercliffe referred to the need for greater flexibility and manoeuvrability in our forces; that is paramount. I was greatly impressed by the French Force d'Action Rapide, whose key element is its manoeuvrability as it has light armoured vehicles, helicopters and air mobility. It is nearly 60,000 strong so we are not talking about a lightweight unit. We must follow those lines and create self-contained logistical support. The 24 Air Mobile Brigade at Catterick is a good foundation on which to build. That brigade, together with light infantry forces, should be expanded to give us the flexibility in Europe that we need. In that way our armed forces in Europe would have the added advantage, in common with the Force d'Action Rapide, of being used out of area at short notice.
  With fewer troops stationed in a changed Europe and with the CFE treaty in force, there will be less need for resources to be committed to reinforcement and re-supply from north America. It is still important to retain that capability—not least to act as a deterrent to any adventure that might start in eastern Europe. The demand for fewer resources will, I believe, lead to fewer frigates being necessary. If the Soviet navy starts to reduce its forces as a result of economics rather than treaties, I envisage that our SSN hunter-killer submarines could be reduced in due course. That would not, of course, affect our strategic deterrent in the Trident force.
  Maritime operations could be expanded in one significant area—a maritime equivalent of the Force d'Action Rapide. The Royal Marines should have an amphibious capability that can be used in an outside area. That means that we must reach a decision on landing platform docks Fearless and Intrepid. In 1986, I was a member of the Defence Select Committee and I was told that a decision would be reached within the following 12 months, but still no decision has been made. In that regard we should operate with the Dutch with whom the Royal Marines already work on the northern flank. They have common requirements for similar ships and they, too, have had to defer a decision because of resources. For heaven's sake, we should get our act together. The Hague and London are separated by a 40-minute flight. We should plan something together on a European basis so that we have maritime and amphibious flexibility. It is desperately needed and we have an excellent foundation on which to build with Whiskey company and the Royal Marine Commandos.
  In the next few years, the Army, Air Force and Royal Navy will be subject to meaningful reductions in their capabilities. Eventually that will save money and foreign exchange, but it will take a great deal of time. In the meantime, we must expand certain areas, such as intelligence. I make no apology for mentioning intelligence as the Intelligence Corps is based in my constituency. Its anti-terrorism role in Northern Ireland and throughout the world is magnificent. The men and women wearing the green lanyard of the Intelligence Corps have a key part to play in the future.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Attercliffe that once the CFE agreement and other treaties are in place an important function will be verification. I hope that that will be carried out by European satellite and by teams working on the ground. We should work with our European and north American partners. An important
  836
  component of that will be airborne early warning, and I believe that the AWACS will be fairly busy in the next few years, although perhaps their role will be different from that originally envisaged.
  In the future a great deal could be done for our reserve forces once the regular forces are reduced and redeployed. The reserves would provide a cost-effective way in which the Army, Navy and Air Force could retain their latent capability should we get something wrong. Investment in our reserve forces will mean that at home and in Europe we have the capability quickly to expand our regular forces. We must ensure that the reserve forces are well trained and use similar equipment, aircraft, ships, fighters, vehicles or artillery to their regular counterparts.
  There has been much talk about the peace dividend, but it is right not to raise public expectation. All parties in the House have a responsibility to that end. The dividend will come in due course, but only as a result of imaginative changes in our defence programmes and procedures and as a result of the continuation of the enormous changes in central and eastern Europe.
  Welcome and dramatic though those changes a re, they have happened basically for three reasons. The first, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion pointed out, has been the nuclear deterrent since 1945. Secondly, our free and democratic system, while by no means perfect, is infinitely better than Marxist socialism, which is crumbling all over eastern Europe. Thirdly, the alliance under NATO has stood firm through thick and thin and, as part, of that alliance, the continuing connection between north America and Europe is, was and always will be absolutely critical.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), who brings great expertise to the debate. I particularly support what he said about the role of the Western European Union and the Council of Europe in the changing European scene.
  Those who have had the opportunity of talking to members of the newly elected Parliaments in the eastern European countries feel that they are facing problems about which they have no experience and that they desperately need the strength of western European parliamentary democracy around them. They need to feel that they are not being left on their own. The Council of Europe can do an important job in providing such solidarity for those newly emerging democracies.
  I strongly support those who say that decisions about the future of Britain's armed forces must be set within the NATO framework. We should resist any temptation to hark back to some great imperialist past. We are a European nation, we are part of the European Community and we are part of the Atlantic alliance. That must shape our military planning.
  That implies that I do not accept the argument that the dramatic collapse of the Warsaw treaty organisation means that NATO can be allowed to slide into an ineffective position or somehow be subsumed into an all-embracing CSCE process.
  NATO is not the mirror image of the Warsaw pact. NATO was set up as a voluntary association of free nations sharing the same democratic values. The Warsaw treaty organisation, by contrast, was established to serve

  837
  Soviet interests. Its membership was not voluntary but was of a conscript nature. It is salutary to remember that the only time the Warsaw pact fired shots in anger was against its own members in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
  There is a powerful case for a new security framework covering the whole of Europe and involving the United States and the USSR. It is needed to reassure those who are concerned about the new balance of power on the continent of Europe. It will be needed to deal with the risk of regional, ethnic or nationalist unrest spilling over into more serious conflicts.
  I accept that the CSCE process provides the best framework for developing that sort of new security system, but that is likely to take a considerable time to establish and to become effective and credible. It would be foolish for us to talk of its replacing NATO, even in the longer term.
  There is a difference between a system of common security and a system of common defence. Common security necessarily brings together states with different and sometimes conflicting interests. Consider the examples of the League of Nations and the United Nations. It is not always easy in such situations to establish the unified political will that is needed to deal with difficult problems.
  Common defence, on the other hand, brings together free nations with shared interests which they combine together to protect. Most of us would accept that NATO has been the most successful such alliance in modern history, and it will be needed for the foreseeable future, even within an institutionalised CSCE framework.
  NATO must change to take account of the totally different Europe that is now emerging. I see it as a two-stage process. First, we must make short-term adjustments to take account of the present period of change, which we hope is merely a transition to a more stable situation. During that transitional stage we do not want to take unnecessary risks. We should not gamble with our security, but we can start planning for the second stage in the process. We can start a more thorough and radical review of NATO's military strategy which will be needed if all the changes that we hope for become reality.
  It is possible that by the mid-1990s we shall have seen the end of the Warsaw treaty organisation as a military alliance. We might also have seen the total withdrawal of Soviet forces from eastern Europe and the full implementation at least of the first CFE agreement. By then we may be seeing a continuing democratic process in political and economic reform in the nations of eastern Europe.
  If we achieve those objectives, we shall need a different sort of NATO with a different strategy. That process of change will, we hope, start at the July summit meeting. It will lead to major changes—of style, objective and strategy —but certain fundamental elements must remain in the new NATO strategy.
  First, for as far ahead as we can see, we shall need the presence of a militarily significant number of United States and Canadian forces on the continent of Europe, though at much lower levels than the numbers present today. Secondly, we shall need a united Germany as a full member of NATO with, of course, special arrangements being made for the territory of the GDR. Thirdly, NATO must retain a deterrent force based on an appropriate mix
  838
  of conventional and nuclear weapons. Fourthly, we need to retain a fully integrated military structure. Fifthly, and in many ways most importantly, we must maintain the original founding principle that an attack on one member of the alliance is an attack on all.
  NATO has always been a defensive alliance. It has been there to prevent aggression. The challenge to NATO now is to demonstrate that we can prepare to do more than just prevent war. We must show that NATO can be just as determined in building the peace. That underlines the point made frequently in the debate that NATO must now develop a more political stance, rather than being a purely military alliance. In fact, NATO has never been just a military alliance. At the time of the 1949 treaty, even in those early days emphasis was being laid on political and economic co-operation between the members of the alliance. While it is difficult to envisage any of the regional problems in Europe with which we are concerned demanding a NATO military response, it is easy to see the need for a concerted NATO political response to the uncertainties of the new Europe.
  Although responsibility for the economic problems of the newly emerging eastern European nations will fall primarily on the EEC, there is a north American dimension in assisting those nations and solving those problems, and NATO is the main vehicle for the involvement of the United States and Canada in Europe.
  NATO will play a more political role in terms of the arms control negotiations which we wish to see continuing and in the verification of that network of treaties which will guarantee the stability and security that we want to achieve at much lower levels of military forces.
  In looking at the implications of all this change for the size and shape of Britain's own forces, it is clear that the first step to be taken is to determine what our forces are for, and whether the objectives are for NATO or purely national. Final decisions on that first question cannot be taken until we know the outcome of the NATO review.
  However, it is clear that there is a wide measure of agreement in the House about certain general principles which will shape the sort of forces that we shall have in the next couple of decades. We are generally agreed that we want smaller forces which are more mobile and flexible, and capable of swift reaction, rather than large-scale stationed forces capable of fighting old-fashioned wars.
  We also recognise that, for the first time in 200 years or so, the bulk of those forces are likely to be stationed in the United Kingdom. The conventional forces in Europe talks and the the implications of German reunification will inevitably reduce the size of our forces stationed in Germany. With regard to our out-of-area commitments, Hong Kong will be gone by 1997 and it is hard to see commitments such as Belize and the Falklands being maintained even at their present reduced levels. We must face the fact that the bulk of our forces will be stationed in this country.
  It is easy to produce scenarios of unrest in various parts of Europe leading to local or regional conflicts, but it is hard to imagine that any of those favoured scenarios will inevitably involve the deployment of United Kingdom forces. It is unlikely, for example, that British forces will be deployed in a peace-keeping role between the Armenians and the Azeris, and the unlikelihood of British troops being needed on the continent of Europe will be a major factor in our force planning.

  839
  It is also becoming much more accepted that in the new environment it will be even more difficult to attract the sort of high quality recruits we shall need into much smaller forces with a more limited career structure. The Secretary of State is therefore absolutely correct to argue that, whatever the peace dividend may be, some part of it must be ploughed back into improving the conditions of our armed forces and the quality of life of our service men and women. If we are to have highly qualified, well trained and well equipped armed forces, with well motivated service men and women, we must accept that we cannot achieve that on the cheap.
  I also challenge the assumption that we can depend on reservists to fill the gaps in our professional forces. The new environment will make it as difficult to attract reservists as regular service men. The fact that the Territorial Army is already 15,000 short of its 1990 target of 91,000 illustrates that. The Select Committee report states that 80 per cent. of regular army reservists attended no training in the last nine months of 1989. In an environment in which security is no longer at such a high premium, it will be as difficult to attract people into the reserves as into the regular forces.
  I agree with those who have said in the debate that, despite all the changes in the Soviet Union, the USSR will retain a massive nuclear arsenal as far ahead as we can see. Even if the Soviet Union were to break up, which is a strong possibility, the Russian federation would presumably have the benefit of those nuclear weapons. Some of us are no more attracted by the possibility of Russian nationalism than by the threat of Soviet communism.
  In this uncertain and dangerous world, it is simply prudent common sense for Britain to retain a minimum nuclear deterrent which is effective and credible. It is therefore absolutely essential for us to retain the concept of four Trident submarines. We can reduce the number of missiles per submarine and vary the number of warheads per missile to take account of future progress in nuclear arms control, but it is absolutely essential to maintain four submarines.
  I welcome the prospect of a negotiated removal of land-based, short-range nuclear weapons and nuclear artillery. However, I accept the case for retaining a limited number of sub-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe. I believe that the tactical air-to-surface missile is the most effective system for that role. Therefore, it makes sense to deploy a limited number of those systems on NATO aircraft based in Europe.
  Since 1984, the Soviet Union has deployed a growing number of AS15 long-range air-launched cruise missiles, which have a range of between 1,600 and 3,000 km and carry a 250 kilotonne warhead. When such systems exist, it seems ridiculous for NATO not to maintain the ability to deploy a similar, less threatening system of its own.
  I also accept the point that has been made several times in this debate about the risk of nuclear proliferation and the number of third world nations obtaining, or trying to obtain, a nuclear and chemical weapons capability allied to ballistic missiles. In that dangerous situation, it is not credible to reply simply on strategic nuclear weapons. We must have a number of sub-strategic systems to take account of such a threat.
  In conclusion, I think that we all accept that we face an extraordinary opportunity. As the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said, the propects opening up before us were unthinkable even a year ago. We must grasp the
  840
  chance that we are now being given and think imaginatively. I strongly endorse the words of the United States Secretary of State, James Baker, in his evidence to the Senate foreign relations committee on 12 June. He said:
  "We want to build a peace defined not just by the absence of war from the Baltic to the Adriatic, but by a community of democratic values that extends from the Atlantic to the Urals."
  That should be NATO's objective, in which Britain must play its full part.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Julian Critchley: The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and I once wrote a book together. He provided the jargon and I provided the jokes. Sadly, it did not sell and was not made into a film. It might have helped to swell the profits of Mr. Robert Maxwell. It might be said that the spectre of being remaindered at Waterloo station looms over the hon. Gentleman and me.
  The Government are undertaking the first defence review since the halcyon days of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)—[interruption.] That was a different defence review, to which I shall return later. This one is called "Options for Change". It has been fathered by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. Its midwives meet regularly, under the eye of Mr. Richard Mottram, and we must wish their labours well. I wrote a profile of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement that should have appeared in last Sunday's edition of the Observer. In fact, it is going into next Sunday's edition of the Observer. There are no secrets between the Minister of State and me.
  For the past 40 years Britain has done far more than its fair share in defence terms. We should now cut back, but only in a way that enhances our influence, especially in Europe, and helps to contribute to our joint security.
  I fear that some of my hon. Friends may find it hard to come to terms with the absence of an enemy. For the first time since the 1860s, Britain lacks an external enemy. The Soviet Union seems to be reverting to Mother Russia—I hope not to imperial Russia. The Warsaw pact lies in ruins. The French and Germans are more than our allies; they are our partners. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism threatens the stability of the near and middle east, but it is not, as such, an enemy of this country. We have little to fear from the Argentinians over the Falklands and, thank God, nothing whatever to fear from Iceland. Unless we go about the world looking for trouble, we should enjoy a long period of real peace.
  We must resist the temptation to return to the priorities of the Victorian age. I suspect that there are some members of our great party who might wish to return to those priorities. Europe should not go to the bottom of the list and the prospect of some adventure across the seas be raised to the top. What out-of-area—that is, out of Europe—responsibilities we have we share with our European and American allies. We should not reduce the Rhine Army so far and so fast as to limit our influence in the European Community. Our status in Europe has been largely determined by the size of our military contribution—certainly not by our rhetoric—to the common defence. Many Americans will now go home and a too sizeable reduction in the Rhine Army on our part might leave France and Germany as the major actors on the European scene.

  841
  Military and political consequences flow from a European priority in defence matters. The first is that it is necessary to keep on the continent of Europe at least a division—a cadre that can easily be reinforced from this country. The second military consequence of the European priority is that the use of nuclear weapons against any targets in Europe, east or west, will be unthinkable.
  The political consequences flow from these two military consequences. Should we consider a United Kingdom contribution to a European army? I should like to think so, but the agnosticism of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in all matters pertaining to European unity will remain for some time at least a stumbling block—but a European army, the dream of the 1950s, will be on the agenda in the 1990s.
  Lastly, what are the implications for nuclear weapons? Adequate deterrence against the Soviet Union or Russia can be maintained by sea and air-launched cruise missiles. We should hold on to our strategic nuclear national force and build a fourth Trident submarine. But whether or not shorter-range missiles are stationed in Germany must depend on the wishes of the Germans themselves. We must accept whatever decision they reach. We must not lecture our allies from the sidelines.
  As we debate on this second day of the defence estimates, the rotary clubs of the low countries are carefully re-enacting the battle of Waterloo. We would not wish the Ministry of Defence—the only building in London designed by Albert Speer—to be shrouded in the smoke of conflict, and we must not permit the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to meet his Waterloo.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am overwhelmed at being called now, Mr. Speaker, because I am so used to seeing the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) on panel programmes that I fully expected my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) to be called next. It is a pleasure to hear the hon. Gentleman because he makes telling points that are always worth re-reading, and I am sure that I shall be re-reading them in newspaper articles in the coming weeks.
  Yesterday the Secretary of State—echoed today by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces—sneered at the debate going on in the Labour party about defence policy. I found that depressing but predictable, coming as it did from the authoritarian Conservative party. Robust, open debate is not something for which Tories care very much. Why should not the Labour party have a robust open debate in what has been left of democracy in this country by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)? Yet when we hold such debates we get sneers and cheap party-political jibes from Conservative Members.
  There is also a debate of sorts going on in the Government, based largely on rumours, leaks and innuendos. Ministers go off into their corners and give briefings to their favourite journalists. The Observer headline on Sunday ran:
  "Service chiefs in storm over defence cuts".
  The same page carried an admirable picture of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. I have no
  842
  reason to disbelieve the report—there are too many direct quotations for it to be entirely the meanderings of a drunken journalist.
  It seems that the Minister of State has some difficulties in his Department, as has the Secretary of State—they seem to be pitted against each other. I suggest that they discuss among themselves who has set them up for this, as I suspect that it may well have been the Prime Minister, deep in her bunker in Downing street.
  I have some time for the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. He has a fight on his hands. He has said that he is looking for substantial reductions in arms expenditure—I heard him say that in a good interview on the Radio 4 programme "Today" a week or so ago. Judging by the quotations in the article that I have mentioned, it is clear that he is not very popular at the Ministry of Defence, so I suggest that he does not go walking around the building late at night on his own.
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement is going for things that we support. He said in the Radio 4 interview that there was something called a peace dividend which made substantial cuts possible. He also said rather touchingly yesterday—I seem to have been the first casualty of the defence review by failing to get into the debate—that he had missed a contribution from me. He is missing it again today, so it must be deliberate on his part. He also said that I had done critical damage to his career by the praise that I had heaped on him during the Air Force debate. Actually, it was an Army debate—the changes these days are so rapid that I am not surprised that he became confused.
  I intend to heap still more praise on the Minister's head. He has my total support, although I appreciate that that is not worth a great deal. Given the fight with defence chiefs that the Minister has on his hands, having my support is rather like declaring war simultaneously on the Soviet Union and the United States of America, only to discover that one's only ally is San Marino. But the Minister is still welcome to my support, and I hope that he will wear it as lightly as he can.
  As I said, the Minister of State spoke in the interview of a peace dividend. That is what the people of this country want, and it has seeped into the consciousness of enough people to bring great pressure to bear on the Government. The Prime Minister recognises it by trying to get the Minister of State to create enough flexibility of manoeuvre for her to be able to deliver some of the goodies of which she has deprived the people of this country for so long— and to deliver them just before calling a general election.
  We want the peace dividend. The people of Newham want it desperately. It will mean that we can do something about the £21 billion defence expenditure, using it for schools, homes and transport—the areas of social expenditure so desperately in need of it.
  I heard the Prime Minister talking to Jimmy Young, who was asking her those searing questions of his. I am not surprised that he happens to be her favourite political interviewer. She was very angry about local authorities overspending. When did she ever talk about the overspending on all the defence contracts for which the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is responsible and which Sir Peter Levene has been brought in to deal with? My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made a good point about that.
  There is more than a whiff of hypocrisy from the Prime Minister when she talks about overspending councils

  843
  because local authorities have been given more and more responsibilities and have had more and more funds taken away from them by the Government. Those authorities are doing the important things that are needed in our society. We need to arm ourselves not with the weapons of death and destruction but with knowledge and skills because they can best defend a united country. That would give us a country in which there is greater equality of opportunity and in which social service provisions would be spread in a way that matches Britain's desperate needs. When reductions in arms expenditure are mentioned some Conservative Members, and also some of my hon. Friends, defend constituency interests in the way that the hon. Member for Aldershot has done. [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Gentleman would enter a plea on behalf of his constituents, but if I have got that wrong I apologise to him.
  No one in the Opposition wants to see indiscriminate cuts affecting our defence industries and our armed forces. Cuts should not be made in an unplanned and indiscriminate fashion. That was why at Question Time I asked the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department was doing about arms conversion work. I did not ask about what firms were doing, but about what studies the Ministry of Defence has carried out because the Ministry will ultimately be responsible for cuts in arms expenditure. The Minister dismissed my question, saying that it was being done outside and that I was concerned only about a central, planned economy. I am in favour of planning which makes sure that decisions made in one Ministry do not have all sorts of repercussions throughout the country.
  What is the Ministry of Defence doing about arms conversion to make sure that members of our armed forces who might be declared redundant and who find themselves on the dole do not have to wait around like so many industrial workers who have been pitched out of their jobs as a result of the Government's economic ineptitude? The Government have a responsibility to the armed services to make sure that there is work that people can take up.
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement said something that I have never heard from a Conservative Member in all my time in the House—which goes back only to 1983 but seems much longer. The Minister said that there was a correlation between economic success and low defence expenditure. The Opposition have always said that, but it is the first time that I have heard it said by a Conservative Member, and especially by a Minister. I applaud the Minister again for his honesty and economic intelligence. He deserves more support than he seems to be getting from his own side. In the meantime, for what it is worth, we will give him some support.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Cecil Franks: It is entertaining and sometimes instructive to listen to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). Later in my speech I shall deal with some of his comments, but initially I should like to concentrate on the need for Britain to have an independent nuclear deterrent. There has been a deafening silence from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen on that subject. Yesterday they contributed 54 minutes to the debate and did not make a single reference, favourable or unfavourable, to the nuclear deterrent
  844
  policy. In today's debate, we heard a meandering speech from the Opposition Front Bench that was totally lacking in substance and again made no such reference.
  It is incomprehensible that in a two-day debate on the defence estimates and national defence policy the official Opposition party which would seek to form a Government cannot bring itself even to refer to the nuclear deterrent. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West made a fair comment when he said that he and, as he would have us believe, his colleagues wished to have a robust debate. How can there be a robust debate when, as a matter of policy, the Opposition choose to remain silent on such a central feature of our defence policy?
  The arguments for a fourth Trident submarine have been well rehearsed. Nothing has changed and the arguments remain exactly the same as they were 30 or 40 years ago when the Polaris programme was introduced and the submarines first commissioned. It is worth reminding the House that the French, who have their own independent nuclear capability, have a fleet of six submarines and the French are by no means bad judges.
  Although Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen will not comment on the independent nuclear deterrent, at least yesterday a former Labour Minister of State spoke about it, and his words echo mine. He said:
  "It is absolutely essential that we keep a minimum of four submarines."
  In a telling comment, he said:
  "I do not believe that the British people would agree to a nuclear deterrent that could be activated at only a fortnight's notice."—[Official Report, 18 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 731.]
  In a nutshell, that is the essence of the nuclear deterrent and of our need for the fourth submarine.
  Ironically one of the matters that was not touched on, except briefly by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), is that as the so-called peace dividend becomes a reality, and it should, the need for the nuclear deterrent becomes that much greater. As we prepare to take the first risks on the ground with conventional forces, the nuclear deterrent, which has kept the peace in Europe for the past 45 years, must remain.
  The difficulty about having a robust debate is that we just do not know Labour's policy. If we believe the Labour party, it intends to cancel the fourth submarine and to negotiate away our existing capability in return for precious little. That would mean that ultimately we would have no independent deterrent of any kind while the Soviet Union would retain a large part of its enormous nuclear arsenal.
  Whose is the authentic voice of the Opposition? I have posed that question before in the House. Is it that of the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) or of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), or is it the voice of those whom the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) referred to yesterday as being on the "exotic fringes of the Labour party?" Perhaps I could remind the House of those who form that fringe. There is the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), a former leader of the Labour party, and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), a would-be contestant for the leadership. There are the hon. Members for Newham, North-West, for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). I could continue the list, but those were the Opposition Members who spoke in yesterday's debate and in essence their speeches were totally against the nuclear deterrent in any

  845
  shape or form. We do not know whether the hon. Member for Clackmannan is the authentic voice of the Labour party because he chose to remain silent on the issue. I hope that whichever Opposition Member replies to the debate he will make some reference to the nuclear deterrent.
  The cancellation of the fourth Trident submarine would, in defence terms, be a disaster. But in economic terms it would be an utter disaster for my constituency. It would destroy the local economy. Nationally, 27,000 jobs depend on the nuclear deterrent, and in the shipyards thousands of people would lose their jobs overnight. It is a cruel deception for Opposition spokesmen to say when they visit the shipyards every two or three years that they will cancel the Trident submarines and switch to building surface vessels or more conventional submarines as though that could happen overnight.
  When the Opposition defence spokesman visits Barrow and Furness and tells the people in the shipyards there that they need not worry because the Labour party will cancel the fourth submarine on a Saturday morning and on a Monday morning they will all be building new submarines or new surface vessels, let him explain how, with a snap of the fingers, all the design work can be done, all the materials can be ordered and all the negotiations carried out with the Ministry of Defence. The reality is that the Opposition's policies mean utter disaster for my constituency.
  Only three or four years ago the Opposition told us that the cost of Trident had risen to £13 billion. When the hon. Member for Clackmannan became the Opposition's defence spokesman, he gave a figure of £14 billion. The figure given in the estimates is £9·38 billion. This is the fourth successive year in which the cost of the programme has been reduced. It represents a mere 3 per cent. of the defence budget for the next 20 years. It is probably the most cost-effective weapon that Britain has ever had for preserving the peace.
  I close by picking up a previous comment. NATO has surely been the most successful defensive alliance in history. It has preserved the peace without ever having to fire a single shot. I am proud that my constituency has been able to play its part and make a contribution to the preservation of peace for so many years.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. John McFall: It is a pleasure to speak in today's debate. Like other hon. Members, I noted from the front page of the Observer on Sunday that the service chiefs do not have confidence in the Ministers at the Ministry of Defence, and in that they are two short steps behind the British public.
  If Ministers are organising a debate with political overtones, I congratulate them. Defence, like all other aspects of Government, requires political decision-making. However, I am sceptical about that. That is not because the Minister of State wants a peace dividend—far from it. This is another exercise in saving money to save the Government's neck on the poll tax. The Government have to find money in any way possible before the next election, and all Departments are included.
  Like other hon. Members, I warn the Government that in paragraph 2.6 of its latest report the Select Committee on Defence said:
  846
  "It is essential that any changes in defence expenditure reflect a planned and orderly process of matching commitments and resources."
  Service personnel and everyone else are owed that. Ministers should go about their review on that basis, not simply to save a few bob to save their necks at the general election.
  The White Paper fails to appreciate the scale of the changes and the challenges involved. I was unable to be present yesterday, but I saw from Hansard that hon. Members said that we should have another White Paper in the autumn to reflect the prevailing situation. I heartily endorse such comments.
  At the weekend I was reading a book by Robert McNamara, a former American Defence Secretary, entitled "Out of the Cold". I recommend it to the Secretary of State and his Ministers. He referred to a time in June 1963, which is relevant to today, when President Kennedy delivered an address at the American university in Washington DC when he said:
  "History teaches that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors … We are both"—
  east and west—
  "devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other and new weapons beget counterweapons … We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists' interest to agree on a genuine peace."
  Six weeks later, on 25 July 1963, the United States, the Soviet Union and Britain signed the limited test ban treaty and agreed not to test nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, under water or in space. That historic speech by the President of America set the climate for change and for progress in the arms race. We are at the same stage today. Such a climate could be set by the Secretary of State for Defence and the Government. But instead we get the same old rhetoric, chewed up, and we get the sort of abuse—that is all that I can call it—that we heard from the Minister of State at the Dispatch Box today. At a time of great historic change the Minister can do no more than abuse the Labour party. The defence estimates are the Government's responsibility, but they have done nothing to create a climate for change.
  There may be a similarity between the Government's approach and that of President Reagan in 1980–88. During those eight years, $2·4 trillion was spent on defence. Notwithstanding the comments of three or four former Secretaries for Defence, including McNamara, McGeorge Bundy and others, President Reagan decided to go ahead and spend that massive sum. What did he do? Some may say that he brought the cold war to an end. Why? Because he brought the Russians to their knees. It took a leader such as Gorbachev to say, "Wait a minute. Where are we going from here? Can we afford to go further?" When Gorbachev witnessed his people in poverty and despair he said that enough was enough. That is where President Reagan and the other cold war warriors have got us to today.
  Mr. Michael Jack (Flyde): Will the hon. Gentleman respond to the comment of my right hon. Friend the

  847
  Secretary of State for Defence yesterday when he pointed out to the House that one new nuclear submarine was being launched every six weeks in the Soviet Union and two aircraft, six tanks and one missile are produced every day?
  Mr. McFall: I do not want to take up too much time by replying to the hon. Gentleman; I am told that he has only just come into the Chamber.
  I remember the evidence that was given many months ago to the United States Senate concerning increased expenditure in the Soviet Union. Five months later, the CIA admitted that that information was wrong and that Soviet military expenditure was decreasing. We are talking about a climate for change; perhaps if the hon. Gentleman listens he will learn something.
  In the Soviet Union in the 1960s the growth rate was 6 per cent.; in the 1970s it was 4 per cent.; in the early 1980s, it was 2 per cent. However, in the last few years it has been stagnant. I understand that next year economic Ministers in the Soviet Union are budgeting for famine in some areas. Do the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and his hon. Friends think that the Soviet Union is genuine in its attempts to demilitarise and reduce its expenditure budget? If not, they are out of step with public opinion, as most people believe that the Soviet Union is making genuine attempts—President Gorbachev has certainly done so. The Prime Minister says that Gorbachev is genuine, but one is entitled to ask whether the Prime Minister is genuine.
  In "Perestroika," Gorbachev spoke of a society in crisis. In Paul Kennedy's book "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers", his thesis was that, as the security commitments and economic strengths of the great powers move out of balance, those powers fall into decline. We must recognise that that is what is happening in the Soviet Union today, and adopt a magnanimous and generous approach. Although it is difficult to conceive of new patterns of relations, there is no doubt that the old threat structure is gone. Hardliners such as Richard Perle can now go to the Senate's armed services committee and say that there is no longer such a thing as the Warsaw pact.
  As a member of the Defence Select Committee, I was in Vienna at the conventional forces in Europe talks only a month ago. We spoke to representatives of the eastern European countries—from the Warsaw pact. After speaking to them, I am in no doubt that there is no such thing as concerted action from the Warsaw pact countries. East Germany is the strongest force in those countries. It once had a standing army of 170,000, but that has now been reduced to 70,000, and it is witnessing daily desertions.
  If, as some Conservative Members have suggested, a hardline authority could depose President Gorbachev, where does that leave us? In March 1990, the director of the CIA told the Senate's armed services committee that there was little chance that the Soviet hegemony would be restored in eastern Europe. It would be preoccupied with its own internal problems.
  In his opening remarks, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said that much had changed, but much was yet to change. What is yet to change is the Government's attitude. I hope that we can look forward to a Defence White Paper in the autumn that will show that their attitude has changed, and that they have caught up with reality.
  6.43 pm
  Sir Michael Marshall: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who I know takes a keen interest in these matters in the Select Committee on Defence.
  I wish not only to recognise the opportunities that the defence review provides, but to turn to the problems—and, hopefully, some of the solutions—that we can explore. I have a background and an interest in industry and I take this opportunity to remind the House of my long-standing interest in British Aerospace. With the convergence of civil and military matters, further opportunities are being opened up for companies with which I am associated, if only on the fringe. Those companies are listed in the Register of Members' Interests.
  Clearly, the British Aerospace decision on Tornadoes overshadowed yesterday's speeches. It is unnecessary for me to produce further arguments today—the existing arguments speak for themselves, and the problem relating to jobs at Wharton is plain. I do not speak only for British Aerospace—the problem goes far wider. As my hon. Friends will recognise, avionics manufacturers all over the country will now face severe difficulties. For instance, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) was right to point out yesterday that the decision on Challenger 2 had important long-term implications for Leeds and Newcastle. I wonder how much my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces can tell us—his reply may have been foreshadowed by the Secretary of State—about the thinking process that must be involved in further decisions. Many hon. Members will no doubt pursue points of detail because of their various constituency interests.
  One of the most obvious needs is the need to reflect the current inflation position. I pay tribute to the Defence Select Committee—on which I had the privilege to serve for five years—for rightly putting that in a context that causes continuing concern. The Secretary of State was right to emphasise in his opening remarks that there should be no turning on or off of the defence tap. The 10 to 15-year cycle for high technology equipment is, I think, well understood by all hon. Members participating in the debate. I express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement for what I took to be reaffirmation of the long-term future of the European fighter aircraft, both in his comments in the House and in his talk to the Royal Aeronautical Society.
  We should remind ourselves of the substantial level of research and development commitment throughout the defence industrial structure. That has an impact on jobs, training and, above all, education. British Aerospace, for example, is recruiting 1,000 graduates a year. Much of that is predicated on what has previously been seen as a long-term, relatively stable programme of defence commitment. All hon. Members must recognise the challenges presented to British Aerospace, and to other companies seeking to diversify. Huge investments are involved—for example, £500 million in the Honda-Rover partnership. There are cumulative pressures, not only on defence, but in other areas, which could have a vital effect on the country's largest exporter.
  There will also be an effect on British service personnel and those working within the Ministry of Defence. I pay tribute, as others have done, to the great dedication of those who serve us, and who embark on their careers

  849
  assuming that they have a long-term future. A defence review means uncertainty and worry about their own long-term plans.
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department bend their collective mind to the privatisation of a whole range of services currently carried out within the armed services and the Ministry of Defence? I remind my hon. Friend of the contacts that I have had in the past as the chairman of the information technology committee, and draw a comparison with the Defence Department in the United States, which contracts out substantial amounts of in-service activity within military units. The reaction from within the traditional structure of the Ministry of Defence has not been encouraging and there has been a tendency to use security as an excuse for not pursuing further developments. I hope that Ministers will give serious thought to that as the American experience shows that contracting out brings greater flexibility. A substantial defence establishment creates special difficulties in the process of change. Nimrod and other long-term procurement programmes often experience difficulties because they seem to become locked in to reinforcing their own failures. That could be tackled if much of the procurement process was contracted out. I therefore ask Ministers to be bold and imaginative.
  We must examine the political dimensions in the context of the Inter-Parliamentary Union's links with parliamentarians from the Soviet Union, and from central and eastern Europe. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been involved in that process in recent weeks. Some of our thinking on these matters was perhaps brought to a head at the IPU conference on disarmament held in Bonn last month, which was attended by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). I am bound to say, if it does not embarrass him unduly, that he gave a sparkling performance which was in some contrast to the inhibitions that he feels when he gets back home. He was ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) who acted as rapporteur. Many important considerations were discussed at that conference, at which 61 countries were represented.
  My overwhelming impression was how much the issue with which we are now concerned has become a common problem throughout the European family. One of the highlights of that gathering was hearing the views of Colonel General Chervov, the head of the directorate of Soviet chiefs of staff, and Mr. Novozhilov, the deputy on the Supreme Soviet committee who also happens to be head of Ilyushin aircraft, who made the same point about the time lag of decades in the so-called peace dividend and said that they would need to think about the manpower implications for the Russian forces in East Germany and throughout Russia, the Soviet Union and eastern Europe.
  I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to take every opportunity to seek international agreement in trying to resolve those problems. I highlight only the confidence and security building measures such as the opening up of military budgets to wider scrutiny. I emphasise the real opportunity that verification provides, with converging civil and military technology, to use space activities through the European Space Agency and through our own expertise in remote sensing at RAE Farnborough to bring together shared information, technology and job creation.
  850
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, when he speaks to the parliamentary space committee tomorrow on defence aspects of space, to bend his mind seriously to those problems. I know that there are difficulties about resolution, but there are ways ahead.
  That brings me to my final suggestion for international agreement on military redeployment. We should examine the way which we can use our military for international disaster relief activities. I remind the House that this is the United Nations decade of international disaster relief. The estimates before us remind us of the work done by our own military in relation to the storms in Britain earlier this year and the activities that our forces have undertaken overseas in many challenging situations. I do not in any way sell those achievements short, but with the perennial problems of flooding in Bangladesh and the famines in vast drought-affected areas of Africa, surely the coming together of international military resources, communications, transport and medical supply provide a real chance for us to share that knowledge and expertise. If we can begin to work in that direction—a conference in London on 13 July will seek to take the matter further, and many right hon. and hon. Members are involved—we can look for genuine peace dividends from which we can all benefit.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Frank Cook: I have now been in the House for seven years, and in that time I have listened to most of the defence debates and taken part in at least half of them. From that standpoint I must express my regret that I missed yesterday's debate. I tried to make up for that involuntary absence by reading the Official Report today.
  My second regret is what I have heard this afternoon. I regret that we are wasting an opportunity and that so much time should have been frittered away on old, partisan, party political bickering among hon. Members on both sides of the House, but principally from the Government, who cannot find the old hacking horses that they have used in previous debates. It was quite pathetic to hear it today in technicolour, panoramic and melodramatic form from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. The Minister displayed the degree to which the Government are bereft of any insight into the current situation.
  As I tried to point out to the Minister, circumstances have changed so dramatically and rapidly in the 12 months that no one anywhere knows exactly where we stand. We would be spending our time better trying to collect our wisdom and analysing collectively, not only in the interests of our nation and in the European interests, but in the broader interest of humanity, how best to resolve the situation. The current instability gives us an opportunity that we should be seizing with both hands. We have the opportunity to extend the hand of assistance, which I have mentioned on more than one occasion. I referred to it on the occasion when I spoke from the Dispatch Box. If we do not extend the hand of support and help to Mikhail Gorbachev, we must take the consequences that must follow that denial.
  My time is limited, so I shall confine myself to two aspects of our present stance. The Minister made a sideways and somewhat disparaging reference to the Labour party's references to flexible response. Let me explain the situation as I see it as a humble Back-Bench

  851
  Labour Member. What is a flexible response? For those who are uninitiated in the jargon of NATO, "flexible response" is a euphemism for fighting a conventional war for about five days and then, finding oneself losing, claiming the right to nuke the attacker. In other words, we can say to an aggressor, "If you are beating us with conventional weapons, we can nuke you." Of course I do not mean you, Mr. Speaker: I mean the Soviet bloc.
  How has flexible response changed in the past 12 months? We have had negotiations on reductions in conventional weaponry. The agreed levels of conventional arms established ceilings that we could not reach, so we do not have to make any reductions. If we had met all our NATO commitments to the full, we should now be in a position of great strength. We are in a measurably stronger position now than we have been in the past. According to current assessments, we could withstand conventional attack for much longer than five days, so why do we need a flexible response?
  I recently had the privilege of visiting the United States and attending talks with representatives of their Defence Department, their Foreign Affairs Department and their National Security Council. It appears that the United States no longer believes that "flexible response" means what it meant in the past. It was stated by those agencies and by the think tank known as the Rand Corporation that the United States will have to find another definition of "flexible response". Possibly they will retain the same expression but work out a different definition. They are already thinking along lines that are not yet being considered by our own Government, as appeared from the Minister's speech today.
  I want now to move from the questions that surround that flexible response and what the Government may have in mind, remembering that they will shortly he meeting senior American representatives, and to go on to the concept of first use. Behind the flexible response there has always been NATO's position that, despite commitments from the Soviet bloc that it would not engage in the first use of nuclear weapons, we reserve the right, in answer to conventional, biochemical or chemical supremacy or to nuclear attack, to choose the time to use our nuclear weapons.
  I see that the Minister is listening carefully and I thank him for that. I want to point out to him the danger of holding on to the first use concept. At this time, above all, for us to retain the concept of first use in the prospect of any kind of supremacy, whether biological, conventional or chemical, opens the door—and other speakers have said this, but I want to emphasise it—for any international headbanger to justify the possession of nuclear weapons. We should be creating a climate in which—to use an Americanism which I do not like but which is commonly used—we burn down nuclear stockpiles, provide a reason for the non-possession of nuclear weapons and remove ally kind of justifiable excuse on which anyone may seize to persuade an electorate that their country should acquire nuclear weapons in the future.
  At a time when the Soviet bloc, which has always been held up as a great threat, is gladly, willingly and, in some instances, unilaterally throwing its weapons away at a rate of knots and reducing its nuclear stockpile at a speed that is positively dazzling, how can the Government justify to the British electorate considering increasing our nuclear weaponry and improving the means of delivery? How can the British electorate understand that and, which is more
  852
  important, how can the electorates of the nations that are our allies on the continent accept that when we enter the present round of disarmament? I shall be looking for the answers to those questions in the Minister's winding-up speech tonight.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: It was 50 years ago yesterday in this place that Winston Churchill, referring to Adolf Hitler, said:
  "If we are to stand up to him all Europe may be free, and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands".—[Official Report, 18 June 1940; Vol. 362, c. 60.]
  That was a famous speech by Winston Churchill and it has some relevance to our debate today on these important defence estimates. In many respects, we have been standing up to the Soviet bear for the past 40 years.
  For the first time in a generation, we are beginning to see the peace dividend. That dividend is the reduction in tension, which has been brought about not by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but by the tough stand taken by successive Conservative Governments in Britain and by the NATO alliance. That dividend has been achieved despite the unremitting hostility of the Labour party to all this Government's tough policies. I make no apology to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) in saying that. There is a difference of view between the Government and the Opposition and it is important that such differences are thrashed out.
  Yesterday the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) was frank enough to admit that the attractiveness of past calls for defence cuts may have been exaggerated and that the Opposition's posture then was unsustainable. However, he seemed to say, "Don't worry, chaps. It is a sustainable posture now." The Labour party has continually resisted the tough measures that have brought about the peace dividend.
  It can reasonably be said that investment by the countries of the NATO alliance in the defence of those countries has led to the "broad, sunlit" conditions that are beginning to be experienced in Europe. That is an exciting prospect. I rejoice wholeheartedly in the rejection of socialism everywhere in Europe, except in Bulgaria and on the Opposition Benches. However, it is important that we are not lulled into a false sense of security.
  Throughout my lifetime I have lived with one certainty the certainty of the iron curtain. To the left was good—that was us—and on the other side were the baddies—the communists. That balance of terror and that certainty have, in many respects, kept the peace in Europe for the past 40 years. As a child, I lived in Germany and I lived nearer the iron curtain than, I suspect, most hon. Members have done. I spent eight years in Germany and I was there as a child when the Berlin wall was built. I shall never forget the building of that wall, nor the dramatic division between our two systems which the wall exemplified. Equally, its destruction exemplified the removal in part of the tyranny that has been exercised over the peoples of eastern Europe for the past 45 years.
  I welcome the collapse of the communist system, but we are undoubtedly moving into uncertain times. The balance of terror, which undoubtedly caused tension, nevertheless kept the peace. We are now moving into a period of great uncertainty. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) hit the nail on the head when he referred to the myriad changes taking place and the dangers that they

  853
  represent. We need think only of events in Romania and the collapse of the Soviet empire. The real question is how long-standing are the changes now taking place in eastern Europe. I do not believe that we can yet determine what the pattern of eastern Europe will be, let alone how long Mr. Gorbachev will last and whether he will be replaced by Mr. Yeltsin or someone else. Ultimately, it is capabilities and not intentions that count.
  As we know, the capabilities of the Soviet Union are substantially greater than ours. Their main battle tanks outnumber ours by 49,500 to 24,000—twice as many. It has 42,500 artillery pieces against 18,000 in NATO. It has 11,600 combat aircraft against 6,000. There are 4 million in the armed forces in the Warsaw pact countries and 3 million in NATO. Those are the facts of the capabilities. The hon. Member for Stockton, North is entitled to feel a certain degree of euphoria, which is felt by all of us in the nation, about the changes taking place. However, in the face of the evidence of the capabilities, we are simply not in a position to beat all our swords into ploughshares. As Lieutenant General Horst Jungkurth, the Luftwaffe chief of staff, has said:
  "Even after the force reductions, the Soviet Union will remain the strongest military power in Europe."
  Forty per cent. of all expenditure on defence goes on procurement. I welcome the decision to proceed with the EH101 Merlin with the Rolls-Royce RTM322 engine. That is excellent news not only for that company, but for the prospects for anti-submarine warfare operations. I hope that consideration will be given to looking at the versatile air mobile variant for the battlefield.
  On the European fighter aircraft, we need a new replacement aircraft for the aging F4J Phantoms and for the Jaguars. There are a number of reasons why the European fighter aircraft should go ahead. First, we would be building on a most successful collaboration with our European partners, notably the Tornado. Secondly, Soviet capabilities warrant our adoption of the EFA. The SU27 and the Mig 29 have taken the west by surprise by their sophistication and their capabilities. That point was made by a number of Opposition Members.
  The Soviet Union has much more sophisticated kit than hitherto. It is vital, if taxpayers' money is to be spent on the defence of the realm, to make sure that we do not play at it but that we provide our services with the appropriate equipment to meet the threat. The EFA meets that requirement. In the strategic sense, in this of all years—the 50th anniversary of the battle of Britain—we must not forget the lesson of the importance of air superiority. The EFA will serve that purpose.
  Many hon. Members have paid tribute to the many and various roles which service personnel perform while defending our nation, this Parliament, free speech, all our institutions and everything that we stand for, but nobody has yet paid tribute to British industry. I pay tribute to those who build the equipment that provides the wherewithal to enable our forces to defend us and to ensure that we enjoy the peace. The defence estimates are presented in an admirable form; they can be easily understood not just by aficionados of military matters but by the general public. They illustrate the enormous success of British industry.
  Military imports amounted to £672 million last year compared with exports of £2,408 million. The nation can
  854
  take pride in British manufacturing industry's proud record. The efforts of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are to be commended.
  There is a window at the Rolls-Royce factory in Derby that is an admirable illustration of the point. It is dedicated to the battle of Britain pilots who turned the work of our hands into the salvation of our country. The performance of British industry has done that in the past 40 years.
  I conclude—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Regrettably, the hon. Gentleman has had his time. He must bring his speech to a close.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: It is not my intention to follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth). I was most intrigued by the remarks of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks). He wanted a vigorous debate but he did not stay long enough to participate in it. I intended to take up some of the points that he made on the strategic deterrent.
  There is a maternity hospital in my constituency. It is not very often that male Members of Parliament visit such establishments, but I had the opportunity to do so last week. I reflected on the great advances that have been made in medical science, yet it is still a struggle for a baby to be born. That has to be contrasted with all the effort and energy that is devoted to killing human beings.
  We cannot anticipate what will happen tomorrow, or even today. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) summed it up by saying that as we have lost an enemy we are now struggling to find a role for all the military equipment that we have marshalled over the years in anticipation of the monolithic structure of the Warsaw pact breaking through in central Europe and NATO having to deploy inadequate conventional forces, resulting in our acceptance of the doctrine of flexible response, so characteristically described by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). That threat no longer exists.
  With hindsight, we can analyse the reasons why this is happening. We do not hear a great deal about the strategic defence initiative, or about Chernobyl. One of the most significant features in President Gorbachev's altered attitude is the fact that acres and acres of the Soviet union's soil are still unusable. Scotland and Wales also have acres and acres of soil that are still unusable. President Gorbachev saw the futility of embarking on a nuclear war that could not be won. That was a breakthrough in Soviet mentality—no longer the arrogance of, "We will bury you", because a nuclear war would kill us all.
  Competition in arms procurement and arms producion between the United States and the Soviet Union has ceased; if not reversed, it has certainly been halted. That is significant because those two super-powers have realised the stupidity of continuing to compete and produce weaponry so preposterous in its magnitude as to annihilate the whole human race.
  I am not being nasty when I challenge the Ministry of Defence to explain what is meant by "Options for Change". The Minister of State for the Armed Forces explained the background to his thinking which seems to be that the Warsaw pact is disintegrating. There are real prospects of no role for CFE. Should we deploy

  855
  short-range nuclear weapons and not give them up? Some think that air-launched nuclear missiles should no longer be deployed in Germany. We want to keep NATO in place for stability, but it will be a different NATO with a political, not necessarily a military, thrust.
  The one certainty, it is argued, is that we must remain a strategic nuclear power. I cannot grasp that. The argument is that Britain must remain a strategic nuclear power because we have unique responsibilities in the world. Many hon. Members have made that point, but I fail to grasp it. I accepted, perhaps naively or wrongly, up to Polaris that we should continue to be a nuclear power because it was there and would be difficult to get rid of. When I stood as a Labour candidate in the election campaign I said that we should decommission Polaris. We now have a unique opportunity to say that enough is enough, because the first Trident will not be commissioned and in service until the mid-1990s, or late 1994. We do not know the exact terminology—perhaps the Minister will make it clearer in his reply—but we know that President Bush has said, "Whatever you do, do not say anything in your discussions with the Soviet Union about our 'commitment' to provide the D5 missiles because we do not want that muddying the waters." It is extremely doubtful whether, in the context of strategic arms reductions, the United States would feel obliged to continue the Polaris-type arrangements and agreements and to give the United Kingdom D5s—either to use in future discussions or at all.
  That would pose a particular problem for an incoming Labour Government. I am not now privy to the Labour party's defence proposals; the House may be surprised to learn that I was never really privy to them. But, as I understand the Labour party's policy, it is proposed that we should have only three Trident-type boats, despite the view expressed yesterday by the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) that four was the minimum. But the Labour party, in its wisdom, now says that we should have three. In mid-1994—perhaps at the end of 1993—the boats will be sailed over and the Labour Government will say to the United States Government, "Please can we now have 16 D5s?" The Labour party thinks that the United States will give us those D5s for use in the negotiations. That is an absurd proposition, and it will not hold water.
  I have a constituency interest in the matter. I welcome the great breakthrough—perhaps not as great as all that—that the proposal to establish a defence diversification agency represents. I do not know what the blazes that means in terms of the new-found supply-side socialist economics of the Labour party; perhaps someone will tell me. But I welcome the thought process, and I will tell the Government why: the market does not apply in the procurement of defence equipment. The Government call defence equipment into being because of their strategic tactical requirements. They cannot then say, "Let the market solve the problem" when they cancel orders or hold up repayments. That cannot be done, and it certainly cannot be done in the dockyards. It could not be done at Vickers, which is essentially a one-product yard. If anyone—even Lord Chalfont—thinks that they are going to build frigates and destroyers at Vickers, he must be stoned out of his tiny head because the overheads would kill it. They might he built at Cammell's, although I do not have time to go into the details.
  856
  The Government cannot stand back from this one. Whatever emerges from "Options for Change", those who have been praised by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood—or Cannock and British industry—are entitled to know what the Government propose to do to support them, particularly in Scotland. What discussions will they have with Scottish Enterprise? I do not think very much of that organisation, but it is a Government organisation. In Fife, in particular, where we depend heavily on the defence industry, it is essential that the Government should not stand back and say, "Let the market solve the problem." That will not be good enough. If they say that, all hell will be let loose. We have a fight on for Ravenscraig just now. And what a fight the Government will have on their hands if they stand back and let the dockyards and other defence-related industries in Fife go to the wall because of their incompetence.
  7.23 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). No one doubts that he has always had a view on defence matters different from that of many of his Front-Bench colleagues—a view that has often been more realistic than the views of his Front-Bench team.
  I found the earlier comments about the peace dividend extremely interesting. To my generation, the peace dividend meant not having wars. In 1945, we were determined that never again should there be a war in Europe. That is, and has been, the peace dividend that has resulted from action taken by successive Governments and by NATO.
  The changes in Europe and the USSR, and instability in the middle east and elsewhere, present dangers, new challenges and opportunities. No doubt advice on how to deal with the new circumstances will be coming to the Government from all quarters. I shall refer briefly to only one of the many pieces of advice that I have read recently. It appeared in one of the national daily newspapers and was written by a distinguished former serving officer, Lord Carver. He referred to an old chestnut of his, saying that the Air Force was a temporary development in the evolution of war capability and equipment. In this year of the 50th anniversary of the battle of Britain, we must be glad indeed of that temporary development. I trust that the old chestnut will be treated with interest, as in the past, and ignored.
  The House will know of my interest in this matter, which I must now declare: I am still a serving officer in the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. It will not surprise the House, therefore, to learn that I propose to spend much of my time talking about Air Force matters.
  Low flying is, and will remain, a matter of considerable interest to Ministers. Let me put my position on the line. I support the need for low flying. Royal Air Force pilots must never be asked to go into operational conditions in which they are not equipped to deal with enemy radar and to get beneath it and the surface-to-air missile capability.
  The changes in eastern Europe have presented us with a new opportunity. The warning time has now increased, although I would not like to say whether it is now four, five or six weeks. Is it not now time to consider how long it would take pilots to progress from 500 ft, if that was the height at which they were carrying out their sorties, down to the operational level required for action? In my view, we

  857
  should keep a small number of squadrons at low-level capability all the time, as they might have to be deployed at 48 hours' notice. But the remainder of the Royal Air Force now needs to have an adaptable capability. I wonder how many weeks it would take to train down from 500 ft to the operational levels that would be required. I say that as a former member of the sixth squadron, which was the first of the tank-busting Royal Air Force squadrons.
  Mr. Douglas: Were you?
  Mr. Walker: Yes. I served in sixth squadron many years ago—no doubt before the hon. Gentleman had an interest in these matters.
  Let me deal now with the subject of search and rescue. The replacement of the Wessex helicopters is now overdue and I hope that they will soon be replaced with Sea Kings, particularly at RAF Leuchars, the station that serves my constituency. We are most grateful for the splendid job that the station does year in, year out. I was pleased to hear what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday about United Kingdom air defence. In the final analysis, if we cannot defend the skies over these islands, these islands cannot be defended. That is why the European fighter aircraft will become increasingly important and why I was pleased by the statement made yesterday about EFA.
  I come now to a subject that has meant much to me for most of my adult life, the reserve and auxiliary forces. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), the inspector-general of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, is not with us because his interest in this and mine have coincided for many years. The reserve forces should be manned by individuals who have volunteered, but all those engaged in regular engagements should, as a matter of course, have included in their commitments a commitment to volunteer reserve and reserve forces activity until retirement age. Many people to whom I have spoken would be delighted to carry out those duties. That is particularly true of many former fast jet pilots who are now flying with airlines.
  I now refer to the need for an out-of-area capability. We will need an air mobile force that is linked with amphibious forces which can intervene with great mobility and adequate fire power to be able to concentrate on areas in which the unexpected happens. Whatever may be said, most incidents occur unexpectedly. The most recent that we can think of is the Falklands incident.
  Hon. Members properly spend much time talking about equipment, yet our most valuable asset must be the people. The Royal Air Force has always recruited from all socio-economic groups. The ability to do the job was what mattered. With demographic changes and competition for suitable candidates, the regular reserve and the auxiliary air force will find themselves increasingly competing. That will make air cadets become more important. An in-depth review of the future role of the air cadets is now required. The Taylor report of about 30 years ago is no longer relevant.
  My hon. Friend will be aware of problems in recruiting and retaining Royal Air Force RO staff at headquarters air cadets, which are very much under strength. The present regional structure of the air cadets and the need to justify the appointment of regional commandants must also be
  858
  examined. Relations between air cadets and volunteer and auxiliary units, together with the responsibility and functions of the Air Cadet Council, should be examined in depth. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will say whether my fears about the future of the flying scholarship scheme are well founded.
  There is much more that I would have wished to say but could not because of the time limit on speeches. I have concentrated narrowly on matters in which I have direct responsibility in my duties as a volunteer reserve officer, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will understand that.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: With one or two depressing exceptions, mainly on the Conservative side of the House, the theme of the debate has been one of turning swords into ploughshares. I fear that I am bucking the trend, having left my former Front Bench agriculture position to take up a place on the Defence Select Committee. However, I welcome this opportunity to make some comments on the estimates and on the future options for defence at this turning point in European and global history.
  I have the incalculable personal privilege of being a member of what is probably the first generation of Scots ever to have been spared the horror of going to war. I am grateful for that, and I want my sons, and children throughout the world, to enjoy the benefits of peace and stability.
  Some people say that the 40 years of stability are entirely attributable to nuclear deterrence. It has certainly been a factor. There has also been a perverse form of stability in inherent super-power confrontation. An iron curtain can pose fewer risks than a broken fence. I have already indicated that I have never been in uniform, but there is more than enough military tradition in my family and in my constituency for me to appreciate the value and importance of the armed forces and the regimental structure to which reference has been made. I hope that we have learnt enough from history to understand the importance of being prepared to meet threats. Perhaps the most recent example of the high price of ill-considered defence cuts is the saga of the Falklands invasion.
  The question today is how best to adjust our defence priorities to maintain effective security in Europe and elsewhere while releasing as much as possible of the defence budget for alternative investment in our society and our economy. We should pursue that principle nationally and internationally. Indeed, that must be the key issue of the decade. If we get it right we shall achieve a great deal, but if we get it wrong we could set the scene for another era of conflict in the future. In that sense, our deliberations are crucial.
  As a simple Scottish farmer turned politician, with the limited authority of just two weeks on the Defence Select Committee, I shall not have the effrontery to make specific proposals for changes in defence strategies and budgets, but I shall demand a properly informed public debate involving all those who should be consulted before major decisions are made. Clearly, a Government defence review is under way, but I do not think that the current Mutt and Jeff act between the Secretary of State and the Minister of

  859
  State for Defence Procurement should be regarded as a proper way of conducting such a review. We need a proper review to be conducted in public.
  I have read yesterday's debate and today's newspapers, and I see that the Minister of State has cancelled an order for 33 Tornadoes worth £600 million. That may be a good idea—it will certainly cause much rejoicing in my constituency because it will lead to a small reduction in low flying training—but it was not a considered decision. It is just another example of the shopping basket economics with which we have become familiar under the present Administration—if the wage packet is smaller than expected, one can do without light bulbs or mouse traps this week, but if one goes on like that all year one will end up in total darkness or overrun by rodents. That is no way to run a household, let alone manage the defence of the nation. The Select Committee on Defence has clearly said that
  "Nothing could be more foolish. It is essential that any changes in defence expenditure reflect a planned and orderly process of matching commitments and resources. Arbitrary cash cuts, and deliberate attrition by inflation make prudent management of the defence budget next to impossible."
  The Government should heed that consideration.
  By all means let us consider whether we need new aircraft or tanks, whether we can scale down the Rhine army, or even whether we can extricate ourselves from the Trident situation, but let us make such decisions in the course of a genuine national and international defence review. The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, which includes all 35 European and north Atlantic countries, is an ideal framework within which to work towards that objective. We must take account of the consequences for the forces of changes in policies, rehousing members of the forces who may be demobilised, and finding alternative jobs for service men.
  As a Lothian Member of Parliament with constituents who work for Ferranti—a further 550 job losses were announced yesterday—I make a strong plea for part of the savings made by defence cuts to be specifically earmarked for a diversification programme to help high-tech companies to develop new products and markets. I was pleased to hear the Minister of State give an assurance today that the EFA programme is safe at this stage.
  As we approach the options for future defence plans, we must recognise the actual prospects for peace and conflict in future. Thank God the threat of super-power confrontation between NATO and the Warsaw pact has virtually disappeared. I say, "Thank God," but perhaps it would be more appropriate to thank Mr. Gorbachev. There are certainly no thanks to the British Prime Minister, who has been rattling sabres and modernising nuclear weapons while other Governments have striven to reduce risks and threats. But every silver lining has a cloud, and the collapse of Soviet central authority is creating a vacuum with new risks of regional strife.
  Those of us who remember our lessons at school about the collapse of the Ottoman empire and the "sick man of Europe" will recall that just such a power vacuum in the Balkans set the scene for the first world war and that places such as Moldavia and Serbia, which are again figuring in the headlines, featured very prominently in that mayhem. There are still festering racial and national problems in eastern Europe, and it would be wise for any European security framework to include a capacity to contain such problems. We in this country have experience of that kind
  860
  with our role in Northern Ireland. There is also Europe's southern flank and the interface with the middle east. Finally, we must remember Britain's wider residual responsibilities in other parts of the world, and our ability to support the United Nations and to render assistance after natural disasters.
  Those are the areas on which we should concentrate our military attention beyond our own shores in the foreseeable future. It is difficult to imagine what possible role a Trident force could have in any of the scenarios that I have described. Although I accept that nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented, I take Enoch Powell's view that British nuclear weapons have about as much deterrent credibility as a threat of national suicide. We would be wise to take advantage of the new circumstances prevailing in Europe and in the world to achieve a genuine multilateral reduction in nuclear weapons—which is now genuinely feasible, thank goodness.
  We have unprecedented opportunities to reduce the risk of conflict and to take advantage of substantial savings, but there will still be an important role for well-trained, well-equipped, highly flexible and highly mobile land, sea and air forces, committed to co-operating with our European neighbours. Those should he the objectives of the defence review. I hope that we can establish a consensus in our country to achieve those objectives.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Keith Mans: Before referring to the defence estimates, I should like to say a few words about the decision not to proceed with the eighth batch of Tornado. Obviously, that has significance for the north-west, but it also has great significance for the future of the whole Tornado programme. Production will end in another two or three years unless more orders are placed either by our Government or by other states. That point needs to be made because otherwise there will be a gap between the end of Tornado production and the build-up of European fighter aircraft production.
  I regret that decision, not only because of its effect on jobs in Lancashire, but because I am not clear why the decision was made. Was it to reduce pressure on the defence budget this year? As I understand it, the aircraft that would have been ordered would not have been part of this year's defence budget, but would largely have been paid for in the future. Is it part of a much more long-term plan to reduce the number of combat aircraft available to the Air Force? Was the decision taken after full consultation and agreement with the Air Force board? I should especially like to know what commitment the original batch of aircraft was ordered to meet because the cancellation suggests that that commitment is no longer necessary. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State could mention some of those points when he replies to the debate or write to me later about them.
  Having said that, I am pleased to note that at the same time as that decision was announced last night, it was made clear that the Government are still firmly committed to the European fighter aircraft. That commitment is vital if we are to maintain our present level of technology in that area of aviation. I wish—and still hope—that Opposition Members, and especially the official spokesmen of the

  861
  Labour party, would fully commit the Labour party to the EFA programme because of its effect on our technological base in Lancashire.
  Many hon. Members have referred to the change in the political climate since our previous debate on the defence estimates and many hon. Members have referred to cashing in the peace dividend. All that I would say is that we should not cash in that dividend prematurely. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that the Soviet Union still has a vast array of weaponry and, if anything, the technology of that weaponry has increased from a year or two ago. It would be a mistake if we cashed in the peace dividend now before we have achieved the force reductions in both NATO and the Warsaw pact which will mean that we can all live in security with lower arms expenditure.
  Although I believe that it would be wrong to cash in the peace dividend now, it is none the less worth planning for that future. In so doing, we must first have a clear idea of the threat that we shall be facing in 10 or 15 years—if there is a threat. We also need to know our country's commitment in terms of military hardware. Following that discussion of commitments, we must consider the size of our armed forces and the levels and types of equipment. I believe that the consideration must be made in that order, not the other way round. It is wrong to cut weapons procurement before deciding on the commitments of one's armed services because one may have to scramble around, after cutting the weapons systems, to try to ascertain how one's present weapons and service men could best meet the commitments foisted on them. Again and again during the past 30 years, decisions on defence expenditure have been taken that way round instead of ensuring that we get our commitments right and follow that up with the necessary troop and equipment levels.
  In that respect, the Tornado decision is very much a borderline one as it appears to put procurement decisions before those on commitment. However, it is important that we consider methods of reducing defence expenditure quickly other than cutting future procurement program-mes. We could consider reducing the numbers of existing aircraft so that we can continue to use the Tornado in the foreseeable future. Instead of cutting the eighth batch of Tornado aircraft, it might have been better to cut the Buccaneer force and to use Tornado in that role, or to replace the air reconnaissance variant of Jaguar. That would also have the advantage of simplifying the structure of the Air Force round fewer aircraft, rather than round a multiplicity of types. When there are only a few of each type of aircraft, a multiplicity of types leads to increased maintenance, servicing, manning and training costs. Any reorganisation of the three services should look at simplifying equipment levels because fewer types should mean considerable financial savings.
  We now have a unique opportunity to look closely at the organisation of our armed services—t is possibly our only such opportunity for the next 20 or 30 years. In considering our new commitments, we should also consider our command structure and question whether we need the present number of people in it. Indeed, I would go a bit further: I believe that it would be worth looking at the rank structure of the three services. With the reduced numbers available to us in the future, is it really necessary
  862
  that the services are confined to a rank structure that has existed since just before the first world war? Perhaps we should opt for a simpler and more flexible structure, given that our future defence needs must be flexible.
  We should also look more closely at ways of contracting out a little more of the hardware. Instead of buying all the equipment, there may be circumstances in which leasing could prove a more cost-effective way of running our armed services.
  When we complete the review we shall have fewer service men. I hope that as a result of the way in which the review is carried out and the armed services are organised, those fewer service men will have modern up-to-date equipment and will not be left to man obsolete, old or antiquated equipment. In that respect it is even more important to take the route that I described simply because service men are going through difficult times generally and their future is uncertain. People in any organisation that is reducing in size want to know what their prospects are. It is vital for morale that we make certain that our armed services, even with smaller numbers of service men, have up-to-date equipment to fulfil the tasks for which we need them.
  7.50 pm
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) showed that there is support even among Conservative Members for a thorough-going defence review. His comments on procurement policy should be taken up by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. I wish to consider the issue as a whole and the need for us as Europeans to consider how we can redeploy our resources to create a more secure Europe for the future. I also wish to speak briefly on one issue of deployment which I like to call the "over-the-hill" radar station to be located in Pembrokeshire.
  Europe is spending £450 billion per year on the so-called defence industries. Clearly, in these new times, we must seek to change the way in which we deploy our resources. The problem with debates such as this is that so often, as the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said, hon. Members begin their speeches by saying that changes are taking place but then rehearse the same old arguments.
  The new context of political and military change in Europe requires new political, military and security thinking. In particular, we must move towards a way of thinking that demilitarises defence and leads us on to arguments about genuine security. We have a clear example of that before our very eyes. Within the European Community we now have a political structure in which states are integrated which were adversaries only a little earlier this century. No one believes any longer that we should solve inter-state conflicts in Europe by military means. We must think of a mechanism whereby we have a different conception of the relationship between the old blocs that used to divide Europe. We must demilitarise that relationship and create genuine security between previous members of the Warsaw pact and present members of NATO.
  The old NATO argument was that the Warsaw pact had overwhelming conventional superiority, particularly in the central region of Europe. Now, with the changes that have taken place in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary, we could argue that the western side of the

  863
  central region has superiority. Therefore, as we move towards conventional forces reduction agreements in Europe, we must consider how we can move rapidly beyond that to further reductions and particularly to the reduction of short-range nuclear weapons on mainland Europe.
  The new framework of the security community should be the CSCE. Even leading members of NATO such as the author of the NATO Harmel report have suggested ways in which we can adapt the CSCE process to make it a successor process to that of NATO.
  It saddens me to hear hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, regurgitate the old arguments for a NATO alliance which predate the changes of the past year. On this Bench we would argue for a way of taking the positive aspects of the European Community and NATO experience together into a strengthened European framework which would provide for genuine common security. That must include the Soviet Union. If not, we should have extended the equivalent of a NATO alliance to the very borders of the Soviet Union—or at least the current borders. Clearly that would be unacceptable to the Soviet Union. We need a broad, flexible framework. It should provide a flexible response—not in military terms—to the new security situation.
  That leads me on to the detailed, local point that I wish to make. The attention of the House has already been drawn today to the proposed installation of a new radar station at St. Davids. I draw that again to the attention of the House because it is perhaps the last example of the old thinking. Through the great courtesy of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, I have just received a copy of a memorandum of understanding of 28 April 1988. It was signed by the United States Government and the United Kingdom Government—the only Government whom St. Davids has, to date.
  The fact that the document was signed two years ago shows clearly that the proposal for the radar station which includes the erection of a row half a mile long of 35 masts up to 135 ft. high in St. Davids belongs to the cold war period. It is not part of the forward thinking that we should now apply. I wish to ask several specific questions to which the Minister may respond either now or later in writing.
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement flew into St. Davids for a public meeting. On 16 May, the Western Telegraph, a reliable newspaper, reported that he gave the assurance:
  "The Government will not use Crown immunity to force through the controversial 'over the horizon' radar project for St. Davids Airfield if the planning procedures go against the scheme."
  At Question Time today the Minister referred to the "exigencies" of the planning process. I should like him to repeat on the record in the House that there will be no attempt to override the planning process if it turns out that the planning authority, the Pembrokeshire coast national park, decides to reject the formal planning clearance notification and the environmental impact assessment report, which may be negative about the proposal. Will that be the end of the story? I shall wait to hear a response on that. Perhaps it will be clearer than the response that I obtained from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman about whether the project would be cancelled if the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) became Minister of State for Defence Procurement.
  864
  There are strong environmental, political and military objections to the proposed radar station. I was struck by the statement made this afternoon by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement that the deployment was entirely defensive. Yet the military jargon of annex I of the memorandum of understanding refers to the trials and to "targets of opportunity". Clearly the intention of the radar would be to observe movements of ships, aircraft and other vessels in the Norwegian area of the northern Atlantic.
  Although the Minister denied that the deployment will have any offensive capability, it must be seen in the context of the other two similar stations which are being deployed by the United States military. Radar stations are not part of NATO's activities. We are always grateful that it is possible to obtain information from the United States Congress that we cannot obtain easily here. The committee on appropriations of the House of Representatives held discussions on the issue. The record prepared for it shows that the radar station is not included in an approved category of NATO expenditure. It is not expected that it will become eligible, so there will be no NATO funding. But there will be 90 per cent. funding by the "host nation". The United Kingdom Treasury would pay at least 90 per cent. of the cost of the exercise while 10 per cent. would be borne by the United States.
  If we are looking for short-term, immediate, painless defence cuts, obviously the cancellation of the memorandum of understanding—before it is cancelled, I hope, by the United States Congress and the House—would be warmly welcomed not only in St. Davids but throughout the United Kingdom. The MOD must realise that by taking on St. Davids it is taking on the historical and cultural traditions of Wales. It could not have chosen a worse site. I assure the Minister that the Church in Wales will be extremely militant on this issue.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The 10 minute limit has now been lifted.
  8 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak because I represent the constituency in which British Aerospace's military aircraft division has its headquarters. The House can imagine that the cancellation announced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement of the eighth-batch order for the Tornado is a matter of considerable discussion and concern there.
  No one would like to roll back the clock to try to stop the remarkable events of the past 12 months in eastern Europe and in other parts of the world where peace has truly broken out. We must be cautious, however, because although we have speedily endorsed the moves of President Gorbachev and our Prime Minister towards achieving that peace and rejoice in what has happened in eastern Europe, we must reflect on the fact that the so-called experts did not predict those events. We still look to those experts for our guidance, but they failed to predict those events and the speed with which they happened. The experts do not have a particularly good track record, but

  865
  achieving that peace and rejoice in what has happened in eastern Europe, we must reflect on the fact that the so-called experts did not predict those events. We still look to those experts for our guidance, but they failed to predict those events and the speed with which they happened. The experts do not have a particularly good track record, but it is they who must help us in the next few years to predict exactly what will happen in terms of security and defence in the European theatre and throughout the world.
  The leader in today's edition of The Times reviewed the aftermath of the Tornado cancellation and discussed the defence review. It put forward a somewhat strange analysis. It declared in favour of peace and reductions in European defence systems. It said that we should not look for enemies and it praised the concept of flexibility, but it.
  This morning the people of Lancashire felt that a bucket of cold water had been thrown over them as they woke up to the reality that cuts in our defence system have already started. It is worth noting that the many families who have given loyal service to our defence industries now accept the reality of what the changes in Europe will mean. I hope that Ministers will not forget the human dimension of the changes. Just as Conservative Members fought vigorously to secure orders for the defence industries, so we shall fight vigorously to help companies and individuals to resolve the problems that we now face.
  The Departments of Trade and Industry and of Employment have various schemes designed to promote enterprise and to help areas which, from time to time, experience economic difficulties. The MOD should ensure that those schemes are mobilised as soon as possible to aid the process of diversification which companies such as British Aerospace have already begun to develop. Nobody should ignore the fact that British Aerospace anticipated, to some extent, the changes that have occurred. It has bought Rover and Ballast and Needham and diverted into leisure, construction and investments into new technology. It has made an excellent commitment to airbus and is developing new civil aviation business with the United States. They are all attempts to broaden the company's industrial base and maintain employment within it. Last night's announcement on Tornado, however, instead of assisting the smooth transition from one stage to another, has made that task more difficult.
  People in Lancashire will reflect on history and I am sure that at the back of their minds is the TSR 2 project. I am sure that they appreciate that the cuts that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has imposed on the industry in the present circumstances are not in the same vein as the complete renegation of the TSR 2 project. At a time when a good British project had been developed, the Labour party dumped TSR 2 and that decision went very deep with the aviation folk of Lancashire. The Conservatives have a record of proud support of such projects and that will continue.
  Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, having dumped the TSR 2, the Labour Government then bought an American aircraft?
  Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend has made a powerful point.
  We shall continue to support our friends in Lancashire at this difficult time. British Aerospace is making progress towards diversification which makes Labour's conversion
  866
  agency look like a stale pork pie. We need to free enterprise and initiative in that company and throughout the defence industries. We need to maintain the aviation skills of Lancashire. The Government have the ability to assist that process and we shall support them.
  Mr. Tony Banks: How?
  Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening earlier he would know that the answer lies in the mobilisation of the schemes and projects run by the Departments of Trade and Industry and of Employment. Recently I asked a question about take-up of the enterprise schemes and the employment initiatives. The hon. Gentleman should know that he will find the answer and the proof he needs in the Library.
  This year we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the battle of Britain. We should remember that that desperate situation arose as a result of a lack of preparedness. Whatever review is undertaken by my right hon. and hon. Friends at the MOD, I plead with them to ensure that they do not leave us unprepared. Our lack of ability to predict the future accurately makes it imperative that major defence projects, such as the European fighter aircraft, are maintained. Whatever type of defence system we procure for the land, sea or air, we must go for quality.
  Our defence industries, including British Aerospace in my constituency, have a unique ability to join together complex systems to produce the best in the world of a particular type of equipment. Such technology and ability has found favour not only in this country and in Europe, but in wider export markets. I hope that that skills base will not be dissipated by further reviews.
  Last night my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement spoke of the continual consultations that the MOD has had with British Aerospace on the cuts to the Tornado programme. People in my constituency have asked what specific consultations took place between the MOD and British Aerospace. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary could give us that answer either tonight or by letter. Did the MOD discuss the impact of the decision on the ability of British Aerospace to deal with future orders from Saudi Arabia and to maintain and fulfil its obligations to Italy? Those answers should be given before the capability to manufacture Tornado is dispensed with.
  In common with my hon. Friends, I should like to know a little more about the criteria used to decide the way in which the defence review will be conducted. We seek an assurance from Ministers that they will properly assess the impact of the defence cuts on our industrial and technological base. We understand that we cannot stand in the way of peace, progress and security, but we want to make certain that any changes are properly managed because of the human dimension involved.
  We in Britain must maintain a viable aerospace defence industry not only for home and European requirements but for the export potential that is involved. If we have piecemeal, salami-slice programmes for perhaps short-term economic reasons, that base will be put at risk in the long term.
  Will the Minister be radical in his thinking? Has he considered, for example, privatising the work of maintenance facilities that is currently undertaken by the RAF, and flying training? The private sector could provide

  867
  those facilities at much reduced cost to the RAF. Likewise, the RAF support command—an expensive passenger aircraft system—could be put out to private concerns.
  We appreciate that the size of the defence cake will be smaller, but will the Minister consider supporting private enterprise by redistributing the cake? Will he respond to newspaper articles about the EH 101? It has been suggested that companies such as British Aerospace will have an equal opportunity to bid for a share of the contracts. Questions of that sort must be answered.
  I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) about the Tornado in relation to older types of aircraft. If ever there was an opportunity to economise on maintenance, we should have removed the old aircraft first and replaced them with an aircraft such as Tornado, which could have a 30-year life.
  In that connection, will the Minister comment, either tonight or by letter, on the Tornado mid-life update? If the decision on the eighth batch is final, a mid-life update and a continual wringing out of benefits from the fundamental design of Tornado is crucial. It means updating the new data bus avionics system and consideration being given to the new weapons systems, the terrain reference radar and other modifications of important items. Workers in my constituency require the Minister's assurance that that programme will go ahead and that we can look forward to Tornado being in service in Europe into the next century.
  I endorse all that has been said by my hon. Friends about the importance of the European fighter aircraft. The most telling remark that I have heard on the subject came from Group Captain Ned Frith, who was formerly involved with the armed services and the Ministry of Defence and who is now with British Aerospace. He said:
  "If you have forces, you need an airforce. If you have an airforce, you need an air superiority fighter."
  There is no doubt that the European fighter aircraft is the finest available. Other hon. Members have referred to potential threats that it meets. It is a defensive aircraft without parallel and I hope that the Minister will endorse what has been said about the Government seeing the project through. If it does not go through with the four partner countries still participating, it will put at risk the whole question of European co-operation on future procurement projects. Whatever the shape of our armed forces, there will still be a need for such procurement activities.
  Let us not overlook research and development. I am disturbed to see it said in paragraph 317 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates that the Government are committed to a reduction in defence research and development. Many fine projects are listed in the analysis of the major fields, but when I contrast paragraph 317 with paragraph 322, which talks about the role of our defence exports, I am bound to say that we cannot have our cake and eat it.
  We need to develop a concept of technological deterrence. We need to increase spending on research and development to ensure that we have the ideas that will help us and the whole of western Europe to maintain credible defence systems. Research and development has a vital role, and I commend that thought to the Minister.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), like a number of his hon. Friends, is belatedly realising that there is a link between a reduced
  868
  defence commitment and building up industry in a planned way. That is why Labour's arms diversification agency, compared with the Tories' "leave it to the market" attitude, will be a huge vote winner for us in constituencies such as Fylde, as Conservative Members will begin to appreciate as the election draws near.
  I apologise for the pun, but the Ministry of Defence has been getting away with murder for years, and the Secretary of State got away with murder in his speech yesterday when he said:
  "By the end of this year we could, if all goes well. have in place some of the most far-reaching changes in Europe's defence and security that we have witnessed";
  and a little later went on:
  "Against that background, we shall also need to consider the forces that we in the United Kingdom will need over the next decade."
  We are bound to wonder what response he has to the great world changes that are taking place. He said he wanted
  "not only Polaris and then Trident, but the associated frigates, submarines and minesweepers that ensure their safe deployment…we shall maintain also sub-strategic nuclear capability…That means air defence aircraft; surface-to-air missiles and the necessary warning and control systems; naval forces"—
  of all kinds—
  "maritime patrol aircraft … forces for military home defence … force levels … in Northern Ireland … adequate forces to meet our commitments in the wider world outside Europe … Cyprus, Gibraltar, Belize, Hong Kong and Brunei"—
  and forces
  "to respond appropriately where circumstances demand."
  Nor did he leave out Germany, for later he said:
  "we may seek to reduce our forces stationed in Germany … If our stationed forces are smaller, then they will need mobility and flexibility and a balanced capability".—[Official Report, 18 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 693–4.]
  That must mean, if they are to be smaller, their having more resources. The right hon. Gentleman was saying, in effect, that, despite all the change that is occurring, there will be no change from his point of view—that there will be no savings, no disarmament and no vision from him towards the changed world. That is why I say that in his speech yesterday he got away with murder. We are entitled to expect more from the nation's Secretary of State for Defence.
  We should concentrate on two issues—the peace dividend and the security system for which we should be aiming. Hon. Members in all parts of the House talk about the peace dividend and many say that a large dividend cannot be achieved. That is absolute nonsense. The United States made it clear in its budget of March-April this year that there would be a ․17 billion peace dividend for America in the coming five years—and that is just the first instalment, prior to various agreements being reached with the Soviet Union. It is clear that the United States intends to achieve a much bigger peace dividend in due course, and we could achieve great savings in Britain, too.
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement was reported—it was stated to have been a leak—as saying that we could achieve a saving of £17 billion in the next 10 years. One gets the impression that he was indulging in a kite-flying exercise, as he has not confirmed that statement in public. Either he will not stand by what he said or the Secretary of State has put him down. If the Minister said that there could be a saving of £17 billion in 10 years, he should be severely criticised because there was no reference

  869
  to that money being used to secure jobs for displaced workers in the defence industry and there is still heavy emphasis on nuclear weapons.
  In any event, the saving is far too small. Our defence budget has been running at about £21 billion per year. In last year's Autumn Statement, the amount was increased by £1 billion per year over the next three years, raising it to £24 billion a year overall. If we reduced the figure to the European average of 3 per cent. of GNP, we should have a defence budget of about £15 billion per year. In other words, we could release £60 billion in the next 10 years to build up our neglected public services, including the national health service. What a boost that would be for Britain's economy. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement said in the "Today" radio programme:
  "countries that spend a lower proportion of GDP on defence tend to have a healthier economy and industry."
  We, too, could be in that position.
  From where do such savings come? They could be made straight away if the defence blunders were stopped. The Select Committee said that unreliable equipment costs the country £1 billion per year. The Conservative party should change the anthem at the end of its conferences and sing, "Land of Hopeless Tories," which would be more apt. We could reduce the numbers and commitments of our forces overseas. We could bring back the 67,000 troops of the British Army of the Rhine. Under the conventional forces in Europe agreement there must be cuts in troops and equipment of 10 to 15 per cent. That is under the first CFE agreement. The second CFE agreement is likely to call for 50 per cent. cuts, and we should anticipate that. In our out-of-area territories such as the Falklands and other countries across the world where we are over-committed, we should explore alternative arrangements such as United Nations guarantees and turning such territories into trust territories rather than retaining a military burden.
  We can make savings on MOD land. Earlier, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said that the MOD not only had a vast amount of land, but wanted more. It should have less, and turn land over to housing and environmental purposes. We could then save on maintenance.
  We should stop increasing our nuclear capabilities. I saw an article stating that cruise missiles were set to return to this country in the form of sea-launched cruise missiles and the tactical air-to-surface missile, of which about 400 are set to return to the United Kingdom. Even United States generals say that that would breach the spirit of the intermediate nuclear forces agreement because such missiles could be carried on aircraft, lobbed into the range of the INF agreement and even strike deep into the Soviet Union. We should not push ahead with that programme. Trident could be cancelled—we could save £1 billion straight away by cancelling the fourth Trident. The Trident programme is preventing much deeper nuclear cuts being agreed between the United States and the Soviet Union.
  The peace dividend could be used for other purposes, and could mean more, not fewer jobs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said yesterday. Cambridge economists have shown that if we
  870
  invest in the right sectors we could create 500,000 more jobs. That would clearly have to be tied up with the arms diversification agency.
  We could also have a defensive defence policy because we have defence aplenty. The "Directory of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms and Disarmament 1990," by Paul Rogers and Malcolm Dando of Bradford university, states that even after the strategic arms agreement there will still be around 17,000 modern strategic weapons. It also states that new conventional weapons are being developed and deployed which are as lethal as small nuclear devices, but not subject to any arms negotiations. They include weapons which scatter large numbers of "bomblets" over a wide area and artillery multiple rocket launchers which can destroy a small town in one minute. There is plenty of defence to be had from conventional weapons. We can have disarmament and a big peace dividend.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is being extremely helpful by giving a shopping list of those things that he believes that the Labour party should cut from the defence budget. Does he believe that his Front-Bench spokesmen would make those cuts or is it simply the majority of the Labour party who look for such cuts?
  Mr. Cohen: The Front-Bench spokesmen must speak for themselves, but our latest document talks of achieving cuts in our defence budget by international agreement. However, the Front-Bench spokesmen will have to answer more clearly if the matter is raised with them.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), in his typical way, has talked about trying to get a security system from Vancouver to Vladivostock and from Brest to Brest. Such a security system would have to be international. We cannot defend ourselves properly in isolation and should have a more realistic view of our position in the world. At the last election, during the Conservative party campaign, which was led by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), the party made various allusions to keeping Britain great, the role of empire and our imperialist past. It was not a realistic view of our place in the world.
  It would be ideal if we could totally defend ourselves in isolation, but that cannot be done without incurring crippling costs to our economy, and running the terrible risk of nuclear accident—the use of nuclear weapons in a crisis or against third world nations for political and economic advantage. There could be an accident in our nuclear power stations. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces has agreed to extend Calder Hall and Chapelcross, the oldest nuclear power stations in this country, for a further 10 years. The Government are flirting with a Chernobyl-style disaster, and we cannot afford to do that. Our defences must be at the level of comparative nations—not higher, as they are at present.
  We must press for the opposite of the arms race, and obtain that through an international institution with a ratchet for arms reductions. NATO cannot do that. The Prime Minister's theory is that NATO can be the world's policeman, but what plans are there to extend NATO membership to every country in the world and turn it into a sort of United Nations? There are none, so it will be seen as working for, and in the interests of, the economically developed western capitalised world. Eastern Europe, China, the middle east and the third world will ask in

  871
  whose interest NATO is working. The answer is that it will be a force for world domination and continuing economic discrimination. It will be seen as such, and as such it will be resisted, which will lead to further wars and atrocities around the world. NATO cannot transform itself. While soothing words were uttered at its two recent meetings in Canada and Scotland, NATO was planning a big increase in the tactical air-to-surface missiles coming to this country.
  The EC cannot fulfil that security role. Sir Leon Brittan wants to give it a military role, but that would be narrow. Even the Minister, in his opening comments, called it the Eurocentric tendency, but it cannot provide security around the world. The best institution to build on is the conference on security and co-operation in Europe. We should build that into a new Euro-wide institution involving every European country. The United States should also play a political role in it, not a military one. It would not be justified for the United States to have a military presence in Europe with its own bases, but it could and should play a political role in such an institution. I should like that organisation to be a sort of United Nations of Europe with teeth. It would be prohibited from interfering internally in any country, but it would have a duty to warn of, and act against, any invasion. A country's troops would have to remain within its own boundaries. Such an organisation should be a permanent forum for keeping down arms spending and force levels.
  There should also be a political forum for the discussion and settlement of disputes. War must no longer be seen as an option. It should be made impossible. If we had vision, we should look forward to a post-nuclear Europe and aim at eliminating the arms race. We must get levels down and never allow them to increase again. Nuclear technology cannot be uninvented, but nuclear weapons can be forsworn. If there were another arms race, there would be the risk that nuclear weapons would return. Preventing that would be a powerful incentive for the sort of security institution that I have described.
  The 'Tories have shown a lack of vision which could well lead to disaster. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) spoke of the dangers of the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons to every country that might want them. This has been a story of missed opportunities to achieve the peace dividend and a safer world. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement wrote a book about the first world war entitled, "The Donkeys". He must know that he is serving in a Cabinet which could aptly be described in the same way.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Alistair Burt: It is always an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who is an inoffensive little man; he is always perfectly charming and he has no enemies among Conservative Members, although I suspect that he has plenty of them, judging by his contribution tonight, among Labour Front-Bench spokesmen.
  I made my maiden speech on defence about seven years ago little realising the difference in circumstances that would arise between then and now. I made that speech because I believed that defence had played a large part in the victory that I secured in the general election. It has been suggested that such victories might become a thing of
  872
  the past and that no longer will Conservative Members be elected on the defence card. The changing nature of the world, it is said, will mean that the defence policies of Labour and the Conservatives will drift together and the general public will perceive no difference between them.
  I suspect that this is largely wrong, for two reasons. First, the British public will still give credit where it is due and will realise that it was the determination of the Prime Minister and the Government, together with the United States, that helped considerably in the change in opinions and attitudes which has led us to today's progress to peace. Secondly, the British public will put their confidence in those who have been generally right about the defence issues facing this country, not in those who have been wrong on each occasion—which is why they have not won the elections.
  A debate such as today's could not illustrate more clearly the differences of policy between our two parties. It is important to put these matters on record lest a veil be drawn over them by Labour Members who would like to bury the past. Nothing shows that more clearly than the speech made by the hon. Member for Leyton, which reflected other radical speeches by Labour Members which have suggested that a deep current still runs in the grass roots Labour party in favour of cutting our defence forces dramatically, ending our nuclear deterrent and removing United States forces from Europe.
  Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen remain more coy about their opinions. A torrent of ideas comes from behind them to which they say nothing. They also answer nothing to further questions about their intentions from Conservative Members. All that they evince is optimism which they take too far and which takes us too quickly down a road that we would tread more cautiously.
  Why do the Opposition voice such optimism? It is because, with no prospect of their campaign promises on spending being satisfied by sensible financial policies, they must seize on the changed circumstances between east and west to provide cash that they cannot find elsewhere. It is entirely right that we should all welcome the opportunities that the new defence situation will give us. but let us avoid expectations that might lead to the unwise seizure of crucial defence resources.
  In relation to the fundamental review of defence which is rightly taking place at the moment, I believe that the correct approach of the Government should be to seek whatever reductions in expenditure they can whilst erring, if necessary, on the side of caution in order to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.
  War is a disease. There is no real cure for it, and it has been epidemic in Europe since the dawn of history. I do not believe that our forefathers' earnest desire for peace was any less sincere than ours. And yet wars occurred. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) said yesterday that there was no longer a role for military force in Europe. I hope that he is right, but neither I nor my constituents can rely on that. Two devastating European and world wars were lived through, fought in, and remembered by people who are still alive today. Compared with European and world history, the events of recent months in Europe are but the blinking of an eye. It would be folly to take them as the sign that we have been looking for without any further pause for thought.
  Can we be really certain of what is to come in these new democracies? We know that a change from a command economy to a market economy will inevitably lead to

  873
  dislocation, inflation and unemployment. How will such stresses and strains be coped with in cultures which for over a generation have known nothing of these things, having been artificially kept from them?
  We have a sophisticated political system for dealing with such matters but no such system yet exists in eastern Europe. Can we be certain that at a time of despair in a foreign country a strong leader will not emerge with a panacea to his country's ills? It might be belief that territorial acquisition of a land once seized from it in a forgotten European charter was the answer to its economic and social ills. We have seen that before. Can we be certain that we will not see it again? Can we be certain of the effect on other countries?
  Accordingly, I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that the lessons of the 1930s must not be forgotten. It is easy for a democracy to disarm, but very difficult for a democracy to re-arm. As I said earlier, I believe war to be a disease, virulent and contagious and contained so far in our century only by the inoculation of nuclear deterrence, which provided the sureness and certainty necessary to keep the peace.
  Wars are caused not by weapons but by people, and by people's misunderstanding of how others might react in any given situation. I believe this to be the fundamental difference between the two parties, and I hope that the defence review will be conducted by the Government with such strategic aims in mind. I commend to the House and the wider public the excellent essay on the subject of defence and security in a changing world to be found in the Statement on the Defence Estimates.
  My belief in caution as the watchword takes me briefly down a second road—that of the American military presence in Europe, which the hon. Member for Leyton and some of his hon. Friends would remove. If the world is to be a safer place, it is essential that the bridge which has been made between Europe and the Americas by way of the United States military presence in Europe be maintained. We must refute the notion that European security can be left to continental Europe alone, and that the lessons of this century can be forgotten. That is a seductive argument with some logic but no history behind it. In much the same way as it is difficult for a democracy to re-arm, it would be extremely difficult—nay, impossible—for an American President to reintroduce American forces to Europe if they were once removed. They are a stabilising link that the world has grown used to and they should be retained.
  Another reason for caution in relation to the defence review is the pain that is bound to result from inevitable defence reductions. Pain is not a reason for not doing something; it is merely a reason to proceed cautiously. We have seen an example of that in the Tornado decision which was announced yesterday and which was discussed so effectively and movingly by my hon. Friends the Members for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and for Wyre (Mr. Mans). Another aspect of pain will result from the return of soldiers based in Europe to the United Kingdom, which is bound to increase pressure on training land—the consequences of that must be thought through. I refer colleagues to page 50 of the White Paper and to paragraph 414 which deals with defence lands.
  874
  There is in my constituency the Holcombe moor training camp. Some years ago the Army proposed to seek extra land in that area. The move was opposed and the public inquiry process commenced nearly two years ago. Today we are still awaiting the result of the inquiry even though the last hearing was more than 18 months ago.
  Such a delay is intolerable. The arguments at the inquiry were difficult enough, and my constituents know that, providing certain conditions were met, I supported the Army's application for extra land, as I understood the need for high quality training in areas close to conurbations in which many Regular and Territorial Army personnel are based. I also accept the assurances on environmental safeguards given by the Ministry of Defence, which I know looks after the area well. However, whatever the divided views on the issue may have been, to wait so long for a decision is desperately unfair on all those who have been involved. I appreciate that that is the responsibility not of present Ministers but of others. However, I hope that some notice is taken of the lengthy and involved process necessary to deal with the acquisition and use of training land, and that some policy has been devised for dealing with such problems in the future.
  It is an irony that, although it seems that the requirement for training land should diminish as the threat from the Warsaw pact reduces, it may well be that pressure on training land will increase as we will be keeping more troops at home than in Germany.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman says that he is waiting for a policy from the Government on the acquisition of land for training. Does he not realise that there is a policy and that it has been reiterated in the past two days? It is that if any land of sufficient size becomes available the MOD will make a bid for it. Holcombe moor is not the only place where there are long delays on such matters and where blight is created. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that issue.
  Mr. Burt: I am well aware of the MOD's current policy. I was speaking about the procedures for dealing with the acquisition of the land which are poor and I am concerned about that part of the policy. If more troops come home and need more land, the policy for dealing with such land and for explaining to people what is going on will need to be improved. That was why I asked for a new policy on that matter. Unless there is full disclosure, full understanding will not be given by local people who need to be fully involved in decisions of the forces.
  Finally, I should like to deal with two wider aspects which result from our defence review and which should be welcome. First, it seems certain that the response to the changing world situation will require British defence forces to be smaller but more flexible and mobile to meet the security needs of our people. This must be done with growing integration among our NATO and European allies, particularly through closer multinational cooperation in the organisation of NATO forces and in increasing NATO's contribution to the political aspects of security development.
  Secondly, I hope that reductions in the expenditures of both east and west will not be made up by greater exports to third world countries. The opportunity for ending the global arms race should not be missed. There are few statistics more sickening than those of third world countries that can scarcely meet the need to feed all their

  875
  people, yet spend a disproportionate amount of their gross national product on armaments, some of which are supplied by western nations. There should be much greater co-operation now between the significant military powers to run down these exports and encourage a greater sense of responsibility among developing nations. The poor and the hungry of the world would benefit more from such a change than from almost any other method of aid which can be devised.
  There are many opportunities available at this extraordinary time in human history. They must be grasped, but we must go into these changes with our eyes wide open and conscious of the mistakes of the past, being determined not to repeat them. If we should be bold in our determination to seize the opportunity, it is equally right to be cautious in how we exercise the decisions, in consultation with those who were once our enemies, to make the most of the chances that are before us.
  8.42 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Apart from my unavoidable absence from the Chamber between 8.30 and 10 pm yesterday, I have listened to almost every speech. It is a matter of slight personal regret that I am the tail end Charlie. I should like partially to follow the path beaten by the hon. Member for Bury, North ( Mr. Burt) and I shall confine my speech to what is called in the White Paper the defence estate.
  Before I do so, perhaps the Minister will allow me some immodesty. He will acknowledge that I have some concern about the welfare provisions related to the well-being of members of our armed forces. In that context, will he confirm in his winding-up speech that within the next six months the House will have a Second Reading of an armed services Bill? I think that I am right in saying that such a Bill is a quinquennial event. One was passed in, I think, 1981 and one was certainly passed in 1986 because I was a member of the special Committee that was set up to examine it. Such a Committee enables hon. Members to cross-examine senior civil servants and senior members of the armed forces. The last time that we had a similar Bill I was able to persuade the then Minister of State to change some of the procedures about the care and protection of the sons and daughters of armed forces personnel who were tragically embroiled in either sexual or child abuse cases.
  These are important matters and I hope that the Minister will respond helpfully. There are, of course, related matters because in addition to dealing with personnel in the armed forces the Bill deals with their families. Paragraph 414 on page 50 of Volume 1 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates states:
  "We are determined to rationalise and reduce our land holdings wherever possible".
  I drink to that sentiment. It goes on:
  "But it is also necessary to purchase property to meet specific needs; for example land to meet increased training needs of the Regular and Territorial Army and to accommodate the larger safety areas required by modern weapons."
  On the same page the statement says that since 1979 over 12,000 hectares of land and some 7,000 married quarters have been sold by the Ministry of Defence producing receipts of, I think, £640 million.
  I have already asked about the programme for the disposal of married quarters. In the light of the probable redeployment of armed forces personnel from the Federal
  876
  Republic of Germany to the United Kingdom, will that policy of selling married quarters be held up? We do not want members of regiments returning to the British Isles being placed in poor accommodation. That would be most unfair to soldiers and others returning from Germany.
  Is it likely that a dramatic reduction in conventional forces would lead to a significant diminution in training requirements and training land? The subject of the military use of land is important and, as the hon. Member for Bury, North suggested, in some instances it is controversial. As everyone knows, the MOD is a major landowner in the United Kingdom, perhaps one of the top six. I think that I am right in saying that it owns about 350,000 hectares of land. In Scotland, the combined acreage of land used for military training is 190,000 acres or thereabouts. Those training sites in Scotland are in the Central, Grampian, Highland, Lothian and Tayside regions and in the Western Isles. On some of those sites live firing practice takes place. It is a matter of concern for many other users and would-be users of those open spaces that so much land is taken up by military training. There is a profound conflict of interest between the understandable needs of military training in open spaces and the interests of other users of those open spaces.
  Dr. Susan Owens, a fellow of Newnham college, Cambridge, in a recent paper entitled, "Military live firing in national parks", commissioned by the United Kingdom Centre for Economic and Environmental Development, says:
  "Few have claimed that military needs must outweigh all other considerations, and those who have sought to free the national parks from military training have not usually questioned the need in principle for well-prepared armed forces. They have, however, questioned the MOD's right to be the sole arbiter of its training and land requirements. This issue of need—and how it is determined—is crucial".
  I agree wholeheartedly.
  On page 71 of that fine paper Dr. Owens says:
  "There is a clear need for greater public accountability on the issue of military training and land requirements. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, profound changes in geopolitics and in the political significance of environmental issues make the 1990s an appropriate time for a reappraisal of the balance between military and environmental needs."
  We must strike a balance between the essential military training needs of the nation and the interests of many millions of people who find great enjoyment in walking through our countryside, whether the English and Welsh national parks or the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
  Yesterday, the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, said:
  "We are desperately short of training grounds and always have been."—[Official Report, 18 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 713.]
  I am not so sure that in the 1990s we will have such a desperate shortage of training grounds. I naturally defer to the hon. Gentleman's greater military expertise in practical and theoretical terms. I understand that he was a colonel in an infantry regiment——
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Cavalry.
  Dr. Godman: Then I must defer to the hon. Gentleman. I was just a lonely lance corporal in the Royal Military Police.—[Interruption.] There is no need for such a comment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I did not hear it.
  Dr. Godman: I am glad that you did not, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is shocking to talk like that in the presence of a lady, especially one such as you.
  Nevertheless, we should not ignore the interests of others who enjoy wandering through those open spaces. We need to strike a fair and reasonable balance between the conflicting interests. Walking in the countryside is an extremely popular pastime. I have a good deal of sympathy for the views of the Ramblers Association, expressed in another fine document sent to Members of Parliament for the purposes of today's debate. Paragraph 20 says:
  "It appears that the MoD will not respond willingly either to world events, public opinion or reasoned argument when it comes to its land acquisitions policy. The question is whether the decision to continue with the current policy of taking more land, a question which inevitably will have to be considered as part of the secret defence review, will be made in secret or opened up to public debate. The Ramblers Association believes that the public should be involved in deciding how much land the army should have and where it should be located. There should be a proper and full examination in public, pending the outcome of which the MoD's current policy of land acquisitions should be suspended."
  I take on board the observations made by the Minister this afternoon on the Ministry's protection of some 200 sites of special scientific interest. In fairness, let me go further and quote from page 52 of the White Paper:
  "A full-time conservation officer is employed for the defence estate; he co-ordinates the activities of over 200 local conservation groups. Close relations are maintained with the National Park Authorities, and with the Nature Conservancy Council. A joint Declaration of Intent has been signed with the NCC to promote conservation on the defence estate wherever it is compatible with military requirements."
  There is always that qualification. The White Paper goes on:
  "Care is also taken to protect archaeological sites, in consultation with English Heritage and its Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland equivalents."
  That is how it should be. Balancing the interests of the two parties is difficult.
  I am not here to make a party-political speech on the defence estate, but much more needs to be done. I say that in view of the astonishing changes taking place in central and eastern Europe and the remarkable changes in east-west relations. The Ministry of Defence must reassess its policy on the acquisition of land for military training. In addition, it should engage in a comprehensive public debate on its land requirements.
  I believe that I am right in saying that defence-led requirements are excluded from the EC directive on environmental impact assessments. I know that such an assessment was carried out before the expansion of the Clyde submarine base. I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) and for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) will agree that that expansion scarred the beautiful landscape across the firth of Clyde from the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton and myself.
  Those assessments lay down the same stringent criteria as are rightly imposed upon gas and oil companies in, say, Dorset and north-east Scotland. I warrant that the same criteria were not applied to the Clyde submarine base. If comprehensive EIAs were imposed on Ministry of Defence developments—as they have been on British Petroleum and British Gas—it would be a significant improvement on the present state of affairs. Environmental considerations should be an integral element in defence policies.
  878
  I stress the need for the Defence Select Committee to investigate present and future land requirements for military training. These are important matters which should not be brushed aside by Ministers and their officials. Millions of people seek to exercise such rights as they have on something as innocuous as a country walk; they should not be denied those rights because of the Ministry of Defence's outdated requirements for military training.
  8.59 pm
  Sir Alan Glyn: I am grateful for the remarks of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). It is clear that the Ministry of Defence must strike a fine balance between its needs and environmental needs. I understand that a review is taking place whereby unnecessary sites can be disposed of, and those that are absolutely essential can be either expanded or, if not required, disposed of. As the hon. Gentleman said, we must remember that the Army—and all the armed forces—must have somewhere to fire. I was also pleased when the hon. Gentleman talked of the possibility of accommodation for our forces returning from the British Army of the Rhine: so far, the debate has not dealt with that point.
  The Defence White Paper provides an extremely good analysis of what we now have at our disposal. In his excellent introduction, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained what was necessary. Two things emerged from that explanation—the importance of retaining NATO, and United States troops in Europe—and the idea was built up in the White Paper. He also stressed that, over and above all that, we must preserve our own defences.
  When we consider the reductions in our forces that could be achieved by a reduction in the threat from the Soviet bloc and the Warsaw pact, we must remember that we cannot do it overnight. We should be careful not to rush into things to please the Treasury; a comprehensive review is required. As the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said earlier, consultation with the service chiefs is essential: everyone should be involved. No concrete changes can be made until we know the exact threat that faces us.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who pointed out that the peace of the past 40 years had been retained through the nuclear deterrent. We now face the increased difficulties arising from the reunification of Germany, and the split in the provinces of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Who would have thought that a vast part of Russia, extending all the way up to China, would become a separate province?
  After unification, we must not envisage tanks racing across Germany. After the reunification of Germany, we do not know whether a united Germany will remain in NATO, or will have a looser connection, similar to that of France. I expect the first consequence to be the replacement of tanks by helicopters: cavalry regiments would find themselves equipped with helicopters. Nor do we know the plans of President Gorbachev and the Soviet military command.
  The talk of a change from tanks to helicopters reminds me of the beginning of the last war, when I was trained to be a horse cavalry officer. While bombs were falling, the

  879
  Army had 14 yeomanry regiments, four regular regiments and a scouts' regiment which were still trained on horses. The ghastly massacre of the Polish cavalry alerted us to the necessity of changing from horses to tanks. The cavalry will have to adapt to its new role. I am not suggesting that tanks will be abolished, but to a large extent they will be replaced by helicopters.
  Our worldwide commitments, which are well outlined on page 21 of the Command Paper, will remain in many places such as Belize. In my view, certain commitments can be safeguarded only by troops on the ground. It is no good having troops 1,000 miles away and then bringing them in when the damage has been done. The presence of our troops in Belize is well appreciated. They were regarded by hostile neighbours with considerable alarm. Although the dangers may appear to have reduced, there is no guarantee of absolute peace.
  If we reduce our armed forces considerably, we shall have to be more reliant on the citizens' army. The Territorial Army and the Regular Reserve will spring to the defence of our country. They must be re-equipped and given equality with the Regular Army. I call them the citizens' army because they will consist of more or less ordinary people able to be called up at very short notice.
  There should be no hasty decisions, but clear and definite reductions suitable to our new situation, and we should not rely on quick cuts. We should make sure that our nuclear deterrent is retained.
  NATO has the potential to become a great force for world peace. If NATO is expanded to include the WEU and other countries with similar thoughts and ideas, it will become a multinational force with standardised equipment and mixed armies which could be used all over the world. We should retain the ultimate deterrent to be used only in cases of absolute necessity, but under the umbrella of NATO we should be able to produce a force capable of preserving world peace.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Thomas Graham: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak this evening. I never knew that the Tory party was in such a desperate economic plight that, when it has fetes in Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, it does not even say on the banner who is holding the fete. That has a lot to do with defence because I discovered a poster which was put up all over my constituency saying,
  "A Day at the White House".
  It described all the fun of the fair. Lo and behold, it mentioned a helicopter. I had a telephone call from a civil servant, who said, "Mr. Graham, I was so embarrassed. I went to a fete without realising that it was a Conservative fete. I do not attend any party political events because of my position." I understand that a military helicopter was flying in and out all day. For the love of me, I did not know that military personnel had been brought in to bale out the Tories in their desperate economic plight in Scotland.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us how much it cost for the helicopter to fly about Scotland—how much the wages, fuel and maintenance were. How much did the Tories raise from that fair? Will they contribute the money to the Select Committee on Defence so that it can spend it on the defence of the nation?
  The Minister must have been desperate for money for defence if he had to send out the troops to back up the welly-boot show. I imagine that the welly-boot throwing
  880
  was the most successful event at the fair. Perhaps the Government are trying to recruit some of the expert welly-boot merchants in my constituency into the Army. How much did it cost to send the helicopter? How much money did that exercise waste for the nation?
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Derek Conway: It is difficult to follow the points of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). However, he made them robustly, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will take great notice of them. I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker. Having spoken in the Army debate last week, I did not think that I would be fortunate enough to speak in the defence debate. However, I am glad to make a brief contribution.
  The opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday covered the defence estimates in considerable detail and gave us some insights into the way in which he is looking forward to the changes which will inevitably face his Department and which the House will have to address in the coming months. I do not feel quite ready yet to talk about the global issues. If I catch your eye in 10 years' time, Mr. Speaker, I may feel more inclined to look at the global situation. Quite frankly, no right hon. or hon. Member can know what will happen in two years' time. When NATO exercises were being planned and when the British Army of the Rhine was considering its participation, who could have thought that we should be considering the withdrawal of so many troops from Germany as the position changed? Events are moving rapidly.
  It is rather nice to think that not everything moves quite as rapidly and that not everything changes quite so quickly. Like many hon. Members, I prefer to spend time with my family or in the garden on Sunday afternoons. However, this Sunday, I had the opportunity to attend the dedication of a new branch banner for the Shrewsbury Royal Artillery Association at Bicton church. That afternoon, all the British Legion branches in the constituency were represented. The general officer commanding the western district took the march past and the Harlescott youth brass band played to lead those who had served in the Royal Artillery and who were active members of the association.
  Some people probably sneer at that sort of thing. However, I thought that it was an excellent display of everything that the contribution made by service men in our country stands for. They have been, and continue to be, exceptionally loyal in their service in the Royal Artillery. A great degree of comradeship was much in evidence and it was a privilge to attend the dedication. We should be sorry to miss the comradeship and loyalty as the changes in our armed forces take place.
  I draw the attention of the House to page 22 of Volume 1 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates. It mentions the contribution our armed forces make and, sadly, will probably have to continue to make in Northern Ireland. The report tells us that, last year, 223 people were charged with terrorist offences, 31 of those for murder and 48 for attempted murder. I hope that those in the media who pay attention to these debates will consider seriously not only the conspiracy theories that they love to expound on the role of the security forces in Ulster, but the families of the 31 who were murdered and the heartache of the families of

  881
  the 48 on whom murder was attempted. To the credit of the security forces, 327 weapons and a further 37,500 rounds of ammunition were found. In one of the most difficult jobs of all in the services, 196 bombs were made safe. That shows great courage which many of us in the House would find difficult to emulate. Perhaps that is why 184 awards for gallantry were made, 29 for the Ulster Defence Regiment, which is unfairly criticised all too frequently.
  The Regular Reserves are commented on at page 28 of the report. I am grateful to the Minister and his colleagues in the Ministry for changing the card notice system. It was in open format before but now, due to the need for greater security, it will be in closed format. This will put at ease the minds of those who serve in a reserve capacity.
  The report tells us that half the regular infantry, with a strength of over 85,000, is made up from volunteer reserves. That would not be possible without the support of the wives, families and girl friends of those who are involved.
  I was grateful for the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces about the level of employer support for our reserves. He informed the House that, as a result of the volunteer reserve forces campaign launched two years ago, more than 1,100 pledges have been received by the Department from major employers, who represent over half of the United Kingdom work force, to support those of their employees who wish to become involved in the volunteer reserves. With a strength of 85,000, there is no shortage of young men and women who are prepared to serve in our armed forces. Employers are also prepared to give their support.
  I hope that we will see the continued production of a British tank which will continue to be driven by an excellent engine which is manufactured in my constituency.
  With 26 per cent. of the armed forces procurement budget dedicated to research and development, our arms procurement industry has a great part to play in the foreign policy of our nation and in ensuring that our armed forces are of a high standard and that they have kit with which to work which is the best that can be found. This will give Britain not only strong defences but will continue our world reputation which has been hard earned and which I have every confidence that our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence will not allow to be idly spent.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker, particularly as at 4.30 yesterday afternoon I asked the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who I am delighted to see in his place, the following question:
  "What cuts in which defence programmes would a Labour Government make?"
  He told me, and it was many hours ago:
  "If the hon. Gentleman waits, he will have an answer to his question. If he does not like what I am saying, he should try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker."
  I have tried to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, not so much because I did not like what the hon. Gentleman said, but because he said nothing. That point needs to be made in the closing minutes of this debate.
  882
  I was not the only one who asked the question. At column 698, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) asked the hon. Gentleman to explain Labour's defence policy. The hon. Member for Clackmannan said:
  "At present we are debating the defence estimates"
  and he refused to say more on that point. Later in the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) asked the same question. The answer was:
  "The response to that question would have to depend on the circumstances"
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) asked the same question, the hon. Member for Clackmannan said:
  "The hon. Gentleman puts figures on cuts that have yet to take place."—[Official Report, 18 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 698–701.]
  I am very grateful to have been called as I now have the opportunity yet again to extend the invitation to the hon. Member for Clackmannan to answer the questions that were put to him and to which no answer appears in Hansard.
  We are not convinced that the next Labour Government, if there ever were one, would do much good, but at least we now have some hints that they will not actually do bad. That was made clear by the hon. Member for Clackmannan, when he said in London on 11 June:
  "It is naive to expect instant benefits from savings on defence expenditure."
  If nothing else has emerged from the debate it is that, in the words of the hon. Member for Clackmannan,
  " It is naive to expect instant benefits from savings on defence expenditure."
  That point is brought home clearly on page 8 of the estimates. One has only to look at the CFE limits—257,000 NATO troops and 596,000 Soviet troops are based in Europe, as against a CFE limit for both of 195,000. The defence estimates make it clear that
  "The Soviet Union would still retain an offensive capability, but would no longer have (and could not, without breaching the Treaty recreate) the option which it currently enjoys of mounting large-scale offensive action against Western Europe".
  I have greatly to curtail my remarks. I commend page 48 of the estimates, which deals with trading funds, agencies and defence, although I am slightly disappointed that we are still moving fairly slowly on that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) pointed out, there is a lot more that we could do in maintenance, flight training, transport and the rest. Perhaps we could also do more about the disposal of surplus land, which is mentioned on page 50.
  It is essential that we should keep a level head. We are talking about defence procurement programmes which could take five years of research and last for 20 years. There is no real pressure in Germany for the large-scale withdrawal of our troops. Within that 10 or 20-year cycle, we can gradually reduce our defence commitments without that reduction having a major impact on employment and on budgetary contraints. I urge the House to accept that, although we should take cognisance of what is going on in eastern Europe, we should take a balanced view.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: With the leave of the House, I should like to speak for a second time because my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr.

  883
  Hughes) has not yet recovered fully from the illness from which he has been suffering for some time. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing him all the best.
  We have had a useful debate in which there have been a number of points of unanimity, one of which I should like to stress at the outset. I realise that it may be construed from my remarks yesterday that I did not pay sufficient attention to the recognition of the debt that we owe to our armed forces. That recognition was perhaps implicit in my remarks, but it was not explicit and those in our armed forces who read our debates are entitled to enjoy the praise of hon. Members on both sides of the House. They make considerable sacrifices, not just in battle or because of the dangers that they face, but because they forgo a number of their civil liberties so that we may enjoy ours. I join my colleagues in paying tribute to the armed services.
  Over the years, the nature of our defence debates has changed. Twenty, 30 or 40 years ago, those with a service background dominated the debates. The reduction in the size of the armed forces, the ending of national service and other factors have meant that there are now just a few hon. Members who have had some service experience. I think in particular of the hon. Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and of senior Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). The balance has moved towards constituency interests and today we have heard hon. Members talk with passion and care about the problems that the announcement made yesterday in respect of Tornado will create in their constituencies. We have also heard members of the Select Committee of the NATO Assembly and of the Western European Union, as well as enthusiasts—punters such as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who has yet to return to the Chamber but who is a regular fixture and whose ingenuity and wit we all enjoy.
  It has been a good-natured debate, although the Minister of State for the Armed Forces displayed some uncharacteristic bitterness. He seems only to do that at the Dispatch Box; perhaps the trials of office are getting him down. As one colleague said, he tried to be abusive to me. As someone who has spoken on defence for the Labour party for the best part of six years, I do not need to come to the House to be abused—I can be abused at any Labour party meeting that I choose to attend.
  The differences in the Labour party on which people have played have always existed. We have had anti-militarists who objected to defence expenditure for economic and social reasons, pacificists who objected to defence for moral reasons, neutralists who had a certain political view to which they wished to give a military expression, and struggles over the years between Atlanticists and Europeans. None of that is new and none of it will end. It is part of the nature of a lively radical party that it will have debates about issues that it considers to be important.
  Some of my colleagues were disappointed at the adoption last year of the programme of disarmament by negotiation instead of by independent action. The nature of the exchanges and the many constructive suggestions that we have had give some emphasis to the old definition of unity in the Labour party—it breaks out when the members start stabbing each other in the chest. In the past
  884
  two days we have had a fair amount of good-hearted exchanges. However, a clear sign of the Government's intentions is still to be displayed.
  The Government have been extremely cautious. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline West, (Mr. Douglas) said, the Minister of State today gave the first real rationale for the Government's strategic approach. Perhaps if we had heard that yesterday it might have assisted in the debate. The Minister of State went to some lengths to explain some of the strategic considerations behind the thinking that we hope will lie at the heart of the "Options for Change" review. I say, "we hope will lie", because it seems that the publication of that document is some time away.
  Perhaps the Minister of State could assist hon. Members by telling us when the document will be published, in what form it will be published, whether it will be a Green Paper or a White Paper, and giving some indication of when we can hope to debate it. Some aspects of it may require in-depth consideration by Committees of the House. It is important that we get some sign of when the process will be completed and when the dribbling of rumours and complaints from service chiefs and so on will finally stop.
  Over the past two days there has been unanimous agreement that the new circumstances in Europe create tremendous opportunities. Hon. Members heard thoughtful speeches by the right hon. Member for Pavilion and by my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe, both of whom had a slightly different emphasis, but they had an optimism that men of their generation probably felt that we were no longer entitled to nurture.
  We support the reunification of Germany. We recognise, as do all political parties in Germany and most political parties in western Europe, that there is a case for continued membership of NATO by the Federal Republic and by the Landers when they are assimilated into the new Germany. Special provisions will have to be made.
  One of the exciting prospects of the new Germany will be the establishment of a new form of military force in the former East German Länders. That military force will be a people's army and a conscript army, but it will be one whose main preoccupations will be boundary defences and will be of a local militia nature. That will not necessarily be a blueprint for the rest of Europe, but it is a form of military organisation to which we can look with interest and, I hope, from which we can learn. The prospects of a united Germany must be considered in the context of the present acceptability of NATO to all its members. Unlike the Warsaw pact, NATO has existed on the basis of the willing participation of its member states and on consensus being achieved.
  Sometimes it has been a consensus with which Opposition Members have not agreed in every respect—and I am sure that the same will be true in the future. However, the same can be said of Conservative Members. We know that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and his predecessor have gone into meetings with one view, but have come out with a very different view because they were tied to the consensus. We know that that was the case over short-range nuclear forces and the follow-on to Lance. We know that it was only after the discussion process that the Government reached a different view—after the heads had been counted or account had been taken of the nodding process.
  I turn now to the Warsaw treaty organisation—if one can dignify it with that name because to all intents and

  885
  purposes it was not a treaty but simply an extension of Soviet hegemony, sustained by force, against the legitimate desire of the east European peoples to rid themselves of the presence of those alien forces.
  NATO can continue for some time, but with different purposes and to different ends. One of the major tasks in the foreseeable future for this side of Europe at least—but it may also be to the satisfaction of eastern Europe—will be the inspection and verification processes that are implicit in negotiated disarmament. As I said yesterday, the consequence of accepting that there should be withdrawal and disarmament is inspection and verification, which in turn must be monitored and organised. That organisation will require new types of equipment. That is why I say that there is a tremendous desire for a reduction in defence expenditure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who walked into the Chamber just a moment ago, referred yesterday to the Cambridge Econometrics study, which makes explicit reference to the necessity for expensive equipment for inspection and verification. Much up-front expenditure will have to be met before we can get our hands on the pot of gold. It is not at the end of the rainbow; it will not be available in 1991. Indeed, in its early stages, it might not be available until 1993, but it will then be available in considerable amounts. If people want disarmament, they need inspection and verification or that disarmament is not worth the paper that it is not even written on. It is important that hon. Members of all parties appreciate that fact.
  Because of the nature of the United States and the Soviet Union, the strategic arms reduction talks will take some time, but by the time of the next general election I believe that there will be an opportunity for British participation. We will welcome such participation and believe that it is necessary if we are to involve others, such as the French and the Chinese, in the START process. That would be the only glue that could effectively hold together the non-proliferation treaties which we hope the Government will start to negotiate seriously as the year progresses.
  A consequence of reducing troops and changing our military deployment is that we must consider the doctrines that NATO itself adopts. Flexible response has already been examined. As I said earlier—I know that I am disagreeing with some of my hon. Friends in this matter—one cannot have flexible response without the means of flexibility. The nature of the new threat is such that there will be no means of flexibility other than air-launched nuclear systems and there is no demand in Europe for such weapons to be located there.
  The idea that there must be nuclear weapons in Europe to justify the presence of conventional troops at whatever level is by no means held unanimously in the United States. If hon. Members doubt what I am saying, I suggest that they read the speeches by Sam Nunn in the Senate this spring. He is by no means a left-winger on defence matters. He is perhaps the hardest headed of the hard-headed realists in the United States. However, he said that if all forms of nuclear weapons were removed from Europe—he is not in favour of that, but he spelt out the logic clearly—it would be incumbent upon us to have some doctrine for the first use of nuclear strategic weapons, and
  886
  confidence and security-building methods that can accommodate the dangers of any kind of armed movement.
  There has been a great deal of talk—often loose talk— about rapidly mobile, easily deployed troops. Hon. Members should note that the mere act of moving those troops quickly can be an act of provocation unless certain ground rules are established and agreements are made. People in think tanks in the United States are giving a great deal of attention to that problem. It would be nice if the Ministry of Defence produced some form of guidance and some imaginative thinking. However, as in so many areas, the Ministry is following along behind the crowd.
  I estimate that when CFE 2 comes we shall have the prospect of sizeable force reductions. Legitimate statements have been made tonight by hon. Members from the north-west, including the hon. Members for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and for Wyre (Mr. Mans), expressing anxieties about the lack of notice that they were given of the recently announced cuts and the problems that will be created for programmes which still have some time to run and for which replacements have yet to be found. Those problems will be as nothing if we do not prepare properly for them.
  We may disagree about the desirability of a diversification agency. I do not believe that such an agency would provide all the answers or that it should be compulsorily applied to every potential instance of redundancies. However, considerable expertise within Government could be brought to bear to assist companies when they get into difficulties such as British Aerospace is experiencing.
  I received a phone call this morning—hon. Members from the north-west probably had a similar call—from the convener of shop stewards at Wharton. He said that the management had told him that they did not know what to do and would discuss the matter and come up with proposals in four weeks. That does not suggest that the cuts in the Tornado order programme were made in a leisurely or relaxed fashion or that a great deal of planning was involved.
  The questions put to the Government by hon. Members on both sides will have to be answered. Is there a strategic legitimacy to the cuts? Where do they come within the planning of NATO? We are entitled to an answer to those questions and the people of the north-west will look for a answer. Although it gives me no pleasure to point it out, I remind Conservative Members that a considerable number of Conservative seats in the north-west will be in great jeopardy as a consequence of cuts. The hon. Member for Wyre is laughing, but there are other Conservative Members whose coats are hanging on far slacker nails. I warn Conservative Members of the electoral consequences of the foolhardy, cavalier approach of Government Front-Bench Members. They may sit for safe seats, but they will face their fate at the Dispatch Box.
  Mr. Franks: The minutes are ticking by and we are now in the second hour of speeches from Labour Front-Bench spokesmen. Will the hon. Gentleman say at least one sentence or perhaps two about Trident?
  Mr. O'Neill: As far as I am aware, the hon. Gentleman has been in the House for the length of time that it took him to make his speech and—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I shall answer the question in a moment, in my own time. It ill becomes the hon. Member for Barrow

  887
  and Furness (Mr. Franks) to tell the Opposition what we should or should not do with regard to Trident when the Conservative Government have yet to order the third boat and have refused the funds to allow the pipework on the fourth boat to start. This is the truth. The Trident force is not yet—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Do not let us have a shouting match about it.
  Mr. O'Neill: Such was the contribution from a semi-detached, part-time Member who came in at the end of the debate. Let me repeat what I said before I was shouted down. Until the Government place an order for the third boat, it ill becomes the hon. Gentleman to ask us what we might do about a fourth.
  The present record of the Government in the management of the defence estate leaves much to be desired. It is clear that the MOD could not even anticipate the increases in inflation and thus it had to come to the House with the half-baked announcements of cuts. I doubt whether the savings from those cuts will appear in this year's accounts.
  We must recognise that throughout the debate there has been a considerable amount of imaginative thinking on both sides of the House, with the notable exception of Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen. The advice that has consistently been given by hon. Members on both sides suggests that the Government's defence estimates do not deserve to be supported. They are not worth the support of the country or the House. We ask the House to support the amendment in the name of the official Opposition.
  9.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Michael Neubert): Such has been the interest in this debate that on two successive days it has been extremely difficult to accommodate all those who wanted to take part. The House is aware that the "Options for Change" exercise is under way, and the debate has been a timely opportunity to reassure those hon. Members who have contributed that their views will be taken into account.
  The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) seems to want a fixed timetable for the exercise, but I cannot promise that. We shall come forward at a time of our choosing with our proposals to enable opportunities for discussion and consultation. For the moment we can at least debate the issues against the background of changes in the world and the reflected pressures of public opinion.
  After the contributions from the Front-Bench spokesmen, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) spoke. They are parliamentarians of the same generation and were listened to with great interest. My right hon. Friend drew attention to the Chinese saying that supreme excellence lies in winning wars without a battle, and he paid tribute to the battle we have won in such a way. He did not fail to make a connection between the peace we have achieved since the war in Europe, the prospects for the future and the maintenance of the nuclear deterrent. The hon. Member for Clackmannan was distinctly reticent about that a moment ago, as well as throughout the debate. My right
  888
  hon. Friend also called for a global alliance between Europe and the United States and those who listened to his speech will give thought to and no doubt support that idea.
  The hon. Member for Attercliffe said that the only significant change among all the defence changes was that concerning the amount of warning time. He was right to draw our attention to that. He also mentioned CFE2 and NATO has made it clear—it was reaffirmed at the recent meeting of Foreign Ministers at Turnberry—that as soon as the CFE agreement is reached in Vienna we will be prepared to undertake follow-on negotiations. The objective of those negotiations will be considered in full when NATO Heads of State meet in London next month.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), a former Navy Minister, was listened to with great attention, particularly his remarks about the future shape of the Royal Navy. Obviously I shall give some thought to what he said. He asked about the need to replace LPDs HMS Fearless and Intrepid. We are still considering the results of the studies we commissioned into replacing the capability that they represent. We expect to reach a decision soon, but I remind the House that there is still plenty of time to implement our decision before the current ships reach the end of their lives.
  The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) made an unexpected speech in that it came from the Opposition Bench below the Gangway—the hon. Gentleman has his own independent standing in the House—and he supported a fourth Trident. He was almost alone on the Opposition Benches in that, except for the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert), who yesterday pledged himself to support that policy. Even more surprisingly from the Opposition Benches, the hon. Gentleman supported TASM on NATO aircraft based in Europe.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) made a characteristically witty, if brief, contribution, and we could have listened to more without hardship. I could not say that about the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who was powerful in his call for an arms diversification agency, others probably being aghast at the logical consequences of the policies that he espouses in view of the rapid loss to employment that would result in the defence industry.
  It was not the first time that I heard such an agency proposed. In The Independent on 1 June there was reference to an arms diversion agency, as it was called, and such is the aptitude of we in the Ministry of Defence to apply acronyms to anything, the concept immediately became ADA in my mind. I am sorry if that sounds like a cleaning lady, but apparently ADA would make good the loss of many thousands of jobs that would flow from reductions in defence expenditure to which Labour supporters are committed, no matter what stands on the Order Paper.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) asked what would happen to the nuclear deterrent under a future Labour Government, should there ever be one. His question failed to elicit an answer. Indeed, there has been a deafening silence on the whole subject of nuclear deterrence from the Opposition Benches.
  My recently honoured hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) asked us to continue with the privatisation and contractorisation of services. I assure him that we are not letting up in the market testing of

  889
  services wherever appropriate, and that assurance can be given to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who also raised the subject.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) pointed to the fact that the Soviet Union was still the biggest military power in Europe. That fear was echoed by other hon. Members, who recognised that the world was changing and that we must change with it but who nevertheless suggested that we should err on the side of caution, a phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt).
  Following the announcement of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement last night, a number of my hon. Friends spoke of Tornado. My hon. Friend will be writing to hon. Members who raised the subject, but perhaps I can clarify any confusion about numbers. The number of aircraft with which we are not proceeding is 33, 26 of the strike version and seven of the air defence version.
  In announcing our original intention to make the order, my hon. Friend who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs referred to 41 aircraft. The reason for the difference is that eight of the air defence version were brought forward into the seventh batch and are not affected by this decision. The aircraft were intended to replace future predicted losses. We expect both variants of the Tornado to continue in service into the next century.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked about the armed services Bill. It is a quinquennial measure which will not come up this Session, and of course I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech.
  The debate has had attached to it three Select Committee on Defence reports, one of which has not received more than passing mention, that dealing with the subject of reliability and maintainability—R and M for short. The services acknowledge that much of the equipment that they have in use today fails to come up to the required levels of R and M. That has a direct and erosive impact on our operational capability.
  Our prime motivation for seeking improved levels of R and M is to enhance our operational capability. With the prospect of force reductions in Europe, it becomes ever more important that their smaller holdings of weapons and equipment will work when needed.
  A second and most significant factor, upon which R and M has a direct bearing, is the cost of operating and supporting equipment. We have estimated that unreliability currently costs the taxpayer £1 billion a year. Although it is acknowledged that that is a broad estimate, it shows the size of the problem. We must reduce that figure substantially—indeed, we aim to halve it, although we recognise that it will take some years to achieve that.
  The third factor is the shortage of skilled manpower to maintain and support our equipment. Higher reliability and greater ease of maintenance are essential if we are to match our manpower requirement to diminishing resources. In future, we must achieve better value for money in our equipment acquisition programmes. It is against that background that the House has shown considerable interest in R and M over the past 18 months, if not, in all cases, at this minute.
  Mr. Graham rose—
  Mr. Neubert: I am sorry but I cannot give way.
  The National Audit Offices report on R and M on the Ministry of Defence provided the ground work for the Public Accounts Committee's investigation into the R and M of defence equipment and we shall respond shortly, in the usual way, to the report of the Select Committee on Defence. I am pleased to see that both those investigations, while identifying the problem areas, acknowledge the considerable effort that the Ministry of Defence is now making to secure better levels of R and M.
  Mr. Graham: Will the Minister please answer the question I asked him? How much did the helicopter at the Tory party fair in Scotland cost?
  Mr. Neubert: I heard the hon. Gentleman's question the first time, but the hon. Gentleman left it so late to enter the debate and pose it that he will have to wait a little longer to receive a reply.
  The Statement on the Defence Estimates is printed in two volumes, which are before the House. It is quite clear that the Government stand by a budget of £21 billion this year. I wonder what the official Opposition stand by, because before we vote on the Statement on the Defence Estimates, we must vote on an amendment. I mean not the first amendment on the Order Paper, supported by 19 Opposition Members, but the second amendment, which I might describe as the official Opposition's afterthought. I wonder which one we should accept as Labour party policy. The first amendment mentions
  "the imposition of wasteful, unacceptable and unnecessary burdens of military expenditure upon the British people."
  Does the hon. Member for Clackmannan, who was saying how much support he gives the armed forces, support that description of expenditure on the armed forces that defend our country? Red Indians warned of white men who spoke with forked tongue. In relation to the Labour party's defence policy, the British people would do well to be warned against the official Opposition who speak with forked amendment.
  We know that at the last Labour party conference at Brighton, the party which is represented by the hon. Member for Clackmannan—who may not wish to be reminded of this—voted by two to one for an initial and immediate cut of £5 billion in defence spending. The actual voting was 4·2 million to 1·9 million—it was obviously a well-attended conference. As recently as last March, the Scottish Labour party passed, not by two to one but by 12 to one, a motion calling for a reduction of £9 billion in the defence budget.
  I imagine that the hon. Member for Clackmannan, as he is a Scottish Member and the Scottish Labour party is so strong in this House, would be regarded as something of a hero. He might become a local hero in Scotland—the holder of the Scottish equivalent of the Order of Lenin. Yet in yesterday's debate, when my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) challenged him about Labour party figures for reducing spending on defence, he replied as follows:
  "The hon. Gentleman puts figures on cuts that have yet to take place. As far as I know, he, CND and some of the more exotic fringes of the Labour movement have been the only ones to try to impose figures of that nature."—[Official Report, 18 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 701.]
  I find it hard to understand how the hon. Member for Clackmannan can be so dismissive of his closest parliamentary colleagues, as we understand that the Leader of the Opposition and Mrs. Kinnock are members

  891
  of CND, as are numerous others of their parliamentary colleagues, whom the hon. Gentleman has thus put in their place.
  Is the hon. Gentleman asking us to accept that among
  "the more exotic fringes of the Labour movement"
  is the Scottish Labour party, which wants to cut £9 billion from the defence estimates? I see that no answer is forthcoming.
  At the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union annual conference in Scarborough the union voted on a similar motion to cut £6 billion from the United Kingdom defence budget of £21 billion. When the motion was put to the vote, it was declared lost on a show of hands. Protests at the chairman's decision followed, and when the motion was put to the ballot the conference voted by 232 to 94 to cut £6 billion from the defence budget. That was either an example of partial blindness on the part of the chairman or of the sort of robust democracy which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West urged on us earlier. But the truth will always come out—
  Mr. Graham: What about the helicopter?
  Mr. Neubert: Never mind the helicopter; we want to know what the Labour party has to offer for the defence expenditure of this country. Does it offer the official Opposition amendment or the amendment tabled by some Labour Back Benchers? Will the Opposition be voting twice or only once at 10 o'clock?
  Several hon. Members warned us against taking things too easily—against accepting the conventional wisdom that peace has broken out barring, or including, the shouting—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a great deal of back-chat going on on both sides of the House. I ask the House to listen to the Minister's concluding words.
  Mr. Neubert: We are approaching the moment of the Labour party's maximum embarrassment in this two-day debate, so I am not surprised that Opposition Members are no longer prepared to listen. If they proceed with their reductions in defence expenditure, thousands of jobs will be lost, not only in Conservative marginal seats in Lancashire—the prospect encouraging the hon. Member for Clackmannan—but all over the country. One must ask whether the hon. Gentleman's views on that are entirely straightforward because he was foremost in pressing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to negotiate the EFA radar project so that jobs could be saved in Ferranti in Scotland. He must make up his mind whether to support our defence estimates or to support his hon. Friends.
  In opening today's debate my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces spoke about the rapidly changing world in which we live. It offers great prospects for the future, but it is an uncertain and potentially dangerous world. We need the assurance of a sound defence policy buttressed by a sound defence budget. That is what is contained in the statement, and I urge the House to support it.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 319.

  Division No. 235]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Donald

  Allen, Graham

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  892

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Ashton, Joe

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Barron, Kevin

  Hogg, N. (C' nauld & Kilsyth)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Home Robertson, John

  Bell, Stuart

  Hood, Jimmy

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Howarth, George (Knowsley A

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Blair, Tony

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Blunkett, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Boateng, Paul

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Boyes, Roland

  Illsley, Eric

  Bradley, Keith

  Ingram, Adam

  Brown, Gordon (D' mline E)

  Janner, Greville

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside,

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Buckley, George J.

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Caborn, Richard

  Lambie, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Lewis, Terry

  Canavan, Dennis

  Litherland, Robert

  Carr, Michael

  Livingstone, Ken

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Clay, Bob

  Loyden, Eddie

  Clelland, David

  McAllion, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cohen, Harry

  McFall, John

  Coleman, Donald

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  McKelvey, William

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  McLeish, Henry

  Corbett, Robin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McWilliam, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Madden, Max

  Cox, Tom

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cryer, Bob

  Marek, Dr John

  Cummings, John

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Martlew, Eric

  Dalyell, Tam

  Maxton, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Meacher, Michael

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Meale, Alan

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

  Michael, Alun

  Dewar, Donald

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dixon, Don

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Dobson, Frank

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Doran, Frank

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Morley, Elliot

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Murphy, Paul

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Nellist, Dave

  Fatchett, Derek

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Faulds, Andrew

  O'Brien, William

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  O'Neill, Martin

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

  Parry, Robert

  Fisher, Mark

  Patchett, Terry

  Flannery, Martin

  Pike, Peter L.

  Flynn, Paul

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Prescott, John

  Foster, Derek

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Foulkes, George

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Fraser, John

  Radice, Giles

  Fyfe, Maria

  Randall, Stuart

  Galloway, George

  Redmond, Martin

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Reid, Dr John

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Richardson, Jo

  George, Bruce

  Robertson, George

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Gould, Bryan

  Rogers, Allan

  Graham, Thomas

  Rooker, Jeff

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Grocott, Bruce

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hardy, Peter

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  893

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Walley, Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wareing, Robert N.

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

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

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

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Snape, Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wilson, Brian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Stott, Roger

  Worthington, Tony

  Strang, Gavin

  Wray, Jimmy

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Turner, Dennis

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Vaz, Keith

  Mrs. Llin Goldine.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Alexander, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Allason, Rupert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Cormack, Patrick

  Amess, David

  Couchman, James

  Amos, Alan

  Critchley, Julian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Ashby, David

  Day, Stephen

  Atkins, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Dover, Den

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dunn, Bob

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Beggs, Roy

  Eggar, Tim

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evennett, David

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fallon, Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Favell, Tony

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Forman, Nigel

  Boswell, Tim

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Forth, Eric

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bowis, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Franks, Cecil

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Freeman, Roger

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  French, Douglas

  Brazier, Julian

  Gale, Roger

  Bright, Graham

  Gardiner, George

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

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gill, Christopher

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Burns, Simon

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Burt, Alistair

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butcher, John

  Gorst, John

  Butterfill, John

  Gow, Ian

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gregory, Conal

  Carttiss, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Cartwright, John

  Ground, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Grylls, Michael

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hague, William

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Churchill, Mr

  Hannam, John

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

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

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Harris, David

  894

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hayward, Robert

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Mudd, David

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hill, James

  Needham, Richard

  Hind, Kenneth

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Neubert, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Norris, Steve

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Page, Richard

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Paice, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hunter, Andrew

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Irvine, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jack, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Janman, Tim

  Price, Sir David

  Jessel, Toby

  Raffan, Keith

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Riddick, Graham

  Key, Robert

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Kilfedder, James

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rost, Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Ryder, Richard

  Knowles, Michael

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knox, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lang, Ian

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lightbown, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lilley, Peter

  Shersby, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  McCrindle, Robert

  Speed, Keith

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Speller, Tony

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Maclean, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Squire, Robin

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Madel, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mans, Keith

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Maples, John

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Marland, Paul

  Stokes, Sir John

  Marlow, Tony

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sumberg, David

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mellor, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  895

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Thorne, Neil

  Watts, John

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wells, Bowen

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Whitney, Ray

  Tracey, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tredinnick, David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Trippier, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Wilshire, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Viggers, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Yeo, Tim

  Walden, George

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  Ward, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 322,Noes 27.

  Division No. 236]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Allason, Rupert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Alton, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Cartwright, John

  Amess, David

  Cash, William

  Amos, Alan

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Arbuthnot, James

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Chope, Christopher

  Ashby, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

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

  Atkins, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Colvin, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Conway, Derek

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F' rest)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cormack, Patrick

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Couchman, James

  Beggs, Roy

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bellingham, Henry

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

  Bendall, Vivian

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Day, Stephen

  Benyon, W.

  Devlin, Tim

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Dover, Den

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dunn, Bob

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Eggar, Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Evennett, David

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Fallon, Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Favell, Tony

  Bowis, John

  Fearn, Ronald

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Brazier, Julian

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bright, Graham

  Fookes, Dame Janet

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

  Forman, Nigel

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Forth, Eric

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Burns, Simon

  Franks, Cecil

  Burt, Alistair

  Freeman, Roger

  Butcher, John

  French, Douglas

  Butterfill, John

  Gale, Roger

  896

  Gardiner, George

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  McCrindle, Robert

  Gill, Christopher

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Maclean, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gorst, John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gow, Ian

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mans, Keith

  Gregory, Conal

  Maples, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marland, Paul

  Ground, Patrick

  Marlow, Tony

  Grylls, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hague, William

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mates, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mellor, David

  Hannam, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I & Bute)

  Harris, David

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hayward, Robert

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hill, James

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hind, Kenneth

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Needham, Richard

  Holt, Richard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  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

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Paice, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hunter, Andrew

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Irvine, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jack, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Janman, Tim

  Price, Sir David

  Jessel, Toby

  Raffan, Keith

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Riddick, Graham

  Key, Robert

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Kilfedder, James

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  King, Roger (B' ham N'thfield)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Ryder, Richard

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knowles, Michael

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lilley, Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Livsey, Richard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Speller, Tony

  897

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Trippier, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Squire, Robin

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Viggers, Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Steen, Anthony

  Walden, George

  Stevens, Lewis

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wallace, James

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Waller, Gary

  Stokes, Sir John

  Ward, John

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sumberg, David

  Watts, John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Wells, Bowen

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wilkinson, John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wilshire, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Thorne, Neil

  Yeo, Tim

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tracey, Richard

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad

  Tredinnick, David

  and Mr. Tony Durant.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Livingstone, Ken

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Loyden, Eddie

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Madden, Max

  Canavan, Dennis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Clay, Bob

  Meale, Alan

  Cohen, Harry

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Cousins, Jim

  Mullin, Chris

  Cryer, Bob

  Nellist, Dave

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

  Parry, Robert

  Douglas, Dick

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Flannery, Martin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mr. Harry Barnes and

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

  Lambie, David

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990 contained in Cm. 1022.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Greenwich Hospital Bill [Lords] and the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Fallon.]
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you advise the House on the last Division? If the Opposition are so divided that votes by minority are required when they are in opposition, what hope is there of this country having a proper defence policy if they are in government?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is a matter for me.
  Mr. Max Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to a matter of concern to Members with offices in Norman Shaw, South and North. Owing to work to the stairs in the subway on the corner of Bridge street and the Embankment, those of us with offices in Norman Shaw have to come to this place via the underground station, the gate of which closes at 12.30 am.
  I understand that the work will take several weeks to complete. That will present difficulties when votes take place later this week and in the next few weeks. We shall have to negotiate the traffic across Bridge street and come down another subway or use the subway under the Embankment.
  Will you please make inquiries and either give hon. Members some extra time for voting or make other arrangements for the work to be carried out during the summer recess?
  Mr. Speaker: That is the first that I have heard of it. I shall look into the matter and request the Serjeant at Arms to make a report to me about it.

Greenwich Hospital Bill [Lords]
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
10.28 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: The Bill is to widen the entrance to a school for children who have some connection with seafarers. The Bill appears to be trivial, but the Minister has not graced us with an explanation of it. He should explain what the Bill covers. It is not clear that the Bill is necessary, because it does not appear to alter the basic position. I should be grateful if the Minister would outline to the House, and place on record for those outside who may be curious, what the exact position is.
10.30 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Force (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for giving me the opportunity to explain what the Bill is about.
As I explained during the earlier stages of the Bill, when it received support from both sides of the House, it is an enabling measure to allow the basis of entry to the Greenwich Hospital school to be widened. In the first place, it is to allow the daughters and granddaughters of seafarers to enter the school. But studies have suggested that, to produce a balanced school, it may also be necessary to admit children from non-seafaring families, as and when the need arises.
There is, of course, no intention to alter the fundamental naval ethos of the school. I would only add that, on the existing criteria for allowing children into the school, there is a problem of viability. The basis on which children are admitted to the school must be broadened if the school is to continue.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

WAYS AND MEANS

  CALDEY ISLAND BILL
  Resolved,
  That any Act resulting from the Caldey Island Bill may impose liability to non-domestic rates.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
POLICE
That the draft Police (Dispensation from Requirement to Investigate Complaints) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 9th May, be approved.—[Mr. Fallon.]
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents),

ROAD VEHICLES
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4748/90, relating to glazing, masses and dimensions and tyres of road vehicles; and supports the
900
Government in accepting the substance of the proposals, which will help to complete the European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval system.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Robens Institute (Spectrometer)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
10.31 pm
Mr. David Tredinnick: With Mr. Speaker's permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) will read my speech for me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for informing Mr. Speaker and I hope that he will soon recover—to his usual robust debating form.
Mr. Keith Mans: Had my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) had the benefit of a product of my constituency—the Fisherman's Friend—I might not now be rising in his place. I am not over-familiar with the contents of my hon. Friend's speech, but I trust that I shall read it as well as he undoubtedly would have made it.
At a time of ever-increasing concern about levels of pesticides and chemicals in the human blood, I rise tonight to argue the case for providing the Robens institute at the university of Surrey with a computer-controlled mass spectrograph. This machine would enable an accurate assessment of chemical levels, would be available to doctors from all over Britain, and would bring about a dramatic reduction in suffering.
Before I explain this need in greater detail, I must declare an interest—it is my hon. Friend's interest, not mine, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a member of the parliamentary group for alternative and complementary medicine and I have myself suffered from and been treated for allergies. Chemicals cause allergies—so do certain foods in certain people, for that matter, as has been conclusively shown. One of my nephews has had problems with hyperactivity. After analysis of his diet and the banning of certain foods, the hyperactivity has all but disappeared. If the diet is ignored, the hyperactivity returns.
Chemical levels in the human body are now a major threat to health, and Professor Rea at the Robens institute has highlighted one area of greatest possible concern for which a mass spectrograph would provide vital and accurate analysis. That is the level of pesticides in mothers' milk. Professor Rea fears that many agricultural workers and country dwellers are exposed to high levels of pesticide which are a potential cause of ill health. Breast-fed children of these country dwellers may be at even greater risk than their parents because pesticides are concentrated in mothers' milk and at a time of life when infants are highly susceptible to poisons.
It has already been established that the pesticide DDT is concentrated in mothers' milk, and it was banned in America for that reason. The level of many commonly used pesticides in blood and in breast milk is unknown, but it is expected to be high. Professor Rea has said:
"the long term side effects of these pesticides is alarming, and it is important that at-risk agricultural workers are routinely tested to diagnose pesticide poisoning at an early stage."

901
A computer-controlled mass spectrograph at the Robens institute would enable Professor Rea and his team to analyse blood pesticide levels, and it could also be used by general practitioners all over Britain.
Since 1978, the Robens institute, which is more properly called the Robens institute of industrial and environmental health and safety, has grown from two full-time and one part-time members of staff to 110 scientists and others working in a wide range of disciplines connected with human health and safety at work and the environment.
Last year, a chair in environmental medicine at the Robens institute was established by the environmental medicine foundation—a great achievement for a small group of dedicated people. As a result of the establishment of that chair, new, exciting and essential research has been initiated by Professor Rea and his colleague, Professor Bridges.
The Robens institute has a particular research interest in the effects of chemicals on human health. Part of that work involves the use of non-animal systems, such as the use of cell preparations, computer models, and so on, to understand the causes of toxicity. The other crucial aspect of that research is direct information from human investigations. Human investigations include studies of population groups, conducted by Professor Balarajan and Professor Grob, and investigations on individuals. In the case of individuals, there are two main research lines. The first is direct investigations into the effect of administering individual drugs and other chemicals to man—the work of Professor Hindmarch. The second line of research is studies of individuals who appear to be suffering ill health as a consequence of exposure to an individual chemical or multiple chemicals—Professor Rea's work.
To investigate those with illnesses that have been attributed to a chemical or chemicals, some assessment needs to be made of the chemicals and/or their metabolites present in the body. It is important also to establish, where possible, specific biological markers of the chemical exposure history.
Professor Rea and others have proposed the hypothesis that, for particular sensitive individuals, the total body burden of certain classes of chemicals is responsible for their condition. That hypothesis is interesting and potentially important in regard to treatment and ill health prevention, but it remains to be tested properly. To do that, sophisticated methods need to be developed to measure not just a single chemical but a range of chemicals to identify, first, the total body burden of chemicals and, secondly, specific classes of chemicals that are considered likely to be responsible.
Research to establish suitable analytical techniques is also needed. If they are to be widely applied they will need eventually to be cheap, robust, sensitive and specific. That requires a primary reference method which will unambiguously identify the major chemicals present in the blood or biopsied tissues of sensitive individuals, and indicate the form in which those chemicals exist in the body—for example, as parent compound or metabolites—which, if any, blood tissue components they are bound to, and whether the binding, if it occurs, is readily reversible.
902
The primary reference method will look for possible links between the nature and concentration of those chemicals and any biochemical abnormalities in sensitive individuals. A mass spectrometer is the only available technique that fulfils the necessary criterion for a primary reference standard. The instrument is required because in the first phase of the work its role is primarily as a research tool. It needs the following specifications—first versatility of interface. That means that samples may need to be separated before a measurement is made. That requires capability for connecting the mass spectrometer to a gas liquid chromotograph, as well as a high performance liquid chromatograph. Secondly, it needs an ability to identify and measure the levels for relatively high molecular weight components—for example, chemicals that are bonded to proteins, fats and/or carbohydrates. Thirdly, it requires mild conditions in the chamber of the instrument so that relatively unstable biological molecules are not degraded prior to measurement.
In her reply to the Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) on allergies on 30 January, my hon. Friend's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), explained:
"facilities for the analysis of blood for very low concentrations of chemicals, including pesticides, are available in the United Kingdom at the UK Atomic Energy Authority establishment at Harwell at commercial rates."—[Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 288.]
That was a helpful suggestion. Indeed, it is expected that this work will complement that of Harwell, and the others who offer an excellent service for environmental samples and who have special expertise in dioxins and dibenzo-furan measurements. The continuation—indeed, the extension—of services such as Harwell's is important. However—this is the key problem—clinicians cannot readily use such services unless they know precisely what they want to measure in order that a satisfactory response can be provided. Harwell offers service rather than research, and analysis of condition rather than measurement. In contrast, the mass spectrograph identifies precisely what chemicals are in the blood and in what quantities.
I have argued for the mass spectrograph. I naturally hope that the Minister will tonight commit his Department to finding the funds for this essential project. If he cannot, I hope that he will at least use his influence with the Medical Research Council and the Science and Engineering Research Council. He does have a very real influence there—will he give that commitment tonight? Will he also inform other Departments and organisations, including the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Health and Safety Executive of the work of the Robens institute, and will he co-ordinate a fund-raising campaign with those other interested parties?
In conclusion, the mass spectrometer is essential to investigate the very important hypothesis that the total body burden of chemicals is an important factor in the ill health of certain sensitive individuals in the population. In addition, the instrument would have many other valuable uses in the area of human health and safety from chemicals. In the first instance, the primary role of the instrument will be to aid the development of simple technologies. Ultimately, the Robens institute will be able

903
to provide an effective, economic analytical strategy for investigating patients whose condition has been attributed to chemical exposure.
10.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on winning the opportunity to raise this subject this evening and to extend to him the good wishes of the entire House on the recovery of his voice. I celebrated my arrival in the Department of Health as a new Minister by suffering from exactly the same condition as my hon. Friend. It meant that I had more time to read briefs and less ability to annoy the civil servants in my first week in the Department. I hope that my hon. Friend recovers quickly.
I extend to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) my commiseration on being asked to read out a technical brief with, I suspect, relatively little notice. I wish that I could read out a brief containing as many long words with the same skill. I thank both my hon. Friends for raising the matter this evening.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre said, the Robens institute is well respected and dedicated to research in occupational and environmental health. It was founded on the intitiative of Alf Robens with that background. It is not surprising that it was originally interested in occupational health research and since then has extended its activities to include environmental health research as a topic related to its original core interest. The issues that my hon. Friend raised on the Adjournment tonight reflect that development of interest.
The institute argues that in order fully to realise the opportunities which that development of interests provides, it needs a spectrometer within its armoury of facilities to conduct the research that it wishes to do. That case was advanced by Professor Bridges in the paper that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth was kind enough to send to me earlier today. I am the first to concede that the paper raises several interesting subjects which could certainly be the subject of legitimate scientific research.
The first question prompted by the case advanced by my hon. Friends this evening is to whom the case that Professor Bridges made should be directed. In effect, he seeks an independent capital project to invest a substantial sum of money in a mass spectrometer for the Robens institute. There is no fund within the Department of Health which can legitimately be regarded as a fund for such investment. The Robens institute is part of the university of Surrey. Proposals for major capital projects such as this should properly be made to the authorities at the university of Surrey or, in the education world, through the institutions set up by the Department of Education and Science. I do not pretend to have sufficiently developed expertise in the various institutions of that Department to suggest precisely which course my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth should pursue.
Within the Department of Health no fund has been established precisely to meet the need that Professor Bridges has advanced for a spectrometer for an academic research institution. We fund research but not capital investment required by a research institute in an academic setting.
904
My first point in response to my hon. Friends is that they have made their case to the wrong institution of Government. My second point is that my Department is not hostile to the idea that environmental medicine and theories, particularly those advanced by the Environmental Medicine Foundation, should be researched. We are not hostile to that idea. However, if research funds are to be made available to undertake scientific tests on the theories advanced by that foundation, it is incumbent upon it to construct a clearly specified, properly tested programme of academic scientific research to test its propositions. I am sure that my hon. Friends would be the first to accept that they have not advanced such an approach, but rather made the case for investment in a particular piece of advanced scientific kit.
The Medical Research Council is funded from my Department's budget and if its money is to be used to support research into environmental medicine it must be on the basis of a formally presented, clearly specified, properly tested proposal for research. Our doors are not closed to such a proposal—on the contrary, discussions have gone on for some time with those interested and much enthusiasm has been expressed for the ideas advanced. However, I am advised that no formally presented proposal of the kind that I have described has been put before the Medical Research Council.
Even though the Department is not opposed to the idea of research, I know that those at the Environmental Medicine Foundation believe that the Medical Research Council gives their ideas a frosty reception. Those who want their ideas to be tested properly should recognise, however, that there are other courses open to them. The national health service does not seek to determine centrally the clinical decisions of individual clinicians. Those who find that they cannot secure the acceptance of the Medical Research Council to test their ideas properly should consider making their case to the clinicians and suggesting that their ideas should be properly examined in medical institutions.
My hon. Friends have argued that the Department should invest in the mass spectrometer, but their case is misdirected as the Department does not have the resources to make such an investment. It is not for lay Ministers, people who are properly not expert in such matters, to make decisions about precisely the type of research that should be followed and tested in the scientific world of medicine.
It is incumbent upon those who want to advance the case for their research to do so through the academic research institutions, pre-eminently the MRC in this case, and to seek the interest of individual clinicians. They should seek to persuade those clinicians and institutions about the development of research that offers the opportunity for the treatment of patients and clinical conditions. No Minister should pretend to be able to make a decision on such an issue. The NHS does not seek to centralise clinical decision making and it makes a virtue out of leaving clinicians free to make such decisions in the interests of their patients.
My hon. Friend questioned whether those who wish to see their ideas tested have a realistic prospect of access to the mass spectrometer that they believe necessary to provide a proper testing of their concepts. My hon. Friend suggested that if I were not able to promise funds this evening—and I have made it clear that I am not—I should

905
sponsor or otherwise bless a fund-raising campaign to raise money to provide a spectrometer for this type of research. I would not want to take that stance, but I have a suggestion to make to my hon. Friend which I hope he will feel goes some way towards responding to the concern which he expresses and which I know exists in the field about whether it is realistic to see any prospect of access to a spectrometer for research of this type.
In the context of the general programme of research that is constituted in the document prepared by Professor Bridges, I am the first to recognise that a spectrometer would contribute to that kind of proposal. Referring back to some earlier remarks I made about the proper source of capital funds for that type of proposal, it is up to him to make a bid for investment in a spectrometer from the bodies that provide capital investment funds for academic research of that nature.
Mr. Mans: If the Robens institute produces a proposal which meets the Department's criteria, would the Minister be prepared to use his influence with the Medical Research Council to consider that proposal with great care?
Mr. Darrell: I am not sufficiently experienced in the ways of my Department, after five weeks in office, to know
906
the extent of my influence with the Medical Research Council. But I can make a slightly different offer, which I hope my hon. Friend will take in the spirit in which it is made.
The facility of mass spectrometers is not rare in the academic and medical world now, and I am told that several hundred of them have already been installed. I suggest to my hon. Friend that if the Robens institute prepares the kind of properly tested, clearly specified programme of research into this field about which I have talked—as part of a structured programme of research— and it finds that that programme is running into the sands because of its inability to secure access to a mass spectrometer, I will offer the services of my Department to try to find one of the installations that already exists in the country that may be made available to provide the opportunity to use the facility required by the Robens institute.
I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that that is a genuine expression of my Department's good will towards genuine research in the field which he is anxious to encourage.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  M1/M6 Junction
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish the consultants' reports on the proposal to add an extra lane in each direction to the M1 immediately north of its junction with the M6.

  Mr. Atkins
  The study I announced last December was of existing conditions and the feasibility, in general terms, of a range of widening options.

  The next step will be the appointment of consultants to prepare and design a scheme for particular lengths of the motorways to be widened.

  Bids have been invited for a design commission covering the section referred to by my hon. Friend. I hope that that will enable us to publish firm proposals during the summer of 1991.

  Environmental Damage
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies have been published in each year since 1980 by his Department identifying means of(a) transport for passengers and (b) manufactured goods from Britain to Europe by the least environmentally damaging means; and what specific criteria have been used in order to make such assessment.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have not published any specific studies on the movement of people or goods from Britain to Europe by the least environmentally damaging means. However, a number of Government publications include information on the environmental aspects of different modes of travel.

  Bus Companies (Subsidies)
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the present annual cost to public funds of subsidies to bus companies.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1988–89 fuel duty rebate of £157 million was paid to operators of local bus services, and rural bus grant of £13 million to operators of rural services (this grant has now been phased out). In addition, support for London bus services and local authority support of individual local services outside London came to £345 million.

  Automobile Fire Risks
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is able to make any assessment of the fire risk in automobiles and as to whether lead-free petrol is safer or less safe in the event of such incidents.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: The difference in fire risk between leaded and unleaded petrol
  474
  is negligible. The performance of certain fire-fighting foams can be affected by the amount of alcohol used in either type of fuel. Petrol blended in the United Kingdom does not contain any added alcohols. Small quantities of imported petrol may contain alcohol up to the levels permitted in British standards. They pose no problems for the current generation of fire-fighting foams.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the road research laboratory has undertaken research into the possible relationship between different forms of fuel, including lead-free petrol, and post-accident fires; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: The transport and road research laboratory's work on car fires has concentrated on their immediate causes, such as electrical systems. There is no evidence to suggest that the severity of these fires is dependent on whether the fuel is leaded or unleaded.

  British Rail (Investment)
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether he will take steps to ensure that British Rail assess all new investment schemes for external benefits which would attract funding by Government grant;

  (2) whether any of the approved investment by British Rail will be met by Government grant in recognition of benefits to the users of improved services.

  Mr. Freeman
  InterCity no longer receives subsidy from the taxpayer. Its investment programme and that for channel tunnel services will be determined by normal commercial criteria.

  As far as provincial and Network SouthEast are concerned, there is no case for subsidy for investment for which passengers are willing to pay and which meets the normal financial criteria. However, the new objectives for British Rail set out in my right hon. Friend's letter of 19 December to the chairman make it clear that where investment to increase the capacity of the system cannot meet the normal financial criteria, a cost-benefit analysis should be carried out so that a decision can be taken on whether capital grants would be justified on wider social and economic grounds, such as relief of road congestion. The majority of the provincial sector's investment is like for like renewal which is not required to earn any return and is effectively met from revenue grant.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he will take to ensure that. in the period after the channel tunnel is opened and before a high speed rail link is constructed, there is no reduction of local rail services in south London owing to inadequate track capacity.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is an operational matter for British Rail. British Rail gave an undertaking to Parliament during the passage of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 that existing domestic rail services would not be curtailed in consequence of the need to find capacity for through channel tunnel services. I understand that British Rail stands by its undertaking.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, in the construction of the road links to
  475
  the channel tunnel, an assessment has been included for the cost of increased congestion and accidents resulting from greater volumes of traffic on other roads.

  Mr. Atkins
  The assessment of all trunk road schemes includes an appraisal which takes account of costs associated with delays—that is congestion, accidents and changes in vehicle operating costs, for the road in question and the surrounding network.

  Assessments have been made of the extra traffic expected to arise from the opening of the channel tunnel. This extra traffic is expected to be quite small when compared with the forecast growth of traffic generally. For appropriate schemes, such as those on the M20, relevant channel-related traffic has been added to predictions of general traffic growth.

  Disabled People (Railway Station Access)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with British Rail the provision of station access for disabled people.

  Mr. Freeman
  The provision of facilities for disabled people at stations is the responsibility of British Rail. They pursue an active policy of making rail travel as accessible as possible to all who wish to use it. I shall be meeting the board's adviser on disability on 26 June.

  Traffic Area
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has reached any decisions regarding the future of the Traffic Area organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Extensive consultations have been held with interested parties about the future number and pattern of Traffic Area offices and Traffic Area boundaries.

  In view of the reducing workload for the organisation, I have decided that the Traffic Area offices in London, Nottingham and Newcastle should be closed, and that the following changes should be made to the present Traffic Area boundaries:
  The North Eastern Traffic Area will be extended to include Nottinghamshire and will be administered from the existing Traffic Area office in Leeds.
  The North Western Traffic Area will be extended to include the whole of Derbyshire and will be administered from the existing Traffic Area office in Manchester.

  Actual Start of works

  Programmed Start of works

  Programmed completion

  Contract 1: Catthorpe Interchange:

  February 1990

  —

  Summer 1990

  Contract 2: Catthrope to Rothwell:

  —

  Spring/Summer 1991

  Spring/Summer 1993

  Contract 3: Catthorpe to Rothwell:

  —

  Spring/Summer 1991

  Spring/Summer 1993

  Contract 4: Rothwell to Kettering:

  March 1990

  —

  June 1991

  Contract 5(N): Kettering Northern Bypass:

  —

  Summer 1991

  Winter 1992/3

  Contract 5(S): Kettering Southern Bypass:

  Febraury 1990

  —

  February 1992

  Contract 6: Kettering to Thrapston:

  May 1989

  —

  May 1991

  Contract 7: Thrapston to Brampton:

  November 1989

  —

  July 1991

  Contract 8: Thrapston to Brampton:

  —

  Spring 1991

  Autumn 1992

  Contract 9: Thrapston to Brampton:

  —

  Summer 1991

  Summer 1993

  Contract 10: Advance works for Railway Bridge on Kettering Northern Bypass:

  April 1990

  —

  November 1991

  476
  The Eastern Traffic Area will lose Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and will be extended to include Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and the whole of Essex. It will be administered from the existing Traffic Area office in Cambridge.
  The Western Traffic Area will be extended to include Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight and will be administered from the existing Traffic Area office in Bristol.
  The remainder of the present South Eastern Traffic Area will be combined with the remainder of the Metropolitan Traffic Area to form a new Traffic Area consisting of London, Surrey, Kent and Sussex. The new area will be administered from the existing Traffic Area office in Eastbourne.
  There will be no changes to the West Midlands, South Wales or Scottish Traffic Areas and offices.

  These changes will yield worthwhile savings and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the organisation as a whole.

  I have been particularly concerned to create opportunities for staff in the offices being closed. I have agreed that staff in the Traffic Area offices at Newcastle and Nottingham will be given the opportunity, so far as practicable, to transfer to the new posts being created in those cities by the Driving Standards Agency.

  The Department will consult those concerned about the implementation of these changes and the transitional arrangements. We will aim to complete the bulk of the work by the middle of 1991.

  As required under sections 3(2) and (4) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 my right hon. Friend will in due course lay an order before the House setting out the Traffic Area boundary changes.

  A1/M1
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he now expects that each stage of the A1/M1 road in Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire will be opened;

  (2) when he expects to let the contract for each of the remaining stages of the A1/M1 road in Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire.

  Mr. Atkins
  The following is the information requested. Start of work on contracts 2, 3, 5(N), 8 and 9 is dependent upon the outcome of outstanding statutory procedures.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much expenditure was envisaged under the Government's expenditure plans in each of the years from 1988–89 to 1992–93 on housing action trusts; how much expenditure has been incurred to date; and what are the latest estimates of likely expenditure over the current and next two financial years on housing action trusts.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Details of planned expenditure were given in the 1988 public expenditure White Paper (Cm 288–11). These were revised in the 1990 public expenditure White Paper (Cm 1008) in the light of the Housing Act 1988 requirement for tenants to be balloted. No expenditure has been incurred so far.

  Radioactivity (United Kingdom Coast)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Greenpeace concerning radioactivity around the United Kingdom coast.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has received no such representations from Greenpeace this year.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will make an order under section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 confirming the charge caps on those local authorities which neither accepted the caps he proposed nor put forward alternative amounts within the statutory period of 28 days of their being designated for capping.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I cannot make an order under section 106 of the 1988 Act unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of the House of Commons. I have today laid before the House a draft section 106 order confirming the caps of the three authorities which did not respond to the caps which I proposed. As required by the

  Region

  Property type

  Shops

  Factories

  Hotels and boarding houses

  Offices

  Mines

  Northern

  8·89

  5·31

  12·75

  6·69

  11·16

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9·95

  6·54

  13·18

  7·41

  22·28

  East Midlands

  8·73

  5·78

  14·38

  6·89

  15·65

  East Anglia

  10·46

  6·94

  12·89

  8·53

  —

  Inner London

  9·62

  7·17

  12·95

  6·96

  —

  Outer London

  9·41

  6·32

  11·99

  7·24

  —

  Rest of South East

  10·64

  7·09

  14·44

  10·23

  10·89

  South West

  11·10

  7·18

  10·90

  9·80

  5·96

  West Midlands

  7·22

  4·53

  12·91

  6·47

  18·22

  North West

  8·36

  5·17

  12·31

  6·61

  14·59

  England

  9·52

  6·10

  12·85

  7·47

  16·81

  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the overall increase or decrease in the total rates paid by non-domestic rate payers in each local authority in England, by authority, between 1989–90 478
  statute, the amount of the cap is the same as that which I proposed for each of the authorities concerned. The authorities and the caps are as follows:

  Implied reduction in budget

  £

  £ million

  £ per adult

  Basildon

  23,700,000

  4·2

  35

  Bristol

  56,600,000

  7·6

  26

  Doncaster

  178,500,000

  11·6

  53

  This will be welcomed by the charge payers concerned.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authorities and other interested bodies regarding(a) the new requirement for debt payments from capital receipts and (b) advanced leasing arrangements.

  Mr. Chope
  Since publication in July 1988 of the Government's proposals for a new system of local authority capital finance my Department has received numerous representations from local authorities and other interested bodies on many aspects of the new system. No detailed analysis is available of all the points raised.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by local authority, the cost of collecting the community charge per individual.

  Mr. Chope
  I have today arranged for the available information on budgeted costs for 1990–91, as shown on returns made by local authorities, to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the overall increase in rateable values in the 1990 rating valuation list as compared with the rateable values previously in use for the categories of(a) shops, (b) factories, (c) hotels and boarding houses, (d) offices and (e) mines and (i) in total for England and (ii) by economic regions.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: Revaluation factors indicating the increase in rateable values shown in the lists deposited with local authorities on 20 December 1989 for the property types requested are given in the table.

  and 1990–91 (a) including the effects of transitional arrangements and (b) excluding the effects of transitional arrangements.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: Estimates of the information requested by my hon. Friend, based on the

  479
  rateable values shown in the lists deposited with local authorities on 20 December, have been placed in the Library today.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the relationship of community charge to rates in both gross

  Ranges of 1989–90 equivalent net household income (£ per week)

  Under 75

  75–100

  100–150

  150–200

  200–250

  250–300

  300–350

  350–400

  400–500

  500+

  All Households

  Domestic Rates

  Gross

  7·45

  7·96

  8·16

  9·07

  9·71

  10·40

  10·67

  11·57

  12·13

  14·13

  9·47

  Net

  2·46

  3·01

  5·59

  8·67

  9·56

  10·34

  10·67

  11·54

  12·12

  14·13

  7·99

  As a percentage of net income in each range

  Gross per cent.

  9·8

  9·3

  6·8

  4·3

  3·6

  3·2

  2·9

  2·8

  2·7

  2·0

  4·0

  Net per cent.

  3·2

  3·5

  4·7

  4·1

  3·6

  3·2

  2·9

  2·8

  2·7

  2·0

  3·3

  Community Charge

  Gross

  8·83

  8·15

  8·46

  10·31

  10·81

  11·04

  10·62

  10·40

  10·01

  9·98

  9·67

  Net

  2·34

  2·76

  5·58

  9·15

  10·08

  10·46

  10·18

  10·06

  9·76

  9·72

  7·71

  As a percentage of net income in each range

  Gross per cent.

  10·9

  8·9

  6·5

  4·5

  3·7

  3·1

  2·7

  2·3

  2·0

  1·3

  3·7

  Net per cent.

  2·9

  3·0

  4·3

  4·0

  3·4

  3·0

  2·6

  2·3

  2·0

  1·3

  3·0

  Notes:

  1. Rates are 1989–90 actuals.

  2. Community charges are 1990–91 settlement assumed charges.

  3. Equivalent net household income is calculated using the McClements scale.

  Double-Glazing
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received concerning proposals to make double-glazing a requirement in the planning of all new houses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Double-glazing is one of the thermal insulation measures which can be used to satisfy the requirements relating to the conservation of fuel and power in the amended Building Regulations which came into force on 1 April 1990. My Department receives many representations concerning the conservation of energy in new houses and some of these call for the installation of double glazing to be made a mandatory requirement under the Building Regulations. But we consider that the designer and builder should be given the flexibility to choose the most appropriate insulation to suit the particular circumstances.

  Right to Buy
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to review the right-to-buy provisions of the Housing Act 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The right-to-buy legislation is kept under constant review; there have been a number of changes to it since its introduction in 1980.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out in 1990 prices the level of funding for the Leeds Development Corporation for 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.
  480
  and net terms in each band of equivalent net income in (a) pounds per week and (b) as a proportion of net income in each band of equivalent income in 1990–91.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: The table provides the information requested on the same basis as the figures placed in the Library on 15 February 1990. Equivalent income has been calculated using the McClements scale factors.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The actual amount of grant in aid provided to Leeds development corporation was £2·743 million in 1988–89 and £8·75 million in 1989–90. £14 million is available in 1990–91.

  Langland Bay
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make available the results of the epidemiological study carried out in 1989 at Langland bay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Today I have placed in the Library copies of a comprehensive report prepared by the Water Research Centre on the findings of studies to test methodologies for assessing the risks of contracting illnesses from sea bathing. The report is based on research carried out at Langland bay last summer with the assistance of Swansea district council.

  Two types of study were carried out. The first study involved interviewing bathers who were on the beach of their own volition, and obtaining information of any perceived symptoms by means of a questionnaire and, subsequently, by telephone.

  The second study used two groups of healthy volunteers. One group was asked to swim in water meeting EC standards while the other group did not swim. The volunteers were examined medically both before and after the day at the beach. Ethical clearance was obtained for this work which is the first of its kind to examine participants medically so as to provide an objective assessment of symptoms.

  Water quality during the studies was good and well within European standards. As found in previous surveys higher proportions of bathers reported ear and throat symptoms than non-bathers but unexpectedly fewer

  481
  bathers reported gastro-enteritis than non-bathers. No significant association was found between reported symptoms and clinical diagnosis.

  The studies demonstrate that both approaches with minor modification appear capable of yielding statistically reliable conclusions if carried out at a larger scale.

  The contract with the Water Research Centre will be extended to provide for further studies in the coming summer.

  Insulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of(a) dwellings completed under the energy conservation programme and (b) grants paid under the homes insulation scheme in (i) the London borough of Camden and (ii) the London borough of Islington for each year from 1979, including the current year so far.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: Figures for the number of grants paid under the homes insulation scheme and the number of local authority dwellings benefitting from works under the energy conservation programme are published in "Local Housing Statistics" (Nos. 66, 70, 74, 78, 82, 87 and 90) for the years 1979 to 1988. In 1989 the London borough of Camden reported two grants paid and Islington reported nil.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current rate of growth of homelessness in the United Kingdom per annum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 15 June 1990]: Between 1988 and 1989 the estimated number of households accepted by housing authorities under homelessness legislation increased by about 8 per cent. It should be stressed that there are people for whom accommodation has been found.

  City Grants
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total allocation for the current financial year of money for city grants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: The total resources available for city grant in 1990–91 are £49 million, including expenditure on previously approved urban development grant and urban regeneration grant schemes. Payments made in any year relate mainly to projects approved in previous years.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses, and of what type and anticipated rents, he has requested to be incorporated into the West End Development scheme application for city grant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: It is not our practice, for reasons of commercial confidentiality, to reveal details of developers' proposals.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what stage has been reached in the consideration of the application for city grant by 3Ds Ltd; and if he will make a statement.
  482
  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: 3Ds Ltd has submitted details of its proposals for the West End development scheme and discussions continue with the Department on what further information may be needed.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the largest grant so far made of city grant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: The largest city grant approved so far is £6·3 million for a project at St. Helens to reclaim a derelict and contaminated 50 acre site.

  M2 Widening
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposed widening of the M2 motorway in Rochester, Kent; and what was his response.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: None.

  Hawkshurst Moor (Coal Mine)
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received the inspector's report on the planning inquiry on British Coal's Hawkshurst moor proposal for a new coal mine in Berkswell near Coventry.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: Yes. The report has recently been received and I shall announce a decision in due course.

  County Hall, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make an announcement on the future of the County hall, London SE1.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 21 May Official Report, Volume 173, column 28.

  Football (Arrests)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the 92 Football League clubs together with the total season's attendance for football league matches, total number of arrests made at such matches and the number of arrests as a percentage of the total attendance, for the seasons 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the total attendance at Football League matches in England and Wales, the total number of arrests at such matches, and the number of arrests as a percentage of the total attendance, accurate to four decimal places, for the seasons 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply and will do so shortly, when figures for the 1989–90 season become available from the Association of Chief Police Officers.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  VAT
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of value added tax refund claims under Customs and Excise notice No. 719, "Refund of VAT to Self Builders", processed during the fiscal year 1989–90.

  Mr. Ryder
  The total number of claims processed under this relief during the fiscal year 1989–90 was 9,817.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new businesses registered for value added tax in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Table: Number of EIB loans, per year since 1985, to companies and other bodies, with breakdown by Her Majesty's Government or other guarantee.

  Number of loans

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Companies

  with Her Majesty's Government guarantee

  3

  5

  3

  3

  0

  with other form of guarantee

  10

  16

  6

  23

  47

  Sub-total

  13

  21

  9

  26

  47

  Other bodies

  with Her Majesty's Government guarantee

  8

  16

  16

  1

  0

  with other form of guarantee

  27

  25

  34

  1

  0

  Sub-total

  35

  41

  50

  2

  0

  Total number of loans

  48

  62

  59

  28

  47

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will discuss with the Governments of France and West Germany the means of continuing taxonomic support for teams working in Malaysia and Cameroon in the light of staff reductions at the natural history museum;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the implications of reductions in the Heteroptera section of the natural history museum for work sponsored by his Department (a) in Surinam on shield-bugs as transmitters of agricultural diseases and (b) coccid research and its agricultural implications for United Kingdom supported agricultural development programmes.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I am investigating the possible implications for our programmes of the planned staff reductions at the natural history museum and will give a full reply as soon as I have the information.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Power Stations (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what decommissioning cost the Government have approved for British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.'s present plant;
  484
  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: On the basis of Customs and Excise data on registrations, the number of businesses registered for value added tax in the 12 months ended 31 March 1990 was 266,084.

  European Investment Bank
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply of 11 June,Official Report, column 21, if he will publish a table showing the number of loans made by the European investment bank to companies and to other bodies, respectively, in the United Kingdom in each of the past five years; and if he will further indicate how many of these loans, in each year, were guaranteed by Her Majesty's Government and by other bodies, respectively.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: A table listing this information follows:

  and if he will give a breakdown of this expenditure as between the plants at Sellafield, Springfields and Capenhurst.

  Mr. Baldry
  Estimates of the cost of decommissioning British Nuclear Fuels plc's plant are matters for the company.

  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.'s investment in the next 10 years is planned to be financed by debt; and whether this debt will be guaranteed by the Government.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand from British Nuclear Fuels plc that it is envisaged that between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the company's currently projected capital investment programme over the next 10 years will be financed by additional borrowing. The majority of these loans are likely to be supported by Government guarantee.

  THORP
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what is the latest expected cost of the THORP reprocessing plant at Sellafield in 1989–90 prices; and whether this capital sum is inclusive of the costs of waste effluent discharge plant, and any other ancillary constructions that arise as a consequence of building the THORP plant;
  485
  (2) what is the capital cost of planned investment in reprocessing and waste management at Sellafield other than that which is required for the THORP plant.

  Mr. Baldry
  The expected capital cost of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield is some £1·8 billion making due allowance for future inflation. This capital cost includes the receipt and storage facility and an appropriate share of the facilities for converting highly active wastes into vitrified form. The other facilities used in association with THORP include storage ponds that have already been constructed, and facilities for the treatment of less active wastes and effluents. The capital costs of these supporting facilities are estimated at some £0·9 billion.

  Ministerial Visit
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy during his visit to North America this month, what proportion of his time he intends to devote to the promotion of the nuclear and oil industries, and what proportion of time to the energy conservation and renewable fuels industries.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I visited Canada and the United States from 5 June to 13 June. My visit to Canada was mainly to support the United Kingdom offshore oil and gas industry in its attempts to win business in Atlantic Canada, particularly offshore Newfoundland. I met senior members of the provincial government and oil industry representatives. In Washington, my talks were concerned primarily with energy policy in the context of climate change; that concerns all our energy-related industries. I signed a memorandum of understanding on collaboration in energy research and development, covering non-nuclear energy R and D, with Admiral Watkins, United States Secretary for Energy. While in Washington I opened the offices of BNFL Inc.—the United States subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Electricity Prices, South-West
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the increase in the price of electricity supplied to domestic householders by the South Western electricity board in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for South Western Electricity.

  Diatoms
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what research his Department has undertaken into the importance of diatoms in maintaining the world's atmosphere, through their production of oxygen.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  None.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the effect of the reductions made in the diatom and palaeo-botany sections of the natural history museum on the international deep sea drilling project and research into petroleum and other fossil fuels.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department no longer maintains an interest in the international deep sea drilling project. I do not believe that our interest in the other matters will be affected by the reductions at the natural history museum referred to.

PRIME MINISTER

  United Nations
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to the United Nations.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will visit the United Nations for the general assembly in September.

  European Parliament
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next intends to visit the European Parliament.

  The Prime Minister
  During the British presidency of the Community in the second half of 1992.

  Commercial Fishermen
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to provide compensation for commercial fishermen when they are prevented from landing and selling their catches because of health requirements initiated by local authorities or Her Majesty's Government; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The recent warnings against the consumption of shellfish from the north-east coast of Britain were in response to the threat to public health posed by the natural and temporary phenomenon of algae blooms. Such blooms have been known to occur periodically along this stretch of the coast for many years.

  It is in the interests of fishermen that the public is properly protected. Their present and future receipts depend upon public confidence in the quality of British fish products.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters she has received in the past four weeks on the dangers of global warming, ozone depletion and associated matters; and if she will make a statement on any further initiative the Government is considering taking with regard to these issues.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received numerous letters on both these and other environmental issues in the last four weeks. I announced on 25 May 1990 the part that the United Kingdom is ready to play in international action to tackle global warming. At the meeting of the parties to the Montreal protocol in London next week we will urge all countries to join the protocol and press for strengthening of its terms. We will be publishing a White Paper this autumn on the whole range of environmental issues.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussion she has had with President Gorbachev on article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty during her visit to the Soviet Union.

  The Prime Minister
  The question of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty did not arise during my talks with Mr. Gorbachev, but our discussions included a number of arms control issues such as the talks on conventional forces in Europe (CFE) and the conference on security and co-operation in Europe (CSCE).

  North Sea
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister what actions have so far been taken by the United Kingdom to develop a programme to end sewage sludge dumping, promised at the North Sea Conference at the Hague on 7 to 8 March 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked the water companies concerned to submit to him by the end of the year their detailed plans and programmes of work for phasing out disposal of sludge to sea.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals she has for the British film industry; and if she will make a statement on her proposals to meet leaders of the film industry.

  The Prime Minister
  I met leading figures from the film production industry on Friday 15 June to discuss their proposals for taking advantage of the opportunities now facing the industry. The Government agreed to provide £5 million over the next three years to provide pump-priming finance to support European co-production; the Department of Trade and Industry would set up a working party to examine the structure of the industry and how to attract greater private sector finance into film production, and to report back in the autumn; the industry would explore what changes it suggests to the tax regime for film production and report to Treasury Ministers over the next few months; we would continue discussions in Europe on how best to support the film production industry, notably through the media programme; we would study proposals from the industry for a films commission to improve the promotion of British films in the United Kingdom and overseas.

  Islington (Official Visit)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the involvement of Vallin Pollen International in the arrangements for her official visit to Islington.

  The Prime Minister
  None for which the Government have responsibility.

  German Unification
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the procedures for incorporating a united Germany within the EEC; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I expect this subject to be discussed at the European Council in Dublin on 25 to 26 June.

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals she has to promote(a) indentification programmes for scientific and popular use, (b) the development and management of the European plant data base and (c) the British plant data base and other research based at the natural history museum of relevance to the study of climatic change.

  The Prime Minister
  These activities flow from the priorities and objectives set out in the natural history 488
  museum's corporate plan 1990–95, which was unanimously approved by the museum's trustees in April. The Government increased the museum's grant-in-aid by 16·5 per cent. this year to over £25 million.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 June.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 June.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 June.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including the Director General of the International Atomic Agency and the Foreign Ministers of Angola, Bangladesh and Somali. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with Mr. Attali, president-elect of the new European Bank for Reconstruction and Development who has his headquarters in London.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Film Production
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government will provide initial financial support as seed money to enterprises to simulate the growth of transnational film production, training and distribution within Europe.

  Mr. Forth
  We announced on Friday 15 June that the Government would provide £5 million over three years to provide pump-priming finance to help support European co-productions. We also announced that we would pursue discussions in Europe on how best to support the film production industry, notably through the MEDIA programme. The Economic Community's proposals for this programme include assistance for trans-national training and distribution.

  Enterprise Scheme
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies in Lancashire have been helped by the enterprise scheme; and if he will provide a statistical breakdown on the types of help provided.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Assistance to companies in Lancashire under the enterprise initiative since its inception in January 1988 comprises:

  Consultancy Initiative

  Business Reviews conducted 1,313

  Consultancies commissioned 1,288

  (of which completed as at 31 May 1990) 419

  Regional Initiative

  Regional Selective Assistance: 143 projects assisted; grants paid £14·39 million, 2,685 jobs created and 823 jobs safeguarded.

  Regional Enterprise Grants (wef 1 April 1988)

  For Investment: offers made: 47 (£354,043)

  For Innovation: offers made: 6 (£140,815)

  Research and Technology

  SMART awards: 1988 Round, Stage 1:1

  1989 Round, Stage 2:1

  489
  Enterprise and Education

  The three advisers in Lancashire have contacted 1,226 local employers, resulting in 3,893 offers of work experience for pupils and 716 secondment opportunities for teachers.

  Export Initiative

  Approximately 1,000 companies are in regular contact with DTI-NW staff providing export assistance. Four hundred and twenty-one company representatives attended 13 export-related seminars.

  EC Legislation
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the short title of each of the 86 legislative Acts for which European Community member states must take national implementing measures by 31 December 1989; and what action each state has taken by 1 June in relation to each.

  Mr. Redwood
  The short titles of the 86 legislative acts for which European Community member states must take national implementing measures by 31 December 1989 are set out in the answer to your question of 9 January 1990,Official Report columns 600–8. Information on the action taken by each member state by the end of June is not available. However, the latest report on the implementation of single market measures is to be found in the European Commission's fifth progress report on completion of the internal market. This lists the measures due for implementation by end February 1990, and sets out the action taken by each member state. I am glad to say that the report shows that the United Kingdom has the best record on implementation, with only nine measures out of 90 remaining unimplemented. I have arranged for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Instant Coffee
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to complete its report on instant coffee prices.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Commission has been asked by the Director General of Fair Trading to report on the supply of soluble coffee in the United Kingdom by 8 January 1991.

  Limited Liability Status
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions a request for registration as a company with limited liability status was rejected in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Redwood
  The number of applications which were rejected in 1987, 1988 and 1989 were respectively 11,300 (estimated), 9,846 and 7,953.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the amount of regional assistance in 1989 per head for(a) Scotland, (b) north-east England,(c) north-west England, (d) the west midlands, (e) east midlands, (f) south-west England and (g) south-east England.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The amount of regional preferential assistance per head in the most recent year for which figures are available is as follows:490

  Expenditure per head of civilian working population, 1988–89

  £

  (a) Scotland

  61·4

  England—Regions

  (b) Northern

  92·3

  (c) North West

  27·7

  (d) West Midlands

  9·6

  (e) East Midlands

  4·5

  (f) South West

  7·0

  (g) South East

  nil

  Export Credits
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning his Department's adoption of the portfolio management system in assessing the Export Credits Guarantee Department cover.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: My right hon. Friend has received many representations from both Parliament and the exporting community about ECGD's portfolio management system. We will be giving these representations careful consideration before the portfolio management system is introduced.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the current premiums charged by the export credit agencies of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, including the premiums levied by the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: The export credit agencies of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development members do not as a rule publish the premiums which they charge. Premium rates are determined on a case-by-case basis by most agencies. Although the agencies periodically exchange details of their premium rates for individual countries, this is clone on a strictly confidential basis. It is not practicable to try to list all the premium rates of all the OECD countries.

  Industrial Development
  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions since 1980 expenditure has been incurred under section 3(2)(a) of the Industry Act 1980 to acquire securities of a company; and if he will give, for the last five occasions, the name of the company concerned, the sum of money involved, the date of the payment and the nature of the security acquired.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 15 June 1990]: Since 1980 section 3(2)(a) of the Industry Act 1980 has been used to purchase securities on 13 occasions. The last five occasions were:

  Company

  Sum £ million

  Date of payment

  Nature of Securities

  BL plc

  80

  17 December 1982

  Ordinary shares of 50p each

  BL plc

  110

  28 March 1983

  Ordinary shares of 50p each

  BL plc

  90

  1 November 1983

  Ordinary shares of 50p each

  Rover Group plc

  680

  30 March 1987

  Ordinary shares of 50p each

  Rover Group plc

  547

  12 August 1988

  Special security ("the Instrument")

  Financial Reporting Council
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide a list showing those members of the Financial Reporting Council who have any connections with the accountancy firms or their successors sued by the Government for negligence.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: So far as I am aware, none of the members of the Financial Reporting Council has any such connection.

WALES

  Special Educational Needs
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many children in each local education authority in Wales were placed in a non-residential special school following the completion of a statement of educational needs for each year since April 1983; and what this is expressed as a percentage of(a) the total number of children with statements in the local education authority and (b) the total number of statements made by the local education authority in that year;

  (2) how many children in each local education authority in Wales were placed in a special unit following the completion of a statement of educational needs for each year since April 1983; and what this is expressed as a percentage of (a) the total number of children with statements in the local education authority and (b) the total number of statements made by the local education authority in that year;

  (3) how many children in each local education authority remained in mainstream schools following the completion of a statement of educational needs for each year since April 1983; and what this is expressed as a percentage of (a) the total number of children with statements in the local education authority and (b) the total number of statements made by the local education authority in that year;

  (4) how many children in each local education authority in Wales were placed in a residential special school following the completion of a statement of educational needs for each year since April 1983; and what this is expressed as a percentage of (a) the total number of children with statements in the local education authority and (b) the total number of statements made by the local education authority in that year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No information is held centrally on the number of children who are newly statemented each year by type of placement.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new measures he intends to undertake to help dyslexic children in the schools of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The benefits of the national curriculum, which has now been introduced into schools, will apply to all children, including, as far as is practicable, those with dyslexia.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many dyslexic children are educated in each of the counties of Wales; and if he will make a statement;
  492
  (2) how many specialist teachers of dyslexic children there are in each of the local education authorities of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available centrally. The Education Act 1981 abolished the categorisation of children by particular disability.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many children aged under 16 years received free eye tests in each county in Wales(a) in each quarter in 1988–89 and (b) in each quarter in 1989–90;

  (2) how many people on family credit or income support received free eye tests in each district health authority area in Wales in each quarter of 1988–89 and in each quarter of 1989–90;

  (3) what percentage of children aged under 16 years received free eye tests in each county in Wales (a) in each quarter of 1988–89 and (b) in each quarter in 1989–90.

  Mr. Grist
  Estimates of numbers of sight tests for different types of patient are based on a 2 per cent. sample. This sample is not sufficient to make robust estimates by patient types within county or district health authority areas.

  Housing
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he intends to take with respect to the problem of housing in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department has announced a number of initiatives directed to the problems of housing in Wales. In particular, last autumn we announced for the current year a 40 per cent. increase in the provision for Housing for Wales, a 15 per cent., increase in the gross local authority provision for housing and generous provision to support home renovation grants. Details of current policies and plans for housing programmes are given in chapter 4 of "Public Expenditure in Wales: 1990–91 to 1992–93 A Commentary by the Welsh Office."

  Bathing Beaches
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 13 June, on bathing beaches, if he will extend the testing of water quality to all bathing beaches in Wales by including those which are not currently subject to European Community designation.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter for the National Rivers Authority.

  GP Budgets
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioners or general practitioner practices have expressed an interest in becoming practice budget holders within each authority in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is shown in the following table:
  493

  Health authority

  Number of general practitioners

  Number of GP practices

  Clwyd

  34

  6

  East Dyfed

  15

  4

  Gwent

  12

  3

  Gwynedd

  6

  2

  Mid Glamorgan

  59

  10

  Pembrokeshire

  11

  2

  Powys

  14

  3

  South Glamorgan

  26

  5

  West Glamorgan

  47

  9

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the names of the general practitioners or practices which have expressed an interest in becoming practice budget holders in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  It would not be right to reveal the names of individual general practitioners or practices which have expressed an interest in practice fund holding. There is in any event no commitment on either side at this stage.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioners and general practitioner practices will be eligible to become practice budget holders within each health authority in Wales.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioner practices are now eligible to become budget holders; how many have expressed an interest in budget holding; if he will name those practices.

  Mr. Grist
  It is not possible to place a figure on the number of practices meeting the eligibility criteria for fund-holding status. While each practice fund will require a minimum of 9,000 patients, smaller practices are enabled to group together to attain this number. In addition to its patient list size, each practice will need to demonstrate its ability to manage a practice fund.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Family Law
  Mr. French
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to provide for indexing of maintenance payments in divorce proceedings to the retail price index.

  Mr. Patten
  [pursuant to the Attorney-General's answer, 2 February 1990, c. 400]: Our review of the wider arrangements for assessing collecting and enforcing maintenance payments is still in progress. It is, however, clear that measures to improve the ability of the courts to ensure that payments ordered are received, are practicable and desirable. We accordingly intend to bring forward legislative proposals when an opportunity permits which would give the courts in England and Wales power to prescribe the method by which maintenance payments are made and to order the attachment of earnings without having to await evidence of arrears or default.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Turkey
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Turkish Government on behalf of prisoners of conscience on hunger strike in Turkish prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We understand that the hunger strike referred to by the hon. Member ended earlier this month.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations through the European Community for the repeal of articles 141 and 142 of the Turkish penal code; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Turkish Government are aware that we expect them to adhere to the human rights conventions to which they are a party. They are now actively reviewing the future of articles 141 and 142.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been done to examine the potential of the Western European Union as a vehicle for assessing possible threats to member countries and for research into the prospects of an all-European security area in respect of(a) defining a sufficiency threshold in defence matters, (b) analysing the concept of shared security and (c) developing means of arbitration, confidence-building measures and disarmament.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We believe that NATO remains the right place in which to assess threats to WEU member states. The question of future security arrangements in Europe, together with arms control and confidence-building issues, have been extensively discussed within the WEU. The need for sufficiency rule is part of the western position in the CFE negotiations.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response Her Majesty's Government will be making to the Western European Union Assembly's proposals that the Western European Union Council should(a) use the modified Brussels treaty as a juridical basis for the presence of forces of member states on the territory of other member states and (b) convene regular meetings of chiefs of staff of member countries to examine European armaments requirements.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Formal responses to recommendations in reports of the Western European Union assembly are the responsibility of the WEU permanent council. We have no plans to make a separate response.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the date on which a member country can use the right fixed by article XII of the Western European Union treaty to give notice to the depository government of its desire to cease being a party thereto.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  After 25 August 1998—that is, 50 years after the date on which the Brussels treaty entered into force—each of the high contracting parties has the
  495
  right, under article XII of the modified treaty, to cease to be a party thereto, provided that it has previously given one year's notice of denunciation to the Belgian Government.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to use the Western European Union to guarantee the permanency of member countries' frontiers and to ensure respect for the commitments entered into by its members in the context of agreements limiting forces or armaments or the non-production of certain weapons.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The inviolability of the frontiers of WEU member countries among others is affirmed by the Helsinki final act, of which all WEU member countries are signatories. We are confident that all WEU member countries respect, and will continue to respect, their international commitments.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the consequences of a devolution of the Federal Republic of Germany's commitments to a unified Germany for the application of the Western European Union treaty with regard to(a) co-operation between the Western European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation under article IV, (b) military assistance under article V, specified in paragraph III.4 of the Hague platform, (c) article VII and (d) implementation of article VIII, paragraphs 2 and 4 and protocols Nos. II, III and IV.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We remain in close touch with the Federal German Government and other allies on these and other aspects of future European security.

  Falkland Islands
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on how many telephones were disconnected for non-payment in each of the last five years on the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am told that records go back only as far as October 1989 when the new telephone network came into operation. Thirty telephones were cut off in that month. The number fell sharply in ensuing months and in May only two were cut off.

  German Reunification
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been done to ensure that countries participating in the conference on the external aspects of German reunification are fully informed of the guarantees offered by the modified Brussels treaty for the security of both Germany and its neighbouring countries and for the establishment of a new peaceful and secure order in Europe; and what has been the response of the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The modified Brussels treaty is a public document. We are not aware of any recent Soviet statements relating to it.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is Her Majesty's Government's policy that the commitments entered into by the Federal Republic of Germany under the modified Brussels treaty shall also be valid for a unified Germany.
  496
  Mr. Waldegrave
  We support the principle, mentioned in the Helsinki final act, that participating states have a right to be or not to be parties to treaties of alliance. We welcome the FRG's intention to go on playing a full part in western security arrangements. We support the expressed view of both German Governments that a unified Germany should be a member of NATO. The two German Governments have yet to express their views on WEU membership.

  Hong Kong (Vietnamese Refugees)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the status determination procedures used to decide whether or not Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong shall be returned to Vietnam; and how many and what percentage of people submitted to such procedures have been(a) screened in as refugees and permitted to stay and (b) screened out, so that they must return to Vietnam.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Hong Kong's status determination procedures were designed, in conjunction with UNHCR, to apply the criteria of the 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees as follows:

  (a) all new arrivals are briefed on the screening process on arrival in Hong Kong;

  (b) under the Statement of Understanding between the UNHCR and the Hong Kong Government, the UNHCR accepts responsibility for providing legal advice and assistance to asylum seekers at all stages of the screening and review procedure. UNHCR has unrestricted access to the asylum seekers for this purpose;

  (c) asylum seekers are interviewed by immigration department staff to record their personal data and their claim to refugee status. The interviews follow a questionaire designed in agreement with UNHCR. Interpreters are provided by the Hong Kong Government. Legal counsellors of the UNHCR have unrestricted access to all screening interviews;

  (d) the first instance decision on the claim to refugee status is notified to all persons after screening. If refugee status is granted, the person concerned is moved immediately to a refugee camp to await resettlement. If refugee status is not granted, the person concerned is advised that he or she has a right to seek review of the decision;

  (e) at the same time as the asylum seeker is notified of the first instance decision, a copy of the immigration department file, including a record of the interview and the reasons for the decision, is given to the UNHCR, with a separate copy to the legal consultants who on behalf of the UNHCR will assist asylum seekers in applying for a review of the decision. An asylum seeker must apply for review to the refugee status review board within 28 days of being notified of the first instance decision;

  (f) the refugee status review board is headed by a former judge, and comprises four panels of two members each, drawn from both the civil service and the community at large. Their task is to review the facts of the case and the immigration department's decision, in the light of the asylum seeker's claim as recorded at the original interview, and any further representations made to the review board. The board may, where it considers it necessary, interview either the asylum seeker or the immigration officer conducting the interview;

  (g) the decision of the review board on the application for review is notified to the asylum seeker as soon as possible after it is made.

  As at 11 June 1990, the director of immigration had completed screening for 13,647 people, of whom 1,460 were screened in (10·7 per cent.) and 12,187 screened out

  497
  (89·3 per cent.). The RSRB has considered 9,872 cases. The director of immigration's decision was upheld in 9,026 cases and overturned in 846. This gives an overall post-appeal total of 2,306 screened in (16·9 per cent.).

  EC Enlargement
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning further enlargement of the European Community.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have received no formal representations concerning further enlargement of the EC in recent months.

  Republic of Ireland
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek compensation from the Government of the Republic of Ireland for the damage caused to the economy of the United Kingdom as a result of the 48-hour restriction on shoppers visiting the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. But we are at present considering the implications of the European Court of Justice judgment in the 48-hour rule case and whether other action may be necessary.

  Poland
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom is a signatory to the treaty setting out Poland's present frontiers; and whether Poland's western frontier will be discussed within the four plus two talks on German unification.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Potsdam protocol contains provisions relating to Poland's borders, but the United Kingdom is not a party to any of Poland's treaties with its neighbours concerning borders. The Polish Foreign Minister has been invited to attend the two plus four ministerial meeting in Paris on 17 July, when borders will be discussed.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Identity Cards
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which Council of Europe states identity cards are(a) compulsory and (b) voluntary.

  Mr. John Patten
  Identity cards are compulsory in Belgium, Cyprus, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta, Spain and Turkey; and voluntary in Austria, France, Italy, Liechtenstein, Portugal and Switzerland.

  There is no system of identity cards in Denmark, the Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden or the United Kingdom.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which European Community states identity cards are machine readable; and how much information can be contained on the cards of the states which use machine-readable cards.
  498
  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that the identity cards issued in the Federal Republic of Germany are machine readable. They contain details of the bearer's name, birth, description, address and nationality, together with the date and place of issue of the card, its number and its expiry date.

  Data Protection
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which countries have acceded to the Council of Europe convention on data protection.

  Mr. Mellor
  Austria, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

  Police Statistics
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police force areas in rank order according to the number of notifiable offences of violence against the person per 100,000 population in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Notifiable offences of violence against the person recorded by the police per 100,000 population

  England and Wales 1989

  Police force area

  Number of offences per 100,000 population

  Lancashire

  206

  Dorset

  214

  Hertfordshire

  224

  Thames Valley

  228

  Sussex

  233

  Warwickshire

  236

  Surrey

  237

  Gloucestershire

  245

  Hampshire

  245

  Norfolk

  245

  Kent

  247

  North Yorkshire

  253

  Devon and Cornwall

  259

  Essex

  263

  Cheshire

  269

  Suffolk

  271

  West Mercia

  296

  Dyfed-Powys

  312

  Lincolnshire

  317

  Leicestershire

  318

  Cambridgeshire

  328

  South Wales

  348

  North Wales

  350

  Avon and Somerset

  352

  Derbyshire

  355

  Merseyside

  355

  Wiltshire

  357

  Cumbria

  362

  West Midlands

  364

  Greater Manchester

  371

  Northamptonshire

  371

  South Yorkshire

  375

  Northumbria

  380

  Bedfordshire

  401

  Durham

  405

  West Yorkshire

  435

  Gwent

  444

  Cleveland

  445

  Metropolitan Police District and City of London

  451

  Staffordshire

  501

  499

  Police force area

  Number of offences per 100,000 population

  Humberside

  678

  Nottinghamshire

  716

  England and Wales

  351

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police force areas in rank order according to the number of notifiable offences per 100,000 population in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police per 100,000 population by police force area

  England and Wales 1989

  Police force area

  Number of offences per 100,000 population

  Dyfed-Powys

  3,817

  West Mercia

  4,903

  Surrey

  4,542

  Hertfordshire

  4,975

  Wiltshire

  4,978

  Suffolk

  5,016

  Cheshire

  5,016

  North Yorkshire

  5,017

  Devon and Cornwall

  5,196

  Warwickshire

  5,234

  Derbyshire

  5,284

  Essex

  5,299

  Sussex

  5,330

  North Wales

  5,370

  Kent

  5,501

  Cambridgeshire

  5,668

  Gwent

  5,672

  Staffordshire

  5,748

  Cumbria

  5,762

  Hampshire

  5,942

  Norfolk

  5,995

  Dorset

  6,077

  Lincolnshire

  6,102

  Thames Valley

  6,180

  Leicestershire

  6,185

  Lancashire

  6,507

  Gloucestershire

  6,671

  Northamptonshire

  6,837

  Avon and Somerset

  7,087

  South Yorkshire

  7,305

  Bedfordshire

  7,704

  Durham

  7,723

  West Midlands

  8,749

  South Wales

  9,079

  West Yorkshire

  9,178

  Merseyside

  9,381

  Nottinghamshire

  10,484

  MPD and City of London

  10,595

  Humberside

  10,742

  Cleveland

  10,984

  Greater Manchester

  11,414

  Northumbria

  12,684

  England and Wales

  7,681

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police force areas in rank order according to the number of police per 100,000 population in the last year for which figures are available.
  500
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Officers per 100,000 of population1

  Number

  City of London

  2

  Metropolitan Police

  396·7

  Merseyside

  324·6

  Greater Manchester

  273·2

  Cleveland

  271·6

  West Midlands

  263·4

  West Yorkshire

  256·7

  Northumbria

  248·1

  South Wales

  243·3

  Cumbria

  240·2

  Humberside

  236·0

  Nottinghamshire

  232·6

  South Yorkshire

  231·9

  Lancashire

  231·6

  Durham

  230·4

  Gwent

  226·5

  Surrey

  222·8

  Gloucestershire

  220·7

  Avon and Somerset

  218·1

  Staffordshire

  213·2

  Sussex

  209·2

  North Wales

  209·1

  Warwickshire

  207·8

  Lincolnshire

  205·5

  Leicestershire

  204·7

  Bedfordshire

  202·0

  Dyfed Powys

  201·8

  Northamptonshire

  200·1

  Hertfordshire

  198·9

  Kent

  198·5

  Cheshire

  197·5

  North Yorkshire

  197·4

  Wiltshire

  197·1

  Essex

  195·6

  Derbyshire

  194·0

  Dorset

  193·8

  Devon and Cornwall

  193·2

  Hampshire

  189·7

  Norfolk

  189·2

  Thames Valley

  188·7

  West Mercia

  188·7

  Suffolk

  188·5

  Cambridgeshire

  184·9

  1 Based on mid-1988 population figures from OPCS (latest available) and latest 1990 establishments.

  2 Resident population of City of London is 5,000.

  Football Matches
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the total charge made to the 92 Football League clubs for police attendance at league matches in England and Wales during the 1989–90 season; and what is the change, in percentage terms, from the 1988–89 figure.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on charges made to Football League clubs by the police are not collected centrally by the Government. I understand that the Football Trust has published a figure of £4,136,000 for the season 1988–89, but has not yet published a figure for the season 1989–90.

  Immigration
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the application for British citizenship, Home Office reference S444754/5(S), is still unresolved; when he expects a decision to be made; and if he will make a statement.
  501
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend expects to make a decision in this case soon.

  National Lottery Bill
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received concerning the National Lottery Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Between 18 April, when the current private Member's Bill to make provision for a national lottery for the benefit of the arts, sport and the environment was introduced, and 18 June, we received a total of six letters about the Bill, all from the same member of the public, who in that period also copied to us other correspondence about his support for the measure.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his answer of 12 June to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, what consideration he has given to Commander Monk's speech on child abuse; and if he will make a statement on action which he will institute in the Department arising from it.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are considering Commander Monk's speech and will take his views into account in the development of our strategy for the treatment of sex offenders.

  British Refugee Council
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public assistance is given to the British Refugee Council.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office has agreed to pay grant of £685,400 to the refugee council in the current financial year. The council also receives significant income from other public sector sources including the employment training scheme, the European social fund and the hostel deficit grant system.

  Livestock Thefts
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were reported in 1988 and 1989 involving the theft of farm livestock.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information collected centrally does not enable thefts of farm livestock to be distinguished from other thefts.

  Mrs. Pat Dale
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the result of police investigations into the claim of Mrs. Pat Dale of Middlesex that she and her family had been subjected to harassment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that all incidents reported by Mrs. Dale to the police have been fully investigated. The police have found no evidence to substantiate the allegations or on which to base further inquiries.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Special Needs
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many children in each local education authority were placed in a special unit following the completion of a statement of educational needs for each year since April 1983; and what this is expressed as a percentage of(a) the total number of children with statements in the local education authority and (b) the total number of statements made by the local education authority in that year;

  (2) how many children in each local education authority were placed in a residential special school following the completion of a statement of educational needs for each year since April 1983; and what this is expressed as a percentage of (a) the total number of children with statements in the local education authority and (b) the total number of statements made by the local education authority in that year;

  (3) how many children in each local education authority were placed in a non-residential special school following the completion of a statement of educational needs for each year since April 1983; and what this is expressed as a percentage of (a) the total number of children with statements in the local education authority and (b) the total number of statements made by the local education authority in that year;

  (4) how many children in each local education authority remained in mainstream schools following the completion of a statement of educational needs for each year since April 1983; and what this is expressed as a percentage of (a) the total number of children with statements in the local education authority and (b) the total number of statements made by the local education authority in that year.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the total cost to public funds of the Student Loans Company to date; and what is his estimate of the total cost for the whole of the current and the next financial year.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend will make a statement shortly on the administrative costs of the student loans scheme.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assistance his Department or the Student Loans Company has enlisted from consultants in(a) management, (b) information technology, (c) advertising, (d) marketing and (e) public relations, in respect of the student loans scheme in the current year; and at what cost.

  Mr. Jackson
  Relationships between the Student Loans Company and its suppliers are commercially confidential. The Department has not separately received consultancy advice on the student loans scheme in the current year.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate how long after application students can expect to wait until they receive a loan from the Student Loans Company.
  503
  Mr. Jackson
  The Student Loans Company's objective will be to make the great majority of loan payments within 21 days of receipt of correctly completed eligibility certificates and application forms. The company's success in meeting that objective will depend upon the speed with which students return the loan agreement forms which they will be sent once their application forms have been processed.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what communications will take place between the Students Loans Company and the bank branch holding an individual student loan applicant's current account; and for what purpose.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Student Loans Company will make loan payments into students' bank or building society accounts by electronic transfer, through the bankers' automated clearing services and will receive repayments by direct debit from borrowers' accounts. The company will have no other contact with banks or building societies holding students' current accounts.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list(a) the banks which have participated in any discussions with the Student Loans Company in the current year, (b) those banks which have not yet participated and (c) those banks which have refused to participate.

  Mr. Jackson
  Discussions between the Student Loans Company and other financial insitutions are strictly and mutually confidential.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if a student in agreeing to the terms and conditions of a student loan authorises the Student Loans Company to make future searches on their income, via employers and banks.

  Mr. Jackson
  The terms and conditions of a loan agreement will not authorise the Student Loans Company to investigate borrowers' incomes through their employers or banks. Borrowers wishing to defer repayments will be required to produce evidence that their income falls below 85 per cent. of national average earnings.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations his Department has had with the National Union of Students in respect of administration of the student loans scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  The National Union of Students has been kept informed of developments in the student loans scheme. Officials will be meeting shortly to discuss the scheme.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how the Student Loans Company proposes to ensure that student loan applicants' referees maintain regular contact between the Student Loans Company and the student over the repayment period;

  (2) if a student loan applicant who fails to find a referee will be refused a loan.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Student Loans Company will not ask loan applicants to nominate referees. The company will ask applicants to nominate on the applications form two 504
  individuals, one of whom should be a relative or guardian, who can be contacts in the event of the company losing touch with the borrower. If the application forms are not fully completed, applicants will not receive a loan.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department has yet agreed a system of student certification for the purpose of a student loan application with institutions of higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  The duties of academic institutions are set out in regulation 10 of the Education (Student Loans) Regulations, laid before Parliament on 13 June. Representatives of the Student Loans Company and the Education Departments will be holding a nationwide series of meetings with the higher education institutions in the next two weeks to help the institutions prepare for their role in the scheme.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department will be reimbursing the total administrative cost of student certification for the purpose of a student loan application; and if he will estimate that cost in the current and the next financial year.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Student Loans Company will make a payment to academic institutions of £3·50 for each eligibility certificate which is correctly completed on its first submission to the company. The total administrative cost will depend upon the number of students who seek certification of eligibility and on the number of correctly completed certificates.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the itinerary of visits to be undertaken by the three higher education liaison officers appointed by the Student Loans Company.

  Mr. Jackson
  The role of the academic liaison officers is to help institutions fulfil their responsibilities under the legislation governing the student loans scheme. To that end, the liaison officers have already visited a wide range of institutions; are meeting representatives of institutions at regional meetings in the next two weeks; and will, on request, visit any institution with eligible students.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guarantees have been offered to staff of the Student Loans Company in the event of a change of Government policy on student finance.

  Mr. Jackson
  None. Staff of the Student Loans Company are employed under arrangements which reflect current practice in the commercial sector.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when students can start to apply for a loan from the Student Loans Company.

  Mr. Jackson
  Students will be able to apply for a loan as soon as they have been certified as eligible by their academic institution.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when is the deadline for application for a loan from the Student Loans Company; and whether students who apply for a loan which is less than that to which they are entitled can later apply for the remainder.
  505
  Mr. Jackson
  For the academic year 1990–91, the Student Loans Company will issue loans in respect of loan agreements received by the company by 31 July 1991. Eligible students may make one application for a loan each academic year; they may draw down the loan in up to three instalments.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions the Student Loans Company has had with the clearing banks in respect of the payment and repayment of student loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Student Loans Company will make loan payments and receive repayments through the bankers' automated clearing services. These arrangements have been discussed with the company's bankers.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his latest estimate of student take-up of the student loans scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  For planning purposes, the Government continue to assume an 80 per cent. take-up rate of student loans.

  Access Funds
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he plans to publish details of how institutions of higher education will administer access funds.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffihs) on 21 May 1990,Official Report, column 46.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will have any power to alter the criteria adopted by an institution of higher education in respect of access fund disbursement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Provided that an institution of higher education complies with the conditions of payment under which it receives an allocation from the access funds, the determining of criteria to be adopted for the disbursement of money from the funds to students is entirely a matter for the institution itself.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if individual students refuse an access fund award by their institution will be able to appeal against the decision.

  Mr. Jackson
  Institutions will be entirely responsible for the administration of their share of the access funds including the handling of appeals from individual students.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance he will be issuing to institutions of higher education in respect of the disbursement of access funds; and what will be the nature of any such guidance.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 21 May 1990,Official Report, column 46. I understand that the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council will be issuing guidance to the institutions for which they are responsible by the end of June.
  506
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if students will have any powers of appeal in respect of the criteria adoped by an institution of higher education for the disbursement of access funds.

  Mr. Jackson
  It will be for the higher education institutions themselves to decide what criteria to adopt for the disbursement of the access funds and whether to consult their students about those criteria.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance he is giving to institutions of higher education in respect of disabled students' needs when access funds are distributed.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council will be responsible for giving guidance to institutions in their sectors on the distribution of the access funds. Paragraph 1 of the conditions of payment of the access funds to the two funding councils (a copy of which was placed in the Library on 21 May) make it clear that physical and other disabilities are among the possible reasons for financial difficulties which the access funds are intended to address.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what account will be taken of variations in regional housing costs in respect of the distribution of access funds to institutions of higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  It will be for the two funding councils to determine how the access funds are to be distributed to institutions in their sectors. The factors which my right hon. Friend has invited the funding councils to take into account are set out in paragraph 5 of the notes of guidance for the UFC and the PCFC a copy of which was placed in the Library on 21 May. One of the factors is"the particular needs of students in private accommodation in areas where the cost of accommodation is especially high, eg London and the South East."

  Universities and Polytechnics (Funding)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the figures for the revenue and research monies received by each individual university and polytechnic, expressed in terms of funding per student.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information on universities' incomes and student numbers are contained in tables 1 and 12 respectively of volume 3 "University Statistics—Finance" published by the universities statistical record.

  Available data on polytechnic expenditure and students are published by the Department in table D15 of "Statistics of Education—Finance and Awards".

  Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

HEALTH

  Adoption
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures exist to enable adults, adopted early in life, to make contact with siblings.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Adoption Act 1976 gives adopted adults the right, after counselling where required,
  507
  to the information which will enable them to obtain a certified copy of their original record of birth. Some adopted people may wish to use this information as a starting point in an effort to trace the whereabouts of their natural relatives and sometimes to contact or meet them. The Registrar-General is usually prepared to note on a person's adoption record that there is a natural relative, including a sibling, who would welcome contact; and, if the adopted person applies for information about his birth record, to tell him about his relative's wishes. The Children Act 1989 provides for an adoption contact register to formalise these arrangements; we plan to implement the Act next year.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the costs of the consultancy management team study of waiting lists in Newcastle, Durham and East Cumbria referred to in the reply given to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin),Official Report, 20 March, column 555; where such costs are accounted for in national health service budgets; what conclusions this study reached; what actions have been taken as a result; and if he will place a copy of the consultancy team's report in the Library.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Waiting lists in these three districts are among 100 specialty lists being investigated by Inter-Authority Comparisons and Consultancy (IACC) in 1990–91. The costs are not separately identified by district, but amount to £420,000 for the national programme of studies and are met centrally from the waiting list fund.

  The aim of the studies is to investigate why waiting times for treatment are so long, and to draw up contracts with the districts for agreed workload levels and reductions in waiting time in return for additional funding. A total of £12 million from the waiting list fund has been earmarked to fund the recommendations of the studies. So far £45,000 has been allocated to Durham to reduce the number of patients waiting over a year on the general surgery/urology list, and £121,000 to East Cumbria to reduce the wait for general surgery. Newcastle's plastic surgery list is still under consideration.

  A copy of IACC's summary report "Examining some of England's longest waiting lists" is in the Library. This describes IACC's work in 1989–90, which by March 1990 had resulted in a reduction from 29,580 to 15,042 in the number of patients waiting over a year in 43 key specialties. A full-year report is in preparation.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to improve the family planning service provided by(a) general practitioners, including women doctors and (b) health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The day-to-day management of family planning services is a matter for individual health authorities since they can best judge local circumstances and priorities. The Government continue to regard family planning as an important preventive service. Guidance issued by the Department of Health makes clear that health authorities should ensure that full use is made of family planning services and that a proper balance is struck between services provided by specialist clinics and 508
  those provided by GPs. This guidance was recently reiterated in a letter to regional general managers by the director of operations and planning on the NHS management executive. The Government also remain committed to encouraging and helping women doctors to enter general practice. The new contract which came into force from 1 April 1990 benefits women doctors in a number of ways:

  —capitation-based system encourages partnerships to offer the patients the choice of both men and women doctors.

  —women doctors will be particularly attractive to partnerships if they offer one of the specialties for which the new fees are being paid, for example, minor surgery, child health surveillance.

  —arrangements for part-time working and job sharing are being formalised.

  —qualifications for locum cover during confinement have been eased.

  Head Lice
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has received linking lindane, or gamma benzene hexachloride, to leukaemia and kidney damage; and if he will consider taking action to prevent them being used in head lice treatment.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Lindane, also known as gamma benzene hexachloride, is an insecticide which has been available for a number of years in low concentrations in licensed medicinal products for external use. The Committee on Safety of Medicines has received no reports of leukaemia or kidney damage associated with lindane treatment.

  Lindane is an effective treatment for scabies. As a consequence of the emergence of resistance it is no longer commonly used for the sole treatment of head lice. Low concentrations of lindane when used topically and as recommended have a good safety record over many years of extensive use.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of funding of community health councils in England and on the role of his Department in ensuring adequate levels of funding for individual community health councils.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The expenses of community health councils are met by and form part of the total expenditure of the health authorities concerned. It is for health authorities to decide on the level of funding that they provide to community health councils.

  Toxic Shock Syndrome
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of toxic shock syndrome there have been in each of the past five years; of those cases, how many proved to be fatal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information received by the public health laboratory service (PHLS) indicates that from 1984 to 1989 there were around 15 confirmed cases a year of toxic shock syndrome in the United Kingdom and that around three cases a year proved fatal.

  Transplant Service
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where the new special health authority to manage the United Kingdom transplant service is to be situated; what staff and budget it will have; and when it will he operational.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We will take decisions on these questions in the light of the implementation study to which I referred in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 11 June at column 35.

  Optician Services
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the most recent impact of prescription charges on the take-up of opticians' services(a) nationally and (b) by national health service region.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The independent survey of sight tests, carried out by NOP and commissioned by the Government, considered demand on both a national and standard region basis. The information was not, however, analysed by national health service region. The survey found that sight test uptake during the first three months of 1990 was well in line with projected trends over the 10 years up to 1987. It implied that there was no evidence to suggest that people were being deterred from visiting their optician because they now had to pay a modest private charge. Copies of the full NOP report along with an analysis of the findings by the Government statistical service have been placed in the Library.

  Larynx Cancer
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has conducted or commissioned any research into cancer of the larynx resulting from asbestosis, explosives or industrial substances.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No such research has been commissioned by the Department. The Medical Research Council (M RC) is the main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom. The MRC receives its grant in aid from the Department of Education and Science.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress which has been made on each of the projects of research on child abuse listed in his answer of 27 January 1989,Official Report, column 798.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The current position on the projects on research on child abuse listed in the reply that my hon. and learned Friend the then Minister for Health gave the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 27 January 1989 at column 798 is as follows:

  Intervention in child sexual abuse: project extended to 30 September 1990.

  Normal sexual knowledge in children: continuing.

  A study of co-ordination in child abuse: continuing. Decision making intervention and outcomes in respect of children at risk of abuse: continuing.

  Parental perceptions in child abuse: commissioned. Period of support, 1 October 1989 to 30 September 1992.

  510

  Feasibility of prevalence study: under consideration.

  Parental participation in child protection case conferences: commissioned. Period of support, 1 October 1989 to 31 March 1992.

  A study of the patterns of use of child protection registers: commissioned. Period of support, 1 October 1990 to 31 December 1992.

  Computer-based techniques in diagnosis: pilot study commissioned. Period of support, 1 January 1990 to 30 April 1990.

  Evaluation of inter-disciplinary training under consideration.

  Perpetrators of child sexual abuse: under consideration.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people on family credit or income support received free eye tests in each district health authority area in England in each quarter of 1988–89 and in each quarter of 1989–90.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Statistics prior to 1 April 1989 were not broken down by patient group. Since then family practitioner committees have collected data on sight tests paid for under the general ophthalmic services on a six-monthly basis. District health authorities do not collect such information. The table gives estimated numbers by patient group and regional health authority for the period in question:

  NHS sight tests paid for during April-September 1989

  Regional health authority

  Adults (IS-FC)

  Northern

  40,000

  Yorkshire

  39,360

  Trent

  51,880

  East Anglia

  16,050

  North West Thames

  34,030

  North East Thames

  34,980

  South East Thames

  39,010

  South West Thames

  23,510

  Wessex

  29,390

  Oxford

  13,510

  South Western

  46,310

  West Midlands

  74,690

  Mersey

  27,810

  North Western

  60,160

  These figures are based on a 2 per cent. sample of NHS sight test application forms processed by family practitioner committees. They do not take into account sight tests paid for after 1 April 1989 but conducted before that period.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with glaucoma and diabetes received free eye tests in England(a) in each quarter in 1988–89 and (b) in each quarter in 1989–90.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 13 June 1990]: Statistics prior to 1 April 1989 were not broken down by patient group. Since then family practitioner committees have collected data on sight tests paid for under the general ophthalmic services on a six-monthly basis. A total of 114,210 NHS sight tests for diabetes and glaucoma sufferers were paid for in England during the period 1 April to 30 September 1989. This figure is based on a 2 per cent. sample of NHS sight test application forms processed by family practitioner committees. It does not take into account sight tests paid for after 1 April 1989 but conducted before that period.

  Abortion
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total number of abortions, under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967, in the Sheffield health authority area for each of the last three years for which figures are available; how many of these abortions were performed(a) on ground four and (b) ground five; and how many of these abortions were notified in the national health service sector, and how many in the private sector.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Abortion data by district of termination are not released on grounds of confidentiality; data for usual residents of Sheffield district health authority are shown in the table:

  Number of abortions performed under statutory grounds (a) four and (b) five of the Abortion Act 1967, and by category of premises, usual residents of Sheffield district health authority, 1987, 1988 and 19891

  Year

  Statutory grounds

  Total

  Category of premises

  Four

  Five

  NHS

  Non-NHS

  1987

  28

  —

  1,485

  814

  671

  1988

  15

  —

  1,507

  901

  606

  11989

  12

  —

  1,503

  889

  614

  1 Provisional

  Statutory ground 4: there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

  Statutory ground 5: to save the life of the pregnant woman.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which managerial and administrative posts in the Oxfordshire health authority attract performance-related pay; what proportion of their pay is determined by performance; how frequently performance is reviewed; and who is responsible for undertaking the official assessment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We do not hold this information centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Oxfordshire health authority for the information he seeks.

  General Practitioners Budgets
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners or general practitioner practices have now expressed an interest in becoming practice budget holders within each health authority in England.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The programme "Funding General Practice" issued to all GPs in England in December invited practices that were interested in fund holding to return a form to their regional health authority. By the end of February over 850 practices had expressed an interest in this way and others have done so subsequently. The table sets out the position in each region:

  Region

  Number of practices expressing an interest February 1990

  Northern

  65

  Yorkshire

  64

  Trent

  57

  512

  Region

  Number of practices expressing an interest February 1990

  East Anglian

  36

  NW Thames

  78

  NE Thames

  58

  SE Thames

  61

  SW Thames

  58

  Wessex

  55

  Oxford

  61

  South Western

  85

  West Midlands

  70

  Mersey

  51

  North Western

  55

  Total

  854

  Of these 854 practices, around 150 had to be rejected simply because they did not meet the size criterion and did not wish to join with another practice, around 400 are likely to undertake preparatory work to enable them to become fund holders in 1991 and over 150 have indicated that they wish to consider becoming fund holders in 1992.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the names of the general practitioners or practices which have expressed an interest in becoming practice budget holders.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners and general practitioner practices will be eligible to become practice budget holders within each health authority in England.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The criteria for participation in the practice funding scheme will be set out in regulations made under clause 14 of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill currently before Parliament. However, as indicated in the programme "Funding General Practice" issued last December, copies of which are available in the Library, practices which have over 9,000 patients (or group together to meet this criterion), can demonstrate the ability to manage a fund and are adequately computerised are eligible to participate. It is not possible to state how many practices meet all these criteria.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners practices are now eligible to become budget holders; how many have expressed an interest in budget holding; if he will name those practices; and if he will give the information by region.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my replies today to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy).

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications of the reduction of the Heteroptera sub-section of the natural history museum for research related to bed bugs, as vectors of diseases.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None. We are not aware of any new problems which would necessitate the Department sponsoring research in this area.
  513
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications of any reduction of research work on fossils and fossil plants at the natural history museum for medical research.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None. The Medical Research Council (MRC) is the Government's main agency for the promotion of medical and related biomedical research in the United Kingdom. The MRC receives its grant in aid from the Department of Education and Science.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instructions have been issued by his Department or the national health service management board in relation to the vocabulary or terminology used to promote, describe or present, "Working for Patients" and the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes have been made since November 1989 to the list of 79 units preparing for self-governing trust status; and if he will give an up-to-date list of those making plans for 1991.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 25 April at columns 217–18. An up-to-date list is as follows:

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  Freeman Hospital

  Newcastle Mental Health Services

  Newcastle General Hospital

  Northumbria Ambulance Services.

  Royal Victoria Infirmary and Dental Hospital

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  Bradford Acute Services

  Leeds General Infirmary and Associated Hospitals

  St. James University Hospital, Leeds

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  Children's Hospital, Sheffield

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and the Montagu Hospital

  Lincolnshire Ambulance Service

  Nether Edge Hospital, Sheffield

  Northern General Hospital

  East Anglian Regional Health Authority

  East Suffolk Community Services

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney Priority Services

  Norfolk Ambulances

  West Norfolk and Wisbech Community Services

  West Norfolk and Wisbech Acute Services

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Central Middlesex Hospital

  Harefield Hospital

  Hillingdon Hospital

  Mount Vernon Hospital

  North West Hertfordshire Priority Services Unit

  North Hertfordshire Acute and Community Services

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority

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

  North Middlesex Hospital

  Southend District Services

  The London Hospital Group

  The Royal Free Hospital

  514

  The Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Brighton Acute Services

  Bromley Acute Services

  Bromley Mental Health (Ravensbourne)

  Guy's and Lewisham Hospitals and associated Mental Illness Services

  St. Thomas's Hospital and associated Community Services

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Croydon Mental Handicap Unit

  Croydon Community Unit

  Kingston Hospital

  Mid-Downs West Unit

  Mid-Surrey General Unit

  North West Surrey Mental Handicap and Mental Health Units

  South West Surrey Acute Unit

  St. Helier and Sutton Hospitals

  Wessex Regional Health Authority

  Lymington Hospitals

  Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases

  West Dorset Acute Services

  West Dorset Community and General Hospital Services

  West Dorset Mental Health Services

  Oxford Regional Health Authority

  Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford

  South Western Regional Health Authority

  Bristol

  Cornwall Mental Handicap Services

  Cornwall Community Services

  East Somerset

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  North Devon

  Plymouth Acute Services

  South Devon Health Care Trust

  West Somerset

  Weston

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority

  Alexandra Hospital

  Mid Staffordshire Mental Health Unit

  Mid Staffordshire Community Unit

  Rugby District Services

  Walsall Acute Services

  Mersey Regional Health Authority

  Arrow Park and Clatterbridge Hospitals

  Broadgreen Hospital, excluding Mersey Regional Cardio-Thoracic Unit

  Crew Acute Services

  Halton Community Services

  Regional Adult Cardio-Thoracic Unit, Liverpool

  Royal Liverpool Children's Hospitals

  Royal Liverpool Hospital

  Whiston St. Helens Hospital

  North Western Regional Health Authority

  Central Manchester Hospital and Community Services

  Christie Hospital

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether a unit applying for self-governing trust status will be allowed to withdraw their application(a) after it has been submitted to the regional health authority, (b) after consultation with the regional health authority and (c) after it has been submitted to him.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Applications may be withdrawn at any time before my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State signs the order establishing that particular trust.
  515
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the criteria he will use when making decisions about an application to establish a self-governing trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will consider applications for national health service trust status individually in the light of all relevant information. We will expect them to meet the criteria set out in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Health Authority Chairmen
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities and family health services authorities there are in each of the three bands for remuneration of chairs; and if he will list the district health authorities and FHSAs in each of the bands.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  For the remuneration of district health authority and family practitioner committee chairmen the number of authorities in each band is as follows:

  Average daily available beds West Berkshire health authority

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Acute

  1,068

  1,021

  1,012

  1,013

  1,021

  911

  967

  946

  897

  846

  Non-acute

  1,919

  1,799

  1,746

  1,691

  1,605

  1,512

  1,457

  1,389

  1,306

  1,241

  The numbers of patients treated in all specialties rose from 44,000 to 50,000 between 1979 and 1987–88. Figures for 1988–89 patient activity are still provisional.

  AIDS
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in the United Kingdom were born with AIDS in 1989; what were the figures for the previous three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 15 June 1990]: There are no reports to the public health laboratory service communicable disease surveillance centre or to the communicable diseases (Scotland) unit of children being born with AIDS. The cumulative total of reports of children born with HIV antibody, to end 1989 is 144. Most of these children are not infected but acquired HIV antibody from their mother. If the child is not itself infected this maternal antibody disappears within the first 18 months of life. There have been 23 reports of children developing AIDS, whose parents were HIV-infected or at risk of infection.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the United Kingdom will be infected with the AIDS virus by the year 2000 if the current rate of growth is maintained.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 15 June 1990]: It is not possible to predict how many cases of AIDS or HIV-infected individuals there will be by the year 2000. The Day report "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome in England and Wales to end 1993", published in February 1990, projected that there would be 4,980 cases of AIDS at the end of 1993, and up to 46,450 people infected with HIV by the end of 1990.
  516

  Band

  District health authority

  Family practitioner committee

  1

  50

  15

  2

  98

  61

  3

  42

  14

  A list of the district health authorities and family practitioner committees in each band has been placed in the Library.

  West Berkshire Health Authority
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of beds, broken down by acute and non-acute, in West Berkshire health authority in each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is given in the table:

  The Day report made it clear that predictions beyond 1993 are subject to great uncertainty. A copy of it is available in the Library.

  Gamete Infra Fallopian Transfer
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to seek the views of the President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on the procedure known as gamete intra fallopian transfer which may result in higher order multiple births; and what reply he has received.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On 14 May I wrote to Sir George Pinker KCVO FRCOG FRCS (Ed) the President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I am publishing as follows the text of my letter and of his reply of 15 June. This makes it clear that the council of the college does not favour the statutory regulation of such procedures. Instead, it proposes to issue professional guidance to fellows and members about procedures which may result in higher order multiple births once the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is enacted.

  Sir George Pinker CVO FRCSEd FRCOG

  President

  Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

  27 Sussex Place

  Regent's Park

  London

  NW1 4RG

  14 May 1990

  Dear George,

  MULTIPLE PREGNANCY RESULTING FROM INFERTILITY TREATMENTS
  Now that continuation of research on the early human embryo has been agreed by a Committee of the whole House of Commons, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is being considered in detail by a Standing Committee in the usual way. At its first session the Standing Committee

  517
  discussed an amendment which, if accepted, would have brought the GIFT procedure under the control of the Statutory Licensing Authority.
  The view of the Council of your College, which you kindly provided for me last month, was made available to members of the Committee. There was a lengthy debate which, of course, was reported in Hansard (copy enclosed). You will see that the concerns expressed about GIFT related entirely to the possibility that it can result in triplets or higher order multiple births, just as could IVF, if too many eggs are replaced. However, as I explained, such multiple pregnancies also result from the use of superovulatory drugs alone in the treatment of infertility. To introduce legislative control of GIFT for this reason would thus point to a need to regulate superovulatory therapy in general which would indeed take us well on to the slippery slope of wider regulation of medical practice—something which in the long run would not, it seems to me, to be to the advantage of patients or doctors.
  As you will see, the Committee rejected the amendment, but in view of the concerns expressed about the difficulties which may be experienced by women carrying and giving birth to triplets or more, I promised to write to you to ask that the College give consideration to ensuring that its Fellows and Members are fully aware of the Parliamentary concerns about high multiple pregnancy. The problems associated with this have been well documented in recent research by Frances Price of the Child Care and Development Group in Cambridge, whose research has been supported by the Department and which will be published by HMSO soon.
  Clearly it would be most reassuring to those members of Parliament who have expressed concern about triplets and higher order multiple pregnancies resulting from infertility treatments if the College were prepared to convey this concern, perhaps with some advice, to its Fellows and Members.

  Yours ever

  Virginia

  Mrs. V. Bottomley, MP

  Minister of State for Health

  Department of Health

  Richmond House

  79 Whitehall

  LONDON SW1A 2NS

  15th June 1990

  Dear Mrs. Bottomley

  Re: Multiple Pregnancy Resulting from Infertility Treatment Thank you very much for your letter of 14th May regarding the concern of the Members of Parliament about procedures such as GIFT resulting in higher order multiple births.
  As you know, the Council of the College has on occasions discussed this and felt that regulation of procedures such as GIFT will not only set a precedent in terms of regulating medical practice but also that, as these forms of treatment are still evolving, any framework regulating the current practices may restrict further development. Therefore we feel that GIFT and similar procedures should not be included in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. I think your point that legislative control of GIFT could also lead the way to regulating other treatments for infertility, such as the use of gonadorophins for ovulation induction, is extremely important.
  We have in the past relied on the ILA, which as you know evolved from the VLA set up by the RCOG and the MRC, to issue guidelines to those of our Fellows and Members involved in the management of infertility patients where treatment such as IVF and GIFT were provided. The College would certainly be willing to reinforce this advice by circulating guidelines to Fellows and Members. We are now working on these and they will cover the following areas: counselling, the use of gonadotrophins in induction of ovulation, number of embryos or eggs to be transferred and other matters relating to the practice of GIFT. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent these will be put in their final form and circulated.
  I look forward to receiving as soon as possible a copy of Frances Price's paper.

  Yours sincerely,

  George D. Pinker.

NOTHERN IRELAND

  Violent Deaths
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of deaths caused by violence in Northern Ireland in the years(a) 1984, (b) 1985, (c) 1986, (d) 1987, (e) 1988, and (f) 1989 respectively, and how this was subdivided by the number of (i) Catholics, (1) civilian, and (2) Irish Republican Army or paramilitary groups (ii) Protestants (1) civilian, and (2) Ulster Defence Regiment or other paramilitary groups (iii) security forces (1) local or (2) British and (iv) others.

  Mr. Cope
  A total of 427 deaths arose from the security situation in Northern Ireland during the period 1984–89. The data collated do not differentiate between Catholic and Protestant, or civilians or paramilitary groupings. The table sets out the available information:

  Deaths in Northern Ireland arising from the security situation

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  RUC

  9

  23

  12

  16

  6

  9

  Regular Army

  9

  2

  4

  3

  21

  12

  UDR

  10

  4

  8

  8

  12

  2

  Civilians1

  36

  25

  37

  66

  54

  39

  Total

  64

  54

  61

  93

  93

  62

  1 category includes known or suspected terrorists.

  Condoms
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make representations at a meeting of the Anglo-Irish ministerial conference to have the present prohibition on the sale of condoms, in the Virgin Megastore in Dublin removed.

  Mr. Brooke
  The matter is not one which it would be appropriate to raise at a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference.

  Replacement Dwellings
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he proposes to introduce conditions requiring the demolition of the building to be replaced to be attached to grants of permission for replacement buildings.

  Mr. Needham
  No. Each application is treated on its merits.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average size of approved replacement dwellings in amenity areas of special control in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Pensioners' Christmas Bonus
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to increase the Christmas bonus for pensioners in December 1990.

  Mr. Needham
  I have no plans to do so.

  Beef Premium
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many farmers applied for special beef premium between 1 April 1989 and 31 March 1990; and, of these, how many were accepted and payment made.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Between 3 April 1989 (the commencement date of the scheme) and 31 March 1990, 23,375 farmers submitted 37,595 applications for beef special premium. Of these, 36,761 have been accepted and paid to date; 337 applications have been disallowed.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reasons were given for disallowing claims in respect of special beef premium between 1 April 1989 and 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The reasons for disallowance of claims were:

  (a) Failure to comply with the on-farm retention requirement.

  (b) Inclusion in claims of animals on which premium had previously been paid.

  (c) Inclusion in claims of female cattle.

  (d) Inclusion in claims of animals below the minimum eligible age of 8 months at date of lodgement of the claim.

  (e) Producers making more than three claims (the maximum permitted) in a calendar year.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons in Northern Ireland receive reduced earnings allowance; and what were the total sums paid out in Northern Ireland during the last two financial years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  At 8 May 1990 4,191 persons in Northern Ireland were receiving reduced earnings allowance.

  Over £13 million was paid in benefits (including reduced earnings allowance) under the industrial injuries scheme in Northern Ireland in each of the 1987–88 and 1988–89 financial years. Separate figures are not available for reduced earnings allowance.

  Teachers
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total amount of teaching time taught by part-time teachers and in the form of additional hours for full-time teachers in the North Eastern education and library board area additional hours budget, broken down by college.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: The hours taught by part-time teachers and the additional hours taught by full-time teachers vary throughout the year depending on demand. However, all FE colleges make a standard return each year to the Department of Education in respect of the position in the third week of October. In the week ending 20 October 1989 the following hours were worked in colleges in the North-Eastern Board area.
  520

  Part-time hours

  Additional hours

  Antrim

  209·9

  27·4

  Ballymena

  376·42

  130·50

  Coleraine

  169·5

  100

  Larne

  109

  13

  Magherafelt

  129·07

  68·68

  Newtownabbey

  489·96

  44·46

  North Antrim

  85

  55

  Northern Ireland Hotel and Catering College

  41·16

  2·66

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of part-time lecturers employed in each further education college in the North Eastern education and library board area, broken down by college.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: The use of part-time lecturers is reported to the Department of Education annually to show the position in the third week of October. In the North-Eastern Education and Library Board area the following numbers of part-time lecturers were employed in the week ending 20 October 1989.

  Number

  Antrim

  48

  Ballymena

  78

  Coleraine

  40

  Larne

  24

  Magherafelt

  23

  Newtownabbey

  140

  North Antrim

  28

  Northern Ireland Hotel and Catering College

  5

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Department of Education has approved the 24 redundancies announced by the North Eastern education and library board.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: The North-Eastern Education and Library Board has assessed the number of full-time lecturers which each of its further education colleges will require to deliver the youth training programme courses under the new block funding arrangements and has decided that the existing number of full-time YTP posts should be reduced. The revised number of YTP posts has been agreed with the Department of Education.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what specific measures have been taken by the North Eastern education and library board to avoid redundancies.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: The board has examined the possibility of redeployment within each college and to other colleges and schools in its area. It has also identified a number of full-time lecturers who wish to take early retirement. These steps have reduced the number of compulsory redundancies to a minimum.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken by the North Eastern library board to avoid religious discrimination against Catholics in further education colleges.
  521
  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: The North-Eastern education and library board has published an equal opportunities policy statement indicating its commitment to the principle of equal opportunity in relation to both persons seeking to be employed by the board and persons already so employed. The board has recently made its statutory monitoring return to the Fair Employment Commission and will be reviewing its current position to determine if any corrective action is required to redress any imbalances that might be shown to be present.

  Training
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the staff/student ratio for each YTP course in the North Eastern education and library board area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: The information requested is not available in respect of each individual YTP course. However, the staff/student ratio in respect of the YTP provision in each college in the North-Eastern education and library board at 31 December 1989 was as follows:

  Ratio

  Antrim

  7·7

  Ballymena

  13·7

  Ballymoney

  6·6

  Coleraine

  10·1

  Larne

  10·1

  Magherafelt

  11·1

  Newtownabbey

  8·5

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Bishopbriggs Resettlement Unit
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will provide a breakdown by age of the residents in the Bishopbriggs resettlement unit in the last full year for which figures are available;

  Single person

  Married man with 2 children

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  Year

  Average weekly earnings (£)

  Standard rate unemployment benefit1 (£)

  Benefit as a percentage of net income3

  Average weekly earnings2 (£)

  Standard rate unemployment benefit1 2 (£)

  Benefit as a percentage of net income2 3

  October 1972

  39·70

  13·75

  47·7

  40·60

  22·10

  68·0

  November 1979

  114·10

  31·79

  39·8

  122·10

  54·64

  59·7

  November 1982

  160·60

  25·00

  23·3

  172·30

  52·75

  42·5

  April 1987

  224·00

  31·45

  20·2

  238·50

  65·35

  36·8

  April 1989

  269·50

  34·70

  18·1

  284·00

  70·60

  33·1

  1 Earnings-related supplement is included with the rate of unemployment benefit up to and including November 1979.

  2 The amounts at columns 4, 5 and 6 include family allowance/child benefit.

  3 Net income used in columns 3 and 6 is income after deduction of tax and national insurance contributions.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will be making extra staffing available for social fund duties to improve the rate of unprocessed applications.

  Mr. Scott
  Compared with the year 1989–90, the share of the total staff resources allocated to social fund increased by 1,615 posts for the year 1990–91. These resources, available to local offices from April 1990, reflect the ongoing review of resource requirements carried out by
  522
  (2) if he will provide a statistical breakdown of the length of stay of residents in the Bishopbriggs resettlement unit in the last year for which figures are available;

  (3) what was the total number of people who used the Bishopbriggs resettlement unit in the last full year for which figures are available;

  (4) if he will list the agencies which have referred individuals to the Bishopbriggs resettlement unit in the latest 12-month period for which figures are available, and the number of individuals referred to each agency.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is not available.

  The resettlement agency does not collect detailed statistics of individual residents because resettlement unit residents, who by definition are a transient population, are often resentful of detailed questioning. When admitting people the aim is to provide warmth, shelter and food and to restrict questions and statistics to the absolute minimum.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of bed spaces available for use at the Bishopbriggs resettlement unit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of bed spaces available at Glasgow resettlement unit (Bishopbriggs) is 77.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing unemployment benefit, including earnings-related supplement, as a percentage of average earnings for the years(a) 1972, (b) 1979, (c) 1982, (d) 1987 and (e) 1989 for a single person and a married man with two children, both on average earnings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is in the table.

  the Department. Both the resource needs and organisation of the social fund in local offices will continue to be kept under review by departmental officials.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps are being taken by his Department to improve the collection of outstanding national insurance contributions from employers and employees; and what are the specific staffing, computerisation and time resources committed to collection.
  523
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) on 21 May at columns 80–81 about improving the collection of national insurance contributions.

  At present some 1,600 inspectors are employed. There will be better training for these inspectors and in the first instance there will be 100 more of them to perform the tasks.

  A fully computerised national insurance records system is used for recording contributions and providing information in relation to benefit claims. It also identifies potential underpayment and non-payment of contributions in relation to employed people and employers. It is the intention to develop further the information technology support available, to record such contributions and to assist the inspectorate.

  Student Benefits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received concerning the proposals to remove students from income support, unemployment benefit and housing benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Representations have been received from a number of individuals and organisations, including the National Union of Students and other organisations representing students' interests, the all-party disablement group, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the British Dyslexia Association and the Dyslexia Educational Trust.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the circumstances in which he would consider reinstating student entitlement to housing benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government's view is that students should generally be supported by the educational maintenance system and not social security benefits, although students in vulnerable groups will retain eligibility for housing benefit and income support. The introduction of student loans and the creation of the access funds will result in an increase in student support of well over £100 million in the 1990–91 academic year. The operation and adequacy of these new funding arrangements will be kept under review.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to monitor the impact the withdrawal of entitlement to housing benefit will have on the income of students attending institutions of higher education in areas of high-cost rented accommodation.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government are considering a further survey of students' income and expenditure following the introduction of student loans and withdrawal of benefits from most full-time students. In addition, we will be monitoring the operation and adequacy of the access funds.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Social Security Advisory Committee reports on Government proposals to withdraw 524
  student entitlement to social security benefits are to be published; and when the Government plans to respond to the reports.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We are giving careful consideration to the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee on draft regulations to implement our policy on students' benefit entitlement. The report will be published when that consideration has been completed.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what external advice his Department has received on the legal status of his proposals to withdraw entitlement to unemployment benefit for students who have made national insurance contributions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We are satisfied, following legal advice, that we have the necessary statutory powers.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to publish the regulations cancelling student entitlement to housing benefit and social security.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We are currently considering the implications of amendments to the Social Security Bill carried in the House of Lords, and we will make an announcement about timing of regulations in due course.

  Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost to the national insurance fund of incentives to take up contracted out personal pension plans in the financial years 1989–90; and if he will provide estimates for 1990–91 and succeeding years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The cost to the national insurance fund in 1989–90 of the 2 per cent. incentive payments to personal pensions was about £680 million; this represented payments of incentives in respect of both of the years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  By the end of the year 1989–90 a little over 4 million personal pensions were in force. Assuming that the number in force remains constant through to 1992–93 the estimated cost in 1990–91 is £500 million (relating to year 1989–90) and in the years 1991–92 to 1993–94 (relating to years 1990–91 to 1992–93) the estimated cost can be expected to rise in line with general increases in earnings.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the latest figure of the number of people claiming family credit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest information about the family credit caseload, to include backdated awards, is a provisional figure for the end of March 1990 of 308,000.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will extend mobility allowance to children under five years of age.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

SCOTLAND

  Animal Cruelty
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will seek to extend the sentencing provisions of the Protection of Animals (Penalties) Act 1987 relating to the penalties for those found guilty of animal cruelty and in particular those involved in dog fighting, so as to cover Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Government intend to seek to increase the maximum fine available to the Scottish courts in respect of offences of cruelty to animals at the next suitable legislative opportunity.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases which have been confirmed, by covenient geographical area within Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Bovine spongiform encephalopathy was made notifiable on 21 June 1988. Records kept from November 1986 to 8 June 1990 show 456 confirmed cases have been recorded in Scotland. The incidence by region is as follows:

  Number

  Borders

  15

  Central

  17

  Dumfries and Galloway

  79

  Fife

  30

  Grampian

  104

  Highland

  29

  Lothian

  14

  Orkney

  6

  Shetland

  2

  Strathclyde

  125

  Tayside

  35

  Western Isles

  —

  Estate Agents
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to introduce legislation to regulate the activities of estate agents in Scotland.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Estate Agents Act 1979 and its subordinate legislation already regulates the activities of estate agents in Scotland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I announced on 19 April my intention to make, and lay before Parliament, orders under section 3 and regulations under section 18 of the Act to deal with malpractices by some estate agents and to add to the list of offences which can trigger banning action Official Report, columns 1009–10). Drafts of the orders and regulations, which will apply throughout the United Kingdom, were sent out on 18 June for consultation. It is also the Government's intention, as soon as legislative time is available, to amend the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which applies to Scotland, to cover misdescription of property.

  Drugs
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which organisation will be responsible for paying drug addicts to attend drug dependency units when general practitioners have their own budgets.
  526
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Drug addicts are not paid to attend drug dependency services. The introduction of general practitioner practice funding will have no detrimental effect on health care provision for drug misusers. A general practitioner fund will take account of factors such as the profile of the practice list, previous hospital treatment and prescribing patterns, and the number of potentially "high-cost" patients. There will therefore be no financial or budgetary disincentive to general practice fund holders taking on drug misusers as patients and referring them to hospital or community-based services when necessary. In their assessment of the health needs of their resident population and of the range of provision required, health boards will be able to ensure that the needs of potentially vulnerable groups such as drug misusers are properly taken into account.

  Handicapped Prisoners
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether there is any extra provision of services and support for prisoners who are physically or mentally handicapped; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Physically and mentally handicapped prisoners are assessed by the medical officer on arrival at prison regarding their general condition, mobility and awareness of their situation. Prison establishments seek to meet the needs of these inmates on an individual basis. The medical officer ensures continuation of any medication in addition to referral, as required, for psychiatric and psychological opinion.

  Students
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what level of community charge students in Scotland who pay 20 per cent. of the community charge where they are studying, pay on their own property which is not classified as their sole or main residence, or is empty for three months or more.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Regulation 4 of, and paragraph 4 of schedule 2 to the Standard Community Charge (Scotland) Regulations 1989 prescribe a standard Community charge multiplier of 0 (that is, no charge payable) in respect of a dwellinghouse.

  (a) in respect of which the standard community charge is, or would be, but for the regulations, payable by a person who is undertaking a full-time course of education or nursing education within the meaning of section 8 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, as amended; and

  (b) which was the sole or main residence of that person immediately before he undertook that course.

  Bathing Beaches
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the beaches that meet the blue flag award standards, and those which fail to match the criteria of the scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The blue flag award scheme is organised under the patronage and sponsorship of the European Commission. The criteria for the award of a blue flag relate both to water quality and to the management of the beach and its general facilities. It is for local authorities to decide whether they wish to apply for such awards for beaches in their areas. I understand that currently no Scottish beaches hold a blue flag award.

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the implications of reduction in the Homoptera section of the natural history museum for Scottish agriculture and horticulture.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No implications for Scottish agriculture and horticulture as a result of restructuring within the natural history museum are anticipated.

  Fishing Industry
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the self-decommissioning plans submitted by one of the United Kingdom's fishing vessel agencies; and whether such a plan would be eligible for European Community aid.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: The success of such a scheme would be dependent on the support of the industry itself. When my right hon. and learned Friend met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 8 May he encouraged them to let him have their views on the proposals but they are still considering the matter. The question of European Community aid is a matter for the Commission in the first instance.

  Methane Discharges
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he first learnt of the intention by the operators of St. Fergus gas terminal to release a quantity of methane into the atmosphere; if his approval was sought; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: Shell UK Ltd. approached HM industrial pollution inspectorate for Scotland in January 1990 to discuss its plans for depressurising the main gas line in order to permit it to comply with the requirements of the Off-shore Installations (Emergency Pipeline Value) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1092) introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy following the Piper Alpha disaster. The plans included a proposal for venting a quantity of methane to atmosphere.

  A consent from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is required under section 12 of the Energy Act 1976 for any discharge of methane into the atmosphere.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy in respect of treatment of methane discharges resulting from pipe replacements at gas terminals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: Gas terminals are scheduled works under the terms of the Health and Safety (Emissions into the Atmosphere) Regulations 1983. Section 5 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 places a duty on the owners of such works to use the best practicable means to prevent the emission into the atmosphere of noxious or offensive substances and for rendering harmless and inoffensive such substances as may be so emitted. This duty applies to the control of hydrocarbon discharges arising from pipe replacements.
  528
  All discharges whether by flaring or releasing unignited natural gas into the atmosphere require the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy under section 12 of the Energy Act 1976.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to require the 14,000 tonnes of methane anticipated to be released in the process of pipe work at the St. Fergus gas terminal to be flared off; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: Following discussions with Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate, Shell UK Ltd has undertaken to dispose of any gas which cannot be utilised by burning it at the St. Fergus terminal in facilities provided for that purpose. The quantity of gas requiring disposal by this means is not expected to exceed 5,400 tonnes.

  There is provision on site to safely vent the gas to atmosphere via an elevated stack but flaring the gas is the preferred environmental option.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has made an assessment of the environmental implications resulting from the release of a large quantity of unflared methane from the St. Fergus gas terminal; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: Assessments of the environmental impact of venting methane at the St. Fergus gas terminal have been made on behalf of the company and these have been considered by Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate.

  Mr. Saied Ebrahimi
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information was given to the Crown Office about an incident on 5 June on flight PA61; what action was subsequently taken in relation to Mr. Saied Ebrahimi; and what were the circumstances under which the legal action against him was abandoned.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: The full information given to Crown Office by the procurator fiscal at Ayr about an incident on flight PA61 is confidential. As has been stated by Crown Office, Crown counsel instructed the release of Mr. Saeid Ebrahimi from custody. The reasons for Crown counsel's decisions are not disclosed.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he takes to satisfy himself as to the proper dispersal of mink remaining in fur factory farms which close.

  Mr. Maclean
  Farmers disposing of their mink must inform the local MAFF office, which issued their licence. They must also inform recipients of the mink of the obligation to obtain a licence. Deliberately releasing mink into the wild is an offence.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many mink fur factory farms there are in environmentally sensitive areas.
  529
  Mr. Maclean
  None.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many chinchilla and fitch fur factory farms there are in the United Kingdom; and in which counties they are.

  Mr. Maclean
  Farmers do not need licences to keep these animals, and we do not collect this information.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has given to fur farmers in the light of current market conditions.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is for the fur industry to decide how to respond to market conditions.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to ensure that the Council of Europe's welfare standards for animals on fur factory farms which are currently under discussion will take full account of articles 3 and 4 of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes 1976.

  Mr. Maclean
  Any welfare standards agreed by the Council of Europe will be adopted as recommendations under article 9 of the convention. As such, their purpose is to set out detailed provisions for the implementation of the general principles contained in articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the convention.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licences for fur factory farms on the Isle of Wight he has issued.

  Mr. Maclean
  One mink farm has been licensed annually on the Isle of Wight since 1986.

  Mink
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if there is a feral wild population of mink on the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Maclean
  There have been reports of feral mink on the Isle of Wight, but none confirmed.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to which species of native fauna aleutian disease may be transmitted by mink.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am not in a position to confirm the native fauna to which aleutian disease can definitely be transmitted from mink. However I am aware that the disease has been found in ferrets and polecats and that a disease similar to aleutian disease has been observed in otters.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his officials take once aleutian disease is discovered in mink on farms.

  Mr. Maclean
  No statutory action is taken once the disease is discovered in mink on farms.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of mink in farms are infected with aleutian disease; and how many farms this affects.
  530
  Mr. Maclean
  Since aleutian disease in minks is not a notifiable disease, no official statistics are available on its incidence in mink farms.

  Arctic Foxes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the incidence of feral Arctic foxes in the United Kingdom; and whether his Department has planned any response.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no evidence of feral Arctic foxes in the United Kingdom.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he proposes to implement the EEC ban on beef exports from herds which have had an incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy; whether the ban applies to herds in which were raised and sold cattle subsequently fallen to bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Beef will be exported from the United Kingdom to other European Community member states in accordance with European Community Decision 90/261 of 8 June 1990 and be certified as such. Bone-in beef for export must be derived from cattle which have not come from holdings in which bovine spongiform encephalopathy has been confirmed during the previous two years. Beef derived from cattle from any holding can enter into intra-Community trade in boneless form.

  Advisory Committee on Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether members of the advisory committee on pesticides have to declare any interest or connections with agrochemical industries; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what information he has as to how many members of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides act as paid consultants to companies which produce or market pesticides; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Members of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides sign a declaration that they have no commercial or financial interest which would be likely to prejudice their work on the committee.

  ADAS
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 6 May,Official Report, column 468, if he will provide information for the South Western and Wales regions not included in the table; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information on regional training on wildlife and landscape conservation for the South Western region and Wales is as follows:

  1987

  1988

  1989

  11990

  South Western

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Wales

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1 Planned.

  531
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of national training courses on wildlife and landscape conservation that have been held for Agricultural Development Advisory Service officers in 1989.

  Mr. Maclean
  One national training course on wildlife and landscape conservation was held in 1989 for specialist Agricultural Development and Advisory Service advisers.

  Emphasis is now placed on regionally based conservation training, and in 1989, 11 courses were held for ADAS advisers.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 6 May,Official Report, columns 468–69, if he will list the location, date and subject matter to be discussed at the six national and eleven regional training courses proposed for Agricultural Development Advisory Service officers in the current year.

  Mr. Maclean
  National and regional training courses completed or proposed for Agricultural Development and Advisory Service advisers in the current year are as follows:

  Location

  Date

  Subject

  National Courses

  Worcestershire

  February

  Field margins

  London

  March

  Ponds and lakes

  Shropshire

  June

  Grassland

  Shropshire

  September

  Wetland and woodland

  Shropshire

  September

  Wetland and woodland

  Regional Courses

  Yorkshire

  May

  Species identification

  Yorkshire

  May

  Habitat recognition and landscape appreciation

  Warwickshire

  May

  Habitat recognition and landscape appreciation

  Warwickshire

  June

  Habitat recognition and landscape appreciation

  Warwickshire

  June

  Habitat recognition and landscape appreciation

  Somerset

  June

  Habitat recognition and landscape appreciation

  West Sussex

  July

  Habitat recognition and landscape appreciation

  Dyfed

  September

  Heather and moorland management

  Details of the remaining one national and three regional courses have yet to be confirmed.

  Farm Animal Welfare
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the expenditure incurred giving the last full financial year by his Department, item by item, on farm animal welfare.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department's expenditure in connection with farm animal welfare was estimated at £2·5 million in 1989–90. This comprised £2·4 million staff costs and £0·1 million for Farm Animal Welfare Council expenses. A further breakdown by item is not available.

  Census Returns
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the data from each of the 1987, 1988 and 1989 agricultural census returns at parish level will be available at the Public Record Office at Kew.
  532
  Mr. Maclean
  The dispatch of 1987 agricultural census returns at parish level to the Public Record Office at Kew was completed on 25 May 1990. It is anticipated that the 1988 returns will be sent to the Public Record Office in February 1991.

  Due to the rapidly increasing use of census data, and the availability of more powerful analytical tools, a review is currently being carried out of the appropriate level of aggregation for publication of agriculture census data. Until this review has been completed information requested for 1989 returns cannot be supplied.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food why parish level agricultural census returns are no longer available for public inspection at the Ministry censuses and surveys division at Guildford; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Parish level agricultural census returns are now held at the Ministry offices at Guildford for the latest published year only. There is insufficient space at Guildford to retain returns for earlier years and provide adequate facilities for the public to inspect them. Data from the latest published years returns are supplied by Guildford staff to the public by telephone (minor enquiries only) and, more normally, by post upon payment of the pre-determined fee.

  Parish level agricultural census returns for earlier years are available for public inspection at the Public Record Office at Kew.

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the implications for(a) agricultural research and (b) fisheries related research of reductions in the Heteroptera section of the natural history museum.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Departments' central science laboratory has expertise in entomology and is involved in the identification of storage pests, plant pests and beneficial insects. For this purpose, reference collections of insects are essential and those at the natural history museum are used periodically by visiting MAFF staff. We do not expect the planned changes at the natural history museum to affect our use of these collections. The Heteroptera section of the museum has no practical relevance to the fisheries interests of the Department.

  Countryside Survey
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has been consulted by the Natural Environment Research Council on its proposed 1990 countryside survey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have been asked to reply.

  The 1990 countryside survey is jointly funded by the Natural Environment Research Council and DOE. Officials of my Department have consulted the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Officials during the formative stages of the project and MAFF will participate in monitoring its progress.

DEFENCE

  Bush-Gorbachev Summit
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the defence implications for the United Kingdom of the recent Bush-Gorbachev summit.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the defence implications for the United Kingdom of the recent Bush-Gorbachev summit.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the defence implications for the United Kingdom of the recent Bush-Gorbachev summit.

  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications for British defence policy of agreements on defence matters concluded between the presidents of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

  Mr. Tom King
  NATO allies are agreed that our peace and security will continue to depend on nuclear deterrence; for this policy to be effective, nuclear systems will need to be kept up to date where necessary.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he expects to be made in the removal of nuclear weapons from Europe, following the summit which took place earlier this month between the leaders of the United States of America and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I welcome the progress made at the recent superpower summit on the wide range of security issues that were discussed. With regard to the removal of nuclear weapons from Europe, I look forward to the successful completion of the process of removal of all United States and Soviet intermediate-range forces from Europe provided for under the INF treaty. NATO has also made clear that it endorses the United States intention to begin negotiations with the Soviet Union on short-range nuclear forces shortly after the conclusion of a treaty on limiting conventional forces in Europe.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if in the light of the recent summit between Presidents Gorbachev and Bush, he has undertaken a review of his policy of retaining nuclear weapons on the Clyde.

  Mr. Tom King
  We welcome the progress made at the United States-Soviet summit in Washington, and, like both those countries, we intend to retain sufficient strategic nuclear deterrent forces to guarantee our security.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consideration has been given to the deployment of nuclear armed sea-launched missiles.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consideration has been given to the deployment of nuclear armed sea-launched missiles.
  534
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consideration has been given to the deployment of nuclear armed sea-launched missiles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 5 April at column 832.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last reviewed the safety arrangements for the transportation of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last reviewed the safety arrangements for the transportation of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Safety arrangements for the transportation of nuclear weapons are kept continuously under review.

  Defence Review
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to reduce spending on defence in the light of developments in east Europe; and If he will make a statement.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for a full-scale defence review.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the internal reassessment of United Kingdom defence commitments and expenditure currently being undertaken within his Department.

  Mr. Tom King
  As I made clear in my speech yesterday opening the defence debate, we are examining options for change in the structure and deployment of our armed forces in the light of changing international circumstances.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received suggesting (i) reduction of the Royal Navy to 32 ships and (ii) reduction of the Army to 32 battalions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received suggesting(a) reduction of the Royal Navy to 32 ships and (b) reduction of the Army to 32 battalions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received suggesting(a) reduction of the Royal Navy to 32 ships and (b) reduction of the Army to 32 battalions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A range of possible changes to the structure of our forces is being considered in the light of the changing international situation. A number of representations have been received from hon. Members and members of the public.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce his proposals following consideration of the forthcoming report on options for change within NATO.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 14 June at column 330.

  West German Defence Minister
  Mr. Allen Mackey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his West German counterpart to discuss European defence and disarmament.

  38. Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his West German counterpart to discuss European defence and disarmament.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his West German counterpart to discuss European defence and disarmament.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell).

  Frigates
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place the next batch of orders for type 23 frigates.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about frigate procurement and the likely needs of the Royal Navy in this field.

  Mr. Neubert
  As I informed the House during the Navy debate on 5 February, at column 657, we plan to invite tenders for a further batch of type 23 frigates towards the end of this year. A decision on the size and timing of an order will be made once tenders are submitted by shipyards.

  START Agreement
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence implications for Trident and United States supply of the D-5 missile of a START agreement.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence implications for Trident and United States supply of the D-5 missile of a START agreement.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence implications for Trident and United States supply of the D-5 missile of a START agreement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is none.

  Military Assistance
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military assistance programmes his Department has with overseas Governments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 212 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990", Vol. 1 (Cm. 1022–1).

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department intends establishing a defence diversification agency.
  536
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department intends establishing a defence diversification agency.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department intends establishing a defence diversification agency.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No. It is for the commercial judgment of management to decide in which markets its company competes.

  Radar Stations
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about radar stations in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about radar stations in the United Kingdom.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations have been received by his Department on the proposed development of the over-the-horizon radar near St. David's in Dyfed.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about radar stations in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (M r. Davies).

  Low Flying
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to respond to the Defence Select Committee's report of the current session on low flying.

  Mr. Neubert
  As with all Select Committee reports, the aim is to reply within two months of publication of the report.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about low flying below 250 ft.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about low flying below 250 ft.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about low flying below 250 ft.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given earlier today to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the report of the Defence Select Committee into low flying.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the conclusions of the Defence Select Committee's report on low flying; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The report by the House of Commons Defence Committee on low flying (HC 120) is currently
  537
  being considered very carefully. There will be a response to all of the report's recommendations in the Government's reply to the Committee.

  Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations his Department has received from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament since the publication of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990".

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations his Department has received from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament since the publication of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990".

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations his Department has received from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament since the publication of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A number of representations have been received since 2 April.

  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the level of recruitment for the Ulster Defence Regiment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The level of UDR recruitment remains sufficient to enable the UDR to carry out its duties in support of the RUC.

  Soviet Union (Threat Assessment)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has altered its threat assessment of the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has altered its threat assessment of the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 6 February 1990, at column 600.

  Warsaw Pact
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what defence contacts his Department has made over the past 12 months with Warsaw pact countries.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what defence contacts his Department has made over the past 12 months with Warsaw pact countries.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  During the past 12 months there have been regular meetings with representatives of Warsaw pact nations at ministerial and official level. Recent contacts have included a visit by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Soviet Union last month, and a meeting between my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces and counterparts from Poland, Norway and 538
  France in Oslo on 26 May. I recently met the German Democratic Republic State Secretary for Defence, Herr Marczinek in London.

  Military Doctrine
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department made to the military doctrine seminar held in Vienna under the confidence and security building measures negotiations.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department made to the military doctrine seminar held in Vienna under the confidence and security building measures negotiations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) on 3 April at column 594.

  Nuclear Test Victims
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about the level of compensation for nuclear test victims.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A number of recent representations have been received from right hon. and hon. Members and other regarding compensation for nuclear test veterans.

  Armed Forces (Women Employees)
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking for the wider employment of women in the armed forces.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking for the wider employment of women in the armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Navy is extending the role of the Women's Royal Naval Service to include service at sea in surface ships. The number of posts open to women in the Regular Army is being increased by up to 6,000 and in the Territorial Army by up to 4,000. The RAF has started recruiting women as pilots and navigators and is increasing the number of women in ground trades by 2,000. These developments will offer a wider range of job opportunities to women and we shall continue to explore the possibility of opening further employment areas to them.

  Defence Procurement
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken in connection with defence procurement costings.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken in connection with defence procurement costings.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Defence what steps have been taken in connection with defence procurement costings.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).
  539
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to gain value for money in defence procurement.

  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to gain value for money in defence procurement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  As part of our commercial approach to defence procurement we seek value for money through the use of competition wherever possible and the encouragement of the widest possible range of companies to compete for contracts. In the year to 31 March 1990 a record 67 per cent. by value of all contracts and amendments were let competitively, or priced otherwise by reference to market forces.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his recent visit to the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his recent visit to the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Tom King
  I visited the Soviet Union from 14–18 May at the invitation of Marshal Yazov, the Minister of Defence. As well as having several useful meetings with Marshall Yazov and his senior colleagues, I called on the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I also visited Soviet army units at Ryazan Leningrad, the Black Sea fleet at Sevastogol and the air force base at Kubinka.

  Throughout my visit I was received with great warmth and openness, which indicated the good bilateral relationship that now exists between two countries.

  NATO Summit
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence implications arising from the NATO summit at Turnberry, Scotland on 7 and 8 June.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence implications arising from the NATO summit at Turnberry, Scotland on 7 and 8 June.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence implications arising from the NATO summit at Turnberry, Scotland on 7 and 8 June.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO Foreign Ministers attended a meeting of the North Atlantic Council at Turnberry on 7 and 8 June. They discussed a range of politico-military issues including German unification and progress in arms control negotiations. A copy of the communiqué has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Warships
  43. Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average operational availability of frigates and destroyers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In 1989–90 an average of 42 out of 48 destroyers and frigates were available for operational deployment either immediately or within a short period.

  Bullying
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent steps have been taken to counter bullying in the armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The armed forces have banned all initiation ceremonies and the subject of bullying is covered on various officers' and NCOs' courses. The Army has made significant progress towards implementing the range of measures announced to the House on 7 June 1988 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman). It has been made clear throughout the services that bullyng and ill-treatment will not be tolerated, and that every allegation is viewed most seriously and will be thoroughly investigated.

  Military Exercises
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to change the arrangements for military exercises in urban areas.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Such arrangements are revised when necessary.

  Soviet Navy (Modernisation)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment of the Soviet Navy's modernisation programme.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment of the Soviet Navy's modernisation programme.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment of the Soviet Navy's modernisation programme.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on 3 April 1990 at column 600.

  Army Equipment Exhibition
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he has made for accountability of arms sales abroad arising from the British Army equipment exhibition at Aldershot on 3 to 8 June.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he has made for accountability of arms sales abroad arising from the British Army equipment exhibition at Aldershot on 3 to 8 June.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No special arrangements are needed in respect of defence equipment sales arising from the British Army equipment exhibition at Aldershot on 3 to 8 June 1990. No defence exports are permitted unless they are consistent with the national interest and our international obligations.

  Radiation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consideration he has given to the level of radiation exposure of submariners and dockyard workers.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consideration he has given to the level of radiation exposure of submariners and dockyard workers.
  541
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consideration he has given to the level of radiation exposure of submariners and dockyard workers.

  Mr. Neubert
  Radiation exposures are authorised only on the basis that they are justified, comply with MOD and statutory limits and are as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). They are kept under continuous review.

  Trident
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current position of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Trident programme is on time and within budget and continues to make satisfactory progress towards its in-service date of the mid-1990s.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to reduce the number of Trident submarines on order in view of the new international climate.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  While the Government welcome recent positive developments in the international climate, there nevertheless remain considerable uncertainties, and we therefore fully support the view of the NATO alliance that for the foreseeable future the deterrence of war will continue to require the maintenance of strategic nuclear forces. In the circumstances we remain entirely convinced of the need for Trident. We continue to plan on the basis of a four-boat force, which will provide us with the means to ensure that one boat can be kept on patrol at all times.

  Air-to-surface Missiles
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has about the proposed sitings of tactical air-to-surface missiles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on 15 June at column 379.

  Fisheries Protection
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the vessels assigned to fisheries protection duties by(a) type, (b) overall length, (c) gross-registered tonnage, (d) age and (e) the estimated dates of contracts for the construction of replacement vessels.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is given in the table. It is envisaged that, for the foreseeable future, the fishery protection task will be carried out using existing vessels.

  Name and type

  Length overall (meters)

  Displacement (tons)

  Age (years)

  Alderney

  Offshore patrol vessel

  59·5

  925

  10

  Anglesey

  Offshore patrol vessel

  59·5

  925

  11

  Blackwater

  542

  Name and type

  Length overall (meters)

  Displacement (tons)

  Age (years)

  Minesweeper

  47·5

  1890

  4

  Brereton

  Minehunter

  46·6

  360

  35

  Dumbarton Castle

  Offshore patrol vessel

  81

  1,427

  8

  Guernsey

  Offshore patrol vessel

  59·5

  925

  12

  Jersey

  Offshore patrol vessel

  59·5

  925

  13

  Kellington

  Minehunter

  46·6

  360

  34

  Lindisfarne

  Offshore patrol vessel

  59·5

  925

  12

  Orkney

  Offshore patrol vessel

  59·5

  925

  13

  Shetland

  Offshore patrol vessel

  59·5

  925

  12

  Soberton

  Minesweeper

  46·6

  360

  32

  Upton

  Minesweeper

  46·6

  360

  33

  1 Full load tonnage.

  Volunteer Reserve Forces
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what success the volunteer reserve forces campaign has had since its launch in September 1988.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Response to the volunteer reserve forces campaign has been most encouraging with pledges of support for the volunteer reserves received from over 1,100 major employers representing well over half of the United Kingdom work force. We are confident that the campaign has widened public understanding of the importance of the volunteer reserves.

  NATO Comprehensive Concept
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department is still working to NATO's comprehensive concept.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department is still working to NATO's comprehensive concept.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The principles of alliance security set out in the comprehensive concept of arms control and disarmament, reaffirmed by the defence planning committee in May, will remain the basis for our further work in taking forward the review of NATO strategy.

  Mr. Colin Wallace (Allegations)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will widen the inquiry arising from the allegations made by Mr. Colin Wallace to include new allegations concerning authorisation of dirty tricks by Ministry of Defence staff.
  543
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am aware of no new allegations for which there is substantive evidence which would justify a wider inquiry.

  United States Defence Minister
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his United States counterpart to discuss European defence and disarmament.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his United States counterpart to discuss European defence and disarmament.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his United States counterpart to discuss European defence and disarmament.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend had discussions with Secretary Cheney on a range of current defence issues at the NATO nuclear planning group and defence planning committee meetings in May. He expects to meet him again later this year at NATO ministerial meetings.

  Tanks
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to the method of eliminating tanks following a CFE agreement.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to the method of eliminating tanks following a CFE agreement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Considerable work has been done on establishing an efficient method of destroying tanks following a CFE agreement. The United Kingdom has made a significant and well-received contribution to this, involving disablement by explosives.

  Aldermaston A-90 Building
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the construction of the Aldermaston A-90 building.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the construction of the Aldermaston A-90 building.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the construction of the Aldermaston A-90 building.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) on 18 May 1990 at column 578.

  Peacekeeping
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of countries in which the United Kingdom carries out a peacekeeping role.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to page 23 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990", Vol. 1544
  (Cm. 1022–1) which gives an account of the United Kingdom armed forces' involvement in international peacekeeping and monitoring operations during 1989–90. The British contingent to UNTAG in Namibia has since been withdrawn on the successful completion of its task.

  Emergency Assistance
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance his Department has given in the past 12 months to the civil community.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what emergency assistance his Department has given in the past 12 months to the civil community.

  Mr. Hamilton
  In general, responsibility for providing emergency assistance to the civil community in the United Kingdom lies with the civil authorities. If required the Ministry of Defence is able to provide further assistance through a variety of means. Search and rescue teams are regularly in action and there is frequent small-scale co-operation between civil and military authorities.

  In the United Kingdom during the last year, larger-scale service assistance was provided during the periods of severe weather in January and February. The services also provided temporary accident and emergency cover during the civilian ambulance services dispute.

  Soviet Conventional Weapons
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made concerning Soviet production of conventional weapons over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made concerning Soviet production of conventional weapons over the past 12 months.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made concerning Soviet production of conventional weapons over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 3 April 1990 at column 559, which remains our most recent assessment.

  Namibia
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  8.3. To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department made to the United Nations transition assistance group deployed to Namibia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes).

  BAOR (Nuclear Weapons)
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the safety of nuclear weapons assigned to the British Army of the Rhine.

  90. Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the safety of nuclear weapons assigned to the British Army of the Rhine.
  545
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock).

  Astra
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department first met Astra representatives to discuss the proposed alleged Iraqi supergun.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In the light of charges laid against individuals and in the light of the continuing investigation by Customs and Excise, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on these matters.

  Dutch Defence Minister
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his Dutch counterpart to discuss European defence and disarmament.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie).

  Personnel Retention
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to retain trained service personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have taken a wide range of measures to encourage retention of trained service personnel. These include changes in pay and allowances, including the introduction of bonuses in areas where retention is a particular difficulty, and improvements in the quality of service life. We are also examining a range of options for offering service personnel further assistance with housing.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department makes to the Western European Union.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom is fully committed to the Western European Union and its aims. The British Government took a leading role in reviving the Western European Union in 1984. The Ministry of Defence contributes extensively to the work of the Western European Union in discussing defence matters of a specific European interest.

  Surface Fleet
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy on the size of the surface fleet.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Our policy at present is to maintain a surface fleet of about 50 destroyers and frigates, and three carriers. It is not possible to say at this stage how this policy might be affected by our current examination of options for change.

  Environmental Protection
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to protect the environment.
  546
  Mr. Neubert
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King).

  Tain Bombing Range
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will report on progress with regard to the noise evaluation survey in the vicinity of Tain bombing range; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The noise survey undertaken last month coincided with a prolonged period of adverse weather conditions. As this prevented collection of sufficient noise data to assess the noise environment a further survey is planned to take place at the beginning of July.

  As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said on 3 April at column 1016, a high priority is being given to this work. This remains the position and we shall endeavour to keep any delay in the publication of the noise report to the minimum consistent with the need to complete a thorough analysis and evaluation of the noise data.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the orders for the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) on 26 March at column 24.

  NATO Secretary-General
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the Secretary-General of NATO; and what subjects he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with the Secretary-General of NATO. The last occasion was at the NATO defence planning committee ministerial meeting last month. Their next scheduled meeting is in the autumn. A range of defence issues will be discussed.

  RAF Biggin Hill
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further consideration has been given to the proposed closure of the officer and aircrew selection centre at RAF Biggin Hill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The case for the transfer of the selection centre to RAF Cranwell remains compelling on both operational and financial grounds. Preparations for the move are well in hand.

  Mid-air Collision, Hexham
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the report on the mid-air collision near Hexham on 9 January to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  A military aircraft accident summary will be published once the report of the board of inquiry has been completed. This is expected to be within the next few months.

  Overseas Disaster Relief
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance during the past year his Department has made to overseas disaster relief.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The major contribution made by the services in overseas disaster relief during 1989 was in the aftermath of hurrican Hugo in September. A full account is given at page 30 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990", Vol. 1 (Cm. 1022–1). In March 1990, a contingent of some 20 Royal Engineers from the garrison in Belize was deployed for four weeks to Western Samoa to help restore services and repair damage in the aftermath of cyclone Ofa.

  Thurleigh Airfield
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what criteria he has laid down for permitted development of the airfield at Thurleigh;

  (2) what proposals there are for providing road and rail access to Thurleigh airport to facilitate its development;

  (3) what proposals there are, in the event of his Department not requiring the airfield at Thurleigh, for the sale of the freehold;

  (4) whether development projects other than aircraft-related ones are envisaged for the use of the airfield at Thurleigh;

  (5) whether research and development will continue to be undertaken at Thurleigh; and for what period.

  Mr. Neubert
  The future of the RAE Bedford (Thurleigh) airfield is under consideration as part of a study into the future of the three Procurement Executive airfields. It is too early to say what the outcome of the study might be.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much land, other than the actual airfield, at Thurleigh is owned by his Department;

  (2) what acreage of land is involved in the area designated at the airfield at Thurleigh.

  Mr. Neubert
  The land in the ownership of the MOD at Bedford comprises 1,420 acres, of which the airfield occupies 1,206 acres.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to how many people live within(a) 1 mile, (b) 3 miles, (c) 5 miles and (d) 10 miles of Thurleigh airfield.

  Mr. Neubert
  This information is not held by the Ministry of Defence.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he proposes to make a statement on the future of the airfields at Thurleigh, Boscombe Down and Farnborough;

  (2) what consultation has taken place with local residents about the use of the airfield at Thurleigh.

  Mr. Neubert
  I hope to make a statement as soon as possible on the outcome of the procurement executive airfields study. There will be full consultation with interested parties.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what proposals have been put to him by United Parcel Services of the United States for the running of the airfield and facilities at Thurleigh;
  548
  (2) how many groups have approached him about the possible commercial use of the airfield at Thurleigh for freight movement.

  Mr. Neubert
  There have been a number of informal, preliminary inquiries about the possible commercial use of the airfield at Thurleigh. This has included an approach from United Parcels Service (UPS). Discussions are continuing. The details are a confidential matter between the parties concerned.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost of maintaining and administering the airfield at Thurleigh.

  Mr. Neubert
  The annual cost of operating the airfield at RAE Bedford is approximately £2 million.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what time scale he proposes to privatise the wind tunnels and related facilities at Thurleigh.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are no plans at present to privatise the wind tunnels and related facilities at Thurleigh.

  Military Aircraft (Flying Levels)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum flying level for military aircraft in Britain and other countries in Europe.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer my hon. Friend to the evidence on this subject which my Department presented during the recent Defence Committee inquiry into low flying and which is printed at page 168 of the Committee's fifth report for the Session 1989–90 (HC 120).

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish recruitment targets for the Territorial army on a regional basis for the next 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have no plans to set recruitment targets for the Territorial Army on a regional basis.

  Air Force Training
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training role for air force students from Europe or overseas he plans for the period 1992 onward; and what scope he envisages for RAF establishments to train non-service pilots.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The MOD has no present plans post-1992 to relinquish its long-standing role to train students from other NATO or friendly overseas air forces. I would envisage only limited scope, at most, for training of non-service pilots.

  Defence Spending
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for future reductions in defence spending outlays.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 24 May 1990 at column 373.

  Military Sites (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has any plans to establish an environmental impact report programme at military sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 14 June 1990]: The MOD well recognises the potential for conflict between defence activities and the environment and the importance of monitoring our practice to ensure that adverse effects are avoided or minimised. Examples of such monitoring are environmental impact assessments, which are undertaken
  550
  in the case of appropriate new projects, and the programme of noise surveys being undertaken at 40 military airfields.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to review the present safety of all seabed disposal areas used for (i) surplus explosives, (ii) surplus chemical and biological weapons and (iii) surplus radioactive materials arising from defence activities.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 13 June 1990]: Ministry of Defence seabed locations were chosen to ensure the safe disposal of the materials concerned. There are no grounds for a further review at present.

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

Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Malcolm Everard MacLaren Pearson, Esquire, having been created Baron Pearson of Rannoch, of Bridge of Gaur in the District of Perth and Kinross, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Charteris of Amisfield and the Baroness Cox.
Baroness Flather
Mrs. Shreela Flather, having been created Baroness Flather, of Windsor and Maidenhead in the Royal County of Berkshire—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Faithfull and the Baroness Trumpington, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Pensioners: Independent Taxation
2.57 p.m.
Lord Rodney Lord Rodney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the benefits for pensioners from the introduction of independent taxation.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, of those elderly married couples who pay income tax, some 80 per cent. should be better off as a result of independent taxation.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I am sure that many noble Lords will welcome it, myself included. Can he say approximately how many pensioners will benefit from the introduction of independent taxation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, nearly all the 1 million elderly married couples who gain from independent taxation will have some investment income. For those couples the introduction of independent taxation will provide a welcome benefit. Many will also be helped by the abolition from next year of composite rate tax.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how many old-age pensioners have no income apart from the state pension and say what benefit they will receive in the future?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall need to study the noble Lord's question with care. If I do not give a full reply perhaps I may write to him. The gain from independent taxation will affect 3¾ million individuals, 3 million wives, 1 million elderly married couples, 190,000 breadwinner wives and
728
40,000 men married to older women. Those about whom the noble Lord was concerned will also benefit from the abolition of composite rate tax.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, can my noble friend give the number of those who will be worse off, even as regards those described in the last question? Is it a case of some are better off, none is worse off, and is that not an advantage?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, nobody will be worse off.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister please reply to the question that I addressed to him? How many old-age pensioners who have no income apart from their state pension will benefit? When do the Government propose to index those pensions as they originally promised?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the second part of the noble Lord's question does not directly relate to the main Question. But I understand that there are some 3 million pensioner couples and that 1·25 million pay income tax.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, so that we have it right, will the Minister accept that some Members on this side of the House are delighted by what was said?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, as I am sure are many of your Lordships.

Mailing Preference Service
3.1 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage and publicise arrangements made to enable citizens to have their names and addresses removed from lists used for sending unsolicited and unwanted mail.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Government recognise the value of the Mailing Preference Service and alert individuals who complain about unsolicited mail to its existence. Advertising and promoting this scheme to consumers is a matter for the industry and I understand that it has plans for an additional promotion.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. The Mailing Preference Service has as one of its sponsors the Royal Mail. As it makes tolerable the multiple posting of junk mail, should its existence not be more widely known so that people can be spared such mail if that is their wish?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree that if people do not wish to receive such mail they should be spared from doing so. However, the fact is that many people like to receive junk mail. It is important that

729
those who wish can be deleted from the list. By sponsoring and supporting the service, and in insisting that most of the bulk mail users subscribe to it, the Post Office is contributing to that end.
Lord Renton: My Lords, on the assumption that people do not like receiving duplication and triplication of junk mail, can my noble friend say whether anything has been done to try to stop that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the present arrangements are, as my noble friend may be aware, that people who do not wish to receive junk mail of a particular kind can contact the Mailing Preference Service and have that mail stopped and their names deleted from the relevant lists. It is rather more difficult to stop multiple mailings of the same item, which I believe is what my noble friend had in mind. However, that is an important point which I shall draw to the authority's attention.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the poll tax demands be added to that list?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is not junk mail.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is not this constant deluge of "bumf" an intrusion on privacy, luring people to spend on unwanted goods for prizes which are rarely won? Should not that be stopped? Should not people be prevented from releasing mailing lists so that many of those who do not want the mail, as distinct from those whom the Minister says enjoy it, will be released from that constant deluge of unwanted mail?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not believe that such activity should be stopped as a matter of principle. Firms are entitled to seek to bring their goods to the attention of customers by the use of the mail, if that is how they wish to do it. Equally, people who find it disagreeable should be entitled to say so and be protected from it. As a matter of principle, I do not agree that the practice should be stopped.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister expect a reduction in the amount of junk mail following the very unwelcome news in today's newspapers that postal charges are to be substantially increased?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, most of the mail which we are discussing arising from this Question is posted under the benefit of contract cost arrangements. Therefore, that is a slightly different matter. However, as the noble Lord says, there has been a recent announcement which is a matter for the Post Office.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform the House whether the arrangements for limiting unwanted mailing extends to mail sent over "fax" machines?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no. There was a Question on that matter a few months ago. That is
730
a different matter governed by different codes of practice.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that a code of practice operates among banks so that they cannot pass on information gained through the banking system for the purposes of promoting other services without the permission of the person to whom the mail is to be sent? Is there not a case for extending that code of practice to others who participate in the business so that anybody who is liable to receive direct mail may be asked before they receive it whether or not they wish to do so?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is going rather farther than is intended by the present arrangements. With regard to banks in particular, it is important that those kinds of selling methods are not used to induce young people to take on more credit than they should use.
Lord Parry: My Lords, would it not be reasonably simple for the Government to publish the addresses and names of the chairmen of the generating companies so that we could all return our junk mail directly to them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, numerous companies are involved. Some are very small and some are larger. Therefore, I am not sure that that would be practical. However, I believe that the present arrangements by which people can, if they wish, have their names deleted from the lists is the best way to proceed.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that among the approaches now being received by the mailing service are requests for more direct mail; for example, from people in rural areas for direct mail catalogues? Therefore, in several ways the service can be of benefit to the public.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend has underlined the point which I made a few moments ago. It is not the case that all this mail is necessarily bad. For some it is very good, particularly those living in remote areas receiving the sort of mail to which my noble friend referred.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before we finish this Question, can the noble Lord look again at his statement that he is satisfied with the present arrangements? Is he not aware that many people are vexatiously bothered by this mail? Is he not further aware that it is very difficult to get your name removed from the list because of misspellings, misdirections and many other matters? Can the noble Lord look again at this problem?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not believe that it is as difficult as the noble Lord suggests to have one's name removed from the list. One merely has to fill in a form. If the noble Lord would like one, I shall send one to him.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, some of us find this question and answer session quite extraordinary. After all, there is such a thing as a waste-paper basket.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, can we be assured that the contract-arranged charges are in relation to the ordinary rate of charges so that the bulk mail is not being subsidised by those who pay the ordinary rate?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no. I am afraid that I cannot give the assurance which the noble Lord seeks. The contract rates are a confidential commercial matter between customers and the Post Office.

"Action on Dogs": Response
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
What responses they have received to the consultation paper Action on Dogs issued in August 1989.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, we received 334 responses to the paper from the 462 local authorities and other organisations to whom it was sent. Respondents broadly agreed with our proposals.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Can he say whether, among the answers from the local authorities, there was any indication of their need for extra resources to meet the Government's requirements published last year? Are the Government aware of the need and do they intend to make any special arrangements for resourcing?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the noble Baroness that in certain replies mention was made of resourcing. However, as the noble Baroness is aware, those matters are dealt with when the situation is reviewed for the SSA.

EC Industry Council: UK Attendance
3.11 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not attend the most recent European Community Industry Council in Brussels.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, although it is usual for a Minister from the DTI to attend meetings of the Industry Council, on this occasion, the business was both uncontroversial and routine, and attendance by a Minister was not necessary. The UK seat was therefore taken by the UK permanent representative to the Community, Sir David Hannay, supported by senior DTI officials.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, while one has a very high regard for the ability of Sir David Hannay, why was it that 10 other member states took a view contrary to that of the United Kingdom Government and were represented by Ministers? Were not the issues affecting the steel industry, small and medium sized enterprises, research and development, and shipbuilding, of sufficient importance for a Minister from this Government to participate in the meeting? Does the Minister share my view that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was being wholly consistent? After all, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment he did not attend a single Environment Council meeting.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot answer for the Ministers of other countries; I can only answer for the Ministers of the United Kingdom. We took the view that the matters were not of sufficient importance to justify the attendance of a Minister. No decisions were taken. The topics to which the noble Lord referred were discussed but only on the basis of reports submitted by the Commission. I am certain that Sir David Hannay was more than adequately qualified to undertake the task on that day.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not grossly unfair to pick out one engagement in respect of one Minister in complete ignorance of all the other items of business which the heavy load carried by Ministers today involves? Will my noble friend make clear that his right honourable friend has been carrying a considerable burden and should be free to choose which engagement it is most urgent for him to fulfil?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Equally, it would have been possible for a junior Minister to attend. I should have been happy to attend myself, but it simply was not worth the bother.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is completely dodging the column? It may be that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had more important things to attend to; one could understand that. However, we are not advised what part of the discussions were considered so unimportant that a Minister of our Government need not attend, although Ministers of the other 10 states chose to be there. What were the specific aspects of the agenda—or did it apply to all of them—that were considered too unimportant for a British Minister to be in attendance?
Lord Trefgarne: All of them, my Lords!
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister not being a little cavalier in his response to the Question, even a little frivolous? Was not the meeting one that other member states of the Community considered important? Does the Secretary of State, who has many burdens—indeed some of them may appear next week—have a rating which he uses to judge whether or not a particular meeting is important? How do Ministers decide, other than on a purely rhetorical basis?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, decisions are taken according to the merits of each specific occasion. This occasion, like all the others, was carefully considered and the decision taken—with which I wholly agree—that the attendance of a Minister was not necessary. No decisions of any kind were taken at the meeting.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise the question for what it is? It is merely a continuation of the unsavoury personal attack upon a particular Minister which has been going on for some considerable time.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, whether or not that is in the minds of noble Lords opposite I cannot say. I recognise that noble Lords opposite, like all noble Lords, are anxious that the United Kingdom should be represented when the occasion demands it. This was not such an occasion.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the view expressed in this House that one must not be too unkind to Secretaries of State?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, would that Ministers of State were included.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the Minister said that there was nothing controversial taking place at the meeting. Will that be the criteria for Ministers attending meetings?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the criteria by which Ministers decide whether or not to attend meetings depends on the topics discussed, whether decisions are to be taken and matters of that kind. Each case is considered on its merits.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is not the noble Minister's absence from the meeting entirely consistent with the views he expressed regarding the European Community in his Bruges speech?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord referred to me; I have not made a Bruges speech.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord to whom I referred was the Secretary of State.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I apologise. I do not think the two are in any way connected. The speech to which the noble Lord refers and about which he questioned me the other day was an extremely important and very worthwhile one.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he is completely in error when he says that every Member on this side of the House was unhappy that the Minister did not attend the meeting? Is he aware that there is at least one Member on this side of the House who would prefer that Ministers did not attend any meetings of the EC at all?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I note the view of the noble Lord. I am happy that there is now only one noble Lord who thinks that.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, on reflection will not the Minister consider that it is intolerably arrogant to state to this House that the agenda for the meeting was not worth the bother of a Minister of Her Majesty's Government attending when 10 other Ministers of the allied states considered that it was worth the bother and that there was important business to conduct?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is not the case at all. Different matters affect different nations in different ways. The United Kingdom did not consider it necessary for a Minister to attend. We considered our interests to be more than adequately represented by Sir David Hannay.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, apart from being frivolous, does the Minister's reply not cause a very great disservice to the interests of this country and the Community? It is also wholly inconsistent with a reply given a few days before the Industry Council by Mr. Douglas Hogg who said,
"The next meeting of the Industry Council, at which I will be representing the United Kingdom, will be held on 28th May. The provisional agenda proposes discussion on steel, shipbuilding, semi-conductors, small and medium-sized enterprises, and audio-visual matters".
What changed?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, a number of changes took place after that Answer was given. As the noble Lord said, it was a draft agenda that my honourable friend referred to. The nature of the discussion became apparent only after that was produced.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Lord remember a passage in the memoirs of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in which he referred to a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in 1975? The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, noted that the Minister so enjoyed attending meetings that he never had any time for real work.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is indeed the case that Ministers nowadays have to attend a great many meetings. There is therefore sometimes a balance to be made. On this occasion we judged that the balance lay in not attending.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Environmental Protection Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Consumer Guarantees Bill will be taken.

Environmental Protection Bill
3.20 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: 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 Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Tne CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:—
("Presumption against pollution
.—(1) This Part shall have effect for the purpose of preventing or reducing pollution of the environment.
(2) Any person who carries on a process which is, by means of regulations made under section 2 below, a prescribed process, shall prevent the occurrence of pollution from that process except to the extent that such pollution is made the subject of an authorisation issued by the enforcing authority and in accordance with conditions attached to such an authorisation under subsection (3) and section 7 below.
(3) No enforcing authority shall issue an authorisation under this Part unless it is satisfied that—

(a) techniques exist to prevent the release of polluting substances into the environment from the process concerned, and the applicant has demonstrated that he has or is making use of them to secure such prevention; or

(b) where no such techniques to prevent pollution as are referred to in paragraph (a) above exist, or where they are available only at unreasonable levels of cost, that techniques exist to reduce the release of polluting substances into the environment and the applicant has demonstrated that he has used or is using them to the fullest extent practicable; or

(c) where no such techniques for the reduction of pollution as are referred to in paragraph (b) above are available at other than unreasonable levels of cost, that adequate arrangements have been agreed with the enforcing authority for the progressive reduction of pollution over such period as the enforcing authority may determine.

(4) In any case where the enforcing authority is not satisfied that reductions have not been achieved under subsection 3(c) above, the enforcing authority may specify a date by which the process concerned shall cease.
(5) For the purposes of this Part, the determination of "unreasonable cost" in relation to any process shall be made by the enforcing authority, subject to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State".
The noble Lords said: With the usual necessary pause to allow the Committee to assume the membership which noble Lords consider appropriate, I rise to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Those noble Lords who were present at the very lengthy Second Reading—in fact, the lengthiest Second Reading which has taken place on a Friday for some time—will recall that noble Lords on all sides of the House, not just from these Benches, expressed admiration for the motivation behind the Bill and support for the general objectives expressed in the Bill but considerable disquiet about the means available to the Government, to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and to the local authorities—which after all are the environmental protection agency and have been for many
736
years—about the difficulty of making the Bill effective to cover the wide range of sources of pollution and potential pollution which afflict our country.
In all their discussions of environmental pollution the Government pay a great deal of attention to the phrase which has now become a sort of chant—the polluter pays principle. In moving this amendment I suggest that there are many ways in which what appears to be the simplicity of the polluter pays principle is inadequate for the problems that face us and that the provisions of this new clause will go a considerable way—by no means the whole way, because there are many other amendments to be considered—towards dealing with the inadequacy of that definition and putting forward a more positive and, I believe, more effective approach to the issue of pollution control.
First, the problem with the polluter pays principle, if it is interpreted in the wrong way and too narrowly, is that it does not in itself reduce pollution but simply enables some people, but not all people, to afford to continue with pollution. For example, in the United States it enables those who can afford to trade for exemption simply to treat the right to pollute as a business overhead rather than as an incentive to the reduction of pollution.
Secondly, there is always the temptation when a principle is stated as baldly as the polluter pays principle has been—indeed, as ambiguously as it is sometimes stated—that it will lead not to a progressive improvement in standards of pollution control but rather to the achievement, but no more, of minimum standards of pollution control as laid down in legislation or regulations.
Thirdly, there is the problem that what is described in the Bill as "integrated pollution control" is in fact very far from being integrated pollution control. What the Bill does is to prescribe approximately 3,500 industrial processes which are undertaken according to the terms of the Bill by larger industrial organisations and companies that may be thought to be those who are engendering pollution. It deals with those prescribed processes, both a limited number of processes and a limited number of polluters.
All the processes and activities which fall outside the prescribed process definition are not covered by the principal provisions of Part I of the Bill, which deals with integrated pollution control. To that extent, therefore, the reality of the Bill is very far from the way in which it tends to be introduced by more incautious and enthusiastic supporters of the Government and those perhaps with less knowledge of the detail of the legislation who seek to persuade the people of this country that the Government are taking major steps towards effective control over the whole range of pollution which faces us.
Fourthly, the definition of what pollution is acceptable is profoundly defective because the standard introduced in the Bill, which is used in many cases and to which we shall return on later amendments, is the standard of the best available technology not involving excessive cost. We shall see as we go through this Bill that almost every single

737
word in that definition can be subject to misinterpretation and, most important, to misinterpretation on the side of doing as little as possible rather than providing effective pollution control.
The conclusion that we therefore come to from all these limitations on the very high and noble principles with which the Bill has been introduced and in which the Bill is described is that we need to have something more effective. We need to have a presumption against pollution. That presumption against pollution is not a new idea; it is an idea that has been accepted on many occasions when we have been debating the wider issues of global pollution. In the course of this Session we have had a number of very remarkable debates, usually on the reports of Select Committees of your Lordships' House which have referred to matters such as global warming, the ozone layer, the problems of chlorofluorocarbons and to many of the other global issues of pollution.
The constant refrain heard from all sides of this Chamber—indeed, on occasion it has been reflected not just from the Government Benches but from the Government Front Bench—has been that we cannot afford to have it proved that something is causing dangerous pollution before we take any action. In other words, we must adopt a presumption against pollution and we must make it necessary for those who wish to pollute, who are in danger of polluting or who find themselves, as they think, unable to avoid polluting to contract out of the preventive arrangements rather than that there should be an obligation on the Government, the inspectorate and local authorities to contract them into the controls.
For that reason we take the view, particularly in subsection (3) of the new clause, that there should be a progressive means of dealing with the pollution problem. We say in subsection (3),
"No enforcing authority shall issue an authorisation … unless it is satisfied that … techniques exist to prevent the release of polluting substances",
and that they are actually being used. Then as a fallback we say that if there are no such techniques to prevent pollution, or where those techniques are available only at unreasonable levels of cost, the provision which prescribes the need to reduce the release of polluting substances comes into play. The applicant, in order to be allowed to continue with the pollution, has to demonstrate that he has used or is using them to the fullest extent practicable.
It if is not possible to devise techniques for the reduction of pollution as set out in subsection (3)(b)—and this is perhaps the third best alternative—subsection (3)(c) provides,
"that adequate arrangements have been agreed with the enforcing authority for the progressive reduction of pollution over such period as the enforcing authority may determine".
In other words, it should not be enough for the polluter to say, "I cannot get rid of this pollution except at excessive cost". It should not be enough for him to have the fallback position of being able to say, "I cannot reduce the pollution except at excessive cost". He has to reach an agreement with the authorities that, even if there is no way of dealing
738
with the problem now, there will be a way of doing so within a finite time. In subsection (4) we say:
"In any case where the enforcing authority is not satisfied",
with the reductions over a period of time,
"under subsection (3)(c) above, the enforcing authority may specify a date by which the process concerned shall cease".
I do not think it will be said that that is an overpowering exercise of governmental authority. The requirement that government shall demand that pollution shall be put an end to only follows at the end of a very significant process of negotiation, technical discussion and discussion about the economic feasibility of reducing pollution between the enforcement authority and the polluter or putative polluter.
I think that Members of the Committee who are particularly involved in business on a large scale will welcome that process. They would not wish a rigid set of standards to be imposed, for there to be no opportunity for debate, discussion and negotiation, and for there to be a deadline imposed without further consultation. When considering the EC deadlines some Members of the Committee felt that it was unreasonable for those deadlines for the improvement of the quality of our drinking water, for example, to be imposed without negotiation directly with those who are responsible for the maintenance of standards of drinking water. I do not think that at the time I agreed with that argument, but I appreciate how the necessity for full consultation and negotiation can be argued in favour of abatement of the more rigid and expensive requirements.
That is not what this clause does. It establishes a principle which allows negotiations to take place and which encourages them to take place. This new clause pays due respect to economic necessity and yet in the end it suggests a process for establishing a presumption against pollution which, in our view, is going to be significantly more effective than the provisions so far laid down in this Bill. In this amendment we are giving effect to the Government's wishes rather than to the way in which the Bill has been drafted. I beg to move
3.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: I support this amendment to which my name is attached. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has given a very good description of the amendment and of its aims. Ultimately, the idea that the polluter pays—an expression which I and many others have bandied about—is one which must be interpreted. It cannot refer just to economic and financial costs because there are more than those costs directly involved. There must be a point at which we say, "You have got to stop what you are doing". Some measures have to be adopted to make sure that the right technical steps are taken so that the situation does not continue.
I recommend that the Committee considers this amendment very clearly as the kind of action that we must take concerning the whole issue of the environment. We should take steps towards creating cleaner industrial processes. We should involve the Government in the creation of such processes.
Lord Hesketh: I am pleased that we can begin our Committee proceedings on this Bill in complete agreement in that this part of the Bill should be a waste minimisation measure. That is the purpose of the new clause tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It is also a major purpose of Clause 7 of the Bill. Both the noble Lord and I wish to see available techniques used to prevent pollution; both the noble Lord and I wish to require the applicant to show that he will make use of such techniques to prevent or reduce pollution; both the noble Lord and I agree that guidance on costs related to techniques will be necessary; and both the noble Lord and I agree that in some cases the enforcing authority may revoke an authorisation.
I am sure that the Committee will be delighted at this outbreak of mutual understanding. But I have one minor and one major criticism to make of the new clause. First, there is an implication in subsection (2) that an authorisation is a licence to pollute. It states that pollution shall be prevented except to the extent that it is made the subject of an authorisation. That, to my mind, is the wrong way of looking at an authorisation. I prefer the Bill's structure whereby the authorisation sets out the requirements to which an operator must adhere. Those requirements may set out specific requirements to prevent or minimise pollution.
The noble Lord and I are agreed that the first aim should be to prevent pollution. If that is not practical, we recognise that a second stage must follow. The noble Lord suggests in subsection (3) of the new clause that the reduction of pollution is the answer. But the Bill, in Clause 7, calls for the minimisation of the most polluting substances. It additionally requires all releases of substances to be rendered harmless. Clause 7 of the Bill also includes the first objective of the best practicable environmental option, first recommended by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, so that pollution of the environment as a whole is also minimised. I am sure the Committee will agree that if this part of the Bill should concern itself with waste minimisation, Clause 7 is a most satisfactory model.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in his siren song at the start of the debate on this amendment mentioned a number of points, two of which I shall quickly pass over. He referred to 3,000 to 3,500 prescribed places that will be covered by IPC.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I said "processes".
Lord Hesketh: I apologise. The fact is that the number is about 5,000. It is also important to remember that in Part I of the Bill there is a very great number of further prescribed processes that are covered by local authorities' air control. They may not be as great but in certain areas many consider them to be important. The noble Lord also made reference to the trade in permits in the United States of America. That may be the case there but it will certainly not be the case here. It is for those reasons that I feel that, though the noble Lord's amendment is admirable, it is resistible.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Am I not correct in thinking that in regard to the 3,000 or 4,000 cases my noble friend Lord McIntosh was referring to major processes as distinct from the point made by the Minister? The main question I put to the noble Lord in this brief intervention is this: have not the Government elected to rely on deterrents rather than incentives? One wonders what happened to the recommendations of Professor Pearce in relation to the Government's approach. Not so very long ago we were led to suppose that incentives to provide cleaner production which was environmentally friendly was something that the Government were likely to adhere to in the future. What has happened to that approach?
Turning to the penalties themselves, my anxiety is that it is extremely improbable that the courts will impose the maximum penalties referred to in the Bill. Even if they do, I think that imprisonment is extremely unlikely, For example, if a major enterprise of the size of ICI comes before the courts, as has happened in the past, it is unlikely that the courts will impose tremendously draconian penalties—at least, draconian in the terms of the size of the enterprise. It is extremely unlikely that the directors or members of the board will be subject to imprisonment. Although I do not oppose that aspect being in the Bill, I feel that it is a little illusory if we really think of it as creating an effective deterrent in any event.
We know from the powers possessed by the courts at the present time that the penalties imposed in the past were far less than draconian. Indeed, there is an unevenness about penalties imposed for environmental offences. I suppose it might be said that that is part of the way in which we administer justice in this country because there are no guidelines that would have the effect of creating an evenness of penalty—there is a case for arguing that—but I wonder whether the Government have abandoned the far more positive approach which we were led to expect might occur when Professor Pearce intervened on this scene as the adviser to the Secretary of State not so very long ago. It is to that point that I ask the Minister to direct his reply.
Lord Hesketh: It is true to say that if the Government had produced a Bill which relied entirely on incentives I would be receiving a great weight and torrent of abuse at this Dispatch Box. On matters of such importance as pollution, deterrence has to have its role to play. Incentives may well develop in the future. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is well aware, a White Paper on the environment is at this moment under consideration.
With regard to the courts, fines will be increased to the extent that the magistrates' courts will now be able to fine up to £20,000. The noble Lord raised the aspect of whether or not a conviction might result in imprisonment. If the power is there, that will be a decision and judgment for the courts themselves, which is entirely right and proper.
Lord Renton: The question we have to consider in relation to limiting polluting processes is whether

741
the product of the process is in the public interest and is necessary. There are probably some polluting processes which could and should be eliminated altogether at the first opportunity. Nothing in the noble Lord's amendment deals with that point.
I have been looking at Clauses 3 and 7, to which my noble friend the Minister referred. At first sight the word "objectives" might seem to cover the point which I have tried to make. But in Clause 7 the word "objectives" is used rather differently. It is used in relation to the method by which the pollution will be limited or the process controlled rather than in relation to the outcome and product of the process. Subject to anything that my noble friend may say, it seems at first sight that the amendment does not deal with this point. I would be happy to learn that the Bill does so.
Lord Hesketh: Products are in a sense slightly different from processes. I can best illustrate that to my noble friend by giving the example of the Montreal Convention on CFCs. The objective of the Montreal Convention in the longer term is the abolition of CFCs—in other words, the complete removal from our planet of an objectionable material. The Government take the view—and this can also be seen in our proposals for the future levels of emissions from power stations—that materials which are as objectionable as my noble friend Lord Renton suggests should be removed from the planet and not just from this country; otherwise we would not achieve the objective.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As always, the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was very helpful. He has elicited an answer from the Minister which makes it clear that the Government do not propose to follow the line proposed in my amendment. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to subsection (4) of the amendment which states that after a reasonable process of negotiation the enforcing authority,
"may specify a date by which the process concerned shall cease".
There is a distinction there, not so much between incentives and deterrents but between two different forms of deterrent. Everyone agrees that there should be incentives to reduce or eliminate pollution—that is common ground—but there are two kinds of deterrents, as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis made clear. The first is to fine those who create pollution. That runs the risk, as I said at the outset, of allowing pollution to become a business overhead. The fine will be accepted as part of the cost of running the operation, whether or not the operation is essential—a point to which we shall come in later amendments. But the effect of the fine will be that, for those who can afford to pay it, pollution will not cease.
The other form of deterrent is that proposed in our amendment. It is the deterrent of requiring that the process shall cease. Amendment No. 128, to which I should have referred as it is grouped with Amendment No. 1, provides that contravention of the new clause shall be an offence. I apologise to the
742
Committee for not referring to it. In Amendment No. 128 we have the second and necessary element of deterrence—the element which requires that pollution shall cease.
In his response the Minister anticipated some later amendments. It is always a temptation when dealing with the first amendment to a complex Bill to bring forward all the arguments at the beginning of the discussion. I tried hard not to do so and I tried hard not to anticipate amendments which I and noble Lords on all sides of the Committee have put down for later debate. I tried to concentrate on one issue—the presumption against pollution.
It was interesting and worth while to have the statement from the Minister that this country will not—and presumably under the White Paper will not—move in the direction of traded permits to pollute. That is a considerable change. So far as I know, there was no indication that that was not part of future government policy. I am glad to have it confirmed by the Minister that it is not and will not be part of government policy.
The second part of the Minister's answer, in which he referred to Clause 7, does not hold water. It is not enough to say that a clause which deals with conditions of authorisation puts, as the Bill ought to do, the ball in the court of the polluter, the putative polluter or the potential polluter. Of course when matters are drawn to the notice of the authorities there will be authorisations. We are not proposing to take Clause 7 out of the Bill. But what is required is that major causes of pollution should not be, through defects in definition and through sloppy thinking—there is a good deal of sloppy thinking going around here—outwith the scope of the Bill. For that reason I believe that we must insist on attempting to put the presumption against pollution on the face of the Bill to ensure that it achieves the high objectives which we all have in mind for it.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I think that he would be wise in his own interest if he were to clarify his point. He referred to subsection (4) of the amendment and said that it means that a polluting process, the product of which is not needed by the public, shall no longer take place. Subsection (4) is based upon the assumption that a polluting process may by the procedure set out in the amendment be brought to an end eventually by specifying a date. However, the trouble is that the noble Lord has not dealt with the point that a polluting process that produces a product which it cannot be in the public interest to produce shall, nevertheless, be brought to an end at once. That is what ought to happen. Having listened to my noble friend and looked at the powers in the Bill, it seems to me that we were much more likely to achieve that objective without subsection (4) of the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord has, unusually, failed to recognise the thrust of the argument in the amendment. Although he is right in saying that subsection (4) deals with the case where a timetable has to be set for the cessation of pollution, because there has been no other way of doing this subsection (3)(c) in turn depends upon subsection

743
(3)(b), and that depends in turn upon subsection (3)(a). In other words, we have looked for immediate prevention. We are only going for a reduction when prevention has proved impossible, and we are only going for reduction over a period of time when immediate reduction has proved impossible. To that extent of course cessation by subsection (4) is a last resort, but there is already provision for the application of prevention in subsection (3)(a). That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. I think that that objective is in line with what the noble Lord seeks to achieve.
Baroness Nicol: I have but one small point to make. I apologise if I am wrong in this, but there appears to be a double negative in subsection (4) of the amendment. It says:
"In any case where the enforcing authority is not satisfied that reductions have not been achieved".
I wonder whether the wording was intended to read that way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The double negative is not in my draft. In fact I had not noticed it in the printed version of the amendment and I am most grateful to my noble friend for drawing our attention to that point. It was not contained in the original wording we set out for the amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: I had not intended to intervene in the debate but, as the noble Lord has indicated that he will be pressing this amendment, I feel that I must do so. While listening to the discussion, I have been asking myself whether his amendment actually adds anything to the powers available to regulators which is not already there. I do not believe that it does, although I may be missing something. Clause 3 deals with the establishment of standards and objectives. If we take, for example, the case of the National Rivers Authority—of which noble Lords will know I am chairman—it is one of its duties over a period of time to establish objectives for river quality standards. Thereafter, having set those objectives, it has a duty to issue discharge consents in order that they may be achieved or to issue discharge consents—this would meet the point made in the noble Lord's amendment—in order to achieve reductions over a period of time.
I am not convinced by what I have heard so far that anything in the proposed amendment enables the National Rivers Authority and other regulators to do anything that they are not already empowered to do by the Bill as it stands.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am extremely grateful for the noble Lord's intervention because it enables me to say yes, the precautions which were taken when the Water Act was being considered last year achieve for the National Rivers Authority in its sphere of operation exactly what we are trying to achieve here. However, the problem is that other forms of pollution, especially air pollution with which Part I of the Bill is largely concerned, are not covered by the same provisions which regulate the pollution prevention activities of the National Rivers Authority. It is precisely because we want
744
similar provisions to apply to other forms of pollution that we have proposed this amendment. It does not in any way derogate from the responsibilities of the NRA.
Lord Crickhowell: I agree that there are powers specifically written into the Water Act regarding the establishment of standards and objectives. However, as I read the Bill, Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations, and not just regulations confined to water. It is true that the NRA will be able to write its conditions into the conditions issued to achieve the objectives set out here so far as concerns water. But what I am a little puzzled about—I ask this question out of a genuine sense of wanting to know what would be achieved by the noble Lord's objective—is why his objective cannot be achieved perfectly satisfactorily under the present wording of Clause 3.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer is that Clause 3, like all other clauses in this part of the Bill, is subject to the preliminary provisions contained in Clause 1. The definitions of environment, harm, health, process and so on restrict and restrain the full application of Clauses 3 and 7 and many other admirable clauses.
Perhaps I may take one example and draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 1(5), which says:
"'Process' means any activities carried on in Great Britain, whether on premises or by means of mobile plant, which are capable of causing pollution of the environment".
"Prescribed process" is then defined in Clause 2. Clause 2 is defined by regulation. In his response to the first introduction to this amendment the Minister said that the number of processes which are expected to be prescribed is of the order of 5,000 rather than the 3,000 to 4,000 which I anticipated. I am delighted to have this increase, but I think that the noble Lord, and, indeed, all other noble Lords, will acknowledge that the prescription of approximately 5,000 processes for a restricted number of potential polluters is not the same as the very extensive powers which the National Rivers Authority has in order to deal with all the potential polluters of drinking water and of the rivers.
Lord Crickhowell: I am sorry to intervene yet again, but one of the matters of concern which arose while we were working out the relationship between the National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution was the fact that the overwhelming majority of industrial processes are covered. Indeed, we calculate that probably over 80 per cent. are covered. Of course it is always open to the Secretary of State to add to that list. I remain as unconvinced as I was earlier about the need for the noble Lord's amendment in order to achieve the objectives which I think we both share.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Clearly I am not going to convince the noble Lord. However, I say to him specifically that I have never doubted that the procedures which the National Rivers Authority will be using in order to fit its existing powers into the context of the Bill will be perfectly easy to achieve. I have never doubted the fact that there is no conflict

745
between the NRA's powers and those given under the provisions of the Bill. That was not in any way a part of my argument. My argument is that there are many factors outwith the sphere of the NRA's responsibility which are still inadequately covered by the Bill.
The Lord said that 80 per cent. of the major industrial processes are included in the list, and he is right in saying that there is the opportunity to add to that list. However, unless the presumption is that pollution has to be drawn to the attention of the authorities and authorised rather than that the authorities should have to seek it out, and unless the provision is that a deterrent is achieved by prohibition, as well as by a financial penalty, then the Bill's full objectives will not be achieved. It is on that basis that I seek the opinion of the Committee.
4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 139.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Listowel, E.

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bottomley, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Molloy, L.

Carter, L.

Monson, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Northfield, L.

Diamond, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Oram, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Parry, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ezra, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Foot, L.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Galpern, L.

Russell, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Glenamara, L.

Scanlon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hunt, L

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Winstanley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Zuckerman, L.

746

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Killearn, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Kimball, L.

Allerton, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Alport, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Annaly, L.

Kitchener, E.

Annan, L.

Knights, L.

Arran, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Liverpool, E.

Balfour, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Beloff, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Bessborough, E.

Lovat, L.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Luke, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brain, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Melville, V.

Burton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Morris, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Nathan, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Nelson, E.

Cawley, L.

Norrie, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cockfield, L.

Onslow, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orkney, E.

Cox, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Porritt, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Quinton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Radnor, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Dulverton, L.

Rodney, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Effingham, E.

Seebohm, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Shannon, E.

Elles, B.

Sharples, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Foley, L.

Slim, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Gainford, L.

Gibson, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strange, B.

Grantchester, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gridley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathspey, L.

Swinton, E.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Havers, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hayter, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hood, V.

Wedgwood, L.

Hooper, B.

Westbury, L.

Howe, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wynford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:

747
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Environmental Protection Executive
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order transfer such of his functions under this Act as he considers appropriate, including any of the functions specified in subsection (3) below which are vested in him under this Act, to any body etablished in accordance with subsection (2) below.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order establish an Environmental Protection Executive with a regional structure corresponding in area to any regional authorities established in England, Scotland and Wales.
(3) The functions of any body established under this section may by order made by the Secretary of State include—

(a) the promotion of preventive measures against pollution, and for the promotion of clean technologies and the development of integrated pollution control generally;

(b) the prescription of processes falling within national control in accordance with the provisions of Part I of this Act;

(c) the issuing of advice as to best practice in the management of waste, including hazardous waste, in accordance with the provisions of Part II below;

(d) the promotion of recycling and the reduction of waste;

(e) the monitoring of national standards as to pollution, waste management, statutory nuisance, litter and substances and organisms falling within Parts V and VI below;

(f) the promotion with local authorities of Environmental Impact Analysis in planning matters;

(g) the undertaking of long-term research on environmental and ecological matters;

(h) the promotion of public education as to environmental matters, where appropriate in liaison with local education authorities;

(i) the co-ordination of improvements to the environment in inner city areas, including the reclamation of urban land;

(j) the exercise on behalf of the Secretary of State of functions under sections 130 or 131 in relation to toxic waste;

(k) the monitoring of activities connected with dumping at sea as referred to in section 133 below;

(l) the provision of advice and recommendations as to financial assistance for environmental purposes in accordance with section 136 below; and

(m) the promotion of international co-operation on environmental measures and the dissemination of best practice.

(4) The Executive shall have such a membership as appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of organisations concerned with environmental, scientific and conservation matters, and of local authorities.").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 2 which is also a new clause before Clause 1, we raise for the first time, but not I fear for the last, one of the major themes of our concern about the effectiveness of this laudable Bill; that is, whether we have the organisational structure fit to meet the demands which the public will increasingly make for an improved, pollution-free environment, and whether we have the relationship right between the organisational structure at central government level and local government level.
Nothing that I say should be taken as in any way a criticism of Her Majestry's Inspectorate of Pollution. It has never been my policy, in dealing with legislation in this House, to do anything other than attack the Government; never the Government's servants. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution has had an extraordinarily difficult task over the years. It has dealt with increasing demands for a better environment, an increasing number of processes which are damaging to the environment,
748
and an inceasing number of circumstances in which higher standards are required. Yet there has been a failure to provide the resources to achieve its objectives.
We understand from government Statements and from the memorandum at the front of the Bill that it is proposed to strengthen further Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. We welcome that, but I do not think that it is enough to deal with the fundamental hole which exists in the Bill. There is lack of a single, central government body, not reporting to a single Secretary of State but responsible—as is the Health and Safety Executive—for advising government as a whole and for acting on behalf of government as a whole.
Members of the Committee who were present when the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, introduced his Environment Protection Bill, earlier in the Session will have heard the argument for a body analogous to the Health and Safety Executive effectively put forward. The noble Earl drafted an entire Bill. I give him credit for that; it is not something that I could have done. The functions of the Health and Safety Executive, which is not responsible to a single department of state, were applied to the process of pollution control. Unfortunately—and it was entirely his privilege—the noble Earl felt it right not to proceed with the Second Reading of his Bill. I have no doubt that if he were able to be here today he would take an active part in your Lordships' Committee. He still feels, I know, that the analogy of the Health and Safety Executive—a body independent of a single Ministry yet with the full range of functions necessary for environmental protection—should have been put forward in the Bill.
The second analogy that I would like to draw, having referred to the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, follows a suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, who recently in your Lordships' House put forward the case for a national environmental waste standards council. The council would specifically have the responsibility of controlling the waste disposal activities of companies and would also have responsibility for recycling and the efficient disposal of waste. I understand that the noble Earl proposes to put down amendments for later consideration by the Committee. However, if he were present he would agree—and I have discussed the matter with him—that the amendments before the Committee are on similar lines.
What are the functions which a national environmental protection executive could undertake? In our amendment we have largely taken the functions from the Bill itself. The functions are those of monitoring, of environmental impact analysis, and of research. They are not specifically referred to in the Bill; they will have to be added afterwards. Subsection (3) of the new clause takes a number of the functions in Parts I, II, IV, V and VI which the Government recognise as being proper subjects for inclusion in the Bill.
We add the requirement that the environmental protection executive should be independent of a

749
single department; that it should have the responsibility for monitoring progress towards an improved environment; that it should have the central responsibility for environmental impact analysis; that it should have responsibility for research and education; and that it should have responsibility for ensuring international co-operation on environmental protection matters.
There is nothing more important than for us to recognise the close links between the need to improve the environment in this country, locally and nationally, and the need to improve it internationally. It is no longer possible to say—as it perhaps was a few years ago—that they are two separate issues to be dealt with in entirely separate ways. The two are closely linked. Our actions on transport policy and energy conservation as well as our policies on emissions from energy generation have a local and national impact. However, equally they have a global impact. It is necessary for those with the responsibility for local environmental protection to have regard to the international framework.
Amendment No. 3, to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has added his name and which I suggest should be taken with Amendment No. 2, deals with the other part of the protection which we believe to be necessary—that is, the role of local authorities. As has been said on many occasions, local authorities are the environmental protection agency in this country and have been for 150 years. There are many respects in which the Bill provides, very properly, for collaboration between Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and the local environmental health officers. All that is entirely proper.
What is not clear is where the functions of one and the functions of another lie; what the division is between policy and a national plan for environmental protection and the day-to-day leg work—the local enforcement. There is no clear and concise definition of the role of local authorities in environmental protection, even though they are in existence as the most effective local environmental protection network in the country.
We say in the amendment that if these two bodies are to work and to co-ordinate effectively, if there is to be a national body with overall responsibility to all of government, covering the activities of all government departments, then it must work effectively with the local authorities. The local authorities must have an explicit area of responsibility which is properly defined and for which proper resources are available.
I do not wish to anticipate later amendments about the role of local authorities. I certainly do not wish to deal now with the issue of resources which will permeate our debates in Committee. I suggest to your Lordships that without this kind of framework it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the Bill's objectives. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, does not appear to realise that there is a basic contradiction between the terms of his
750
amendment and at any rate one of the observations that he made in moving it. He said, very properly, that on public issues of this kind his policy was not to attack outside bodies, organisations or people but to attack the Government. That seems to me wholly the right approach. I do not know whether the noble Lord has appreciated what would be the effect of carrying into law the amendment which he has just moved. The amendment states:
"The Secretary of State may by order transfer such of his functions … as he considers appropriate … to any body established in accordance with subsection (2) below".
It is a common experience that when functions have been transferred from a Minister to an outside body created by statute, the Minister is neither liable nor indeed able to answer questions about the working of that organisation. There is a certain analogy with the nationalised industries, in respect of which, as the Committee knows, our rules of procedure have recently been tightened up. As I read the amendment it seems clear to me that if the Secretary of State, perhaps for that very reason, were cunningly to transfer all his functions under this Bill—they are listed at great length in the amendment—to the environmental protection executive, that would largely rule out any parliamentary criticism or indeed any parliamentary control.
This is far too important a matter to be shunted out of Whitehall and therefore shunted out of the survey of Parliament. For that reason alone, apart from anything else, I find this amendment most objectionable. It would be ridiculous, in view of the public interest that there now rightly is in environmental matters, if Parliament were to push the whole matter off to an outside statutory body without any direct responsibility to Parliament for its actions. It is perfectly true that ultimately if such a body committed outrageous actions, the Secretary of State could either withdraw the functions he had conferred upon it or sack the individuals concerned. However, that is an extreme step which all Secretaries of State would be unwilling to take. Meanwhile we would have to face the fact that on this extremely important public issue both Houses of Parliament were virtually powerless. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will decide to back what he said in his speech rather than the amendment which he has moved.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I must respond to that immediately. That was a vintage intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is still in his place because what we are proposing here is exactly what occurred with the National Rivers Authority under the terms of the Water Act. The National Rivers Authority exercises functions assigned to it by the Secretary of State in exactly the same way as proposed in this amendment. I did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, object to the establishment of the National Rivers Authority on the grounds that he has just argued, which are that to assign the functions of the Secretary of State to a body which is not under his direct control and which performs functions which he specifies by order is somehow a derogation from democracy or from the rights of Parliament. The

751
noble Lord may be tempted to respond but I hope he will first let me finish my argument.
As I made clear in introducing the proposed new clause, apart from the case of the National Rivers Authority there is a clear analogy with the functions of the Health and Safety Executive which was established under the 1974 Act in much the same way. I cannot guarantee that every single word is identical, but certainly the concept of an analogous body to the Health and Safety Executive is the basis of this new clause. The concept of the establishment of an executive was argued in the case of the Health and Safety Executive—I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, intervened on that occasion—and also when the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, moved his Environment Protection Bill earlier this Session. However, I was present on the latter occasion and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did not intervene.
There is nothing new therefore about the establishment of an executive to which a Secretary of State may transfer his functions. In this case the words "Secretary of State" deliberately refer to more than one Secretary of State as we are deliberately talking about the whole range of pollution and that covers the Departments of Transport and Energy and indeed the Department of Defence as well as the Department of the Environment. There is nothing new about this concept but I admire the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, intervened on this matter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: That was a rather non-vintage reply if I may say so. The noble Lord seems to be in a state of some confusion in respect of the analogies that he referred to. I speak with due diffidence and timidity on the subject of the National Rivers Authority as a consequence of the noble Lord sitting behind me. The National Rivers Authority has specific, serious and important responsibilities. However, those responsibilities cover a specific area.
What we are concerned with here is pollution right across the board. We are concerned with a Bill which is intended to give to the Secretary of State—I take the noble Lord's point that the measure refers to any Secretary of State although primarily it concerns the Secretary of State for the Environment—wide powers to deal with pollution. Therefore deliberately to give him powers at the same time to shunt all responsibility—I use the word "shunt" deliberately—off on to an outside body whose actions he would not be responsible for in answering to either House of Parliament seems to me highly dangerous. The noble Lord appears to admit that the Secretary of State would not be responsible for the actions of the outside body.
I hope that the Committee will decide not to abdicate in this matter. If we pass the Bill, as I hope we will, Ministers, whoever they may be, will have to stand at the Dispatch Box and justify their action or inaction in all the innumerable respects mentioned in the amendment and covered by the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps I may—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope my noble friend will forgive me if I reply to that specific point. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is now saying that what is objectionable is the range of functions which will be assigned to the executive. He has not challenged my fundamental analogies where I asserted that it is possible and may be laudable to assign some functions of the Secretary of State to another body. He does not dispute that that was the right thing to do with the National Rivers Authority. He did not argue against the analogy with the Health and Safety Executive or against the case of the Bill of his noble friend Lord Cranbrook. However, he is now saying that the amendment is objectionable because the specific functions proposed in the new clause under subsection (3) are wider than is democratically desirable.
All I can say about that is that those functions are drawn from the Bill. They are not drawn from an attempt to produce a wider Bill, much as we would wish that to occur. These are functions of the existing Bill that we now propose should be dealt with by a single body which has the range of responsibilities necessary to deal with them.
I should have thought the noble Lord would recognise that the thrust of this proposal to set up an executive is in line with the Government's policies. What, after all, is meant by the next steps procedures or by the setting up of executive agencies and the setting up of government trading organisations except exactly the desire to give independence and responsibility to those who carry out functions in the public sector? I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is going against the policy trend of his own Government.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am surprised that the noble Lord does not see the point that there is an enormous difference between looking at a body such as the National Rivers Authority and deciding that in those circumstances power should be delegated to that distinguished body and dealing with a Bill which goes right across the field of pollution. I do not accept that in the case of a Bill which covers every aspect of pollution, it should be contemplated that power should be given to the Minister to delegate all the functions of the Bill outside parliamentary control. If the noble Lord cannot see the difference between those two cases, I cannot help him further.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am always intrigued by the eloquent interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I had a great deal of pleasure working with him when he was chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority and I was the Minister with responsibility for aviation. He will be the first to recall that the Civil Aviation Authority was given powers by the government which I believe was led by Edward Heath precisely the same in principle as my noble friend Lord McIntosh envisages in this case. The Civil Aviation Authority was established long before those powers were granted, but eventually it was decided that there were many technical matters which required independence of government and objectivity. I believe that is what my noble friend is reaching out for here.

753
There is a germ of truth in the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that there needs to be a certain measure of parliamentary accountability. If my memory serves me right—and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—the Civil Aviation Authority has to report to Parliament annually as to its operations. It may be that there is an omission here as far as that organisation is concerned, but we are debating the principle.
As to the principle, it is the need to have a greater degree of independence and objectivity on environmental issues that has produced this proposal as far as my honourable friend is concerned. Indeed, as I understand it, this matter arose previously in the House during the debate on the Bill introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook.
I know that it is always dangerous to cite examples from abroad, but the United States Environmental Protection Agency was established to provide independence from the Government, as we are seeking to do here. Nobody can say that the record of the EPA is other than a very good one in general terms. It does not seem to have produced a situation in the democracy of the United States which has been harmful to that democracy; indeed, the reverse is true. So I think the noble Lord is over-egging the pudding a little in the observations that he has made in relation to my noble friend's speech. Perhaps he would like to answer the point I have made about the Civil Aviation Authority.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The Civil Aviation Authority was given considerable powers, but, as the noble Lord will recall from the days of his very helpful co-operation—which I am pleased to thank him for now after many years—when he was the Minister concerned there was still a residue of authority left in the Department of Trade and a certain number of questions could be asked. If I may add one pendant to that, I was told that I, as chairman and a Member of the House, could attend your Lordships' House when those questions were asked. I was not allowed to intervene but, said the civil servants, "facial expression is not excluded".
The Earl of Onslow: I apologise for arriving slightly late in the debate on this clause, but it seems to me that there is a wealth of difference between controlling civil aviation and controlling pollution. Pollution is a much wider issue and a much less easily defined subject than civil aviation. It would seem to me that pollution is much more political than civil aviation, so the parallel is not exactly right.
That is all I wanted to say. Perhaps as somebody who has only listened to the argument without having had experience of the matter I can hope to judge without being parti pris either way.
Lord Ross of Newport: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whether the relevant clause is not:
"The Secretary of State may by order transfer such of his functions under this Act as he considers appropriate".
754
We are not asking for anything to be transferred in this amendment, only such functions as the Secretary of State himself thinks are appropriate.
Lord Campbell of Croy: This amendment raises matters conveniently at an early stage of the Committee on which I should like to seek clarification. They concern drafting and interpretation.
This is a United Kingdom Bill. A few parts only apply to Northern Ireland, and they are designated in Clause 147(4), but the Bill as a whole is drafted so that where there are separate systems in Scotland the appropriate words are inserted. For example, there is a separate inspectorate in Scotland. HM inspectorate has been spoken about in the singular so far this afternoon, but there is a separate one in Scotland. The National Rivers Authority, which has been mentioned several times this afternoon, deals with England and Wales only. Therefore, as noble Lords will already have seen, we find at various places in the Bill that the Scottish river pollution authorities are specially mentioned.
We also have the code and the system, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already referred, that the words "the Secretary of State" in the singular cover any Secretary of State or several Secretaries of State. That is the way our parliamentary legislation is drafted. It is always confusing to the public outside, or to those of them who are unfamiliar with the system, as most of them are.
For example, at the beginning of Clauses 2 and 3 we find the words "The Secretary of State". In many cases it will be thought that that means the Secretary of State for the Environment, but where those words occur they could mean any Secretary of State. In Clause 3(5), which is one of the parts that deal with Northern Ireland, it could apply to as many as four Secretaries of State. I am speaking now about the parts of the United Kingdom rather than the functions of defence or transport, which is what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned.
This raises the question of what should happen in the amendment. The new clause, Amendment No. 2, appears to establish one environmental protection executive with one Secretary of State—I think most people reading this would think it was the Secretary of State for the Environment—taking the action proposed. But in the way that our statutes and Bills are drafted, and as Scotland is mentioned in subsection (2) of the amendment, it is clearly supposed to extend beyond England and Wales and therefore beyond the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whether this means that if the new clause were accepted the Secretary of State for Scotland would be acting, in transferring functions and making orders, for that part of this new agency, this authority, which again is supposed to follow the "regional structure" in Scotland, taking the words used. These are the complications that arise.
The Secretary of State for the Environment has no environmental functions or responsibilities in Scotland. I would remind your Lordships that the

755
Scottish Office is over 100 years old and the Welsh Office is nearly 30 years old but has been taking over more functions, including all these, I am reliably informed. So there are the problems of different Secretaries of State for the parts of the United Kingdom as well as the Secretaries of State who have such functions as defence or transport.
I should like to ask the Minister to tell us at this stage, or in his reply later in the debate, whether the Bill in any part of it is going to change the position so far as Scotland is concerned. Is the Secretary of State for the Environment—for the first time for over 30 years, to my knowledge—to have some functions in Scotland? I would add that this is not a propitious moment to subtract from the functions devolved for Scotland because of the movement towards more devolution and nationalism in Scotland.
However, I should make it clear that although the functions under our existing statutes are separate where the Secretaries of State are concerned for different parts of the United Kingdom, my view is that the Secretary of State for the Environment should be the lead Minister on formulating policy for the United Kingdom and taking initiatives generally, as well as in international co-operation and negotiations. That has been the position in recent governments.
There will be even more for the Secretary of State for the Environment to do in that respect not only because of the Bill but because of the increased awareness throughout the world of the need for environmental protection. Nonetheless, in drafting amendments and changing or adding provisions to the Bill, we must work on the functions as they now exist which means, for example, that the Department of the Environment has no functions in Scotland.
I felt that I should raise these matters now partly because two noble Lords—my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas and a personal friend, Lord Ross of Marnock—are, I regret, no longer with us. I am certain that, as two other former Secretaries of State for Scotland, they would have raised those points. I ask for clarification not only from the mover of the amendment, but also in general in due course from the Government about how the problems will be dealt with in the Bill, given the separate functions and responsibilities of the four Secretaries of State.
Lord Addington: I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 3, but, before doing so, I should like to comment on Amendment No. 2.
Ultimately, we shall need a body which takes over an integrated environmental control role and the protection of our environment for the simple reason that it is far too wide a subject for the present structure to handle. We are talking about something that affects every part of our environment and government and goes beyond our national boundaries. Ultimately, we must probably head towards a European-wide structure. I am not qualified to join in the debate as to whether this is the correct form in which to put forward the proposal, but ultimately the idea must be considered in some form and another.
Lord Parry: It might be helpful to the Committee to remind ourselves at this stage of the Addison Rules. Two points are made in those rules, regarding the setting up of public bodies and the possibility of surrender of the Minister's authority to such a body if Parliament is not careful, which should be mentioned in the debate at this point. It is clear that, if an executive body were set up and the Addision Rules were followed, when questions affecting public bodies arise in Parliament, the Government are alone responsible to Parliament. That is the practice, not just the concept.
The rules go on to say:
"If Board members who happen also to be Lords were to give the House information about the day-to-day operations of the Board or to answer criticisms respecting it, the House would in fact be exercising a measure of parliamentary supervision over matters of management. It would also be difficult for the responsible Minister not to give similar information to the House of Commons".
The Committee should accept that it is a convention and practice that any body set up outside the House to carry out a function does not subsume the control of the Secretary of State. That is why chairmen of such bodies do not normally intervene without explanation in debates in the Chamber.
Lord Addington: As that point has been succinctly dealt with, I should like to say that Amendment No. 3 is probably the kind of amendment that we should encourage as it states exactly what the local authorities are supposed to do in relation to any other bodies around them. It has been described as leg work. If you are expected to do leg work, it is only decent that you should know exactly what you are supposed to be doing. A breakdown of functions should surely have occurred a long time ago. We should allow local authorities to know what they should do to help those who are in a greater position of power and have a co-ordinating role. I therefore recommend that Amendment No. 3 at least should be accepted.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: I intended to intervene only briefly to make one point, but I am prompted by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Parry, to make one other observation; namely, that the difficulty about the arrangement which he describes is that it is the practice of Ministers to refer all questions to the chairman of the appropriate body and it is the chairman who then answers by correspondence. So in practice it takes the ability to cross-examine away from the Chambers of both Houses of Parliament.
The one simple point that I wanted to make was that the heart of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is in the right place, but I fear that the method and the time that he has chosen are wrong. He argued that we should have a wider set of arrangements. In the Second Reading debate, I said that there would have to be further changes. I suggested that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution should be taken out of the Department of the Environment. I said that the National Rivers Authority had already put suggestions to government for a wider rationalisation of arrangements. I do not disagree that some further steps may be necessary,

757
but the difficulty of taking them in this Bill is that you must arrive at a set of arrangements without prior discussion, examination and consideration.
On looking at the selection of functions chosen by the noble Lord, I am bound to say that I remain pretty unconvinced because he has not carried out the essential task of working out the exact relationships between the various agencies and organisations. That is a vital first step. It is a step that the National Rivers Authority took because we are concerned about those relationships. It seems to me that, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, he has reached out for a solution and quite self-evidently failed to find it and therefore fallen down a deep hole. Surely the proper way to legislate on as important a matter as this is to come forward with detailed proposals in a White Paper, to consider them adequately and then to include them in a Bill. It is wrong to include a major change in the structure of our arrangements for looking after the environment by amendment at a late stage in the passage of a Bill of this kind.
I cannot even accept the argument that has been advanced that we need something like the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States. One point about that agency is clear: it does not work a system of integrated pollution control. Anyone who has examined the way in which it works would not seek to base a model on it.
My simple point is this: I agree that there will be a need for further changes, but, as the Secretary of State observed, this is but a single Bill in a series of environmental Bills. There was an important environment Bill last year in the form of the Water Act. This is another Bill and clearly there will have to be later Bills. Surely on this occasion we are doing no more than having a brief canter round the course looking at the principles. I hope that the Committee will not accept the solutions that have been put forward.
The Earl of Onslow: There is something that I should like to say arising from what my noble friend Lord Campell said. To treat litter, pollution or the environment differently in Scotland or in Wales from in England is to go down the wrong path. A dirty blue plastic bag in the Tweed is just as nasty as in the River Wey. Litter on the streets of Edinburgh is just as bad as litter on the streets of Scunthorpe. That is one of the great dangers that we shall face.
I admit that I am perhaps going slightly away from the subject by talking about the structure of the United Kingdom, but those matters should be dealt with by one Secretary of State, not two. It is no good if the Secretary of State for Wales arrives at one conclusion about what should happen on one side of the River Usk and the Secretary of State for the Environment arrives at a different conclusion as to what should happen on the other side of the river. It is no good if the Secretary of State for Scotland arrives at one conclusion about what should happen on one side of the River Tweed and the Secretary of State for the Environment arrives at a different conclusion about what should happen on the other. That is about the most ridiculous method of trying
758
to control pollution or to look after the environment as it is conceivable to imagine. Surely we should take away those powers from outlying principalities. That is nothing to do with nationalism; it is to do with common sense. If I were a Scotsman, I should like to have just as good pollution control as my English counterparts. There is nothing Scottish, Welsh or English about a dirty beer can in a high street.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding. My noble friend said that his intervention was based on what I said. I was not commenting; I was merely saying what the facts and the functions are and showing how the Bill has been drafted. To my knowledge, those arrangements have certainly existed in Scotland for well over 30 years and probably much longer. Bills have been drafted with those functions and Parliament expects the various Secretaries of State to answer to Parliament for the sectors for which they are responsible. It is a little difficult in a single Bill to upset that constitutional division of functions.
I was not raising the question of litter whether in one place or another. I was pointing out what the powers are now and how we can therefore draft. I have also asked the Government whether there is any intention to change. I shall be interested to hear the answer. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Onslow will also be interested to hear whether the effect of the Bill will be to make any transfer in functions between the various Ministers. I have not yet seen any sign of that. That is the problem with the kind of amendments that we are considering now.
While I am on my feet I should like to say that the Health and Safety Executive is somewhat facilitated by the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry is a United Kingdom department—it covers Scotland, England and Wales. I suggest that most of the safety and health activities are in the field of trade and industry. That made it easier for that measure to go through.
I am not against the principle that has been suggested. I merely point out that there are difficulties under our present division of responsibilities and ask for clarification.
Lord Parry: The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, would not expect me to agree too readily with the points that he made. He might expect some sympathy and I offer it to him. He could not think of a Welsh town whose name he could pronounce. The only river that he could pronounce was the single syllabled River Usk.
We have a particular responsibility in Wales because the beer can was invented there by Felinfoel Ales. Beer was first canned in Britain in Llanelli.
Lord Hesketh: One learns something every day in this Chamber. The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for an environmental protection executive has a very respectable lineage. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook floated a similar idea last year, and the year before that in another place the Select Committteee on the Environment recommended the creation of such an executive.

759
The creation of an EPA does have arguments in its favour. But we believe, too, as we said in our response to the Select Committee's report, that the proposals that we are bringing forward in this Bill, taken together with the creation of the NRA under last year's Water Act, produce a sound system for the management of pollution control both at the national and local level. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said, in introducing this Bill in another place, that he would look at the institutional arrangements for pollution control and that will no doubt be reflected in the White Paper to be published later this year.
I have to say, however, that the new clause tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is not an EPA along the lines of that proposed by either my noble friend or the Select Committee of the other place. It is rather limited and is confined to the functions of the Secretary of State under this Act. In fact, I believe that the new clause is a recipe for some confusion. As an example of that confusion, one can take the first main clause of the Bill—Clause 2. Under the new clause the executive will become responsible for prescribing the processes to come under IPC—although I note with surprise not for local air pollution control—but it would not prescribe the substances for control. That would mean that regulation of all the precautionary preventive control of the Part I system (to minimise releases of particularly nasty substances) would presumably remain with the Secretary of State while the processes were controlled by the executive. I cannot see the logic in that.
One of the factors that needs to be taken into account in considering the merits of an EPE is how such an organisation would fit in with or intrude upon the role of local authorities. Local knowledge and the capacity for a fast response which lies with local authorities could be put at risk by a centralised system. In Amendment No. 3 the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, recognises the role that local authorities play. But I hardly think it necessary to impose upon them the requirements of that new clause. They are for the most part fulfilling its requirements already, particularly in making environmental information available and monitoring and auditing the quality of the local environment.
Many noble Lords went into the finer points of the relationship between the NRA and which parts were best to take out of which Bills to add together to produce the perfect EPA. However, it is important to remember that the EPA—about which I have heard the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wax lyrical in this Chamber on many occasions in previous years—is at this moment in the United States being absorbed into the government. The director of the EPA is being made a Member of the Cabinet of the President of the White House. That may say something. I think the answer is that although the EPA is extraordinarily attractive—for want of not using any further words than that—in political terms, the reality is that we have come up with a particularly British solution, a solution that is designed to work even though it may not look so good in terms of an advertising hoarding.
760
Finally, in reply to my noble friend Lord Campbell, there are two answers: yes and no. The answer "yes" refers to the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland will in particular continue to take the lead on national matters, as he does at present. With special adaptations the Bill applies as and where required to Scotland as to England and Wales, but the functions of the Secreatary of State for Scotland remain entirely unaltered. The only areas that will affect Scotland directly in this Bill in a way that changes the position will be with regard to the NCC in Part VII.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have been delighted by this short debate if perhaps not quite for the reasons which all those who took part in it might expect. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his last remarks about what he calls the peculiarly "British" solution. It is indeed in many respects the peculiarly British solution that has landed us with the name of the dirty man of Europe, with a less effective system of pollution control than the United States has had for many years and a far less effective system of pollution control than many European countries. It has also led us to be under continuous attack from international organisations and the European Commission over the inadequacy of our response to environmental protection matters. I acknowledge that the Bill is an attempt in some limited way to deal with the problems which may be identified as going along with a peculiarly British solution, but if I were the Minister I should not boast about it.
I can deal fairly quickly with the issue of the Scottish and Welsh dimensions. The provisions in the new clause are no different from the provisions in the Bill itself. As the Minister made quite clear in his reply, nothing in the Bill takes away from the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Wales or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. What is intended, and I believe achieved, by this amendment is quite different. It is not intended to deal with matters between the regions of England and—let me get it right—the Kingdom of Scotland and the Principality of Wales. That is not the object of the exercise. Our object is to ensure that we no longer get away with the peculiarly British solution of thinking that we have dealt with the environment and its protection by giving one Secretary of State the smart title the Secretary of State for the Environment when we know perfectly well that he is the Secretary of State responsible for local government, housing and planning with a little bit of environment tacked on at the end.
Lord Campbell of Croy: That is in England and Wales.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, says—in England and Wales. The objective of the amendment and the reason that it is deliberately phrased in this way is so that there should be a co-ordinated view of environmental protection and that it should take into account—later amendments will spell it out in more detail—the responsibilities of the Secretaries

761
of State for Transport, for Defence, for Energy and any other departments which have an impact on the environment. That is exactly what this amendment is about; that is exactly what this Bill will not achieve.
The Minister may think that it is a response to my arguments to say that the Environmental Protection Agency has now been enlarged by the addition of a Minister in the American Cabinet. I do not disagree, although there was always an Interior Secretary who had many of those responsibilities. I refer him to the Labour Party policy document that has just been published. Not only shall we have an Environmental Protection Executive of the kind proposed in this amendment but it will report to a Minister in the Cabinet with overall responsibility for protection of the environment. What the Minister has described as happening in the United States is exactly Labour Party policy.
I appreciate that I am not doing my best to secure support for the amendment in all corners of the Committee but at least I am being consistent. At least we have our eyes on what is achievable and at the only time that it is achievable. If Members of the Committee believe that it is possible to delay these issues by saying that there will be a White Paper in the autumn and legislation later they are neglecting the fact that time is at our heels.
There must be a general election within two years, which means that there is only one more full Session of Parliament. It is already clear, and I challenge any Minister to deny it, that there will be no legislation to implement a White Paper on environmental protection in the 1990–91 Session. That means that there will be no other major legislation on environmental protection in the last Parliament of this Government. For that reason it is essential for the Committee to set out what it believes to be the proper concerns of an Environmental Protection Bill in the true sense rather than in the more limited measure which is now before us.
Lord Hesketh: When I referred to a peculiarly British solution the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, saw that as an opportunity immediately to denigrate my remarks. Since the passage of the Water Act last year my office has looked at the Order Papers as having a veritable drought of Questions with regard to the pollution of water. We have combined two bodies—HMIP and the NRA—to produce success. It is no good the noble Lord saying that because we are not to have an EPA it does not work, because we have shown that it has worked.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I take it that the Minister means a veritable flood of Questions rather than a veritable drought.
Lord Hesketh: No, I mean no Questions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Whether the Government wished it or not, in changing the ownership of the water and sewerage industries the effect of the Water Act was to raise public awareness of the defects of our water supply. All credit to the
762
Government for having done that, even though they did so without fully intending it.
The objections that have been raised about the scope of Amendment No. 2 and its relationship to Amendment No. 3 have not been well substantiated. The amendment provides what the Bill does not, that is, an adequate mechanism at central government level and collaboration between central and local government for the implementation of an environmental protection industry. The Bill as drafted does not provide that. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
5.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 130.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

John-Mackie, L

Airedale, L.

Kagan, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kennet, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Barnett, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Listowel, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bottomley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

McNair, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mayhew, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Davies, L.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Oram, L.

Diamond, L.

Parry, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rea, L.

Ezra, L.

Richard, L.

Falkender, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Foot, L.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Galpern, L.

Russell, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Glenamara, L.

Scanlon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Shackleton, L.

Gregson, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Whaddon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Ampthill, L.

Allerton, L.

Arran, E.

Alport, L.

Ashbourne, L.

763

Auckland, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Balfour, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Beloff, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Liverpool, E.

Bessborough, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Blatch, B.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Brain, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Melville, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Burton, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caccia, L.

Mountevans, L.

Caithness, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Moyne, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nathan, L.

Carnock, L.

Nelson, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Norrie, L.

Cawley, L.

Onslow, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cox, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Craigavon, V.

Porritt, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Quinton, L.

Craigton, L.

Radnor, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denham, L.

Renwick, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rodney, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Elibank, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ellenborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elles, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Sharples, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Foley, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Gainford, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Gibson, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gisborough, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Swinton, E.

Halsbury, E.

Teviot, L.

Hanson, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayter, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hood, V.

Westbury, L.

Hooper, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Howe, E.

Wise, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Woolton, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wynford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Young, B.

Kimball, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.11 p.m.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 4:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("General duty to protect the environment
. This Part shall be interpreted as subject to a general duty on the Secretary of State and on other persons to whom functions are assigned under it to promote the protection, conservation and improvement of the environment.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to place a general duty on the Secretary of State, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and local authorities and to write the imposition of that duty on to the face of the Bill.
On Report in the other place the Minister said at col. 749 of Hansard that integrated pollution control is a radical new measure putting Great Britain in the forefront of pollution control. In my Second Reading speech I said that noble Lords on all sides welcomed the introduction of integrated pollution control. The Bill is an important measure in any future environmental policy and practice. Surely it could have been expected that a general duty to protect, conserve and improve the environment would be set out clearly and unequivocally at the beginning.
The Bill gives some 70 new powers to the Secretary of State and places many new onerous obligations on Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and also on the local authorities. My proposed new clause spells out the terms of reference which are missing from Part I and goes some way towards allaying the anxieties expressed by organisations and individuals. Proper resources for monitoring and research as well as enforcement of the new powers, including the necessary training and recruitment, are essential if the good intentions of the Bill are to be put into practice. The duty imposed by this amendment, initially upon the Secretary of State, carries with it the presumption that resources must be made available to meet that obligation.
Earlier debates focused on the need for adequate staffing of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. The Government have promised that HMIP will have whatever staff it needs. That is very welcome. However, that contrasts with the provision of the Bill for only 15 additional staff. That applies only to Part I. Admittedly there are further provisions made for staff in other areas, but not many. Local authorities are worried that the cost recovery system will not provide adequate funds in the initial stages of the new scheme.
There are doubts about the current Bill, which I am sure the Government appreciate. There is a great deal of evidence and representations have been made from bodies involved with the environment on the forthcoming White Paper. There are doubts on the limited scope of integrated pollution control. The Minister said that there will be 5,000 major producers of polluted waste, although today the figure of 3,500 was mentioned. Processes causing a less dramatic level of pollution still fall outside the scope of the Bill. Waste management is being passed to arm's-length companies in England and Wales. However, that measure is not replicated in Scotland and we do not know how that will work.
HMIP entertains many expectations. We do not know—the matter was dealt with very honestly by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in his Second Reading speech and again today—how HMIP and the NRA will relate to each other. He said that further co-ordination will be necessary. How are we to resource the new litter proposals? The Minister indicated that he will consider requests for additional resourcing on a case by case basis within

765
the RSG mechanism. That is hardly conducive to proper forward planning and environmental protection. I dread to think what will happen if there is additional charge capping. We have heard rumours about that from 10 Downing Street. I do not know how local authorities will deal with the problems of litter and waste throughout our countryside if they are not in a position to give incentives to people to tidy the countryside.
A commitment to the broad aims of environmental protection at the start of the Bill would give some reassurance on such issues. It is anticipated that the White Paper will be published at the end of September in time for the Conservative Party Conference. The Government's willingness to consult on the wider issues, including consultation with local authority associations, has been most welcome. I put on record that I am very grateful to the Minister, Mr. Trippier, who recently saw representatives of Wildlife Link. We submitted our own suggestions as to what should be in the White Paper and we were able to make personal representations to the Minister and his civil servants.
However, a White Paper is not legislation. It appears that apart from what the Minister said on Report about a further planning Bill there will be no further legislation in the immediate future. That is what we are all so worried about. This is a very worthy Bill but it does not cover the real problems of pollution control and environmental protection. It may be several years before we are able to put into legislation some provisions which have been discussed for a long time and which many of us believe are highly desirable and should be dealt with here and now.
On Saturday, Mr. Trippier was in Dublin. Perhaps the Minister responding today can tell us what happened at that conference. He is looking very mystified, but I understand that Mr. Trippier was there and that there is now a suggestion that there may be a European-wide environmental body to which we should have to respond. I hope that such matters are proceeding apace. The Government have initiated certain conferences on global warming. Therefore, anxieties have been expressed which are not dealt with by this legislation. It is important to emphasise in this Bill the need to develop essential strategies and authorisation processes. In this part of the Bill only one element has such a strategy. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Harringey: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. In many ways it complements the amendments which I have already moved. I am glad that he supported them. Without anticipating more than is absolutely necessary our subsequent debate in Committee, this amendment is essential if we are to be convinced that the Government mean what they say when they are putting forward an environmental protection Bill of this sort.
The reason that it is necessary to state that there should be a general duty not only upon the Secretary
766
of State has been well rehearsed; that is, because a general duty to protect the environment is required of government as a whole rather than only the Secretary of State for the Environment. I shall not go into that argument again.
However, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, raises another issue of fundamental importance; namely, the role of local authorities and the resources available to them. Again, we shall deal with those matters on later amendments.
Perhaps I could refer back to the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill. It says that the pollution control regime—integrated pollution control—is set up under Part I of the Bill
"for prescribed industrial, commercial and other processes"—
I will not go into the England, Wales or Scotland argument—
"to be operated by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, and a parallel regime providing for local authority control of air emissions from a second tier of less polluting processes".
That is a most unsatisfactory situation for local authorities. Restricting their level of responsibility under Part I of the Bill to air pollution and within air pollution to a second tier of less polluting processes is not the way in which we should be seeking to achieve, or are likely to achieve, the full collaboration between local and central government which is necessary if effective integrated pollution control is to work.
For that reason I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that it is necessary to say that that part of the Bill should be interpreted as being subject to a general duty on the Secretary of State and other persons to whom functions are assigned under it. Other functions are assigned to local authorities. They must have a general duty if affected—putting it as neutrally as I can—by swings in one direction or another in the nature of local authority funding. There might be swings in the balance between central funding of local authority services and locally raised funding and changes in the way in which locally raised funding—for example, the community charge—is applied. We understand that there are proposals in train to make such changes which may include wider community charge capping, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, rightly pointed out.
If there is that degree of uncertainty, as I believe there is, in local authority funding, how will environmental protection be secured as an essential part of the range of services and activities of local authorities? Let us not forget that a large part of the duties and therefore the expenditure of local authorities is imposed on them by central government. Education, community care—which has been debated in this Chamber—and many other features of local authority expenditure impose statutory duties on the local authority. Local authorities can be pursued at law if they fail to fulfil that statutory duty.
Is environmental protection to be the poor relation of local authority expenditure? No local authority would wish that to be the case. If collaboration between local authorities and central government is to be achieved there must be some way of securing adequate resources and a general duty in connection

767
with those resources laid upon local authorities. I take that to be the purpose of the amendment; I therefore support it.
Lord Parry: It might be helpful if I guide the Committee regarding what happened in Wales some years ago when I was chairman of the Wales Council of Keep Britain Tidy. I was introduced to a system which very much involved local government. All local councils in Wales were participants and leaders in the clean-up of Wales attempted at that time.
When I became chairman throughout Britain of Keep Britain Tidy and eventually of the Tidy Britain Group, I found that other local authorities were keen to follow the pattern of Wales but that their money was already budgeted in committee. It is essential to understand—if the Committee does not support the amendment—that there is a great concern among local authorities committed to environmental cleansing that the funds must be forthcoming. I should also like to lay before the Committee the fact that the problem is increasing and is no more than ameliorated by the measures taken by the various organisations assigned to the task.
A great deal of unfortunate misunderstanding has existed over the past few years as to who was to be responsible for litter. We have had some difficulty in resolving the question. Some 14 weeks ago I picked up the first beer can at Land's End for a private enterprise group—Ideal Homes—who committed the whole of their staff and a great deal of resources to a clean-up of aluminium cans for recycling. The task has just been completed; I picked up the last can at John O'Groats last Thursday afternoon. That one company, with the support of local authorities and by devoting a great deal of effort to the task, has collected cans which would extend to twice the height of Mount Everest. Yet there are many more cans left in the hedgerows of Britain waiting to be collected.
Whatever the Committee resolves, it should be understood that the problem is a large one. It is essentially connected with local government funding and raising funds from other sources. Even were a great deal of money devoted to the problem, it could not be solved.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord Ross, wishes Part I to be interpreted as placing a general duty on the Secretary of State and others to protect, conserve and improve the environment. Those are worthy sentiments but the amendment itself is unnecessary. The amendment gives me the opportunity to make categorically clear that the purpose of the Environmental Protection Bill is indeed to protect the environment. I am confident there is no possible room for doubt about that; I can say that in Part I of the Bill we are introducing the most sophisticated pollution control system in Europe.
The proposed duty on the Secretary of State allows no possible room for doubt about his intentions in fulfilling any of his function under the Bill. Our record on the environment over the past 10 years and more puts that beyond question. We are taking an international lead in protecting the atmosphere.
768
Billions of pounds are being spent on cleaning up power stations, improving the quality of our rivers, our beaches and our drinking water.
A number of people including the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in the amendment which proceeded this one, continue to bring accusations of Britain being the dirty man of Europe. I shall not repeat the arguments I made a moment ago. This Bill, with the strong measures I have outlined, carries the process further forward. The duties and functions of local authorities under Part I of the Bill are clear and explicit. There is also the matter of cost recovery charging. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made the reasonable point that we could have a series of debates on each of the amendments which are effectively covered by later amendments, Amendment No. 59 in the case of this particular amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We shall; not we could.
Lord Hesketh: It is in a state of complete certainty that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says that. I reassure the Committee that if the Secretary of State, speaking purely hypothetically, were to act in any way other to promote the protection and improvement of the environment, he would be acting beyond his powers and therefore unlawfully. For those reasons we resist the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am grateful for the response of the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, has been involved in the picking up of cans from Land's End to John O'Groats: he is now an expert on cans. However, he had perhaps better go north to the Shetlands. I spent a holiday in the Shetlands 30 years ago before the oil boom. One could be 20 miles from Lerwick in the midst of the most barren countryside; yet if one stepped out of the car one automatically stood on a McEwan's beer can. There are probably millions of McEwan's beer cans all over the Shetlands. People obviously went into town, filled up the car with cans then threw them out on their way home. I am afraid that there is a large problem in the Shetlands.
We were given a glowing account of the Government's achievements by the Minister. No doubt he will be in the good books of the Prime Minister. However, some of us are not quite so impressed with the Government's achievements, although we think that the Bill is very worthy and therefore will not argue too much. However, I think that the Minister goes a bit over the top in saying how much is being spent and how much is being done. A lot of us think that this country is dragging its feet. I am not saying that we are the dirtiest country in Europe because that covers Eastern Europe, which is absolutely filthy in parts, and this country has done some good things though there is still a long way to go. However, I do not intend to press the amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 5: Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Statement of objectives etc. in relation to environmental protection
—(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, and periodically as he considers appropriate thereafter, lay before Parliament a statement of the objectives and practices which he considers desirable to be undertaken by other persons in relation to environmental protection.
(2) For the purposes of this section, environmental protection shall be taken to include activities falling within the scope of this Act or such other activities as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State shall, before laying any statement made under this section, consult organisations concerned with, or exercising duties in relation to, the protection or conservation of the environment or the regulation of activities likely to affect the environment, or on whom such duties are placed under his Act.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment also appears in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Its purpose is to create a mechanism which will allow Parliament to debate strategic issues affecting the environment based on a statement drawn up and revised after substantial consultation. Recent debate has acknowledged the need, if not for a national plan at the very least for a national strategy which will improve and safeguard the environment. In particular, the development of an effective system of integrated pollution control will rely on a network of central and local government agencies, voluntary organisations and individuals. Many issues such as global warming must be considered in an international context.
While the Bill has received a qualified welcome and has been improved during its passage through the other place, it is essential that neither this legislation nor the promised White Paper is seen as an end in itself. The amendment now before the Committee would require a clear statement of environmental objectives and best practice periodically to be laid before Parliament. While the responsibility for initiating this statement would rest with the Secretary of State for the Environment, the amendment would also ensure that organisations and agencies concerned with implementing protection or conservation measures would have the opportunity to express their views, if only during the consultation period.
I repeat: I am sure the Minister will see that the response received from the outside NGOs to the opportunity to make representations to the Government on the forthcoming White Paper shows the interest that has been expressed by those bodies. Some excellent documents have been sent in and I am sure that Members of this Committee will have seen a copy of the excellent contribution from the CPRE.
It is widely acknowledged that all people are, or are becoming, more environmentally conscious than ever before. That needs to be reflected in the way that Parliament deals with environmental issues. Crisis management is inappropriate. These issues affect us all and should be given appropriate priority in the business of the House. In the other place the Minister took the view that the Department of the
770
Environment's annual digest of environmental statistics offered sufficient information to make a regular statement of strategy unnecessary. That digest is obviously a very worthy document and I gather that there have been promises that it will be improved, but a digest of statistics is an historical snapshot. It does not in itself address the wider strategic issues which concern all parties or provide a mechanism for consultation with those organisations responsible for giving effect to the law.
Moreover, we do not yet know the full implications of the Water Act 1989, and the mechanics established by that Act for setting and monitoring standards of water quality have not yet been properly tested. Indeed, concern has been expressed during debates on strategy, resourcing and implementation. For example, inspectors who specialise in specific areas of pollution control will be expected to regulate a wide variety of industrial processes. Improved standards are essential, but how are they to be resourced and who will pay? What should be the timetable for implementation? Who needs to be consulted? What do they have to say?
At present we are struggling to come to terms with the European perspective, yet instances like Chernobyl and the ghastly recent oil spills in New York and the Gulf of Mexico make clear that a global perspective is equally essential. I suggest that that perspective is precisely what this Bill lacks.
The amendment gives an opportunity to express a wider vision which the Government repeatedly state they hold. In response to the previous amendment the Minister clearly stated that he holds that view. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I should like to explore something with the Government on the basis of the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. In fact, as the noble Lord said, it is important to have a national strategy dealing with environmental policy which invokes the aid of a whole range of voluntary organisations, non-governmental organisations, and so on.
There has been a very interesting development in the United States and I wonder whether the Government will deem to give this sort of development their approval in relation to the United Kingdom. The perfectly responsible and authoritative environmental organisations have undertaken an initiative in relation to American corporations which seeks to utilise the right of corporate shareholders to place matters to a vote before shareholders as a way of giving prominence to environmental issues. Specifically, what the organisations have done is to develop a set of principles which they encourage shareholders to adopt. These are known as the Valdez principles, after the notorious "Exxon Valdez" case.
Shareholders are encouraged publicly to affirm their belief in the form of these principles that they have responsibility for environmental protection—which, in my judgment, they certainly should have—and that the corporations concerned should conduct their business as responsible stewards of the environment; and in determining

771
their policies and seeking their profits to do so in a manner that leaves the earth healthy and safe.
I shall not go into the detail of those principles but they cover matters such as protection of the biosphere; minimising and striving to eliminate the release of pollutants that can cause environmental damage to the air, water, the earth or its inhabitants; to recognise the need for sustainable use of natural resources; to deal with the reduction and disposal of waste; the wise use of energy; commitment to minimise the environmental health and safety risks to employees and the communities in which the industry operates by employing safe technologies and operating procedures and by being constantly prepared for emergencies; the marketing of safe products and services; damage compensation; disclosure; and a host of other matters. They rely extensively on assessment and annual audits in relation to the environment.
It seems to me that it would be a perfectly reasonable development, perhaps equally in the field of company law as environmental law, to follow a similar course given the encouragement of government as far as concerns the various environmental agencies. I should very much like to hear whether in principle the Government welcome that sort of approach—an approach which, as I have said before, seems to be having considerable success in the United States.
Lord Nathan: This amendment seems to produce a very constructive idea which has been tried successfully in the European Community. Since 1972 there has been a succession of environmental action programmes within the EC which I believe could well form a model for government here. The action programmes—I think we are on the fourth at the moment—deal with broad principles but they also deal with fairly specific programmes without being too detailed, so that questions of philosophy are certainly mentioned; for example, the emphasis on the preventative approach which has now been accepted everywhere but which some years ago was not accepted in this country at all.
There is the question of the priorities to be given to different actions. For example, we talk a great deal about pollution but not very much at the moment about the question of national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and their protection, the integration of the environmentally sensitive areas and how all these matters should be developed.
Some come in the agricultural context and some are environmental questions. It would be a great advantage if once a year or, if desired, once every four years, government put out a statement of their broad programme and intent in relation to the environment. Without that there is a tendency which we have witnessed to leap from emergency to emergency. One wants a guideline and an outline of the policy and programme against which one can assess how far it has been carried through and how far there has been a falling short. There is much to be said for the proposals contained in the amendment which has just been moved.
Lord Hesketh: I am happy to say that the Government are already doing what the amendment
772
asks for. They are engaged in a comprehensive review of environmental policy which will lead to a complete statement of the Government's strategies, principles, priorities and policies in relation to environmental protection. The White Paper is to be published this autumn and it will address the role and the responsibilities of individuals, business and public bodies, as well as those of the Government. I can assure the Committee that in preparing the White Paper the Government have sought the views of those concerned on an unprecedentedly wide scale. For the sake of completeness, I add that the Government have consulted extensively on the preparation of this Bill and will continue to consult extensively on its implementation.
I hope that others share my view that it is quite superfluous to require by statute that the Government should perform a task that they are already implementing. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the Valdez Principles. I find that a most interesting notion. I hope that shareholders encourage their company boards to consider all environmental aspects of their work and the greening of industry. We believe it is a process that is taking off and the Government are keen to encourage it.
When I say that the Government are keen to encourage it, I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to a press release issued by the Department of the Environment on 29th January in which my right honourable friend the Minister of State produced a 10-point green audit for British commence and industry. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was entirely correct in drawing attention to the fact that if this issue became a legislative matter it would be a matter for company law, as he suggested. He is absolutely correct in that respect. We believe that the White Paper will comprehensively cover the point that the noble Lords' amendment makes. More importantly, the White Paper will appear considerably sooner than within six months of the Bill becoming an Act.
Lord Clinton-Davis: While I appreciate what has been said by the Minister in response to the question affecting the Valdez Principles, I wonder whether he would like to reflect on ways of pursuing the point rather more actively than has already been done. I do not deny for one moment that the Government have addressed some of these points. On reflection, perhaps the Minister would care to write to me, having considered the application of the Valdez Principles, on a more effective way in which the Government can address the specific point. Perhaps he can do that in conjunction with his right honourable friend the Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry.
I advert to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I do not think that the Minister answered it. Merely to say that the Government will consult is not meeting the point at all. As I understand it, what was envisaged was that the Government would from time to time—the exact time does not matter for the purpose of this debate—set out a statement of principles rather like the fourth action programme for which I had some responsibility and which the

773
Government, like all the other member states, have accepted in principle.
We have a changing scenario all the time in the environmental field. It would be helpful if the Government were periodically to set out how they reflect on the necessity for change within the period in question. I hope that the Minister will reflect further on what I thought was an extremely valuable and constructive point made by the noble Lord.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: To some extent I too was taken aback by the Minister's reponse, which I thought did more credit to his heart than to his understanding of the way in which governments work. It is one thing to say that there will be this glorious tuppence-coloured, all-bells-ringing White Paper to come out for the Conservative Party Conference. No doubt the first priority of the Government at the present time is to rally and restore confidence in their own supporters.
That is not quite the same thing as showing to the electorate as a whole that the Government are serious about environmental protection. I am surprised that the Government should resist the offer made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, of an opportunity to say at regular intervals, "These are the objectives that we are setting ourselves concerning environmental protection and this is the way in which we are succeeding in doing so".
If the Government are serious about giving environmental protection, it is a gift to a public relations man. It is exactly the kind of thing that Mr. Ingham and the Conservative Central Office would love to have. It is difficult to see why the Government should resist this offer other than on the ground which I suspect lies behind the resistance; namely, that they do not intend to do very much except to issue White Papers at Conservative Party conferences.
Lord Hesketh: I take slight issue with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the last statement. The White Paper will be produced for everyone. It is not being produced for the Conservative Party Conference. He quite rightly said that it was more my heart speaking than my experience in government. I say to the noble Lord that, as he rightly pointed out earlier, there are four Secretaries of State involved with environmental questions, and that is a minimum figure. Having seen what is involved in producing a White Paper where there are a minimum of four departments concerned, providing a useful document every six months on the basis of what four departments can agree among themselves will not, I suspect, give the benefit that the promoters of this amendment expect.
Lord Ross of Newport: I correct the Minister. We do not say that a report should be produced every six months, but we say that one should be produced within six months of the Bill becoming law. We then talk about a report being made periodically. I believe that there has been a blow-your-own-trumpet session in the Department of the Environment before the Minister came here today. If that is what the answer is to be throughout the passage of this Bill, I warn him that he will be on his feet for a long time.
774
His reply was not good enough. It was far too glib. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for his support, which was very timely. I am grateful for the contribution that he made in pointing out what happens elsewhere. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, we live in changing times and the scenario changes. It is not good enough to say that we shall get a White Paper in September or October, that that is adequate and that nothing else is needed.
Defence Estimates are debated each year in the other place. There are reports made from the Royal Commission on the Environment and these are debated. Why should not the Secretary of State report back on progress every now and again? We are not saying that this should take place every six months. It may be every year or two years if it is such an ordeal. I acknowledge that the Government are consulting very widely about the White Paper. I believe that the Secretary of State intended initially that it would be a very worthwhile document. However, the reports that are now reaching us are rather less reassuring. We believe that the Minister is being pushed back a peg or two. The White Paper may not be anything like as forward looking as originally anticipated. I am not satisfied with the response and I shall divide the Committee over the issue.
5.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 120.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Airedale, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Blackstone, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hughes, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hunt, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Jay, L.

Carter, L.

Jeger, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kagan, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Kennet, L.

David, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Listowel, E.

Diamond, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Ennals, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Longford, E.

Ezra, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Falkender, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Falkland, V.

McNair, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Foot, L.

Mayhew, L.

Gallacher, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Galpern, L.

Nathan, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B,

Ogmore, L.

Gregson, L.

Oram, L.

Grey, E.

Parry, L.

Grimond, L.

Peston, L.

Hampton, L.

Richard, L.

775

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Rochester, L.

Tordoff, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Russell, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Serota, B.

White, B.

Shackleton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stedman, B.

Winstanley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Hooper, B.

Allerton, L.

Howe, E.

Alport, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Arran, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Auckland, L.

Kimball, L.

Balfour, E.

Kitchener, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beloff, L.

Lawrence, L.

Belstead, L.

Liverpool, E.

Bessborough, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Burton, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caithness, E.

Mountevans, L.

Caldecote, V.

Moyne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Carnock, L.

Norrie, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Onslow, E.

Cawley, L.

Orkney, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Coleraine, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Colwyn, L.

Quinton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Radnor, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cox, B.

Reay, L.

Craigavon, V.

Renton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Rodney, L.

Craigton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Crickhowell, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Sharples, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Elles, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Faithfull, B.

Gainford, L.

Swansea, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swinfen, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swinton, E.

Grantchester, L.

Teviot, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Greenway, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hanson, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Westbury, L.

Hayter, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Henley, L.

Wise, L.

Hesketh, L.

Wynford, L.

Hives, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.57 p.m.
Clause 1 [Preliminary]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 11. after ("or) insert ("— (a)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 6 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, 10 to 18, 21 to 23 and 139. I realise that the grouping provided that I should speak also to Amendment No. 9 but I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wishes for that to be dealt with separately.
These are rather more than drafting amendments. They are an attempt to deal with the considerable degree of confusion which still exists in the Bill about the definitions of the environment and related terms. I realise that some of the confusion arises because of the willingness of the Government to accept arguments put forward in another place and their decision to propose amendments of their own to give effect to those arguments. Whatever the goodwill involved the result is that we have different definitions in different parts of the Bill; many definitions that are inadequate and out of date; and definitions that do not coincide with the definitions used by the European Community. The Community will after all continue to issue directives that will have to be implemented by the Government. It is not just a matter of confusion; it is rather worse than that. I shall not go into all the amendments in detail; I shall select some of the more conspicuous ones.
My first objection is personal and aesthetic. Perhaps it may not make all that much difference to the Bill but I object to earth, water and air being called media rather than elements, as they have been known since time immemorial. I do not see what is lost by calling them elements. The term is much more elegant and much more consistent with the British literary and linguistic tradition. To call them media makes it sound as though someone has been reading far too much McLuhan and far too little of the Bible.
I hope that the Government, without any party prompting, will feel able to accept this series of minor amendments. I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when he comes to move Amendment No. 9 which refers to "environmental medium", will feel that the use of the word "environment" is a better way of expressing that concept.
Amendment No. 8 contains a little more detail about what is meant by the word "elements". As drafted, the Bill is not clear as to whether we are talking about the natural environment which subsists in or is supported by the elements; it is certainly not clear whether we are covering the physical environment of buildings or natural or man-made structures. I shall not risk moving into the same debate about man-made structures and archaeological remains which we moved into last year when discussing the Local Government and Housing Bill and the Water Bill. It is inadequate simply to talk about health. These days without delving into holistic medicine, I think it can be said

777
that people recognise that health is not simply the absence of disease or its cure; it is a state of well-being. We think that that fact ought to be recognised in the amendment.
Further amendments deal with the potential harm which is not covered by the definitions in the Bill. By way of illustration, perhaps I may take as an example an occurrence which has been much mentioned. I refer to oil spillages. If you are dealing with such spillages, like those which came from the "Exxon Valdez" the "Gulf of Mexico" and the "Amoco Cadiz", and so on, one of the actions you have to take is to seek to minimise the damage from the oil spillage. Therefore, you must have the booms and the chemicals and other equipment. However, I suggest that the other action which must be taken is to ascertain what is necessary in the procedures of oil tankers as regards their crewing ratios, their crewing skills, their navigational skills and their construction in order to prevent such things happening. As the Bill is drafted at present, the definition of "pollution" will deal with the first part of my argument—that is, what happens when the pollution has already occurred—but it will not deal with the second part.
Amendments like Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 deal with issues such as graffiti. It may well be that painting objectionable words on walls is not a form of criminal damage. However, it is still very unpleasant aesthetically and people are frightened to use public places where graffiti exists. The definition ought to be extended to ensure that it also covers such situations.
I do not think that Members of the Committee would thank me if I were to go into detail about all the amendments. Indeed, some of them are somewhat repetitive and they make the same points in different ways in different parts of the Bill. However, I hope it will be understood that these amendments were intended to be constructive. They would not widen the definition of "environment" or "pollution" unnecessarily; but they would bring it into line with current practice and make the provisions of the Bill easier to apply. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and indeed to Members of the Committee, for agreeing to deal separately with Amendment No. 9 which is tabled in my name and Amendment No. 11 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I think that they are slightly different. The noble Lord suggested, through a number of amendments, that we ought to define as closely as we can those matters to which this part of the Bill applies. I have no quarrel in that respect.
However, the noble Lord will see that Amendment No. 14 which is tabled in his name and which reads,
"after ("senses") insert ("including his aesthetic sense"),
is diametrically opposed to Amendment No. 13, which is tabled in my name, because it proposes to remove that whole phrase. Of course, I understand exactly what he means by "aesthetic sense". However, my amendment, which would negative his
778
amendment were the Committee to accept my view, has been put forward because I feel that if the phrase were to be left in the Bill it would allow a considerable amount of subjective judgment on the meaning of "harm" as it relates to an individual.
In my view, a selective judgment has no form of measurement. Indeed, what may offend one person may not offend another. One would then end up by having to make some arbitrary decision. I do not know whether there would be a problem in this respect. For example, someone could decide that he did not like a chimney stack, a particular factory or that he disliked the smell emanating from a brewery. These are all matters which might have serious consequences for industry generally. As I said, they could be subjected to this subjective decision where there is no form of measurement.
I think that it is more desirable that one should remove that phrase from the Bill and that one should not accept Amendment No. 14. Rather than attempt to suggest exactly what should be included—because I do not believe that can be done—I think that we should leave the matter to good sense. I certainly accept the noble Lord's view about the general wording—for example, "elements" and so on. What he suggests seems to me to be very much more simple. Indeed, we have enough problems with this Bill.
I turn now to deal with the noble Lord's remarks about Amendment No. 9. I suggest that we refer to "the environment" and that we do not attempt to prescribe pieces of the environment to suit particular arguments. However, I do not like the idea of introducing a subjective judgment into what might offend one group of people but not another. It seems to me that that would lead to arguments. I am not happy with Amendment No. 14; I am rather happier with my amendment, Amendment No. 13. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister would care to comment on what I see as a dichotomy.
Lord McNair: I propose to speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8, to which my name is attached. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the word "element" is greatly preferable to the word "medium". On Second Reading, I noted the strange and strained definition of the "environment" given on page 2 of the Bill. It is difficult to see why the Government have gone to such trouble to invent a new definition when those in the dictionary are so simple and straightforward. It may be that they have phrased the legislation in such a way so as to link up with the responsibilities of the different authorities in connection with pollution control; for example, the National Rivers Authority with regard to pollution in rivers, and the local authority with regard to pollution on land. I do not know whether that assumption is correct; it is just a guess on my part. However, if that is the case, then I fear that this separation, carried through even to the very definition of the word "environment", would cause problems when pollution from a landfill site leaches through the ground into the water table and thence into a river. The NRA might say that the pollution was the fault of the local authority, and the local authority might then say, "Prove it!". We

779
would then have a sterile episode of buck-passing while the pollution continued unchecked.
As I see it, part of the purpose of this amendment is to cause the political discussion about what we mean by the word "environment" to evolve into a more comprehensive awareness on the part of the Government of the overarching significance of the issues being tackled in the Bill. I feel very strongly that this is not a subject which we can afford to view in such a piecemeal or limited way as proposed by the Government. I therefore urge Members of the Committee to accept these amendments.
The Earl of Balfour: I am not altogether happy about the amendments. Nevertheless, it is always worthwhile for a Member of this place to question some of the definitions. Amendment No. 7 relates to the word "medium". From my reading of the legislation as it stands it appears to be the Government's intention to separate pollution of the air from pollution in other media. The control of air pollution is a local function: water pollution is the responsibility of the inspectorate, the NRA, or some similar body. I am not keen on the word "elements". To some extent it has a ring of the old definition of fire, air, earth and water, but that is a matter of opinion.
I deal now with Amendments Nos. 13 and 14. We must be careful about the use of the word "senses" because, whether we like it or not, we will always have to have materials such as caustic soda, weed killer, paint stripper and fungicides to get rid of wet and dry rot. They may be unpleasant, and some may be poisonous. However, if we are to survive, we need them.
Amendment No. 16 is a pity: it cuts out the prescribed process which is something that needs to be written into the legislation.
The Earl of Onslow: The word "element" is, I believe, an 18th century word. There used to be the three elements of earth, sea and air. I seem to think that I have a Dresden jug representing them made in about 1780. I am talking of the old meaning of the word; it now has a more scientific meaning. It means the element of hydrogen or lead, or whatever it may be. I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to say which word makes the Bill clearer. Is it element or medium? I am not sure. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is reaching for a dictionary. That is probably helpful. I should be hesitant to allow into the Bill anything which related pollution to aesthetics. A French friend of ours had a daughter who was complaining about her nanny. When she was asked why she did not like her nanny, her reply was, "Maman, elle gêne mon sens de l'esthétique". The nanny should surely not be convicted of environmental pollution merely because she was thought to be ugly. We should be careful about introducing words such as "aesthetic", "elements" and "medium". It is surely almost a dictionary judgment.
Lord Nathan: Perhaps it is in order for me to support the definition contained in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It coincides
780
in certain respects with Amendment No. 11 which I have tabled. The point is a short one. Surely some explanation is required—it may be a slip—as to why the definition in Clause 1(3) is different from that contained at the beginning of Part II in Clause 29(3). In Clause 29(3)— —
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will forgive me. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend on the Front Bench have agreed to take Amendment No. 9 separately, I shall not comment on Amendment No. 11 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, until we have dispensed with the rest of the amendments in the group.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Reay: This group of amendments deals, first, with the various related definitions of "environment", "pollution", "harm" and so forth, contained in Clause 1. They are not easy concepts to define, even in the abstract. When, however, they are required as the basis of a sophisticated and what has to be a tightly drawn system of regulatory control, the difficulties of getting them right are even greater.
The requirements of the Bill have to be paramount, which is why we have found it impossible to provide single, unified definitions which apply throughout the Bill. The overriding requirement is definitions which work for, and meet the needs of, each separate part of the Bill. It is for that reason and not because of any inherent confusion in the Bill, or any confusion inherent following its passage through another place, that different definitions are required for different parts of the measure.
We have done much to improve the definitions in each part and to enhance consistency. In other cases, we have discovered, attempts to graft on to one part concepts which had been thought out for the purposes of another part would not have worked in practice. I ask the Committee to bear that fact in mind as I turn to the definitions that we are now discussing.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, seeks to amend the definition of "environment" contained in subsection (2). We do not see an advantage in substituting "elements" for "medium", despite the noble Lord's eloquent plea. The word "medium" is important to the drafting of the Bill since we are dealing with releases of pollutants into a medium through which pollution passes, into which it enters and from which it leaves and in which one could perhaps say it is distilled. The word "elements", albeit more literary, would have unfortunate chemical connotations which would lead to confusion in the Bill. Also, as my noble friend Lord Balfour said, what happened to fire?
Perhaps I can deal with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas in respect of Amendment No. 13. Smoke and smell could not be held to constitute harm unless reference to "offence to the senses" was retained in the Bill. If it were removed a major loophole in the controls would be created. The subjectivity which my noble friend regretted is no more than the element which has existed for

781
many years in controls of statutory nuisance; for example, with regard to smoke, dust and so forth.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, include one which relates to the definition of the environment. It relates not just to the three physical media but to the living environment they support which is to be part of the definition of environment. It is reasonable to claim that living organisms form part of the environment. I can reassure the Committee that the effect of all the definitions in Clause 1 taken together is to secure the protection of the living environment, not just the physical one. To include that point within the definition would complicate matters.
Part I is drafted so as to secure the control of releases to the environment. Every release must be to one part of the environment. However, can one release substances to "a natural environment" independently from a release to air, water or land? If so, the amendment risks creating a loophole in the control system. If not, it would be unnecessary. Equally, I do not see how the concept of the "physical environment of buildings" would add to the definition. I can reassure the Committee that harm to property and pollution of the air within it are fully catered for.
There are dangers in tinkering with definitions. For example, subsection (3) refers to organisms supported by the environment, but the effect of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would be to define those organisms as part of the environment. That is a small point of detail, but those definitions depend upon careful drafting and for that reason I cannot recommend them to the Committee.
Perhaps I could consider briefly the other amendments in the group. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, seeks to incorporate in the definition of "pollution" in subsection (3) something extracted from a similar but not identical definition contained in Part II. That would represent a significant weakening of the regime in Part I. That allows specifically, where necessary, for the complete elimination of any release. That degree of control is central to Part I, and the Government could not accept any weakening of it such as would result from restricting the definition of pollution in this way.
In Part II, the situation is different. The duty is simply to prevent pollution. Without the qualifying concept of, "the quantity of concentration involved" in that instance, no one would be allowed to dispose of any wastes at all. However, in Part I, any release of any substance should potentially be caught within the framework of controls, no matter what the quantity of concentration.
As to the proposed amendments to the definition of "harm", I have to say that I see no need to add "well-being" to the concepts of health and offence. To specify unnecessarily hinders rather than helps.
On aesthetics, it could be argued that if a release was offensive to man's senses then it must be offensive to his aesthetic sense. However if the noble Lord has in mind in his amendment only visual aesthetics, it is no part of an IPC inspector's
782
remit to consider whether or not a factory is visually aesthetic. Nor do we think that it could be made so. His powers are confined to protecting the environment through controlling releases. I can also give reassurance that there is no need for Amendment No. 22 since buildings and other structures are automatically covered by the use of the word "land".
Amendment No. 23 seeks to ensure that unauthorised releases to sewers are not exempted from control by virtue of the contents of sewers being defined as outwith the definition of the environment. This amendment too is unnecessary. Any release to a sewer or otherwise which contravenes the terms of the authorisation will be an offence. There is no need to prove that pollution has occurred.
The second main target of these amendments is the definitions of "process" and "prescribed process". Turning to Amendments Nos. 15 and 21 which deal with mobile plant, it is essential to place beyond doubt that authorisations can be granted to mobile plant such as roadstone coating plant and mobile incinerators which might otherwise need a fresh authorisation each time they were moved.
We do not understand the reason for seeking to delete the definition of "prescribed processes" in Amendment No. 16. It is a fundamental building block of the system. Part I controls can only bite on prescribed processes. It is a complex and exacting system designed to ensure that those processes with major pollution potential are effectively controlled. However, it is not appropriate to all activities. The vast majority of activities cause little environmental impact so we can rely on the statutory nuisance system streamlined in Part III.
Noble Lords opposite also wish to delete reference to industrial or commercial activities in the explanation of which processes will in the main be prescribed. That is in Amendment No. 17. Although the Bill allows wide scope for the prescription of appropriate processes, it is clear that the system is most appropriate for industrial and commercial activities with major pollution potential.
Finally I turn to Amendment No. 139 which relates to Part II of the Bill and is concerned with mobile plant. I wish to stress that we are dealing in Part II only with plant for treating waste: mobile incinerators, and so forth. We are not concerned and nor is the Bill with controls on vehicles for transporting waste. However, the effect of the amendment would be to give WRAs a responsibility for licensing the transport of waste. That is already the responsibility of the Department of Transport. The noble Lord's amendment would therefore only cause confusion as to which should do what.
The Bill is right as it stands. The treatment of waste by mobile plant is caught under Part II of the Bill and the transport of waste is caught in existing legislation. I hope that I have been able to persuade noble Lords that there is no case in practice for these amendments.
The Earl of Halsbury: I apologise for arriving in the middle of the debate on the amendment but the Committee dealt with Amendments Nos. 6, 7

783
and 8 rather quickly. I therefore failed to arrive here in time.
I ask the noble Lord to reconsider the wording of the Bill. Without reference to concentration, the provisions could be nonsense. We are all accustomed to have a little salt with our food, particularly fish, for instance. However a salt cellar full of salt would be a lethal dose if one could get it down. That would not be possible because it is an emetic and one would sick it up again. Unless there is some reference to concentrations, the clause seems to be nonsense. My noble friend may not press the matter to a Division, but perhaps the Minister dealing with the Bill might give a promise to examine the references which may involve concentrations in Clause 1(3). It is difficult to explain, but one would find one part per million of arsenic in almost any substance one chooses to test. It is widely distributed material. What is present in a substance entirely depends on the sensitivity of the method of detection. Radioactive substances can be detected, we can listen to single atoms popping off one by one. However, if this happens at the rate of only one every few seconds, it will do no harm. For this reason, some amendment to the clause is necessary for fear that some officious bureaucrat would interpret the wording too literally. He might rule the compositon of certain water out of order because the water contains every mineral from every lump of granite that it has flowed over from the time when it was a spring at the top of the Grampians. This is merely an encouragement from a professional chemist to the Minister to take the Bill away and reconsider the wording.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for the detailed reply which deserves much more careful study than I am able to give on a single hearing. I shall certainly not attempt a textual analysis with the noble Lord.
The only comment he made that leaves me with a profound feeling of unease is the unwillingness to extend definitions so that they would cover the internal combustion engine. I do not believe that it is enough to say that the subject is dealt with under other laws and that it is the responsibility of the Department of Transport. If we do not cover pollution from the internal combustion engine in this Bill we are missing out what everybody understands to be a most significant element of pollution. It would not be generally understood why it is omitted other than simply for reasons of departmental boundaries. The noble Lord's arguments deserve attention. If necessary we shall come back to the matter at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 9.
Page 2, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) "Pollution of the environment" means pollution of the environment due to the release or escape from any process (into any environmental medium) of substances or articles constituting or resulting from the release, and capable (by
784
reason of the quantity of concentrations involved) of causing harm to man or any other living organisms supported by the environment.").
The noble Lord said: It is not necessary for me to go too far on this matter because my noble friend the Minister answered the problem in part when he addressed himself to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. The substance of the amendment was discussed during Committee stage in another place. At that time, the Government promised to re-examine the definition on report in another place. However, nothing further was said or done. The subject has therefore been introduced again here.
The amendment deals with the point which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, made. It introduces a quantitative statement into the definition of "pollution" in Part I of the Bill. This was the point raised by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Nathan in Amendment No. 11. It seems to me that for those reasons and the reasons that I described earlier, the definition should be reconsidered. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about an environmental medium. In the light of the reply of my noble friend to the series of amendments, we shall have to see how that concept comes out in the wash. However, it is important that the definition in the early part of the Bill should be quite clearly understood by all those who are going to be affected by it.
It is not good enough for the Minister to say, as he said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, that the definition as set down in the Bill will do very well for Part I. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, spoke about consistency. I was going to mention that also. Clause 29 on page 28 of the Bill quite clearly uses precisely the same terms as my amendment. It states on line 14 of page 28:
"substances or articles constituting or resulting from the waste and capable (by reasons of the quantity or concentrations involved) of causing harm to man".
For goodness sake! There has to be some consistency throughout the Bill. The Minister cannot tell the Committee that Part I of the Bill will be treated in a certain way, while another part of the Bill will be treated in a totally different way.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made a remark with regard to internal combustion engines. This is a Bill about pollution. It is not a transport Bill. The way internal combustion engines may be dealt with in transport legislation has little to do with this Bill. It is important that we keep the definitions in line.
The Minister also said when he was talking to an earlier series of amendments that there was a great danger in tinkering with definitions. There is only danger in tinkering if definitions are correct. In this case, I suggest to the Committee that the definition is incorrect for the reasons that I have described. That adds inconsistency throughout the Bill and poses a great danger. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I have to advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 9 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 10 or 11.
Lord Reay: This amendment overlaps with the matter that we were dealing with in the previous amendment. My noble friend Lord Lucas takes over a point which we were discussing; namely, the different definitions of pollution in two parts of the Bill. That matter was also taken up by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who raised the matter of concentrations. As I understand it, there is no reference to concentrations in Part I of the Bill where it is essential to bring all pollution, irrespective of its quantity or degree of concentration, within the framework of control. There is a reference to concentrations in Part II of the Bill which deals with solid wastes on land. Clause 29(3) makes it plain that the quantity and concentration of the waste concerned are relevant.
I have already indicated in response to the previous group of amendments that a definition of pollution modelled on that in Part II of the Bill is not suitable for Part I. I argued that such a definition would introduce an unacceptable weakening of the Part I regime by introducing the concept of controlling releases which pollute for example, by reason of quantity or concentration. I ask my noble friend to accept that the regime in Part I must be allowed to extend to any releases and any substances, whatever their quantity or concentration. If necessary, a release must be prevented.
The amendment incorporates the notion of "release or escape" whereas Part I of the Bill is drafted on the basis that there is no difference between an intentional and an unintentional release. The separate concept of escape does not therefore exist in Part I in contrast to Part II. The amendment refers to a release of substances,
"constituting or resulting from the release".
That is not a concept that we could live with happily. If I may say so, it is the result of attempting to force a Part II definition into Part I. In the light of those remarks and those difficulties, I ask my noble friend to consider whether the existing definition is not preferable.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My noble friend has given a number of explanations. However, he may recall that I did not define either quantity or concentration. I merely drew attention to those factors largely for the sake of consistency. Whether or not the Government could live with the words,
"or resulting from the release",
is not, I suggest, overly important. That is a technical point.
I do not propose to abandon this matter because I believe the arguments that I have proposed which have been supported by other Members of the Committee constitute the right way forward. I shall want to give further consideration to what my noble friend has said, and I may well wish to return to this matter at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Nathan Lord Nathan moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 17, after ("capable") insert ("by reason of the quantity or concentrations involved").
The noble Lord said: The Minister has not adequately dealt with this matter. As the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said, under the definition in the Bill pollution of the environment means,
"pollution of the environment due to the release (into am environmental medium) from any process of substances which are capable of causing harm to man".
The release of substances may cause harm to man or living organisms at different concentrations, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has said. Let us suppose for instance that under the terms of an EC directive there is a limit, for example five parts per million, beyond which one cannot go. The assessment of that amount has been made on the basis that at that concentration no harm will arise. However, if one states that there is to be a release of a substance which can cause harm, there could be a power under this provision by which even at less than five parts per million—ex hypothesi that could not cause harm—a prohibition could be granted on the ground that the words which appear in my amendment have not been inserted. It is therefore by reason of the quantity or concentration involved that harm can arise. I ask the Minister to reconsider the point which I have raised. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: I do not see where the difficulty arises. As the Minister has said, surely in order to bring any possible discharge into consideration it is necessary to have the widest possible definition. Under Clause 3 the Secretary of State issues regulations which establish whether or not to apply the definition to a particular concentration. He may well be guided by the EC regulations. Clause 3(2) states specifically:
"Regulations under this subsection may—
(a) in relation to releases of any substance from prescribed processes into any environmental medium, prescribe standards for any of the following matters, namely—
(i) limits on the concentration".
I believe the matter is perfectly adequately covered by the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, does not feel he is tarnished by my support. The experience with the Water Bill last year in which we provided general control of pollution and then sought to specify that in more detail, sometimes by reference to the European Commission, showed that was the right approach. Therefore, I think the Government's approach is right.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: If my noble friend Lord Crickhowell is right, the Minister must be wrong, because the Minister says that we cannot tinker with the definition as set down in the earlier amendments in Part I of the Bill because it would leave a loophole were we to embrace the definitions in the later parts of the Bill to which both the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and I have referred. My noble friend then says "But we can cover up that deficiency by utilising the powers under Clause 3", that is the regulatory powers. It seems to me that if we have the powers to determine the various concentrates, quantities and qualities in Clause 3, we might just as well have precisely the same pattern in Part I of the Bill in defining pollution, as I suggested earlier.
The Earl of Halsbury: Perhaps I may intervene again. If one takes the case of carbon dioxide, which is a poisonous substance, all of your Lordships, including myself, are emitting carbon dioxide continuously. If we rise to speak our output of carbon dioxide goes up. If we were internal combustion engines there would be a demand to put us under control, as there is demand for such control all over the world at present. All I am suggesting is that we should not draft legislation in such wide terms that without reference to concentrations it will end up by looking silly, especially if it gets into the wrong hands.
Lord Reay: Perhaps I may briefly restate our position as I see it. There are two definitions of pollution, one in Part I and one in Part II. They differ in several respects. For example, as I mentioned earlier, in Part II there is a reference to release or escape, whereas there is not in Part I. There is also reference to substance or articles, whereas there is not in Part I. But the difference that we have concentrated on is that there is a reference to the quantity or concentrations involved, whereas there is no such qualifying description applied to pollution in Part I. The reason for that is that we do not wish pollution to be qualified in this way because it would restrict pollution that we feel should come within the scope of the pollution controls in Part I. That is our position.
Lord Nathan: There has been a fairly full debate on this matter, with very expert assistance from the Earl of Halsbury, the chemist, and others, and I do not think that this is the time to pursue the matter further. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 18 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3. line 4, leave out from ("exercisable") to end of line 6.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 19 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 51, 53, 54 and 56 which stand in my name.
We return here in a more modest form to an issue which was debated earlier this afternoon about the proper role of central and local government and the proper way of ensuring that central and local government together, through co-operation, achieve the range of resources and powers which are necessary to achieve the control of environmental pollution and, indeed, protection of the environment.
As the Bill is drafted, the role of local authorities in Part I—and I apologise for reading again from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum—is extremely limited. It provides for
"a parallel regime providing for local authority control of air emissions from a second tier of less polluting processes,"
Therefore, all other forms of pollution fall to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Much as I regret it, we are not going to have an environmental protection executive, so we have to deal with Her
788
Majesty's inspectorate of pollution which is supposed to carry out these functions.
It is true that 30 additional staff have been authorised for HMIP in the last 12 months. It is also true that the Bill estimates in the manpower provisions that there will be necessity for another 15 staff in HMIP, but these are very small numbers indeed if the responsibilities under Part I of the Bill are to be taken seriously. I should have thought that the entire extra manpower available to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will be taken up with applications for authorisation and with looking at the inspection and monitoring of only the most serious polluting processes. It is difficult to see how an inspectorate with that kind of staffing could deal with very much more.
The fact of the matter is that at present the local authorities do much of the leg work for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. They produce the examples of pollution which have to be controlled and they take the first steps towards monitoring pollution. It is not limited, as the Bill provides, to a second tier of less polluting processes. The local authorities are all over the country. They have the ability, and I would suggest that they should be required to look at all aspects of air pollution including the more serious processes, rather than there being this arbitrary division between HMIP and the local authorities.
Indeed, in the consultation process which is now going on leading up to the White Paper in September, I think the Minister will confirm, because I do not think that these things are secret, that the local authorities in their evidence have been saying very clearly that they want to be involved; they expect to be involved; and they are prepared to take the responsibility to be involved.
Without going into each one of the amendments in detail, they remove the barriers which exist in Part I which prevent local authorities from taking on a broader role in relation to integrated pollution control. I suggest to the Committee that the effect of passing these amendments would be to have a wholehearted co-operation between local authorities and Her Majesty's inspectorate which would be to the benefit of all of us. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Reay: These amendments seek to give local authorities integrated pollution control powers rather than just control over air pollution. Integrated pollution control is a new concept in international environmental control and represents a major development for both industry and regulators. It will not be an easy task to determine the best practicable environmental option for processes with significant pollution potential, even for the central inspectorates with their experience of sophisticated engineering control techniques or for those industries which are familiar with the current requirements of best practicable means. It is therefore not something that could be easily and rapidly be taken on by local authorities or by the industries of which they are to take control, starting as they do from a lower base line of technical process experience.

789
Therefore, we believe that we should proceed incrementally, building the knowledge that will be gained in the sectors falling within HMIP's control under Part A of the schedule.
Local authorities already have a major task ahead of them in expanding their relatively limited role of stopping air pollution nuisance into the substantial, proactive role they will take on for authorising all releases to one medium. We believe that we should not make their job too large at the outset.
Moreover, the industries that will form the Part B list for local authority control do not offer the same opportunities for transferring a release from one medium to another. They are basically primarily of concern in relation to their emissions to air. There is therefore much less need for integrated control over releases to land or water. In so far as there are releases to land and water, do we really want to remove the responsibility for control of such releases from the National Rivers Authority and waste disposal authorities? We do not believe so. We believe that the split of responsibility in Part I is right. HMIP will develop the complex new system of integrated pollution control. Local authority environmental health departments will impose significantly tighter controls on potential air pollution from less complex processes with smaller potential for cross-media pollution transfers. It will be time enough to consider more extensive powers for the lower tier when we see how those developments have worked out.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I find that the most extraordinary answer and I suspect that local authorities will too. I almost pass over, although perhaps I should not, that statement that the Minister made in the early part of his reply in which he said in effect that environmental health officers are all very well but that they are not capable of dealing with technical matters; that those matters are far too complicated for people who live in Bristol, Aberdeen, Birmingham, or wherever it may be; and that such work can only be done by the real experts sitting in Marsham Street.
If I were an environmental health officer, I would find that deeply offensive and rather inaccurate, bearing in mind the fact that local authorities have been the environmental protection agencies for 150 years. Again, I do not attack Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, but I remind myself that it was formed by the bringing together of a number of pollution control agencies. I also remind myself of the constant complaints of the Factory Inspectorate; namely, that is was not able to cover more than a tiny proportion of the cases of pollution reported to it. That must still be the case.
I shall not pursue this matter now, but I shall come back to it on Report. I shall consider it in more detail and challenge the Government in more detail about the staffing levels of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution; the number of premises it will be required to inspect; the number of times per year, or perhaps per decade, that it will be able to carry out such inspections; and the way in which it will have to deal with the cases of pollution that are
790
brought to its attention by local authorities. I shall ask the Government to show much more clearly than they have done now that the existing provision at central government level is sufficient to justify those restrictions on local authorities. I do not cast aspersions on the National Rivers Authority or on the waste disposal authorities. The amendments do not deal with them. We seek to take away restrictions on the activities of local authorities. I shall return to the matter at a later stage, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 9, at end insert ("(which in this Part means a river purification authority within the meaning of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951)").
The noble Earl said: This is purely a drafting amendment. There is already a definition of river purification authority in Clause 30 of the Bill, but that applies only for the purposes of Part II. It would be inconsistent to have a definition in one part of the Bill but not in another. The amendment removes that inconsistency by inserting into Part I of the Bill the same definition of river purification authority as appears in Part II. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps my noble friend will explain a little more slowly what he has just said about the same definition in both parts of the Bill. I am sure that that is what he said. Perhaps he will explain to the Committee why that argument is good enough for this amendment but was insufficient for previous amendments.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: So far as I understand it, this amendment refers to Scotland. Originally, Scotland was not dealt with in Part I of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, line 16, at end insert:
("(13A) An Environmental Efficiency Commission shall be established and shall determine a code of good environmental practice as set out in Schedule (Environmental Efficiency Commission) to this Act.").
The noble Lord said: We have already run over this course a little this afternoon. I shall therefore say at the outset that I do not intend to divide the Committee on the issue; nor would I be allowed to by the Clerks as I have been advised that this is a hybrid amendment and that I might be in some difficulty if I did.
The proposal was put forward in Committee in another place. I wish to bring it forward now because it has found favour with many outside bodies which are submitting evidence to the Department of the Environment on the proposals in the White Paper. The commission that we suggest should be established would have two useful functions. First, it would act as our conscience on the environment and would be the best informed body about the state of action and policy on the environment. Secondly,

791
it would be the spur to improve environmental standards across the range of public and semi-public organisations. We have set it out in great detail. What we think should happen is at least on record.
Members other than myself have received copies of evidence to the Department of the Environment from many outside bodies such as Wildlife Link, which covers 43 NGOs—non-governmental organisations, for those who do not know what that means—the RSPB and the CPRE. Most of them have approved the evidence submitted.
In that evidence we call for an environmental audit. The Nature Conservancy Council thinks that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution should be an independent body outside the control of the Department of the Environment. In a very good document, the CPRE calls for an environmental protection commission. It calls for the establishment of a new, independent environmental protection commission which should be a UK body of complete independence and stature, modelled on a much strengthened Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution or, in the financial sector, the Audit Commission which was set up by the Government to oversee local government expenditure.
Incidentally, it thinks that on the whole local government spends its money far more wisely than central government, but it is no good repeating that in this Chamber as it is always met with total blankness. We spend an extra £60 million on our submarines, but no one seems to question that. A sum of £60 million would cover the budget of the Isle of Wight County Council for a whole year. However, that is what we who still believe in local government try to argue. The bodies to which I referred are generally respected in the community.
An organisation of that kind will have to be established in due course. It is a great tragedy that it cannot be done now because there will be further reorganisation over the next two or three years. It might have been better if we had waited a little longer and got it right in the first place. That is one of the arguments that we put forward with regard to the NCC. We should think of the individuals employed in HMIP who may well have to move on to other bodies or be moved around the country or promoted or demoted according to the body with which we finish up to oversee environmental problems.
As I said earlier, I do not intend to divide the Committee on the issue, but I should be interested to hear a few comments from the Minister upon it. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to establish an environmental audit commission was made in another place. On that occasion, the amendment was a probing one.
Efficiency in any field, be it environmental or industrial, is obviously something to be applauded, so it is perhaps not surprising for the noble Lord to discover that I agree with several of his points. However, I question his solution. I am sure that the noble Lord does not seek to make the point that our
792
record is one of environmental inactivity. Government departments are making much progress in greening their in-house working practices, for example, through the use of recycled paper products. My department has completed the type of green audit sought by the noble Lord. We found it a very useful exercise, but I would not wish to force it on others. It is widely recognised that environmental audits work well only when there is a commitment to them from the senior management of the organisation. What concerns me is that the commission proposed by the noble Lord would be seen as an unnecessary interference. Far from promoting environmental attitudes, it could cause resentment.
The new schedule also extends to cover the activities of local authorities. That may be all fine and good. I speak for myself and not for the local authorities, which will doubtless have a view. I have a sneaking feeling that, however noble the sentiment, it would not exactly be the work of a moment to get all that off the ground.
The Committee may have noticed that the list of bodies which would be subject to examination under the new schedule does not extend—although there are one or two exceptions—to industry. The schedule therefore creates a bureaucracy to police other bureaucracies.
I sympathise with the underlying objectives. Whether one thinks in terms of formal and statutory green audits or simply an entirely informal new way of thinking, I am sure that all bodies—by no means government departments alone—have much they can profit from in this area. Increasing numbers of people are realising that. There cannot be many major industrialists who are not now seriously examining the benefits of environmentally friendly practices in the widest sense and adopting corporate environmental policies. They do not need a costly bureaucracy to lead them to the water, any more. I think, than do the bodies listed on the noble Lord's amendment. I can assure the Committee that these are matters to which we shall continue to pay the fullest attention, not least in the context of the forthcoming White Paper.
The noble Lord has already said that he will not be moving his amendment because of its hybridity aspects but I hope that he understands the position and where we stand in reply to it.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It is on record and available. A study of our exchanges may help in formulating the environmental White Paper. The noble Lord may have noticed that I have on a green tie and there is a green handkerchief in my pocket—a suitable colour, I thought in which to be attired today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended agreed to.
7 p.m.
Clause 2 [Prescribed processes and prescribed substances]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 4, line 19, at the end insert ("except a process to which section (Production, release and labelling of chlorofluorocarbons) below relates, with effect from such relevant date in the case of each process as is therein specified.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62. Amendment No. 26 is an enabling amendment and Amendment No. 62 contains the body of what we want put into the Bill.
I envisage that the Government's objections will be twofold. First, they will say that the amendment should not form part of the Bill and that we should await the White Paper on the environment and any legislation which arises from it. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out that we are unlikely to see any further environmental legislation during the life of the present Government. Whatever happens after that will be too late: the need for action is urgent. I also envisage the Government saying that we mist await the outcome of the 1990 Montreal Protocol meeting. That outcome, in my view, is likely to be inadequate.
I shall not go through Amendment No. 62 in detail, The Committee will remember that I did so when I introduced my Bill on the abolition of CFCs. However, based on what came out of the 1987 Montreal Protocol and what is apparently likely to come out of the 1990 meeting, according to the draft protocol that is available, the danger from the increase of CFCs in the atmosphere is quite frightening.
It is said that close on 16 million tonnes of CFCs were manufactured between 1936 and 1986. Unfortunately it is expected that 8 million tonnes of production will have been added between 1987 and the year 2000. Obviously that is an unacceptable amount in view of the knowledge that we now have about the dangers to the ozone layer.
It is in fact a matter of political will. Other nations have taken unilateral action. In Sweden there is a timetable for abolishing CFCs in aerosols, and virtually all CFCs, by 1995 following legislation introduced in 1989. The legislation extends to other ozone depleting substances, including methylchloroform in solvents used in manufacturing processes. All new manufacture and sales of halons will be abolished by mid-1991 and there will be a complete ban on the use of halons by 1995. Norway will cut its CFCs by 90 per cent. before 1995. Australia's domestic policy includes a 95 per cent. reduction in CFCs by 1995 and their complete phase-out by 1998. Germany proposes to end the production and consumption of CFCs in 1995 and halons in 1996. In addition there will be a total ban on methylchloroform from 1992. So other nations are performing better than this country.
I should like to ask the Government what is their reaction under our commitment to the 1987 Montreal Protocol. The report of Coopers and Lybrand and Deloitte compiled for the Department of Trade and Industry on our performance at local authority level proves that we are not even fulfilling our obligations.
Out of 326 councils questioned about their programmes, only one-fifth had a programme at all. Ozone damaging chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons and halons are found in a wide variety of products. Out of 65 local authorities which have schemes in operation, most projects are aimed solely at domestic refrigerators with many authorities just collecting the machines. Only two authorities were found to be collecting, recovering and recycling refrigerator coolant and there were no authorities considering recovery and recycling of CFCs or halons from foam extinguishers or solvents. From the 261 authorities without schemes, about one-third said that they were planning to implement projects this year. Most of those again will limit themselves to domestic appliances.
A few authorities are planing to tackle industrial coolants. Of the rest, 43 per cent. said that they were considering or had rejected schemes on grounds of cost, administrative difficulties or uncertainties over the supply of refrigerators and demand for the service. The remainder would not yet appear to have considered whether or not to develop a scheme.
That is an indictment of what we in this country have done about the tremendous problem that faces us. It is a matter of political will. We must show that we have such political will. We must put our own house in order. We must be an example to the rest of the world. I have not even touched on the question of what happens when the third world starts using CFCs to a much greater extent. I do not believe that as a nation we can have an influence in the world unless we ourselves have performed our part.
I am particularly saddened by what appears to be the attitude of the United States to the creation of a global fund to help third world countries and enable them to sign the protocol. I believe that if we put our own house in order in the Bill our influence in the world and perhaps in persuading the United States to become active in the setting up of a fund, will save us from what will be an increasing problem. We cannot have that influence unless we put our own house in order. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: The trade name for CFCs is Freon. It is used extensively in refrigerators. Indeed, I do not believe that there is anything better on the market for the ordinary domestic refrigerator. It is still being manufactured for use in the ordinary home fridge/freezer. The advantage in using Freon in refrigerators as opposed to other products is that as a result of its process for making things cold, its pressure is below atmospheric pressure. Therefore, if air leaks into the system the Freon gas does not leak out. On grounds of the cost of manufacturing, I do not believe that there is an alternative. I admit that other materials can be used in many sprays. However, we must bear in mind that many of the other materials substituted in hair sprays and so forth are highly inflammable. A little care must be taken in that respect.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I support the amendment. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Reay, that we had a number of discussions when debating the Bill

795
relating to CFCs introduced earlier this year by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. In our final discussion on the Bill the noble Lord said that the Government had listened to what had been said and would take that into account. That led some of us to believe that although the noble Lord said that the Government would not give time for the Bill in another place they were willing to listen to the arguments that had been put forward and accept them when considering their Environmental Protection Bill.
I wish to make clear the fact that in the amendment there is no intention to detract from the Bill's effect. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree with me. In fact, it is our purpose to strengthen it. Since the Clorofluorocarbons (Control) Bill passed through all its stages in this Chamber the situation has become more urgent. Every release of scientific data shows that urgency. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Reay, read the briefing released yesterday by Greenpeace in preparation for the discussions on the amendments to the Montreal Protocol to be determined next week. As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, pointed out, the briefing shows that if the original Montreal Protocol is allowed to go ahead as its stands the result will be a 50 per cent. increase in the release of CFCs into the atmosphere between the signing of the protocol in 1987 and the end of the century. No one who has read or listened to anything on the subject is prepared to face the prospects of what that will do to the ozone layer, which has already been damaged for years ahead.
In addition to the effect of CFCs, the noble Lord will recall that I drew to his attention and to the attention of Members of the Committee the fact that many of the substitute gases for CFCs have an effect on the global warming process that the human race cannot afford. Only a few months after the 1987 protocol was signed the signatories admitted that their agreement to a 50 per cent. cut in the use of CFCs by 1999 was inadequate to protect the ozone layer. Now we learn that the draft for 1990 will phase out the use of CFCs by the year 2000.
Last year the United States Environmental Protection Agency published its findings showing that the environmental needs of today require an urgent 100 per cent. cut in the use of CFCs if the ozone layer is to be protected. I believe that the Government recognise that finding as do Members on all sides of the Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and I and our supporters are putting forward an opportunity for the Committee to say that the British people recognise the danger to the ozone layer as being virtually scientifically proven—nothing is ever totally proven—together with the effect of that danger on humanity, on the ability of the planet to maintain the human race and on global warming. We must take a lead alongside other countries mentioned by the noble Baroness—Sweden, West Germany, Denmark, Australia, and so forth. I hope that the Government will take that opportunity and will be supported in Committee.
I am also anxious about the effect of what are commonly known as "market forces". If the noble Lord will read the report to which I have already
796
referred from the United States Environmental Protection Agency he will see that the United States estimated that the increase in the price of CFCs during the 1990s will net the chemical companies approximately 5.7 billion dollars. Since the passing of the Chlorofluorocarbons (Control) Bill through this Chamber it is no accident that there has been lobbying from commercial interests, in particular ICI, suggesting that CFCs are not as dangerous to the ozone layer as is generally believed by those who have read the scientific evidence.
Finally, I wish to stress the significance of the first line of Amendment No. 62. It states:
"The Secretary of State shall determine timetables to prohibit the production and use of".
The word "production" is particularly significant. We know that because of consumer resistance the sale of CFC materials in this country has been cut by one half. It is hardly any use to humanity for us to cut the use of CFCs in this country but then to export them to other countries for them to be released there. Therefore, the emphasis is on the abolition of the production according to those timetables.
I point out to the noble Lord who preceded me that as regards the commercial world in this country, there are advantages to be had from the new forms of technology referred to by the noble Baroness. I remind the noble Lord that during the debate on CFCs I brought evidence from the Bird group of companies which claims that in conjunction with the Germans it has developed a method for the decommissioning of refrigerators without the loss of any CFCs either from the coolant or the foam. I quoted from a letter from that group on the CFC Bill which stated that that group could not continue with that unless there was legislation because it is capital intensive. Legislation and financial support are needed for the local authorities to use that method of disposal on refrigerators. Only with that legislation could there be a prevention of the present disposal of refrigerators which releases a large percentage of CFCs into the atmosphere.
This Bill presents an opportunity for including in the Government's legislation timetables and clear powers by the Secretary of State which can put this country along with the leaders of those attempting to save our environment.
Lord Reay: The amendments address a subject of enormous importance. Depletion of the ozone layer is a problem of great consequence. The Government fully share the Committee's interests and anxieties and believe that they are tackling the question in a firm and effective way. I do not need to read the reports by Greenpeace or by the United States Environmental Protection Agency or from any other source to appreciate the importance of the issue and the need for us to do all that we can as soon as possible to reduce and eventually eliminate that global threat.
Protection of the ozone layer is a global problem and requires a global solution. The Montreal Protocol provides the framework for the control of CFCs and other ozone depleting substances. The protocol requires CFC consumption to be cut by 50

797
per cent. from 1986 levels by 1999. In the UK we achieved that last year—10 years early. However, the protection of the ozone layer is a global problem and requires a global solution. It is pointless for us to try and go it alone. The United Kingdom is responsible for only a small proportion of the world's consumption of CFCs. The protocol is due for revision at the second meeting of the parties which we are hosting in London next week. The meeting of officials which precedes it has already started.
We fully accept that the protocol does not go as far or as fast as it should do. We have played a major role in setting the stance which the European Community should take in these negotiations. That stance proposes cuts in the production and consumption of CFCs of 50 per cent. by 1991–92, 85 per cent. by 1995–96 and a phase out before the year 2000. Those cuts are tougher than those proposed by any other country. We are also committed to phasing out halons by the year 2000, subject to provisions for any genuinely essential uses which may remain beyond that point. Carbon tetrachloride will also be phased out and we must make the steepest cuts possible in methyl chloroform. We are arguing for a 50 per cent. cut by the year 2000.
Therefore, the tenor of the argument of the noble Baroness that other nations are doing better than us is false. Members of the Committee like to trot out the example of Sweden but ignore the fact that there is an important derogation in Swedish legislation. In Sweden companies which still need to use CFCs after the date on which they are prohibited can apply for permission to do so. We cannot tell how much use will be made of that provision but the Swedish position on the phasing out of CFCs under the Montreal Protocol is very similar to our own, and therefore we might assume that the two regulatory approaches would give similar results.
Clearly, if the revised Montreal Protocol is not as strong as we should like, we shall need to consider those areas where we can make even faster progress. The European Commission has already proposed a new regulation, and this will form the basis of discussion after the protocol has been revised. We will seek to ensure that the EC regulation reflects the fastest cuts which it is possible to make, but I have to say that these will not go as fast as those set out in these amendments.
To get rid of ozone depleting chemicals we need to have substitute chemicals or technologies to replace them so that we can continue to benefit from medical aerosols, refrigeration, insulation foam, electronic equipment, metal cleaning processes and fire-fighting equipment, all of which need and use CFCs. New chemicals must be developed. The first of those is already on the way, with British industry playing a leading role.
However, the new chemicals need to be tested for toxic side effects and their own effects on the environment must be established before the chemical companies can build plants for their production and before the refrigeration and other industries can invest in the new equipment and processes needed to use them. That is a long process. To bring forward the phase-out date for CFCs will
798
not make it any quicker. The first of those should be ready for next year, but for others the process will take a great deal longer. For some applications proper toxicity testing and certification will take us close to the end of the century. For those reasons our own proposals for the elimination of CFCs do not go as far as those set out in these amendments.
One particular proposal gives the Government even greater anxiety. Subsection (1)(e) of Amendment No. 62 requires that any substitutes which damage the ozone layer, however slightly, or has a greater green-house effect than carbon dioxide, should have to be eliminated by the year 2000. This would seem to cover the CFC replacements now being developed.
I can think of no surer way to stop the development of these chemicals in its tracks. The new chemicals typically do either no damage to the ozone layer, or do only two to five per cent. of the damage done by the old CFCs. They do contribute to the greenhouse effect, but their contribution is typically only one tenth of that of the CFCs which they replace. The replacement of CFCs by these chemicals, at least until even safer substitutes can be identified, is therefore of great environmental benefit. This provision would stop that process, and make it impossible for us to stop using the far more damaging CFCs until well into the next century. More generally, it makes no sense to decide to ban those chemicals before we have any idea as to what is to replace them.
As I have tried to show, the Government have great sympathy with the objectives of this clause. Our aim is to reduce the emission of ozone depleting substances as quickly as possible. Our proposals for control of CFCs are the toughest of any put forward in the Montreal Protocol renegotiation. We are going as fast as we can, but it makes no sense to legislate for timetables which cannot be achieved. We cannot therefore accept these clauses.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I should like to ask the noble Lord three questions. First, why does he continue to repeat the canard which he has dragged up from the CFC debate about going it alone? We are not talking about going it alone. As outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, certain countries in the world are setting the pace. The question is whether or not we should join them; and we are suggesting that we should.
Secondly, the noble Lord says that we have already surpassed the conditions for the Montreal Protocol and he speaks of a 50 per cent. reduction. Is he aware that that is a 50 per cent. reduction in use and not a 50 per cent. reduction in production? That is the point that I made concerning exports.
Thirdly, the noble Lord says that these are unrealisable objectives. I ask him again, as I did during the previous debate, whether he is saying that the British Government know better than the United Nations environmental programme that laid down those deadlines?
Lord Reay: I am glad that the noble Lord agrees with the Government that this is a matter which has to be tackled internationally. I can only repeat that

799
the proposals we are putting forward in the context of the Montreal negotiations, together with our EC partners, are tougher than those proposed by anyone else. Therefore I do not think that there is a sound basis for the complaint of the noble Lord.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Will the Minister answer my other two questions?
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I am saddened by the response of the Government, particularly the answer the Minister gave which belittled what the country of my birth is attempting to do on this subject. He said that there are lots of derogations. I have studied the derogations and they are very tight. Even in our proposal there are derogations. We are not insisting that CFCs cannot be used in the treatment of asthma or for pain-relieving purposes. Derogations are inevitably necessary in treating certain conditions. But unless we have a timetable which is tight, the effort will not be expended in meeting it.
I am desperately concerned—as are many noble Lords in the Chamber—regarding the future if each nation has to wait until everybody around the world agrees. The only way to force agreement around the world is to set an example. I want this country to set such an example. I so move.
7.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 26) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 82.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Airedale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Barnett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McNair, L.

Meston, L.

Carter, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Parry, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Richard, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Roskill, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

White, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

Liverpool, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Borthwick, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Burton, L.

Arran, E.

Butterworth, L.

Balfour, E.

Caithness, E.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Blatch, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Blyth, L.

Carnock, L.

800

Clitheroe, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Mills, V.

Colwyn, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mottistone, L.

Craigton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Nathan, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Norrie, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L.

Radnor, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Reay, L.

Elles, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Erroll, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gisborough, L.

Sharples, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Henley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hesketh, L.

Hives, L.

Swinton, E.

Hooper, B.

Teviot, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Torrington, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Trefgarne, L.

Kitchener, E.

Ullswater, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Layton, L.

Westbury, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Whitelaw, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Windlesham, L.

Lyell, L.

Wynford, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Young, B.

Merrivale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Denham: I think this is the time for us to I adjourn. In moving that the House do now resume, I suggest to the Committee that we should not return to this Bill before 8.45 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Consumer Guarantees Bill
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: 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 Ewart-Biggs.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): I should point out that Amendment No. 1 is not correctly printed on the Marshalled List but that it is on the supplementary list.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
("Part I The Consumer Guarantee
For the purposes of this Act, a Consumer Guarantee is a guarantee whose minimum terms, as regards any product in relation to which it is given, are as follows—

801

(a) the guarantor will repair, or procure the repair of, any defect in the product unless the defect was caused by—

(i) misuse of the product by a consumer;

(ii) failure to maintain or service the product reasonably; or

(iii) an act or default of any person (not being the guarantor or a servant or agent of the guarantor), or a cause independent of human control, occuring after the product has left the control of the guarantor.

(b) if the product is defective, the guarantor will either—

(i) provide the consumer with the use of a comparable replacement product; or

(ii) compensate the consumer for any reasonable expenses and inconvenience arising from any loss of the use of the product,

if the guarantor does not repair the product within four relevant days (or in the case of a motor vehicle, two relevant days).

(c) in exchange for the product, the guarantor will either—

(i) pay the consumer a refund consisting of the sum paid for the product on its supply to the consumer and any related part exchange allowance; or

(ii) provide the consumer with an equivalent replacement product,

if the number of relevant days applying to the product (whether in respect of the same defect or two or more different defects) during any one twelve month period of the Consumer Guarantee exceeds twenty-one.

(d) the guarantor will provide these remedies free of charge, for a period of at least twelve months beginning with the date on which the product was first supplied to a consumer within the terms of the guarantee.

(e) the guarantor will be responsible for collecting the product from the consumer and returning it (or a replacement) to the consumer.

(f) the product shall be at the guarantor's risk from the time when he or his nominee receives notice in accordance with section 1(j) below until the time when—

(i) the product is returned repaired to the consumer, or

(ii) the consumer receives an equivalent replacement product, as the case may be.

(g) when making a refund or providing a replacement product under subsection (c) above, the guarantor may make a charge for use of the product, subject to the following conditions—

(i) the charge must be reasonable having regard to the nature of the product and all other relevant circumstances;

(ii) except in the case of a motor vehicle, the charge may be made only in relation to a Consumer Guarantee given for more than the minimum period of twelve months, and must be directly attributable to any use of the product after that period and not before;

(iii) in the case of a motor vehicle, the charge may relate to any use of the motor vehicle after the first six months of the Consumer Guarantee or after the first 6,000 miles of use.

(h) when making a refund or providing a replacement product under subsection (c) above, the guarantor may make a reasonable charge for any significant physical damage to the product other than damage resulting from fair wear and tear.

(i) if the consumer shows that the product was under or awaiting repair by or on behalf of the guarantor for any period of time, the period of the guarantee will be extended by that period of time.

(j) the consumer may notify a defect orally or in writing, and may do so either to the guarantor, or to any person the guarantor may nominate.

(k) "relevant" days applying to a product are days after the date of notification of a defect in the product up to and including the day on which the product is made available to the consumer after repair, not counting—

(i) any day lost for the purposes of repair as a result of the unreasonable behaviour of the consumer; and

802

(ii) any Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in the part of the United Kingdom where the product is to be made available to the consumer after repair.")

The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in the words as printed on the supplementary list. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 13 and 14, all of which are consequential on Amendment No. 1.
The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, and I both said on Second Reading that we were unhappy that the Bill had come to this Chamber with a Long Title which mentioned consumer guarantees but that in the text of the Bill as drafted there is no reference to consumer guarantees. Therefore, I move this amendment, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes—alas, she is not able to be here because, as many noble Lords will know, she has had an operation—in order to put a consumer guarantee back into the Consumer Guarantees Bill.
The amendments to which I am speaking attempt to meet the objections raised by various government spokesmen when the Bill was discussed in another place. Perhaps I may recapitulate on the purpose of a consumer guarantee. It is designed to encourage non-price competition. The Committee may be aware that competition can take two forms—price competition and non-price competition. Price competition is easy to define. It is a question of whether goods are sold at price X, price X minus one or price X plus one. Non-price competition is rather more difficult to define. Nevertheless, the Committee will be aware that non-price competition can be just about as important as price competition. Non-price competition can be on after sales service. It can be on guarantees, as we shall discuss, or on quality.
This consumer guarantee, as I put it forward, is optional. I wish to stress that. There is no compulsion on any business to provide the guarantee contained in the amendments. It is a method of providing to the consumer a guarantee, if the producer of the product wishes to do so, which will give him confidence, in purchasing the product, that, if it is defective he can have recourse to a proper method of either repayment or replacement of the product.
Amendment No. 1 spells out the minimum terms of the guarantee if it is offered. Again, I emphasise that there is no compulsion on anyone or any business to offer the guarantee. Indeed, better terms may be offered by some producers. Alternatively, businesses may offer no guarantee at all. However, at least the consumer will understand that the guarantee, if it is offered, has the specifics which are spelt out in this rather long and, I am afraid, rather detailed clause which I have put before the Committee.
Amendment No. 2 is, I believe, unexceptional. It simply implies that product guarantees must be in writing rather than verbally, by implication, or any other form. Amendment No. 3 relates to the enforceability of guarantees. This is a somewhat complicated question and I do not want to weary the Committee in the dinner break for too long,

803
but clearly a guarantee has no effect unless it is enforceable. The amendment that I, together with the noble Baroness, put forward seeks to provide a method of enforceability which I believe will be acceptable to the Committee.
Amendment No. 4 recognises that the terms of the consumer guarantee may well have to be varied as time goes by. We do not know—perhaps we cannot know—what the effect of this will be and how it will operate in practice. Therefore, instead of requiring primary legislation to vary the terms of the guarantee—for example, modifying the minimum terms, determining the charge or requiring certain symbols or logos to be put in place if a guarantee is offered—Amendment No. 4 seeks to give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to that effect. Noble Lords will no doubt regard those powers as being unexceptional under normal parliamentary procedure.
Amendment No. 5 is the definitions clause. I draw the Committee's attention particularly to the definition of "product" which
"has the same meaning as in Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987".
As the Committee will remember from when we debated it as a Bill, that Act introduces the notion of product liability. It was introduced as a result of a European Community directive. The product that was defined by that part of the Act seemed to us to be the same animal, if I may describe it as such, as that which we shall be dealing with in terms of the guarantee that I have put forward today. The matter is very complicated. I do not want to weary the Committee with a full description of what is a product under Part I of the Consumer Protection Act. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will have looked at that definition. Therefore, I can pass on from there.
Amendments Nos. 11, 13 and 14 are consequential on the main amendments about consumer guarantees. They simply spell out some of the drafting amendments that will have to be made to the Bill were the Committee to accept the major amendments. In sum, these amendments deal with the question of competition. It would be wrong if I tried to present them as being in some way evidence of consumerism. They are not. They are designed to make sure that a person who buys a product has the opportunity to know whether a product carries a guarantee; in other words, whether or not there is a quality guarantee. It is as simple as that.
Before I leave these amendments, perhaps I may reply to some of the points made by the Retail Consortium which, in general, is supportive of the guarantee, but there are one or two points on which it has some doubts. The first point is the time limit in paragraph (b) in the new clause. The Retail Consortium believes that the best guarantee that business is able to offer is one where if a new product is defective the consumer has no rights at all during the first fortnight that the product is in for repair. That view was rejected in Committee in another place.
The next problem is that of who collects the product which is referred to in paragraph (e) of the
804
new clause. That provision did not originally figure in the Bill presented to another place by my honourable friend Mr. Martyn Jones. Nevertheless, it was accepted by the Standing Committee in another place. We believe it is a sensible way to set about things.
Paragraph 1(f) of the new clause deals with the product at the guarantor's risk. Again, that was an amendment accepted by the Standing Committee in another place. I hope that the Committee will feel that what I call the slightly minor objections of the Retail Consortium can be answered in that manner. Nonetheless, I claim for the series of amendments no God-given right in drafting. If the Government were prepared to take these amendments away and, if necessary, re-draft them or consider how they might be more felicitously phrased, then I am sure that both I and the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, will have no objection at all.
It is time that the Committee decided whether or not the Consumer Guarantees Bill should have a consumer guarantee in it. It is in that spirit and, I hope, with the support from all sides of the Committee, that I move this amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I am advised by the British Radio and Electronic Equipment Manufacturers' Association, the CBI and the Retail Consortium. I take a somewhat different view of what it has said to me from that which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said was conveyed to him. I hope very much that this move to reinstate parts of the Bill that were taken out in another place will not be proceeded with.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, would reintroduce the consumer guarantee provisions that were withdrawn by the Bill's promoter in another place though with some modifications. There appears to be no attempt to reintroduce the list of specified goods to which the consumer guarantee applied and which was present in the Bill as originally published.
It has been argued by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the offer of a consumer guarantee is therefore entirely voluntary and that there is no obligation on any producer of goods to offer the precise terms set out in these amendments. If that is the case, which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has told us it is, then why bother to set out in legislation such detailed terms? In my view, these modifications do not alter my view that, voluntary or not, these provisions are unworkable and unenforceable. They would give rise to unnecessary conflict between consumers, retailers and manufacturers.
In that connection the Retail Consortium says that it fears that the terms of the consumer guarantees, as contained in these amendments, may be so onerous and impracticable that they will be offered by very few retailers or producers. The consumer guarantee would then risk confusing the customer who may have heard of it but does not see it offered. I think that the view of the Retail Consortium is essentially against these amendments as they stand whatever it may think about the consumer guarantee theory in general.

805
It is my firm belief that there should be fundamental statutory protection for consumers that applies to all products regardless of their type or character. There is already a basis in law for that protection in the Sale of Goods Act 1979 which the Consumer Guarantees Bill, in its present form, sensibly seeks to amend. The Bill implements recommendations made by the Law Commission on the sale and supply of goods. I do not think that anybody is questioning the parts of the Bill which are not being amended with the amendments that we are discussing.
In seeking to reintroduce the consumer guarantee provisions originally in the Bill, the amendments now before this Committee would overturn important Law Commission recommendations and conflict with the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. They would establish what amounts to a new, long-term right to reject goods and a rigid statutory framework for a specific form of consumer guarantee without proper regard for well-established relationships between manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and consumers.
In addition, the amendments take no account of the inevitability of harmonisation of consumer guarantee provisions within the EC. It would seem that the government amendments before us will meet the noble Lord's first reason for introducing these amendments and, indeed, his closing reason; namely, that because the Bill is called a Consumer Guarantees Bill, it should contain consumer guarantees. As I see it, the government amendments will remove that title. The main purpose of his amendments is met if the Committee accepts the government amendments. I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Williams, will not proceed with the amendment and that having aired the subject, he will feel that is sufficient for the day.
Lord Meston: I support these amendments. They take the law beyond that which is applied to the sale of goods. For example, they give protection to people who are given goods rather than having bought them. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said, they introduce a voluntary scheme which should raise standards. I recognise these amendments as a well-meant modified version of what caused the Bill to founder in another place. I assume from government Amendment No. 8 that the Government are against these proposals. My only concern is about the practical politics of these proposals.
In producing the original Bill, the National Consumer Council incorporated the draft Bill of the Law Commission relating to the sale of goods. I would hate to see them lost. I would hate to see both the baby and the bathwater disappear. The proposals from the Law Commission have been around for a long time and will benefit the consumer and the non-consumer alike. The consumer guarantee and the law on the sale of goods are not mutually exclusive. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I disagree that they are in conflict; indeed, they complement each other. For that reason I support the amendments. I hope that the Government have thought again.
8 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Williams for presenting the amendments so clearly. I very much regret the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. I am sure that we all wish her a very good recovery from her rather serious back operation. However, the noble Baroness made clear her intentions in her Second Reading speech. Those intentions have been clearly reflected in the amendments before us and in the explanation given by my noble friend Lord Williams.
The points made by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, were very powerful. My noble friend made it clear that, although the changes would meet the concerns expressed by the Government both in this Chamber and in another place, nevertheless they would bring back the spirit of the original Bill which set out to produce guarantees for consumers. He also made the important point that there would be no compulsion on companies, which was a point of real concern to the Government. There is little doubt that the amendments would produce safeguards and protection which would be welcomed by many consumers. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was so clearly opposed to them. He said that he is advised by the Retail Consortium. He felt that there was no necessity for any greater protection for consumers.
The original Bill received an enormous amount of support from the public. In a poll conducted by the National Consumer Council 90 per cent. of those who were asked whether they would like protection against the ill-effects of buying shoddy goods said that they would like to have a consumer guarantee. The amendments do not reinstate the provisions of the original Bill but bring back the idea that has so much support from the public that people who buy shoddy goods should have some protection. That is of enormous importance. I urge the Committee to accept the amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: I regret the tabling of these amendments, which are a stripped down form of provisions which have already been rejected in another place. The sponsor of the Bill himself tabled the amendments to delete those parts of the Bill which related to consumer guarantees. I believed that he did so in a constructive spirit. I thought that, although he was understandably disappointed not to have the support of that House for the whole of his Bill, his view and that of his fellow Members of another place was that the remaining provisions, enacting the proposals of the Law Commissions, were of real value in themselves, representing as they do an extension to the rights of consumers. I was therefore profoundly disappointed by the tabling of these amendments which, if they are accepted, will serve to frustrate the progress of these reforms. Their sponsors should be well aware that they will not command the support of the Government in another place.
These new provisions would raise many fundamental issues of policy as well as basic legal and technical drafting points. The number of

807
amendments proposed to this Private Member's Bill in another place showed the difficulty in resolving against a tight time schedule the complex problems which arise.
The consumer's central concern is that a purchased product should be of a satisfactory standard and that, if it is not, he should be able to get satisfaction from someone. These cut-down provisions propose a statutory framework which offers him different remedies in different circumstances against different defendants in the manufacturing and supply chain. We would need to be persuaded of the wisdom of that appoach. The Government consider the Sale of Goods Act to be the proper framework for these issues. It covers all products and all consumer transactions and the consumer's rights do not depend on the presence or absence of a guarantee. Amendment to the Act as proposed in the Bill which is before us for consideration is the best way forward.
The core of the Government's objection to the former provisions on consumer guarantees was that they created a long-term right of rejection through the refund and replacement remedies in paragraph (c) of this first clause. Our concerns about this approach are on record. By providing, in effect, for full refunds for used goods it does not strike a balance between consumer and producer or supplier interests and it creates commercial uncertainties which would be reflected in higher prices. I acknowledge that the sponsors of this approach have sought to find a compromise with the Government in the amendments which have now been tabled. In particular, we welcome the fact that the provisions now before us no longer contain an obligation to state whether a consumer guarantee is given with certain products. However, the provisions still contain many significant defects and we remain sceptical about the merits of the approach as a whole.
Coming on to the detail of the first of the proposed new clauses, subsections (1)(g) and (1)(h) attempt to redress some of the imbalance in the long-term right of rejection approach. Paragraph (h) allows deductions for physical damage other than fair wear and tear. Paragraph (g) permits a reasonable charge in some circumstances for use but, other than in the case of motor vehicles, no charge can be made for the first year of the guarantee. In the case of motor vehicles, a charge may be made after the first six months or after the first 6,000 miles.
These provisions further expose the problems inherent in this approach. How would such deductions be calculated? What is to happen when there is a dispute between the consumer and the guarantor about whether the proposed charge is reasonable or whether there has been significant physical damage or, indeed, whether the damage has resulted from fair wear and tear? Faced with a large deduction for use or damage, the consumer could be left with the unenviable choice between a defective product that the guarantor cannot or will not repair and a partial refund which is too small to allow him to buy a replacement. This would dilute the additional benefits, over and above his sale of goods rights, that the consumer guarantee is intended to bring.
808
The proposed paragraphs (b) and (c) deal with the provision of replacement products in some circumstances. Paragraph (b) refers to a comparable replacement product and paragraph (c) refers to an equivalent replacement product. What is, or may be, a comparable replacement product, and how does it differ from an equivalent replacement product? That is quite unclear and this would inevitably lead to disputes and ultimately to a considerable amount of litigation. For example, if a new car is purchased and a defect becomes apparent after six months and the defect is not repaired in the specified period, is a seven-month old car which is bigger than the defective car to be regarded as a comparable replacement? Or is only a six-month old car of the same model as the defective one and with a similar mileage to be regarded as a comparable replacement? Is an equivalent replacement product more or less like the product it is replacing than is a comparable replacement product? Those questions are unanswered.
Statutory provision for a long-term right of rejection and the creation of new refund and repair remedies becomes very complicated in the case where goods are bought under finance agreements. This leads to complex situations involving three or sometimes four parties, and the unpicking of such transactions creates particular difficulties. The provision of refunds presents the problem about how to strike a fair balance between the claims and interests of the consumer, the finance company and the manufacturer. This is particularly true in situations where the balance outstanding on the finance agreement exceeds the original purchase price. Under certain finance agreements, title to the goods remains with the finance company and there are practical problems in devising mechanisms to ensure that the finance company's interests are protected. The provision of replacements also creates bureaucratic problems for the finance company, although these are arguably of a less fundamental nature.
The proposals on consumer guarantees considered in another place attempted to address that issue although, as we made clear, the Government considered that the provisions were defective. Nonetheless, resolution of these problems is essential to the approach on consumer guarantees which some Members of this Chamber have advocated. A considerable number of consumer durables are purchased under finance agreements. I am therefore not reassured by the fact that the present amendments remain silent on this difficult issue.
These provisions would create a dilemma for consumers who would have to choose whether to pursue their Sale of Goods Act rights against the trader or their rights under a consumer guarantee against the manufacturer. They also raise a number of fundamental legal issues such as the relationship between the consumer's rights under the Sale of Goods Act and those under the consumer guarantee. For example, the circumstances in which his exercise of rights under one regime cause him to lose, wholly or in part, his rights under the other are not addressed. Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause appears to envisage that the consumer would retain

809
all his rights under the Sale of Goods Act even when he exercises his rights under the consumer guarantee, but it surely cannot be intended that he should be able to recover in full under both regimes.
I have one further point to make on Amendment No. 3, which relates to general provisions on product guarantees. It is not entirely clear what subsection (1) of the proposed new clause means. However, it appears to go further than to provide that a guarantee should be enforceable against the guarantor. It seems to be intended to provide that all guarantees with terms less than the minimum terms of a consumer guarantee would be enforceable against the producer and supplier jointly, even if offered by only one of them. Oddly, that would appear to require the buyer to proceed against both parties rather than allowing him to choose between one or the other. Whether or not that was the intended effect, it is an important departure from the general provisions on guarantees under the Consumer Guarantees Bill as previously drafted. Further, it is a point upon which there has been no public consultation.
I do not wish to detain Members of the Committee by commenting in detail on each of the remaining proposed new clauses which have been put forward in this group. They deal with the Secretary of State's powers to make regulations and with other definitions. However, because of the fundamental objections to which I have already referred, the Government cannot support this group of amendments.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am sorry that the Government feel unable to accept the consumer guarantee because I was led to believe that in another place they looked with some favour upon such a guarantee. Nevertheless, if that is their position, they will have to demonstrate it.
So far as concerns the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, if we are to have a consumer guarantee it seems to me that it would be better to spell it out. The noble Lord said that perhaps it was so complicated that no one would adopt it. However, if we are to have such a guarantee it should be specified and put into statute.
In regard to the long-term right of rejection, there is no question of the consumer guarantee overturning the Sale of Goods Act. Moreover, it does not conflict, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, with any Law Commission recommendations. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said that it was somehow rejected in another place. However, 108 Members of that place endorsed the concept on Second Reading. I do not regard that as being rejection. The amendments which were moved in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Martyn Jones were designed to meet some of the objections which the Government put forward at that time.
I was very disappointed with this evening's debate. I must tell the noble Viscount that we thought—perhaps, in our innocence—that the Government might accept some modified version of
810
what Members of another place on all sides, and Members of this Chamber on all sides, believe is a sensible move forward. The noble Viscount has come out flatly against it. Therefore, I suppose that the payroll vote will simply march into the Lobby to express the view against it. However, they will have to march into the Lobby because we shall not let the matter rest. As I said on Second Reading, I believe that this is a matter of great importance upon which Members of this Chamber will wish to divide. I therefore propose to divide the Committee on the issue.
Lord Mottistone: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he agree with me that it is our invariable experience in this place that if we take a Private Member's Bill through—and I have been doing this for a long time, including the time when my party was in opposition—the best thing that can happen to it is that it is not amended in any way. This means that it does not have to be returned to another place. However, this Bill will have to be amended because of Amendment No. 8, and the other government amendments, and that is the minimum amendment required.
It has been my experience that whenever we send a Bill back to another place which has been amended in any substantial way—and this one will be—and the Government does not support the amendments, it has no chance at all. If the noble Lord seeks to put his amendments into the Bill now, he will destroy the sale of goods part of the Bill because that will go out as the baby with the bath water of the consumer guarantee. Therefore, in view of what my noble friend on the Front Bench said, will he not consider withdrawing his amendments at this stage so as to give the sale of goods part of the Bill a chance to live? He could then return to the matter later with the intoduction of a Private Member's Bill in this Chamber, or another place, which could bring forward the consumer guarantee feature, which I am sure he would like to see implemented, rather than include it in this particular Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I must say that I do not see why a Private Member's Bill entitled "Consumer Guarantees Bill" should not have a consumer guarantee within it. If the Government decide to sabotage the Bill, that is a matter for them. It is not for Members of this Chamber or of another place. It is for the Government to say that they will not let it through. The noble Viscount has been quite clear on the matter. He said that the Government will oppose it. That is the Government's problem; it is not a problem for this Chamber.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 5:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Product guarantees to be in writing
. Where any producer or supplier has given (by any means whatsoever) an indication that he is giving anything described by the word "guarantee" in relation to any particular product ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption (whether a Consumer Guarantee or not), the terms of the guarantee must

811
be in writing, must contain the name and address of the guarantor, and must be in, upon or attached to the product, or its labelling or packaging.")
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Enforceability of guarantees
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) where any producer or supplier had given (by any means whatsoever) an indication that he is giving a guarantee in relation to any product ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption (whether a Consumer Guarantee or not), a consumer supplied with the product shall be entitled to enforce the terms of the guarantee for the period indicated or in the event of a guarantee not being given the minimum terms of a Consumer Guarantee as if those terms constituted a contract between the producer and supplier jointly and the consumer.
(2) As against a person enforcing the terms of a guarantee (whether a Consumer Guarantee or not, and whether under subsection (1) or not), the other party cannot by reference to any such term or by notice exclude or restrict his liability, except in so far as the term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
(3) To the extent that subsection (2) prevents the exclusion or restriction of any liability it also prevents—

(a) making the liability or its enforcement subject to restrictive or onerous conditions;

(b) excluding or restricting any right or remedy in respect of the liability, or subjecting a person to any prejudice in consequence of his pursuing any such right or remedy;

(c) excluding or restricting rules of evidence or procedure;

and (to that extent) it also prevents excluding or restricting liability by reference to terms and notices which exclude or restrict the relevant obligation or duty.
(4) Except as expressly provided by this section, nothing in this section shall be taken to limit, restrict or otherwise affect any right or remedy a person would have had if this section had not been enacted.
(5) For the purpose of this Act, anything which is likely to be taken for an indication that a product is covered by a Consumer Guarantee shall be deemed to be such an indication and shall be actionable as such, but expressions which it would be unreasonable to read as such (for example, "parts guarantee", "limited guarantee" or "warranty" by themselves) shall not amount to such an indication.").
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Power to make regulations
.—(1) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the Director General of Fair Trading and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult, by regulations make provision for—

(a) modifying the minimum terms of a Consumer Guarantee in relation to prescribed description of person or in prescribed circumstances so as to increase the obligations of, or impose new obligations on, the guarantor;

(b) determining the charge referred to in section 1(g) directly attributable to the use by a consumer of a product during a guarantee period;

(c) enabling or requiring prescribed symbols to be used to indicate that a Consumer Guarantee is being given or that no Consumer Guarantee is being given.

(2) The power to make regulations under this section—

(a) shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and

(b) shall include power—

(i) to make different provision for different cases; and

(ii) to make such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.").

Before Clause I, insert the following new clause:
("Definitions
.—(1) In Part I of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
"consumer" in relation to any product means—
812

(i) any person who is supplied with that product, mainly for his own private use or consumption

(ii) any person who derives title to that product through or under that person; but does not include any person falling within paragraph (i) or (ii) who is not habitually resident in the United Kingdom.

"guarantee" in relation to a product means any promise or assurance (however worded or presented) that defects in the product will be made good by complete or partial replacement of the product, by its repair, or by monetary compensation or refund or in any other way, and includes a Consumer Guarantee;
"guarantor" in relation to a particular product means a producer or supplier of that product who has stated that he is giving a guarantee in relation to it;
"motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988;
"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made be the Secretary of State;
"price" includes a charge of any description;
"producer" in relation to a product means—

(a) a producer of a product within the meaning of Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987; or

(b) any person who has imported a product into the United Kingdom from a place outside the United Kingdom in order, in the course of any business of his, to supply it to another from in the United Kingdom;

"product" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987;
"product ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption" shall mean a product of a kind of specification where the majority of products of a similar kind or specification are not purchased for the purposes of industrial or commercial processes;.
"reasonableness" has the same meaning as in section 11 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977;
"supply" and cognate expressions shall have the same meaning as in the Consumer Protection Act 1987; and
(2) For the purpose of Part I of this Act a product is of defective quality if it is not of satisfactory quality within the meaning of section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Acceptance of goods and opportunity to examine them]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should remind Members of the Committee that if Amendment No. 6 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 7.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 29, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 16 and I must, inevitably, refer to Amendment No. 7 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. The latter amendment has essentially the same objective, except that it is to be reached by a different route.
This group of amendments raises the question of a right to reject defective goods and to claim a refund. The topic was raised on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, the second star of those proceedings who is unable to attend the debate this evening. I shall try not to repeat all that was then said. The law provides that a buyer cannot reject goods, or get his or her money back, once

813
those goods have been accepted. One of the ways in which the purchaser is treated as having accepted the goods is by retention of those goods for a reasonable time, irrespective of what may turn out to be wrong with them. Thus one can lose the right to reject and the right to a refund before one has any idea that anything is wrong.
The case most often referred to, which of course was referred to on Second Reading, is Bernstein v. Pamson Motors Limited. The stark facts of that case are well known, but need repeating briefly for the purposes of the amendment. Mr. Bernstein was held to have lost the right to reject a new motor car in which he had travelled 140 miles only over some 27 days following the purchase. For some of that period he had been ill. He was held unable to reject, despite the sudden appearance of a serious mechanical defect, that being a defect which would not have been apparent to the layman. Mr. Bernstein wrote promptly to reject the car the day after it seized up.
On those facts the judge, who was clearly sympathetic to Mr. Bernstein, and presumably would have found in his favour if he possibly could, held that in law Mr. Bernstein was barred from rejection and from a refund. Mr. Bernstein lodged an appeal against that decision, but unhappily the matte' was never tested on appeal because the car manufacturer made him an offer which he could not prudently refuse. Regrettably, the Law Commission and the Government have decided that the existing law is satisfactory, not least because it is said to be certain.
I suggest that the law is not satisfactory to Mr. Bernstein and others like him who act promptly in trying to get back their money, and is not satisfactory for others who are perhaps more patient and conciliatory and try to give the seller the opportunity to put matters right. I also suggest that the law is not even certain in that respect, because the loss of the right to reject depends upon what a judge decides is a reasonable time. Different judges differ, reasonably, about what is a reasonable time. The judge in the Bernstein case said that what might be a reasonable time for the purchaser of a bicycle would not be the same for the purchaser of a nuclear submarine. I am aware of other cases in which judges have taken a more lenient view, as does the law in other jurisdictions. All that does not suggest certainty.
On Second Reading the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, referred to a case in 1823 which concerned a chandelier retained for almost six months. That was a case called Milner v. Tucker. I venture to suggest that it is of not great relevance to the purchaser of a computer, or something like it, in 1990. He also referred to a case called Rogers v. Parish. more recently decided, in which the court allowed the right to reject a car after some 5,000 miles and six months. The Minister's reference to that case was confusing, because it was not a case of a straightforward sale but of a conditional sale, where the lapse of time is not a barrier to rejection.
If of course the Government intend to equate the law of hire purchase and conditional sale with ordinary sale, then I suppose that they support the amendment. If that is so, we shall have a better form
814
of certainty; but what I propose in the amendments is that time should run against a purchaser only when defects come to light. To give the purchaser in those circumstances a right to reject will spare the dissatisfied purchaser from litigation, it will spare him from having to deal with the seller over repairs after he has lost confidence in the seller; it will provide a simple and effective remedy; it will meet the reasonable expectations of the consumer; and it will raise and maintain standards.
At this stage I shall not take up further time ventilating the rival attractions of the amendments that I have tabled and Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I merely beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: As the noble Lord has said, the object of the amendments is to provide consumers with a long-term right to reject. Although I have sympathy with the thrust of the amendments they are unrealistic because, in practice, they will mean that the right to reject goods is indefinite or will at least exist for the six months allowed by the Limitation of Time Act.
The argument that the noble Lord has advanced is that the provision will equate the law of sale with that of hire. What the amendment fails to recognise is that the Sale of Goods Act applies to all products while only certain types of products are hired. That would give rise to a situation in which after five years the buyer of a product such as, for example, an apple could demand a full refund.
If the intention is to leave acceptance under the Bill to the common law rules of affirmation and waiver which govern the law of hire that should be expressed in the amendments. I am not convinced by the noble Lord's arguments and I advise the Committee to oppose the amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: I shall deal with the two amendments separately. The first provides, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has said, that the buyer would not be taken to have accepted goods, thereby losing his right to reject them, on the ground that he has retained them after a reasonable time without indicating to the seller that he has rejected them. The buyer would lose his right of rejection only when he intimated to the seller that he had accepted the goods or where the goods had been delivered to him and he did an act in relation to them which was inconsistent with the seller's ownership of the goods.
That is a fundamental change, which would affect both consumer and purely commercial transactions. In certain circumstances, the amendment could result in the buyer having the right to reject for a substantially longer period than under the present law. In their review of the law on the sale and supply of goods and services, the Law Commissions considered whether there should be a long-term right of reject in contracts of sale. Their conclusion, in the light of public consultation, was that there should not. They considered that the complications of introducing a long-term right to reject would be considerable. In their view, it would be unfair to require the seller to refund the purchase price to a

815
buyer if the buyer did not reject the goods until a long time after delivery, when he had already enjoyed the use of those goods for that period.
It would be extremely difficult to make statutory provision for the buyer to give some credit for the use and enjoyment which he had from the goods. Indeed, if I may quote from their report, the Law Commissions doubted:
"whether any meaningful principles or formulae could be devised which did not depend upon criteria so uncertain as almost to invite dispute".
They also believed that giving credit for use and enjoyment would take away much of the force of the consumer buyer's bargaining position. In their opinion, it was preferable to retain a rather shorter-lived right to reject with a corresponding automatic right to the return of the full purchase price. They pointed out that, particularly from the consumer's point of view, the absolute nature of the buyer's right is an important factor in his ability to bargain from his position of relative weakness against the seller.
I now turn to the second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, which deals with the changes to Schedule 2. The noble Lord's amendment would treat consumer buyers under outright contracts of sale in the same way as consumers under conditional contracts of sale in that the consumer buyer under an outright contract of sale would not lose his right to reject defective goods, even when he had accepted them. The consumer buyer would only lose his right to reject such goods when he became aware of the defect and then affirmed the contract or waived his right to terminate it or did some other act which precluded him in law from relying on his right to terminate it.
This amendment would very significantly alter the balance of rights between consumer buyers and sellers. It would mean that a retailer could be faced with a return of a product on the grounds of it being of unsatisfactory quality and would be obliged to return the full purchase price without consideration of the buyer's use of the product during the intervening period. The noble Lord said that in contracts of supply other than sale, the right to terminate a contract persists until the customer knows of the defect. However, this does not persuade me that the same should be true in the case of sale. The analogy is not as strong as it may appear at first sight. In the case of hire, unlike the case of sale, there is a continuing relationship between the parties. The goods still belong to the owner, who may be under an obligation to repair or replace the hired goods if they break down. Further, in hire there is a convenient method of valuing use and enjoyment: the hire charge itself can be taken as a basis for valuation. I am not persuaded that the difference in approach in contracts for sale and supply amounts to a justification for changing the rules in contracts for sale.
For these reasons, the Government could not accept these amendments which would very significantly extend the rights of consumers at the expense of retailers.
Lord Meston: I did not intend to suggest an indefinite time for rejection. With respect to the noble Baroness, her reference to the limitation Act was not correct. I doubt whether anybody would keep an apple for five years and then try to take it back to the shop. Perhaps that example demonstrates that the longer the right to reject is left, the harder it will be to show that the defect complained of was there at the time of purchase. However, if the defect was there from the outset and is serious and the purchaser acts promptly, why on earth should he not have his money back?
The Bill and the next Amendment No. 7 in better form depend on the reasonable opportunity to examine the goods. I am sure that I speak only for myself, but I could have an endless opportunity to examine a video recorder or the inside of a car or a computer and find no defects. I might find it difficult to discover even the most patent defect, let alone the latent defect which may cause trouble months or years after purchase.
Furthermore, I remind the Committee that the Bill introduces, in what was Clause 1 until the events earlier this evening, a consideration of durability. What will be a reasonable opportunity to examine the goods, to discover their durability? By definition, durability takes time presumably to discover.
I wish to find common ground with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, in this respect. I recognise that her amendment goes some way to meet my anxieties. I suggest that it does not deal as well as my amendment with the latent defects. But for the time being at any rate, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave so to do.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) Where the buyer deals as a consumer or (in Scotland) the contract is a consumer contract, the buyer is not deemed to have accepted the goods for the purposes of subsection (4) above until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2) above.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment provides that a consumer cannot lose the right to reject faulty goods until he has had a reasonable opportunity to see whether the product works. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who said that, failing acceptance of his own amendment, he would support mine. He mentioned the notorious Bernstein case in which the judge allowed Mr. Bernstein an opportunity to examine the goods. However, as is clear, the Bill currently provides that the right to a refund can be lost, whether or not the buyer had had a reasonable opportunity to see whether the product is satisfactory. Therefore the position of the consumer has been weakened.
I remind the Committee of the Law Reform Committee recommendations which referred exclusively to consumer contractions: cases where a non-technical buyer has not had a reasonable opportunity to examine goods; cases where the product is sold in a sealed container. The recommendations stated:
"We are told … that the accuracy of a representation about the quality or construction of a motor vehicle is seldom apparent

817
from an inspection from a person who is not an expert, or even from a short trial run. No doubt similar difficulties occur on the sale of other articles of a mechanical or technical nature, where defects are unlikely to come to the notice of the uninitiated until some time after the sale is completed".
It is quite clear that the report of the Law Reform Committee wished this protection to be given to consumers.
Finally, if the Government oppose my amendment, perhaps they could advise the Committee of the circumstances in which they think a consumer should lose the right to reject faulty goods, even though he has not had a reasonable chance to see whether the product works. I stress that word "reasonable" because that involves an objective not subjective test. I beg to move the amendment and hope that the Committee agrees that it would make an important safeguard for consumers.
Viscount Ullswater: This amendment would change the acceptance provisions in the Bill. The present Clause 2 provides that the buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods (and therefore to have lost his right to reject them) if he retains them after the lapse of a reasonable time without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them. The effect of this amendment would be that a consumer buyer would not lose his right to reject unsatisfactory goods on the grounds that he has retained them for a reasonable time unless he has had a reasonable opportunity to examine them.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has said, there is some difference in view among legal experts about the position under present law. Some have argued that the lapse of time rule may be subject to Section 34 of the Sale of Goods Act so that however long the buyer retains the goods, he is not to be deemed to have accepted them until he has had a reasonable opportunity to examine them. Others, including the Law Commissions in their report, consider that this is not the case and that a reasonble time provides the final cut-off point under the present law.
I share with the noble Baroness the view that the law should be clear on this matter. It is in the interests of buyers and sellers alike to know where they stand in this important issue. We differ however on the point of policy as to whether a reasonable time (as provided in the Bill) or a reasonable opportunity (as provided by the amendment of the noble Baroness) should provide the final cut-off. In practical terms these will amount to much the same thing in the large majority of cases. It is difficult to imagine many situations in which the buyer will have retained the goods for any length of time without having had a reasonable opportunity to examine them. But I can envisage less common circumstances where the two approaches might lead to different results. For example, I wonder what effect the amendment might have in the case of a pair of skis bought during a summer sale and not tried out on snow until the following winter.
The amendment makes the law more subjective and acceptance less certain. It provides a different
818
approach to acceptance in consumer and commercial contracts. It is a substantive change and one on which there has been no opportunity for all the interested parties to examine and consider the point in more detail. There has been no opportunity for consultation on this point, but I understand that the Retail Consortium has some concerns about the effect of this amendment, which it has drawn to the attention of the sponsor.
The Law Commissions recommended that the law should state clearly that a final cut-off comes after a reasonable time has elapsed. In making this recommendation they said that it makes no change to present law. The DTI consulted widely on the Law Commissions' recommendations. Some consumer bodies have expressed concern that this provision would leave consumers without an opportunity to examine goods. I am very doubtful that this is the case. But the Government were mindful of the concerns expressed and proposed an addition to the Law Commissions' recommendations. That is contained in Clause 2(5), which makes clear that a reasonable opportunity to examine is relevant to the question of whether a reasonable time has elapsed. This would not preclude the court from reaching the view in a particular case that a reasonable time had elapsed even when the buyer has not had an opportunity to examine the goods. However, it would ensure that, when considering whether a reasonable time had elapsed, the court would positively address its mind to the question whether the buyer had had a reasonable opportunity to examine the goods.
The law should strike a balance between the interests of buyers and those of sellers, for whom commercial certainty is of importance. I remain sceptical about whether this amendment is justified and could not offer my support that it be made.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: The Minister is not looking favourably on the consumer this evening. However, I am grateful to him for having taken so much trouble to respond to my amendment. We shall certainly reconsider the matter before Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 34, leave out ("Parts I to IV of this Act or in any order under subsections (2) and (3)" (and insert) "Part I of this Act").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
Page 5, line 37, leave out ("Part V") and insert ("Part II").
Page 5, line 41, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
("(6) This Act extends to Scotland but only Part I and this section apply to Northern Ireland.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
In the Title:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is that this be the title of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not wish to detain the Committee for long but I wish to put on the record that the Committee has put back a consumer guarantee into the Consumer Guarantees Bill. I hope that when we have completed the remaining stages of this Bill it will leave the Chamber with the consumer guarantee still in it. It is now up to the Government to decide, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, quite rightly said, what they will do about the Bill in another place if it leaves this Chamber with a consumer guarantee in it. I say to the noble Viscount and to the Government in the clearest possible terms that if they do not make time for this Bill in another place they will be in contempt of both Houses of Parliament.
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Environmental Protection Bill
8.47 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 4, line 19, at end insert:
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall within six months of the date of Royal Assent publish a Schedule setting out—

(a) those processes in respect of which regulations have been made under this Part;

(b) those processes in respect of which it is his present intention to make such regulations;

(c) those processes of which the Secretary of State is aware, which may cause pollution within the meaning of this Part, but on which it is not his present intention to make regulations.

(1B) The Secretary of State shall revise the Schedule referred to in subsection (1A) above from time to time in accordance with regulations made and his current intentions").
The noble Lord said: It may be thought that this amendment covers to a considerable extent matters which have already been dealt with in debate this afternoon. That is because of a problem which Members of the Committee and Ministers have recognised. When general amendments are proposed at an early stage of the Bill to express our views it is difficult to avoid moving ahead and anticipating more detailed amendments which follow. Nevertheless I believe it is necessary for us to pursue this point in more detail than we were able to do previously.
The point of this amendment is to secure that the Bill is more specific than it has so far been about the prescribed processes and substances which come within the scope of Part I. The Bill is called an environmental protection Bill and it purports to cover breaches of environmental protection. However, as regards government publicity, it does not do so with much qualification. When one considers the detail of the Bill, one sees that the whole concentration and the powers conferred refer to prescribed processes.
This amendment does not seek to overturn that fundamental provision of the Bill but it seeks to bring it out into the open and to make it necessary for the Secretary of State to publish within six months of the date of Royal Assent a schedule which sets out the processes in respect of which regulations have been made and the processes in respect of which it is the intention of the Secretary of State to make regulations. The schedule should further set out which of the processes the Secretary of State recognises may cause pollution but for which he does not feel able to make regulations and for which he does not, at the time of the statement, propose to make regulations. There is no requirement that that should be done every six months. There is no requirement that there should be a vast bureaucracy dedicated to producing these reports. If the Government Front Bench give me that kind of reply, I shall treat it with little respect as I do not think that is the issue here.
There is a requirement in the Bill that the Secretary of State shall revise the schedule from time to time because clearly the prescribed processes which are covered in the Bill will vary from time to time and it is necessary for the public to know what variations are taking place. The Secretary of State will no doubt be making further regulations, and will be revising his intentions about which processes shall be covered. It is right that the public should know about it.
The whole point about integrated pollution control is that it covers the prior control of prescribed processes. Indeed, if it were not covering prior control—in other words if it were left to deal with fires as they occur rather than attempting to prevent them—there would be no justification for the whole elaborate procedure of prescribed processes. But since this is the way in which prior control is made possible, I suggest that the very least that we should be demanding is that there should be a common high standard of action by the Secretary of State, that this should be made public so that everybody knows what is being done, and that it should be capable of

821
being enforced by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and by the local authorities which, however downgraded they may be by being second order authorities, still have to respond to the challenges which are put upon them.
Let us not argue the fundamental principles of the Bill again, but let us recognise that the way in which it works is by effective control—"coming down like a ton of bricks" I think the Minister of State said in another place—of a limited number of prescribed processes.
If the Bill is to have any credibility, if there is to be any effective implementation which the public understands and to which the public and local authorities can contribute, I suggest that the minimum requirement is the publication of a schedule of what the Secretary of State is doing and plans to do.
There is nothing here which conflicts with the objectives of the Bill, nothing which seeks to extend the scope of the Bill. This is a proposal which is genuinely designed to be helpful and to aid the Government to achieve, successfully and effectively, what it claims to be seeking. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I believe that this amendment is unnecessary. Well before the six-month period which has been set, details of the first two categories of processes specified in this amendment will have been published. The Government have already given clear indications—most recently in the draft schedule made available during the Committee stage of this Bill in another place—of the range of industrial processes that we intend to bring under Part I control. We have announced that we intend to publish draft regulations setting out the complete list of processes and substances by the end of July. We intend to publish the six-month regulations shortly after Royal Assent and certainly within the six-month period suggested. These will specify those processes which are to come under integrated pollution control and all of those which are to come, over a period of time, under local authority control for air pollution purposes.
So what is left? A requirement in Amendment No. 27 in paragraph (c) to list all other processes which may cause pollution "within the meaning of this Part". Any activity, even sleeping, causes pollution and very many activities release in small quantities the substances which are to be prescribed for particular control under Part I. Indeed, even those of us participating in the debate in this Chamber are, for example, emitting oxides of carbon. I fear that the environmental costs just of producing the paper for such an unwieldy publication would be excessive.
The point is that the Government will prescribe those processes which they consider need to be controlled under the rigorous powers available under Part I. And who can doubt in this era of enlightened environmental awareness that the scientific and environmental community will let us know if they consider that important processes have been missed?
For that reason, we believe there is no requirement for the amendment as put forward this evening in this Chamber.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I fear that the Minister is taking an unduly narrow view, not only of what the amendment intends but of what the amendment actually says. I welcome the assurances which the Minister has given that there will be a full statement before the end of July about processes in respect of which regulations have been made and are intended to be made. That is extremely helpful since we understand that the Report stage of the Bill will be in October rather than in July. That will inform your Lordships' debates considerably, and to that extent your Lordships may be sure that we shall return to this matter.
As far as paragraph (c) is concerned, of course in theory it could be said that within the meaning of Clause 1 of Part I of the Bill all kinds of things including, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said, standing up and speaking—it could be called the creation of hot air—is polluting. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is as guilty of creating hot air as any of us—he cannot escape that easily. There is no doubt that in terms of the processes which could be covered under the definitions in Clause 1 many things which should not be reported are covered, but the amendment does not say that. It says:
"cause pollution within the meaning of this Part".
As the Minister will be well aware, this part provides very severe restrictions about those prescribed processes which are to be covered by the Bill. It does not mean that any of your Lordships standing up or even sleeping—or perhaps doing both at the same time, which is not unknown in this Chamber—would fall under the provisions of this amendment. To that extent the Minister's arguments against paragraph (c) are defective and deserve to be rejected.
However, this is not a matter to be pursued to a Division at this stage. We shall have better information on subsections (1A) and (1B) at Report stage, and I can assure the Committee that we shall return to them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 4, line 48, at end insert:
("( ) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, before he makes regulations under this section to consult such persons appearing to him to represent persons carrying on a process that will be affected by those regulations and such persons appearing to him to be conversant with environmental pollution issues as he considers appropriate and to take any representations made to him as a result of such consultations before determining the final content of any such regulations.").
The noble Lord said: This is a comparatively simple and straightforward amendment. The regulations under subsection (5) will be introduced without parliamentary debate. Thus those in industries which might be involved in processes that cause pollution, as well as those groups which will be trying to monitor the effects of the pollution, will not be able to see what the regulations are, and will be unaware of the considerable effect that they are liable to have.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that those who are concerned in the processes involved are consulted, so that they know what is going on. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, had agreed that we should take Amendments Nos. 30 and 32 together because they have a similarity. In fact, I should like to speak to my Amendment No. 32 in slightly more general terms, but not in any way deviating from the principle which underlies the noble Lord's amendment.
I have taken a rather wider view than the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in that the success which we all hope to achieve for this Bill will depend on the codes of practice. It would be sensible to ensure, even at this early stage, that the consultation is as wide as possible.
The success of any system will rely on the full understanding and co-operation of all those who are involved. If industry is to keep up with the rapidly changing field of environmental legislation and regulation it seems to me that consultation at all stages is vital.
When we discussed the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross—Amendment No. 5—on what I might broadly call the environmental audit, my noble friend the Minister said that a full White Paper describing exactly what is to happen would be published in the autumn and that that would give an opportunity for wide consultation. That may be so, but, to underline what I am about this evening, perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend that integrated pollution notes are already being prepared by the inspectorate.
The Committee will probably know that those notes describe the standards that are to be achieved. Discussions and consultation have excluded some major interests at this early and vital stage. I shall give only one example. In terms of the large combustion plants, the major electricity generating companies have certainly been consulted, but I am informed that the aluminium industry has not been consulted. An industry as important as the aluminium industry should be consulted. So the amendment seeks to ensure that, in making any regulations under the clause, the Secretary of State carries out the fullest and most proper consultation.
The amendment is similar to provisions incorporated in existing legislation. The wording of Amendment No. 32 is taken from Section 81 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974; it therefore seems eminently suitable for this Bill.
9 p.m.
Lord Reay: We believe that both Amendments Nos. 30 and 32 are unnecessary and that Amendment No. 32 is in some respects defective. I can assure the Committee that the Government will consult interested parties before making any of the regulations permitted under the clause. That is standard practice. Indeed, we have already set the work in hand. The draft schedules of processes and substances that my honourable friend the Minister
824
for the Environment and Countryside tabled in another place during the Committee stage consideration of this Bill were the latest in a series of consultation papers indicating those parts of industry and the substances to be caught by Part I of the Bill.
However, the list of persons identified in the amendments points to the difficulty of specifying in advance those persons who should be consulted. In Amendment No. 32, there is no mention of those with a knowledge of the likely environmental effects of any releases, as there is in Amendment No. 30. In Amendment No. 30 there is no mention of those who understand abatement technology options. There is a danger that, in specifying certain categories of person to be consulted it may appear that others do not have equal standing. We therefore prefer to rely on normal administrative practices.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister has not begun to answer the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. My own mind is not entirely made up on this issue, but the noble Lord raised two important points. The first was that vital interests—according to him, the aluminium industry—had not been consulted about matters affecting large combustion plant. He then raised the argument concerning the Control of Pollution Act 1974, embracing just such a section. If that is the situation, why cannot the Government apply precisely the same principles as were devised for the Control of Pollution Act? Will the noble Lord answer those two points?
Lord Reay: The main thrust of our argument here is that we shall consult interested parties before making any of the regulations which are permitted under this clause and that this is a process on which we have already embarked, but that our main objection to selecting interests that should be consulted is that it puts those that are not so referred in an invidious position. The Government will consult on appropriate standards.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will forgive me for intervening. I do not know what he intends to do with his amendment, Amendment No. 30. I want to come back on what my noble friend said. He said that my amendment was defective. I accept that. Back-Bench amendments frequently are. But the sense of it was not lost on the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. In response, my noble friend said that there will be consultation under this clause. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to Section 81 of the Control of Pollution Act. Will my noble friend consult under the provisions of that section of that Act or only under this clause? He has not made that clear.
It is nonsense to argue that, if there is a non-selection of some consultees, they may feel slightly miffed. It is not difficult to identify those people who practise in an industry over which the regulations will apply and to ensure that, through a provision in the Bill, all those who think that they have an interest will have the opportunity to put forward their view. So I am afraid that I cannot accept that part of the argument; namely, the difficulty of identifying suitable consultees.

825
I hope that my noble friend will kindly respond in greater depth to the point that I made earlier. I am marginally inclined to accept his assurance that there will be entered into a full and proper consultation process, which is at least similar to that which applies under Section 81 of the 1974 Act.
Lord Reay: I am grateful to my noble friend for his last remarks. I can give the assurance that we shall consult under this Bill. The powers to do so are very wide and in our view adequate. As I said, the Government will consult and will do so under Clause 7 with regard to appropriate standards.
Lord Addington: I listened to the debate as it unfolded and it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has put his finger on a variety of points about the whole issue of consultation. I should like to read what the noble Lord said. At this point, I shall withdraw the amendment, reserving the right to come back to this issue at a later date when I have studied what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Emission etc. limits and quality objectives]:
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 5, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) In exercising his powers under this section, the Secretary of State shall seek to establish the highest practicable standards, objectives or requirements").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 35 and 40A. These three amendments hang together. The provisions contained in Clause 3 of Part I of the Bill allow the Secretary of State to make various regulations designating standards for the operation of the integrated pollution control regime. He is also empowered to revise plans to achieve progressive improvements in quality objectives. It is felt that the Secretary of State should have those functions as a duty, otherwise there seems little point in introducing IPC.
The amendment places a specific duty upon the Secretary of State to:
"seek to establish the highest practicable standards, objectives or requirements"
in exercising his powers to make regulations applying IPC to processes or substances.
Amendment No. 35 places a duty upon him to report to Parliament annually on the contents of the regulations, and their effectiveness in achieving improvements in pollution control and to give information on measures that he intends to take to achieve further improvement. Such a duty is of particular importance as it would allow for the inclusion of new data and information on pollution
826
control and threats to the environment to be built into the IPC system and allow the extension of IPC to other processes and substances.
Amendment No. 40A is related to those aims. National nature reserves and marine nature reserves are so declared because they are sites of special importance for nature conservation. They are the strongest designations possible. Because of their great national importance, it is essential that environmental standards within those reserves are maintained at the highest possible levels. They may contain species which are particularly sensitive to pollution but also they are the flagships of nature conservation in the United Kingdom and should, as a matter of principle, enjoy the highest possible standards.
Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to set different standards in relation to different cases according to several factors. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the importance of maintaining a super-clean environment in areas of great natural environmental quality is one of the factors that he considers. Furthermore, because the whole purpose of the reserve is to protect the wildlife within it, the criterion of safeguarding nature conservation interests must be paramount. If other considerations are allowed to override that, there is little point in having a nature reserve at all.
The amendment also serves to involve the Nature Conservancy Council in the process of setting objectives. The Bill is intended to be an environmental protection Bill. It is therefore important that the Government's advisory body on the conservation of the natural environment should be consulted.
These amendments are reasonable inclusions, and not intrusions, into the Bill. I am sure that the Minister will understand that they are approved by people outside this Chamber. They have special knowledge, advice and anxieties. If the Minister can satisfy me that the anxieties are groundless, I shall not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Reay: The amendments seek to require the Government to set the highest practicable standards. We are at one in that objective and I assure Members of the Committee that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will do so. However, we do not see that the requirement needs to be spelt out in regulations. If Members of the Committee or of another place are dissatisfied with any regulations laid before them, I have no doubt that they will make their feelings known.
In Amendment No. 35 the noble Lord is calling for yet another annual report. The Government do not want to assist in establishing unnecessary bureaucracy. What would a report listing all relevant statutory instruments give us in effect except a call for yet more paper? Legislation is available, so why do we need to catalogue it? Clause 3(5) already allows the Secretary of State to amend the plans to improve the standards set. It should be for the Secretary of State to decide what is the appropriate timescale for doing so.

827
As regards Amendment No. 40A, I entirely share the noble Lord's desire to ensure that nature conservation is fully considered whenever environmental quality objectives or standards are set for any national or marine nature reserve. I assure Members of the Committee that all the appropriate bodies will be consulted when such regulations are made. I am happy to confirm that the Nature Conservancy Council will be consulted on all regulations prescribing processes and substances because of their potential for damage to the national environment.
But why single out the NCC and nature reserves when setting local environmental quality objectives? Such objectives and standards could cover a wide range of areas, including, for example, the urban street scene. Why not specify a body to act as guardians there too? Once one body is specified the need to specify others grows. Surely it is better to consider all potential environmental impacts and to rely on appropriate consultation to take place in each case. The amendments appear to be too inflexible and too narrow. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw them.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If the amendments appear to be too narrow, the Government rest on legislation which is too broad. If the Minister rests his case on the fact that the request will result in yet another piece of bureaucracy, he can be assured that those who made it do not look upon it as such but as being essential in order to monitor the situation.
The Minister asked what is special about the national and marine nature reserves to distinguish them from an urban street scene. A case can be made for special consideration for the street scene and the urban environment. However, the reserves are not only special but precious. They were created by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Minister will be corrected by his noble friend on the title of the Act. I served upon the Bill when the measures were introduced. They were not fought by the Government but were introduced by them and were welcomed by many people.
I am grateful, as is the Nature Conservancy Council, that it will be consulted on matters that affect it. But pollution in the air is not static; it moves about. The council is saying that there is a great danger that the special nature of the national and marine nature reserves will be damaged unless special consideration is given. The Minister says that an additional report to Parliament would be superfluous. He has said that time and again. I have not heard many parliamentarians objecting to the fact that they are presented with reports. I have often heard governments—not only this one but previous governments—objecting to the chore of having to produce evidence of their actions from time to time.
I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. It will be looked at closely by those outside the Committee and we may need to return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 5, line 14, after ("released") insert ("including releases into the atmosphere from electricity-generating stations, taking account of any works undertaken at such stations for the installation of low nitrogen oxide burners or flue-gas desulphurisation plant for the purposes of reducing such emissions").
The noble Lord said: As my noble friend Lord Graham said, Clause 3 is permissive. It allows the Secretary of State to make whatever regulations he wishes at a time and in a manner he regards as suitable.
In these amendments we are seeking to be rather more precise about the concerns which the Secretary of State should bear in mind when he makes such regulations. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State has regard to an important matter which has been before your Lordships on a number of occasions, not least on the passage of the Electricity Act and in other matters; namely, that pollution from electricity generating stations can—I emphasise the word "can" because nothing is proved in this world but the evidence is in favour of "can"—be a significant factor in acid rain.
We have it on record that the United Kingdom is the largest emitter of sulphur dioxide in Western Europe and the second largest emitter of nitrogen oxide in Western Europe. It is proven that acid rain is principally caused by emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Therefore, my amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to have regard to those matters.
The solution to the problem of acid rain and sulphur dioxide emissions is not easy and no Member of the Committee believes that it is. Nevertheless, power stations are the single largest emission sources for sulphur dioxide. In 1988 power stations accounted for 71 per cent. of national emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide.
When the CEGB was in operation before privatisation it announced a voluntary programme to retrofit flue gas desulphurisation equipment to power stations at Drax and Fiddler's Ferry. Subsequently, there was a Community directive on the subject and it was agreed in the directive that the UK should make reductions in sulphur dioxide emissions based on 1980 levels of 20 per cent. by 1993, 40 per cent. by 1998 and 60 per cent. by 2003. That is a very ambitious target for us. However, we wish to ensure that the Government accept that that is a proper target at which to aim.
The most effective way of reducing sulphur dioxide emissions is by the use of flue gas desulphurisation. Unfortunately, privatisation of the electricity industry has drastically altered those plans, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, at Question Time. It is believed that by a different method of generating electricity by using North Sea gas, and so on, the targets of the Community on emissions of noxious gases can be met.
I do not believe that gas should be used to generate electricity; nor does the Community. I do not believe the Government are taking the Community target

829
seriously. Therefore it is for us to write on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State, when he makes these regulations, should have regard to the matters contained in my amendment.
Perhaps I could return to the text of the amendment. The Secretary of State may make regulations in relation to prescribed processes and under subsection (2)(a)(i) may prescribe,
"limits on the concentration, the amount or the amount in any period of that substance which may be so released".
My amendment seeks to introduce after that expression,
"including releases into the atmopshere from electricity-generating stations"—
taking account of the factors I mentioned.
I move the amendment in order to ascertain from the Government how seriously they take the programme for FGD plant. Are they or are they not committed to it? If they are committed will they accept that something should be on the face of the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State takes account of the factors I mentioned when he makes regulations. If they are not committed, will they say so?
On this side of the Chamber we always are and always have been concerned about the effect of privatisation in all areas, but especially in the surrender to commercial practices of environmental objectives. That is the reason we seek to ensure that the Government reinforce what they say in their propaganda—if I may use that term—by words on the face of the Bill.
At this stage of the Bill I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. However, as energy spokesman for my party I consider it important that the Government go on record—if they do not go on record positively then we will come back to this issue at a later stage—saying that the Secretary of State will take account of the matters I have discussed. I hope we will obtain satisfaction from the Government's response: if not, we shall have to consider what action to take. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I fear that the degree of positiveness required by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in order to satisfy his desire not to return to this matter at Report stage will be beyond my abilities.
There is no need to specify that the regulations the Secretary of State may make under Clause 3 may include limits on releases from power stations. I assure the Committee that the Government will take vigorous action to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide further. SO2 emissions are already down by 24 per cent. since 1980 and 40 per cent. since 1970. A substantial programme of action has been initiated to meet the requirements of the EC large combustion plants directive. Taking 1980 as the base it requires SO2 emissions from existing large combustion plants to be reduced by 60 per cent. by the year 2003 and NOx by 30 per cent.
Work has already begun to retrofit flue gas desulphurisation equipment to the Drax power station, which has a capacity of 4,000 megawatts and alone supplies around one-eighth of the coal-fired
830
output. Retrofits accounting for a further 4,000 megawatts of capacity are in prospect, and the electricity supply industry will have to come forward with additional proposals for achieving its full share of reductions.
I understand that the industry is looking at alternative power sources such as gas, which usually emits no SO2 and less than half as much CO2 per unit of energy as coal. In considering such proposals I assure the noble Lord that we will be concerned to ensure that the proposals are sufficiently robust to offer the necessary contribution for meeting our directive obligations.
As for NOx emissions, the CEGB is to retrofit all 12 major coal-fired stations—three-quarters of its coal-fired capacity—with low NOx burners.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is there still a CEGB?
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: That is what I might term a departmental colloquialism. In addition, the UK is a signatory to the Sofia NOx protocol of the UNECE Convention on Transboundary Air Pollution. Under this protocol we are committed to holding national NOx emissions to the 1987 level by 1994 and agreeing an abatement policy by 1996 which is founded on the "critical loads" approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, derided the use of gas in power stations. However, it is fair to say that it is perfectly possible that the world will decide within the next 10 years that CO2 is such a problem that we may have to go 100 per cent. nuclear. That is a problem rather more for the Benches opposite than this side of the Chamber when it comes to defining what one prefers as a form of fuel.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to his fears concerning privatisation. As I said earlier this afternoon when the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was not in the Chamber, the fact that I have had so few questions to answer on water privatisation, which has resulted in this country having the only fully-funded clean-up programme in Europe, ensures my continuing belief that we are heading in the right direction and will achieve a satisfactory result.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The question of the Government's credentials is seriously in issue here. I speak with some authority because I continued the negotiations in connection with the draft directive on this matter which I inherited from Commissioner Narjes in 1985. I say that the credentials of the Government are seriously in issue because until that time, and indeed beyond, the Government were disputing cause and effect about acid deposition. They were fighting the Commission's draft directive not simply on the matter of detail but on principle. Every speech that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall; every speech that was made by a Government Minister on this issue; every contribution in the Ministerial Council, was aimed to obfuscate and to deny the opportunity for the draft directive to go ahead; and, of course, unanimity was required.
Suddenly it appeared even to the Government that this form of pollution was one of our major

831
exports and that it was not a desirable export; but I suppose if it could have been measured in terms of pounds and pence it would have gone a long way towards curing the balance of payments deficit. However, the fact is that there was apparently a change of heart. The then junior Minister, Mr. William Waldegrave, seemed to be genuinely pleased—I believe that he was entitled to be so—that the Government had had a change of heart. He announced that three large combustion plants—the three largest—were to be subject to retrofitting.
It was quite clear that although the Commission went a long way—some would say too far—to meet the Government's objections to the proposal, a compromise was achieved and I think there is now a serious doubt about the Government's intentions to honour that compromise. It is true that the Government were not on their own. The Spanish Government took a somewhat similar view, which I consider also to be reprehensible. The fact remains that there was the directive.
We know that when questions were posed in another place and in the European Parliament as to when contracts were to be placed for retrofitting, there was a marked silence, or at least a reticence, on the part of the Government to answer the questions. That is perfectly natural because no contracts were placed from the time that the announcement was made at the end of 1986 or the beginning of 1987, whenever it was, right up to the present time. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether there is now a contract concerning Drax. There may well be. There has been enormous delay on the part of the Government.
The Minister said quite casually, but in a very elegant kind of way—and I recognise that—that one should accept the Government's good faith as regards their determination to honour their commitments concerning the directive. What analysis has been done by the Government of alternative plans to deal with the honouring of the directive's objectives? Why should we take this assertion on trust? After all, we have had assertion after assertion for years on end from the Government about why it was unnecessary to do anything. Particularly in the light of privatisation, why should we accept that the Government are determined to honour their commitments?
I have no such faith. The overwhelming body of public opinion can have little faith in that promise. Certainly, nothing has been said in Committee tonight which suggests that the Government have given the matter any great thought except to say, "Yes, the objective will be honoured". But when the Government's character is impunged by their own record on this matter, why should we take their word in good faith? Particularly in the light of the Minister's somewhat unsatisfactory reply, I am sad that we are not dividing on the matter tonight. It may be that is wise at this hour. Suffice it to say that I hope we shall come back to this matter because I do not think the Minister will improve on what was already a very unsatisfactory response.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Has the Minister anything to say in reply to my noble friend?
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord asked me whether or not work had actually started on the FGD at Drax. It began last year.
Lord Clinton-Davis: That is hardly a reply to the points that I made less elegantly, I admit, than the Minister. Will the Minister reply to the substance of what I had to say? Does he proclaim that the Government's record in relation to this matter justifies our having confidence in what he has said tonight to the Committee? What possible evidence can he produce to support that proposition?
Lord Hesketh: In my earlier remarks I made it clear—if I did not, then I apologise to the Committee. The Government's commitment is to 12 gigawatts; and eight of those will come out of coal-fired power stations. The concept accepted by the shortly-to-be-privatised companies is that there is a possibility of an alternative way for the remaining four gigawatts. The commitment to the 12 gigawatts has not gone away.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister referred to a possibility. Is that all there is? What certainty is there that the objectives defined in the directive will be achieved?
Lord Hesketh: The Government are committed to achieving those objectives.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Minister has not given a very satisfactory reply to this amendment. He said that he could not give me any assurance that he would be as positive as I wanted. He has been more or less negative. He could not give me an assurance that his department understood that privatisation had started, and that there was no longer a CEGB. He called it a departmental colloquialism. The Minister then referred to water privatisation, and he said that no complaints had been received in that connection. I do not understand how water privatisation comes into the context of my amendment.
He continued by saying that in future the Government might reinstate the nuclear programme. That will introduce a whole new series of environmental problems which we have not yet addressed. He could not give any clear answer to my noble friend—
Lord Hesketh: I did not say that. What I said, which is much more important than that, is that great problems have possibly been recognised by the world. The noble Lord is hoping to ensure that the Government are committed to a single policy. I am pointing out to him the commonsense fact that if there is a real problem about CO2 the world may have to consider nuclear power as an option. That is not committing the Government to nuclear power, it is stating a piece of common sense.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am not trying to argue that the Government should be committed to a single policy. I am trying to argue that the Government should be committed to a policy. The

833
noble Lord seemed to refute the idea that there should be a policy about these matters. He was unable to answer the points made by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and he was unable to answer my points. I invite noble Lords opposite to join the debate. We have had an astonishing silence from the Conservative Party, the Green Party, and so on. No noble Lord wishes to speak on the matter.
834
I rest my case there. The noble Lord must do much better on this matter before we come to Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hampton Lord Hampton moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 5, line 21, at end insert:
("(2A) Regulations made under subsection (2) above may have effect as part of a national strategy published by the Secretary of State for the conservation of energy, including—

(a) the promotion of energy conservation in domestic premises;

(b) measures to develop improved use of energy and good practice in industrial and commercial premises;

(c) the development of public awareness of the implications of energy conservation for the environment").

The noble Lord said: I rise in place of my noble friend Lord Ezra, who cannot be here tonight, to move Amendment No. 36, which is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
The first step in any environmental policy must be the elimination of waste, especially dangerous waste. That applies to much of the environmental debate. Energy conservation remains a central feature to those of us who are concerned with environmental issues. The contribution that energy inefficiency makes to global warming, let alone the expense involved in wastage, is substantial. It has been estimated that the total heat loss of United Kingdom power stations is enough to heat every home in Britain. Average world temperatures have already warmed by 0·5 to 0·7 degrees centigrade since pre-industrial times. There is likely to be a further rise of 0·5 to 1 degree centigrade over the next few decades because of the increase in greenhouse gases. The likely implications of such temperature rises have been widely catalogued.
More concerted action must be taken now. This amendment, representing a small step towards solving the vast problem of global warming, is nonetheless a step in the right direction. It enables the Secretary of State to determine through a national strategy a far-reaching programme for the conservation of energy to tackle the problems as they affect domestic premises and industrial and commercial premises. It also points to the need to heighten awareness of energy conservation issues among the general public.
Many people throughout the country will be aware of global warming and associated problems but they remain unaware of the implications at a domestic level of not having roof insulation or pipes lagged. Education and advertising have an important role to play. Such a national strategy for the conservation of energy might well include something on the following lines. A subsidised energy survey scheme would encourage greater energy saving. In the United States energy supply companies or utilities are legally required to provide customers with a low-cost and sometimes free home energy survey, containing advice on how to promote energy efficiency. Such a scheme is of sense to the utility, to the customer and of course to the environment.
Inefficient domestic appliances also offer great scope for improvement. Consumers should be aware of the efficiency or otherwise of their appliances, and a scheme of labelling should be introduced by the Government as a matter of priority. This
836
amendment is an enabling amendment. There has undoubtedly been an enhanced awareness of energy efficiency issues in recent years, but it does not go nearly far enough. This amendment seeks to redress that deficiency.
In addition, the Association for the Conservation of Energy suggests that there is a need to establish an effective system of monitoring the progress made in improving energy efficiency in local authority housing on an accurate and regular basis. The options available to promote environmental efficiency are vast. The need is there. This amendment will enable the Minister to develop a clear strategy. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rise to express my support for the amendment. Although I regret the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I am delighted that the amendment has been moved so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I wish to make two additional points to those which have already been so effectively made.
First, I should remind Members of the Committee that we are dealing with Clause 3 of the Bill which is about emission limits. It seems to me to be positively perverse to talk about controlling emission limits if we do not, at the same time, deal with the effective use of energy and therefore with energy conservation. For example, it would be total madness if you had a house and you applied controls to one half of it while allowing the other half to negate those controls by the unnecessary release of energy, especially of heat, into the atmosphere.
My second point concerns the role of local authorities in the control of energy. Local authorities are now faced with a new problem. Many of them, especially through the use of capital which was made available to them by disposal of council housing, have carried out significant improvements in major repairs to council housing. They have, at the same time, carried out energy conservation measures which would never have been possible if that capital had not been available. However, they have now had that capital taken away from them and have been told that they are not allowed to use the proceeds of council house sales for major improvement programmes.
They have been told that this will now be ring-fenced, and that only a small proportion is to be available for such purposes. That must mean that the Government are putting pressure directly upon local authorities to reduce expenditure on energy conservation. To that extent, local authorities which have been at the forefront of energy conservation programmes are being hamstrung in their ability to deal with the problem and to contribute to what I should have thought we would all wish to see happen.
The Earl of Balfour: I feel that I must join in the debate at this point. I do so because at long last this Government have done more to encourage us, with the introduction of the community charge, to do

837
something about our homes than any government have done for a very long time. I remind Members of the Committee that under the rates system the minute you put central heating into your homes your rates were increased. Moreover, if you installed double glazing, your rates were also increased. We were constantly paying quite a heavy penalty through the rates system for improving our houses. However, at long last that penalty has been removed.
Lord Ross of Newport: I must counter that observation by saying that we had a very jerky system so far as concerns local government and improvement of housing over the past 10 or more years. A few years ago, the Government introduced a system whereby people who owned properties built prior to 1919 could obtain 90 per cent. grant to reroof their homes. However, the trouble was that the availability of this offer was not made obligatory upon local authorities, and in any case they were told initially that the offer would last for only one year. Therefore, many local authorities did not adopt the scheme. That is why I spent £2,750 reroofing my old house: I received no grant. However, afterwards, everyone else on the Isle of Wight who had a house of that type seemed to have received such a grant. But what a ridiculous way of going about the matter! Why on earth did we give 90 per cent. grants? If we had given 50 per cent. grants, vast numbers of people would have taken advantage of the offer. That is the kind of thing we must do.
We must encourage people to install energy-saving devices into their properties. One of the ways to do this is to give such people some grant-aid. I do not think that it is necessary to throw vast sums of money at the project; but we must give them an incentive. For example, if you give a farmer a 30 per cent. grant to build a new barn, he will probably do so. If people in this country could be made to see the sense of going in for solar energy, and knew that they could do so for about £1,500, they would be encouraged. If they had a grant of 30 per cent. or 40 per cent.—that money should be available from local authorities—vast numbers of people would make use of solar energy.
We did not revalue from about 1974 and therefore most improvements were not clobbered. It is true that if people improved their properties the rental value went up. I agree that that was one of the drawbacks of the rating system. I beg the Government to allow local authorities to give incentives to people to enable them to introduce commonsense energy-saving initiatives such as lagging roofs and tanks. Many people still do not have felt under their slate or tiled roofs. Such work must be done. It can be done by encouraging people through some sort of financial incentive. I beg the Government to take the amendment on board.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 36 permits the publication of a statement on the conservation of energy. That we do not need such a power is evidenced by our intention—I doubt that I need to remind the Committee—to issue in the autumn a White Paper on the environment which will deal
838
with energy matters alongside many others that have an impact on the environment.
Nevertheless, the amount of energy used to produce each £1,000 of GDP has improved from 1·24 tonnes of coal equivalent in 1979 to 1·01 tonnes in 1988. That is an average reduction in energy intensity of 2 per cent. per annum. The Energy Efficiency Office programmes have achieved direct energy savings of well over £500 million per year. According to the OECD figures from last year, only Luxembourg had a better record of energy efficiency within the EC between 1975 and 1987. A recent study by the National Audit Office concluded that national energy savings in the United Kingdom were running at £2·3 billion per year above the levels of 1983 based on an energy/GDP ratio.
My noble friend Lord Balfour made a valid point. Members opposite have talked about providing incentives. His point about the community charge was correct; but the Labour Party has now endorsed the policy of reintroducing the rates, which is a direct tax on the improvement of property by the addition of double glazing and central heating to save energy, as he pointed out. We resist the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Will the Minister tell us from where he gets his information about Labour Party policy?
Lord Hesketh: I am an innocent victim who reads across a broad spectrum of the press in the moments allowed when I am not attending the Committee.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Does the Minister always believe what he reads in the press?
Lord Hesketh: Such was the broad spectrum of reportage that I believed it to be true; but if I am wrong I am more than happy to be corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Lord Hampton: I do not find the Minister's reply encouraging, but at this time of night I do not wish to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 5, line 21, at end insert:
("(2A) Regulations made under subsection (2) above in respect of emissions from motor vehicles shall prescribe such standards as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the reduction of levels of primary pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, reactive hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, and at the time when any such regulations are first published, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a statement of objectives in relation to public transport, and the promotion or otherwise of the use of motor vehicles, with the purpose of securing a progressive reduction of concentrations of primary pollutants by the year 2000.").
The noble Lord said: The Minister, having started by repudiating any interest in the concerns of other government departments, has ended up by claiming credit for the work of the EEO in the Department of Energy; and so he will forgive me if I challenge him to take responsibility, on behalf of the

839
Government as a whole, for the enormous conflict which now arises between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport.
How can we have an Environmental Protection Bill which does not deal with one of the most serious and increasing forms of environmental pollution? In its 1989 national road traffic forecasts the Department of Transport coolly predicts that total traffic will increase by between 83 per cent. and 142 per cent. by 2025. The implications of that increase on the emission of pollutants can hardly be underestimated. Even if we were to install 100 per cent. catalytic converters in our cars—and we shall come to that with Amendment No. 38—and even if we were thus to reduce nitrogen oxide, we would still have at least 50 per cent. and probably significantly more carbon monoxide emissions. Even if we were to increase fuel efficiency and take the lower of the two traffic forecasts which the Department of Transport issued last year, we should still have an increase in carbon dioxide emissions of approximately 20 per cent.
There have been panic consultations between the Departments of the Environment and Transport or at least between the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport. I do not know what happens within the different towers of Marsham Street. When the Department of Transport published its road programme, Trunk Roads—England: Into the 1990s in February this year, it said that the forecasts were in no sense a target or option. If they are not a target or an option, what are they? If they are not to be a target and are not to be accepted as an option, then surely the Government must have alternative plans. Those plans are not included in Trunk Roads—England: Into the 1990s. Unless there is some realistic alternative for simply continuing to create road space to meet the projected increase in traffic, the denial that this is a target or an option is a meaningless gesture.
If we are to have a serious transport policy integrated with pollution control and environmental protection—and that is what we demand in the amendment—we must have a specific commitment to a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide. We must have specific policies about the effect on the forecasts of traffic increases of the use of alternative modes and land use policies. Those policies and plans for alternative modes must be written into government policies.
In particular, in our cities we must have a rethinking of the cowardly approach which has existed in the past that simply says, "As we anticipate demand we increase road capacity". It is now well recognised that the reverse is the case: as we increase road capacity we increase demand. I have no hesitation in saying, because I said this on behalf of the Labour Party in the Greater London Council election in 1981: the time has come when the restraint on vehicular traffic in our cities at certain times of day and on certain roads can no longer be postponed. The time has come when we can no longer assume that all vehicles will be able to travel on all roads at all times without some form of penalty.
If that commitment is thought to be threatening to the private car driver, so be it. It is a commitment that will be forced on all political parties in this country within the next decade. The first party to recognise it and deal with it as a political priority will—I shall put it the other way round. The last party to recognise it and deal with it as a political priority will sink into oblivion. It will be clear that a decent society in our cities, with the protection of the national and global environment, cannot survive under the policies still rampant in the Department of Transport.
We must remove the bias to roads confirmed only 10 days ago by the extraordinary announcement that it is illegitimate for us to give a single penny of public money towards international rail traffic. That was on the spurious grounds that we are not doing so for international air traffic or international ferry traffic. Nevertheless the assumption is made without exception that any increase in road capacity is to be paid for, not by a contribution from the public purse, but 100 per cent. from the public purse. Transport policy in this country is perhaps the last area in which the Government have not only made no real progress towards dealing with the problems of the 1990s but have not even started to recognise that those problems exist.
At least in many other areas of policy the Government make an attempt to copy the rhetoric and to understand what is happening in the world and to make gestures towards policy change. As far as we can see, as regards transport policy we are still living in the age of the Ark. As long as that situation continues and as long as it is permissible for this Government to continue with reactionary transport policies everything else that is found in this Environmental Protection Bill, however good it may be, is without meaning and without substance. Unless there is a commitment to a change in transport policy and the Government are prepared to write that into the Bill, we shall continue with the deep scepticism which we still feel not about the objectives of the Bill but about the willingness of the Government to give it any real meaning. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Hampton: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as regards the proposals to reduce the problems caused by emissions from motor vehicles. I support the noble Lord wholeheartedly in his attack on the Government's lack of a serious transport policy. I am sceptical that the Government have a convincing policy towards stabilisation of emissions when they talk at the same time of a probable doubling—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has referred to this—of the number of cars on the roads of Britain in the next 30 years or so. The Committee may have seen an article by John Adams in yesterday's edition of The Times, where he stated:
"Any government wanting to help solve the greenhouse problem by reducing carbon dioxide emissions will need to do more than just halt the growth in cars and lorries, but reduce it".
However, for the time being we need to hear the Government's reply to the proposals contained in this amendment which we support.
The Earl of Balfour: I have one question here to begin with. Can a Member of the Committee tell me what the difference is between a primary and a secondary or some other kind of pollutant? I do not know what the difference is. Further, I feel that quite a lot has been achieved in this field. British Rail's east and west coast routes to Scotland will be completely electrified within about six months from now. This Government have introduced lead free petrol. I think it is worth bearing in mind that with the improvement in the efficiency of engines, assuming the same weight of car, a 1600cc engine is usually much more economical than, say, a 1300cc engine. That is rather interesting.
Equally I feel that the Secretary of State has to have an overall picture of pollution. I very much doubt whether he will be able to improve the situation in respect of road transport with the steady increase in the number of cars that is being demanded today.
Lord Hesketh: I was always under the impression that the Ark was a prototype form of public transport. However, I may have been wrong on that point. As regards Amendment No. 37, it is clear that when we come to set further emission limits for vehicles we shall regulate our industry in line with standards set across the European Community. We are already committed to tough new car standards from 1st July 1992. All new models of cars must be capable of meeting these standards. That will cut by about 80 per cent. emissions of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.
Cars will require a three-way catalyst to achieve these standards. It is estimated that this will add some £1·5 billion a year to UK motoring costs. The EC has recently published its proposal for a consolidated directive which will extend these standards to larger cars. The proposal also includes a new test procedure, durability requirements and limits on evaporative emissions. We are also pressing our colleagues in the EC for tough new standards for diesels and for control of carbon dioxide.
Heavy goods vehicles now account for some 50 per cent. of nitrogen oxides emitted by road vehicles and, as the Committee will know, carbon dioxide is the major greenhouse gas. The Committee will, however, appreciate that we must proceed in harmony with all member states.
On public transport, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested that the Government are not interested in public transport. That is just not true. The Government are currently supporting a huge investment programme in British Rail of some £3·7 billion over the next three years—I believe that is in excess of the West German investment—and in the London Underground of £1·7 billion over the next three years. The Jubilee line and the Docklands light railway are to be extended, and there is to be a major new light rail scheme in Manchester which the Government are helping to fund with a substantial grant.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, first suggested that there is no contribution towards road construction, but he conveniently forgot the existence of the road fund licence compared with
842
subsidies to which he referred elsewhere, which I think it would be fair to say involve a reasonable and extremely substantial sum of money.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I always thought it was argued that there was no such thing as hypothecation, and that the road fund licence contributions did not in fact go towards a specific road fund building programme. Is the Minister now changing Treasury policy?
Lord Hesketh: Of course I am not changing Treasury policy. All I am suggesting to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is that if one takes the total amount of taxation and then suggests that there is no contribution in a certain quarter that is taking rather a liberated view of the situation.
We covered some of this ground earlier in the environmental debate, and we come back to the old favourite of 142 per cent., where the Opposition throw up their hands in despair and say it is disgraceful that any department of state can produce a figure which insinuates that road traffic might increase by 142 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, then went on to refer to targets or options, insinuating in some way that this resulted in the Government being committed irrevocably. I would suggest that neither "target" nor "option" is the correct word. The word that is correct is "forecast".
It would be extremely irresponsible of any government to ascertain the level of transport requirement for a particular type of road user or, in the health service, the possibility of death from certain diseases, and to say, "We don't like that figure so we will deny its existence". The Government have a responsibility to prepare the figures which allow them to be discussed in your Lordships' Committee and many other great corridors in this land.
Finally, it is also worth remembering, as I pointed out earlier, it is a sad truism that with increasing expenditure on public transport in West Germany it has been found that the actual level of use has been falling.
Lord Clinton-Davis: When the Government signed the Single European Act, although the Prime Minister seems to have a somewhat frustrated memory about that, they accepted the principle that environmental policy would be integrated into all other policies. On the evidence that is available I hardly think that that is being taken very seriously in Whitehall at the present time in so far as transport policy is concerned.
I shall not go into the details of transport policy at this stage, but the Government have very clearly overlooked that fundamental obligation altogether.
I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions. He referred to the catalytic converter. There is a case, indeed, for conversion as far as the Government are concerned because yet again, during the four years that I was a Commissioner with this particular responsibility, I found that the Government bitterly opposed at every conceivable turn the Commission's draft directive in so far as small and medium sized cars were concerned. Is that

843
not correct? Did they not argue that the catalytic converter was a German ploy to win an unfair share of the European car market, that it was not effective, that it was altogether undesirable and therefore should be opposed by the Commission? The Commission did their very best to abate those anxieties, but to no avail until very much later.
What was interesting about the debate and yet again casts the Government in a somewhat dubious light is that the Government asserted in relation to small and medium-sized cars that there was no need for strict limits, although British, French and Italian manufacturers were producing much cleaner cars for export to some of the EFTA countries and to the United States than they were prepared to provide for the people of the Community. So that saga of the Government putting every obstacle in the way, just like the large combustion installation situation, went on.
Why have the Government suddenly changed their view about the catalytic converter? Why have they suddenly taken the view that they were utterly wrong in resisting the Commission's proposals up to the beginning of 1989? Was it that there was a Euro-election seven days after the Environmental Council was to take place? Was it that they decided that the view of the European Parliament's substantially amending proposal—amendments which the Commission was disposed to accept—was a situation that they could not resist just before a European election? The Government were not isolated—I am perfectly prepared to be fair about that—because the French and the Italians were in exactly the same position. It was an unholy alliance designed over years to frustrate progress in that field. Yet one sees on television the Prime Minister saying that we were in the lead over catalytic converters.
The Government insisted that the draft directive should be watered down. Why did they delay over all those years? The Minister must answer that question if the Government are to have any credibility in our accepting once again their request for their credibility to be accepted.
I wish to say one other thing about the matter. The conspiracy—I believe that that is what it was—between the car manufacturers in the three countries that I have mentioned and the Governments of those countries was a scandal. I remember receiving a letter a day or two before the crucial discussion in the Commission over medium-sized cars from one of the chairmen of a large car-producing company in Europe. He argued that our policy proposals would imperil jobs and investment, and they were thoroughly bad. We reached a near agreement and the following day the self-same chairman of the motor car company wrote to me saying, "Well, having second thoughts, maybe it was not that bad".
We had that strange way of policy developing—if you could deign it to be policy—in conjunction with the short-term interests of the car-manufacturing companies by those three governments. It was a page of shame and something which redounded to the extreme disadvantage of people in Europe over many years. The Government have many explanations to offer.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am not sure whether the Committee wants to engage in the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to have a debate on transport policy. If it does, then I shall join in; but I would rather address my remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
I say that with respect. It is no good the noble Lord pursuing in this Committee tonight the battles that he fought valiantly and properly as a commissioner, particularly on an amendment which deals entirely with pollution control and control of emissions from motor cars. That is what it is about, not the past policies of the Government. If the noble Lord wants to engage in a discussion on catalytic converters, let me tell him that of all the technological developments that have occurred in the motor industry—I speak with some small knowledge—the catalytic converter is about the least efficient.
However, it makes a small contribution and it will continue to do so until such time as the new generation of lean-burn engines is developed, which the entire industry particularly wants. That it was expedient to go down that route is neither here nor there; that is the route that we have taken. Moreover, the catalytic converter will bring with it a load of other troubles; namely, its disposal, its renewal and its feeding with another scarce raw material. It is totally outrageous for the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to say—I think I heard him correctly—that there was a conspiracy between the car manufacturers and the Government. That is absolute nonsense; I repeat, nonsense.
But let us leave that matter aside and turn to the amendment. That is what we are supposed to be discussing. The last part of the amendment states that the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a statement of objectives, and so on:
"with the purpose of securing a progressive reduction of concentrations of primary pollutants by the year 2000".
I believe that I have answered the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, with regard to primary and secondary pollutants. One gets secondary pollutants after the catalytic converter has done its work. One gets primary pollutants when one's motor car is filled at a gas station and when a tank is filled up in the tank depot. The oil companies themselves are engaged in a great deal of research in seeking to make reductions in that area. It is the secondary pollutants which come out at the end of the exhaust pipe.
Had the noble Lord's amendment stated that it was with the purpose of securing no greater increase notwithstanding the increased number of motor vehicles, I should have some sympathy. One cannot put back the clock for motor cars which are 14 years old or 18 years old and which still have some life in them. Therefore one has to ensure that the new growth in car and vehicle parts does not add to the problem. That might have been a little more sensible.
I find this particular amendment fraught with technical difficulties. If one were to argue that those were difficulties that the Department of Transport and their technicians must overcome, I could accept that kind of argument. However, I do not believe that it is a practical proposition to put in this Bill in this way.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, can argue in such a fashion when it seems that we are to get a lot of propaganda from the Front Bench opposite about what they are doing with British Rail and goodness knows what else. I think that the Government must be horrified that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has come into this Chamber and told us a few brutal facts about what has been going on when he viewed it from Brussels over the past few years. I very much welcome his comments this evening. I think that it is about time that some of those things were debated in this Chamber.
I realise that one is supposed to be very courteous and so on, but it is absolute nonsense for the Minister to stand here and say that the Government spend this or that amount on the railways. It all comes out of their external financing limit. He must sit in his ministerial car night after night and day after day in traffic jams with cars sending out fumes and getting nowhere, chained for 10 minutes, 15 minutes or half an hour. Listen to the radio any morning and hear of the six-mile tailbacks on the M.25.
In this country we do not have a transport policy. British Rail is losing thousands and millions of pounds, because in order to pay for the improvements, modernisation and so on which it is trying to effect, it is taking off staff from the stations. At night I do not have to buy a ticket when I go to Charing Cross or Blackfriars although I do buy one. I get off at a south London station and there is no-one to claim the ticket. The stations are not even manned. That is what is happening. It is time for this Chamber, as for the other place, when they have a chance in this amendment, to say that they want to have a transport policy.
As a member of the Select Committee on Transport of another place, I helped consider the Bills that were introduced when Mr. Ridley was Secretary of State for Transport. I argued with him about an integrated transport system but he did not believe in it. Now the phrase has returned and we are beginning to think that we should have an integrated transport system.
We live in a small country—do not throw us by speaking about Germany—and we are overpopulated in the South East. We must return to an efficient system of public transport. This may not be the right debate in which to discuss transport policy, but I believe that the Government must do a great deal more and do it a darned sight more quickly. If they do not do so the whole country will come to a standstill. The Government had a good Minister of Transport in Lynda Chalker. I argued the issue with her 10 years ago. In 1973 and with a majority of 150 the Government had a wonderful opportunity—
Lord Burton: I am wondering what the noble Lord's argument has to do with the amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: The amendment states that:
"the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a statement of objectives in relation to public transport, and the promotion or otherwise of the use of motor vehicles".
846
That is what my argument has to do with the amendment and that is why I put it forward. I hope to goodness that we shall receive a better response.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord will not receive a better response. However, it is my job to respond to the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, of conspiracy on the part of the Government with regard to catalytic converters. I am a very simple fellow. Once upon a time I knew a little about engines and engineering. However, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that not even to mention clean-burn and lean-burn technology is remarkable. The Government had a perfectly respectable case. They accepted catalytic converters with demands for further changes. As I pointed out earlier today, the Government are pushing for improvements in diesel engines in the Community. I do not accept the accusation of conspiracy in any shape or form.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I shall not delay the Committee for long. There appeared to be an unseemly unity between the three car manufacturing countries and their manufacturers at that time. What has happened to lean burn? Many protestations were made about it but little has developed. I heard the Prime Minister speak on television proclaiming that the Government are in the lead as regards catalytic converters. If anyone was re-writing history it was the Prime Minister.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Members of the Committee opposite questioned whether it was appropriate to have a transport debate when dealing with the Bill. I do not see how we can deal with the Bill effectively without considering one of the most serious sources of the emission of pollutants in this country. After all, the Bill is supposed to cover the emission of pollutants. I do not see how we can conceivably cover the Bill effectively and honourably if we do not consider the emissions from power stations, as did my noble friend Lord Williams and others. Indeed, other Members of the Committee have spoken of the opportunities which arise through energy conservation.
Similarly, I do not see how we can meaningfully discuss air pollutants in Part I of the Bill unless at the same time we are prepared to consider a transport policy. In response to the arguments that were put to him the Minister simply skated around their fringes rather than attempting to deal with them. I do not say that to cut emissions from internal combustion engines is easy. I do not say that there is a single way of achieving that; nor that the only way to achieve it is through catalytic converters. However, if one heard the way in which the Government blazened their green credentials when they reduced the tax on unleaded petrol, one would not recognise the fact that unleaded petrol does nothing to alleviate most of the dangerous emissions from internal combustion engines. It certainly does not increase the efficiency of internal combustion engines.
I do not suggest that even now we have all the answers. After all, mobility is a strong human desire.

847
It will be difficult to deal with it other than by starving it and that is the last acceptable option. One must combine increased efficiency of individual internal combustion engines with a move from the internal combustion engines which are most dangerous to those which are less dangerous. This will involve catalytic converters even though they may not be the long-term solution.
Above all, despite what the Minister said, there is need for proper planning of traffic and a transport policy which takes into account both the private car and public transport. It is no good the Minister denying that the forecasts which have been made are targets or options. If he is claiming that they are only forecasts, then government policy cannot be silent on what means are to be adopted to stop those forecasts coming true. G. K. Chesterton said that the favourite employment of the English was to summon the soothsayers, listen very carefully to what they said and then to go away and do something else. It would be admirable if, in respect of traffic forecasts, we could do that. Unfortunately, it is not open to the individual to do something else about traffic growth and emissions from the internal combustion engine. It needs government policy to redress the balance between private and public transport. It is no answer to say, "This is a forecast and nothing to do with me". It means adopting the policies which we have indicated in moving the amendment.
I despair at the response which the Minister gave to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. When he says that we must move in harmony with all member states, is he seriously saying that there is no obligation on us to do better than other member states if we can and at least to keep up with them when we cannot do better? This is a signal opportunity to take the lead in the European Community. We have a car industry which is particularly strong as regards smaller cars. They may not always be more efficient than those from abroad but could be made so. We have a taxation system which favours the company car far more than in any other European country except Sweden. We should use regulation of taxation of the company car in order to control emissions and to increase the energy efficiency of our own motor industry.
We have strayed on to the subject of catalytic converters dealt with in Amendment No. 38. That is not grouped with this amendment and I do not propose to move it because we should be duplicating the argument. However, the argument about transport policy and the contribution of emissions from internal combustion engines to total pollution will not go away and has not gone away. It is only because we know that, if there is to be any attempt at credibility when the White Paper comes out in September, the Government will have to face this matter more fairly and openly than they have today that I propose to withdraw the amendment and to bring back something comparable on Report in the light of the White Paper.
The responses of the Governme.nt to this fundamental challenge to the credibility of the Bill and especially this part of it have been totally
848
inadequate. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 5, line 25, at end insert:
("(3a) In prescribing by regulation any standards under subsection (2) above in respect of emissions into the air from electricity generating stations, or in establishing by regulation limits as to such substances in the air under subsection (5) below, the Secretary of State shall take into account—

(a) the availability of electricity supplies from renewable sources including wind power;

(b) the relative environmental impact of renewable and fossil fuel sources of electricity; and

(c) the desirability of providing, or of securing the provision of, financial incentives to such renewable sources.").

The noble Lord said: Yet again—and I apologise to the Committee—we come to the problem of trying to make this Environmental Protection Bill into a proper Bill for environmental protection. Had he been a Member of your Lordships' House, the third name to this amendment would have been that of Mr. Heseltine. As the Committee will know, today he called for a greener government and said that the targets set by the Government in the Environmental Protection Bill were not good enough. If Mr. Heseltine had been a Member of the Committee I am sure that he would have put his name to the amendment.
The point of the amendment is twofold. First, we on these Benches—and I can also speak for the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, on this matter—do not believe that the Government have shown enough enthusiasm for renewable sources of energy. There have been a number of debates on that topic in this Chamber and I have participated in many of them. At all times we tried to press the Government seriously to consider sources of energy other than nuclear energy, which at one point was their favourite. It was considered to be environmentally friendly. At other times they favoured the fossil fuel generating stations which were also considered to be environmentally friendly. We received no serious response.
Secondly, and more importantly for the purposes of this Bill, given that we are dealing with economics—and we must accept that environmental protection has an economic cost—we must ensure that renewable sources are given proper economic incentive to compete with existing sources of electricity generation.
The problem arises because the capital costs of fossil fuel plants, which were formerly owned by the CEGB and are now owned by National Power and PowerGen, have effectively been written off under the privatisation programme. Although they had a low return when they were in the CEGB, under privatisation the profit they need to make—their capital costs having been written off—is lower than it would be had those stations been amortised according to normal practice.
The result is that anyone who tries to start a greenfield site on renewable energy—be it wind power, offshore wind or anything else—has to compete with electricity generated by stations whose capital costs have been amortised artificially under the privatisation programme and which can produce electricity at a low price. One has to accept that. In addition, there is the problem that nuclear power stations, which are still in the public sector, will be able to produce electricity at a price that the Nuclear Electric Company will set and which may or may not bear relation to the market price. We have had these debates before in this Chamber and we know that the price will not bear any relation to the true cost of electricity generated by those stations if one takes account of decommissioning.
The working of the present pool, which is the new system under which electricity prices to the distributing companies will be determined, requires generators to bid in advance for power to be supplied. There have to be contracts. It is difficult for generating companies which wish to invest in renewable energy of any kind to forecast exactly what their output will be. That has been the problem not only for those trying to erect renewable stations but also for those trying to erect traditional stations. They cannot make any predictions about their costs and hence their prices.
We should like to see some sort of provision for renewable energy sources to be accepted as a base-load, as part of the system, because they are essentially environmentally friendly. In Germany, the government have set a specific environmentally friendly energy premium for wind generated energy. In the Netherlands, government subsidies of the order of 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. on capital cost are available. In Denmark there is an obligation on utilities to install a fixed amount of wind power and that has kept orders moving. In the United Kingdom there is no such provision, no such obligation and nothing like it is contained in the Bill.
We are yet again trying to persuade the Government that both economically and strategically it is right for renewable sources of energy—I have wind power particularly in mind—to be part of this Bill; to be part of what the Secretary of State has regard to when he makes regulations under Clause 3. If the Government are serious—I refer again to debates that have taken place this evening on other matters—about environmental protection they will take these proposals seriously and put them on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I moved an amendment to the Electricity Bill on 16th May 1989, (Cols. 1151–2) on the subject of renewable sources of electricity and I was encouraged by the Government that there was a future for such ventures, not least by the remarks of my noble friend Lady Hooper on 15th June 1989 when she said that,
"renewable generators can always look to the future with optimism".
I did what I was told and looked at my own farm as a possible site for wind power. Therefore, I declare an interest. More importantly, generation from wind
850
power could be an alternative use of land not just for me in Anglesey but for many farmers, particularly in the west of the United Kingdom. I need hardly remind the Committee that farmers are continually being exhorted to do anything other than produce food.
However, when I looked at the possibility of producing wind power some problems arose. First, as explained clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, it was impossible to put up capital against a fossil fuel plant or, indeed, a nuclear plant heavily subsidised by privatisation write-off. As the noble Lord explained, the electricity supply industry between 1982 and 1987 only received a return of 3 per cent. on its money. How can I compete against that with interest rates at 15 per cent.?
Secondly, the contract now being offered only runs until 1998 which, bearing in mind that it might take two years to build a plant, is far too short and compares very unfavourably with contracts offered to the nuclear power industry, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, those on the Continent.
Thirdly, there is a planning problem; not least because the most suitable sites for wind power are likely to be in beautiful and quiet places. I ask the Government to consider devoting more research into making windmills less noisy. It can be done but it costs money and that makes the project unviable. I cannot accept the argument that this is a local planning matter. I understand, for example, that the NCC in North Wales is against wind power. I presume, therefore, that it prefers acid rain or no ozone layer; or perhaps typically of the NCC it wants to go back to candles and not have any power at all.
If the Government want the private sector to invest in renewable clean energy—and from the comments I have read in the press my right honourble friend Mr. John Wakeham does—these points need addressing. In short, I want to see not just the colour of the Government's money but to know whether they are really keen to encourage planners and researchers to support these renewable sources of energy.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: In common with my noble friend Lord Williams I have taken part in a number of debates on this subject. I have only one question to ask the Minister. Wind power has been dealt with by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley.
The amendment refers to renewable sources of energy. I want to make one reference to another renewable source—that of wave power. I have never had an answer to the questions that I put on 21st February of this year when we were discussing manufacturing industry and I pointed out the number of environmentally friendly technologies which has been invented and developed in this country, used abroad and neglected here. That is particularly the case as regards wind power.
I trust that the Minister knows something of the history of Professor Salter's duck in Edinburgh. The whole scheme for using wave power for totally clean energy production was sabotaged because renewable resources came under the umbrella of the Atomic

851
Energy Authority. The totally false figures given at that time for the expense of nuclear energy compared with the energy that could be produced from renewable resources, especially from wave power, meant that the research that was being successfully done here, and in other countries since then, was starved of funds and virtually destroyed.
After all the arguments and the evidence that we have put before him, I ask the Minister whether he will now consider setting up a separate authority for the renewable production of energy so that it is not held to be in competition with nuclear energy and so that it becomes a part of government policy to promote renewable resources to produce cheaper electricity and, above all, cleaner electricity.
Lord Hesketh: I fear that I shall disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, because I propose to address myself to the amendment and not to the specific questions that he asked, which are not to do with the amendment but with what he suggests might have happened concerning a particular product. If the noble Lord likes to table a Question on the subject I am sure that he will elucidate a satisfactory answer.
We fully recognise the importance of developing alternative, renewable sources of energy. The Department of Energy has already spent over £150 million on research and development into renewable energy sources and expects to spend a further £50 million in the next three years. Under the Electricity Act 1989 some 600 megawatts of generating capacity has been reserved for renewable energy sources. This has given a considerable boost to the sector and over 300 applications have been received by the Department of Energy for projects to generate this reserve capacity.
However, we must for the foreseeable future rely substantially for our electricity needs on current generating methods. Any standards or limits that are set cannot ignore this. Perhaps I may give two examples which I have seen in the department recently, one of which concerns a tidal barrage where there are distinct environmental problems. The minute one begins to raise water in an estuary it starts covering low mudflats. People with a great interest in bird life and various other activities then feel that there is a risk. There are very difficult environmental solutions to be found in that case.
I know that my noble friend Lord Stanley is well aware of the next example. If I simplify the point it is probably fair to say that most of the suitable locations for windmills tend to be in areas of outstanding natural beauty. Again, there are conflicts of a fairly prodigious nature there between, as my noble friend Lord Stanley rightly points out, the desire of a farmer to reduce his costs or to supply power to a local community and the desire to preserve the landscape.
Those are two simple examples of where there is conflict which is difficult to resolve in terms of achieving planning permission and providing power in the short term. There will be many factors to take into account in deciding on appropriate standards or limits. While I share noble Lords' support for
852
renewable energy, I do not feel it would be appropriate to identify this one in particular on the face of the Bill.
However, as regards discussions that are taking place at the moment concerning pricing or, if I may use the jargon, the NFFO levy, that means that the public electricity suppliers, the Office of Electricity Regulation and the Department of Energy are at this moment scrutinising the draft arrangements.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I really cannot let this go. The noble Lord said that he wanted to return to the amendment. The amendment refers to renewable sources, which include not only renewable sources but also wind power. I was instancing another renewable source. The noble Lord asked whether I would like to put down a Question. I have put down Questions. I referred him to the debate on 21st February and also to what I said in the debate of last Wednesday. I have never had an answer from the Government as to what their attitude was and is towards the invention of Professor Salter which was found to be successful and is being used abroad. It was killed in 1982 in this country as a result of the false figures given for the price of nuclear power.
So long as renewable sources remain within the ambit of the nuclear lobby there is very little hope of us ever acquiring the sources of power which we have at our disposal, which have been proved elsewhere and which should be used in this country where they were invented and where the research was originally carried out. What will the Government do now to rectify the mistake that they made in 1982?
Lord Hesketh: I am sure that I can give this guarantee to the noble Lord: I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Department of Energy.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, has not addressed himself to the major issue of the economics of generating electricity by the use of renewable sources. As I said in my opening speech on the amendment, Germany has a programme for subsidy; the Netherlands have a programme for subsidy; Denmark has a programme for subsidy. The noble Lord said that discussions were going on in the context of the NFFO between Professor Littlechild and others. Until we have some clear guidance on whether the point I have made, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is to be met by the Government, we cannot believe that they are serious about encouraging the generation of energy from renewable sources.
I do not propose at this hour to divide the Committee. The opportunity for a debate was important. But I hope very much that before the Report stage the noble Lord will be able to give some indication of how those discussions are going and what the objective is and thereby assure the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and myself that we need not reproduce the amendment at Report. I assure him that if he does not do so we shall have another battle at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 5, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) The first regulations under this section shall be made not later than five years from the coming into force of this section.").
The noble Lord said: It is essential that a reasonable timetable should be established for the complete integrated pollution control framework to come into force covering both new and existing processes. This would give a clear timetable for industry to work to and would establish a target date for HMIP to be fully resourced for the effective discharge of its new responsibilities.
The Government recognise the importance of this matter. They have published a timetable for specific sectors to be brought under control in a phased programme. The programme envisages completion by November 1994. However, the Bill itself lacks a specific commitment to a timetable for completion. This raises the danger of undue delay and slippage. It is worth recalling that the Control of Pollution Act 1974 did not come fully into force for a decade or more. Such a delay in connection with this Bill would be unacceptable both to the public and to industry.
Large parts of the Bill depend upon the Secretary of State for their enactment. Five years is a realistic time-scale for HMIP to become fully resourced, for technical guidance on BATNEEC to be completed and for emission and discharge limits in relation to any process prescribed under Clause 2, or any particular substance, to be set.
A specific commitment to that time-scale is needed in the Bill to keep up the pace of transition to IPC and to avoid a prolonged period of a two-tier system. In other words, it would prevent such sectors being covered by IPC, alongside others, escaping the new regulatory regime. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment which allows me to repeat to the Committee commitments which my honourable friend gave to the other place when the Bill came before that Chamber. I can assure noble Lords that we intend to bring in regulations to allow us to set up the system outlined in Part I of the Bill from the beginning of next year. This will mean that all new processes coming under integrated pollution control will be brought within the system early in 1991. Processes which are already in operation will be brought into the system gradually, and will stay under the present controls until this happens. We intend that the phased programme should be completed within the five years proposed in the amendment.
Noble Lords may be aware that we placed in the Library on 26th April a programme setting out our plans for implementation. The document sets out in schedules the time-tables for bringing categories of existing processes within the new Part I controls. In view of those assurances, I hope that my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
Lord Gisborough: I thank my noble friend for that reply. On the face of it, it sounds very satisfactory. Therefore, subject to reading it and obtaining further
854
advice on the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 40A not moved.]
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 5, line 46, at end insert ("and any plan shall be accompanied by an Environmental Statement, which shall include an assessment of the likely significant effects of the plan on the environment.").
The noble Lord said: If Members of the Committee will glance at the groupings list they will see that four of my amendments are grouped together. I shall speak first to Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 and then I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 47 and 49.
Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 seek to introduce environmental assessment for national plans drawn up by the Secretary of State under Clause 3 of this Bill for the purposes of environmental protection. There is a very real reason for proposing this amendment, and if Members of the Committee will bear with me, I shall try to explain a complicated subject in the simplest possible terms.
In order to achieve sufficient reductions in atmospheric emissions, particularly those which contribute to acid rain, Clause 3 allows the Secretary of State to draw up plans for installing flue gas desulphurisation equipment—or FGD as it is known—at specified coal-fired power stations. At present there is some uncertainty as to how the necessary reductions will be achieved. However, that does not affect the fact that some FGD equipment will have to be installed, even if it is not as much as previously envisaged.
Depending upon the mix of technologies chosen, the choice of the FGD process could have a considerable effect on the environment. It is therefore important that national plans for environmental protection should be assessed for their likely impact on the environment. Without trying to blind Members of the Committee with science, I should like to explain that there are two main FGD processes. There is a limestone-gypsum process and a regenerative process. The former is more environmentally damaging as it requires large quantities of quarried limestone and may produce large quantities of potentially unwanted gypsum, which will require sites for disposal.
Limestone is likely to come from some of our most scenic areas, including Yorkshire, Derbyshire, the Mendips and parts of County Durham. Both requirements would generate considerable transport impacts—as if we do not already have enough to contend with. The best known regenerative process—the Wellman-Lord process—uses sodium sulphite solution to remove sulphur dioxide from power station flue gas. That is then recycled for further use and produces the by-products of sulphur, liquid sulphur dioxide or sulphuric acid depending upon the markets available.
A regenerative plant is often more suited where there are existing chemical industries within the area. However, the quantities of raw materials used and by-products produced are much smaller than with the limestone/gypsum process. So it is the

855
different requirements of those processes which influence their environmental impact.
An environmental assessment of the national plan would allow the least environmentally damaging mix of technologies and processes to be chosen, and the most appropriate system for any particular installation to be identified. If FGD is to be fitted to several power stations as part of a national plan, an environmental assessment will help decide which technology should be used where. It may also identify other alternative solutions such as energy conservation, other fuel sources and cleaner electricity generating technologies.
The amendments will ensure that the Secretary of State produces an environmental assessment for such national plans and that the environmental statement, produced as part of that assessment, is made publicly available. That will benefit all parties concerned since it will be fully in line with the basic principle of environmental assessment: that of being applied at the earliest opportunity in the planning process.
I hope that the Government will be able to respond positively to the amendments. If so, we shall have an opportunity to take a lead in the European Community in extending the scope of environmental assessments and ensure that solutions to one environmental problem do not merely create others. That completes my explanation of Amendments Nos. 41 and 43.
I speak now to Amendments Nos. 47 and 49. It is disappointing that the Government have not seen fit to include in the Bill provisions for strengthening environmental assessment. That is what I have tried to correct in a small way with these amendments that I am moving today.
Since implementation of environmental assessment in this country in July 1988 there have been concerns, among other things, over the quality of information provided in environmental statements. They are the documents which accompany planning applications for certain developments which are likely to have a significant impact on the environment. I believe that the quality of such statements is generally poor. My belief is further strengthened by a statement made by the CPRE which stated:
"All too frequently environmental statements are produced by developers as documents to endorse their particular proposals rather than to assess properly the likely impact of the proposal on the environment. Environmental assessments are often carried out too late and without adequate public consultation and participation, which should be an integral part of any environmental assessment".
In simple terms, that means that a developer can put in an application to a planning authority and support it with a glossy and impressive environmental statement which fails to identify the likely environmental impact, or covers it superficially and pretends that all will be well. The planners are faced with pretty pictures and promises of a few trees and lots of landscaping which may in the end add up to nothing. There will probably have been little or no consideration of alternative sites or projects.
However, there is no proper guidance to tell the planning authority what makes a good or bad environmental statement, and few authorities have the experience or expertise readily to hand.
A study by Manchester University earlier this year revealed that only one quarter of environmental statements sampled since 1988 could be regarded as satisfactory. Out of 70 statements sampled, 21 did not possess a non-technical summary—something that is required under the European Community directive on environmental assessment and under the implementing regulations. Without a non-technical summary, how can the public fully understand the likely impact of a particular development?
It is clear that the system of environmental assessment can have immense benefits where properly implemented. Unfortunately, there is no quality control in the system at present and many authorities have insufficient experience of the system or the necessary expertise to ensure a consistent approach throughout the country.
This amendment and the new clause would establish an environmental assessment monitoring unit in the Department of the Environment to oversee the implementation of environmental assessment and to provide the guidance that is desperately needed. The monitoring unit would be responsible for monitoring the quality of environmental statements and would establish guidelines and give advice regarding the content of environmental statements. That is woefully lacking at present.
Unless there is regular monitoring and control over the procedure, environmental assessments will fail to live up to expectations. There is a grave risk that the whole process will be brought into disrepute. That will be to no one's advantage. The implementation of environmental assessments must be improved and made to succeed.
That completes my explanation of all four amendments. I regret the absence of my supporter, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, who left because she is ill. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has said virtually all there is to say, but I wish to support his amendments. There is a need to overcome what appears to be the inadequate integration of IPC with environmental assessment. He has given the reasons for that clearly. There is also a need to ensure that national plans for the purposes of environmental protection should be subject to environmental assessment. As the noble Lord said, at the end of the day, if the quality of that environmental assessment is not good enough, the whole exercise is worthless. To that end, we need an environmental assessment monitoring unit.
The noble Lord has covered every point that I wished to make. There is nothing more to be said at this late hour, except that I strongly support this group of amendments.
Baroness Lockwood: I also wish to support the noble Lord, particularly his Amendment No. 41. Earlier, we discussed primary and secondary pollution. Moving his amendment, the noble Lord referred to the extraction of limestone gypsum and the effect that that has on the environment, particularly in areas of outstanding beauty in some of our national parks. He did not refer to the secondary effects which should also be in the environmental statement. These areas are often somewhat remote from major roads. Enormous lorries carry the quarried limestone through the national parks, creating hazards and dangers to people enjoying the parks and other environmental problems. These should be taken fully into account in the assessment and included in the statement attached to the plan.
Lord Reay: Environmental assessment is an important technique. I am grateful to my noble friend for his amendments. As a result, we have looked again at the extent to which the method should be a required element of the Part I controls.
My honourable friend made plain in another place that applications for authorisation will be required to contain an evaluaton of the environmental effects of the proposed process. This will be especially important where processes are subject to integrated pollution control and where HMIP is involved in deciding the best practicable environmental option. I trust that the noble Lord will be happy with that commitment.
The amendment seeks to take the matter further by requiring the inclusion of an environmental statement in any plan made to limit national emissions of particular pollutants. I believe that we should be careful not to let our enthusiasm take us too far. I am sure that at the detailed level it will serve as a valuable tool for making soundly based decisions on applications for authorisation. However, we are not so convinced that formal detailed assessments have the same part to play in strategic level discussions such as those involved in making plans for national emission reductions. Having said that, I can assure the Committee that consideration of environmental advantages and disadvantages will form an essential part of devising any plan. In addition, we attach considerable importance to consulting widely on any plans which we intend to make under Clause 3(5). My department has already issued one consultation paper with general proposals for a national plan to reduce sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from existing large combustion plant. A further consultation paper will be published shortly, which will provide the opportunity for comment on our detailed proposals.
I now turn to the proposed environmental assessment monitoring unit. We are not convinced that we want to set up another quango. There are already various ways in which the quality of the environmental appraisals which accompany applications for authorisation will be monitored. First, enforcing authorities will need to be satisfied that they have been provided with adequate information on which to base their decision. Secondly, the public will have access to the papers
858
on the public register and I am confident that they will let my department know if they are dissatisfied with the information they find. Thirdly, if it seems that there may be a problem, Clause 19 gives my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the reserve power to call for papers.
As for advice on the content of environmental appraisals, I think it better that this is issued, as necessary, by the Secretary of State or by the chief inspector of HMIP. After careful consideration the Government are not persuaded that the bureaucracy involved in setting up an environmental assessment monitoring unit would be justified. In those circumstances I hope that my noble friend will see fit not to press his amendments.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to my noble friend for such a detailed response to all four amendments. I shall study carefully what he has said and how best to resolve the problems. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 6, line 2, after ("Gazettes") insert ("and in at least two newspapers circulating throughout the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 42 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 45 and 46. These three amendments are of a limited nature. All share the common theme of making more readily available to the general public information about what is going on in the plans under Clause 3 of the Bill.
Amendment No. 42 asks that rather than just having such plans published in the Gazettes of London, Edinburgh and Belfast they should also be published in two or more daily papers for the simple reason that most people do not read the Gazettes and they are not readily available. We are simply seeking to make information contained within those publications more available to a wider group of the general public.
Amendment No. 45 asks the Secretary of State, after making a plan, to make a period available when the general public can make submissions. This is totally at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 46 is probably the most reasonable and inoffensive amendment that it is possible to move. It merely asks that the general public be allowed to purchase the available documents that are on display. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments are unnecessary since the principles underlying them are already well accepted by the Government. Indeed our firm commitment to public access must be clear to all who have read this Bill. But it may be that we would want to make the information available in ways other than those set out in this amendment, as I will explain in a moment.
I can assure the Committee that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will make widely available details of any plans to be made under Clause 3(5) and any amendments to them. He will not rely simply on publication in the official

859
Gazettes. Nor will he seek to make plans without full consultation or without allowing the public to get copies of the detailed proposals.
The first such plan he intends to make will be in relation to the Large Combustion Plants Directive. A consultation paper setting out how the directive requirements for existing plant are to be implemented in the UK was issued last July and the Government shortly intend to issue a further consultation document setting out the quotas for individual plants. We expect that, as usual, the paper will attract wide press coverage and we will certainly be doing all we can to get the message across to as wide a public as may be interested. The information will therefore be widely and freely available.
There is accordingly no need for the Bill to specify how to make such information available, which is why we shall resist the noble Lord's amendments.
Lord Addington: Having heard the noble Minister's reply I am more satisfied that the question of general public availability will be covered by the Government. Bearing in mind that I should like to read what the Minister has said to make sure that he has covered it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 6, line 5, at end insert:
("(8) Subject to any Order made after the passing of this Act by virtue of subsection (1)(a) of section 3 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, the making and revision of plans under subsection (5) above shall not be a transferred matter for the purposes of that Act but shall for the purposes of subsection (2) of that section be treated as specified in Schedule 3 to that Act.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to ensure that, subject to any subsequent order made under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, any plan made or revised under Clause 3(5) to establish limits or quotas for national or regional releases of substances—for example, to implement the large combustion plants directive—can extend to Northern Ireland and is not to be treated as a transferred matter for the Province. The Government will therefore be able to take concerted action throughout the UK to tackle major problems of environmental pollution. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 47 not moved.]
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause:
("Carbon dioxide emissions
. (1) The Secretary of State shall draw up a plan to achieve a reduction of total annual emissions of carbon dioxide, based on measurements of such emissions made in 1980 in the United Kingdom, of:

(a) 20 per cent. by 31st December 1999;

(b) 25 per cent. by 31st December 2004;

(c) 35 per cent. by 31st December 2010;

(d) 50 per cent. by 31st December 2020;

(2) The plan established in subsection (1) above may include—

(a) measures for the promotion of combined heat and power schemes;

(b) measures to promote the use of passive solar heating;

(c) provisions for progressive improvement in the design of new or improved building or heat generating products for energy efficiency;

(d) a programme to improve energy efficiency in the public sector;

(e) the introduction of least-cost planning in the electricity industry;

(f) a comprehensive programme of other energy efficiency measures, including a campaign to increase energy saving and the provision of grants to householders and others for specified energy saving measures;

(g) a programme of research and develoment into techniques for removing carbon dioxide from motor vehicle exhaust gases;

(h) increased provision for energy generation by sources that do not emit carbon dioxide or produce radioactive wastes.

(3) The plan established under subsection (1) above may include measures that achieve a proven increase in the absorption of carbon dioxide by natural means.
(4) The Secretary of State shall before establishing the plan under this clause consult with such persons and organisations as he deems appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: We return to the question of emissions which we were debating earlier, specifically carbon dioxide emissions. This amendment seeks to explore what we consider is the inadequate response of the Prime Minister to the report of the science working group of the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change issued on 1st June.
I call in aid the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who reported to the Committee earlier that it seems we have the support of Mr. Michael Heseltine on this issue. The Prime Minister pledged that Britain would achieve the very demanding target of stabilising total UK emissions of carbon dioxide at present levels by the year 2005 provided only that others do the same. I gather that her response and the details of how that target is to be met are to be left to the environment White Paper in the autumn.
No less a person than Dr. John Houghton, who is chief executive of Britain's Meteorological Office, is quoted in The Times of 2nd June as stating that if Mrs. Thatcher's stabilisation plans were repeated across the world, then world temperatures would in fact continue to rise, though not at such fast rates. Anyone who has heard our outgoing ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Crispin Tickell, on this subject would agree that he is very convincing. I gather that he has some influence on the Prime Minister's thinking.
This amendment provides for very real and necessary reductions to take place. In promoting an annual plan it calls for measures to promote energy efficiency, the greater use of passive solar heating, combined heat and power schemes, a campaign to promote energy efficiency, grants for householders to carry out specified energy saving measures and a programme of research measures into the removal of carbon dioxide from motor exhausts.
Perhaps I may tell the Minister that I have tried to contribute a little. I have introduced solar energy in my fairly old cottage in the Shropshire hillsides,

861
and I can tell him that it is very successful. In fact, one can save a great deal of energy—gas in this case—when the sun is out. The amount of heat is quite amazing. Secondly, I have changed my car. I had a Mini Metro which I was very sad to get rid of. However, it was not possible to convert it to take lead free petrol. So I sold it and bought a car that did take lead free petrol. It is a great tragedy that some of the older British Leyland cars cannot be converted. So I have done my little bit. They are three small steps, and we ask other people to do the same. It is an issue on which Britain should give a lead if only our international colleagues would do the same. Slow improvements in energy efficiency are simply not sufficient to compensate for the dangers, excluding the benefits of greater economic activity and increased use of the car.
The amendment addresses itself to such matters. If energy efficiency is to be effected, it must be seen as a whole package rather than as a mix-and-match selection. No one policy option alone can ensure the necessary reduction in CO2 emissions. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: We have made clear our position on carbon dioxide emissions. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced on 25th May that, provided others are ready to take their full share we are prepared to stabilise our emissions of CO2 at current levels by the year 2005. That would mean a reduction of up to 30 per cent. in presently projected levels of CO2 emissions by the year 2005. We shall set out the kind of measures by which that target could be met in the environment White Paper in the autumn. I cannot pre-empt that.
However, I must point out that, in the areas described in Section 2 of the amendment, the Government have already taken action. The Energy Efficiency Office actively promotes the use of combined heat and power. We shall ensure that combined heat and power is not disadvantaged after the privatisation of the electricity industry. We support research and development into renewable energy sources. The Department of Energy expects to spend over £50 million on such projects over the next three years. The revision of the building regulations last April will improve the heating efficiency of new homes by 20 per cent. and we shall continue to support the emerging schemes for the energy labelling of houses. We have established a ministerial committee to oversee improvements in energy use in government buildings. That is set with a target of a 15 per cent. reduction in energy expenditure within five years.
The privatisation of the electricity industry will ensure that it supplies its customers in the most efficient way possible. We have taken many steps to promote energy efficiency. The Community insulation project has provided better standards in 700,000 homes and the EEO advises industry through its best practice programme. Such has been the success of the work that since 1979 we have produced 20 per cent. more GDP with no increase in energy use. We are urging the European
862
Commission to bring forward proposals to limit CO2 emissions from vehicles and encouraging it to discuss with the motor manufacturers the ways of improving vehicle efficiency. The non-fossil fuel obligation in the Electricity Act has given a tremendous boost to the commercial development of renewable energy, and the Department of Energy is now assessing the applications to fill that tranche.
The report of the science working group of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change has made clear the seriousness of the problem, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. It has also suggested that significant advances in our understanding will take until around 2005 to achieve. It is a demanding target, but we believe that it can be met while maintaining economic development. The amendment does not have the same basis in sound economics.
We are playing a leading role in international initiatives on climate change, both through the IPCC and through our call for an international convention on climate change. An effective response to that problem must be a truly international one. In that light, we shall continue to play a full, important and constructive part in working towards achieving that. A number of initiatives are already under way, which supersede the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross.
Baroness Nicol: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question about what he has just said. At the beginning he said that we were prepared to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide provided that others did their share. Does that mean that, if we are not satisfied with the share contributed by the others, we shall not make any plans to reduce our output of carbon dioxide? Is the reduction suggested by the Minister based on the present figure or on the figure in the year 2000?
Lord Hesketh: It is a reduction of 30 per cent. in the presently projected levels of CO2 emissions by the year 2005. However, in respect of the important point raised by the noble Baroness with regard to our share, the initiative that the Government have taken in all of their international commitments has been based on an international solution. That point has been raised time and again today, whether with regard to CFCs or the IPCC. We have always believed that there can only be one way forward and that is with agreement on an international basis. That is what is meant by the word "share".
Baroness Nicol: I quite understand that point. The Minister will appreciate that if we have to wait to see whether others have done their share, it means that we shall continue in our polluting ways until the year 2005, which is hardly desirable.
Lord Hesketh: Nothing could be further from the truth. We are already committed to an endeavour to improve. However, the fact is that we are talking about figures that have been agreed or are nearly agreed internationally. If we are to be in agreement, we have to have agreement with other parties apart from ourselves.
Lord Ross of Newport: We have given the whole subject of emissions a fairly good run. I agree with the Minister that this is a very serious matter. It is up to us all to keep up the pressure. I agree that the Government have had a change of heart in recent months and years, which is much to be grateful for, but we have to go a little faster than we are doing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Discharge and scope of functions]:
The Minister of State Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)The Minister of State Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden) moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 6, line 13, leave out ("appropriate river purification authority") and insert ("river purification authority, as determined under regulations made under section 5(1) below")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 55 and 58. Amendments Nos. 50 and 55 are both purely drafting amendments and do not require any explanation. Amendment No. 58 is consequential upon amendments agreed in Committee for the application of Part I to Scotland. It adds to Clause 4(10) a reference to river purification authorities. That is necessary because Scottish river purification authorities are to be enforcing authorities for the purpose of Part I and thus should be under the same duty to comply with directions from the Secretary of State as are other enforcing authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: As I endeavoured to be helpful to the Government earlier this afternoon, I hope that I shall not be thought malicious in posing a question that I should have asked some time ago. It is a point that I should have noticed long ago perhaps. One of the advantages of long sittings in the Chamber is that one reads Bills in more detail perhaps than one has done previously.
I am genuinely puzzled. The clause to which the amendment is addressed says that these functions are to be carried out in England and Wales by the chief inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. But so far as concerns Scotland they are to be carried out either by the chief inspector so appointed for Scotland or by the appropriate river purification authority. I notice in the Notes on Clauses that it says that in Scotland the functions are to be exercised jointly by the chief inspector similarly appointed for Scotland and the appropriate river purification authority, although in the Act itself the words "or of are added and it seems clear that there is an alternative.
The reason for my curiosity is that when, in the early stages of consideration of this Bill—and indeed of the Government's initial proposals—the National Rivers Authority expressed a desire that perhaps it should be left as the principal authority responsible for protecting the water environment (and it advanced the argument that it would be perfectly possible to have a system of integrated pollution control which left the major responsibility for water with the National Rivers Authority, or which at least
864
entitled the National Rivers Authority to include its own authorisation in the authorisation for IPC issued by the inspectorate), the authority was told no, that would not be possible because the whole principle of integrated pollution control must be that there is one organisation to set the standards, monitor and enforce them. Yet I suddenly notice that in Scotland apparently that principle is being ignored and that in Scotland there is to be a division of those responsibilities between the chief inspector and the river purification authority.
I am bound to say that I wonder why the river purification authorities in Scotland should be entrusted with those responsibilities while in England they are being taken away from the National Rivers Authority, created only a short time ago by a specific Act of Parliament to carry out the major responsibility for looking after the water environment.
I know that we are always told that life is different in Scotland and that many factors must be handled differently in Scotland. However, I shall be interested to hear the arguments. I shall then be able to judge the soundness of the case that was put so cogently to me many months ago about the structure of the Bill.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may speak briefly. On the advice that I have received and from the information that I have sought, perhaps this matter should be stressed. Clause 4(3) refers to the,
"pollution of the environment due to the release of substances into the air".
That concerns a local function in relation to a local authority. However, the inspector and the National Rivers Authority take over control with regard to water.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My noble friend is right in noting a difference in the way that the new controls in Part I of the Bill will operate north and south of the border. The Government take the view that the polluting substances to be controlled, and the standards to be observed in exercising the controls, should be the same throughout Great Britain. However, the adoption of common aims does not imply the standardisation of the agencies and the machinery by which they are to be achieved.
In Scotland we started from a very different position from that which existed in England and Wales. For over 35 years we have had a decentralised system of control over discharges to water operated by the river purification authorities. Seven independent boards are responsible for regulating the quality of the water environment throughout mainland Scotland. They have established expertise and are experienced in carrying out an independent regulatory function. Within central government in Scotland, Her Majesty's Industrial Pollution Inspectorate, based in Edinburgh, exercises the statutory role of enforcement as regards air pollution and radioactive substances. It performs many, but not all, of the functions of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution in England and Wales.
The situation in Scotland is therefore rather different from that in England and Wales where

865
there is a newly established National Rivers Authority—and I do not need to tell my noble friend anything about that.
In introducing the new system of pollution control for Scotland, we have therefore retained the key role of the river purification authorities. Both the river purification authorities and the chief inspector—who will in practice be head of Her Majesty's Industrial Pollution Inspectorate—will act as enforcing authorities for the purposes of Part I of the Bill in Scotland. This interlocking system will not undermine the concept of a one-stop shop. An application for an authorisation to operate a prescribed process will be made to only one enforcing authority. The appropriate river purification authority and the chief inspector will consult each other before dealing with any application.
The question of which plays the leading role will depend on the nature of the process and where the main expertise in dealing with it lies. We shall spell out exactly who should lead on which type of process in regulations under the Bill.
These proposals were the subject of a consultation paper issued by the Scottish Office in July last year. It was quite separate from the consultation paper issued by the Department of the Environment on Part I as regards England and Wales. It is only fair to say that a sizable minority of our respondents favoured an approach whereby all authorisations will be issued by Her Majesty's Industrial Pollution Inspectorate mainly on the ground that this will provide greater uniformity throughout Great Britain. However, a majority of respondents recognises the merits of building on the established system in Scotland. The Confederation of British Industry welcomed our proposals to use both the river purification authorities and Her Majesty's Industrial Pollution Inspectorate as enforcing authorities, as did the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
The proposed system of pollution control in Scotland will therefore be responsive to local needs, yet will enforce similar standards to those which will apply elsewhere in Great Britain. It will build on the strength of the existing system north of the Border while enabling higher standards and tighter controls to be enforced within a co-ordinated and interlocking framework. I know of my noble friend's interest in these matters. I thought it only fair that I should spell out exactly what the situation will be after the Bill is passed.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. I noted what he said about the independent river purification authorities and their 35 years experience. I hope that he is not suggesting that the National Rivers Authority, which is the largest independent environmental enforcement agency in Europe, is not equally qualified to look after the waters in England.
I air grateful to my noble friend for producing a case which clearly establishes that no difference of principle is involved. It shows that the same kind of
866
solution could have been adopted in England, despite the arguments that were advanced against it. As we face the undoubted complexities of the present arrangement we must bear in mind that in Scotland the Government have clearly established a principle that could have been followed in England if they had so chosen.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: There is a great deal in the point made by my noble friend. The provision introduces a divided control instead of one easily recognisable control. In giving his excellent explanation, my noble friend said that the standards would be similar. He said that with a precision which made me believe that he was reading from his considered notes. The standards should be the same. The word "similar" can give the impression that there is no diversion.
We shall have more time to discuss the issue but at this stage I have sympathy with the intervention of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. We set up the National Rivers Authority and gave it great responsibilities and power. We have used it to answer many complaints. Therefore, it is a pity that even by a hint we should give the impression that it will not have the same control in Scotland as it has in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Burton: I am a member of a river purification authority in Scotland and I appreciate the Minister's comment that the authorities have worked well. I believe that he is correct and I was relieved to hear that the Government do not intend to interfere with the river purification authorities in Scotland in spite of some of my noble friend's objections.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I did not presume to say anything derogatory, if that was the impression that I gave in my remarks about the National Rivers Authority. Of course it is a worthy newcomer to the scene and I have no doubt that it is well managed. The way in which it works out in practice will remain to be seen.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I agree that I referred to similar standards. I said:
"yet enforce similar standards to those which will apply elsewhere in Great Britain".
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell referred to the fact that we in Scotland see the provision as our solution to the problem which faces us. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Burton for agreeing with the Government's contention that the situation in Scotland is best served by the means which will be forthcoming as a result of the passing of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 6, line 29, at end insert:
("(3A) The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself in each of the first five years of the operation of this Part that the resources available to the chief inspector and to local enforcing authorities are adequate to enable them to carry out their functions in the manner most conducive to the reduction of pollution and the

867
conservation and improvement of the environment and in particular shall take account of—

(a) the adequacy of resources available to the inspector and authorities in respect of specialist and other staff and equipment;

(b) initial costs in relation to staffing, equipment and training; and

(c) the extent to which local enforcing authorities may, whether by arrangement with the inspector or otherwise, undertake activities arising from initial applications for authorisations in their area.").

The noble Lord said: It will be seen that this amendment requires the Government to tell us where the money is coming from. We know where it is needed. It is needed by local enforcement agencies—local authorities—as well as the inspectorate.
Lord Hesketh: I believe that the noble Lord is speaking to Amendment No. 59 which deals with local authorities. Amendment No. 52 deals with HMIP.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I can assure the Minister that I am speaking to Amendment No. 52, but I probably used words more appropriate to Amendment No. 59. I shall not start again because it was all good stuff and tomorrow Members of the Committee can read what I said.
I am not disputing the raison d'être for the Bill. However, fine words appear in print and then the local authorities or HMIP will be called upon to carry on the job. This amendment is asking the Government to say whether they are in a position to undertake that the money which is required will be available. Let us bear in mind that start-up expenditure will be required over and above normal specific grant purposes. Can the Minister assure people outside the Committee that the money needed to get the show on the road will be provided? I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I knew from our Second Reading debate that we would return to the subject of the resources of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution.
Let me underline our commitment and assure the Committee, as my right honourable and honourable friends have done in the other place, that HMIP will have the resources it needs to do the job. When it was created in 1987, HMIP had 148 staff in post. It now has 200, and 105 of them are inspectors and professionals. We have recently raised HMIP's complement to 250 and we are recruiting actively. Eight posts in the increased complement have already been reserved for successful candidates from the interviews that have already taken place. Inspectors' salaries were increased by 28 per cent. last autumn. Staff numbers and salaries are both kept under review.
By introducing higher standards of pollution control the Government have raised the stakes in this area. As industry gears up to new requirements the demand for high calibre professionals—the market in which HMIP is competing—is increased. Recruitment is not just about pay, as recruitment consultants would tell the Committee. Good people look for jobs which stretch and develop them to the
868
full. The inspectorate is also carrying out a review of aspects of its professional career structure such as career management and development, and training. The study, which is being undertaken by outside consultants, will also cover the inspectorate's recruitment targeting and procedures.
Those are not the measures of an organisation in decline but those of one determined to meet a challenge. HMIP has also recently introduced an additional recruitment grade of assistant pollution inspector. This grade is aimed at candidates with the same honours degree qualification as pollution inspectors but with a shorter period of industrial experience. This initiative will broaden the pool from which future inspectors can be drawn, while maintaining the same high standards which HMIP rightly insists on and which industry expects.
The noble Lord's amendment mentioned training. Here too the inspectorate is taking action, not only in providing internal training on IPC but also in developing plans for a post-graduate M.Sc course in integrated pollution management at the University of Manchester's Institute of Science and Technology. The inspectorate and the university are looking forward to the course, which will be of benefit to both industry and local government. We have already published an implementaton timetable for IPC. That shows the commitment in the inspectorate to getting the new pollution control regime up and running.
I hope that in view of those assurances the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I do not intend to press the amendment, but the Minister's response causes genuine puzzlement. We do not simply want men and women to carry out functions; we need to understand that resources are available to provide opportunities for developing a strategy and the means whereby the job can be carried out.
It is no use—I say this in all seriousness to the Minister—trying to do something which is fine and laudable, which is to the Government's credit, but trying to do it on the cheap. The Government certainly appreciate what we are saying, but I am afraid that they are looking to obtain what they need on the cheap. We shall have to read carefully what the Government have said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 7, line 17, leave out ("or river purification authority") and insert ("and river purification authorities").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 7, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) It shall be the duty of the enforcing authorities in discharging any of their functions under this Act to so exercise their powers as to—

(a) further the conservation of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiograph

869
features of special interest and the protection of sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest; and

(b) ensure, so far as possible, that any authorisation includes such conditions as to mitigate any adverse effect which the process may have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects.").

The noble Lord said: There are a number of clear omissions in Part I of the Bill. Of concern to me is the lack of a general environmental duty on the enforcing authorities to further conservation and amenity when exercising their powers under the Bill.
When giving authorisation for certain levels of emissions from a process, the enforcing authority should take into account the likely impact of that process on wildlife, the countryside and amenity before establishing limits for individual applications. The authorities should set authorisations so that conservation and amenity are furthered and not damaged. For instance, if a process would result in pollutants affecting an important wildlife habitat, that should clearly have a bearing on the levels of emissions allowed.
I am particularly concerned by the status of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. HMIP is a part of the Department of the Environment and as such is not subject to the stringent environmental duties of such bodies as the National Rivers Authority. I do not wish to enter into the debate of who should have jurisdiction over discharges of dangerous substances into water, HMIP, or RNA. However, as proposed, the Government intend that HMIP should take over from the NRA authorisation for integrated pollution control for such substances. What worries me is that the HMIP does not have a strong environmental duty to further conservation and amenity.
Imagine the following scenario: a company may apply to HMIP for authorisation for the release of various wastes, one of which may go to landfill. The disposal site envisaged by the company to deal with its waste is adjacent to an important wetland, notable as a bird feeding ground. Leachate from the waste could contaminate the food chain and so damage the feeding bird populations. Alternative disposal sites or forms of disposal may result in considerably less impact on the environment and would therefore be preferable. It is surely right that HMIP, in this instance, should consider the likely disposal routes and their impacts before authorising the release of such waste. That would be the outcome of this amendment.
The amendment would, irrespective of who is the enforcing authority—whether HMIP, the local authority or the NRA—ensure that all the enforcing authorities have a duty to further conservation and amenity and to place conditions on authorisations to mitigate any harmful effects arising from that process. That seems to me only prudent.
The amendment would impose an environmental duty on regulatory authorities. Since those authorities are to operate a system of environmental protection, at the very least they should all be operating within a framework of clear environmental duties when exercising their powers. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: I support this amendment. In doing so, I can do no better than quote from the Nature Conservancy Council's document on the Bill which has been sent to a number of noble Lords. It states:
"The NCC supports a properly resourced and operationally effective system of pollution control. We also consider that pollution control efforts should be directed to the achievement of a better quality environment in terms of flora and fauna, and that the special requirements of plants and animals should be taken into account by pollution control bodies.
"We have pointed out to the Department of the Environment that the National Rivers Authority has a duty to further conservation when consenting to discharges and is required to consult the NCC over discharges likely to affect Sites of Special Scientific Interest. By contrast, the Chief Inspector, who is taking over responsibility from the NRA for several hundred prescribed discharges, does not have these conservation duties."
If the Nature Conservancy Council feels so strongly about this matter, there is no better voice to use in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
Lord Ross of Newport: I add my support to this amendment. It is important that an amendment of this nature should be written into the Bill so that there is no misunderstanding. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on tabling this amendment. I very much hope that we will receive a favourable response from the Minister because that would set many minds at rest. It is desperately important that the situation is not weakened by this measure.
Lord Reay: We have considered whether the enforcing authorities should be under a specific obligation to further the conservation of flora and fauna. However, we have concluded that such an obligation would not add anything to the duties to which the enforcing authorities are already subject in setting the conditions of an authorisation.
Under Clause 7 the authorities must ensure the use of the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost to prevent or minimise the release of prescribed substances and to render harmless the release of all substances. That must be a pretty good start in furthering conservation. The authorities will also be under a duty to set conditions in order to implement EC and other international obligations relating to environmental protection. That is not all. They will also be under an obligation to ensure compliance with environmental quality standards and objectives and any plans made under Clause 3 of this Bill.
In particular, the use of BATNEEC which will be used to prevent or minimise releases of prescribed substances and rendering all releases harmless, taken together with the objective of achieving the best practicable environmental option, will protect the whole environment including flora and fauna. We do not see—and, I may say, neither do our legal advisers—how any amendment (including this one) specifically devoted to furthering conservation could be drafted which would not cut across the other duties and objectives in Clause 7. I think that clause gives us everything we need to ensure the furtherance of conservation. Furthermore, I shall be making clear in my reply to a later amendment that we will

871
be consulting the NCC on applications for authorisations which bear upon sites of special scientific interest.
The first part of the amendment before us contains similarities to Section 8(1) of the Water Act 1989; but that section referred to general environment and recreational duties such as managing land holdings and conserving fish stocks which are appropriate to, say, water undertakers, but not to HMIP which does not manage land.
The second part of the amendment is superfluous. Not that I am belittling conservation; far from it. It is just that the whole of Part I of the Bill, and the prior authorisation system established under it, is about setting conditions which will protect the environment. We have placed not just one but many duties on the enforcing authorities to ensure that the whole environment, including of course flora and fauna, is protected. In view of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to my noble friend for a very full explanation. I shall read carefully what he said and I may try to come back at the next stage with something on which we can both agree. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 7, line 23, after ("inspector") insert "(, river purification authorities").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps I may detain the Committee for a moment. I was proposing to attempt to establish that there was to be a provision in the Bill to create a clear lead body in the arrangements for the integrated pollution control. To a large extent that will depend on the understanding and the understandings of the authorities involved.
It is possible that there may be some confusion and misunderstanding over their different responsibilities for any given situation. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Norrie gave an example of that. The example I give is where a discharge might come under the control of either the inspectorate of pollution or the National Rivers Authority. One can envisage situations where the Health and Safety Executive or other authorities might be involved.
It is still not clear to me which authority will lead in decisions about discharge conditions, and so on. During our Second Reading debate the Government stated that their research had shown them that in all cases a fully integrated system of control, with a single authorisation for all aspects of the process, was felt necessary. The Government said that the NRA will,
"retain responsibility for sustaining the quality of controlled waters and will have the powers to translate its requirements on discharges to water into the consents issued by HMIP".
872
That does not seem entirely clear nor indeed satisfactory. After all, in a given case that may allow the inspectorate to overrule the decisions made by the NRA, which is clearly the body with particular expertise in this field. What I seek is some assurance that the roles of all authorities will be clearly laid out before implementation and that any memorandum of understanding will be agreed by both bodies concerned and that it will properly address the issue.
Since I have not discussed this matter with my noble friend the Minister, it may be that he will prefer to write to me on this issue before we meet again later in the year. Depending on his response either tonight or at that time, I may wish to put down an amendment to secure the assurance I seek for the reasons I have described to the Committee.
Lord Hesketh: At this late hour I take advantage of my noble friend's offer to receive a written communique. I am sure that he will find the contents of it satisfactory.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 59:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
(".Government assistance for Part I duties.
("—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in any statement as to the allocation of revenue support grant under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 in respect of a financial year in which functions are exercisable by local enforcing authorities under this Part, set out the basis of allocation of grants calculated in relation to such functions having regard to the matters specified in subsection (2) below.
(2) The matters to which any statement as is referred to in subsection (1) above shall refer include—

(a) the appropriateness or otherwise of an allocation based on general needs to the level of activities arising under this Act; and

(b) the desirability or otherwise of an allocation based on the distribution of population in the area.").

The noble Lord said: If in moving this amendment I begin by saying that it is about the details of local authority finance, I think that perhaps I should pause in order to allow the Chamber to empty. I realise that this is not an issue which, at nearly five minutes to midnight, arouses enthusiasm among Members of the Committee.
Nevertheless, the issue is of considerable importance and it is not one that will go away if we do not tackle it. At the moment we are talking only about Part I of the Bill. Even in that part alone, and without referring to later parts, there are substantial duties and burdens placed on local authorities. There is very little indication of what resources will be available to them; how they are to meet that expenditure or how that will affect other items of expenditure in the same expenditure block as far as concerns the revenue support grant. What is required is a recognition by government that there are these new duties. In many ways they are not as extensive as some that we should have liked and some that we have been proposing. Nevertheless, they are there.
Will the Government recognise the extent to which these new duties will cost money? Will that recognition be reflected in RSG? Will the

873
Government ensure that the new duties do not place a burden on poll tax payers nationally? I should have thought that this argument would have considerable resonance with Ministers at the moment. They must still be agonising every day of the week about the alternatives to the poll tax or the modifications to the poll tax which have been promised to us and which are awaited with baited breath by poll tax payers on a weekly, a daily or even an hourly basis. Quite apart from the national burden on poll tax payers and the national effect on local authority finances, will the Government ensure that the distribution to individual authorities reflect their different needs? In other words, will they ensure that those characteristics of local authorities which affect the expenditure that they will have to incur on environmental protection are taken into account in the RSG settlement?
We do not yet have adequate figures of what the cost of the environmental protection obligations will be to local authorities. The best that we can do is to look at the local authorities' side and the argument that they are putting to what is called the Other Services Block Service Working Group—the joint body of the local authority associations and central government—which is considering the effect on the other services group. The "other services" are basically those elements of local authority expenditure which are not included under the major headings of education, housing, social services and so on.
The best estimate that local authorities can make for 1992 is that the litter provisions will involve an increased cost of between £250 million and £330 million in total and that waste collection and disposal will be seriously affected because of the cost of monitoring and dealing with former tip sites. The Committee will be aware of the fact that well over 1,000 tips in this country contain potentially dangerous waste. That aspect could involve several hundred million pounds of expenditure. The other general environmental proposals in the Bill are estimated to cost £43·5 million.
I stress that these figures are not accepted by the Government at this stage. These figures are what the local authority associations, which have a very good understanding of the matter, are putting to the Government and are arguing should be included in the forthcoming RSG settlement. But the danger is that, first, there will not be enough money in total for these purposes; and, secondly, that they will be submerged in the other services group and that therefore there will be an unacceptable squeeze on other services group expenditure. We believe that it is necessary to include this new clause in order to protect not only expenditure on environmental protection—that is clearly an important part of it—but also to protect expenditure on other items in the other services group. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: Do the figures for local authority expenditure given by the noble Lord apply to the whole of the United Kingdom or just to England and Wales?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My best understanding is that the figures will apply to England and Wales. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has not, so far as I know, contributed to the figures. If I am wrong, I shall certainly do what Ministers say and write to the noble Lord.
12 midnight
Lord Hesketh: I drew attention in regard to an earlier amendment to the work already underway in HMIP for the implementation of IPC. I know too that local authorities are equally determined to make progress with the new air pollution control regime established under this part of the Bill as shown through their contribution to the committee already set up to co-ordinate enforcement of the new controls and to the drafting of local authority guidance notes aimed at ensuring consistency of enforcement practice.
Local authorities have, for a long time, been pressing for stronger powers of control over industrial and other sources of air pollution and the proposed new controls have generally been welcomed. Under the new controls local authorities will be responsible for substantially the same processes as now. Therefore, it will largely be a matter of replacing, not adding to, existing control functions under the clean air and public health Acts.
The costs of the new prior approval system will be met by the cost recovery charging system to be introduced in parallel with the IPC charging system. As the charging scheme will cover cost, revenue support grant implications should not arise. The intention is that across the country local authorities will recoup reasonable expenditure on authorising, inspecting and enforcing control, including necessary monitoring and related administration. It will of course be for local authorities to decide the precise numbers of staff and the technology they need to administer the scheme. But it is right too that the charge should be consistent throughout the country, and that the scheme should provide for the same charge from Arundel to Abergavenny and Yeovil to York. That is why we are currently discussing with the local authority associations the appropriate level of charges to set in the first year. We will also be issuing a public consultation paper on this subject within the next few weeks.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to the other services block and then moved on to mention tips and litter. I think it is fair to point out that this amendment distinctly refers to Part I of the Bill and not to those parts and costs which we shall no doubt deal with as we proceed to discuss other parts of the legislation which he mentioned when speaking to his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is only out of keen sense of consideration for Members of the Committee that I did not do what I could have done which is to spell out the obligations which exist on local authorities under Part I of the Bill. I have with me a whole page of them. I could have started by saying that under Clause 6(3) they have to deal with applications for authorisations by requiring relevant

875
information which is covered by Schedule 1, paragraph 1(1) and (3). They have to deal with publicising and consultation under Schedule 1, paragraph 2(1). They have to consider representations under Schedule 1, paragraph 2(5). They have to determine whether the applicant can comply with the proposed authorisation conditions under Clause 6(4), and so on. In fact, in reciting those requirements I have made a bare start in dealing with the obligations which are imposed upon local authorities. They are not obligations which local authorities are resisting; that is not the point I am trying to make. However, they are obligations which will affect local authorities' ability to deal with the other obligations which they have in the other services group, many of which are obligations imposed upon them by statute. Therefore, local authorities will not be able to get out of them that easily.
I return now to the issue which is really fundamental to the ability of local authorities to achieve what government want them to achieve in Part I of the Bill. They need not only the assurance that the total amount of resources will be available for this purpose; they also need to know that the criteria used in the standard spending assessments for distributing the amount of expenditure which the Government wishes to see actually reflect the differences between one local authority and another in the scale of the obligations which they will have.
This requirement is of particular importance because the gearing of local authority expenditure is now such that every additional pound spent by a local authority which is not matched by government grant will in effect mean at least an additional £4 on the poll tax. Indeed, in many cases it will mean more like an extra £7. The result will be an intolerable burden on local poll tax payers. This is an issue which the Government are now facing because they are already having to revise their poll tax proposals.
Clearly this is not a matter which we shall pursue to a Division at this stage. The Minister has promised that we shall see the consultation paper by the end of July. That will enable us to have a much more soundly based debate when we return to this matter, as we shall have to, on Report in October. My fears have not been allayed by the Minister's response. The indications that he has given about further information are welcome but they do not show any change of heart on this matter which is of fundamental importance to local authority expenditure. In the circumstances, and bearing in mind the time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Further provisions as to discharge and scope of functions: Scotland]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 7, line 44, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Earl said: For the convenience of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 61. The amendments do not add any new principles to Clause 5, rather they concern how the consultation
876
between the chief inspector of the HMIPI and the river purification authorities will work in practice under the interlocking system of pollution control that we propose for Scotland in Part I.
Amendment No. 60 is purely a drafting amendment. Amendment No. 61 changes Clause 5 so as to specify in more detail the matters to be covered by the regulations issued by the Secretary of State which will prescribe details of the consultation process.
The new subsection (1A) of Clause 5 states that the regulations will prescribe the circumstances in which consultations will be carried out. We intend that HMIPI and the RPAs will consult one another on all aspects of applications for authorisations that they receive. The consulted authority will have an opportunity to require conditions to be included in the authorisations. Thereafter the authorities will consult one another on all material events or actions which affect an authorisation. The only circumstances in which consultation will not be needed will be minor changes which will not affect the interests of the consulted authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 7, line 45, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) if the functions are determined under paragraph (a) above to be functions of a river purification authority, the river purification authority by whom they are to be exercised.
(1A) The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing—

(a) the circumstances and manner in which consultation shall be carried out between—

(i) whichever of the chief inspector or river purification authority is determined under regulations made under subsection (1) above to be the enforcing authority, and

(ii) the other (the "consulted authority"),

before granting, varying, transferring or revoking an authorisation or serving an enforcement or prohibition notice;

(b) the circumstances in which the consulted authority may require the enforcing authority to include, in an authorisation, conditions which the consulted authority reasonably believe will achieve the objectives specified in section 7(2) below.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Authorisations: general provisions]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 8, line 13, after ("with") insert ("Part I of")
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 66–68, 70, 73, 94, 95, 98, 99 and 101–103. This long series of amendments is paving and consequential to Amendment No. 73, and achieves a relatively simple change to the Bill. It applies to the procedures already provided for in Schedule 1 for public consultation on applications for new authorisations, also to the procedures for applications for variations or a proposed substantial change, whether on the

877
initiative of the enforcing authority or the operator. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 8, line 20, after ("applicant") insert ("has assessed the likely effects of the process on the environment in an adequate manner and")
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment upon which I hope my noble friend will look favourably. The Minister and the Under-Secretary in another place stated on separate occasions that they had considerable sympathy with the spirit of the amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that adequate information is provided by an applicant under integrated pollution control about the likely environmental effects of the process for which authorisation is being sought. That information would then form part of the application which would appear on the public register.
Clearly it is essential that the enforcing authority is given the fullest information about environmental effects before authorisation is given. We are not debating the principle behind the amendment because the Government have already accepted it. They stated that such a requirement would form part of the regulations to be made under Schedule 1. The debate is about whether that requirement should be buried deep in regulations or should, as I believe, be written on the face of the Bill. All too frequently we see important pieces of legislation left to regulations, and the need to furnish an assessment of the likely effects of an industrial polluting process is a fundamental part of integrated pollution control. Otherwise, how is it to arrive at the desired aim? That is, the minimisation of all pollutants and therefore the minimisation of environmental impacts. Such should be written on to the face of the Bill.
As a hypothetical example, imagine an industrial company manufacturing electrical parts. It may be producing a variety of dangerous wastes for release into water. It is quite clear that the company should provide an adequate assessement of the likely effects of those wastes on the environment to the enforcing authority as part of its application. This amendment would make the requirement abundantly clear and it would be on the face of the Bill.
Above all, it is required for avoidance of doubt. If it is put on the face of the Bill, it would make an important statement of intent, reinforce the preventive nature of IPC and signal unambiguously the importance of marshalling the necessary information before authorisation is given. I urge my noble friend to accept this small but important amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: I agree with my noble friend that an application must contain an adequate assessment of the likely effects of the process on the environment. My honourable friends in another place stated that it is our intention that such an assessment must be included in an application for an authorisation which will be required in regulations made under
878
Schedule 1. It is those regulations that will set out the detail of the application. The assessment referred to by the noble Lord in his amendment will be one feature among many. Rather than pick on one feature to include in the Bill, we should prefer that all the detail of the application procedure be governed by the one enabling power in Schedule 1 to the Bill.
We should also take into account the additional power in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 which allows an enforcing authority to require an applicant for an authorisation to furnish such further information supporting an application as the authority may require. If therefore an application did not contain an adequate assessment of the likely environmental effects of the process, we already have the powers to require it to be provided. I think it is preferable to give the applicant a second chance to provide this information rather than automatically to reject the application, as the amendment envisages.
However, I quite agree with my noble friend that if information vital to an application is not provided at all, then the enforcing authority should have the right to refuse to proceed with the application. This is provided for in paragraph 1(4) of the schedule.
I hope that in the light of an assurance that an assessment of the environmental effects of the process will be included in the application and my explanation of the powers of Schedule 1 to the Bill, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to my noble friend once again for a full explanation. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Authorisations for Processes: Supplementary Provisions]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 66 to 68:
Page 142, line 3, at end insert:
("PART I: GRANT OF AUTHORISATIONS").
Page 142, line 27, leave out ("these persons") and insert ("the persons so consulted").
Page 143, line 3, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(2)").
The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 143, line 26, leave out ("that section") and insert ("either of those sections").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to Amendment No. 69, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 71 and 72. These are purely drafting amendments designed to clarify the existing references in paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 1 to the local government Acts. I am indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, for pointing out the need for clarification in this paragraph. I hope that he will agree that these amendments achieve that aim. I beg to move.
12.15 a.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I am most grateful. That is all I want to say.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 143, line 27, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(3)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 71 and 72:
Page 143, line 28, leave out ("that section") and insert ("either of those sections and, in relation to England and Wales,").
Page 143, line 28, after ("(4)") insert ("of the said section 250").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 143, line 52, at end insert:
("PART II: VARIATION OF AUTHORISATIONS
Variations by the enforcing authority
(6.—(1) The requirements of this paragraph apply where an enforcing authority has decided to vary an authorisation under section 10 and is of the opinion that any action to be taken by the holder of the authorisation in consequence of the variation will involve a substantial change in the manner in which the process is being carried on.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, the enforcing authority shall give notice of the action to be taken by the holder of the authorisation to the persons who are prescribed or directed to be consulted under this paragraph and shall do so within the specified period for notification; and the holder shall advertise the action in the manner prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, exempt any class of variation from all or any of the requirements of this paragraph.
(4) Any representations made by the persons so consulted within the period allowed shall be considered by the enforcing authority in taking its decision.
(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above—

(a) persons are prescribed to be consulted on any description of variation if they are persons specified for the purposes of variations of that description in regulations made by the Secretary of State;

(b) persons are directed to be consulted on any particular variation if the Secretary of State specified them in a direction given to the enforcing authority;

and the "specified period for notification" is the period specified in the regulations or in the direction.
(6) Any representations made by any other person within the period allowed shall also be considered by the enforcing authority in taking its decision.
(7) Subject to sub-paragraph (8) below, the period allowed for making representations is:

(a) in the case of persons prescribed or directed to be consulted, the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date on which notice was given under sub-paragraph (2) above, and

(b) in the case of other persons, the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date of the advertisement under sub-paragraph (2) above.

(8) The Secretary of State may, by order, substitute for the period for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (7)(a) or (b) above, such other period as he considers appropriate.
Applications for variations
7.—(1) The requirements of this paragraph apply where an application is made to an enforcing authority under section 11(4) for the variation of an authorisation.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, the enforcing authority shall give notice of any such application for a variation of an authorisation, enclosing a copy of the application, to the persons who are prescribed or directed to be consulted under this paragraph and shall do so within the specified period for notification; and the holder of the authorisation shall advertise the application in the manner prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, exempt any class of application from all or any of the requirements of this paragraph.
(4) Any representations made by the persons so consulted within the period allowed shall be considered by the enforcing authority in determining the application.
(5) For the purpose of sub-paragraph (2) above—

(a) persons are prescribed to be consulted on any description of application for a variation if they are persons specified for the purposes of applications of that description in regulations made by the Secretary of State;

(b) persons are directed to be consulted on any particular application if the Secretary of State specified them in a direction given to the enforcing authority;

and the "specified period for notification" is the period specified in the regulations or in the direction.
(6) Any representation made by any other person within the period allowed shall also be considered by the enforcing authority in determining the application.
(7) Subject to sub-paragraph (8) below, the period allowed for making representations is—

(a) in the case of persons prescribed or directed to be consulted, the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date on which notice of the application was given under sub-paragraph (2) above; and

(b) in the case of other persons, the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date on which the making of the application was advertised in pursuance of sub-paragraph (2) above.

(8) The Secretary of State may, by order, substitute for the period for the time being specified in sub-paragaraph (7)(a) or (b) above, such other period as he considers appropriate.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Conditions of authorisations]:
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 8, line 38, leave out ("condition") and insert ("conditions").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 74, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 75 and 81. Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 are paving amendments. The main amendment is Amendment No. 81 which introduces the requirement to provide a performance bond on the part of those who wish to carry out some operations which are liable to cause some pollution if not properly carried out. The effect of the amendment would be to incorporate within the conditions under which authorisations will be issued a duty on those applying for such authorisations to prevent by such means as are reasonably necessary the occurrence of pollution as a consequence of the carrying on of those activities for which authorisation is sought.
Taken in conjunction with Clauses 15, 16 and 22 relating to the powers for enforcement of authorisations and for the avoidance of pollution

881
where there is an imminent danger of it occurring, the amendment would complete the placing of the financial onus of pollution prevention and of subsequent cleaning up on the producer. Its purpose is to give full effect to the principle that the polluter pays. That principle is only partly provided for by the Bill as it currently stands. I should have thought the Government might feel kindly disposed to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord has explained his case for requiring that those authorised to carry on a Part I process should pay a sum of money to the enforcing authority before commencing operations. This would be repaid upon completion of a programme of works designed to prevent pollution. I confess that I am not completely clear how the system would work in practice. How, for example, would it affect the vast majority of existing operators, whose processes are already underway?
I sympathise with what I understand to be the purpose of these amendments, which is that operators of prescribed businesses and processes should take all reasonable measures when constructing their plant to prevent pollution, in line with the requirements of the enforcing authority. But what I am unable to understand is what these amendments achieve in addition to the provisions of Part I as currently drafted. The whole of the IPC system is expressly designed to ensure that all that can reasonably be achieved by way of prevention, minimisation and rendering harmless of emissions, will be achieved.
The enforcing authority will secure this by requiring the use of BATNEEC to these very ends in setting the conditions within the authorisation. And since the operator cannot operate without this authorisation, and without meeting the conditions within it, it follows that he is already automatically required before commencing operations to design and build his plant in such a way as to achieve the purpose of the amendments. The payment of a bond is thus riot necessary. He will not be able to operate before he does what is required of him. That, I repeat, is what all of us want the whole system to achieve.
Moreover, the system will allow the enforcing authority to deal with existing processes by the gradual introduction of higher standards as necessary. Here again, no bond is required. The enforcing authority will require the higher standards to be achieved over a reasonable period of time—what the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution calls the "best environmental timetable". It is up to the operator to carry out whatever programme of works will enable him to meet these standards; if he does not, he will be in breach of his authorisation. We believe that there is not a good reason for this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ross, decides what to do with his amendment, I should say that I find that reply curious as it is in two parts. The first part claimed that it is satisfactory to have the attempt to deal with pollution before it
882
occurs. That is an important and valuable thrust of the Bill. We are not seeking to oppose that part of the Bill. However, as the Minister said in his reply, there are some cases where the process will already be in operation. It is in those cases where the pollution has already started and the process is already in operation that we need a performance bond in order to secure that the process is brought to an end. I do not think that was answered by the second part of the Minister's answer when he stated that the Government intended to secure that there was an agreed timetable for abatement or elimination of the pollution.
Of course such a timetable is valuable, and in earlier amendments we referred to such a timetable, in order that the process should cease within a given time. I notice that the Government did not accept those amendments. But a performance bond to provide a financial incentive for them to do it is surely a valuable addition. That is provided for in the Broadcasting Bill which is before your Lordships' House at present, and it would be a useful addition to the range of powers available to the Government and to the enforcing authorities as regards this Bill.
Lord Ross of Newport: I have a fairly lengthy brief on this subject but because the hour is late I have not quoted it all. I assume, so far as these amendments are concerned, that the local authorities have in mind—and this came from a local authority source—a situation arising when a development takes out an estate and money has to be deposited to make sure that the road is made up to the proper adopted standard. What happens if, in this case, somebody is applying to carry out a process in which some liquid is likely to be released—for example, if a building gets half built and something starts oozing out of the place and the company goes bust? It is a terrible job, surely, to try to get some compensation from some source to clear up the mess left behind.
I can think of other areas, like oil pollution. It would be much better if people put down a performance bond before they were allowed to put in tanker terminals. They are meant to establish the basis for initial clean-ups. We think the BATNEEC would be too gradual to allow them to be licensed. It would be a safer bet if the Government went a little deeper into this, to see whether there is a case for ensuring, in particular instances where perhaps some rather more serious pollution might occur if the process were not properly completed and not finished to a proper standard, that there is an area on which they can fall back. I can see problems looming up for local authorities, and perhaps even government departments holding the baby at the end of the day.
I should like to study what the Minister has said and perhaps return to the matter at a later date.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 75 to 78 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 9, line 29, leave out ("available techniques not entailing excessive cost") and insert ("practicable environmental option").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 79 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 80.
There have already been quite a number of references to BATNEEC, the best available technology not entailing excessive cost. None of the references that have been made from the Government Front Bench have relieved our fears that BATNEEC is in fact a compromise formulation, nothing like as good a formulation as the original formulation of best practical environmental option which would actually require the cleanest process to be used by producers.
Our fears are not very significantly reduced by the draft guidance note which the Department of the Environment issued on 27th April 1990. I will not go into that in detail, noble Lords will be pleased to hear, but I must deal with the end of the environment guidance note which deals with the question of excessive costs because there appears to be a significant difference between what we mean by excessive cost and what the European Commission, in particular, is likely to mean by it. If we find ourselves out of key with what the European Commission is likely to find, then we shall place ourselves in a position of quite undesirable, unnecessary, expensive and damaging conflict.
Let us take, for example, Article 13 of the European Commission's air framework directive of 1984. The guidance note on BATNEEC defines excessive cost in relation in particular to the economic situation of undertakings belonging to the category in question. The European formulation is presented in the guidance note as related to the profitability of the firm, whereas the British formulation ignores the profitability of the firm and looks only at the cost benefit balance in terms of environmental protection.
If that is the case, it would be interesting to have the Minister's confirmation on it. We should like to know why the further definitions of BATNEEC are not included on the face of the Bill. As matters stand, BATNEEC is a compromise which does not do what the European Commission at least will require of us and what we should require of ourselves. That compromise will not be satisfactory in curbing pollution. I beg to move.
Lord McNair: I am also worried about BATNEEC. We now have enough experience to know that the long-terms effects of pollutants on people's health can be far worse than first thought. Two examples of that phenomenon are the terrible results in the 19th century of the exposure of women in match factories over a long period of time to the phosphorous used in their work and, more recently, the continual decreases in the permitted levels of exposure to radioactivity. When those levels were set in the 1950s and the 1960s, we were assured that they were realistic, but later experience has shown that they were not.
When we are dealing with processes and substances whose effects on health may not be known, we must err on the side of caution. It is worth nothing that good environmental practice is also good business. Strangely, that has nothing to do
884
with the law. In the long term, which is such a foreign way of thinking to so many of our industrial and investment strategists, an environmentally sound business is a sustainable business. BATNEEC sets an agenda that puts profit before people. There is nothing in it that would prevent a person from polluting if he can simply show that there is no economical way of not doing so. That is not acceptable and that is why I support the amendments.
Lord Reay: These amendments allow us to consider what is perhaps the central clause of Part I of the Bill and its fundamental concepts; namely, best practicable environmental option and best available techniques not entailing excessive costs.
As my noble friend Lord Hesketh said at Second Reading, much of the credit for the evolution of integrated pollution control must go to the sterling work that the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution undertook in devising and elaborating the concept of the best practicable environmental option. It has allowed us through this Bill to take a lead internationally in industrial environmental control and for that I think Members throughout your Lordships' Committee would agree that we owe considerable debt to the work of the Royal Commission.
It may be helpful to this debate if I set out how the Part I system will work. When he comes to submit his application, the operator will have had to consider fully the range of environmental options available to him and to select the one that he considers to be the best. If evidence of such consideration is not provided, the enforcing authority will require the operator to furnish more information. In its turn, the enforcing authority will have determined which specific conditions to set to ensure that the best practicable environmental option is taken. Decisions about BPEO are therefore central to determining specific conditions.
However, the general condition to which Clause 7(4) relates does not refer to such fundamental crux decisions. It is concerned with second order matters that do not warrant being regulated by specific conditions. As such, the appropriate requirement is that already in the Bill, namely, that the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs shall be used to minimise release of prescribed substances and to render harmless to the environment all releases whether or not of prescribed substances.
We therefore believe that there is no need for the general duty on the operator to refer to BPEO. Nor do we consider the second amendment, Amendment No. 80, to be necessary, for the reason that the work is already in hand. I can assure the Committee that the Government are already doing precisely what would be required of them by this amendment. We have already made advice relating to the general meaning of BATNEEC available in draft and copies are in the Library. We have circulated copies to a number of interested bodies and will consider carefully any points that they put to us.
We are working too on specific guidance for individual processes and shall begin to issue such

885
advice very shortly for wide public consultation. It is our intention to produce detailed guidance in concert with our European Community partners where that is feasible on the appropriate level of control for new plant and on the timetables over which existing processes need to be brought up to such standards.
I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
12.30 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I am well aware that when one comes to formulations such as BATNEEC or BPEO one could land up with what in effect is a theological discussion. I certainly do not want to become involved in a discussion about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. It may well be that in good hands BATNEEC under certain circumstances could result in effects comparable with those of other formulations.
To a limited extent I am reassured by the reference which the noble Lord made to the consultations with the European Community in his reply. In the light of those references and with the possibility that we may have to return to the matter when we have seen the further information that the noble Lord has promised us, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]
Lord Layton Lord Layton moved Amendment No. 81A:
Page 10, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) When an authorisation is under consideration, the requirements of the Fourth Environmental Action Programme of the European Community shall be heeded, namely, that the priorities for the management of waste shall be—

(a) waste reduction by process or technology improvement;

(b) reutilisation of, or resource recovery from, or recycling of the waste;

(c) elimination by physical or chemical means;

(d) disposal to landfill.").

The noble Lord said: This is an amendment about principle in a sea of objectives and regulations. Maybe it will help with the problem of theology encountered by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to know that this is the principle which basically underlies BATNEEC, BPM, BPEO and all the other acronyms with which it is difficult to deal. It is a principle that has been decided within the European Community and for that reason I think that it ties in very well in that direction.
This provision should be on the face of the Bill because it is the principle that underlies everything that goes into this clause. It is a list of order of merit of the methods of disposal of waste that exist. I should also point out that the end of the amendment should read "disposal to landfill" and not "disposal of landfill" as appears on the Marshalled List. If we could dispose of landfill, that would indeed be a miracle. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the Minister replies, I was not aware of that particular formulation, but it makes extremely good sense to me as I read it. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing it forward.
Lord Addington: I too should like to add support from these Benches for the proposals as they are set out in the amendment. We should have on the face of the Bill at some point some form of declaration of intent and the ideology behind the Bill so that we do not become too bogged down in regulations and basic statements of what is economically advisable and administratively possible.
Lord Reay: I am not convinced that this amendment adds anything to the provisions of Clause 7. The fourth environmental action programme of the European Community is obviously extremely important. That is why the United Kingdom, like other member states, endorsed it as the basis for further progress on environmental protection.
I am not sure that it should have a place in Part I of the Bill. IPC is the first national integrated system of pollution control in Europe. It establishes a pollution control framework for well into the next century. The fourth action programme, however, ends in 1992. I am sure that my noble friend agrees that it would be wrong to require enforcing authorities in, say, the year 2005 to have regard to an environmental programme which had expired 13 years earlier.
Paragraphs (a) and (c) of the amendment equate to Clause 7(2)(a)(i) of the Bill. The action programme talks first of reduction and then, as a lower priority, of elimination of waste. The Bill mentions prevention first and, where that is not practicable, minimisation. The Bill attaches high priority to prevention, and the concept of minimisation is tougher than the action programmes on reduction.
Paragraphs (b) and (d) relate to Clause 7(7) of the Bill which concerns the best practicable environmental option. In the past there has been an impression that disposal to landfill is the easy waste option. Part II of the Bill will ensure that that method of disposal is now policed effectively. But that does not mean that waste arising from Part I should be encouraged to be sent for landfill. Surely we should be aiming to achieve whatever method of disposal or resource recovery is best for the environment as a whole—the best practicable environmental option. That is the key to Part I of the Bill.
Clause 7 also requires enforcing authorities to take account of United Kingdom obligations under EC and other international treaties. The Bill delivers the aspect of the fourth action programme referred to in the amendment and a little more. I hope that what I have said will have persuaded my noble friend that the clause provides what he wishes and that he will therefore not press his amendment.
Lord Layton: I thank the Minister for his very full reply. I am not altogether happy with either the amendment or the reply. Perhaps the Government will consider putting on the face of the Bill a

887
simplification of the various provisions on authorisation so that it is clear that a particular end is envisaged and that everyone is working towards that aim. In the hope that such clarification may be forthcoming, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 10, line 14, at end insert ("and, in relation to Scotland, to any regulations made under section 5(1A) above").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 82 has been tabled simply for clarification. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Fees and charges for authorisations]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 10, line 41, leave out ("the making of").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 84 is a simple drafting amendment. It clarifies the intention that the charging scheme can require a fee for an application even if it does not result in an authorisation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 10, line 44, after ("authorisations") insert:
("(bb) charges payable by such persons to local enforcing authorities for the purposes of enabling such authorities to disburse loans and grants from the proceeds to applicants for authorisations, where in the opinion of the relevant authority the applicant would otherwise be unable to fulfil the terms of any authorisation and pollution at an unacceptable level would result;").
The noble Lord said: The amendment stands also in the names of my noble friend Lord McNair, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I suspect that I shall not receive much response from the Minister on the amendment because it involves cross-subsidisation. However, I believe that it will be effective in dealing with some of the pollution problems which will face local authorities and the HMIP.
The effect of the amendment would be to widen the powers of the Secretary of State to prescribe schemes of fees and charges for authorisations. It would empower him to include within a scheme provision for local authorities to levy an additional charge on applicants for authorisation. The proceeds of that charge could then be distributed to applicants for authorisations when, in the opinion of the local authority, the terms of an authorisation could not expect to be fulfilled without that financial assistance. It would in effect provide a mechanism whereby polluters as a group would be levied to ensure that individual polluters could meet the desired targets, thus achieving a balance between the necessary protection of the environment and the economic viability of producers. If we do not make such provision I can foresee that good schemes which firms may not be able to finance will fall to the ground.
The purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government's intentions with regard not so much to the substance contained in the proposals, but to the principles underlying them. Those principles are imporant not just to the control of pollution in any given locality and the means by which it is to be financed but to the overriding issue of the role that the UK is to play as an advanced industrial economy in protecting and enhancing the environment on a world scale.
First, it is wrong in principle for the holders of the technology best suited to the protection of the environment so to exploit their property rights as to prevent the widest possible diffusion of that technology. Secondly, it is inequitable for inherited comparative advantage to be exploited by those producers at the most advanced stage of development in a way that will restrict the development opportunities open to others.
At local level the obvious sense of the amendment can readily be seen. It would allow charges to be levied on all polluters effectively to minimise the economic disruption that could flow from the shift to less pollution in general. For many localities and regions, that would be important if the underlying purpose of pollution control were not to be defeated by short-term but understandable self-interest. That would be effected in practice by means of the cross-subsidisation of one producer by another to meet desired pollution targets without forcing producers out of business due to the cost of so doing.
Cross-subsidisation is not normally encouraged. It encourages inefficiency at the level of the firm and an inappropriate distribution of resources at the level of the economy. However, the economics of pollution control are not those which would normally apply. That is so because of the different response times technologically determined for different industries in meeting improved standards and because of the differing values of pollution as external costs in proportion to the overall production costs of different industries.
As a result and as an economy moves—from a market which does not incorporate, or only partly incorporates, the external costs of pollution and its counterpart (the internal costs to the firm of its abatement) into the production costs of firms to a market which does, or more fully incorporates them—it is demonstrably possible that firms and industries will in the short term cease to be profitable which would, in the long term, once the market completed the adjustment, have been profitable. It follows that because of where we start from, and because of the path that the market would, if unaided, dictate, the economy might not reach the point at which we seek to arrive. The amendment seeks to provide the means whereby that might be avoided by generating revenues which can be used as subsidies to ensure that industries and the economy' in general can be put on a path that will enable them to reach that point which we wish.
How those means should be utilised is something which would vary from area to area and from industry to industry. It would depend on the distribution of industries within different areas and the division of a process of production between

889
different firms. That practical complexity makes it desirable that it should be targeted and administered by local authorities because they are best placed to do so. However, its application at the level of industries also makes it desirable that that should be done in full consultation with, and co-ordinated by, the Secretary of State. It is on that basis that the Secretary of State should consider giving the amendment practical effect.
I am sorry if I have bored the Committee. On the last occasion I tried to be brief while wishing to put the matter at greater length. I do not see how local authorities, which will be greatly involved, can help or give initiatives to firms which wish to set up but have problems with pollution control and perhaps no resources. It may be that the authority would desperately like to see such a firm in its area. There must be a way in which authorities can raise costs from one side in order to give aid on another.
The trouble is that the Government do not trust local government. That is sad and must be put right. However, we know from what is now happening that the opportunities for local authorities to do things for themselves are decreasing. When I led a county council in 1981–82 I was able to encourage employment and to bring back into life land that was lying idle as a result of the closure of industries. I should not be able to do so today. Unless there is a scheme such as that proposed I do not see how we can deal with those highly desirable firms that have a project which should be encouraged. They may not have the financial resources unless provision can be made for money received from one source to be distributed to another.
I know that probably that is anathema to present government thinking and to the thinking of the Secretary of State. However, I seriously suggest to the Minister that the provision should be considered. I beg to move.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Reay: I regret that we cannot accept Amendment No. 85 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. He is asking the profitable sectors of industry—but only those in Part B of the schedule, not the really large companies—to fund, either by grants or loans, pollution abatement improvements by others. In other words, profitable company A is required to provide capital for company B's improvement programme. Why should this system only relate to those processes in Part B to be controlled by local authorities for air pollution purposes? If it were to be introduced, surely it should bite first on the potentially larger processes prescribed for integrated pollution control.
Perhaps the problem with this amendment stems from a fundamental misapprehension. It says that the system is designed to stop otherwise unacceptable levels of pollution. But the system is already designed to stop that. The use of BATNEEC, the pollution load on the environment, is by definition acceptable since what determines excessiveness of cost will in part relate to the environmental benefits to accrue. If the cost of a
890
technique is not excessive, by definition there can be no unacceptable pollution load. I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I did not anticipate a very favourable response. However, the point has been aired to which I received a reply. I still believe that there is a problem. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 10, line 45 leave out ("consideration") and insert ("respect").
The noble Lord said: I speak also to Amendments Nos. 88 and 89. This is a series of simple amendments. Amendment No. 87 is designed to make clear that the annual fee relates to the subsistence of an authorisation and not, as might have been supposed by the word "consideration", the authority's enforcement of it.
Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 clarify the position in relation to relevant expenditure by the National Rivers Authority and answer legitimate anxieties of that authority. The first is a technical amendment specifying that the NRA's relevant functions are in respect of authorisations. The second ensures that the NRA can be reimbursed for all expenditure attributable to the consideration of the applications for the authorisation as well as the subsequent work if it is granted and used. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: I express my gratitude to the Minister for so fully and comprehensively meeting an important point which I raised at Second Reading. It is perhaps the most important point of outstanding anxiety about the operation of IPC jointly by the NRA and HMIP.
At Second Reading I drew attention to the fact that as a result of Clause 28 the NRA will be able to accept the conditions on all discharges to water. I pointed out that it was absolutely crucial that the NRA should not be inhibited from carrying out such monitoring and enforcement proceedings as it thinks is necessary.
I said that I had been encouraged by the assurances given by Ministers in correspondence that the NRA would be able to carry out such monitoring as it thinks necessary and would retain the right to intiate enforcement proceedings unilaterally. The doubt which remained was as to whether the finance would be available, as a result of this Bill, to enable the NRA to carry out those functions. I am satisfied that the government amendments meet those anxieties and that the charging scheme will enable the NRA to carry out that important part of its responsibilities.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 88 and 89:
Page 1, line 26, after ("Part") insert ("in relation to authorisations").
Page 11, line 27, leave out from ("in") to end of line 28 and insert ("exercising the Authority's functions in relation to

891
authorisations for processs which may involve the release of any substance into water.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 11, line 31, leave out ("he") and insert ("it").
The noble Earl said: In subsection (8) of this clause, the enforcing authority issues the notice. I therefore suggest to the Committee that the word "it" is substituted for the word "he". I beg to move.
Lord Reay: I congratulate my noble friend on tabling Amendment No. 90. It results from his careful scrutiny of the Bill and he has identified an infelicitous reference which the Government are happy to correct.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 11, line 40, at end insert ("or in relation to consultation carried out under regulations made under section 5(2) above").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 91, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 92 and 93.
Amendment No. 91 relates to the charging scheme for authorisations. Its purpose is to include expenditure incurred in relation to consultation within the definition of "relevant expenditure". Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 are minor drafting amendments to subsection (11) of Clause 8. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 92 and 93:
Page 11, line 41, leave out ("the appropriate") and insert ("a").
Page 11, line 43, leave out ("the") and insert ("their").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Variation of authorisations by enforcing authority]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 94 and 95:
Page 12, line 10, after ("above") insert ("and, in cases to which they apply, the requirements of Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act,").
Page 12, line 38, leave out from ("opinion") to end of line 40.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Variation of conditions etc.: applications by holders of authorisations]:
Lord Layton Lord Layton moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 13, line 21, leave out ("relevant") and insert ("substantial").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 96 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 97, 100 and 104. The whole purpose of the Bill is to protect the environment. During the course of normal industrial operations, changes are often made to the
892
way in which a process is carried out. Variation notices are surely not appropriate in circumstance where the operational changes are relatively minor and will not lead to a changed impact of that process on the environment.
The phrase "relevant change" would seem to introduce an unnecessary complication to an already complicated Bill and would give an operator a great deal of uncertainty regarding what constitutes a relevant change. "Substantial change", on the other hand, is defined in Clause 10(7) and would seem to fit the circumstances better where a variation notice would be required. Why make variations because of changes when the ends have stayed the same? There should be no need to inform the authority if there has not been a substantial change, as there would be no need to change the authorisation.
If it is the end product which is of concern, why set up a complex mechanism to hinder the continuation of what is, at the end of the day, the same thing and all that is of concern? If industry was expected to ask for authorisation for every system change it was to make in a process, the whole system would become unworkable.
What constitutes a relevant change? There could be considerable delay in obtaining variations at a time when industry is trying to react swiftly to changing circumstances. Would that not be damaging to the competitiveness of certain industries? An added work burden would be placed on the enforcing authority by what could well be unwarranted interference with a company's normal operations. I consider that that would be unjustifiable and I therefore beg to move the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: I understand the concerns which the noble Lord has expressed in introducing these four linked amendments. May I first categorically reassure him that it is no part of our purpose to place unnecessary bureaucracy or unwarranted obstacles in the way of industry. I fully appreciate that the system we are proposing in Part I must allow industry the greatest liberty consistent with adequate environmental control to get on with the task of producing the goods on which they—and all of us—depend. And I am very alive to the need to ensure that the system of variations which Clause 11 proposes should reflect the operational requirements of industry as well as those of the enforcing authority. The system we propose must, it is clear, be a sensible and workable one.
I must equally make clear that where the system calls for it we have not hesitated to ensure that proper controls are in place. It is every bit as important that the Part I regime should ensure that the conditions in an authorisation are updated in line with changes to the process. To ensure this, the enforcing authority must be kept fully up to date with those changes. Having said that, however, I believe I may be able to reassure the noble Lord about his concerns.
The amendments he proposes suggest, first, that industries should be required to notify to the enforcing authorities not relevant changes but only substantial changes. I resist that for a reason which I hope is clear when one considers the definition of

893
relevant change in subsection (9)—in essence, any change in the process which is capable of altering the releases from it. I remind the Committee that substantial changes are in practical terms simply those which are so significant that they merit the same procedure of public advertisement and consultation as an initial application for authorisation.
I hope that my noble friend will not disagree that the enforcing authority must be made aware of any change to the process which might affect releases. That seems self evident as a basic principle. The authority needs to know not only of changes to the releases themselves but also, for instance, of alterations to the process which might, possibly unknown to the operator, offer the potential for reducing releases. For example, an operator might want to make some seemingly minor reconstruction to the process hardware which would allow the enforcing authority to suggest the introduction of additional abatement equipment at very little extra cost. I emphasise that in the light of this it would be dangerous indeed to limit the requirement to notify the enforcing authorities to cases of significant changes only.
I must stress here two very important amendments which we have made to the variation procedures. First, an operator is no longer obliged under Clause 11 to notify the enforcing authority of all relevant changes. Instead, the authorisation itself can spell out as a condition what categories of change he must notify, or perhaps that he must notify of all changes except those of a specified category. There is no reason why this route should not allow the operator all the freedom he requires to make rapid changes of, for example, raw materials or throughputs, without further recourse to the enforcing authority.
The second change we have proposed, by way of Government Amendment No. 101 which we have already debated, is a major simplification of the notification procedure to cover cases where the operator knows from the beginning that what he requires is a change to one of his existing conditions. These important simplifications will go a very long way to easing the burden of reporting changes to enforcing authorities. I hope that added to the importance of the fundamental principle of reporting all relevant changes, except where it is clear that that is unnecessary, my noble friend will feel that he does not need to press his amendments.
Lord Layton: I thank my noble friend the Minister for that response. I think he has answered my questions fully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 98 and 99:
Page [4, line 17, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").
Page 14, leave out line 18.
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments and beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 101 to 103:
Page 14, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("shall") and insert—
("(5A) A person carrying on a process under an authorisation who wishes to make a relevant change in the process may, where it appears to him that the change will require the variation of the conditions of the authorisation, apply to the enforcing authority in the prescribed form for the variation of the conditions of the authorisation specified in the application.
(5B) A person who makes an application for the variation of the conditions of an authorisation")
Page 14, line 28, after ("may") insert (", having fulfilled the requirements of Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act in cases to which they apply, as it thinks fit either")
Page 14, line 29, leave out ("as it thinks fit") and insert ("or, in the case of an application under subsection (5A) above, treat the application as a request for a determination under subsection (2) above;")
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments and I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Revocation of authorisation]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 14, line 10, at end insert—
("(6) Where a revocation is served by the enforcing authority by virtue of subsection (1) above, the authority shall he liable to pay compensation to the recipient of the notice unless this revocation relates to a breach of the conditions of authorisation as specified in section 7 above.
(7) Provision may be made by regulations as to the manner determining the amount of any compensation payable in pursuance of this section including the factors to be taken into account in determining that amount.").
The noble Lord said: The Bill as drafted makes no provision for compensating companies whose authorisations have been revoked, perhaps as a result of a change in government policy or perhaps as a result of a previously unforeseen need to protect persons likely to be affected by the company's operations.
It is possible that a company will have invested a large sum of money to meet the conditions of an authorisation, because in some areas we are referring to new technology the investment for which is considerable.
An unforeseen change in circumstances may mean that the best available techniques which had been used are still not sufficient to meet new standards that become necessary and that further improvements are required to meet the new standards set down by an authority. I submit that in such situations it is reasonable for the company to expect to receive some compensation since it will have invested a large amount of resource but may, through no fault of its own, be deprived from profiting from such an investment.
The principle that companies are entitled to compensation in these circumstances has been previously adopted in relation to a number of areas of legislation, notably in food safety and consumer protection. Indeed, it has been adopted in relation to the revocation of consents issued by the old water

895
authorities. The amendment that I am moving is taken from Section 38 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
It is only reasonable that there should be in the Bill some provision, under certain circumstances, for companies to look to this compensation area; otherwise it will be very unfair, as I have said, particularly if the change that is necessary is through no fault of one's own. I beg to move.
1 a.m.
Lord Hesketh: My noble friend's amendment makes the point that if a revocation notice is served unreasonably, then the authority which served it should be liable to pay compensation. I recognise that the service of a revocation notice will be a matter of the utmost importance to the operator of a prescribed process, but I do believe that the Bill as it stands will ensure that processes will not be closed down on the whim of an enforcing authority.
My noble friend suggests compensation is the answer. Clearly, the financial interests of the operator would be adversely affected if he was required to close the process without good reason, even if he was allowed to recommence operations at a later date. I believe that, because the service of a revocation notice is of such major significance to the operator, we should give him every opportunity to present his side of the case before the process is stopped. We have provided, therefore, in Clause 15 that the operator may appeal against the service of the notice and that the notice will not take effect pending the final determination or withdrawal of the appeal. That, in my view, is the best solution to the problem.
I have to point out too to my noble friend that revocation notices may be served under Clause 8(8) as well as Clause 12. One by-product of his amendment would be to require, in cases of revocation, compensation to be paid to an operator by the enforcing authority when the operator had failed to pay his annual charge to the enforcing authority. That does seem a strange redistribution of wealth to the Government. I am sure that is not the intention of my noble friend. Given my explanation about the interaction between this clause and Clauses 8 and 15 of the Bill I request my noble friend not to press his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation. I shall have something to say about Clauses 15 and 17 in a few moments. The point that he made about Clause 8 I had not recognised. I still feel that there is good reason for compensation provisions to be made. However, in view of what the Minister has said I wish to have a careful look at the matter to see how exactly I can reconcile his view to my own. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Prohibition notices]:
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 105A:
Page 15, line 34, leave out ("an imminent") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not in the Chamber I shall move this amendment which stands in his name, mine and that of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. As drafted, Clause 14 enables the enforcing authority to serve a prohibition notice on a person carrying on a prescribed process where it is of the opinion that its continuation, or continuation in a particular manner, involves an imminent risk of serious pollution of the environment. As originally drafted, Clause 14 did not include the word "imminent". The word was inserted by a government amendment following an undertaking given by the Minister during Committee stage in another place.
It was thought that the range of circumstances under which prohibition notices could be served was too great. I believe that the insertion of the word "imminent" now makes it too restrictive. It is true that Part I of the Bill deals with long-term risks and that prohibition notices would not be appropriate in those situations. But I understand that the National Rivers Authority is not convinced that all risks of serious pollution are either long-term or "imminent".
The purpose of this amendment is to enable the enforcing authority to serve a prohibition notice where it is of the opinion that there is a risk of serious pollution but that that risk may not necessarily be imminent. If the serving of a prohibition notice specifying the risk involved and the steps to be taken to remove it are limited to circumstances where that risk is imminent, there would not always be time for the person carrying on the process to take the steps which are necessary to prevent serious pollution.
Even if a prohibition notice specified that one of the steps that must be taken to remove an imminent risk of serious pollution should include an immediate cessation of the particular process, or the relevant aspect of it, this would not necessarily mean that serious pollution would thereby be prevented. Certain activities might have been causing pollution to build up over a period of time until the point at which the risk had become imminent. It could then be too late to prevent the polluting effect on the environment, even by an immediate cessation.
In the case of the water environment, the National Rivers Authority has powers under Section 115 of the Water Act 1989 to take remedial action once pollution has entered any receiving waters. However, the authority is, I understand, concerned—and in my view rightly concerned—that pollution should, wherever possible, be dealt with before the event, by preventive action on site by the persons carrying on the process concerned.
I hope therefore that the Government will accept the amendment, or, if not, that they will give further thought to the word "imminent" and see whether some form of words can be found which will not be excessively wide but which will enable serious pollution to be checked in good time. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: I shall be extremely brief because the matter has been comprehensively covered by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. This is an extremely important point. I believe that, in seeking to ensure that the Bill did not go too wide, the Government have now created a situation where we can actually have serious pollution that should be prevented. If my noble friend cannot give an immediately favourable answer tonight I trust that he will not close his mind to these issues. I hope that he will take the matter away and see whether he can come back with a solution which would safeguard the environment, as I am sure all Members of the Committee would wish, and not leave us in a situation where we could face quite serious pollution that ought to be prevented.
Lord Reay: The effect of the amendment would be to delete an amendment which the Government brought forward on Report in another place. At Committee stage in another place the point was fairly made that, as many industrial processes involve a serious risk of pollution, the drafting of Clause 14 without any reference to time or urgency was extremely wide and imprecise—hence the introduction of the word "imminent". I think I can reassure the noble Lord that the purpose of his amendment is already provided for by Clause 13, which allows the enforcing authority to serve an enforcement notice when it considers that the condition of an authorisation is likely to be breached and so, by implication, run the risk of causing pollution of the environment.
Prohibition notices are slightly different. They are not designed primarily to be served when an operator is breaching or is likely to breach the conditions of an authorisation. They are designed to cover circumstances in which a process is being operated in a perfectly reasonable manner and within the conditions of the authorisation but where some event external to the process requires quick and decisive action. For example, an accident at one process could release substances which could react with those normally allowed to be released by a nearby process, so causing serious pollution. In those circumstances it would be right to close down temporarily the second process even though it was operating within its authorisation.
Those are the circumstances which prohibition notices are designed to meet. I think that the present wording of the clause meets that aim. I should like to consider the words of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. The two types of notices provided for in Clauses 13 and 14 furnish enforcing notices with a comprehensive and we think precautionary system of enforcement. I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moran: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply I am especially grateful for the fact that he said he would consider the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I, too, will study carefully in Hansard what has been said. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Appeals as respects authorisations and against variation, enforcement and prohibition notices]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 16, line 24, after ("11") insert ("above").
The noble Earl said: The proposal in this amendment is a fairly standard practice which is used throughout legislation in general. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My noble friend has succeeded in identifying another drafting error in the Bill which, once again, the Government are happy to correct.
Noble Lords: Shame!
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 17, line 23, leave out from ("above") to end of line 25 and insert:

("(a) in the case of a variation notice or an enforcement notice the appeal shall have the effect of suspending the operation of the notice until the appeal is finally disposed of or, if the appeal is withdrawn, until the withdrawal of the appeal;

(b) in the case of a prohibition notice the bringing of the appeal shall have the like effect if, but only if, on the application of the appellant the Secretary of State so directs and then only from the giving of the direction.").

The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who regrettably cannot be present in the Chamber at this late hour. If Members of the Committee will look at subsection (9), which is the subject of the amendment, I think they will agree that it is fairly draconian. I say that because it says:
"Where an appeal is brought under subsection (2) above against a notice, the bringing of the appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the operation of the notice".
As a result of that process, it may well be that the company is put out of business while waiting for an appeal to be heard, or waiting for the judgment of that appeal to be delivered. Of course, purely and simply by placing a notice on the company the inspectorate may be guilty of closing it down. The kind of example which springs immediately to my mind is one concerning the storage of chemicals in a particular way. It may be that the inspectorate wants this done in a certain way but the company maintains, through its technical expertise, that the existing method is perfectly right and proper. Nevertheless, a notice may be placed upon the company which means that it has to cease trading while awaiting the outcome of the appeal. The appeal procedure is provided for by Clause 15(2).
There is a precedent for this amendment if one looks, for example, at Section 24 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. It provides that, while an appeal is taking place, the notice takes effect after the appeal judgment has been given. In other words, the prohibition notice does not apply immediately, unless the tribunal specifically demands that it should do so.
It is unfair and one might even describe it as somewhat penal that a suspension is required while a variation order is in the process of being

899
undertaken. If it is suggested that the appeal procedure may be used to delay the implementation of a notice—whether or not it is a prohibition notice—I concede that that may in fact happen. But in other areas where this kind of legislation has been used, that incidence is very small indeed. Therefore, we must concern ourselves with such matters as the speed with which an appeal can be heard and the net outcome. If the net outcome of the appeal is in favour of the company, it will have been injuriously affected by the procedure.
Amendment No. 107 is designed to bring some element of reasonableness to the interests of enforcement and of fairness and the continuation of business. I beg to move.
1.15 a.m.
Lord Reay: My noble friend seeks to put certain notices into abeyance pending appeal, with special provision for prohibition notices in recognition of the serious and imminent danger of pollution that they are designed to prevent.
It may be helpful if I set out for the Committee how the proposed appeal system would work. New processes will not be able to begin operation until duly authorised by the enforcing authority. If the operator is unhappy with the conditions that have been set, he can appeal. In such a case he may decide to start up in compliance with the conditions and hope that they will later be amended on appeal; alternatively, he can wait for the appeal decision before beginning operation.
All notices (except those for revocation) will take effect immediately, whether or not the operator lodges an appeal against them. In most cases there will be time for the appeal to be considered before substantive construction work has to be undertaken to implement any major changes required by a notice since an enforcement or variation notice will not be valid unless sensible timescales allowing proper system design and construction work have been allowed.
My noble friend will appreciate that to put the notice into abeyance pending appeal would be to encourage unscrupulous operators to appeal automatically against every decision by the enforcing authority merely to delay the effect of a notice and so delay the cost of implementing environmental improvements. It is particularly in order to deal with those people that we need a robust system to ensure compliance. It would also risk clogging up the appeal system with potentially large numbers of groundless cases and would unnecessarily divert valuable technical resources away from a valid determination of what are the best available techniques, not entailing excessive costs in any case, or the best practicable environental option. I trust that the Committee is agreed that we must take the fastest action practicable to ensure that environmental improvements are made commensurate with a fair opportunity to challenge enforcing authority decisions.
As for the second part of the proposal, I am extremely concerned by the notion of having to ask my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to
900
confirm each prohibition notice before it takes effect. In such cases speed will be of the essence. If the enforcing authority believes that there is an imminent risk of serious pollution of the environment, it should be able to act immediately and not need to have its opinion endorsed. I trust that my noble friend will therefore not seek to pursue this amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I can promise the Committee that I shall not pursue the amendment this morning, but perhaps I may make one or two comments. Of course the Committee will agree with my noble friend that the speed at which enforcement can be executed is important. Nevertheless, a balance must be drawn. I cannot accept what the Minister said about unscrupulous operators. I dealt with that point in my opening remarks.
My noble friend described the provision contained in Clause 15 as needing to be robust in order to deter unscrupulous operators. I should like to know at a later stage how many unscrupulous operators it is estimated that that provision is likely to catch. I believe that it will not be so very many. As for clogging up the system and diverting resources, that is not a pertinent argument. The Bill should be so written as to provide an even-handed approach towards the enforcement authority, the appeal tribunal and the operators.
In his earlier remarks, the Minister dealt with the new processes being subject to appeal. I find that quite reasonable in that operations will not start until the process has been approved. If the process is not approved, it goes to appeal. Even so, the process has not yet started, so there is not such a potential loss. It is really on the question of variation and revocation that the greater damage may be effected.
I am inclined to accept at first hearing what my noble friend had to say about paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 107. I remain less sanguine about his answer to the first part. I shall pursue the matter at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Appointment of chief inspector and other inspectors]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 18, line 7, leave out ("authority") and insert ("Association of District Councils, or the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities").
The noble Earl said: Local authorities can choose qualified persons to be inspectors. I am trying in the amendment to ensure that there is not a variety of different names for the same officer across the country. That is why I suggest that through their association or convention, as the case may be, they choose a single name for officers. Then no matter where it is, the name is standard throughout the country. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I am afraid that on this occasion it is third time unlucky for my noble friend the Earl of Balfour. The local authority functions conferred by Part I of the Bill fall to individual local authorities. It is therefore for them rather than for the Association of District Councils or the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to decide what are the appropriate qualifications for any inspectors to whom they may choose to delegate powers.
The Earl of Balfour: Under those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Power to deal with cause of imminent danger of serious harm]:
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Public registers of information]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 21, line 39, at end insert:
("(bb) The levels of pollution anticipated in each year as a result of the carrying on of the process authorised (and for this purpose the person carrying on the process shall notify the authority annually as to the estimated levels;").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 111, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 112, 113, 118, 119, and 120. All these amendments refer to a major issue in the Bill. Much as the Government may sometimes wish it to go away, it simply will not do so. That is the issue of the availability of environmental information. At the early stages in the progress of the Bill through another place, the Government played a straight bat. They claimed that the provisions of the Bill as originally drafted were adequate.
Then there was a welcome change in many ways. The Government appeared to be saying that they were backing the proposals made for an EC directive on access to environmental information through the form of public registers. However, the problems with this apparent conversion of the Government remain serious. The provisions for access to environmental information exclude the confidentiality of proceedings of public authorities, internal communications or unfinished documents. They exclude information relating to international relations, national defence, public security or personal data. They exclude matters which are or have been sub judice, which are under inquiry or are the subject of preliminary investigation proceedings. They exclude commercial confidentiality. We shall come to the definition of commercial confidentiality in dealing with a later part of the Bill. They exclude information voluntarily supplied by companies or other third parties. They exclude information which if disclosed could lead to damage to that part of the
902
environment to which it relates. They exclude a request which is manifestly unreasonable or formulated in too general a manner.
Even though the authorities would have to give reasons for a refusal of that kind and even though there would always be the possibility of judicial review, nevertheless in our view that does not in effect constitute adherence to the European Commission directive. It would not satisfy the terms of any directive designed to secure adherence to the principle of access to environmental information. This is an extremely important matter and it is one which even at this hour of night cannot be left on one side. If the Government are to maintain any credibility in this matter, they must give some indication that the list of exemptions which is proposed is not firm and that they are prepared to discuss the terms of the exemptions. I should be happy to take any opportunity that I am offered between now and Report to discuss the terms and to see whether we can make some progress in improving freedom of access to environmental information. I hope that these amendments will provide us with the opportunity to do that and that we can enter some kind of meaningful dialogue with the Government on this. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The report of the Select Committee was most influential in helping us formulate the system of registers of information that is established in this clause. The committee looked particularly closely at registers and recommended their use for the reason that registers can assist the public by making information more accessible. Registers of information present information in an easy to use form and avoid the problem of the public having to find out what information is available before they can exercise their right to look at it.
The committee also recommended that raw monitoring data about releases to the environment should also be available; we have provided for this. But the committee rightly remarked that registers should not become too cluttered. It recommended that the bulkiest material should be accessible beyond the register. We agree with this recommendation too and have therefore provided that that type of information will be accessible on request rather than on the first tier of the register. But, to ensure that everyone knows that the information is available, the register will contain an indication that such information is available on request. In this way we have created a system that is both easy to use and comprehensive.
We listened hard in formulating Clauses 20 to 22. I have listened too, to the arguments presented by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, today, but I do not think that the proposed amendments lead to the improvements that he believes they do. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested that registers should include the levels of pollution anticipated in each year as a result of the carrying on of the process. In making an application to carry on a process the operator will be obliged to include an assessment of the likely effect on the environment of releases from the process. That application will form part of the register. And as part of the authorisation, the

903
enforcing authority will be able to require the operator to furnish details of actual releases (not estimates) at regular intervals. That information will also be placed on the register. That will ensure that the public has up-to-date information about actual releases. I do not see the additional need for estimates.
The noble Lord also mentioned reports of pollution incidents. These could be placed on the register under paragraph (i) of subsection (1). That same heading will also ensure that the results of HMIP's own monitoring of processes may be placed on the register. We wish to make as much information as possible available to the public, as I hope the debate we are having will show. But commercial confidentiality and national security are two necessary limits which were recognised by nearly all respondents to the public consultation on access to information which was issued last year; by the European Commission in formulating an EC Directive on access to information and, above all, by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, which considered an early draft of that directive.
In keeping with our wish to make as much information available as possible we have provided in Clause 20(4) that a statement should be included on the register indicating the existence of commercially confidential information. However, we decided against such a provision in the case of national security information. The acknowledgement of the existence of commercially confidential information does not of itself divulge any trade secret. I accept that a statement noting the existence of commercial confidentiality may cause some interest from industrial competitors, but it will not of itself breach that confidentiality.
The same cannot be said about national security information. Even the simplest information, such as the location of a process, could run the risk of breaching the security that this clause is designed to protect. Amendment No. 120 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, could allow the publication of much more information than that. I hope that, on reflection, he will consider it right not to pursue this amendment.
We published some guidelines during Committee stage in the other place which made it clear that exemptions from the register would not be given lightly. Only information which needs to be restricted will not be available to the public. Representations about the lack of information may be made at any time to enforcing authorities or, indeed, the Secretary of State. We do not need a specific provision such as Amendment No. 119 to ensure that. Such representations will no doubt be taken into account every time the exemption of the information from the register comes up for review. So I do not see the need to initiate a formal right of appeal to the Secretary of State, particularly as he may well have taken the decision as to whether or not the information should be included or excluded from the register. Furthermore, applications for authorisations should only go out to public consultation when questions of commercial confidentiality have been settled. An open-ended right of appeal about such decisions could therefore
904
lead to delay and confusion during the application process.
Amendment No. 112 brings amendment to subsection (1)(g). I know that there is some disquiet that the wording of this subsection could be taken to include information provided voluntarily by industry to the enforcing authorities. Therefore let me say at once that that is not the intention of the wording of this subsection. Subsection (1) refers to prescribed particulars of the various headings set out below. Let me assure noble Lords that those particulars will not include voluntary information. The need to exclude voluntary information was recognised in the recently agreed EC directive on access to information. Public authorities and industry need to maintain a good working relationship. As the report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House also recognised, any impediment to the flow of voluntary information on a non-statutory basis to the enforcing authorities could have adverse environmental effects. The noble Lords who sat on that and I are of one mind on this. We believe that the Bill as drafted achieves this goal and I hope precludes the need for these amendments to be taken.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sufficiently satisfied by the comments of the Minister that the wording is defective and that, for example, the use of the word "estimated" is undesirable to be able to say straight away that I shall not press these amendments to a division at this stage.
However, the Minister has not convinced me that the exemptions which I quoted to freedom of information, to the information which is to be provided on the public registers, are either in the public interest or in accordance with the report of the Select Committee on European communities. I am not convinced, either, that this is in conformity with the form which the European Commission directive is likely to take in the end.
Therefore, there are matters to which we may have to return at a later stage; but at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 not moved.]
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 22, line 11, after ("inspector") insert ("or river purification authority").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to Amendment No. I 14, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 115, 116 and 117.
These amendments are consequential to the changes made in Committee in the other place for the application of Part I of the Bill to Scotland. As a result of those changes, we shall have an interlocking system of pollution control in Scotland involving both the chief inspector and the river purification authorities. It is therefore right that the RPAs be placed on the same footing as the chief inspector when it comes to the keeping of registers, and that we provide for full exchange of information between the chief inspector and the RPAs. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 115 to 117:
Page 22, line 13, after ("inspector") insert ("or river purification authority").
Page 22, line 14, after ("inspector") insert ("or river purification authority").
Page 22, line 16, at end insert:
("(2A) In Scotland, the register maintained by—

(a) the chief inspector shall also contain prescribed particulars of such information contained in any register maintained by a river purification authority as relates to the carrying on in the area of the authority of prescribed processes in relation to which the authority has functions under this Part, and each authority shall furnish the chief inspector with the particulars which are necessary to enable him to discharge his duty under this section;

(b) each river purification authority shall also contain prescribed particulars of such information contained in any register maintained by the chief inspector as relates to the carrying on in the area of the authority of prescribed processes in relation to which the chief inspector has functions under this Part, and the chief inspector shall furnish each authority with the particulars which are necessary to enable them to discharge their duty under this section.

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 not moved.]
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Exclusion from registers of information affecting national security]:
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Exclusion from registers of certain confidential information]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 23, line 42, at end insert:
("(2A) A determination under subsection (2) above must be made within the period of fourteen days beginning with the date of the application and if the enforcing authority fails to make a determination within that period it shall be treated as having determined that the information is commercially confidential.").
The noble Lord said: I have tabled two amendments to this clause. Under Schedule 1 to the Bill we have provided that applications for authorisations should be determined by the enforcing authority within four months. That timescale includes a public consultation exercise which can only take place once questions of commercial confidentiality have been resolved. Clearly, therefore, considerations of commercial confidentiality will need to be resolved quickly, but not hastily.
Amendment No. 121 provides that questions of commercial confidentiality should be resolved by the enforcing authorities within 14 days, which is a reasonable period, given the overall timetable for the determination of applications. However, if in practice that proves to be too short, or even too long, Amendment No. 126 enables that timescale to be contracted or extended. This is another example of the detail that we are putting into the Bill on these important provisions. I hope that they will be welcomed by the Committee.
Perhaps I should seek the indulgence of the Committee and reply now to the amendment of
906
the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The Government introduced Clause 22 at Report stage in the other place because we wanted to set down as much detail as possible on the face of the Bill on this important subject. I hope that the informed and interesting debate that we have had today has confirmed the rectitude of that decision.
I agree with the spirit of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It would not make sense to insist that appeals about commercially confidential information should be held in public. However, subsection (5) of Clause 15 already allows the person appointed to examine the appeal to decide that the hearing should be held in private. The noble Lord has suggested that the appointed person should not have that discretion, and that all such appeals should be held in private. The inspectors hearing those appeals will be responsible and experienced people. The work of an appeal inspector carries great responsibility. I do not consider that they need to be nursed through the decision as to whether or not commercially confidential information should be examined in public. If an appeal covers both commercially confidential and non-confidential information, then it may be appropriate to allow part of the hearing to be in private and part of it in public. Clause 15(5) allows for that. I think the Bill is right as it stands on this point.
I have to say too that I am not attracted by Amendment No. 127 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The wording in the Bill seeks to take an overall view of commercial confidentiality. Above all, it requires a degree of reasonableness to be involved. The noble Lord's amendment reduced commercial confidentiality to a straight profit and loss account. That would have an effect which I am sure he did not intend. If, for example, the enforcing authority wished to place some information on the register about releases to the environment which showed that the process concerned did not take its environmental responsibilities seriously, the current wording of the Bill would not prevent the authority from making that information public.
However, the wording proposed in the amendment would allow the operator of such a process to claim that once that information was in the public domain, a significant number of people would no longer buy his product, so losing him money. That would extend the meaning of commercial confidentiality in a quite unwarranted way. I am sure that the noble Lord agrees that, far from encouraging the restriction of information about poor operating standards, we should make it available so that the public make informed judgments about the environmental records of operators of processes coming within this part of the Bill.
We introduced subsection (7) into the Bill in response to an amendment tabled by the Opposition during Committee stage in the other place. That amendment suggested that commercial confidentiality be reviewed every 18 months. That timescale was to short, even for the fast pace at which technology moves. After taking soundings from environmental groups and industry we concluded that four years was about right. As the

907
onus is on the operator to apply for a renewal of commercial confidentiality, I am not persuaded that we should be able to tinker with the timescale, which Amendment No. 125 would allow us to do, without any scrutiny by the persons affected by a direction. I think that we need to frame this clause in such a way that industry can plan ahead and knows when it must apply to protect that information which it regards as commercially confidential. Amendment No. 122 tabled by the noble Lord is, we believe, inconsistent with subsection (7) and indeed his own Amendment No. 125. I think that it is right to place the onus on renewing applications for confidentiality on the operators of processes and that we have the right timescale in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to subsection (6). I know that this clause has been causing some concern to industry. I believe that those fears are unnecessary. Subsection (6) meets a proposal which was made in the consultation paper on public access to information which we issued last year. The paper suggested that in exceptional circumstances it would be in the national interest for information to be included on the register, even though its inclusion might prejudice some private interest.
In the other place, my honourable friend the Minister for the Environment and the Countryside explained that this subsection was designed to enable the Government to make information available should a major accident, such as Chernobyl, occur. Information which would be commercially confidential in everyday circumstances might well then need to be released in the public interest. Unnecessary secrecy could, in those circumstances give rise to all sorts of unnecessary fears and alarms and we should all wish to look very carefully at what needed to be done to alleviate the concern of people in such circumstances.
I hope that subsection (6) is a power which seldom, if ever, needs to be used. Nevertheless it is a necessary reserve power. If we do not retain it, I think that we shall be sending the wrong sort of message to the British public. We should be saying that the commercial interest is more important than the public interest, even in the direst environmental emergencies. That is not a view I share. I look forward to hearing the response in reverse to my response in advance. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have no problem about the matter being presented in that way because the original amendment by the Minister in a sense determines the significance of all the other amendments. I say straightaway that I am sufficiently satisfied by the Minister's answer not to want to pursue Amendments Nos. 125 and 127. He has not persuaded me at all about Amendment No. 122.
Amendment No. 122 is very different. It is an extremely carefully worded amendment designed not to force, but to give an opportunity to, an enforcing authority to shorten the period of commercial confidentiality if it appears to the authority, having given notice to the person concerned together with an opportunity for him to make representations, that it should be shortened.
908
The Committee will recall that the provision at the moment is for a four-year period of exclusion on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. But there are many cases when a four-year period, even taking a purely business point of view—I address these words perhaps to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—is excessive. A company might argue that the information needed to be withheld because it would indicate plans to launch a new product. But if the new product has been launched, then the four-year period is no longer relevant.
It seems to me that the very modest proposals made in Amendment No. 122 to shorten the period under those circumstances, after giving an opportunity for consultation, would not breach commercial confidentiality in any significant way and would improve the state of public availablility of information about environmental pollution.
Under those circumstances, although I do not seek to press Amendments Nos. 125 and 127, I hope that the Minister will reconsider Amendment No. 122.
1.45 a.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Before my noble friend responds, perhaps I may speak briefly on Amendments Nos. 123 and 124. My noble friend has already addressed those amendments.
I cannot accept what he said. Amendment No. 123 is designed purely and simply to provide a mechanism for exceptional circumstances. It relates to hearings held under subsection (5) to discuss the potentially confidential nature of certain information. Such hearings cannot be held in public. If this section of the Bill is intended to protect all confidential information a public hearing would be totally inappropriate. I do not think that is what my noble friend said. The amendment provides a mechanism for exceptional circumstances.
With regard to subsection (6) I can easily appreciate that commercial and public interests do not always go hand in hand. Nevertheless, as it is worded subsection (6) allows the Secretary of State not merely to take decisions in individual cases but also to lay down blanket rules overriding particular aspects of the commercial confidentiality protection.
I believe that such provision is implicit in Amendment No. 122. I cannot rest too easily with what we have heard about Amendment Nos. 122, 123 and 124. A balance has to be struck. Although commercial confidentiality is sometimes wildly exaggerated, nevertheless there should be some reasonable provision to protect it. Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity between now and another stage to consider the matter again to see whether a better balance can be drawn.
Lord Hesketh: I feel rather like a trout at the bottom of a small stream with gunfire being exchanged over the top of me. If I do not make my noble friend Lord Lucas, or the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, entirely happy, I am probably steering a steady middle course.
I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas. In the final analysis the Government have to

909
ensure that there is a right that exceeds that of private confidentiality. That provision is in subsection (6). I accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, if one refers to a product. The greater difficulty is where the process is of an important commercial nature. That is where there may be a problem regarding confidentiality over a four-year period. If one produces a motor car which comes out of the factory into the showroom, everyone has seen it, and there is no point in having four years of confidentiality. Where one has a process that is the key to the success of the company, it is very hard to expose the company by saying that one will reduce that period of confidentiality.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is a government amendment. It is therefore for the Minister to wind up. I believe that I could persuade him between now and a later stage that processes as well as products are finite. There may be scope for advance on that basis.
Lord Hesketh: On that happy note, I commend Amendment No. 121.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 122 to 125 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 24, line 38, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State may, by order, substitute for the period for the time being specified in subsection (2A) above such other period as he considers appropriate.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Offences]:
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 26, line 1, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) Any person may prosecute before a Magistrates' Court proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above.").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry but I must move this amendment. I do so fully aware of the fact that the local authority associations which advise me on many of the issues do not agree with me. They are afraid that too open access to the courts to bring proceedings under Part I—I remind noble Lords that Clause 23 is concerned with offences under Part I—would cause difficulties for local authorities. I do not doubt that. However, I believe that in the end we must accept that the range of offences which has been identified under Part I, and which is dealt with in Clause 23, is such that the opening up proposed in subsection (5)—namely, to enable an inspector who is not a barrister or solicitor to prosecute before a magistrates' court—although welcome does not go far enough. Air pollution is so widespread an evil that it may well be that under certain circumstances members of the public may have to have the right to institute proceedings and therefore to prosecute. On that basis I beg to move.
Lord Reay: In another place there was some debate about whether the draft of the Bill brought forward by the Government would allow a person to bring proceedings against the operator of a process without requiring the consent of the enforcing authority or the Director of Public Prosecutions. My honourable friend gave an assurance that it did.
There is a link with this amendment. We are not proposing in subsection (5) that an individual wishing to initiate proceedings should have to use an inspector of the enforcing authority to present his case—far from it. Magistrates' courts procedures insist that proceedings for an offence must be initiated by the laying of information and that information must be laid by an individual. An individual who lays that information before the magistrates' court—and thus meets the concern of the noble Lord—has the right to prosecute in person. If he prefers he may employ a barrister or a solicitor to bring the case for him.
Subsection (5) does not alter that right in any way. It meets a point which arises where enforcing authorities bring their own proceedings. In these cases it is not axiomatic that the person who lays the information before the court will necessarily be the person in the authority to prosecute the proceedings in the court. The effect of subsection (5), which is precedented in existing environmental legislation, is therefore to allow any inspector to prosecute before a magistrates' court, even though he or she may not have laid the information before the court in the first instance. That is why we wish to retain subsection (5). It does not limit the rights of individuals but allows for more effective public administration.
As the current wording of the Bill already meets the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I hope he will not press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was fascinated by the Minister's reply and I shall struggle to understand it between now and a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Enforcement by High Court]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 26, line 9, after ("Court") insert ("or, in Scotland, in any court of competent jurisdiction").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 130 adapts Clause 24 for Scotland. It provides that where an enforcing authority in Scotland wishes to take court proceedings to ensure compliance with an enforcement or prohibition notice such proceedings can be taken in any court or competent jurisdiction; that is either the sheriff court of the Court of Session. The wording of the amendment follows the precedent of Section 58(8) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Authorisations and other statutory controls]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 27, line 49, at end insert:
("(5) Where the Nature Conservancy Council are of the opinion that any area of land—

(a) is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographic features; and

(b) may at any time be affected by an authorisation given by an enforcing authority to release substances from a prescribed process into water,

the Council shall notify the fact that the land is of special interest for that reason to the relevant enforcing authority.
(6) Where the activities comprising a prescribed process include the release of any substances into water likely to affect any area notified under subsection (5) above, the enforcing authority shall consult the Nature Conservancy Council before authorising any release.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 131 is to require enforcing authorities to consult the Nature Conservancy Council where an authorisation to release substances into water may affect special sites.
At present, the National Rivers Authority authorises releases into water from prescribed processes. Under Section 9 of the Water Act 1989 it has a specific duty to consult the Nature Conservancy Council before authorising any discharge likely to affect an SSSI.
The Nature Conservancy Council is also obliged to notify relevant SSSIs to the NRA. It is important that those duties towards areas of special scientific interest for nature conservation are maintained when responsibility is transferred to the new enforcement authorities. The NCC has established a good working relationship with the NRA. That was strengthened when new duties to consult the NCC on activities affecting SSSIs were introduced in Section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It will be unfortunate if that link is not passed over to the chief inspector of HMIP.
The Department of the Environment has declined to take forward an amendment requested by the Nature Conservancy Council. It said that many bodies have a legitimate interest in being consulted and that they could not all be listed. That may be true. However, it is clear from Section 9 of the Water Act 1989 that only the Nature Conservancy Council, the National Parks Authority and the Broads Authority in their respective areas have a statutory basis as consultees. We feel that the statutory basis of that consultation is very important and we wish to see it carried forward. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: It is a natural desire of organisations to be statutory consultees. But the difficulty of prescribing such organisations on the face of the Bill is to decide where one stops. No matter how many organisations we include, there is always the risk that somebody may be left out, or circumstances
912
may change and an organisation which did not need to be consulted 10 years previously is clearly appropriate now. For such reasons we concluded that, apart from the NRA, whose interest is of particular importance to the setting of conditions relating to releases to water, we should not provide for other statutory consultees on the face of this part of the Bill.
I note, additionally, that the NCC is already a statutory consultee under planning legislation for development in an area of special scientific interest which has been notified to the local planning authority. There are likely to be few, if any, cases where an IPC authorisation for new process does not involve development requiring planning permission.
I am not persuaded that an amendment placing a duty on the NCC (and its successors) to notify SSSIs to the enforcing authorities is necessary. However, my officials have already given an assurance to the NCC, which I am happy to repeat, which goes further than the second part of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. She requires releases to water to be notified to the NCC only when such a release may affect an SSSI; but why not releases to air, and land too? We already propose to prescribe the NCC as a statutory consultee for IPC under Schedule 1 where releases may affect an SSSI. It will therefore be in the interests of the NCC and its successor bodies to notify HMIP of the location of SSSIs and it is therefore unnecessary to place the council under a duty to do so, as the amendment does.
While I am giving assurances to the NCC perhaps this is also a convenient moment to state that it will be consulted on the regulations prescribing processes and substances. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: Although I appreciate the limited areas in which the NCC is to be consulted, I am rather disappointed at the Government's attitude, as indicated in the first part of the Minister's reply, that the NCC is just another body. Surely as the Government's statutory adviser on conservation matters it requires special status.
I do not propose to press the amendment. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said, but I am not very happy that he has felt unable to accept the first part. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at two o'clock.

  GAMETE INTRO-FALLOPIAN TRANSFER TREATMENT: LICENSING CONTROLS
  GAMETE INTRO-FALLOPIAN TRANSFER TREATMENT: LICENSING CONTROLS
  MEDICAL PATENTS: EC REQUIREMENTS
  MEDICAL PATENTS: EC REQUIREMENTS
  DEFENDANTS: ELECTRONIC MONITORING EXPERIMENTS
  DEFENDANTS: ELECTRONIC MONITORING EXPERIMENTS
  PRISON POPULATION: STATISTICS
  PRISON POPULATION: STATISTICS
  RECALLED LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS
  RECALLED LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS
  RECONVICTED LIFE SENTENCE PRISONER LICENSEES
  RECONVICTED LIFE SENTENCE PRISONER LICENSEES