Sitting of 26 June 1990

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

    Construction Inspectors
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans there are for increasing the number of specialist construction inspectors within the Health and Safety Executive.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): In April 1990, the Health and Safety Executive embarked on a year-long recruitment campaign aimed at increasing the number of specialist inspectors in post across all disciplines, including construction.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware that in 1988–89 there were 540 fatal accidents, mainly in the construction industry, and that it is believed that 90 per cent. of them could have been avoided? Will the Department get itself organised and do something to help to avoid such unnecessary deaths? Is the Minister further aware that many deaths could be avoided if the Department were determined to follow a proper recruitment policy?
    Mr. Nicholls: I agree with at least some of what the hon. Gentleman says. He is right to draw attention to the fact that the "Blackspot Construction" report estimated that about 90 per cent. of fatalities were preventable, about 70 per cent. by management action. But the hon. Gentleman is wrong to assume that one can automatically reduce the number of accidents and fatalities simply by increasing the number of inspectors. The requests of the Health and Safety Commission have been met in recent years, but ultimately responsibility for preventing fatalities and industrial injuries must lie with those engaged in the workplace.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Minister confirm that the Health and Safety Commission's plan of action has been returned to it by the Secretary of State, and is it connected with its bid for a further £7 million of funding? The Minister says that all its bids in recent years have been accepted. Will the present bid be met in full?
    Mr. Nicholls: The Health and Safety Commission must discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend its plan of work. Those discussions have taken place and my right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that sufficient resources to enable it to carry out that plan will be found
    166
    from within our own resources, so the assurance that I gave the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) remains true.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total work force in employment in (a) the second quarter of 1979 and (b) the second quarter of 1989.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): The work force in employment in the United Kingdom stood at 25.4 million in June 1979 and 26.8 million in June 1989, an increase of 1.4 million over the period.
    Mr. Thompson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, during a similar period, the number of people employed in the Norwich area, in particular in the city of Norwich, increased by 5,000, coupled with a downward trend in unemployment in Norwich, particularly among women? Does he agree that all of that would be put at risk if the Opposition's policies were put into effect, and that they would have a particularly disastrous effect on East Anglia?
    Mr. Howard: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There can be no doubt whatever that the policies that would be pursued by the Labour party would work not only to the detriment of my hon. Friend's constituents—very serious though that would be—but to the detriment of the country as a whole.
    Mr. James Lamond: Before the Minister becomes too complacent about the statistics, may I ask him to bear it in mind that within the figures are concealed sectors such as textiles and clothing, which have been faced with massive reductions in the number of employees? For example, Courtaulds has recently been closing mills in the north-west of England. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that those who are negotiating on behalf of the Government, including through the EC, ensure that the multi-fibre arrangement is retained for at least another 10 years, bearing in mind how important that arrangement is if the textile industry is to remain on its feet?
    Mr. Howard: Those matters are taken into account by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the negotiations to which the hon. Gentleman refers. But the country has learnt increasingly in the past 11 years that the key to success is to adapt to change and not simply to preserve existing patterns of employment wherever they may be. That is the basis for the extra 1.5 million jobs that have been created since 1979, bringing the total to 27 million.
    Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that a higher proportion of the adult population of this country is in work than in any other European country? Does he agree that the greatest threat to the excellent figures that he announced this afternoon comes from some of the madcap socialist policies put forward by the European Commission and Mrs. Papandreou, which would simply make it more expensive and bureaucratic for employers to take on more employees?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend's analysis of the social action programme is entirely accurate. There is no doubt

    167
    that those proposals would destroy jobs and make it infinitely more difficult for us to maintain the record of success that we have had for several years.
    Ms. Short: Does the Secretary of State understand—if I can help to persuade him, perhaps he will explain to his Back Benchers—that having a high proportion of one's work force in employment is not a sign of a developed, healthy economy? Britain is backward in that it has high numbers of young people who do not receive education and low levels of people in training. Labour's programme, which places great emphasis on those issues, will help Britain to catch up with the rest of Europe, rather than fall steadily behind, as it has done under this Government's policies.
    Mr. Howard: I fancy that if there were fewer people in work in this country, the Labour party would not entirely welcome that. We can justly be proud of the fact that we have a record number of jobs here. It gives people the opportunities for employment and earnings that they want. It is shameful that the Labour party's policies would act to the detriment of those opportunities.

    Employment Legislation
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what benefits he estimates have accrued from the changes in employment legislation over the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholls: By ending abuses of trade union power, such as secondary action and flying pickets, which disfigured British industrial relations for so long, our legislation has helped to attract massive overseas investment to this country, create record numbers of new jobs and reduce the number of strikes to the lowest level for more than 50 years.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend remind the public of the dangers of repealing that legislation and returning to the anarchy of trade union bosses and their flying pickets? Will he go on reminding the public that those are the policies that the Opposition want?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the fact that any conversion by the Labour party to the virtues of responsible trade unionism is extremely short lived and skin deep. My hon. Friend should bear in mind the comment that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) made in his letter to The Times yesterday. He glibly said that it would be wholly unfair to ban lawful secondary action.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Have the Government finally stopped abolishing wages councils? If they have, is it because they are ashamed of their actions? Might they restore the wages councils that previously existed?
    Mr. Nicholls: I can well understand that, on a question that highlights the Labour party's deficiencies, the hon. Lady would want to talk about the wages councils, but perhaps we can talk about them on another occasion. The point that arises out of this question is that trade union reforms that the Government have introduced have been overwhelmingly popular with the public and are seriously under threat, as anybody who takes the trouble to look at Labour party policy in detail will see.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Barry Porter: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has fallen (a) as a percentage of the total and (b) in numbers since June 1987.
    Mr. Howard: Since June 1987, unemployment in the United Kingdom, seasonally adjusted, has fallen by about 44 per cent., and by just under 1·25 million.
    Mr. Porter: Is not it somewhat strange that Labour Members find the undeniable fact that more people are employed in this country than ever before sad and the sign of an underdeveloped country? I fail to understand that. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will confirm that the figure that shows that our unemployment level is well below that of our European partners is more important. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) in seeking reassurance that the bizarre and restrictive schemes of the social aspects of the Labour party's policy and our record on job creation should be brought to the attention of our partners.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. With the exception only of Luxembourg and West Germany, we have the lowest rate of unemployment in the European Community. There is no doubt that the policies that have led to our success in job creation would be substantially more difficult to carry out if the social action programme were implemented. I lose no opportunity to point that out to my colleagues in the European Community.
    Dr. Reid: Is the Minister aware that the demise of the threatened steel industry in Lanarkshire would produce unemployment figures that even he, practised though he is, could not fiddle? Does he recognise that if the steel industry in Lanarkshire were to go, unemployment in the area would be 33 per cent. among males, 13 per cent. among females and 25 per cent. overall? Perhaps he intends to try to fiddle those figures, but would not it be easier for him to make representations to his colleague at the Department of Trade and Industry and ask him to get off his butt and do something to save the steel industry?
    Mr. Howard: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has made clear the Government's concern about the future of the steel industry, to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If the hon. Gentleman looks elsewhere in the United Kingdom, he will see that adjustments have taken place on a scale that has ensured that those parts of the United Kingdom that were most affected by closures in the steel industry now have a rate of unemployment that is lower than the national average. That proves that it is possible to adapt to change in a highly successful and effective manner.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the tremendous reduction in unemployment that we have seen in the west midlands owes a great deal not only to our legislative changes but to changes of attitude in the workplace, especially in manufacturing? Does he further agree that the co-operation of the workers to become multi-skilled creates not only a more flexible environment in the workplace but adds to the career potential of the workers? Would he like to add his good wishes to two companies in my constituency that this week

    169
    received the Queen's award for export and technology? Those companies are Lucas and Yales and the workers deserve congratulations.
    Mr. Howard: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the two firms to which she referred. She is right to identify the enhanced skills among our work force as one of the key factors responsible for our recent success. We want to build on what has been achieved over the years.

    Safety Representatives (Building Sites)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about employment of safety representatives on building sites.
    Mr. Nicholls: Safety representatives make a valuable contribution to ensuring satisfactory standards of health and safety, both on building sites and in other workplaces.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that in Question 1, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) emphasised the appalling safety record on building sites and the need for action? In answer to that question the Minister said that he did not envisage the appointment of more inspectors. If he will not appoint more inspectors, will he make sure that there are safety representatives on all building sites and that they are there for the duration of the contract so that we can have an improvement in safety? That applies especially to management-only contracts and where there is a continuing changeover of subcontractors, because that makes the continuity of safety difficult and contributes to the high level of accidents and deaths.
    Mr. Nicholls: I respectfully correct the hon. Gentleman in his recollection of what I said. I did not say that the Government were not prepared to appoint more inspectors, but that the mere appointment of more inspectors would not automatically ensure that there were fewer fatalities and accidents. The figures show that there are more inspectors in post in construction than the target. The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point in talking about the need to have special regard to multi-contractor sites. He will be aware that the commission has issued a consultative document about that and we shall be interested to see the response to it.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that if we are to have high safety standards in the construction industry, we must have proper training? Is he aware of the excellent work carried out by the construction industry training board in raising the standards of training in the construction industry? Does he further agree that the CITB has an important future role?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right to make the point, made by Ministers on numerous occasions, that training is very much the key, and that also means training of awareness and getting over to workers the fact that in the end they have to be responsible for their safety, as do employers. That is an uncomfortable message and therefore one that Opposition Members wish to obscure, but it is true nevertheless.
    Mr. Crowther: Does the Minister accept that the report to which he referred earlier showed clearly that a large percentage of the appallingly high level of fatalities and
    170
    serious injuries in the construction industry is due to lack of proper supervision and training in safety matters? If the hon. Gentleman cannot persuade employers, or many of them, to accept their responsibilities, will he consider giving more power to the safety representatives, so that they can stop potentially dangerous practices without going through the present bureaucratic process of filling in numerous forms while the dangerous practice continues?
    Mr. Nicholls: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of having to fill in some form or of going through a bureaucratic procedure to stop an unsafe practice. If the workers on a construction site or in any other workplace feel that something is unsafe, a single telephone call to the Health and Safety Executive will enable the matter to be dealt with at once. I do not accept that merely giving extra powers to safety representatives in a situation that may require a high degree of knowledge and expertise is the way forward. Where I can agree with the hon. Gentleman—I am grateful to him for giving me the chance to reiterate it yet again—is that management has the key responsibility, and it is wholly unacceptable, as the "Blackspot Construction" report made clear, that 90 per cent. of accidents were preventable, 70 per cent. by management action. That is a message that management must take on board and I accept it to the hilt.

    Travelling People (Salisbury)
    Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about unemployment benefit claims by travelling people at his Department's Salisbury office.
    Mr. Nicholls: I understand that there are 1,509 people claiming unemployment-related benefits at the Salisbury office, of whom 150 are registered as not having a permanent or fixed address. Claimants in that category are subject to the same rules and responsibilities for receiving benefits as anyone else who claims, including those of being available for and actively seeking work.
    Mr. Key: I have no wish to see the children of travelling people further disadvantaged, but will my hon. Friend have another look at the requirement that claimants should be actively seeking work, because it is increasingly difficult to explain to pensioners and low-paid rural workers why more than 100 hippies, who do not pay poll tax and make no contribution to society, can claim benefit all the year round in Salisbury?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. As a Member with a rural constituency who has also been plagued by bands of brigands, I have considerable sympathy with what he says. It is relatively early days to know whether the actively seeking work provisions work. Clearly, those who have an interest in making them work to their advantage will try to do so. In the light of his experience, my hon. Friend may feel that the actively seeking work provisions are not having the effect that they should in particular cases, so if he wants to come and see me, I shall be more than happy to co-operate.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total unemployment figures and the rate of unemployment in May 1990, and May 1980.
    Mr. Howard: In May 1990, the seasonally adjusted level of unemployment in the United Kingdom was 1,611,000, or 5.7 per cent. of the work force, compared with a level of 1,224,400 in May 1980, or 4.6 per cent. of the work force.
    Mr. Welsh: How can the Minister justify an economic policy that keeps unemployment low in and pumps massive wealth into the pampered English southern regions at the direct expense of the rest of the United Kingdom? Does not he know that the Low Pay Unit report shows that more than half the Scottish work force is on low pay at a time of high unemployment, and all that in one of the potentially richest countries in Europe? How can the Government call something that harms so many and helps so few an economic policy?
    Mr. Howard: Unemployment in Scotland during the past year has dropped by more than 16 per cent. compared with a reduction in the United Kingdom as a whole of just over 12 per cent. Scotland is fully sharing in Britain's prosperity, which is a direct result of the Government's policies.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noted that unemployment in Gravesham has more than halved since the most recent general election? Is not it the case that long-term unemployment has also substantially reduced?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. There has been a proportionately greater reduction in the number of long-term unemployed even than in unemployment as a whole. I hope that Opposition Members welcome that.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the Bolton and Bury travel-to-work area, 9,500 jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry over the past nine years? Is that good for the economy of the Bolton and Bury travel-to-work area?
    Mr. Howard: As I said, if we are to continue achieving success, we must adapt to change. That has been happening in the area to which the hon. Gentleman refers, as it has in all other areas. One must examine all the unemployment figures to reveal the truth, and the true picture that has been developing is one in which every right hon. and hon. Member can take pride.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in Scotland, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, the unemployment figures show clearly that more people are in work? The Governor of the Bank of England commented only yesterday how well Scotland has done in the transition from the old smoke-stack industries to today's modern industries, whereby people are much better off.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. I never cease to wonder at the amount of time, effort and energy devoted by Opposition Members to denigrating the Government's record, when we ought to be debating policies that will help take the country forward on the most secure basis. On
    172
    reflection, perhaps the reason why the Opposition do not want to discuss policies is that they know that theirs would work to the detriment of us all.

    Low Pay
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received concerning low pay for people under the age of 25 years following the publication of the last edition of the new earnings survey.
    Mr. Nicholls: Since 1989, my right hon. and learned Friend has received 11 representations on that subject.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Minister aware that since the Wages Act 1986 the United Kingdom has stood alone in not protecting young people on low wages, in contrast to our EEC counterparts? Is he further aware that young people are paid scandalously low wages in many parts of the United Kingdom? The Low Pay Unit has found some youngsters working for hairdressers earning less than half what they would if protected by the wages councils. When will the Government adopt the social charter to prevent young people being exploited in that way?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman has achieved a first today in managing to craft a question in which every single judgment that he made is precisely wrong. If he examines the evidence, he will find that the structure of wages councils, minimum wages, and all the other apparatus that Opposition Members like so well has the effect not of creating jobs but of destroying them.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my hon. Friend agree not only that a minimum wage would increase unemployment among the low-paid but that the best way of helping those people is to ensure that they do not pay national insurance contributions, as under the present Government? But they will if, by some mischance, a Labour Government are elected.
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right to remind us that one of the effects of the draft directive on temporary work would be to ensure that 1·75 million low wage earners who do not pay national insurance contributions now would have to pay them. Apparently, that policy has the support of the Opposition—but it does not have the support of the Government.

    Training in Work
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to increase the numbers receiving training in work.
    Mr. Howard: The number of people in work receiving training increased by 70 per cent. between 1984 and 1989. The employer-led training and enterprise councils that are coming into operation around the country will actively promote measures to continue that encouraging trend.
    Mr. McAvoy: Is the Secretary of State aware that according to the European Commission's 1989 labour survey, the United Kingdom has the lowest-skilled work force in Europe, with only 38 per cent. classed as skilled compared with the EC average of 63 per cent? Is he further aware that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations is quoted in today's issue of The Times as

    173
    saying that it will have to axe thousands of training places because of Government cuts in training expenditure? Why do the Government still refuse to support the long-term future of this country?
    Mr. Howard: I look forward to meeting the national council tomorrow, when I shall explain to it that the Government are spending some £2·7 billion of taxpayers' money in the current year on training, that we are seeing an increase in employers' contributions to training, and that the extent to which our work force is beginning to become well trained is increasing apace, and will continue to be enhanced as a result of the activities of training and enterprise councils.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the people who most need training are school leavers, who go into work instead of further education in one form or another? Will he consider making a link between employers' national insurance contributions and the level of qualifications that young employees manage to achieve while working for that employer?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is known for his ingenious suggestions and that is one which we shall certainly consider, as we consider all suggestions to help performance in that area. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that young people who enter work receive training, and I am delighted that employers are increasingly recognising their responsibilities in that area.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Secretary of State confirm that training organisations throughout the country are considering withdrawing from Government training schemes because of cuts in this year's budget, and will he deny that he has already agreed to cuts in next year's budget? When will he start to stand up for the interests not merely of his Department but of the future of training in Britain?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's question is entirely inaccurate. Well over 90 per cent. of the recontracting exercise on employment and youth training has been completed. Possibly unlike the hon. Gentleman, I accept a responsibility towards those who have received training and are in need of it, but I do not accept responsibility for those who provide training, if they do not do so in the most cost-effective and efficient way.
    Mr. Conway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that British employers are spending £18 billion a year of their hard-earned cash on training? Is not that encouragement by the Government much more effective than the compulsion offered to British employers by the Opposition?
    Mr. Howard: The cost to British employers was £18 billion in 1986–87—the latest year for which we have full statistics. It has certainly increased since, and is a sign of the extent to which training takes place throughout the work force. Of course, we must do even better, but it is wrong to denigrate our present performance.

    Skill Centres
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress towards the privatisation of skill centres.
    Mr. Nicholls: The sales of the training businesses at 51 of the 60 skill centres plus the Skills Training Agency's head office, mobile training service, sales teams and colleges have been completed.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that very few people understand why the Government have given a few selected individuals £14 million of taxpayers' money to take away valuable skill centres, including the one in St. Helens, which have an asset value in excess of £100 million? Does the Minister agree that if a group of Labour councillors had attempted to give away public assets on that scale, they would probably have been had up for corruption?
    Mr. Nicholls: It is not for me to comment on the possibility of Labour councillors being accused of corruption. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. If he studies the profits of the STA, he will see that it broke even only once in the past five years. In 1989–90, there was an estimated loss of £30 million. The tender was conducted properly after professional advice was given. The National Audit Office is carrying out its usual value-for-money audit, and I am perfectly satisfied that when it announces its findings they will show that the hon. Gentleman's suspicions are entirely ill founded.
    Mr. Marland: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to condemn Labour-controlled Chesterfield city council for forcing the closure of its local skill centre?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right. He has referred to one of the more unpleasant and nasty examples of a Labour-controlled council acting for wholly doctrinaire and political reasons, in this case, by refusing to extend leasing facilities to the new owners of a skills training centre simply because it disapproved of the act on political grounds. It would be difficult to find a more shameful example of political interests being put above the interests of those whom the training schemes are there to serve, but of course the Opposition will defend such action.
    Mr. McLeish: The privatisation of the Skills Training Agency is a public scandal. Why have £120 million worth of assets been given away, why has £25 million in sweeteners been given to the private sector and why was £40 million of employment training budgeted funding taken out and used to adjust the accounts and estimates of the Skills Training Agency? When will the Government pursue practical policies to improve our skills performance with the same enthusiasm as they pursue privatisation and profits for the very few?
    Mr. Nicholls: The only scandal that emerges from this exchange is the hon. Gentleman's extraordinary inability to understand that an organisation capable of losing £30 million is not the sort of concern that can be sold for an immediate profit. The hon. Gentleman can scrabble round and cast aspersions as widely as he wants, using words like "scandal", but the sale represented a good deal for the taxpayer and a good deal for those who need training. The one thing of which we can be certain is that when the National Audit Office produces its report, the hon. Gentleman will not have the good grace to apologise to the House.

    Training Schemes (Funding)
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will review the arrangements for the funding of training schemes.
    Mr. Howard: Funding arrangements of training schemes are kept constantly under review.
    Mr. Bowis: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in congratulating the many people who have worked hard to make a success of our employment training schemes? I acknowledge that some of the schemes may now qualify for fewer places as unemployment falls, but does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that that should not be the case in respect of disabled people and others with special needs? Will he ensure that, as the TECs formulate their plans, they will be required to provide funding for the adequate training of those people?
    Mr. Howard: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating those who provide training places and to give him the assurance for which he asks. The guarantee of a training place for every 16 to 18-year-old school leaver who cannot find a job and for the longer-term unemployed and other priority groups remains in place. We are committed to that guarantee and it applies, in particular, to people who are disabled and have special needs. I confirm that the arrangements that we are making with the training and enterprise councils take full account of the requirement to meet those needs and discharge those responsibilities.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman examine some of the problems that have been thrown up by cuts in training budgets? For example, in Truro, trainees in information technology have been thrown off the course half way through and have not attained the qualifications for which they were half-trained. Similarly, special groups which have been trained by voluntary bodies—such as refugees, who clearly have special training needs—are finding that the number of places has been cut.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will find that all those to whom he has referred have alternative facilities available to them so that they will not be disadvantaged. In ensuring that the taxpayer gets full value for money, and thus looking critically to ensure that the most cost-effective and efficient training is provided, we are absolutely clear that none of those in receipt of training should be disadvantaged in any way.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, by increasing the training budget no less than threefold in real terms since 1979 and by providing 450,000 places on employment training, the Government have allowed the resources to be used more effectively through the training and enterprise councils? Will he also confirm that the TECs will be able to change the current rule under which victims of widespread redundancies cannot enter into employment training schemes for 26 weeks?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to point to the exciting future in training that the training and enterprise councils will be able to provide. They will, of course, have greater flexibility in dealing with those who suffer as a
    176
    result of large-scale redundancies. But that is only one respect in which they will be able to provide improved training.

    Youth Training
    Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the availability of youth training places in each local labour market.
    Mr. Nicholls: My right hon. and learned Friend is satisfied that there are sufficient training places to meet demand.
    Mr. Field: How many training places for young people in the Wirral have been deliberately axed by Government policy? Will the Minister guarantee that every young person in the Wirral who wants a training place will have one?
    Mr. Nicholls: I entirely accept the premise in the hon. Gentleman's comments. I repeat what I said a moment ago: my right hon. and learned Friend is satisfied that there are sufficient training places to meet demand. Those places must exist to meet the guarantee in the Wirral and elsewhere. Although particular trainers may not succeed in having their contracts renewed in successive years, that is entirely different from the guarantee not being met. If the hon. Gentleman knows of a case where a potential YTS trainee has not been satisfied by the guarantee, we want to know about it. Our concern in that respect at least is the same as the hon. Gentleman's.
    Mr. Favell: Does my hon. Friend share my suspicion that much of the clamour for even more money to be spent on training, despite the amount having risen threefold since 1979, is union-inspired? After all, unemployment has dropped dramatically, the number of school leavers has decreased and trainers are desperately looking for customers. Is not it about time that we considered the amount of money that we are paying out?
    Mr. Nicholls: It is a rather curious and conservative feature of the Opposition that they believe that no adjustment in training provision is necessary when there are fewer people to be trained. When we take account of the effects of demography, which means that there are fewer young people, and the fact that employers are prepared to take a greater share of the burden of training, we can certainly strike a better deal for the taxpayer and for the individual trainee.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is not there a danger that the Minister is misleading my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the House when he says that the Government can deliver the YTS guarantee? Is not the reality that the Government are cutting this year's youth training budget by 10 per cent? The outcome will be that the Government will either be unable to deliver the guarantee or will reduce the standard of training available to youngsters on youth training. The Minister must come clean: either the guarantee has been dropped or standards have been dropped. Which is it?
    Mr. Nicholls: The yawning gap in the hon. Gentleman's thesis is that he does not accept that, increasingly, there are fewer young people to be trained. To be fair, that is not a mistake that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made earlier. Between 1988 and 1993 the guarantee group

    177
    of young people between the ages of 16 and 19 will have decreased by about 20 per cent. It is complete nonsense to say that it matters not how many young people are available to be trained or by how much the numbers decrease, and that the training provision must remain the same. That is not a sensible use of taxpayers' money.

    Social Charter
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment has been made by his Department of the implications for job creation in the United Kingdom of the implementation of the measures contained in the European Commission's social charter.
    Mr. Howard: The implementation of the social action programme would increase the burden of regulations on employers, impose new taxes on workers on low pay and deny workers legitimate opportunities for employment and earnings. It would put up employers' costs, damage the ability of firms to compete in world markets and destroy jobs.
    Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that most people who work part time do so because they want to and that there is no point in smothering them in red tape and bureaucracy? Is the social charter absolutely necessary for the completion of the single market, or would the whole affair be better referred to the European Court of Justice, which has views on absolutely everything these days?
    Mr. Howard: It is certainly unnecessary to have the social action programme to complete the single market. Although we hope to support some of the proposals contained in that programme, many of them would undoubtedly be damaging in precisely the way which my hon. Friend suggested.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not it true that, behind the rhetoric of the social charter, the provisions of health and safety at work put forward in EEC directives will mean an erosion of standards—often absolute standards—in United Kingdom health and safety legislation, such as section 14 of the Factories Act 1961? Its words would be replaced by the words "so far as reasonably practicable". Does not that mean a lowering of health and safety standards in our country?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I shall do everything that I can to make sure that our health and safety standards are not lowered. On the contrary, I am keen that other European countries increase their standards of health and safety to match those in this country. That is one point that I shall make when the social action programme is under discussion.

    Training Credits
    Mr. David Porter: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the progress of the training credits initiative.
    Mr. Howard: Thirty-three training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies have submitted outline proposals to operate pilot credit schemes. I have invited 17 of those to develop more detailed proposals by 27 July.
    178
    In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and other ministerial colleagues, I shall then select about 10 training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies to set up and run credit pilots.
    Mr. Porter: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the training credit initiative is a world first that augurs well for the work force in this country in the climate after 1992?
    Mr. Howard: Yes, Sir.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Bevan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the European Council meeting in Dublin.
    Mr. Bevan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend care to advise voters at the by-election on Thursday in Acocks Green in my constituency what action they should take in a city where nearly half the population has still to pay its community charge, largely because of the Labour council's shambolic administration and failure to collect, where Labour councillors have openly urged non-payment, where they have threatened to open more council offices and close all grammar schools, and where bankruptcy beckons?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend makes his points very well by way of criticism of Birmingham council. The best advice that I can offer his electors is to vote Conservative because Conservative local government delivers good services and costs less.
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dunnachie: In a recent interview in a women's magazine the Prime Minister advised mothers with young children to take up part-time employment. When do the Government intend to create wealth and jobs in Scotland, in particular in my constituency?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman seems to overlook the fact that in his constituency unemployment fell by about 773 last year, and unemployment in Scotland fell by 1·5 per cent. to 8·1 per cent.
    Mr. Hayward: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hayward: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to condemn the outrage of the bombing at the Carlton club last night, particularly as it

    179
    appeared to be aimed at civilians and people who are not involved in Northern Ireland in any way? Will he remind the House and the nation that that is what people in Ulster have been suffering for more than 20 years and that one of the best ways to resolve the problem is continued international co-operation?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course I join my hon. Friend, as I am sure the whole House will, in condemning the dreadful brutality involved in the bombing in London last night and in expressing sympathy with all those who were injured. The whole House will agree that whoever did that dreadful act can be sure of one thing—we shall not be intimidated by violence. If the IRA was responsible, nobody should doubt the determination of the House to build good relations between the Governments, peoples and the communities that share the British Isles together. To that end, I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend said about the need for improved and steadily improving international co-operation on the widest scale.
    Sir David Steel: Will the deputy Prime Minister accept my warm congratulations and convey them also to the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on at last overcoming the Prime Minister's prejudices and securing Britain's commitment to economic and political union in Europe? Does he accept, therefore, that many of us hope that last weekend's press reports of his forthcoming exile to South Africa were completely unfounded?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am content, of course, to accept the right hon. Gentleman's congratulations to the whole Government on the measured progress that we are making towards membership of the exchange rate mechanism. As for the fevered speculation about my possible translation to the South African or any other embassy, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in referring those speculations to the press complaints commission that will be appointed as a result of the Calcutt committee report.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the Government will not seek to increase public expenditure by £50 billion, and confirm that such a course of action could lead only to higher prices for all, higher interest rates for all and higher taxes for all?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I confirm that no Conservative Government would dream of following the policies that my hon. Friend has described. The policies advocated by the Labour party would require a massive increase in taxation, probably on the scale of 25p in the pound on income tax. In contrast to the Labour party, we shall continue to finance our programmes honestly by taxation, not by ever-mounting borrowing.
    Mr. Hattersley: While the Lord President is in the mood to speculate about economic matters, will he tell the House whether he believes that the Chancellor's proposals for a hard ecu will lead to a single European currency?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the Chancellor said, they are perfectly capable of doing so. As the Prime Minister said in Dublin today, that is not inevitable, but they are perfectly consistent with that objective.
    Mr. Hattersley: I am conscious of what the Prime Minister said in Dublin today; that is why I asked my question. According to the official report of her statement, she said that one day the pound might disappear. As she expressly ruled that out in the House last Thursday, may we be told when she changed her mind?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The points made by the Prime Minister in Dublin today are entirely consistent with those made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week when he said that in the very long run, if peoples and governments so choose, the ecu could develop into a single currency.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Lord President is right that the points made by the Prime Minister today are entirely consistent with the Chancellor's speech. However, they were not consistent with her answers in the House last Thursday. May I thank the Lord President for at least making it absolutely clear that the Government are in the same sort of divided shambles over monetary union as they are over the poll tax, changes in the health service and the new agenda that the Prime Minister announced on the hoof last Saturday morning?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman should understand that our policies on the European monetary system, including our prospective membership of the exchange rate mechanism, are entirely consistent with the Government's anti-inflationary policies and are a total negation of the inflationary policies of the Labour party.
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people throughout the length and breadth of the land are much heartened by the fact that London is currently hosting the international conference on the ozone layer and CFCs? Will he give the House the commitment that Britain, which has already reduced its CFC production by 50 per cent. in the past five years, will continue to make leading progress in this area, and that we shall try to take as many other countries with us as we can at the conference?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's tribute to the Government's actions thus far. We are, of course, determined to achieve global agreement on the strengthening of the Montreal convention and are working to that end at the conference. It is crucial to make progress in that direction not only for the sake of achieving a depletion of ozone, but to set an example of the way in which international progress can be made on these matters in other areas.
    Mr. Bidwell: Is there any truth in the story that the Government are working on a scheme to modify the poll tax before the next general election?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman and the House know every well, the Government are engaged on a review of the operation but not the structure of the community charge.
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June 1990.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Colvin: With Government spending on the arts up a full third since 1979, in real terms, and with a further 27 per cent. increase planned for the next three years, does my right hon. and learned Friend know why the Conservative party is still regarded as philistine by the Opposition? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes up a lot of time.
    Mr. Colvin: Would it help if our excellent and longest serving Minister for the Arts were given a seat in Cabinet with full responsibility for all arts issues, including the heritage, education, television and broadcasting? That would, incidentally, give him equal status with arts Ministers on the continent, with whom he will have increased contact as 1993 approaches.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad that my hon. Friend was able to complete his question. I join him in paying tribute to the work done by the Government in promoting progress in the arts, ranging from the decisions taken last week on the film industry to the major decisions taken on the national gallery extension and the national library. I join him in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, who is a former Parliamentary Private Secretary of mine. It would give me great pleasure to see him join me in the Cabinet, but that is a matter for the Prime Minister, not me.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Leader of the House aware that 35 years ago today—known as South African Freedom Day—at Kliptown, near Johannesburg, the African National Congress adopted its freedom charter which declares, among other things, that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, irrespective of race, creed or colour? Does the Lord President of the Council endorse those statements and can he guarantee that his Government will support all measures to make South African Freedom Day a reality rather than a campaigning objective?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for the opportunity to agree with the hon. Gentleman. The entire House shares the objective of bringing apartheid to an end at the quickest possible pace. We believe that the best way to help the African National Congress is by retaining our influence with the South African Government and that that means maintaining a measured relaxation of pressure in response to change. The whole House will be glad that in Dublin today the European Community has endorsed that approach, welcomed the steps taken by President de Klerk and intimated that it is willing to relax pressure in response to change of the kind that we would all welcome.
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that when it comes to interest rates, inflation rates and exchange rates, membership of the exchange rate mechanism cannot do for the United Kingdom more than we are prepared to do for ourselves?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that membership of the exchange rate mechanism is very far from being a free ride. It would be a reinforcement of the kind of policies that are natural to a Conservative Government but are wholly anathema to the Labour party.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Lord President of the Council proud of the fact that the Telecommunications Act 1984 has opened the door to sexual pornography and all manner of moral corruption on the telephone, such as that which has been published today in the Daily Mirror?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is only a very small aspect of what can be said about the Telecommunications Act. The whole House shares his affront at that sort of thing, which is being investigated. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us on this side of the House in welcoming the immense liberation of industrial energy as a result of the Telecommunications Act.
    Mr. Bell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bell: Is the Lord President aware that the first stage of the Delors proceedings come into effect on 1 July, yet we are the only country that will not be participating in the exchange rate mechanism? Is not it a fact that the only consistency about the Government's policy towards Europe is its inconsistency?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am astonished to hear that proposition being advanced by a spokesman for the Opposition, who for years have twisted and turned their whole attitude towards the European Community. It is the Conservative party, under successive Prime Ministers, which took Britain into Europe and achieved an increasingly important place for us in the Community. We are only glad that the Opposition have finally decided to join us in that endeavour.
    Mr. Mills: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mills: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, despite the very welcome establishment of the European bank for reconstruction and development in London, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be pressing, as she and the Government have been doing, for

    183
    the completion of the single market on the important issue of establishing a common trade marks regime and the establishment of the trade marks office in Britain, ideally in London, to the benefit of the United Kingdom and Europe?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: First, I agree about the importance of the common trade marks regime and, secondly, I confirm that for many years the Government have been supporting the objective of the location of the trade marks office in London.

Bombing (Carlton Club)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): With permission, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make a statement about the explosion at the Carlton club, St. James's street last night. In view of the fact that that matter was raised on the Floor of the House last night, when the Lord President indicated that I would consider whether I should make a statement today, I thought that this was the right thing to do.
The explosion occurred at the Carlton club, 70 St. James's street, London, at 8.39 pm yesterday evening. Seven persons were injured by the blast and were taken to Westminster and St. Thomas's hospitals for treatment. None is in any danger, and three were discharged without being detained overnight. The injured include the porter of the club, a former Member of this House and now a Member of the other place, and two uniformed police officers. Our sympathies go to all the injured and their families and we wish them a speedy recovery.
The explosion has caused severe damage to the premises, the extent of which has yet to be fully assessed. Forensic examination of the scene is under way. The police believe that a large explosive device had been left in or near the doorway of the club. No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, but it appears to have been the work of the IRA.
The emergency services reacted with great speed, arriving within minutes of the explosion. I pay tribute to them. It should always be remembered that they face the additional hazard of injury or death from secondary devices designed to kill those who come to save life.
The House is united in condemning the attack. Following the recent one on Lord McAlpine's former residence, it does appear as though the IRA is being driven to attack different sorts of target. Whether it strikes at military or civilian targets, barracks or private homes, it is attacking democracy itself and it does not care who is killed or injured in the process.
The apparent change of tactics requires renewed vigilance on the part of everyone. The police, for their part, are constantly reviewing the means by which the threat, as it varies, can be met. I have this morning discussed developments with the commissioner and there is absolutely no doubt about the determination of his force, and other police forces in the United Kingdom, to continue to do everything possible to prevent such outrages and to track down the perpetrators. The House should be aware that much is done every day of the week to prevent, to deter and to combat terrorist activity, and most of it cannot be safely revealed. However, terrorists operate by stealth, surprise and with a callous disregard for life, and from time to time they may register what, by their perverted standards, they regard as a success. It is not something against which, in a free society, anyone can provide an absolute guarantee.
What is needed to support the efforts of the police is renewed and constant vigilance on the part of every citizen. I ask people to report any packages left in public places and suspicious behaviour by individuals. They must not be worried about troubling the police unnecessarily.
We have been here before with the bomb attacks against the public in the 1970s. They did not succeed then, nor will they now.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Opposition utterly condemn the outrage at the Carlton club last night. We express our relief that no one was killed, and we offer our sympathy to those who were injured and our congratulations to the emergency services. We join the Government in making it plain that those who perpetrate such acts have no hope that their savagery will result in a change of policy. The more they use the bomb and the bullet in attempting to achieve their aims, the less likely is it that their campaigns will succeed. We support the Home Secretary's plea that while such threats remain we should all be more vigilant. In a free society it is never possible to provide complete protection against indiscriminate terrorism, but clearly we must do all that we can to reduce the chances of such criminal lunacy killing and maiming innocent men and women.
I have a question for the Home Secretary that he may regard as more contentious. Last night's outrage, like those which have gone before, was in part designed to achieve publicity for the cause that the perpetrators support. May I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that all of us—politicians, journalists and broadcasters—consider ways in which publicity can be reduced for people who are prepared to kill and to maim in order that their murderous deeds should be reported in our newspapers and on our television screens? Does the Home Secretary agree that we should be careful not to play into their hands in that regard?
Mr. Waddington: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman's closing remarks. I thought long before making this statement, but the matter was raised on the Floor of the House last night and, as a result of the intervention of the Leader of the House at 10 pm, if I had not risen to make a statement today I think that many people would have wondered why. None the less, the point made by the right hon. Gentleman is extremely valid. We must be extremely reluctant to give unnecessary publicity to the perpetrators of such outrages.
I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman that we must stress throughout that, whatever the terrorists do, it will not lead to a surrender of democracy and a change in the policies agreed upon in this democratically elected House. The need for vigilance is obvious and there is much that every individual citizen can do to help the police.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: The whole House will endorse what my right hon. and learned Friend said in response to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about publicity for such mindless events. I am sure that the House will also join in the sympathy that my right hon. and learned Friend expressed to those involved, and his tribute to the police and to the ambulance and emergency services.
Is not the real tragedy of such terrorist outrages the fact that they are utterly pointless? They cannot possibly achieve their objective in a democratic society. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the speaker on "Thought for the Day" on the BBC, who said that the only effect of such incidents is to put the terrorists outside the ranks of humanity?
Mr. Waddington: I think that such events harden our resolve in this place to stick to the policies that we believe to be right. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress that point.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I express our sympathy with those who have been injured and our admiration for the security services on their prompt and helpful intervention.
I reaffirm that the only news worthy of promulgation following such an episode is that of steadfastness of the British people—in keeping with the sterling lead set by those in the Province of Northern Ireland through 23 years of terrorism—in rebutting any suggestion that we should change our policies in the face of such outrages.
Mr. Waddington: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Such barbaric acts have not forced on a democratically elected Government a change in policy in Northern Ireland and they certainly will not have that effect here. A statement of this sort serves another purpose, however—to remind individual citizens of the contribution that they can make. That also makes my statement today worth while.
Mr. Robert Banks: The whole House will be pleased to know that Lord Kaberry, whom I saw a short while ago, is making a remarkable recovery from his ordeal with his usual courage and undaunted spirit. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this despicable act only serves to strengthen the resolve to defeat terrorism in all who value human life, freedom and justice? Will he look into the measures that can be taken to improve devices to detect bombs and see that they are made as freely available as possible?
Mr. Waddington: I shall reflect on what my hon. Friend said in the last part of his supplementary question. As each month and year goes by, one sees the development of new devices that help to prevent outrages of this sort. My hon. Friend echoed the sentiments of other hon. Members in saying that what has happened in the past 24 hours, and what has been happening in recent months, only reinforces our resolve.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that our noble Friend, Lord Kaberry, has made a very good recovery. The porter at the club, Mr. Charles Henry, had an operation last night—he suffered head and other injuries from flying glass—and was put in an intensive care ward. Everyone will be glad to hear that he has since been moved into an ordinary ward and that his condition is stable. We wish him a speedy recovery.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: On behalf of my party, I wish to express relief that nobody was seriously injured or killed in the explosion. Having said that, I hope that I shall not be misunderstood—I echo what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said about getting things in perspective—when I say that I do not remember a statement being made in the House when Corporal Maheshkumar Islania and his six-month-old child were killed, or when Private William Robert Davies was killed at Litchfield, or when Heidi Hazell, the wife of a British soldier serving in
188
Germany, was killed. There are many occasions when our soldiers, policemen and civilians are killed in Northern Ireland.
It is important that we do not, because an incident such as this happens on our own doorstep, get things out of proportion. The terrorist is not a mindless animal. He calculates carefully the effect that his violence will have on the community. He never seeks justification. He seeks only to add terror to the community that we represent. We must not assist him by overreacting to his actions.
Mr. Waddington: I have a certain amount of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said. Before deciding to make this statement, I reflected on it, and it has given me an opportunity to warn. My officials looked up the precedents and I discovered that in 1986, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) made a statement in the House when there was an explosion in central London in the British Airways office which resulted in an injury. It seemed to me that in view of the request made in the House last night, and that statement in 1986, it would not be entirely improper for me to make this statement today.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I sense what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said meets the mood of the House. I shall take one more question from each side of the House and then we must move on.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Is it not, nevertheless, significant that the last organisation to bomb the Carlton club was Nazi Germany?
Mr. Waddington: Indeed, I think that one can bracket members of the IRA who perpetrate such outrages with some of the worst villains of history.
Mr. Stuart Bell: As you, Mr. Speaker rightly interpreted the mood of the House and the needs and wishes of Parliament and the British people that today, tomorrow and the rest should be business as usual and we shall not be influenced by any bomb or bullet on the mainland or elsewhere, will the Home Secretary confirm that there was no warning of the bomb? Does that not add to the mindlessness of the event?
Mr. Waddington: So far as I know, no warning was given. If one had been given, I think that I should have learnt about it by now.

BILL PRESENTED
  LICENSING OF TICKET SALES
  Mr. Menzies Campbell presented a Bill to provide for the licensing of ticket sales for sporting events and entertainments and to make further provision with respect to the powers exercisable by local authorities in relation to such sales: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 168.]

  County Councils (Abolition)
  3.46 pm
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish non-metropolitan county councils; to transfer their functions to the other local authorities in their areas and, in some cases, to other bodies; and to provide for other matters consequential on, or connected with, the abolition of those councils.
  I imagine that a great many of my right hon. and hon. Friends—those who remain—suspect that my intention with the Bill is to entertain them with the misdemeanours of Derbyshire county council. I am afraid that I shall disappoint them.
  I shall resist the temptation to spend a full 10 minutes giving chapter and verse about how Derbyshire county council spends more on education than most counties, but gets worse results. I shall resist the temptation to spend too long telling the House how Derbyshire county council spent £2,000 on a party to celebrate the release of Mr. Nelson Mandela.
  I shall also resist going into the full details of how Derbyshire county council behaves like a giant jobs agency for the National Union of Public Employees and has taken on an extra 8,000 staff in the past 10 years. I shall also resist explaining how the council rejected one low tender because it came in the wrong colour envelope.
  I shall not go fully into the details of how the council's pension fund invested £305,000 in the failed Left-wing News on Sunday newspaper, before getting further embroiled with a former estate agent called Owen Oyston in a series of sleazy deals—including building a resort in the Soviet Union, dubbed by the county council leader as a millionaires' playground, which now looks as though it will never be built despite substantial investment by the council.
  I shall not elaborate on the details of how a well-known Labour activist, a road ganger dismissed by the council for gross misconduct in the 1970s, was reinstated last year to a well-paid job showing Japanese executives around the county. I shall not go into details of how one defeated Labour county councillor was given a £40,000 per year council post, nor how another ex-Labour councillor was made a director of education at an even larger salary. I shall not go into too much detail—
  Several Hon. Members: Tell us the details.
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Oppenheim: My right hon. and hon. Friends tempt me, Mr. Speaker, but I shall resist.
  I shall not go into too much detail about how a former Member of the House, Mr. Reg Race, was appointed as a £46,000-per-year county director, before the relationship turned sour and led to his resignation not long afterwards, when he was given a large golden handshake to buy his silence about the goings-on in the council.
  Finally, I shall not ask the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to enlarge on his comment that the aforesaid Mr. Race was
  "sacked by Derbyshire county council because he was giving it the sort of information about its activities that its members did not want to hear."
  I shall not develop those themes.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is not going to do that, perhaps he will get on with what he is going to say.
  Mr. Oppenheim: I was about to explain that I do not intend to develop those themes because 10 minutes would be far too short a time to tell of all the idiosyncrasies and profligacies of Derbyshire county council. To use Derbyshire county council as a stick with which to beat other county councils, or as an example to justify their abolition, would be wrong and unfair.
  In many ways Derbyshire county council is unique, untypical, the exception and way out on a limb. I wish to make a case for the abolition of the generality of county councils or at least to make a case for giving district, borough and city councils the right to opt out of county council control. In doing so, I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) who previously introduced Bills for unitary local authorities.
  Unitary local authorities, replacing two layers of local government with one, would lead to more effective provision of services and greater accountability. As many of my hon. Friends know, the two-tier system which prevails in most of the country leaves many people confused and unsure about which council is responsible for which service and, just as importantly, for its cost. Education and social services could be far better provided at a more local level, especially as the increasing complexity of local government means that services which might logically have been run as large units could be better operated as smaller ones.
  Abolition will also make life easier for councils. At the moment many of the most talented councillors have to split their time between two bodies, which adds to the difficulty of finding suitable people to be councillors, as most of my hon. Friends are aware. I accept that larger administrative units can be more efficient and can save on administrative costs, but the past 20 years have shown that that is not always necessarily the case, as evidenced by a recent report which showed that in some counties 25 per cent. of the education budget was spent on administration. I accept that some services such as transport would need to be run by larger bodies. Delegated county-wide organisations could best handle such services.
  I know that some people doubt whether the boroughs and districts could handle this and they argue for the necessity of a higher tier of what they call strategic planning. I remind hon. Members about the GLC. I realise that many of my hon. Friends are racking their brains to try to recall exactly what the GLC was. People outside certainly have difficulty in remembering exactly what the GLC did for them. Despite all the expensive hype during the abolition of the GLC, few now mourn its passing and in general the London boroughs have made a very good job of taking over the services that the GLC once ran—[Interruption.] I accept that there are some exceptions.
  That brings me neatly to the Opposition's policy on county council abolition. We all know that in recent years the Labour party has been trying to upgrade its image. Some say that it has achieved some success. Unfortunately, all too often that success is of a faltering kind and there is more to the image than to the substance. For example, we hear that the Opposition have come round to believing in markets after all, but they believe

  191
  that the markets should be servants rather than masters, for which read, "We politicians will override your free choice when it suits us to do so."
  The same applies to county councils. I am delighted that the Opposition have shown some progress by coming round to abolition. As always, however, they have ruined it by proposing in part to replace county councils with a regional tier of government which many people will see as super county councils with all the inherent faults of the current system magnified several times. The Opposition should realise that we need fewer tiers of government, not more. We already have the European Community and a national Parliament, as well as county, district and parish councils in most areas. We need to sweep away a layer of government, not add another which will inevitably become a platform for yet more empire-building and expense.
  I urge hon. Members to support the Bill. It will not abolish counties, which will remain in place, but it will abolish county councils and bring local government closer to constituents, making it more accountable and helping it to deliver services more effectively.
  3.53 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the Bill?
  Mr. Barnes: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  The Bill should be entitled "the Abolition of Derbyshire County Council Bill" because that is clearly the intention of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). At every opportunity he seeks to attack Derbyshire county council and to denigrate its activities. I therefore wish to take this opportunity to defend the council and to argue against the hon. Gentleman's bill which, in any case, is inappropriate to the restructuring of local government.
  Despite many attempts in the House, the hon. Gentleman has failed in his attacks on Derbyshire county council. He mentioned the pension fund, on which he had an Adjournment debate which turned out to be a damp squib, containing nothing that could be levelled against the Derbyshire county council. All the arguments were answered before the debate. Derbyshire county council runs one of the best pension schemes of any shire county.
  Despite competition, Derbyshire county council, through its professionalism—not through the efforts of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)—attracted Toyota to Derbyshire. Conservative members were annoyed at Derbyshire county council's entrepreneurial professionalism which they think should be their preserve, but the council beat them at their own game. In addition, Labour won the Derbyshire county council election, despite its being targeted by the Conservative party with Ministers attending in droves in an attempt to achieve a Conservative victory.
  The hon. Member for Amber Valley has adopted the Prime Minister's approach to the GLC and other
  192
  metropolitan authorities such as South Yorkshire, which had the best transport policy in the country, both in terms of future developments and the environment. The policy is, "If you can't beat them, abolish them." The only advantage of such measures is that the Labour party has benefited from the arrival in the House of Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), with his previous experience on the GLC. If the hon. Gentleman's Bill were enacted, we would presumably see leading politicians from Derbyshire county council, such as David Bookbinder, in this House dealing readily and easily with Conservative Members.
  Derbyshire county council has a fine record in areas such as education. It is top in its pupil-teacher ratio, and in special and primary education, and it comes a close second to Nottinghamshire county council in secondary education. Yet such provisions are now being attacked by the Government's poll tax. Any attack should be directed not at Derbyshire county council but at the Government and their stupid formula which, year after year, has attacked Derbyshire's grant. They have even introduced something called grant capping, which few authorities experience. Then the Government introduced the nonsense of the poll tax, from which some Conservative Members in Derbyshire have benefited considerably, making them free riders on the backs of others.
  If Derbyshire county council and others were abolished, the services that they provide in a wide range of areas such as planning, highways and education, would have to be picked up by the district councils; yet the Bill does not provide for the reorganisation of district councils. District authorities which are perfectly capable of running services such as council housing would have a massive additional burden placed on them. That shows that the Bill is a deal of nonsense. It is not there to tackle the problems of local government or to restructure it. It is merely another example of cleverness on the part of the hon. Member for Amber Valley, in trying to attack Derbyshire county council. It is as clever as his other moves, which were also utter failures, when he also tripped up and fell on his face.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill order to be brought in by Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Mr. Ian Gow, Mr. Robert B. Jones, Mr. Donald Thompson, Mrs. Edwina Currie, Mr. Michael Grylls, Mr. Teddy Taylor, Mr. Charles Wardle, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mr. Kenneth Hind, Mr. Nicholas Bennett and Mr. Gerald Howarth.

  COUNTY COUNCILS (ABOLITION)
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim accordingly presented a Bill to abolish non-metropolitan county councils; to transfer their functions to the other local authorities in their areas and, in some cases, to other bodies; and to provide for other matters consequential on, or connected with, the abolition of those councils: And the same was read a First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]
  Opposition Day
  [16TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Opposition Day

    Railway Policy
    4.1 pm
    Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move,
    That this House condemns the Government's failure to produce a co-ordinated transport policy which would allow British Rail to provide a more reliable, safer, more efficient and better quality railway service to maximise its economic and environmental contribution to Britain; deplores the lost opportunity to provide a high speed, high quality, rail link to the Channel Tunnel, an essential requirement for the industrial areas of Britain, which requires a modern freight rail route of European standards; and calls on the Government to appoint a Commission to assess the various proposed alternatives for the link, its funding, and its extension beyond London.
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Prescott: After 10 years of the present Government's policies of privatisation, cuts in public subsidies, continual reorganisation and an anti-rail attitude, British Rail has produced the most expensive, least reliable, less safe, most congested, most uncomfortable and most under-invested rail system of any of the developed European economies.
    It fails to make its potential contribution to reducing congestion and to relieving environmental damage, and to provide the necessary high-speed channel tunnel link, thereby reducing the possibility of carrying more freight from rail to road, and from road to rail. All that is primarily to be blamed on the impossible financial framework that the Government have imposed on British Rail and their ideological obsession with private ownership and private financing, so preventing the long-term development of British Rail's full potential, particularly with the arrival of the single European market in 1992.
    This month marks 12 months in office for the Secretary of State. The present Government have appointed seven Secretaries of State for Transport, who have each shuffled through the door and changed bits of policy. I recall from previous occasions associated with our mutual former responsibilities for energy matters that the right hon. Gentleman served as Secretary of State for Energy for two years. Anyone who listened to last night's debate on electricity privatisation will appreciate how much of a mess he made of the policy of that Department. The question whether nuclear energy could possibly be part of privatisation was an issue between us then, when I told the right hon. Gentleman that it would be impossible to privatise the industry with a nuclear element. His response was to refer to me as an economic illiterate. If the right hon. Gentleman will read last night's debate, he may learn who was right and who was wrong.
    The right hon. Gentleman has managed to produce in 12 months at the Department of Transport the mess that it took him two years to create at the Department of Energy. He has done serious damage to transport and continues to do so, and that is part of our charge against
    194
    him. While being concerned constantly with presentation, he has discovered that the reality is dealing with difficult policy decisions. One thing that is regrettable about the Secretary of State is the way that he runs away from public debate on television or radio and in the other media. The televising of Parliament has been enhanced by the fact that the public can arrive at their own judgment when they watch televised debates. The Secretary of State constantly lays down conditions: he wants to go on first; he wants the last word; he is not going to this studio; he wants to sit in a radio cab somewhere else.
    Mr. Peter Snape: He is frit.
    Mr. Prescott: Yes, as my hon. Friend says, on this occasion he is frit. He will never debate the issues.
    This is the third transport debate that we have had in the House, and they have all been called by the Opposition, and not once by the Government wanting to debate their own policy.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has given way. At least when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appears on television, he makes sense. What did the hon. Gentleman mean when he appeared on BBC's "On the Record" and used the following phrase:
    "if you provide on a bus a kind of camera that can catch people using modern technology and say, 'These lanes must remain free, 'cause we want to provide the bus … ' which already is 1 per cent. of the vehicle movements, carries 30 per cent. of the people … whereas with cars, they're 30 per cent. of the vehicle movements—only carrying … far less people in movement"—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order, Even I do not understand it. Will the hon. Member please come to the point?
    Mr. Leigh: I shall ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question—can he explain himself?
    Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is an idiot. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr Leigh rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get back to railways.
    Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been called an idiot, and I was merely reading the hon. Gentleman's words from a transcript.
    Mr. Speaker: I am a little perplexed, as I thought that this was a railway debate, and I do not think that that has. anything to do with it.
    Mr. Prescott: It is quite clear that one does not want to give way to fools when we are dealing with serious transport issues. There seems to be a great deal of laughter from the Conservative Benches. For people who have to wait for a bus, a train or any other form of public transport in this country, it is not a laughing matter. I was offered the opportunity to debate with the Secretary of State on "On the Record". However, as I understand it, his policy is quite clear—he does not appear with the Opposition and there is no evidence that he has, in whatever office he has held.
    Issues of public importance are best dealt with when people have the opportunity to debate them on the public media rather than in the House. The only chance that we

    195
    get to debate transport here is when the Opposition table a motion, and if the hon. Member was provided with an opportunity to speak on such an occasion that might be it.
    Mr. Martin Flannery: Clearly, my hon. Friend has touched Conservative Members on a raw nerve. I try to do justice to the Minister, but the reality is that he is not a free agent. In the press this morning, it was revealed that massive cuts will now invade the south-east to try to balance the books so that we do not need cash subventions. We are the only nation which does not have large cash subventions for the railways. Conservative Members know that, and they know that they are wrong; hence their ill temper this afternoon.
    Mr. Prescott: Yes, we are seeing more and more signs of a departure from policy and a move towards abuse—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, abuse. There is no doubt about it. Abuse seems to take the place of debate with the modern Tory party. Conservative Members do not want to debate the issue; they merely want to abuse. They do not want to listen to the argument or to participate.
    Transport is a critical matter. People want to change things and there is a fundamental difference of opinion between the two sides of the House on the issue. Unfortunately—this may seem peculiar coming from me—transport has become an ideological issue in this country. In Europe, public money and planning are not ideological issues, to be disputed between the left and the right, that happens only in Britain. Unfortunately, our transport system is suffering because of it. That is the reality of the transport debate, and I hope that we can deal with some of those arguments here today.
    The question whether we can deal seriously with transport was brought home to me again this weekend because of Conservative abuse. I was addressing a transport conference in Nottingham about the electrification of the east midlands line, and the desirability of connections with the channel tunnel. When I got out of the conference, I was approached by the press, asking me about a speech made by the Secretary of State for Transport. I was asked nothing about transport issues—purely about the terms of abuse. The Secretary of State was appearing before the Tory ladies' conference. He is a real tiger when he appears before the women of his party. It is at Tory conferences that he gets a standing ovation and is prepared to debate with the people of Britain. On such occasions, he is a real personality.
    It seems that I have been promoted from the rottweiler of the Conservative party conference to the political vulture of the Tory women's conference. If I am supposed to be a political vulture because I express my views on transport, I feel entitled to say that it is the Prime Minister herself who is to be found running from hospital bed to hospital bed followed by the cameras. I am not saying that that was necessarily wrong—merely that it did not lead the Secretary of State to make similar charges about the right hon. Lady going from accident to accident.
    I greatly regret the Secretary of State's remark that I exploit personal grief. I refer the House to a letter to The Guardian from Dr. Jim Swire, who, as the Secretary of State knows, speaks on these matters for the United Kingdom victims' families. He made himself absolutely clear:
    196
    "Mr. Parkinson should know that our feelings are not the issue; the prevention of a recurrence is. He agreed an inquiry was necessary and then failed to launch one. Mr. Prescott has now also promised an immediate, comprehensive and independent inquiry into air security. We have no reason to doubt his word."
    That is what the relatives want and that is what we are prepared to promise them. Dr. Swuire continued:
    "We might as well allow the vulture Prescott to tear at the corpse of the Government's anti-terrorist position."
    I am prepared to allow the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie tragedy to answer for me the Secretary of State's cheap abuse.
    Perhaps more relevant was the Secretary of State's remark about me, reported in The Sunday Times:
    "He can't make the facts fit his case."
    He was referring to safety in the railway industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] It is our debate and it has to do with safety; indeed, the amendment tabled by the Secretary of State mentions the safety of the railway system. I want to bring to the attention of the House the fact that one cannot accept what the Secretary of State says in his parliamentary replies.
    In his remarks about railway safety at the conference, the right hon. Gentleman referred to making the facts fit the case. He expressed his concern that I was not telling the truth about safety problems in the railway industry when I said that the number of deaths had increased. I tabled a number of parliamentary questions on the subject.
    The railway inspectors' report showed that, in the four years to 1988, deaths on the railway system had increased from 355 to 693. That was a considerable increase and some terrible tragedies were taken into account in those figures. The trend had been noticed prior to that, however. That information prompted me to look at the facts concerning deaths and serious accidents in the railway industry and, again, I tabled a number of questions. I was anxious also to look at accidents involving railway staff, and was concerned to discover that, although deaths had fallen by a third, serious injuries had increased by nearly 30 per cent.
    I tabled further questions, primarily because I was concerned about cuts in the safety inspectorate. The Secretary of State knows—he said it in his reply—that the safety inspectorate was at full strength until 1984 but since then the position has deteriorated. There were 17 in 1987 but only 16 in 1988, which meant that the inspectorate was under-represented by one third. In 1989, at the behest of the Fennell inquiry, the inspectorate's establishment was increased to 32 but, to date, only 24 inspectors are employed. The inspectorate is undermanned by 25 per cent. I was worried by the criticism of the railways in the Fennell report, which said that the inspectors were confused, did not know what their obligations were and had ignored their responsibilities. My inquiries into the railway inspectorate led me to the view that we should remove the inspectorate from the Department of Transport because it has failed to face up to its responsibilities. I believe that the Secretary of State is slowly having to accept that.
    I was concerned about the figures in the parliamentary replies. Indeed, I was surprised by the figures provided by the Secretary of State, which were different from those that I had seen in the inspectors' report. I asked for the figures for 1979 to the present day. Ever helpful, the Secretary of State gave me the figures from 1974 to 1979 because he wanted to make a political point about Labour's record. I

    197
    do not know whether Secretaries of State normally give more information than hon. Members ask for, but I could see that the Secretary of State was making a political point. He was also making a point of presentation, about which the Secretary of State claims to be an expert. He wanted to present the argument in a better way.
    To that end, the Secretary of State gave us the figures for 1974 to 1979. According to him, deaths and serious injuries had increased by 13.1 per cent. under Labour while during a similar period under a Conservative Government, the figure had been reduced by 6.5 per cent. The Sunday Times reported the Secretary of State telling the Conservative women's conference that there had been a 40 per cent. drop in accidents. I am sure all hon. Members would welcome that if it was the truth.
    I took the Secretary of State's figures to the Library because I found the figures for 1974 to 1979 most surprising. I did not ask for the figures that far back, because the classification base changed substantially in 1979. Indeed, the Library confirmed that. It is not possible to separate serious injuries from minor injuries for the period 1974 to 1979. The Secretary of State, or whoever prepared the figures for him, had calculated serious injuries at 11 per cent. of the total. Why is it an 12 per cent. guesstimate under Labour, while for every year after that period the figure is 7 per cent.? Something smells. Something is wrong. The figures do not fit the facts, as the Library confirmed this afternoon.
    The Government do not fiddle the statistics in only one or two areas of policy. I have outlined my accusation about the Secretary of State's figures, which I asked the Library to check. Perhaps the Secretary of State cannot be aware of all the figures. I am prepared to accept that, although he has often said in the House how he is intelligent and has an ability with figures and that the Opposition do not understand them. I will give the Secretary of State some figures to consider now.
    With regard to the figures for deaths and accidents, the Secretary of State's first fiddle was that the guesstimate of 12 per cent. should have been 7 per cent. on average. That would have reduced the Secretary of State's figure of 13.1 per cent. to 8.4 per cent. The second fiddle was the underestimate of the deaths for 1979 to 1983. I have checked the inspector's report and the figure is not 153, it is 157. The former figure is favourable for the Secretary of State's argument.
    The third mistake with the figures for 1974 to 1979 arose because the population figures were taken into account. I am not sure what those population figures are because they are not spelt out. However, I suspect that the Secretary of State has not considered the qualifications in the statistical changes. Those should have been considered if the Secretary of State wants to get into the political argy-bargy about what happened under Labour as opposed to what happened under the Tories. I am concerned about the trend in deaths and accidents, and not about political points.
    The Secretary of State should have considered the way he handled the statistics. If he had done that, his mistakes might have been evident to his accountant's mind. In his written answer to my question, the Secretary of State gave the percentage expressed as a proportion of 1,000 deaths. Is he really trying to tell the House that for the period about which I am interested, the number of deaths was 5·9
    198
    per 1,000? That is wrong. The real figure is 0.59. He overestimated the figure by 10 times the amount. The Library confirmed that point.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): In his question, the hon. Gentleman asked:
    "how many railway staff have been killed or suffered major injuries for the period 1979 to 1983 and 1984 to 1988; and what they represent as a proportion per 1,000 railway staff employed."— [Official Report, 24 May 1990; Vol. 173, c. 294]
    My reply was prepared for me by my Department in good faith. I trust my officials, and I stand by them. I will have the figures looked at. However, my point is that the proportion of deaths and major injuries per 1,000 was 5.9, not the proportion of deaths alone.
    Mr. Prescott: But it is expressed as a proportion per 1,000. I shall not prolong the argument—[Interruption.] I can do so if Conservative Members wish. The information is in the railway figures. It is 10 times the number of people who died or were seriously injured. It is a simple statistic. Conservative Members should look at the facts. The Secretary of State says that a mistake may have been made—clearly, it has been. British Rail has written to him and protested that the numbers appear to be 10 times greater. The Secretary of State may not know about that. He should ask Sir Humphrey—he might be able to tell him.
    The Secretary of State concentrated on a party political presentation rather than on the real issue—deaths and accidents. He is often loose with the interpretation of data in the House. When he wanted to say that the channel tunnel was not important, the proportion of freight went from 20 per cent. to 7 per cent. Mr. Morton, the channel tunnel chairman, was furiously trying to raise money in Japan. The Secretary of State told him that it was an insignificant amount of freight. There are many such examples, and they are not helpful to politics. If the Secretary of State is to change those things—[Interruption.] I have made the relevant point, and I hope that the Secretary of State will look at it.
    Mr. Robert Adley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is unsavoury to make party political points out of accident figures. On accident ratios, does he agree that all the evidence demonstrates that it is far more dangerous to travel by road than by rail? Is not that a good reason for investing in rail? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the latest figures that are emerging from West Germany show that it is 24 times more dangerous to travel by road? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in this country and in the European Community, we need the proper collation of statistics on an equal basis so that we can make a better quality of judgment?
    Mr. Prescott: I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said. That is why I want the railway inspectorate out of the Department and a common approach to independent statistics, so that we can make proper judgments. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was concerned about the wholesale indictment of the railway inspectorate in the Fennell report and the reduction in the number of safety inspectors, which has long been a Government policy. That is a signal that, for the Government, safety is not as important as it was. That is the issue. It is not right for us to cut safety. If we do that, we shall pay the consequences in deaths and injuries. It is a simple point, but it is critical.
    Mr. John P. Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important statistic in assessing the safety of British Rail is not just accidents and injuries to staff and the public but the number of near misses, in particular the overshooting of red lights? Will my hon. Friend confirm that those matters have increased in recent years and are very worrying?
    Mr. Prescott: Yes, I confirm that. We are all worried. I am sure that the Secretary of State is extremely concerned. The Department is conducting some studies of those matters. However, they are also connected with fatigue. Another lesson from the inquiry is that, if workers are worked for far too many hours because other employees have been sacked—as British Rail has done—and we try to compensate with a smaller work force, there is less vigilance and safety and the possibility that such incidents will increase. Fatigue is a major concern for bus drivers, train drivers, pilots and so on, and we must be concerned about it.
    It was unfortunate that, at that same conference, the Prime Minister announced her great transport initiative—toll roads exclusively for lorries. Would not it have been great if she said, "It would be nice to do something about rail"? That was her first statement on future transport policy—yet again, a road solution—when she had already sabotaged the channel tunnel rail link.
    I do not intend to reiterate the arguments that I have put in previous debates about the cut in the quality of services. The consumer body for the railway service made it absolutely clear—I have the relevant quotes, but time has been taken up by interventions [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have tried to allow as many hon. Members as possible to intervene.
    Mr. Conal Gregory: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Prescott: No.
    My response to the quotation about whether the quality of the service has deteriorated, is that it clearly has. The Secretary of State often refers to investment—no doubt we shall hear a lot more about it today—so I must advise the right hon. Gentleman that the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission made it clear, when comparing the investment made by the Labour and Tory Governments at 1985–86 prices, that that investment was far better under Labour than under the Tories.
    I shall not ignore the fact that more money is going into the railway system. However, the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the average age of the equipment in 1979 was 19 years. Once that equipment is 27 or 28 years old, it begins to get clapped out and investment decisions cannot be put off. I hope that we can all agree that capital investment decisions have been affected under both Labour and Tory Governments because the Treasury takes a short-term attitude to capital investment in British Rail.
    The tragedy for the Government is that the profile age of the capital equipment was about 28 years. That means that it had to invest, because the equipment could not keep going any longer. Therefore, I readily accept what the Secretary of State says about the current investment rate being the highest for 25 years. Indeed, the last time it was really high was in 1955, when the same thing happened and the equipment had to be replaced because it was totally clapped out.
    200
    In 1981, the British Railways Board issued a warning to the Government:
    "A crucial decision has to be taken soon about the future of British Rail. BR must be prepared to take either the path of progress by re-equipment and modernisation, or that of decline through a gradual but deliberate run-down of the system. We cannot continue as we have done in the past. We are reaching the dividing of the ways."
    The Government's answer was to bring in Professor Walters, slash the public service obligation from the 1983 levels at a loss of about £2 billion to BR and, through its financial framework, to make it much more difficult for British Rail to make adequate provision of services and proper investment. The Government ignored that need, saying, "We will cut your public services. We will give you higher rates of return. We will make that much more difficult to achieve. We hope that, when we have done that you will sack more workers, sell more land, privatise the sector, and make up the difference." Basically, that is what British Rail did, and that is how it ran its finances.
    When the Secretary of State tells us about investment, I hope that he will tell us how much of the investment is provided by the Government. Conservative Members often tell me that the Government have put money into the railway system, so I hope that they will tell us what proportion of investment has come from fares and how much has come from the Government. I hope that the Secretary of State will not tell us how much investment the Government have sanctioned, because legislation requires them to give that sanction. I want to know how much the Government have actually given. That is the key question. Because of this system, the passenger is taking the strain, not the British Rail system.
    The Government's attitude has created real problems. The financial framework has caused considerable difficulties. Today's edition of The Guardian provides further examples. We see that the public service obligation target for the south-east region might have to be reduced and that it is hoped to eliminate it by 1992. That will mean higher fares. Because the corporate review assumed that growth would be twice the rate that it is, and that property prices would be higher than they are, British Rail is now facing a financial crisis. In the next month, it will make further great losses and will be unable to meet its financial targets. Once again, it will be on the financial rack and no doubt the Government will come along and change the corporate plan. The Secretary of State knows that, when he announced the corporate plan, I said that it could not work, that there would be financial difficulties and that he would have to review it. I shall wait, and then I shall again say, "I told you so."
    Although the Secretary of State need not take any notice of me because many other people are saying the same thing, he should consider whether there is any substance in those arguments and if there is, he should heed them. The Secretary of State fails to listen to any arguments—
    Mr. Robert Hayward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Prescott: That is why we legitimately make the charge—
    Mr. Hayward rose—
    Mr. Prescott: No, I shall not give way again—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] No, I shall not give way.

    201
    That is why we legitimately charge the Government with being Tory luddites towards high-speed rail. I often hear the Secretary of State talking about the train grand vitesse as if we do not understand it. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has been on a TGV—we have only just managed to force him on to the railways in Britain—but I was on a TGV only last week, yet again, and can advise him that travelling at nearly 200 mph is an impressive experience.
    However, I must now shock the right hon. Gentleman by telling him that that train carries post and high-value freight. The Secretary of State should understand that that train does not only carry passengers. It carries freight of considerable value. The Secretary of State often says that we do not understand that. However, when he made his decision about the tunnel, he denied us the opportunity of achieving a high-speed link this century.
    If the Secretary of State cannot accept our criticism of this country's infrastructure, I refer him to what was said by John Banham at a conference that I attended. The Times reported:
    "An image of Britain paralysed by traffic jams, scorned by its continental counterparts and isolated economically on the edge of Europe was outlined yesterday by John Banham"—
    hardly a Labour party member. The Times reported John Banham as saying:
    "The government had to overcome its 'allergy to strategic thinking' and begin work on a national transport strategy, backed by public funds, if Britain was to avoid entering the 21st century with 'the worst transport infrastructure in northern Europe.'"
    John Banham could have taken that from "Moving Britain into the 1990s." We said it 12 months ago. Even the CBI, therefore, makes the same criticisms about Britain's transport system as we make.
    When the Secretary of State came to the House to make that statement—
    Mr. Hayward: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "This is organised; it is cheating."] This is an Opposition day, but is it acceptable for the Opposition spokesman to speak for 29 minutes without outlining one aspect of their policy?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman ought to know that that is not a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman was a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Department at one time and knows all about discipline in the Department of Transport.
    Since we have been so right on many issues, I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to us on this occasion, so that we do not have to keep on saying, "We told you so." The Secretary of State made a statement last week about why he could not accept the joint project. He made it clear, as did the Prime Minister, that £1.9 billion would be needed to subsidise the project. When one inquires into that figure, however, one finds that £400 million is accounted for by terminus costs and improvements at King's Cross to cater for express trains from Kent. That is part of the developments in the south-east and ought not to be charged against Eurorail. A further £310 million is for freight trains. That cannot legitimately be charged to Eurorail. Then, £700 million is for the rolling-stock at Waterloo and for the rolling stock to take passengers and freight to the north.
    202
    The Secretary of State told the House that repayment would not be due until 2010. I accept what he said about that. However, he did not tell the House that the total amount would be repaid on that date. The debts will not start to be repaid from 2010. Will the Secretary of State confirm that all the money, plus interest payments, will be paid in 2010 and that the debt repayment will not just begin in 2010? That is important to the financing of such a crucial project.
    The £500 million deficit between estimated revenue and the amount that Eurorail has provided is almost wholly due to Government intervention. They demanded a private partner. British Rail could have started this project two years ago. When they insisted on a private partner for British Rail they demanded that the rate of return should be 18 per cent. instead of 8 per cent. That adds to the cost when assessing whether a project will be profitable—a point that was made by Bob Reid. He pointed out that one can borrow at 8 per cent. from the Treasury.
    When the Prime Minister was engaged in electioneering during the Kent county council elections, she said, "Don't worry: vote Tory; we'll build tunnels and your environmental concerns will be looked after." Such a costly tunnelling operation for the line would certainly cost more than £500 million.
    The Government say that they do not believe in intervention, but by their own actions they scuppered the project. Therefore, Britain has been denied the opportunity to invest both private and public money in a high-speed link. In its editorial, The Daily Telegraph—hardly a militant in the Labour party—said:
    "In isolation, a refusal to commit public funds to support a project that is ultimately expected to benefit private shareholders may sound rational. But this newspaper sees the decision as an example of the muddled thinking which has bedevilled the Government's transport policy in recent years."
    The article concluded by saying:
    "For the time being, however, it is dismaying to note that Mr. John Prescott, Labour's front bench spokesman, has sounded considerably more convincing than his government counterpart in his analysis of the transport issue this week."
    I am not inclined to blow my own trumpet, but it was nice to read that in The Daily Telegraph.
    The Government's two-year delay has damaged out prestige and made it more difficult for British Rail to move into the 21st century. The way forward must be to review all the options. I asked the previous Secretary of State for Transport the same question 18 months ago and was told that that would cause delay. There is, however, to be a review of all the options, so there will be further delay. It is a pity that the Government did not take any notice of what we said 18 months ago.
    On section 42, the Secretary of State said in his last statement to the House, that there would be no subsidies and that I was a firm advocate of that policy. I hope that he will withdraw those comments when he has checked the facts. I asked for evidence of that, but his Department failed to produce it. I can explain why—there was no debate on section 42 as such; it simply passed through both Houses, for a number of reasons. I was not involved and it is incorrect to say that I was. I believe that there should be a review of section 42. I assume that public money is now becoming available because section 56 was mentioned at the conference, when it was suggested that there was a possibility of using it to help in the channel

    203
    tunnel investment. Are we already witnessing public money coming along, with a review of the alternatives of King's Cross and Stratford?
    The Secretary of State made great play of the fact that, according to him, I said on "Newsnight" that Labour's alternative of taking the high-speed link to Scotland would be financed by the infrastructure fund. He knows that to be untrue, because he has the script. If he would like me to quote it, I will. I did not say that it would be financed by the fund. I said that, if we were prepared to support the building of an enlarged fund—which we are—more resources could come with the support of Ireland, Belgium and France because they want a high-speed European link. Britain would be in the same position in relation to the infrastructure fund as the French are to the agriculture fund. We could then begin to do it.
    Nobody knows what would be the costs of that link. Even the Government do not know, after years of studying the cost of the connection from Folkestone to London. That is why I advocate a review of the financing—wherever the money may come from—of the environmental damage, and of how we can improve the commercial viability of the link, the recommendation for its structure and ownership and the best connection to London. Those are the criteria that could be involved in a new link, and I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider.
    I am bound to say that it is beginning to appear as though the Government are adopting the Labour party policy that we have advocated for the best part of two years—that is reviewing the options, reconsidering public money, considering the EC structure fund and studying the possibility of introducing high-speed trains, as defined in Europe, with speeds up to 200 mph. The Government's policy on that is a total failure. They fail to understand the potential of a high-speed rail system. It offers the greatest potential to help us to reduce congestion; to reduce the ever-increasing environmental damage to our system; to provide a fast, safe, modern transport system for passengers and freight; and to take British Rail into the 21st century.
    That is necessary for Britain, not only so that it does not remain geographically on the periphery of Europe, but so that it gets into the centre by the provision of high-speed links. If the Government fail to provide that, as they appear to be doing, this century, the next Labour Government—who are surely on their way—will ensure that it does happen. Indeed, we are actually planning now to ensure that it is brought about.
    4.37 pm
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "congratulates the Government for pursuing a balanced transport policy involving record investment by the public and private sector in every aspect of the nation's transport systems; recognises that this is the only way to give the customer more choice and a better quality of service; applauds the Government for the high priority it gives to all matters of safety; welcomes the contribution that the Channel Tunnel can make to improving links to the Continent of Europe and the £2 billion of investment in road and rail which will ensure the tunnel is fully serviced from the day it opens in 1993; commends the Government's support for the development of high speed trains which will be jointly owned by Britain, France and Belgium and which will operate in all
    204
    three countries; commends British Rail for developing plans for high speed freight services from all parts of the United Kingdom to the tunnel; and calls on the Opposition to cease its policy of denigrating Britain.'."
    It would be a relief to everybody if the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) stood by what he said he would do today and stopped constantly appearing on the television the moment after an accident, trying to blame it on something he calls "cuts". I shall tell him what prompted my remarks on Saturday, and it might actually interest him to know that many people recognised what I was referring to. The Labour party's document states:
    "The tragedies of the 1980s—Zeebrugge, Lockerbie, Clapham, Kings Cross—are symbols of a government which has put cost cutting before people's lives."
    This is a disgraceful allegation. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Lockerbie incident is under investigation by the police. It involved a terrorist bomb, which was probably put on a plane in Frankfurt. The hon. Gentleman has already made up his mind.
    Dr. Swire is a reasonable man and he wants a public inquiry. He believes that the hon. Gentleman shares his desire, but the hon. Gentleman has already said in the Labour party document that he does not need an inquiry because it is all down to cost cutting by the Government. That is a disgraceful slur and I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
    Mr. Prescott: Inquiries have not been conducted into the tragedies of Lockerbie and the Marchioness, but all the other inquiries pointed to the inadequacies of the Department of Transport and the cuts that contributed to the deaths. That is what we said in our report.
    Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman just demonstrated that he tries to turn every tragedy into a party political matter and to cash in on it.
    I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the television programme in which he appeared when I meant to say that it was a radio programme. I recorded a similar programme a couple of nights later. During the programme the hon. Gentleman said in response to a question on the infrastructure fund:
    "Britain's infrastructure is so bad we would get the majority of claims upon it and therefore we'd be a bit like the French with the Common Agricultural Fund."
    In other words, we would get all the money out of it. Later the hon. Gentleman went on to say that the route up to Scotland would cost between £10 billion and £15 billion depending on what route was decided upon. He said:
    "I think that the Community will be quite prepared to give it as a European infrastructure of a … quite a proportion of that."
    I do not know quite what that sentence means as, in common with most of the hon. Gentleman's sentences, it does not finish. As I understand it, he acknowledged that his plans would cost between £10 billion and £15 billion. He said that quite a proportion of that cost could come from the infrastructure fund, but at that time the fund stood at £40 million. Last week, the Council of Ministers unanimously agreed to an ad hoc fund for another three years totalling £80 million. The final amount has yet to be settled, but that sum was the Commissioner's ambition. If the hon. Gentleman expects to receive quite a proportion of a fund totalling £80 million only, it is clear that £10 billion will account for many, many years of the accounts of that fund.
    The hon. Gentleman is sponsored by the National Union of Seamen of which he is extremely proud and he

    205
    speaks out for it. That union was violently in favour of section 42. At that time, did he disagree with his union? In the recent debate the hon. Gentleman said that he had changed his mind. Does that mean that he was never in favour of section 42 or that he previously supported it, but no longer?
    Mr. Prescott: Circumstances change.
    Mr. Parkinson: So the hon. Gentleman did support section 42, but he has changed his mind. I thank him for acknowledging that.
    Mr. Gregory: Can my right hon. Friend clarify whether we have had a clear statement from the Opposition on transport? We have not had such clarification from the Opposition. Are we to assume that the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) are speaking as the paid hacks of the National Union of Seamen and the National Union of Railwaymen? There appears to be no clear distinction between their remarks on behalf of those unions and the Opposition's transport policy.
    Mr. Parkinson: That is a matter for the hon. Gentlemen.
    This is the fourth debate that we have had on the railways in the past four months—three of them have been initiated by the Opposition, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East reminded us. Railways are an important part of our transport infrastructure, but, unlike the hon. Gentleman, we accept the need to keep their contribution in perspective. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the railways carry 7 per cent. of our freight and 8 per cent. of our passengers. We want to see those percentages grow and we are giving substantial backing to that end. Even if those percentages doubled—that would require huge investment and cause huge problems—it would still mean that 86 per cent. of our freight and 84 per cent. of our passengers would use other means of transport.
    We recognise the contribution that the railways can make, but, unlike the Opposition, we are not obsessed about that. We are not unbalanced in our attitude to the railways. We see the railways as an important contribution towards solving our transport problems, but we do not consider them as the answer to those problems—that is the impression that the hon. Gentleman gives the whole time.
    Mr. Snape: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the percentages quoted are typically misleading and are, unfortunately, the sort of statistics that have emanated from the Department of Transport for too many years? The figures on freight include local deliveries, milk floats and all sorts of deliveries that are carried on the road, with which the railways would not and could not compete. We are talking about the contribution that rail freight could make at the heaviest end of the freight market over long distances. Given the right hon. Gentleman's palpable ignorance, he should be told that as his Department has, in the past 10 years, twice increased lorry weights and once increased lorry speeds, it is not surprising that the rail freight business is now facing a financial crisis.
    Mr. Parkinson: Even if we doubled the percentages for rail freight and rail passengers, 86 per cent. of our freight and 84 per cent. of our passengers would still travel by other means of transport. Those figures are accepted and are comparable with the figures for other countries.
    Mr. Alistair Darling rose—
    Mr. Parkinson: I shall not give way as I want to press on.
    My second criticism of the Opposition is their reluctance—
    Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Parkinson: No, not at the moment.
    My second criticism of the Opposition is their reluctance to say anything good about this country and anything bad about others. The implication is that Britain in general and British rail in particular are totally out of step with other countries.
    Recently I was looking at Railway Gazette International and I read about a railway system that is looking to reorganise itself. The article said:
    "The chosen management matrix mirrors British Rail's sector structure of five businesses that has stood the acid test of survival in a fully deregulated transport environment … The changes spring from a management audit by four consultants completed last September and concluded that insufficient attention was being paid to economic realities, that trains were run with little concern for profit".
    That railway organisation, which is looking to model itself on British Rail, is SNCF. It has decided that it must move towards an organisation similar to British Rail and to start to put economies first.
    I also read about another railway company much admired by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley). It has appointed a commission to look at the intractable problem of the long-term financial stability of its railways. We are told:
    "The model chosen has leanings towards the business sector approach pioneered by British Rail".
    The article said of that much admired railway system:
    "Can it be that"
    the chairman's team
    "is at last getting a hold on the dinosaur?"
    That is what is happening in the German railway system. The French and German railway systems do not regard British Rail as a joke, but are modelling their management structures on it.
    The European Commission does not think that the Government's transport policy is wrong. We are in the process of creating a common market in transport and in road, rail, air, and sea transport Britain is taking the lead in promoting liberalisation. A vital part of the Commission's transport policy is the removal of subsidies that distort competition while recognising their acceptability for social reasons in special circumstances. The Commission is not planning to see Europe with a huge range of heavily subsidised railways. So the Commission is planning to follow precisely the policy of the Government—[interruption.]—of eliminating subsidy and concentrating it on areas where there are special reasons for it.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: I urge the right hon. Gentleman to recall the words in the Government amendment, which commends
    "British Rail for developing plans for high speed freight services from all parts of the United Kingdom".
    That aspect applies in particular to my part of the north-west because, if the channel tunnel is not used and developed properly, it will be a disadvantage rather than an advantage to us. It will place us further from the centre of Europe if its lines are not developed through to the north-west. The freight depot in my constituency concerns me most, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware. We do not

    207
    want to remain on the periphery, but we fear that we may become even more peripheral as the tunnel proceeds. We want to be integrated into the railway network of the whole of Europe.
    Mr. Parkinson: I was about to deal with the channel tunnel and discuss the point that the right hon. Gentleman raised.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Parkinson: I must get on.
    Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Parkinson: I hope that my hon. Friend will permit me to continue. He has many opportunities to voice his opinions about the railways, and I am sure he will have an opportunity again.
    I wish, in dealing with the channel tunnel, to start by referring to the reaction to my announcement, and in particular, to the Opposition's reaction, which showed the lack of balance that is rapidly becoming the hallmark of Labour Members. I announced that the Eurorail joint venture would not go ahead, and I gave the reasons for that decision. I shall be happy to send the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East a copy of the letter that I sent to British Rail and to Eurorail explaining my reasons.
    I pointed out that the £500 million direct grant might have been acceptable, but that, coupled with a demand for an additional £350 million to £400 million of investment by British Rail to support the commuter link, it represented too great an expense to be covered by the benefits to the commuter link.
    I also pointed out that it was an investment of £1 billion—the hon. Gentleman was right to quote that figure—in all the equipment for phases one and two of the channel tunnel. The consortium wanted to take over all those assets and all the income from them and to repay in the year 2010. So the assets would have been acquired—taken over—the loan would have been outstanding, ranking behind every creditor in the event of anything going wrong, and no repayment of any sort would have been made until 2010. That is why I mentioned £1·9 billion, being the investment, the grant and the soft loan.
    I went on to say that in addition, in practice the Government were substantially underwriting any cost overruns. When I questioned that, I was told, "If anything goes wrong, you can put in a receiver, buy the assets cheaply and finish it as a public sector project." That would have been unacceptable, so we came to the conclusion that that link was not a sensible proposition.
    What I announced, and what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East ignored, was that the line to the north downs would be confirmed, that Kings Cross was agreed as the second terminal and that the new chairman would appoint consultants to examine all the proposals and decide the best way to get from the north downs to Kings Cross. In other words, the idea that the project was scrubbed was totally and utterly wrong.
    There are certain basic points that the hon. Gentleman and others should remember. The first is that freight was never part of the Eurorail proposal. The proposal was for a 72-mile passenger link from Folkestone to Kings Cross. The freight arrangements that Eurorail envisages are those that we have put in hand. The equipment and carriages
    208
    have been ordered and British Rail is now searching for the depots, and I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) wants one in his constituency.
    The notion—also referred to in the Opposition motion—that the regions are in any way disadvantaged by my decision is, from the freight and business point of view, wrong. Our freight will run with the most modern fleet of freight trains at comparable speeds to those in Europe. They will go straight through the tunnel and all the regions will be served.
    In considering passengers, again there have been many misunderstandings. British Rail will be putting on 3 million seats from areas outside the south-east and the trains will go through by direct line—direct route without stop—to the tunnel.
    Mr. Prescott: What trains?
    Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman suggests that we do not have any trains. We authorised the first 30 trains. We authorised the freight trains—
    Mr. Prescott: When?
    Mr. Parkinson: We authorised them some time ago, before Christmas. We have done more. The first tranche of trains to service the tunnel has been ordered. The freight trains were ordered subsequently and the North Pole and Waterloo were recently authorised. We give the approvals as applications come forward.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse rose—
    Mr. Parkinson: The first tranche of high-speed trains has been ordered, and when British Rail comes forward with its proposals, they will receive the normal consideration. We are ordering trains as they are recommended to us and, as I say, we have ordered the first 30 high-speed passenger trains. They have already been ordered.
    Mr. Prescott: What about the rest?
    Mr. Parkinson: The others will follow—[Interruption.] As applications come forward, they are approved and no twisting is involved. It is clear that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, having had little experience of running anything, does not understand how these things work. We do not order everything simultaneously. The trains will be ordered and they will run through.
    Mr. Snape rose—
    Mr. Parkinson: No, I shall not give way.
    We are talking of a common pool of trains, which will be ordered by ourselves, the French and the Belgians and which will be jointly owned. The trains that come through the tunnel will be the trains that leave Paris and go to their British destinations. As we order new trains, which will be there in time for the opening—
    Mr. Prescott: Really?
    Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman expresses doubt about the freight trains. They have been ordered. He expresses doubt about the fast trains. They, too, have been ordered. He expresses doubt about the freight terminal. It

    209
    has been authorised. Everything will be ordered and the tunnel will be serviced, and all the regions will be serviced, from the day the tunnel opens.
    Mr. Lofthouse rose—
    Mr. Parkinson: No, I must get on.
    Mr. Prescott rose—
    Mr. Parkinson: No, I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's point. He is attempting his usual trick of trying to dance on a pinhead, which nature did not design him to do.
    Mr. Richard Page: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the question of investment, may I inform him that I am receiving from my constituents—a typical letter yesterday came from a Mrs. Guaschi—complaints that we are favouring road against rail. They say that far too much investment is going into roads from Government funds and too little into rail. Will my right hon. Friend explain how much uneven treatment we are giving to the roads as against the rail system?
    Mr. Parkinson: On the national roads programme, in the three years starting this year, we shall be spending £5.7 billion. On the rail and underground systems—public transport—we shall be investing £6.2 billion. On local roads, a further £2 billion will be invested by local authorities. The sums to be spent on the national road network are less than the sums to be spent on rail and the underground.
    We have heard today from the Opposition about policy. I kept a note. The first 14 minutes of the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East were devoted to personal abuse and the next 14 to a ramble round the thicket, and finally the hon, Gentleman said that he was in favour of some sort of fast link, which would be funded in a way about which he would let us know at some future time. It was an expression of hope rather than a commitment.
    As the hon. Gentleman knows, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) have said that they are not committed to anything other than uprating child benefit and pensions, and everything else will have to compete for available resources. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East today offered us nothing except an expression of vain hope.
    While the Opposition dream their dreams, we are getting on with the business of modernising Britain. We shall invest—
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it abundantly clear that he is not prepared to give way. I hope that hon Members will resume their seats.
    Mr. Parkinson: Over the next three years, British Rail will invest in rail some £3.7 billion—the largest sum that it will have invested for some time. Its new chairman told me that the sum is bigger than the combined investment programmes of Shell and Esso UK—two huge companies. The Opposition want to know how that will be financed and I shall tell them if they will listen.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, said that that would be paid for out of fares. That is his favourite assertion and he even got the Leader of the
    210
    Opposition to make it. The fares paid to British Rail will produce a loss of £600 million over the next three years. Therefore, in addition to funding that loss, it has to find a further £3.7 billion, making a total of £4,300 million. Therefore, I hope that we have made it clear that the investment will not be paid for from fares because the fares do not even cover the expenses.
    The sum of £1,600 million will come from grants, directly or indirectly, from the Treasury. The £900 million will come from the realisation by British Rail of property assets that belong to the taxpayer. Some £800 million will come from the reinvestment of the depreciation, which every sensible Government and organisation carries out, and the £1,000 million will come in the form of loans from the national loans fund at favourable rates of interest. That is a balanced way of funding a huge programme. At the end of an investment period in which British Rail will have lost £600 million and invested £3.7 billion, its debt will have increased by less than £1 billion.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State saying, in answer to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), that the national roads programme—which I think he said was £5.7 billion—will come out of taxpayer' money, whereas the money from central Government for this massive rail investment programme is £1.6 billion? That is the answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West.
    Mr. Parkinson: The taxpayer owns British Rail. Therefore, if assets are realised, it is perfectly reasonable for the money to be reinvested. That is how British Rail will fund its programme. It is turning assets into cash and reinvesting it. The notion that the reinvestment is being paid for by the fare payer is raging nonsense. British Rail has a balanced way of funding a huge investment programme.
    I shall translate that money into projects. The east coast main line electrification will be finished by the spring of next year. Network SouthEast will have modernised lines on the north Kent and Chiltern lines. All the provincial network—everything but Network SouthEast and InterCity—will have modernised trains within two years. They are being introduced now in a steady programme. Thameslink is to have massive investment to improve north-south connections.
    I am sure that hon. Members will have read last week that British Rail announced a £700 million plan for the total upgrading of the west coast main line. A huge investment programme is under way. It is being translated from money into improvements, which will appear progressively for the benefit of British Rail users. The Government support that programme.
    Some £6,200 million is being invested in British Rail and London Underground, and over the same period the Underground will invest some £2.5 billion. The London Underground subsidy will double during the next three years, and total more than £1,700 million.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, talks about the £85 million reduction over three years in Network SouthEast and the £55 million reduction in the provincial lines. However, London Underground is colossally subsidised and backed up by huge investment programmes to provide modern rolling stock to reduce costs. Will the hon. Gentleman bear it in mind that, at the

    211
    same time, we are adding more than £1,000 million to the subsidy paid to London Underground compared with the previous three years? Therefore, far from reductions in subsidies to public transport, there has been a huge change.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the Confederation of British Industry brief that we have all received, the CBI says of grants that it wants recognition of
    "the environmental benefits of rail by providing environmental grants where necessary, or by reducing the rate of return required on investment."
    When it is convenient in his speech, will the Secretary of State reflect on the CBI's suggestion?
    Mr. Parkinson: I can give the hon. Gentleman my answer now. In the business plan for the next three years that we agreed with British Rail, we stated that cost benefit could be taken into account in making rail investment and giving grants for transferring freight from road to rail. I have just said that, in the proposal for the channel tunnel rail link, we were prepared to look at the benefits to Network SouthEast commuters and make a contribution towards the cost of that link. However, at the end of the day, the contribution desired and the support needed were too big. But the principle was there, and we were prepared to make grants up to £500 million.
    I have talked about the huge investment programme in the railways and the biggest ever investment programme in the underground. We also have huge programmes for the extension of the docklands light railway, the modernisation of the Central line and the replacement of the rolling stock on all the underground lines by 1994, other than the Northern line, which should be completely modernised by 1995. A huge programme, including new lines, is in hand to improve London's underground system.
    During the survey period of three years, we shall invest £5,700 million in the roads programme—the biggest investment programme for many years. The reasons for that were set out in the White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity". They are to improve our economic performance, the environment and safety. It is a huge programme, involving the improvement of our trunk roads and motorways.
    We have released the ports from the iniquitous dock work labour scheme. The net result is that all our ports are looking forward to investment and expansion.
    I opened the third London airport terminal, which has been totally modernised, enlarged and improved. It is effectively a new terminal, adding to the new terminal at Heathrow opened a couple of years ago and to the one at Gatwick opened a little before. Next year a new terminal will open at Stansted and that will make a massive improvement to London's airport capacity. There are effectively three new terminals and the fourth will be opened next March. People criticise Britain and say that the French are thinking of building a new airport, which will make them enormously strong, but as I say, next March will see the opening of a fourth new terminal serving London.
    We recognise the importance of rail, but we do not overestimate, as the Opposition do, its significance. We recognise the need to modernise the whole of our transport system. In spite of predictions from the Opposition, the results of negotiations with the Treasury, which were
    212
    announced last year, have shown that over the previous three years the Department of Transport had an increase from £8 billion to £14 billion in its budget for the infrastructure and improving our transport systems. In addition, the private sector is investing in airports, roads and light railways. More money than ever is being reinvested and invested in Britain's transport systems. We are playing our part in Europe by leading the way for liberalisation in aviation, shipping and road cabotage.
    While the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East flies over to France in his helicopter and has his little trip on the TGV, we stay at home and get on with the business of creating a modern system. We cannot take the hon. Gentleman seriously. We reckon that if he were ever in government—which is highly unlikely—he would be lucky to get from the Treasury enough money to pay for the letters of apology that he would have to write to all the people whom he has been misleading. He knows that the Labour party has never been a reliable investor in transport and that it will not be in future.
    5.11 pm
    Mr. John P. Smith: Having listened to the Secretary of State, I wonder what world he lives in because it is not my world or that of the people whom I represent. The Government's 11-year record on transport is a disaster. We are experiencing a transport crisis. I do not propose to become embroiled in arguments about relative investments, the building of additional motorways and plans that are in the pipeline. I shall speak of the reality that people experience every day. That experience tells them that, no matter how much argument takes place in the House, we are experiencing a transport crisis.
    I challenge any hon. Member to deny that the transport system throughout the country is in a mess. It is obvious to anyone who tries to drive in and out of London or to travel anywhere at all on the M25. The motorway was planned and opened by the Government, and on the day it opened it had one of the largest traffic jams in the country. That is the sort of thing that people are exeriencing. Anyone who tries to travel through the Dartford tunnel will see the misery that faces our motorists. Anyone lucky enough to catch an InterCity train anywhere near peak travelling times will have to sit or even stand in crowded and often dirty carriages.
    Mr. Hayward: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that from last month the InterCity service that he and I use has had increased capacity as a result of line electrification on the east coast? Units have been transferred from the east coast to the Cardiff service and the capacity on each train has been increased by one seventh.
    Mr. Smith: I am not aware of that. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that by the mid-1990s Bristol and Cardiff and south Wales in general will be the only large population centres in Europe without an electrified main line link, and that may soon include eastern Europe? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my worries about the effect of poor rail links on the economies of the areas concerned. That needs to be addressed rather rapidly by the Government.
    There may have been some minor improvements, but anyone who manages to catch a train on Network SouthEast will suffer the experiences that I have described.

    213
    Such experiences are not confined to London and the south-east, as anyone who tries to cross the Severn bridge at peak hours and is subject to the delays caused by repairs and the toll will testify. Hon. Members should try to drive past Manchester on the M6 during the rush hour and see the sort of traffic jams that people there are experiencing.
    I vividly recall the unfortunate experience of having to drive from Cardiff to Glasgow during the spring bank holiday last year. Near Telford I hit a traffic jam on the M5 which stretched for almost 80 miles. I am told that it was because it was bank holiday weekend and because there was an important cup match in Liverpool between Arsenal and Liverpool. There is no excuse or explanation for such congestion.
    The focus of the crisis in our transport system was highlighted a week or two ago when the Secretary of State for Transport made his disastrous announcement about the cancellation of the high-speed link to the channel tunnel. I do not share his view that in the short and medium term that does not matter much. It matters a great deal. It was a disastrous announcement and will have considerable consequences, not only for our transport system but for Britain's credibility.
    Mr. Rupert Allason: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a long lead time from a decision to the moment when a road or any transport project is opened? The hon. Gentleman spoke of the M25. Does he accept that part of the reason for the appalling congestion on that road may be decisions made some time ago, some of them by Labour Administrations, especially in relation to the inner London ringway?
    Mr. Smith: I agree that there is a long lead time on large projects. I understand that the lead time for the high-speed link to the channel tunnel is about 11 years, which makes one wonder whether anything will ever be done now that everything seems to be back in the melting pot.
    The decision about the high-speed rail link will give rise to even more overcrowding on our trains, especially in the south-east, and it will lead to more worry. That point has been missed. If we do not have a direct service, even more heavy freight will be squeezed off our railways and on to the roads resulting in even more congestion. That is worrying.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: Is not the real point that, whether or not we had the high speed rail link that was being proposed, the freight plan would in no way have been altered? A number of us are pleased about the present delay because it gives us one last chance to reassess the freight link to see whether British Rail's original proposal stands up to the potential of a freight-carrying capacity on British Rail which we believe could operate in the 21st century.
    Mr. Smith: My understanding is different. I understand that it is a question of capacity. Trade and passengers will be competing for the same line and that will push yet more on to the roads.
    Even worse is the effect of the Government's decision on Britain's reputation. On the day that the announcement was made, south Wales business men, with the assistance and co-operation of the Welsh CBI, were hosting a tremendous European business initiative. At the height of those worthwhile endeavours, they heard that the Government had cancelled the high-speed link to the
    214
    channel tunnel. I understand that that became a bit of a joke with their French and German counterparts. Fast trains from Frankfurt or Paris will have to travel much more slowly on the English side of the channel because of the track here.
    For me, the reality is not the gloomy national picture that everybody experiences either directly or through their television screens. The real illustration of the present transport crisis and the Government's disastrous record over the past 11 years is the experience of my constituents and those of many other hon. Members.
    I represent an area which is predominantly rural and suburban. My consitutents are experiencing a transport crisis because there has been a breakdown in the area's transport system. Just as there are trouble spots in Britain, so there are in my constituency. My constituents cannot get into their cars and be sure of arriving at work on time. They do not have the choice of catching a train because there is no passenger service. They reach the trouble spots, particularly in the east of my constituency, such as Culverhouse Cross, and find themselves stuck in a traffic jam.
    My constituency has developed, and its population has grown, but its transport system has not grown to meet its needs. My constituents, like those of many hon. Members, experience traffic jams in the morning and heavy traffic as they travel through tiny villages, such as Lysworney in the west of my constituency which has a single lane road going through it carrying heavy lorries laden with stone and industrial freight from the nearby industrial estate. In the east of my constituency two popular suburbs, Dinas Powys and Sully, experience heavy traffic and high volumes of traffic. That is now becoming a safety issue for parents of young children and an environmental issue because of the exhaust fumes and other environmentally hazardous products that are emitted. Similar problems are experienced throughout the constituency. Even our national airport is served by a single carriageway road interspersed with roundabouts which one cannot get round. It is a mess.
    Yet a solution has existed for a long time—to invest in the existing rail link which runs through the constituency like a spinal cord. That would solve not all but most of our transport problems and would assist in cleaning up the environment. Everyone who lives in the area recognises that the solution to our transport problems is an investment in the railway, opening a passenger rail link to the airport and those rural and suburban towns in the west of the constituency as soon as possible.
    That is not the decision that British Rail has reached, or can reach, however, because investment in our railways has been neglected for so long. The absurd accounting system for our railways and the introduction of sectorisation makes it difficult if not impossible to reopen that rail link. It is a tragedy. Every sensible person and organisation living in or operating from my constituency says that there is one, and only one, solution to our transport problem—the reopening of the passenger railway.
    That is the case that I put to the House, and I do so because it reflects the problems throughout Britain. If the Government fail to take up the challenge and to invest quickly in our railways, escaping the ideological dogma which prevents them from subsidising a fast, efficient network in any way, we shall be in trouble. I look forward to a change of Government and to a Secretary of State for

    215
    Transport who takes a far more pragmatic approach to the problems that we face and who is prepared to use public and private investment in the creation of a fast, efficient rail network.
    5.27 pm
    Mr. Edward Heath: Rail transport, with its associations with other forms of transport in Britain, is a major issue which deserves serious treatment and which should rise above petty personalities and party quarrels. That is what the country expects and it is certainly what my constituents expect.
    I propose to devote my time to the questions which affect my constituents, and I do so quite unashamedly because they tend to be overlooked, certainly in Government quarters and in other quarters of the House. Those who share their anxieties with me will, given the opportunity today, doubtless explain them.
    We all welcome what the Secretary of State has said about the amount to be invested in transport generally during the next three years. I do not believe that it is possible to review transport problems in three years. That is a short-term view and it is certainly not one which the Japanese take. One has to take a long-term view when dealing with roads, rail and airports. But we welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement.
    I wish that my right hon. Friend had clarified to a greater extent how much is being contributed by the Treasury to particular forms of transport and how much is coming from other sources, in particular for rail. Major and smaller roads are financed by central or local government, and the amount involved is vast, but the sum invested by central Government in rail is much smaller. I wish that that had been made clear from the beginning.
    Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will say how he views the overall transport problem, because there can be no doubt that it is enormous. When the M25, for example, was designed, obviously the wrong judgments were made about the required capacity. It is said that, when the demand for a better rail link arises, it will be met, but that is a fatal approach. When the demand arises, it will be too late to meet it, and one will have another M25 situation. One must think ahead, if only because new transport facilities create their own users. That is what happened with the M25.
    When the fast link in available, it too will create its own passengers. People will prefer to go to a railway station close to their home or place of work and use a fast link, rather than have to drive to the airport, to arrive there half or three quarters of an hour early, and on returning have to wait for baggage and then face a lengthy journey back to their home or office. A fast rail link would create its own market.
    My right hon. Friend emphasised the importance of achieving the correct balance, but there is a danger that one may not pursue the right priorities. Tht happened with motorways. One can think of numerous motorways that have not been fully completed, in the sense that they go so far but then come to an abrupt end. The M27 in the south of England is an example. That happens because we have never said that the priority must be to complete a motorway to its full extent before starting work on another. If we had done so, the motorway network would
    216
    have been completed more speedily, and much more would have been achieved overall. It is on the question of balance that the rail link will also suffer.
    In the case of the M4, only a two-way highway connects it to London, yet high-rise buildings are still being constructed alongside that highway. Does anyone imagine that that highway is adequate today? It is hopeless. Does anyone imagine that we shall go on to eternity with just a two-way highway leading to the west? One finds that new construction is also being permitted alongside inadequate roads leading in and out of other cities. A long-term overall strategy is required, by which we will say, "Such construction cannot be undertaken because we need better road facilities to help our economy in years to come."
    The situation in London is catastrophic, yet apparently there is no plan for dealing with it. The Government have no intention of doing so, and there is no overall authority that will even consider tackling that task. It would have been helpful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had devoted at least part of his speech to acknowledging the problems that affect so many people.
    I have often wondered whether it would be possible for some clever group to calculate the loss of time, energy and cost, in terms of strain, to the workers of this country resulting from the failure of our traffic system. If anyone made such a calculation, they would be absolutely shattered, and would see how necessary it is to spend money and to make an effort to achieve solutions.
    I unashamedly turn to my constituency problem, which concerns the fast rail link—an issue that has been going on for two and a half years. We thought that British Rail had reached a firm decision on the route to be used. Many right hon. and hon. Members have had a close association with British Rail over that time, and it was sad to find that it was inadequate to deal with a new rail link—but as it would be the first this century, perhaps that is understandable. Nevertheless, British Rail did not appear to have the technical knowledge required, nor had it surveyed the technical progress made by countries on the other side of the channel.
    At the enormous public meetings that we held, which could in no way be called political occasions, there were people who had taken the trouble to visit France, Germany and even Japan to study the rail systems there, and whose knowledge left the British Rail representatives standing silent. They had nothing to say. They did not have that information themselves, and could not comment on it. I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State quoted the praise given by other countries to British Rail. That made me wonder why it is necessary to privatise it, but that is something that I would not mention except in polite company.
    The continuing difficulties with the fast rail link presents personal problems for many people. I quote from the letter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sent to me after I had written to him with the views of a particular constituent:
    "I hope that at least I have reassured"
    my constituent
    "that the question of the route into London is an entirely open one, which is being looked at afresh by British Rail, and that at this stage no particular route is earmarked or about to be announced."
    Far from being reassuring, that is a fatal condemnation.
    At this moment, the whole of south and south-east London, as well as an area in the country that extends to

    217
    the north downs, is under blight. If one of my constituents is promoted to or offered another job in a different part of the country, he cannot accept it because he cannot sell his house. As soon as people know the location of the property, they say, "The fast link may be routed through here, or there, or somewhere else. In any case, we wouldn't touch it." Similarly, people who want to move to the coast or some other part of the country to retire cannot do so because they are unable to sell a house that is under blight.
    We thought that the issue was settled when British Rail announced its preferred route, but that scheme was killed and a new one begun with Eurolink. That too appears to have been wiped out, and nobody knows where they are. The only certain thing is that property owners are under blight, and that is ruining their lives. Leaving aside the great strategy involving roads, rail and airports, one must take into account the ordinary citizens in my constituency, and in those of many right hon. and hon. Members, who cannot live their lives.
    Mr. Parkinson: I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend was present when I made a statement about 10 days ago, saying that the only proposal that has ever been made is still on the table and that the compensation scheme applying to that particular route is being retained. If anyone is threatened by that proposal, compensation is available. There are no other proposals on the table. The only one that exists is protected by a compensation scheme.
    Mr. Heath: With respect, my right hon. Friend completely misunderstands the position. His letter to me says that the new chairman of British Rail will examine all possibilities. Even more frightening is his comment:
    "our main concern is to get the right route and to give the new Chairman of British Rail all the time he needs to decide what proposals in his view"—
    and so on. My constituents will say that, if the new chairman is given
    "all the time he needs",
    there is no knowing how long that process will take.
    If one was starting from scratch, one might say, "Yes, this is the right approach", but after all that we have gone through in the past two and a half years, and after all the anxiety that my constituents have suffered, that is horrifying.
    So much emphasis has been placed on the fact that the link will be largely used for freight. Also, there is the question of helping commuters, which is where the issue begins to get muddled—but perhaps I am a very suspicious type. When there is talk of helping the commuter, I wonder whether that is a way to get money into the system for the link.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: What is wrong with that?
    Mr. Heath: There is nothing wrong with it, but it goes against everything that has been said about section 42, which has bedevilled the whole discussion. [Interruption.] With great respect, it has. It was never discussed in Committee and was brought about by the lobbying of the ferry people, who are terrified of what would happen with the chunnel. As a result, section 42 was put in.
    Mr. Prescott: Quite right.
    Mr. Heath: I shall not blame the Opposition spokesman, because the Government are responsible for legislation. I am not interested in him; I never have been.
    I have challenged with my right hon. Friend's predecessor whether section 42 precludes the Government from making allowances for expenditure to protect the environment. I have never had an answer.
    I believe that section 42 refers to the channel tunnel and the rail link in it. I do not see how it could possibly have referred to a fast link which was going from the channel tunnel right up to Inverness, Liverpool or to the other great cities of this country, which is what is intended. How could one say, as is said in section 42, that there must never be any money to deal with such a situation, unless it is in an attempt to force a cheap privatisation?—and I say that quite bluntly.
    We shall never get proper environmental protection unless railways are provided with the funds, and it has to be public funds—no private investor will provide money to protect the environment.
    Mr. Prescott: Joint financing—public and private.
    Mr. Heath: One can juggle the figures how one likes, but the money has to come from the Treasury. People say that we must think of the Community and the fact that it does not want to use public funds for environmental protection, because that means taxation. But the Community does want it. Even though some people's homes are affected, the people of Kent want the link. But they want to see proper environmental protection throughout Kent—and I admit that it is my own county. Other hon. Members representing constituencies there will say the same thing equally strongly.
    As regards south London, Bexley, Sidcup, Bromley and the rest, under the last proposal the link was to be tunnelled underneath, which would protect that area. Now that has all been wiped out. Why? Because we are bedevilled by section 42. When the Department of Transport examined the total figures, it said that they were too high, and that, because of section 42, the funds could not be granted. Either section 42 has to be interpreted as I and other hon. Members have suggested—the Department of Transport has never denied that it could not be so interpreted—or section 42 has to be removed. It would only require a one-clause Bill to remove section 42, and then the hands of the Government would be freed to follow a proper environmental policy.
    In the past week the Prime Minister has placed enormous emphasis upon the environment. Very well, that is quite right, and I fully support it. She has emphasised the problem of the hole in the ozone layer, which I do not understand. When we had the best summer in our history last year, and everybody said that it was due to the hole in the ozone, I said, "Well, then make the hole a bit bigger." [Laughter.] Then we had the worst storms that we have had for a long time, and people said that that was due to the hole in the ozone, so I said, "Okay, then—close it up again."
    What immediately concerns my constituents is not the hole in the ozone layer, but what will happen to their houses and their lives with a fast link. It is already happening. In my constituency, night freight traffic has increased enormously. One reason, obviously, is the building of the channel tunnel, because they have to

    219
    transport all the materials needed and get the empty trains back. However, it is making the lives of my constituents unbeliveable at night.
    The Government tell us that there is no means to compensate people if traffic increases. Perhaps there ought to be. When a motorway is built and it passes through a built-up area, people are compensated for having to install double glass and all the rest of it, to save them from noise and vibration. The Government are bound to do that. That is not the case with the railway, and so houses are damaged and people's lives are suffering.
    What will it be like when the same lines are fully utilised for all the Channel tunnel freight? It makes one shudder to think what people will have to put up with, unless a proper tunnel is developed under the houses. It has even been suggested that another line should be put alongside the existing line. A large number of houses will have to come down if that happens and the route comes through my constituency, or many of the adjacent constituencies. Then what will happen?
    I notice that the Prime Minister mentioned in an interview the other day that there ought to be proper compensation. On such questions, we British are the nastiest, meanest people in the world, in my experience. For example, consider what happened with motorways in my constituency. People are entitled to compensation, and the district valuer is told to put a value on the property and to start at the lowest possible value. If people want more, the valuer is told to make them work up. Therefore, a group of people have to get a solicitor to enable them to continue to argue the case. In my experience, it sometimes took two or three years to get compensation. That is not tenable. Sometimes, even after that length of time, people did not get the value of the land which was taken away.
    If that happens, it will make life impossible for my constituents. Compensation should be considered and dealt with properly. I should like us to go as far as the French. When they build railways, they ask the value of the property and give an increased amount in compensation, because the fast link is passing through and causing disturbance. That is what I should like to see in Britain, but I do not think that the Treasury will ever agree to anything like that.
    All these practical points face us at the moment. The letter to which I referred was from a man who wants to sell his property. Someone came along and agreed to sign a contract, but asked whether the fast link would affect the area. He said, "I don't know," and they said, "I'm sorry—we can't sign." His one chance has gone. Those are the human questions which affect this country's rail policy, and I hope that the Secretary of State will concentrate on the issue. It is a question of time.
    The new chairman of British Rail has the same advisers as the last one. Are they going to advise him any differently? Are they going to suggest any new ideas? Hon. Members have suggested all sorts of new ideas. Will British Rail now come to any different conclusion? I very much doubt it.
    I urge the Secretary of State to realise the human aspect of the issue. We are committed to the tunnel. We ought to have a fast link. The tunnel will affect the country as a whole. Therefore, it is a national issue and environmental
    220
    expenditure is entitled to be covered by the Treasury. Those are the facts, and I hope that the Government will acknowledge them, accept them and act upon them.
    5.48 pm
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Once more we have an opportunity to debate railway policy. Unfortunately, the fact that we are debating it means that the Government have failed to learn the lesson of the previous debates.
    Of course, we cannot debate railway policy in isolation from the rest of transport policy, as they are interrelated. I welcome the starts mentioned by the Secretary of State today, but they are only starts. It is incredible to think that, four years after the House passed the Channel Tunnel Act, we have not yet been able to agree whether to have a high speed link. More importantly, we do not have any strategic plan or forethought as to how the country can benefit from such major events. That is even more incredible, given that they coincide with the opening up of borders and the breaking down of barriers that 1992 will bring.
    It is perhaps part of our heritage that we have never quite managed to take advantage of the innovative capacity and skills that we undoubtedly have. We have set the pace in democracy, in the industrial revolution, in the welfare state and in many other matters—including the building of railways—but each time we have allowed the rest of the world to catch up and pass us by. We are about to allow that to happen again. Our European partners are way ahead of us in devising new transport and implementing systems. It is they who have cornered the markets for 1992. By the time we catch up, there will be little left to capture. In my area, the north-west, transport infrastructure will determine how we can capitalise on the economic opportunities of 1992.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No doubt the hon. Gentleman has learnt of the plans for InterCity, which will reduce the journey time from Manchester to London to under two hours. That will also improve the service to Preston and the area that I represent. We should encourage British Rail in the efforts that it is making.
    Mr. Fearn: I am sure that the hon. Lady is right. As I travel on that Preston train I realise that we may now arrive half an hour sooner—if the trains get there on time, as they seem to nowadays.
    Not counting the south-east, the north-west is the largest regional contributor to national GDP, and the largest market area for international freight and passenger services. As the plans stand now, the north-west will not realise its potential. Congestion on the roads and railways in the south-east will make the north-west less attractive to tourists, passengers and freight movement. The North West Channel Tunnel Group has produced a report entitled "Capitalising on the Channel Tunnel", which contains excellent ideas for action, including the development of major regional freight terminals in areas such as Merseyside, and calls for a higher level of direct international freight services from the north-west to mainline European cities. All hon. Members should now have received a copy of the report, and I recommend it to the Minister.
    I should stress that I am not merely lobbying for the interests of the north-west, as all our regions can and should benefit from the opening of the channel tunnel. It is important that all regions are given the opportunity that

    221
    good and fast rail links to Europe will provide. A national strategy for our rail network is necessary but, more than that, we should seize the opportunity to introduce strategic analysis and planning for all our transport needs. The congestion that we now face on all our major forms of transport, on our roads and in our towns, is costing the country billions of pounds. More important, it is having devastating environmental and social consequences. We cannot afford to leave those matters to the vagaries of the market as the Government seem to want to do.
    When considering transport we must determine what our social, economic and environmental needs are. We must not allow our railways and other transport systems to drift without any clear objectives except the need to make a profit. We must decide what our priorities are and what part public transport and our railways play in them. Any transport policy should have as its objective the freedom of movement of people, goods and services. Access should not necessarily depend on our social or economic circumstances. The most central theme should be the protection of the environment. Land and land use must play an important part in the process. An integrated transport system is the only way forward.
    Public transport must play a major part in the achievement of many of those objectives. The railways are an important part of our public transport. They have the potential to relieve congestion on our roads and in airways and they are more environmentally friendly. We must change our attitudes. We must begin to address the imbalance between the investment in roads and investment in railways. In the seven years between 1983 and 1989, public expenditure on roads totalled £22,965 billion whereas expenditure on our railways totalled only £573 billion. We must recognise the true value of our railways. Not only can they ease congestion; they are less destructive to the environment and they provide the means by which we can develop our regions and take advantage of the opportunities that 1992 has to offer.
    Railway travel is also safer. Despite the room for improvement in the safety records of British Rail and London Underground, the fact remains that the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads vastly outweighs the number of deaths and injuries on our trains. During the 10 years between 1978 and 1988, there were 62,740 deaths on our roads and 791 on our railways. I do not have the figures for serious injuries, but it is evident that any move to improve rail transport will be beneficial in terms of human costs. In economic terms, it will save some of the many hidden costs attached to road accidents. It is time to apply true cost benefit analysis to potential rail investment. We should treat our railways as a national public utility, in much the same way as we do our roads.
    On 12 June the Prime Minister said in the House:
    "We take the view that international services should not have subsidies … we do not believe that we should subsidise an international rail service."—[Official Report, 12 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 133.]
    Yet the British taxpayer subsidies international road passenger and freight services every day. I am well aware that if the Prime Minister had her way, our roads would no longer be regarded as a public utility, but merely as a tool of private industry. The idea of the private sector providing roads which would run alongside existing motorways fills me with horror. The possibility of the country being strewn with even greater masses of concrete and the consequential environmental effects do not bear
    222
    thinking about. I am not against new roads as part of an integrated transport policy, but the fact that, in the Prime Minister's proposals, road provision would be determined by market forces and profitability scares me stiff. I hope that the House will strangle such an idea at birth; I am sure that the electorate will.
    Railways need far less space than roads. They have a greater capacity and they are faster. With proper investment and the latest technology, even the existing reserve routes could provide reliable, efficient and safe transport for more freight and passengers.
    The Secretary of State has said:
    "It is a fundamental part of the Government's approach that people's aspirations to have and use a car should not be artificially constrained."
    That policy, like so many Government policies, should undergo a review. I should like to make two contributions to that review. So that that policy may succeed, the Secretary of State discriminates against those who, through no fault of their own, do not own a car and against those who choose not to have a car—by penalising the railways and other methods of public transport.
    Secondly, and perhaps more important, he penalises all of us by allowing the damage to the environment to continue. In 1987 road traffic emitted 98 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, 1.3 million tonnes of nitrogen oxide, 4.47 million tonnes of carbon monoxide and 664,000 tonnes of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. A time may come for some form of artificial constraint on the motorist, and perhaps the policy of subsidising company cars is a good candidate for change. Certainly the congestion in many of our cities calls for some constraint, but penalties should not be introduced without some form of compensation and to provide that, we must make our public transport systems more accessible, more frequent and cheaper.
    Heavy duty lorries cause much congestion and pollution and we should be looking at ways to transfer freight from roads to rail. Yet British Rail is to close Speedlink, which is arguably one of the most effective services to compete with the lorry. Claims that the Speedlink represents only 2 or 3 per cent. of BR's freight hide the damage that the closure may cause to certain' areas.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has written to the Secretary of State for Transport expressing his concern about the number of lorries that cause damage, congestion and pollution in towns and villages in Somerset. He gave an example in his letter of the effect of abolishing Speedlink. He referred to the Taunton Cider company and said that the closure of sidings would put 2,000 extra 38 tonne lorries a year on to the streets of Norton Fitzwarren—which is a very small village. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil also made suggestions for encouraging the transfer of freight from road to rail including a national drive to promote grounds for private sidings and for the criteria of section 8 grants to be relaxed.
    With the postponement of the high-speed rail link, the number of lorries on our roads will increase even more. British Rail claims that its existing plans for freight will not be affected by the failure to build a high-speed link. However, it is widely recognised that British Rail has a capacity for under-estimating. There is no doubt that bottlenecks on the lines in the south-east will push more freight and passengers on to already congested roads.

    223
    Some people will just not bother to come to Britain and we shall lose out on commercial and business opportunities. The Confederation of British Industry has already claimed that congestion on our roads costs £15 billion per year. The CBI and others have called for greater investment in our railways to relieve congestion on our roads and in the air. The CBI has provided us with an excellent list of suggestions, but as usual I expect that the Prime Minister will choose to ignore the advice.
    It is strange that the Prime Minister should ignore her friends in business because she sometimes puts great faith in them, but so often they fail to come up with the goods as the saga with the technical colleges clearly shows. Indeed, in that regard I could also refer to the Government's failure to attract private money for the new underground link and also to the failure of the high-speed link.
    The Prime Minister may be asking her business friends to take too much of a risk for little return or guarantee. Our European partners and competitors do not have that problem. They can attract greater private finance. There are financial and borrowing restrictions on British Rail, but our European competitors have national strategies. They take into account social and economic factors and work on the basis of the national interest. They are not afraid to plan ahead and they work in partnership with the financial institutions and with developers.
    In Germany, the railway is a Government entity. It is run by civil servants and it is successful because it is provided with adequate funding. It is seen as a national asset that is essential to Germany's economy. In this country, under this Government, the railways are seen as another drain on the public purse. Our railways should be seen as a major part of an integrated transport system. We must have a national strategy with clear objectives and guidelines. The Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment should work closely together. The commission into the high-speed rail link might be the beginning of that. It may expand into a commission for transport in general.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I appeal for shorter speeches because time is moving on very quickly.
    6.2 pm
    Sir David Mitchell: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport of ducking difficult decisions. I believe that a fundamental policy decision faces any Government with regard to British Rail: do we go for low fares, high subsidy and low investment or do we cut the operating subsidy and force modernisation and high investment?
    History records that Labour and Conservative Governments react differently in practice when faced with that choice. The previous Labour Government had high subsidy and low investment. One wonders what Labour's policies are today. Today, Labour's policy seems to be low fares and high investment. That is all very well, but it involves a huge subsidy. As the Labour party initiated this debate, we must ask Labour Members what their
    224
    proposals will cost. Has their policy been approved by the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer? Can we have a little more information about it, because we are being left very much in the dark with a lot of windy promises and blather, but no hard facts on which to form a judgment?
    This Government's policies have been clear. We have set quality standards and we have pressed for efficiency by lowering the public service obligation subsidy and encouraging investment. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I hope that he can tell us whether the new chairman of British Rail accepts that there is no incompatibility in the current reduced PSO subsidy and BR achieving the quality standards that have been set for it.
    There are huge discrepancies between the best and the worst in British Rail. Very often those differences can be identified as areas in which investment has been ploughed and has now come to fruition and areas in which no investment has yet occurred or has yet to come through. There is a limerick which says
    "When she was good,
    She was very, very good,
    But when she was bad she was horrid."
    That applies to parts of British Rail.
    The best of British Rail includes much of InterCity and the fact that British Rail runs more trains at over 100 mph than any other country except France. The best also includes the Wessex electrics from Waterloo to Winchester and to Bournemouth. Those are superb. The Portsmouth-to-Southampton electrification is very welcome, as are the 50 new stations which have been opened in the past decade. The provincial sprinters, the fast diesels, are of a high standard and are very desirable. Today's investment programme is the highest for 20 years and it is set to rise. That is the good part of British Rail, but the worst is very bad.
    To illustrate the very bad, I unashamedly refer to my constituency and the Exeter to Waterloo service. That service has 20 locomotives to sustain only 13 in action. The situation is now so bad that a fitter has to travel in the cab of the train as it travels from Exeter to Salisbury so that he can carry out any necessary repairs en route. British Rail has set special low-quality standards for that route, expecting only 80 per cent. of the trains to arrive within five minutes of their scheduled time.
    I want to draw back the veil on the history of that route. In 1984, I drew British Rail's attention to the unsatisfactory nature of the route and hoped that something would be done. In 1985, vigorous representations were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). In 1986, British Rail began an assessment, and in 1987, 1988 and 1989 we heard reassuring noises. It was death by a thousand assessments, by a thousand appraisals and a thousand assurances.
    This morning, the hon. Members who represent constituencies crossed by that line met British Rail representatives, and we were told that there were no options available. We were told that the locomotives on the line are so clapped out that they cannot continue beyond 1992. Therefore, we have to have the quickest solution, whether or not it is the best. Electrification cannot be considered, and we have to have the new class 171 western turbos, at a cost of £40 million. They will take 20 minutes off the journey time to Exeter, which is welcome and will be a considerable improvement.

    225
    However, why was that step not taken ages ago? It has been a matter of order, counter-order and disorder. British Rail should have come up with that solution years ago, when the writing was on the wall and it could see that the existing rolling stock and locomotives could not continue for much longer.
    British Rail must put more staff resources into its investment appraisals. The new chairman should cut the cackle and get cracking on the route straight away. My hon. Friend the Minister should undertake today that there will be no delays in his Department in granting the approval for the line, which has suffered so much, once British Rail, after all this time, presents its investment appraisal to the Government for approval.
    I make a brief comment about section 8. Hon. Members will recall that that is the arrangement under which capital grants are given to ensure the transfer of freight from road to rail. That is a valuable part of the Government's expenditure programme. The criterion is whether there are regular loads on unsuitable roads. It is a worthwhile investment. Will my hon. Friend the Minister advise us on the effect of retrenchment in Speedlink, to which section 8 grants have been given in the past? Will he set out his policy and his thinking? Is he inclined, or does he intend, to encourage the continuation and expansion of section 8?
    I confirm my question: has the new chairman accepted the Secretary of State's quality standards? Has he confirmed that there is no incompatibility with the reduced PSO? Will my right hon. Friend encourage British Rail to put more resources into investment project assessment and stop dawdling? In view of the delay in the Exeter-Waterloo rolling stock solution, will my hon. Friend undertake to reach a decision on the British rail investment case within, say, six weeks of it going to his Department? Finally will he clarify his views on section 8?
    I am grateful to have had an opportunity to contribute to the debate.
    6.10 pm
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) was a hard-working and caring Minister. Although I did not agree with many of his decisions, they were always taken from a commitment to wanting transport to be a working and useful system. The hon. Gentleman may have inadvertently highlighted one of the many problems that a Conservative Government present to the electorate when he said that, during the period that he mentioned—during some of which he was a Minister—British Rail had not come up with a solution to a real problem not only for his constituents but for many people in the west country. That is because the balanced transport policy on which the Government congratulate themselves is not in evidence to anyone anywhere in the United Kingdom. It seems to us and, I am afraid, increasingly to many people who endeavour to get around the country that the Government have handed over responsibility for transport planning in the most extraordinary way.
    The capital city is quietly grinding to a halt outside this building. Large numbers of multinational firms are increasingly considering other countries as suitable sites for their factories and freight depots, because they cannot get their goods from the point of manufacture to the market. Still the Government appear unable to come
    226
    forward with an integrated plan that will show some clear evidence that they understand the problems, let alone are prepared to do anything about them.
    Whatever it says, the Department spends the majority of its time considering roads. The Minister talks about how pleased he is with the White Paper on experimental roads. The Select Committee on Transport took clear evidence that the solutions that were being suggested—involving a large input of private money into the development of roads—do not commend themselves to the very people whom Ministers are asking to find the cash. The railway desperately needs Government support.
    I was impressed with the Secretary of State's Will Hay arithmetic today. It seemed to prove conclusively that of course we are spending more money on railways than we are spending on roads. However, I thought that it was terribly impressive—I did not believe it for a second—and it made the Government's attitude clear. They are prepared to calculate the use of roads—that is, buying the land, creating the road and using and developing the road—in a completely different way from the way in which they calculate the use of railways. The result is an absolute disaster for the passenger. That is becoming increasingly clear.
    The railway system is perfectly capable of being developed to carry more freight, but it requires a great deal more investment. It requires a running programme that will make it possible for whoever is in charge to look forward 10 years and say, "These are the challenges that we have to meet. They include providing a high-speed rail link with the tunnel, but they also include the need to provide high-quality freight depots." It is simply not good enough to say that those things are being planned.
    The European Community is coming forward with a rail policy. It has a system—it is totally unworkable—that seems to envisage the division of railway systems into two—one on the operating side and one on the provision of facilities side. Nevertheless, it has at least made an attempt to look at transport policies. In this country, even the CBI, when it knows that there is to be a transport debate, is prepared to say, "It is clear that the transport system that is available for us is failing commerce." If that organisation clearly says that and quotes the amount of money that it is costing industry to be unable to move freight and people around the country, surely someone must listen.
    The railway system of this country was built up because it was capable of providing a cheap, efficient and useful means of transporting people and goods around the country. It now requires massive investment to bring it up to modern-day requirements. It is getting that investment, but it is getting it too slowly and often, without the support that will make it usable by the passenger and by many outside industries. We can argue about the reasons for that, but unless the United Kingdom does something very energetic in the next 10 years, we shall have almost a caricature of a transport system. It is very nice to have toy railways—when I was a child, it was nice to ride on the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch tiny railway on the beach—but they are not the solution to becoming an efficient 21st century country.
    Every day of my life, I work with railwaymen who are increasingly worried about safety standards and about staff cuts. I talk to women's groups who, although they need and desperately want to use public transport, are frightened by the lack of staff at night, unmanned stations

    227
    and trains that are increasingly dangerous for them to use. However, the House of Commons still does not seem to be capable of putting sufficient pressure on the Government to make them understand that transport is as fundamental to people's lives as the air they breathe. To be able to go where one wants, to be able to go to places that one must go to enjoy a decent standard of living, are absolutely basic rights and should be available to every person.
    The railway system can deliver not only environmentally friendly but much more efficient ways of moving people and goods. I do not believe that the Government are even interested in talking to people about planning that service at the level that is necessary for the future of all the people in this country.
    6.18 pm
    Mr. Bob Dunn: Because many of my collegues wish to speak, I shall be as brief as I can, consistent with making my point to my hon. Friend the Minister. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made several points, some of which I agreed with. He was right to point out that, since the summer of 1988, people in south London and north-west Kent have been bedevilled by the menace of a high-speed link and trying to deal with British Rail. I borrow the military maxim that was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) about order, counter-order and disorder. That is precisely how we have felt about dealing with British Rail over the past two to two and a half years.
    As late as last November, British Rail and its agents told us that they would go away and examine the route, and return as soon as possible with a new route which would run from Halling across the GLC boundary to King's Cross.
    On 14 June the Secretary of State made a statement in which he told the House that the Government did not accept Eurorail's financial proposals for funding the high-speed link. However, the Government did not announce their rejection of the concept of the link or the need for it—rather the reverse. They reaffirmed the need for the high-speed link. The options that were mentioned in the early days of June included the possibility that the concept might be shelved, abandoned or proceeded with, with all the imperfections of the route leading into and around Swanley.
    The result of the announcement has been that, in the area of north-west Kent from Halling to Bromley, there is no route at all. I agree with my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister who said that blight is no longer confined to only part of north-west Kent. It affects a huge tranche of homes, land, factories and institutions because of the uncertainty about the location of the route.
    When the statement was made, although little was said about the provisions at Waterloo, we were told that the King's Cross solution and the examination of the proposals of Ove Arup and other groups were not pre-empted. However, when we consider the fact that the Waterloo operation is proceeding, with all the manifestations and implications of that, the King's Cross solution obviously appears brighter in British Rail's firmament.
    My constituents need some reassurances. First, they need to know that the options will be examined properly,
    228
    realistically and consistently with an early announcement. Secondly, we need an announcement as early as possible on the provision of the high-speed link, if for no other reason than to end the uncertainty, delay, blight and anxiety that my hon. Friends and I have felt and represented in the House for the past two and a half years.
    We are all fully aware of the Government's determination to improve things now. I welcome their determination to ensure that the Department of Transport provides a more detailed, hands-on approach. The pity is that we have had to wait two and a half years for it.
    Having said that, I wish my hon. Friend the Minister every success in his endeavours. I hope that he achieves the right route, which, for us, would go to Stratford, but I accept that that might be asking a little too much at this stage. However, I request that a decision be made as early as possible, consistent with determining the facts about the proposed route. The difficulties that we face are huge, and we have faced them for two and a half years. Some people cannot face the prospect of possibly another year of blight. The effect on their homes, jobs, attitudes, personal relationships and the loss of value of their property is too much for them to bear. I know that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind. I conclude my comments in view of the brief time available.
    6.23 pm
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I welcome this timely debate on railway policy, especially in view of our recent unsatisfactory debate on the EC's draft railway policy. I suspect that the Government could have done without a further examination of their attitude to the railways, in view of their record and the lack of a coherent approach to transport policy generally. It is a scandal that those areas which depend on a coherent transport policy, especially the industrial areas, suffer from chronic traffic jams which can only get worse because, as we know, the number of cars on our roads is projected to increase by 2 million per year over the next few years, leading to a grand total of about 27.5 million by the year 2025. We shall therefore be looking for a significant shift in freight traffic from road to rail. I wish that the Government could get rid of their antirail obsession.
    Wales stands on the periphery of the European Community, and as we approach the completion of the internal market in 1992, I want Wales to be given every opportunity to compete in that market place. I do not want Wales to be relegated to the sidelines, and to become an economic backwater due to the lack of essential investment in a modern, efficient and safe transport system. I believe that rail has a vital part to play in this programme, not least because of its excellent safety record and long-term efficiency.
    In fact, we should no longer be talking in terms of a United Kingdom railway network, but rather of an European network, with the channel tunnel in due course being the gateway to a world of new opportunities. However, that calls for a high-speed rail link in the central zones, providing a dedicated freight line, and investment in the connecting services from Wales, Scotland and the northern regions of England.
    Wales is Southern Ireland's gateway to Europe, and Dublin's business community has already decided that the best route for its freight post-1992 will be along the central corridor, using the access from Dublin and Dun Laoghaire

    229
    through to Holyhead. The Holyhead-Crewe rail link is vital because more and more freight traffic will use the land bridge route when the channel tunnel opens. A rail land bridge via Holyhead would have significantly lower costs than a road land bridge, and would become competitively stronger for Irish traffic east of Paris, relative to any direct roll on/roll off option.
    Holyhead is a pivotal factor in the equation because of its advantages of short sea crossings, the capacity for frequent round-trip sailings, and because it would reduce total journey times by between two and three hours. Given the right investment in port facilities and in the rail link, the journey from Dublin to Brussels could be completed in 11 hours.
    Trade between the United Kingdom and other EC countries has grown by an average of 6 per cent. in the past decade, and freight traffic is projected to triple to 6 million tonnes per annum in the next few years, with over 70 per cent. beginning or ending its journey beyond London. Of that total, 1·4 million tonnes will be carried to and from the north-west, north Wales and Northern Ireland—the second highest proportion among the regions, second only to the south-east of England. That puts the importance of the link into context.
    There is no doubt in my mind that the electrification of the north Wales line would bring enormous economic benefits to both Wales and Ireland. Consultants engaged by the county councils of Gwynedd, Clwyd and Cheshire have estimated the cost of electrification as about £50 million, of which £30 million could be made available by the EC. The Economic Community Transport Commissioner has indicated that this project would be given funds due to its strategic importance linking member states.
    The fund that could benefit us, however, does not have sufficient cash and we cannot therefore make a decent application for funding. That cash shortage is due to the attitudes of our Government and the Government of the Netherlands, who are so negative. If we are really in the business of having a modern efficient railway system for the 21st century, which could replace the system designed in the 19th century, we must have public investment.
    The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was right when he said that we must invest public money in a decent railway system that will take us into the next century. He was also right when he said that public money is being invested in the railway systems of all other modern economies and that all our European counterparts are investing in the railways.
    During an Adjournment debate on 3 May, the then Minister for Public Transport told me that the Government and British Rail were prepared to look again at the case for the electrification of the Holyhead to Crewe railway line, in the light of representations made by the Irish Government. Can the new Minister for Public Transport who is to respond to the debate tell the House how much work has been done on evaluating that case? Can he give both me and the people of north Wales some good news?
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Conal Gregory: It is appropriate for the House to debate the railway industry since we are witnessing, and are party to, a railway renaissance in Britain. The Opposition must be living in cloud cuckoo
    230
    land if, as their motion implies, they do not recognise that British Rail provides a more efficient and better quality service than it provided under Labour. Customers, managers and employers most certainly do. There is renewed investment—the highest, in real terms, for 29 years, since the switch from steam to diesel—and renewed confidence in the railways.
    I draw the attention of the House to three matters: first, finance and productivity; secondly, the potential, particularly for passenger services; thirdly, the long-term prospects. As for finance and productivity, the record shows that the Conservatives are the party of rail supporters. The facts show realism, not rhetoric. Since 1983, £3 billion has been spent on the railways; a further £3.7 billion is planned to be spent on the railways during the next three years. That means, in language that most hon. Members and their constituents can understand, that almost £24 million is being invested every week in the railways. That is great news for railway cities such as York, the headquarters of the eastern region and a major engineering centre—as is Crewe and Nantwich. That investment has reduced overcrowding, ensured stricter safety measures and led to the replacement of old rolling stock and signals.
    Those who denigrate the Government ought to look at the facts. The Government have approved every industrial proposal put to them by British Rail. Sir Robert Reid said that British Rail could not cope with greater funds. Ten electrification schemes have been approved by the Government since 1983. I approve in particular of the east coast main line electrification, costing £460 million. It is the largest electrification scheme ever in this country.
    Those who travel on InterCity services are pleased with their punctuality, the faster trains and the greater consistency. The provincial services have also benefited from the greater investment. About £340 million is to be invested in provincial services during the next few years, leading to the replacement of older vehicles by higher quality, air-conditioned stock. In the last three years, about 64 stations have been opened, or reopened, and no fewer than 235 stations have been modernised.
    How does that compare with Labour's plans? We should like to know what alternatives Labour would offer. So far, we have not heard one word about its alternative investment plans. I hope that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will enlighten us. Artificial subsidies are no alternative; they lead to inefficiency and red tape.
    As for the potential of passenger services, a journey does not consist simply of the movement of someone from A to B. The journey starts with the facilities provided at the car park adjacent to the station. At too many stations there is inadequate car parking. Many more car park sites could be decked. There should also be facilities—already tried successfully in Essex—to clean and service vehicles while rail users are away. That is a lost opportunity.
    There is little to attract anyone to railway stations. To compare the city of York with the city of Utrecht, there are 250 offices, shops and restaurants around the rail complex in Utrecht. Banking facilities at railway stations in the United Kingdom are almost non-existent. There is only one railway station where one can cash a cheque. Accommodation services for visitors at railway stations are sadly lacking. Furthermore, the British Rail ticket—I have one in my hand, a ticket to York—does not encourage further rail use. No discount is provided for

    231
    frequent travel. It does not provide a link with other services, such as hire cars, restaurants and theatres, that would provide greater customer satisfaction.
    I praise the work that British Rail is doing to help the disabled, and its excellent staff at York. Unfortunately, British Rail does not provide good information for its customers if trains are delayed. No answerphone service is provided. The general manager of eastern region suggests that people should telephone the main headquarters switchboard and ask for the assistant station manager. If available, he will deal with the matter. That is not the way to deal with delays. If we are to move on from the pre-first world war era on the railways, we must provide a better service than that.
    Many hon. Members will remember the court case about the catering facilities on British Rail. Senior staff overheard customers praising the sandwiches; they said that they found their ingredients delicious. When the senior staff made inquiries, they found that the staff had been putting extra ingredients into sandwiches. Instead of praising their staff and giving them a stake in the greater profitability, British Rail took them to court and they were dismissed. That is the negative side of British Rail.
    Denationalisation must be the way forward. The overbearing trade unions are in hock to the work force, who do not have a stake in British Rail. However, services at Sealink and British Rail Engineering Ltd. have improved since they were denationalised. Would the Opposition take Sealink and BREL back into state control and deny the stake that the staff enjoy in those companies? Would they deny a share in the railways to employees at Crewe and Nantwich, York and London? If not, they must believe that the Conservative party's policy is right, and that they, too ought to give railway employees a stake in the prosperity and future of the industry.
    6.36 pm
    Mr. Peter Snape: Any resemblance between the reality of the present railway system and that outlined by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) is wholly coincidental. The hon. Gentleman will need only a single railway ticket to York when it comes to the next general election. He referred earlier to my membership of the National Union of Railwaymen. I am proud to be a member of that union, as was my father. I make no apology either to the hon. Gentleman or to the House for being a member of that union. It is better to be a member of the NUR and to know something about the railway industry than to read out a brief prepared by the Department of Transport.
    Mr. Gregory: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) to allege that I read a brief prepared by the Department of Transport? I have never had such a brief. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw a most dishonourable comment.
    Mr. Snape: That was not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman did not receive his brief from the Department of Transport, he ought to send it back whence it came. It was not accurate. The Opposition did not initiate a debate on the railways to be told about the contents of cheese and
    232
    tomato rolls at York station or elsewhere. That was the pathetic and banal level that the hon. Gentleman, as usual, reached.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the customers. In the few minutes that he has left me, I intend to refer to customers and their dissatisfaction with the railway system. Many of them have expressed dissatisfaction with it. What they say bears no resemblance to the glossy picture that was painted, inadequately as usual, by the Secretary of State for Transport.
    As for the proposals by British Rail management to reduce the Speedlink network—the freight side of British Rail—I draw attention to a letter from the Potter group that discusses the issue. It is addressed to the Secretary of State and is dated 5 June 1990. The Potter group points out that it has a private siding at Selby, that it has a considerable interest in rail freight traffic, which is growing, and that it amounts to approximately 40,000 tonnes a year. The group estimates that more than 2,000 lorryloads will be required to replace that traffic if Speedlink facilities are withdrawn at that site.
    The letter also refers to traffic that it forwards from Ely in East Anglia—about 40,000 tonnes—which means another 2,000 lorry loads, yet some of the worst roads in the United Kingdom are in that part of the country. It asks what the right hon. Gentleman will do about that. It concludes that these matters—the rundown of rail freight, especially as that would affect those who had taken advantage of section 8 grants and invested a considerable amount of company and shareholders' money in providing those facilities—are questions for politicians.
    The closing line of the letter states:
    "This is a question for the politicians. Step forward and be counted, Mr. Parkinson."
    Step forward and listen, is my advice to the right hon. Gentleman.
    The other customers, both of rail freight and rail passenger services, have also expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the level of service provided and with their quality and their concern about their rundown. [Interruption.] Obviously, the Secretary of State was not talking to me, because I would not allow him to talk to me in the manner that he has just used. If he will control himself for a moment—I know that it is difficult for him—and listen to reality about British Rail and the difficulties that many of its customers are facing—thanks, in part, to Government policy for which he is at least temporarily responsible—the House will be grateful.
    The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) is always worth listening to on these matters, if only because for a considerable period he was a Minister of State, Department of Transport. If I may say so without damaging what is left of his career, he was a rather distinguished and hard-working Minister. He referred to section 8 grants and the need for their extension. I remind him that it is two years since the Department promised to review the operation of those grants.
    As he told the House, the present difficulty is that the grants are given to rail users if the freight being carried relieves environmentally sensitive roads—I think that that is the phrase—of some lorry freight. The difficulty is, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, that road improvements themselves remove inadequate and environmentally sensitive roads, which in turn is a disincentive to freight being carried by rail, and certainly prevents any additional freight from being carried by rail.

    233
    I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider section 8 grants and the possibility of transferring freight from road to rail through the grant mechanism, no matter which roads the vehicles use. That would be of genuine environmental benefit, even when lorries use motorways and trunk roads—[Interruption.] I am grateful for what appears to be the Minister's assent. I hope that the position can be improved, because rail freight customers are unhappy with the standard of service provided, and especially with the latest decision on the withdrawal of Speedlink facilities.
    It is estimated that such a withdrawal would lead to about a quarter of a million extra heavy goods vehicle movements being generated. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman or his fellow Ministers actually want that, but that would be the result of the reduction that is forecast. I hope that when the Minister of State replies to the debate he will tell us what he intends to do about it.
    There is something else that the Minister can do that will not actually cost the Government any money. There is widespread dissatisfaction among British Rail's major customers about the quality of management and about the difficulty of getting British Rail to sing a consistent tune on the future of rail freight. I think that the Minister will agree that it is no great incentive, to say the least, to anyone to transfer freight from road to rail if, at the same time, that transfer is being done against a backdrop of the rundown of the existing inadequate rail facilities. The rail freight users have actually formed a group—the Rail Freight Users' Group—which is very critical of British Rail management and what it regards as British Rail's lack of both flair and marketing. It speaks of the poor calibre of British Rail management. It says in a letter, a copy of which I have in front of me:
    "meetings with BR to discuss requirements are rarely with the correct people and there is little sign of a commercial or professional attitude among BR management."
    I hope that the Minister of State will carefully consider criticism like that to determine what can be done to improve that service, again largely without cost to Treasury funds.
    Earlier, the Secretary of State made great play of the Government's attitude towards railways. Once again, we heard the hollow phrase that this country is in the vanguard of European rail policies.
    Mr. Prescott: He is the only one that thinks it.
    Mr. Snape: Yes, and it is no wonder the right hon. Gentleman closed his speech with the epic phrase that he was staying at home on the job. It is obvious that he has not been very far afield in western Europe, if that is what he believes about the European railway system.
    I have another request for the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers. They will be aware of the recommendation in the European Community document 4478/90 on railway policy, which said:
    "The amending Directive on combined transport carries financial implications in relation to the reduction or reimbursement of vehicle excise tax for vehicles engaged in combined transport systems".
    The EC believes in that, but it is not accepted by the Government. Indeed, the Minister of State, in a reply to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), said on 12 June:
    "the Commission has made certain recommendations about reduction or reimbursement of vehicle taxes. We do not accept those, and in any case, that is a matter for my right
    234
    hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not for Transport Ministers."—[Official Report, 12 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 237.]
    I hope that the Minister will accept that that is scarcely a clarion call to those private sector companies in the United Kingdom that are developing vehicles that will genuinely assist the transfer of freight from road to rail. I hope that he will reconsider that aspect of Government policy.
    Mr. Roger Moate rose—
    Mr. Snape: I am sorry, but I cannot give way, as it would take away the Minister's time.
    The Government claim that they can be justly proud of the railway system. I refer them to the latest news release from the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee, the chairman of which is Major-General Lennox Napier, CB, OBE, MC, DL. He does not strike me as a member of the average constituency Labour party—
    Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it permissible for an Opposition spokesman to degrade someone who has earned the Military Cross?
    Mr. Moate: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am seeking your guidance on whether it is possible to extend the period of the debate to allow the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) to answer the questions that he said he would answer about the costs of Labour policies and where the money is coming from?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be better if we got on with the debate.
    Mr. Snape: The parliamentary exploits of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) are legendary. I was not aware that I was attacking Major-General Lennox Napier by saying that he was not a traditional Labour party member. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me when I say how grateful I am that he is not a member of the Labour party.
    In reply to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), we have already made it plain that the expenditure that we want for the railways has long been regarded as essential throughout Europe. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) shares our belief. Economies that have not had the benefit of £90 billion of North sea oil have managed to finance their railway systems more than adequately. If the Government are incapable of doing so, the time is long past when they should have moved over to allow another Government to take over who are prepared to spend money on our transport needs.
    Earlier this year, in reply to a question from the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), the former leader of the Liberal party, about an integrated transport policy, the Secretary of State said:
    "The only countries in Europe with a fully integrated transport system that we have located are East Germany. Poland, Czechoslovakia and Russia. Their electors do not seem terribly impressed with their integrated transport systems or with the people who tried to develop them." —[Official Report, 12 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 12.]
    With a Secretary of State who gives such infantile replies, no wonder our transport infrastructure is on its knees.
    6.51 pm
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) suggested that the Government should take a long-term view when planning the transport infrastructure and he is right.
    When planning rail, underground and light-railway schemes one must take a long-term view. If one takes a three-year public expenditure survey view in terms of announcements, that is not inconsistent with the essential long-term view. My right hon. Friend is well aware that, once the Jubilee line is open—it will take several years to complete—it will make sense to continue with further underground schemes as envisaged by the central London rail study.
    In "Roads for Prosperity", published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, the Department deliberately took a long-term view about the construction of roads. Similarly, public expenditure of £1 billion on docklands demonstrates a long-term view. The Government share the desire of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to take such a view when considering transport policy.
    My right hon. Friend also asked several questions about the channel tunnel and specifically about the rail link. Section 56 is certainly not ruled out when appraising a new rail link as that section takes into account the benefits to commuters on the lines in Kent, those affected at the airports, as well as commuters at the other London termini. For those affected by a new line insulation grants will be paid.
    My right hon. Friend also mentioned noise on existing lines; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he will look at the available provisions. We are reviewing our schemes for purchase compensation on the new line. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), in common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, mentioned the review by British Rail and said that there should not be any further delay. British Rail will take between six and nine months to conduct its review which takes us to next Easter. I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that the review will be timely.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) is a distinguished former Transport Minister and he asked four questions with which I shall deal briefly. He asked whether British Rail can achieve its quality targets with a declining public service obligation grant. The answer is yes. I am aware of the stresses and strains of this year with the reduction in off-peak demand on Network SouthEast, but British Rail is able to meet its twin objectives. My hon. Friend also asked about the Exeter to Waterloo line and appraisal techniques. Tomorrow morning my right hon. Friend and I will meet the chairman of British Rail at 8.15 and I shall raise those points with him.
    The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) asked about section 8. Hon. Members will be aware that section 8 is a grant paid by the Government on behalf of the taxpayer to encourage the private sector to put more freight on the rail and off the roads. We are reviewing the operation of that grant because the Freight Transport Association wants to widen the criteria for payment of the grant—it wants to include motorway
    236
    congestion as a criterion. Within the next few weeks I shall be receiving advice and I shall certainly consult that association.
    The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) asked about the Crewe to Holyhead railway line. More information is needed from the county councils about the prospects for electrification, but British Rail has not shut its mind to the prospect, and nor have Ministers. In the meantime, while we are awaiting further information, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that new rolling stock is planned for that line.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asked me to read the Labour party transport manifesto. I have read it and it is certainly well written. I take it seriously, but I do not believe that it is right. In the remaining time, I shall deal with the six sources of finance that the hon. Gentleman suggested for the grandiose plans for public investment. The policy document calls for a
    "substantial and sustained increase in investment in … infrastructure."
    It also spoke of a gradual increase in subsidy funding by the taxpayer, for public transport. Doubtless the call for between £10 billion and £15 billion investment for the new high-speed rail link from Folkestone to Scotland would be included in that. It is important to consider what that investment would cost in the next three years.
    The Government's estimate of British Rail's expenditure in the next three years, together with all the rail scheme investment, comes to about £6 billion. The funds required to meet the Labour party promise are another £6 billion. The hon. Gentleman also wants to increase public funding by doubling the public sector rail grant—that would add another £1 billion to the sum. That means that the hon. Gentleman estimates that he needs £7 billion in funds in the next three years. How will that be paid for?
    The hon. Gentleman suggests six possibilities. First, he suggested that the road programme should be cut, but that road programme, as set out in "Roads for Prosperity" is essential for the construction of local bypasses. No new motorways are envisaged—the document outlines a bypass programme and the widening of existing motorways. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion will not work.
    The second suggestion from the hon. Gentleman is to increase public expenditure, but he has not checked with his colleagues the shadow Chancellor, the shadow Chief Secretary or the leader of the Labour party to see whether there is any more money available in their programmes. The hon. Gentleman's third suggestion is to pinch the rest of the car tax proceeds—at present about 25 per cent. of that tax is devoted to the road building programme. He should check with the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Chief Secretary, as they will not permit that.
    Fourthly, the hon. Gentleman argues that the European infrastructure fund will provide massive sources of finance. He believes that Britain could become a net beneficiary from a new fund. My right hon. Friend has already said that the fund is only £40 million. per annum. There is not the money and we should not be able to convince the French and Germans to allow us to be substantial net beneficiaries.
    Fifthly, the hon. Gentleman talks about British Rail borrowing privately. A Labour Government made sure that private borrowing by nationalised industry was included as a public sector liability.

    237
    Sixthly, the hon. Gentleman talks about the private sector. There is plenty of room for private sector joint ventures. We welcome that and we have some excellent examples of it—the Dartford bridge, the second Severn bridge, the Heathrow-Paddingtion link, the docklands light railway, the Jubilee line and the Manchester metrolink. We believe in private sector finance. The hon. Gentleman will not find it a panacea. Our policies are prudent. The policies of Opposition Members are reckless. I invite the House to support the Government.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 262.

    Division No. 264]

    [6.59 pm

    AYES

    Allen, Graham

    Fearn, Ronald

    Alton, David

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Anderson, Donald

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

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Flannery, Martin

    Ashton, Joe

    Flynn, Paul

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Foster, Derek

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Foulkes, George

    Barron, Kevin

    Fraser, John

    Beckett, Margaret

    Fyfe, Maria

    Bell, Stuart

    Galloway, George

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

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

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Blair, Tony

    Gould, Bryan

    Blunkett, David

    Graham, Thomas

    Boateng, Paul

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Boyes, Roland

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Bradley, Keith

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Hardy, Peter

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Buckley, George J.

    Haynes, Frank

    Caborn, Richard

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Callaghan, Jim

    Henderson, Doug

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Carr, Michael

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Clay, Bob

    Howells, Geraint

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hoyle, Doug

    Coleman, Donald

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Corbett, Robin

    Illsley, Eric

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Ingram, Adam

    Cousins, Jim

    Janner, Greville

    Cox, Tom

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Crowther, Stan

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Cryer, Bob

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Cummings, John

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Kennedy, Charles

    Dalyell, Tam

    Kilfedder, James

    Darling, Alistair

    Lambie, David

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Lamond, James

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

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Dewar, Donald

    Leighton, Ron

    Dixon, Don

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Dobson, Frank

    Lewis, Terry

    Doran, Frank

    Litherland, Robert

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Livsey, Richard

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    McAllion, John

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Fatchett, Derek

    McCartney, Ian

    Faulds, Andrew

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    238

    McKelvey, William

    Ruddock, Joan

    McLeish, Henry

    Salmond, Alex

    Maclennan, Robert

    Sheerman, Barry

    McNamara, Kevin

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Madden, Max

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Short, Clare

    Marek, Dr John

    Skinner, Dennis

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Martlew, Eric

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

    Maxton, John

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

    Meale, Alan

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Michael, Alun

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Snaps, Peter

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Soley, Clive

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Stott, Roger

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Strang, Gavin

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Straw, Jack

    Mullin, Chris

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Nellist, Dave

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

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    O'Brien, William

    Turner, Dennis

    O'Neill, Martin

    Vaz, Keith

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Wallace, James

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Parry, Robert

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Patchett, Terry

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Prescott, John

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Wilson, Brian

    Randall, Stuart

    Winnick, David

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Reid, Dr John

    Worthington, Tony

    Richardson, Jo

    Wray, Jimmy

    Robertson, George

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Rogers, Allan

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Rooker, Jeff

    Mr. Ken Eastham and

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Mr. Allen Adams.

    Rowlands, Ted

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House congratulates the Government for pursuing a balanced transport policy involving record investment by the public and private sector in every aspect of the nation's transport systems; recognises that this is the only way to give the customer more choice and a better quality of service; applauds the Government for the high priority it gives to all matters of safety; welcomes the contribution that the Channel Tunnel can make to improving links to the Continent of Europe and the £2 billion of investment in road and rail which will ensure the tunnel is fully serviced from the day it opens in 1993; commends the Government's support for the development of high speed trains which will be jointly owned by Britain, France and Belgium and which will operate in all three countries; commends British Rail for developing plans for high speed freight services from all parts of the United Kingdom to the tunnel; and calls on the Opposition to cease its policy of denigrating Britain.

  Aid and the Environment
  7.14 pm
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the Government for its lack of commitment to solving the environmental problems of developing countries; deplores the totally inadequate level of British aid, which has fallen to 0.31 per cent of gross national product, less than half the United Nation's target of 0.7 per cent. to which Britain remains officially committed; and believes that, as a result, this Government is unable to make an adequate contribution to tackling the immense environmental problems facing developing countries.
  "The environment is, without question, central to all our aid programmes in the 1990s … And of course, there are global environmental problems. We are all now familiar with the threats to the planet of global warming, holes in the ozone layer and the loss of bio-diversity."
  Those are not my words, but those of the Minister for Overseas Development, in what I shall call from now on her "green glossy". Given the Minister's enthusiasm for the subject, I am disappointed that the Opposition, not the Government, have initiated the debate. I accept, however, as the Minister rightly said last week, that she has been in the job only since July. Others in that position had the opportunity to initiate such a debate before now.
  It is quite appalling that, since the publication of the Brundtland report, which looked at the critical environmental and development problems of the planet in 1987, there has not been one debate in the House, so far as I can discover, on sustainable development or the international environment. The eminent economist Barbara Ward wrote:
  "The door of the future is opening onto a crisis more sudden, more global, more inescapable, more bewildering than any ever encountered by the human species. And one which will take decisive shape within the life span of children who are already born."
  She wrote that in 1971. How much more urgent is that warning now.
  In industrial countries, we have made much progress in cleaning up the air in our cities and some progress in cleaning up our seas and rivers. We have replanted large parts of our land with trees, cleared much industrial dereliction and controlled our population growth. In turn, we have been faced with new problems which require world-wide solutions.
  As well as the basic problems associated with poverty and agricultural society, developing countries also have to cope with pollution of air and water caused by industrialisation. Now, their aid donors, creditors and trading partners are telling them that they must deal with the gobal environmental problems that our advanced industrialised societies have created.
  We have heard much from the Overseas Development Administration about projects for the rain forest, bio-diversity and global warming. But millions of poor people overseas worry about more mundane everyday problems such as the lack of clean drinking water for 1.3 billion people and the lack of sanitation for 1.7 billion people, which is responsible for 25,000 deaths every day and 80 per cent. of world disease. That is the environmental crisis that they face today.
  Deforestation in arid, not tropical, areas has been a major problem for years. Women in Africa spend hours every day hunting for fuel wood. Some 2 billion to 3 billion people face the exhaustion of fuel wood stocks, but only when deforestation became a problem for the atmosphere
  242
  and not just for the poor did the world sit up and take note. When the environmental problems are those of the poor, not ours, the Government and the ODA seem much less concerned to be green.
  I wish to talk about the looming global environmental crisis, but first I want to know what the ODA is doing about the local and national environmental problems faced by developing countries. The poor are the first to suffer when their environment is degraded. They depend on the land, water, forests and crops for their survival. For too many years, policy makers and development planners—those who have control over natural resources and money for investment in conservation—have ignored the environment. In many cases, the effects of that are irreversible and the long-term costs are astronomical.
  In Ethiopia, forests which covered 25 per cent. of the country in 1940 have all but disappeared. Now, only 3 per cent. of the land is forested. As a result, the best soil for farming, up in the highlands, has been eroded. Rough calculations estimate that that loss of soil and plant nutrients has reduced Ethiopia's agricultural output by at least 1 million tonnes of food each year. That is equivalent to two thirds of all relief food shipped to Ethiopia in 1985.
  As trees disappear, so do sources of firewood, and instead of using cattle dung to fertilise the soil, farmers use it as a fuel for cooking. The loss of soil fertiliser has further reduced the amount of crops grown by $600 million each year. Early prevention would have paid for itself many times over. To replant trees to stop soil erosion would have cost just $50 million per year if it had been done in time.
  We have not given a penny of development aid to Ethiopia. Instead, in 1985 the world spent about $500 million on food for famine relief. As the Minister must know, caring about preserving the environment involves short-term costs but long-term savings. The question is not whether we can afford to do it immediately, but whether we can afford not to do it immediately.
  Where is the money to come from? There is no sign of any additional Government money to invest in the environment. All the ODA's much trumpeted green projects are being paid for out of a stagnant and pitifully low aid budget. In promising to put more into green projects, is the Minister suggesting that we should transfer funds from immunisation programmes in Africa to forestry in Latin America? That is no way to respond to the enormous environmental challenge. By refusing to commit additional funds to international environment protection, the Government are refusing to invest in future generations.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: How can the hon. Lady say that the British aid programme is stagnant when the increase year on year was 17 per cent. in cash terms, which is obviously an increase in real terms as well?
  Mrs. Clwyd: I think that I have encountered the hon. Gentleman on a previous similar occasion. I shall continue to illustrate my point and answer his question.
  Last November at the United Nations the Prime Minister called for a vast international co-operative effort to save the global environment. The Prime Minister has presided over historic cuts in British aid and has seen Britain sink from the second largest to the second smallest Group of Seven aid donor. She is responsible for the current miserable level of aid—just 0·31 per cent. of GNP,

  243
  which is less than half the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP. How can she have the brass neck to talk of a vast international co-operative effort?
  The aid budget is increasing in nominal terms, but in real terms the increase is tiny. According to the Government's own optimistic forecasts of underlying inflation, even excluding the inflationary effect of the poll tax as published in the Budget report, the increase between this financial year and next is just 1·1 per cent. in real terms. Between 1991 and 1992 and between 1992 and 1993 it will be just 0·6 per cent. A 1·7 per cent. increase between now and 1993 is scarcely progress towards meeting our international commitments.
  Just a few weeks ago, the Government signed the ministerial declaration which resulted from the Bergen conference. That declaration called on donors, in addition to present development assistance, to support programmes to increase the flow of capital and environmentally sound technology to developing and east European countries. When do the Government plan to fulfil that pledge? Funds have been cut from the ODA's scientific section which has the experts to deal with environmental issues. Staffing levels at the National Resources Institute have been cut from 561 in 1979 to 311 in 1989 and its funding has been slashed from £11·4 million to £5·7 million in 1989.
  Is the aid programme really green? We have heard much from the ODA about the greening of the aid programme and read about many fine examples in the green glossy brochure. It says that the ODA is extremely wary about financing projects which would cause irreversible environmental damage. It says that all projects are screened for social and environmental costs and that there is careful planning, design and attention to detail so as to minimise adverse environmental effects.
  Let us look at the reality, at what others say about our aid. The National Audit Office examined British aid to India. Its report, which was published in January, flatly contradicts the claims in the green glossy brochure. Since 1980, 10 per cent. of Britain's entire bilateral aid has gone to India. Only one tenth of that was targeted at the poor, and less than that went to renewable natural resources. Of the so-called aid, 83 per cent. went into power, telecommunications, energy and mining. United Kingdom Government subsidies disguised as aid went to United Kingdom firms which then proceeded to devastate parts of India.
  The report severely criticised the £120 million of aid that was given to build the Rihand power station and the £30 million given to fuel the Amlorhi opencast coal mine. The Rihand cluster of 15 power stations will be the largest concentration of power stations in the world. The £120 million was the largest aid grant that the ODA has ever made, yet it did not commission an environmental impact assessment. It did not know the specifications for the power station or its intended location.
  The result has been an environmental disaster. Some 10,000 tonnes of ash slurry containing toxic trace elements and potentially cancer-causing compounds have seeped into the local reservoir where fish have already been killed by thermal pollution. It is feared that air pollution will rise to 10 to 40 times the Government standards. Acid rain is already falling in the industrial belts of India. The Amlorhi
  244
  coal mine has led to violence with displaced villagers, and land and forest reclamation requirements have simply been ignored.
  How could those things happen in the face of the ODA's environmental concerns? The National Audit Office found that the ODA was under immense pressure from the Department of Trade and Industry rapidly to complete its appraisal. It appears that the Department of Trade and Industry organised the bids first. The National Audit Office report states:
  "In January 1981 the Department asked the administration to provide an aid pledge to support their proposals. The aid was used to buy the contract. The project arose apparently under the personal initiative of the Prime Minister, reportedly without competition."
  Northern Engineering Industries were invited by the DTI to submit proposals which, the Financial Times reported, would almost certainly not have been accepted by India without the subsidy. Research shows that in 1981 NEI made the largest recorded donation of £40,000 to a Conservative party funding organisation, the Northern Industrialists Protection Association. In 1980 NEI gave £12,500 and in each of the years between 1982 and 1989 it gave £45,000. It is estimated that Rikhand was worth £300 million to NEI.
  That is just one of the many examples of the abuse of British aid to subsidise British firms that are perceived to be friendly to the Conservative party. GEC provided turbines for Rikhand and it gave £50,000 to the Conservative party in 1980 and again in 1988. Another Conservative favourite, Babcocks, supplied the grinding mills. It gave a Tory front organisation, the City and Industrial Liaison Council, £7,500 between 1982 and 1985 and £10,000 in 1986. Other examples of the environmental damage caused by the inappropriate use of British aid are well documented in the NAO report.
  Under the Government the aid-trade provision has been so discredited that the only solution is to scrap it. Instead of being the solution that it was intended to be, it has become part of the problem that the poor of the developing world have to pay for daily.
  There is certainly great scope for energy efficiency in developing countries, but with the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) holding the purse strings and a few British companies calling the tune, it is nonsensical to expect a genuine switch from energy generation projects to energy conservation. Saving energy by efficiency is simply not in the interests of GEC or NEI.
  The most disgraceful omission for an agency concerned with development is to ignore the devastating effect of poverty. As the report of the Brundtland commission says:
  "poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality."
  The Government are doing exactly what the Brundtland commission said was futile.
  It should be self-evident that the poor cannot concern themselves with environmental destruction when their day-to-day survival is at stake. They do not have sufficient land to let it lie fallow. They have no choice but to continue using it until it is exhausted. If cutting down trees brings immediate and desperately needed cash, or if they need wood today for cooking the family food, thinking about preserving trees for their children and their children's children has to be low indeed in their list of priorities.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I am following carefully what the hon. Lady says, but will she concentrate a little on the relationship between cutting down trees to provide fuel for cooking and the provision of an alternative such as cheap electric power?
  Mrs. Clwyd: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall be coming to those points. Anyone who has been to Ethiopia and seen the problems that face people there in trying to find fuel for their fires will know how vital is the United Nations' development programme in trying to encourage people to use stoves which save fuel instead of using the present massive amounts.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
  Mrs. Clwyd: No. This is a short debate and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later.
  As Minister of Overseas Development, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) recognised the importance of poverty when, in 1988, he said:
  "Poverty is the most toxic effect on the environment."
  Yet current ODA policy does not seem to recognise the environmental problems caused by poverty. On page 8 of the green glossy, the ODA lists the number of causes of environmental degradation. It does not mention poverty. Far from reaching the poor, the Government have used aid to back up IMF and World bank structural adjustment, which in many cases has made the lot of the poor worse. Too much of our aid promotes the interests of a few British companies, not the world's poor.
  Given the chance, local people will care for their environment, but they need the rich to give them that chance. If they know that they can feed themselves without over-cropping, over-grazing, or over-chopping the trees, and if they know that they will benefit from environmental investments, they will, but they need that assurance. If they know that their children will survive into adulthood and will be able to support the family, they may well have fewer children, but until they can be sure, there is little chance of reducing population growth.
  In many cases, it is the women who have responsibility for the trees, the crops and the water. Donors must ensure that women have sufficient power and economic security to protect those resources, but so often development planners have taken traditional land rights away from women in attempts to legalise and clarify the rights of men or of the state.
  Local people may also need training in how best to manage their resources, but male experts rarely reach women. Can the Minister explain why not one of the ODA's agriculture specialists working overseas is a woman?
  Mr. Steen: The key to the argument which the hon. Lady has not yet mentioned, but perhaps will, is family planning. The Government have done a great deal to try to reduce world population. Many of the international agencies have also done a great deal, and the Government have supported them in a big way. The hon. Lady has been speaking for 20 minutes but she has not mentioned family planning. Surely that is the key to the world problem.
  Mrs. Clwyd: The hon. Gentleman was so busy trying to intervene that he did not hear me talk about population. Unfortunately, I do not have time to deal with it in detail,
  246
  except to make the point again that one of the keys to family planning is tackling the root causes of poverty. We shall never reduce world populations until we reduce the root causes of poverty. I did explain that.
  The hon. Gentleman talks about financing that, and that is one of the challenges for us. Are we prepared to finance programmes that organisations such as the United Nations and others are attempting to promote in developing countries?
  The ODA refers to participation, but what is it doing to review the effectiveness of existing procedures for involving local people and exploring new ideas? Has it considered not only expanding joint funding for more environmental projects, but directly supporting the work of southern NGOs through national consortia of voluntary groups in developing countries?
  The Government are not only failing to address the local and national causes of environmental damage—they are also ignoring the international causes. Facing increased debt service obligations and falling commodity prices, developing countries have had no choice but to increase the pressure on their natural resources to earn more foreign exchange. As Brundtland points out, natural resources are not being used for development or to raise living standards, but to meet the financial requirements of industrialised creditors. Furthermore, the impoverishment caused by debt repayments has made environmental damage worse. Reductions in Government welfare, cuts in subsidies, increasing unemployment and inflation have. pushed the poor to exploit forests and waterways to make ends meet.
  In effect,. for many developing countries, financial debts today are being translated into the environmental debts of tomorrow. But while financial debts can be written off by political decision makers, environmental debts are our legacy for future generations and, in many cases, are irreversible. As the Prince of Wales recently said,
  "We have to find a way of doing something about the burden of international debt. I do not see how developing countries can be expected to achieve sustainable development and at the same time meet huge debt repayments."
  Will the Minister therefore acknowledge that the current debt management strategy is inadequate, that substantial debt reduction is a necessary precondition for the restoration of growth, that until the poorest countries stop paying the rich $52 billion per year more than they receive, the best economic reforms will not spur growth?
  The Government's response to the debt crisis has been pitiful. They have done little to encourage commercial banks to reduce debts, even though they have all insured themselves against the worst losses. The Brady plan and the Toronto agreement are clearly inadequate to deal with the problems of the middle and low income debtors, but, sadly, the Government have lacked the vision and commitment to pursue new ideas.
  If the Government are serious about pursuing sustainable development plans, will the Minister inform the House what initiatives the Government will take significantly to reduce third world debt? Will she also explain how she expects developing countries to preserve their resources when the trading system established by the north encourages the exploitation of natural resources? With the price of primary commodities down to historic lows, developing countries either have to sell more of them to earn the same amount, or they have to sell different

  247
  processed goods. Protectionism in the north prevents them exporting goods to us, so the only option is to increase their exports of primary commodities.
  The Government have opposed measures to ensure that developing countries receive a fair price for their commodity exports and have done nothing to reduce barriers against processed goods. The Bergen ministerial declaration, to which the British Government are signatories, calls on the European Community and others to examine the links between environmental and trade policies. How do the Government intend to do that?
  The Government's failure to tackle the causes of environmental destruction is reflected in their inability to deal with the problems confronting tropical forests. In 1989, 14,200 sq km of tropical forest were destroyed. The Government's main contribution has been to support and channel aid through the framework of the tropical forest action plan—a fatally flawed mechanism which has increased the rate of deforestation in some countries. The Government have been among the key supporters of that scheme and have only recently recognised the need for its reform.
  I wish that the Minister would stop claiming that she called for a review of the TFAP in November 1989, when she clearly said:
  "We strongly support the tropical forestry action plan. We are already helping it in 20 countries."
  If the aim is to help foresters, the TFAP is doing its job, but if it is environmentally sustainable development, a plan that denies people land rights and does nothing to tackle poverty must be deemed a disastrous failure.
  The Minister may say that the OECD development council has just passed a resolution calling for reform of the TFAP, but it does not once mention alleviating poverty. Given the devastating criticisms of the plan not only by environmental groups but by the Food and Agriculture Organisation's own independent review, will the Minister impose an immediate moratorium on support for the TFAP until a complete overhaul of its principles and practices has been undertaken?
  As on all other issues, the Government refuse to deal with the effects of international trade. Currently, only 0·2 per cent. of hardwood imports are, it is said, sustainable. When will the Government act to control that trade? Far from regulating the timber trade, the Government handed it more power by supporting the International Tropical Timber Organisation. How can a body representing timber producers and users with a mandate to expand and diversify the tropical timber trade also conserve forests?
  Deforestation not only threatens millions of forest dwellers by releasing stores of carbon dioxide and destroying untold millions of world species—it threatens us all. The Government's failure to confront global and environmental problems—tropical forests, global warming, and the destruction of the ozone layer—is an utter disgrace. Yet the need for international co-operation has never been greater.
  Negotiations on the ozone layer are under way in London under the wing of the United Nations environment programme and are designed to strengthen the three-year-old Montreal protocol, which controls chemicals which attack the ozone layer. Even if every country supported that protocol, the damage to the ozone layer will increase by as much as another 14 per cent. by
  248
  2050. The same chemicals are partially responsible also for global warming. Countries such as India and China have yet to support the protocol. China plans to double the use of CFCs over the next five years, mainly in providing its people with more fridges, unless—here comes the rub—rich companies provide aid to help China pay for substitute chemicals which can cost five times as much. That concept also has India's support.
  Developing countries cannot and will not afford the expense of replacing CFCs but it is hoped that this week's conference will reach agreement on a special fund to help third world countries.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Clwyd: No. I am trying to conclude my remarks in this very important debate. I gave way on a number of occasions earlier. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own speech.
  What commitment will the Government make to help developing countries meet the cost of phasing out CFCs? Will the Minister give an assurance that any such provision will be additional to existing aid budgets? The example of global co-operation that I mentioned is, one hopes, the prelude to a much tougher fight later over how to combat global warming. What will be the Government's attitude to sharing the cost of controlling carbon emissions, which will be significantly higher than the $6 billion estimated as the cost of switching from CFCs? Will there be a firm commitment in the forthcoming White Paper to new and substantial funds for developing countries, to help them tackle global and environmental problems?
  Of all the world's citizens, the poorest are set to lose most from global warming. The arid areas of the world, particularly Africa, will suffer most from temperature rises, while the low-lying islands and deltas of Bangladesh, Vietnam and Egypt would be devastated by a rise in sea level. Those countries have least resources to help them adapt to massive changes. The majority of the world's poor still depend on agriculture, and they will be hardest hit. The timing and quantity of rainfall is vitally important in their lives but is likely to become less dependable. Rice, which is the staple diet of 60 per cent. of the world's population, is particularly vulnerable to high temperatures, droughts and floods. Changes in weeds and pests will also present problems.
  Farmers in developing countries do not have the resources to experiment or to adapt to global warming, yet there is no sign that international agricultural research is focusing on the staple crops that those countries grow. If production falls, the poor will be in no position to import the food that they need. That is particularly true of Africa, where food production per head fell by 15 per cent. between 1970 and 1985. Nor can those farmers move elsewhere or switch to different livelihoods.
  What will the ODA do to help developing countries take precautionary measures? The top priority is to commission and publish a report on the effects of global warming on developing countries and on strategies for adapting to it. The ODA must ensure that international agricultural research focuses on adapting the staple crops of the third world to hotter and dryer climates.
  The United Kingdom is dragging its feet in tackling the cause of global warming, which is carbon emissions. We

  249
  cannot lecture developing countries about changing their policies if we do not demonstrate a commitment to tackling our own policies. How can the leaders of developing countries persuade their people to forsake their hopes for electricity or cars because we say so when at the same time the United Kingdom is spending £13·3 billion on a new road building programme? Why is the ODA not speaking up about the enormous threat that global warming poses to developing countries, emphasising both to the British public and to decision makers in Whitehall the overwhelming importance of immediate preventive action?
  If we do not make sacrifices today to prevent global warming, the global costs next century will be enormous. Keeping alive 68 million people displaced by rising seas in Bangladesh, Egypt, China and Vietnam will, even on the basis of their present miserly incomes, cost more than £14 billion every year. The United Kingdom's share of that, based on its share of gross national product, would be £840 million—half the value of the British aid programme.
  Given that the number who will lose their agricultural livelihood as a consequence of a warmer climate rather than a rising sea will be even greater, the cost of coping with global warming could be staggering. The choice is clear: we can pay today, or pay more tomorrow.
  Why does the ODA not stand up for the third world when sanctimonious westerners—the Prime Minister not excluded—try to pin the blame for global warming on wanton destruction, deforestation, and uncontrollable population growth in developing countries? It is true that of the 90 million people born this year, 85 million will be in the third world, but the remaining 5 million born into rich consumer societies will do as much ecological damage as the 85 million new poor.
  The blame for today's damage lies squarely with the west. Nevertheless, developing countries play a crucial role because, as they strive to reach similar levels of affluence, they also risk reaching similar levels of pollution. The planet simply could not sustain that, so we have to step in to help them to develop differently. That will require funds and technology.
  If developing countries are to grow without the environmental devastation that our own industrialisation has caused, we must enable them to jump over the technological hurdles, such as cleaning air and rivers, which took us decades to overcome. That means supplying the relevant technology, because they do not have it—for example, the technology to produce substitutes and to conserve and recycle existing CFCs. Modifying equipment will be almost entirely the monopoly of a few companies. If we leave it to the free market, multinationals will be able to exploit a small market overseas, but a major shift away from CFCs is needed.
  What are the Government doing to examine the options for transferring technology to developing countries? Do they realise that refining our own cleaning technology is pointless unless developing countries change theirs? If China succeeds in providing fridges to every household by the end of the century, the CFC output will wipe out all the benefits of reductions under the Montreal protocol.
  Clearly, the Government do not have the will to play a leading international role in protecting the world's environment. Last November, the Prime Minister's speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations was full of rhetoric about the United Kingdom's role in tackling global warming. The previous day, the Government had
  250
  opposed proposals supported by a number of other Governments at the Netherlands conference to limit and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The United Kingdom refused to participate in the Hague conference—the world's first environmental summit—organised by France, Norway and the Netherlands in March last year. At Bergen, the Government failed to flesh out their words with clear policies, and failed to demonstrate to developing countries a serious commitment to dealing with our own environmental problems.
  The United Kingdom should have been at the forefront, pressing for reforms. Instead, it is seeking to water down European goals to meet the United States' objectives. So long as the Prime Minister continues to give the fig leaf of respectability to the delaying tactics of the United States—the world's largest polluter—significant international progress to control carbon emissions will be stalled. The Government say that the United Kingdom played a constructive role, which was recognised by the conference as a whole, but where is the evidence of that recognition? How could we have played a leading role when we sent a junior Minister to work with senior Ministers and former Prime Ministers?
  When Britain and other industrialised countries were developing their economies in the 19th and early 20th centuries, circumstances were easier than they are for third world countries today. No one told us, or the other industrialised countries, that we should not chop down forests or pollute the air. There was no talk of the ozone layer or the greenhouse effect. No one worried that industrialising Britain might damage people elsewhere.
  As James Robertson, in his book "Future wealth—a new economics for the 21st century", points out:
  "We should also remember that most of the industrialised countries drew capital for their own development from exploiting other countries, including the slave trade. This is a historical debt which remains to be repaid by the industrialised to the less developed countries."
  As the cold war ends, the interdependence of all nations and peoples becomes even more apparent. We see the huge environmental problems facing eastern Europe and the absolute necessity for global action to meet the growing threats of world poverty and environmental degradation.
  In "The Plague", Albert Camus suggests that in the face of what seems to be overwhelming, one must simply be guided by a sense that one does what one can. It is clear that the Government can do much more. With the end of the cold war there are surely resources which can be diverted from military spending—the peace dividend of £17 billion that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) is said to have proposed so enthusiastically in a secret memorandum. Estimates show that it would cost £3 billion per year to stop the deserts spreading. The worldwide cost of converting to ozone-friendly substitutes would be £6 billion. What better investment could there be than saving not just ourselves but the world? The Government have the means, but do they have the will?
  7.55 pm
  The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "notes the high quality of the Government's substantial and growing aid programme; commends the Government for its efforts to integrate environment concerns into all aspects of its assistance to developing countries to achieve sustainable

  251
  development; and applauds its actions and proposals to help developing countries tackle both local and global environmental concerns."
  Listening to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) I begin to understand why some Australians refer to the British as whingeing Poms. If she were to be believed, we do little, too late and in the wrong way. Yet, the truth is the exact opposite. Government aid policy is to evaluate the need, identify how best to help and then to deliver what is appropriate.
  The Opposition motion is a glowing example of what the Labour party is so good at: posturing. That is the last thing that the developing world wants or needs, if it and we are to tackle the degradation of our environment effectively. I do not doubt that that has to be done, but it has to be done with thought, care and with the co-operation of the recipient countries.
  To talk of the Government's lack of commitment to solving the problems shows information blindness—or mix-up—which came through in the hon. Lady's speech and which was certainly unsurpassed by any of her prodecessors. The hon. Lady had only to read the recent booklet, "Environment and the British Aid Programme", to recognise the practical activity that is going on, which started so well under my predecessor. I noticed that she wished to be derisive about the booklet by calling it a "glossy green booklet".
  Mr. Greorge Foulkes: I have read it.
  Mrs. Chalker: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman read further than the hon. Lady. Nevertheless, we believe that it is important to tell people what is going on. Although it may not be as extensive as the hon. Lady would like, it is certainly a great deal more than many other countries have been doing, it is more than this country was doing in years gone by, and it will increase.
  That booklet is not the first on aid and the environment—it is the second. Through our careful and planned work we are beginning to tackle some of the enormous problems that we face. Whether it is in our thorough, careful approach to development aid, to ensure that full account is taken of environmental issues, or in the specific programmes of work in forestry and biodiversity, there is no lack of commitment on the part of the Government. Whether it is in our detailed economic appraisal of energy efficiency projects, or in the carefully targeted health and population planning projects, there is no lack of commitment. Wherever one looks at ODA's work among scientists, engineers, economists, doctors, agronomists, marine biologists, and every other group, there is commitment and concern with which I am proud to be associated.
  The hon. Lady was whingeing that there were no ODA women in agriculture. That simply is not true. We have a woman specialist in Dakar, there are many women at the Natural Resources Institute in Chatham, we are working with Jill Shepherd of the Overseas Development Institute in our forestry projects in India and Kenya, and both our senior social development advisers—who are closely connected with agricultural development, in which women play such a major part in the third world—are women.
  Mrs. Clwyd: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Chalker: No, the hon. Lady spoke for more than 40 minutes and I wish to make progress.
  The Government are totally committed to finding solutions to environmental problems, whether in the developed or in the developing world. Let us be in no doubt that the part of the Labour party's motion that refers to our policies is wrong.
  At every opportunity, Labour Members call for more development aid. I do not believe for one moment that they would deliver it in practice. They would not deliver it because they could not afford it: they still have not learnt how to create the real prosperity at home with which to pay for it.
  I understand that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley wants the Government to devote more resources to the aid programme. I understand her disappointment that we spent 0·31 per cent. of GNP on aid last year. Incidentally, the figure was 0·32 per cent. in 1988 and 0·28 per cent. in 1987; the figure is bound to vary because of the way in which aid money is spent. The point is, however, that since 1986, GNP has grown by 11 per cent. in real terms, which means that we are actually spending more. Of the countries that have the 0·7 per cent. target, only France among the 18 western donors has a larger aid programme than the United Kingdom. We remain committed to that 0·7 per cent. target, although I note that such a commitment is missing from the Labour party's most recent policy document. I wonder why.
  Mrs. Clwyd: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. That information is not correct and it is right that we should—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I regret that that is not a point of order for me; it is a question for debate. The Minister may give way if she wishes to debate the matter but it cannot be the subject of a point of order.
  Mrs. Chalker: May I say—
  Mrs. Clwyd: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady's point of order must not relate to the subject of her original point of order, which was a matter for debate.
  Mrs. Clwyd: The Minister is possibly misleading the House—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mrs. Chalker.
  Mrs. Chalker: I went through the Labour party's latest policy document carefully and I could not find a reference to the figure, but if I am in error I shall gladly withdraw my remark. The proof of the pudding must be in the eating.
  What matters to aid recipients is that our aid programme is substantial and growing and that it provides really high-quality aid. Time and again, the United Kingdom's record of quality aid delivery is rightly recognised in the OECD, the World bank and the European Commission. That is a tribute to the effective programme designed and carried out by my Department.
  In her long speech, the hon. Lady failed seriously to examine the quality of aid for which the United Kingdom is so well recognised. I am surprised at that, because it means that she is not giving credit to those who deserve it

  253
  —those who work on the aid programme both at home and overseas, to whom I pay the most generous tribute that I can.
  Mr. Foulkes: I know that the Minister would not want to mislead the House. She will know that our policy remains the same as that outlined in our first document, "For the Good of All". The recently published document is an additional document. On page 9 of "For the Good of All", we state:
  "We will more that double the aid budget to reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP within five years."
  I hope that the right hon. Lady will accept that and apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd).
  Mrs. Chalker: I accept that the commitment appeared in the document to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but that is not the latest document in which those responsible for the Labour party's economic policy have been involved. I said only that I had noticed that the figure was missing from the Labour party's latest document.
  Every Development Minister wants to help more developing countries to overcome their poverty, to reform their economies and to create their own prosperity. It is clear, however, that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley will have to learn a great deal more about the application of aid, the recipient country's absorptive abilities and the co-ordination of programmes if she is to make sense of her claim that the British taxpayer should pay a further £2 billion a year towards the overseas aid programme to which the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has just referred.
  One does not solve the development problems of recipient countries by throwing money at their Governments. One helps to meet the needs of those nations by the careful targeting of appropriate aid, by helping them to make the best use of resources and by technical co-operation to implement the best modern systems for their benefit.
  We have a very substantial aid programme. Last year we spent £1,500 million. We have budgeted for £1,750 million in 1992–93. Our plans for aid have provided for a 22 per cent. increase in cash terms over the three years to 1992–93—a real terms increase of 6 per cent. The planned budget for this year has already been increased from £1,587 million to £1,617 million.
  Unlike Opposition Members, we know that one cannot solve the highly complex problems of development by throwing money at them. Aid quality and effectiveness are equally vital. That was the message of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his speech to the all-party group on overseas development on 6 June. Unless we ensure that our aid is used effectively, we are wasting precious resources for the developing countries and squandering British taxpayers' money in the process. Such action is neither sensible nor defensible. That is why we concentrate on using our aid where it is most needed and why we have rigorous systems in place to ensure project effectiveness and value for money.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The right hon. Lady will recollect that, at the Royal Geographical Society conference, she was asked by one of the delegates about the decision on the Fevord-Karnataka forestry project in India. I admit that the issue is delicately balanced, but has any policy decision yet been made on it?
  Mrs. Chalker: As I think I said on that occasion, the matter is still under review and I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I put it under review because of my concern for that very project.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley made another charge, which was that we cannot make an adequate contribution to tackling the immense environmental problems of the developing countries. We could argue for a thousand years about what an adequate contribution might be, but we should not agree. Nevertheless, I am sure that the House will agree that the Government are helping th developing countries to face their immense environmental problems honestly, systematically and thoroughly.
  Before I explain the details of our local and global commitments, I want to outline our philosophy of using aid to assist the environment of the developing—and thus the developed—world.
  There is no doubt that environmental questions are the most important facing the world today. The process of industrialisation that began in Europe more than 200 years ago has left no part of the globe untouched. The rapid depletion of the world's natural resources has been the dominant means of economic growth this century. In the past 30 years we have learnt, as the Prime Minister put it, that
  "Ours is a tenancy of this planet with a full repairing lease".
  We were strengthened in that view by the sight on television of those first pictures of our world taken from space. We saw that the earth had a thin protective atmosphere and was very vulnerable; indeed, we now know that the ozone layer has holes in it.
  People are the stewards of the earth and it is our responsibility to manage and run it for the benefit of all mankind—without ruining it. Our cardinal principle must be that human well-being depends upon ecological processes whose options decrease as they become less diverse.
  Already, we have a most difficult task to manage and the daily increase in human population makes matters more difficult. In the richer countries, we are fortunate enough to have reasonable incomes, temperate climates and diverse economies. That makes it easier to be green. But in the poorer countries, poverty, burgeoning populations and environmental degradation are so interlinked that the goal of sustainable development is the goal that we are determined to achieve. Our guiding principles are the freedom of the individual in a framework of good government and the need to maintain ecological diversity. We aim to ensure that a sense of stewardship and positive environmental action are present in all our work in the British aid programme.
  My Department recently produced a booklet entitled "Environment and the British Aid Programme", which covers more than I could or should cover tonight. Above all, it is a question of attitudes. Everyone working in the Overseas Development Administration must operate with high awareness of environmental matters. Our aid investments are subject to rigorous environment scrutiny and all project managers attend our environmental training course and use our environmental appraisal manual, which has been highly praised in many quarters. Every project is subject to environmental scrutiny. Our economists continue to work to refine cost-benefit analysis, building on the work of David Pearce—financed by the ODA—and others. That ensures that the taxpayer

  255
  is given value for money, and we need to take account of the longer-term horizon demanded by environmental perspectives.
  The green booklet is also concerned about human resources. I am extremely fortunate to lead a Department in which staff skills and commitments are of the highest order. We have 370 expert scientists at the Natural Resources Institute at Chatham and many more people working with them. Their work is devoted to a better scientific understanding of ecological processes in the poorer countries. Staff in the ODA have extensive and valuable links with environmental groups and many institutions in this country. The World Wide Fund for Nature, the International Institute for Environment and Development and the Royal Geographical Society are just three of the groups with which we are in almost daily contact.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Lady's Department use its influence in regard to the present position in the natural history museum, where taxonomic and palaeontological research is of great relevance?
  Mrs. Chalker: Indeed, and the hon. Gentleman is aware that I have taken up that point with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister gave him a full reply to a late-night Adjournment debate last Wednesday, which he initiated. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the points in that debate will continue to be followed up, because the good work done in that museum is valued by us all and we rely upon it.
  With the bodies to which I referred and others, we continually update our knowledge and techniques. We take our knowledge wider than the ODA.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Chalker: I shall not give way any more, because, if I do, others will not have an opportunity to speak.
  We are among the leaders in spreading the green message to other aid-giving institutions, especially the European Community and the World bank. The Commission is already using 100 copies—
  Mr. Clarke: Will the Minister give way?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it quite clear that she will not give way any more.
  Mrs. Chalker: The Commission is already using—
  Mr. Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be possible for you to draw to the attention of Ministers who refuse to give way the fact that hon. Members sit silently through their speeches, and to remind those Ministers that their speeches mean very little if hon. Members are not present to listen to them?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I hardly think that that is a point of order for the Chair. However, the hon. Gentleman has made his point.
  Mrs. Chalker: I recall making that same point about 16 years ago, sitting in exactly the same seat as the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).
  256
  I was saying that we are recognised for our environmental appraisal techniques. The Commission is already using more than 100 copies of our manual. The German Government and other Governments are using it as well. We cannot be as bad as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley made out.
  I want now to consider the extra help that is needed to tackle global environmental problems in developing countries. I told the House in a written answer on 11 June that we plan to allocate additional resources to helping developing countries deal with sources of green house gas emissions.
  Developing countries will need help if they are to implement measures agreed under the Montreal protocol. We are ready to provide funds as part of an internationally agreed financial mechanism. Such a mechanism is being discussed at the meeting of the Montreal protocol parties in London at the moment. We are hosting that meeting on behalf of the United Nations Environment Programme. Britain is the third largest contributor to UNEP and we work closely with its excellent executive director, Dr. Tolba. Our contribution will be part of a separate new item in the Government's expenditure plans and it will be separate from our aid budget for developing countries, which itself is planned to grow.
  We cannot consider environmental problems with success unless we are prepared to tackle the rapid rise in population growth. Since 1950, world population has doubled. It is now 5.3 billion and it will increase by 1 billion during the 1990s. That is 250,000 more people a day, every day. During the next century, the world population will probably double and could even triple. Some 90 per cent. of the increase is in the developing world.
  Our aim is to help Governments to formulate population policies and to implement programmes that include the provision of voluntary family planning information and services. Improving the health and education of women and reducing infant and child mortality are also crucial if smaller families are to be encouraged.
  Rapid population growth exacerbates the environmental degradation. The linkages between population growth and the environment are complex. However, tackling population growth is an important aspect of our environmental policy. In 1989, the ODA spent more than £17 million on specific population-related activities. That compares with £6·5 million in 1981.
  A major part of our assistance is channelled through the multilateral population programmes. We have increased our total contributions to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the United Nations population fund and the WHO's human reproduction programme from £14·6 million in 1989 to £15·7 million this year.
  This year ODA has supported bilateral population projects in nine areas of the world. In India, for example, we are funding a £20 million project for the strengthening of primary health care and family welfare services in five districts in Orissa. In Kenya, we are providing more than £4 million to six non-governmental organisations providing population education and broadening the provision of family planning services. We all now identify several countries in Africa and Asia in which our existing activities could be expanded and soon will identify new countries in which assistance may start. Wherever we help,

  257
  it must be in voluntary family planning services. However, we are encouraged by the responses to our approaches to countries that have never before undertaken such programmes.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley spent a long time talking about poverty. She linked poverty, quite understandably, to many of the awful problems facing the third world. She is aware that one of the main objectives of our aid programme is to relieve poverty, which my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), said is the most toxic element in environmental pollution. We do that directly by aiming our aid at those most in need. In Ghana we help the poorest by participating in the programme of action to mitigate the social cost of adjustment. In India we spent almost £200 million between 1980 and 1988 in the key sectors of health, welfare, education, housing and renewable natural resources.
  In 1988 our food aid and disaster relief were targeted at those in desperate need and totalled £40 million. That is all helping to relieve poverty. However, we also help to relieve poverty in the long term by promoting growth in developing countries.
  The promotion of growth in developing countries seems to help most when we understand and work with the Governments of those countries to identify the best means of helping. In some countries the best way might be to create clean power for the people so that they can begin to be productive. In other countries and other regions we might have to concentrate on relieving the enormous health problems. Elsewhere we might be able to do most to relieve poverty by being thoroughly active in agriculture. I recommend to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley the research document entitled "A Strategy for Research on Renewable Natural Resources". I shall send the hon. Lady a copy although it has been in the Library for some time. That document explains what we are doing and it gives the lie to what the hon. Lady's imputations.
  I believe that in all those ways we seek to help to relieve poverty. However, relieving poverty involves more than pushing money or having specific programmes. Countries must undertake economic reform and the countries that do that receive our fullest support, as has been absolutely clear in Africa in recent years.
  We provide technical assistance and physical infrastructure. We direct our aid throughout our programmes to the poorest by concentrating on countries with low incomes. That is why in 1988 around 70 per cent. of our aid went to the poorest 50 countries and a further 8·5 per cent. to other low-income countries.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Although one does not doubt the efficiency of the work that is done by many officials in the Overseas Development Administration on individual projects, does the Minister agree that the greatest contribution that could be made to help the poor countries of sub-Saharan Africa would be a real increase in commodity prices, rather than the 20 per cent. drop over the past 15 years, and ceasing to support the IMF on its imposition of liberal economic models, which are helping to subsidise and prop up the banking systems of north America and western Europe?
  Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman cannot expect to get away with that. One of the things that has been quite clear to me since I came to this job, is the careful attention
  258
  to workable economic policies that the IMF and the World bank give in regard to nations in Africa and elsewhere that need economic reform. We have been the largest contributor to the interest subsidy account, which helps those countries. We help to reschedule official debts through the Paris Club, and we give generous bilateral aid. We cancel overseas aid debts—£1 billion that is owed by 23 countries has being cancelled by this country. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) laid the foundations for the Toronto terms that have helped many—the Brady plan has helped many others—and we shall go on helping those countries.
  It is simply not right to pour more of British taxpayers' money into countries that will not learn the lesson that socialism does not work. Countries in eastern Europe have learnt and have come to us for help with their new institutional set-up. They have been showing the way. Countries that have bothered to find out how things work better are benefiting greatly, as can be seen in Ghana and in many other countries.
  Deforestation is perhaps the gravest environmental threat facing the developing world. The latest reports suggest that 17 million hectares or more of tropical forest are currently being lost each year. That is one and a half times the size of England, and twice the rate of the late 1970s. We need forests to help maintain soil fertility, prevent erosion and protect watershed systems. Globally, our forests store vast quantities of carbon and house 90 per cent. of the planet's plant and animal species.
  Tropical forests are concentrated in developing countries, and those countries will decide their fate. It is not for us to question the sovereign rights of developing countries to use their natural resources, but we can and we will help them to manage forests sustainably, for the benefit of the countries that house them and for the benefit of the wider community.
  Britain has a record of which we can be proud. In 1988 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that we would do more under the aid programme to promote the wise and sustainable use of forest resources. Then we were financing 80 forestry projects at a cost of £45 million. Now we have almost 150 projects costing more than £60 million. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last November that we would aim to commit a further £100 million over the next three years. We already have 60 projects in preparation. Those and more will be financed from the £100 million.
  The hon. Lady likes to have a great deal of fun with the tropical forestry action plan. We all know that forestry is an international problem and challenge. That means that the solutions require a collaborative international effort. Whatever the hon. Lady may think, one country working alone would be simply no good. The main international mechanism for co-ordinating assistance to developing countries is the tropical forestry action plan. The TFAP has been heavily criticised, often with good reason. Whatever the hon. Lady may say, I called for its reform at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation general conference last November, and it was good that, shortly after, an independent review was set up.
  That review has just reported. The report contains several important conclusions and recommendations that we are studying carefully. The TFAP should not support the extension of logging without rigorous environmental

  259
  safeguards, and that means making forests managed and sustainable for the future. We welcome that conclusion —it has always been our view that that should be done.
  We have funded the attendance of Papua New Guinea and other countries at the TFAP. We have made sure that countries that wanted to respond had information. The PNG Government have now announced a moratorium on logging. In the Cameroon, under the TFAP, we funded an expert on medicinal plants. Without British involvement, there would be much more to complain about. The proposals for new guidelines from the TFAP and the suggestion that the NGOs should be consulted in drawing them up are very good. The review is a good basis for necessary reform, and that is why we are now involved in a detailed discussion of how to take forward its recommendations in preparation for the Food and Agriculture organisation committee on forestry in Rome in September. A copy of the review is in the Library.
  The second critical forestry problem is the need to safeguard the planet's biological diversity. We do not know to within a factor of 10 how many plants and animal species our planet holds. What we do know is that they are disappearing at an alarming rate. Perhaps a third of the total could be lost in the next three or four decades.
  In May I established a special action programme to expand ODA's work on conserving biological diversity. First, we need better information on the priorities for conservation. Britain's contribution of £0·25 million to the major study by the world conservation monitoring centre in Cambridge is to help prepare a global biodiversity status report. Secondly, we need to identify well-designed projects for funding. The Oxford Forestry Institute is preparing for us a strategy on ODA's role in conserving the biodiversity of forests. That will include a series of project outlines. We are commissioning similar studies on the marine environment, which is a much neglected but very important store of biological diversity, and on the so-called wildlands, such as the savannah of Africa, which often house wild relatives of food crops.
  In all those matters we are out to make progress on the basis of science. Nowhere could that be more true than in the global warming issues that now concern us so drastically. We know that developing countries could suffer worst from the effects of global warming. In Africa, for example, climate change is likely to have a significant negative effect on agricultural production. Millions may be forced to move to survive in areas in which land is already scarce. Africa has probably contributed least to the problem of climate change. It therefore understandably looks to the international community to take the lead—but Africa, too, will need to play its part.
  We are helping developing countries get to grips with the issue of climate change. That is why we are contributing to help developing countries join in the work of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.
  We are also developing an energy efficiency initiative. In May this year I announced an offer of £50 million towards energy efficiency projects in India. It is right that we get the very best use of energy production there. Although I share some doubts about Rihand, I have already taken steps to ensure that energy in the third world is produced efficiently and as cleanly as possible and without degradation. We cannot change the past, but we
  260
  can help to increase the efficiency of power stations and prevent devastation causing more disruption in those countries. That is why, in Pakistan, we are fitting waste heat recovery boilers for gas turbine stations, and doing similar things in Bangladesh. In Pakistan, we have already managed to achieve a recovery of heat of 137 per cent. of the original target. Therefore, we are putting our scientific knowledge to the best use for people who need to use power.
  We are including in our work many other matters that I shall set out in a major speech in a few months. We have involved ourselves in the World bank energy sector. It now has a small commission to consider priorities. Our ODA permanent secretary is a member of that commission. We also have an assistance programme to deal with environmental concerns. It does not stop at energy efficiency; it also includes conservation. It will loom large in the commission's work. British expertise, which is well respected worldwide, is contributing to the full in all international environmental forums.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley also referred to water. I agree that water and sanitation are both critical. Ten years ago only 40 per cent. of the world's population had access to a safe water supply, and only 25 per cent. had access to sanitation. That is why, under the aegis of the international drinking water supply and sanitation decade, we made a concerted effort. A safe water supply has been provided to an estimated 700 million new users during the decade. During the same period, sanitation facilities have been provided to 250 million people.
  With the continuous global population increase, there is a pressing need to accelerate the impetus worldwide during the 1990s. That is why we are funding numerous water and sanitation projects in the developing countries. That is why, in 1988 alone, we had 86 on-going projects, at an overall cost to the aid programme of £184 million.
  We have made steps to meet the environmental challenges, but we fully accept that much remains to be done. We shall say more about our plans in the environment White Paper later in the year. Britain's aid programme is as green as any that I know of in Europe, but I intend to keep it that way. I intend to build on the firm base that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath built before me. There is no shortage of commitment in this Government to helping to solve the environmental problems of developing countries.
  This Government will always use taxpayers' money for development aid soundly and effectively. It takes a Government with credibility to galvanise the efforts of the international community. I know from the reactions that I get overseas that Britain's contribution—and our Prime Minister's contribution—is recognised as crucial and effective, be it our efforts through the United Nations, through the London conferences on the ozone layer, or our pioneering tropical forestry initiative.
  Therefore, I utterly reject the Opposition's carping and sort-sighted motion. I am certain that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's amendment in the lobby tonight.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed, I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind what I said earlier and respond to my appeal for short speeches. We have little more than an hour before the winding-up speeches.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: I am deeply grateful for being called, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to respond to only one aspect of the environmental issue, but I believe that it towers above the rest. I refer to population growth. The sheer importance of this issue cannot be overestimated. If we do not control population growth, all the other environmental problems will simply mount up. There will be environmental degradation.
  Although most hon. Members know the statistics, I believe that they need repeating. It took us 100,000 years to reach a world population of 1 billion people; it took another 100 years to reach a population of 2 billion people; it took another 30 years to reach a population of 3 billion people; and now we are adding 1 billion to the world population every 10 years. That means that the present population of 5 billion will be 6 billion by the end of the century.
  We must reach a replacement rate level of population as quickly as possible. If we do not do so urgently, the increase in population will be staggering. If we reach replacement level by 2015, the world's population will be 8 billion. There is no chance of our reaching that replacement level by 2015. If we take a mere 40 extra years and reach replacement level population by 2055, the world's population will be 13 billion people. The difference between those two populations is the existing population of the world.
  We must tackle this problem aggressively. I defy anybody who has visited those parts of the world that have high rates of population growth to be unmoved by that experience. Hon. Members of all parties have visited Nepal and have seen that country being literally eaten by its population, as its people scramble for higher and higher and ever more inaccessible terraces on which to live. We have seen the forestry and the hillsides disappearing, yet only 15 per cent. of that land can be lived on. We have seen the most incredible problems unfolding before our eyes.
  We must realise that today in India 70,000 babies have been born. The population of India has doubled since independence. Although the problem is enormous, it can be overcome. I was disturbed to hear the Minister refer to ensuring that such countries have an absorptive quality that enables them to accept more assistance. I remind her that there are 600,000 villages in India and that only 3,000 of them have a family planning service. I am sure that one or two thousand more villages have an absorptive quality that could enable them to take more assistance.
  It is possible to be very critical of the Indian Government's lack of courage in not providing the lead on family planning, but it is also possible to be critical of ourselves, and especially of the Americans. One of the most disturbing things in recent years is that, as a result of the pressures exerted by the so-called pro-life lobby in the United States, since 1985 the United States Government have made no contribution to any family planning funds.
  It is ironic that people who call themselves "pro-life" should, by their withdrawal of funds and their unwillingness to give aid to family planning services, have caused so much abortion. There is no doubt that it is the absence of good family planning that has led to most of the abortions that take place. It is ironic that people who call themselves "pro-life" should have helped make life so nasty, brutish and short for so many of the children who
  262
  are born. We should make it clear that we can no longer tolerate that unwillingness to tackle the issue of family planning.
  We must grasp the great importance of family planning and ensure that more of our aid is directed to that end. It was with some pleasure, therefore, that I heard the Minister of State say that our aid had been gradually steered in that direction. We must accept that such aid will always be steered towards voluntary family planning, because any other approach is simply counter-productive. However, we must accept that that aid must be long-term, because such family planning activities involve the most sensitive and delicate development work. Nevertheless, it is obvious that such work can be carried out. Those of us who have been there have seen how such work has yielded fruit in the back streets of Delhi. We have also seen the clean water supplies there. We are also aware of the work that has successfully controlled parasites in other parts of India. That work is both long-term and fulfilling.
  I conclude by emphasising another area. We must be aggressive in ensuring that our aid helps the development of women in the developing world. That is the key to success. Literate women have control over their lives. I defy any hon. Member to name any country where literacy for women has led to their choosing to have large families. They do not choose to have large families when careers other than child bearing are available to them.
  The Minister will be supported by many hon. Members if she fights for more generous aid to be given to population control. Without population control, there will be no future for our children and those born elsewhere. The ozone layer and deforestation fade into insignificance, compared with the importance of controlling population growth.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I welcome the opportunity to discuss this most important subject, development aid and the environment, but how unfortunate it is that it has to be discussed on a party political bashing basis. The British aid programme of over £1.6 billion is no small beer. It is 17 per cent. up on last year and is heading for £1.75 billion in 1992. The debate should be about targeting and the value to be achieved from these vast resources. Not a word, however, is said about that matter in the Labour motion.
  Even according to their own funding criteria, the Opposition disappoint. In the last two years of the last Labour Government, they chopped successive £50 million chunks off the aid budget—deep, in real terms, in the values of those days. Frank Judd, the Opposition's Front Bench spokesman on aid at that time, summed it up perfectly when he said that the cuts would have grave implications and that the Labour Government did not wish to minimise them. Did the Labour Government put up a fight? Joel Barnett, who was Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the Labour Government, noted that there was little argument within the Labour Cabinet when IMF strictures required those cuts. He admitted later in his book:
  "on overseas aid there was little argument this time, and £50 million was scored for each year."
  I shall confine my comments to the environmental implications of the destruction of the rain forests. I welcome the growing interest worldwide and in Britain, but also in the countries of the Amazon basin, in their

  263
  responsibilities for their great heritage. Brazil, which contains by far the largest extent of the Amazonian rain forest, has made major progress of late.
  Under the inspired leadership of the newly elected president, Fernando Collor de Mello, the Brazilian Government have taken some important steps. First, they have scrapped the fiscal incentives that led directly to the clearance of forests for ecologically disastrous grazing, which in turn led to soil erosion. Secondly, the pursuit of illegal gold prospecting—which does nothing for the economy of Brazil, as most of the gold is smuggled out of the country—brings misery to thousands of garimpeiros, the peasant miners, and has led to the virtual extinction of the Indian tribes in the area, notably the Yanomami. Thirdly, the Brazilians have scrapped the infamous B364 road to Peru for timber export, which the Japanese would have used to strip the forests of hardwood.
  Fourthly—perhaps the most inspired of all the steps taken in Brazil—Professor Jose Lutzenberger has been appointed the President's Secretary for the Environment. Professor Lutzenberger has long been a campaigner against the environmental destruction tolerated by the previous military regimes in Brazil. He was perhaps the most radical eco-critic in the country. He has a clear understanding of the ecological dangers facing the globe and an appreciation of the possibilities in Brazil. He has the ear of the president. He could not have been appointed at a better time. There is a new, dynamic and environmentally sensitive president in Brazil, with the world awake to the ecological risks and ready to help. If I may be so bold, Britain is at the forefront of the international support that is now forthcoming.
  A year ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), when Minister for Overseas Development, concluded his now famous memorandum of understanding with Brazil. Up to then, foreign powers had lectured Brazil on the environment, thus inflaming nationalist feelings. What my right hon. Friend achieved was to offer partnership and a lead to Brazil's pride in its rain forests. His technical co-operation programme was to cover five areas: first, the urban environment, in particular sewage and water treatment; secondly, the sustainable management of the Amazon rain forest, where he hoped that we would be involved in establishing a new biological reserve in the Xingu river area; thirdly, collaborative research on the relationship between the forests and climate, involving the Institute of Hydrology; fourthly, research into the great potential of the genetic resources of the Amazon—and he hoped to begin soon a research project into aromatic plants, undertaken by the Goeldi museum in Belem; and, fifthly, training in both the United Kingdom and Brazil in matters related to those areas.
  I am glad that approval has now been given for some of the projects, notably that of the Institute of Hydrology and its climate research projects in the states of Amazonas, Para and either in Rondonia or Acre in Brazil and for a study of the impact of deforestation on the climate. I hope that progress will be made on a number of other projects that have already been identified—notably that of the Tapajos forest management project in Para state to establish sustained forest management, production and a harvesting system; the forest research project with INPA in Brazil that would lead to research into the distribution
  264
  and dynamics of the biomass and minerals in tropical forests; the Caxivana biological reserve in Para state, which would bring about the establishment of a biological reserve there and the promotion of sustainable management of the forest; and a study of the ecology, natural regeneration and flora of the flooded forests near Belem on the Amazon. I could refer to other projects, such as the aromatic plant development project near Belem that carries out research and trials of plants species with potential for commercial development. In the time available, I cannot refer to the many other projects.
  We should not forget that there are large tracts of Amazonia in Colombia, Venezuela and Peru. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to see the Colombian Amazon region. The Government of President Barco of Colombia have shown the imagination to carry out a systematic programme of legal recognition of land rights for all the indigenous people of the Colombian Amazon. More than 12 million hectares have been safeguarded. It is considered the collective property of the Indians and it is inalienable. They are now working on a further 6 million hectares, in addition to the 5 million already included in the recently created national parks in the Amazon region. The next stage for Colombia will clearly be for projects into the sustainable use of the rain forest. I hope that we can extend our various projects to assist Colombia
  Before I came into the Chamber I looked into the forestry projects of the Overseas Development Administration. They are under way in no fewer than nine Latin American countries. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has much to be proud of, given our constructive aid in this sphere. All power to her elbow. Let us keep up the good work.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I intend to comment on some of the points made by the Minister. Ministers say that the United Kingdom helps 60 per cent. of the poorest countries in the world. The sad fact is that most of them are former British colonies. The fact that they are former British colonies and need so much aid is an indictment of the Government's policy. The Minister was right to emphasise that we should pay attention to the quality, not just to the quantity, of aid. I accept that certain Overseas Development Administration projects are good and set an example to the rest of the world.
  It is nevertheless true that much of our aid programme is still viewed as a trade opportunity to be plundered by large companies. I am not the only exponent of that view. It is worth reading a sentence from the Conservative manifesto for the last election:
  "Our 'Aid and Trade Provision' funds have helped win good development contracts for British firms worth over £2 billion since 1979."
  That is not what aid should be about, but I regret that that is what is has become in many cases.
  The third point is that the Minister said that she had made £50 million available for energy efficiency projects, mainly in India, and then elaborated on how much she was committed to the idea of achieving greater energy efficiency in India. It is an extraordinary proposition that we should give priority to energy efficiency in countries that inherently use little energy, rather than concentrating within the developed world and reducing our excessive energy consumption. I accept that that is not the Minister's responsibility, but it is the Government's, and

  265
  the figures that she quoted contrast pretty sharply with the miserable investment in energy efficiency that has been sanctioned by the Department of Energy for our energy efficiency at home.
  I should like to say, by way of a commercial—I have no interest to declare other than a local connection of pride—that before I came to this debate I was at a preview showing of a documentary for Channel 4 produced by Grampian television on the energy alternative. It is a programme of three one-hour documentaries that is a blueprint for changing the way that the world works. I noted with interest that the role of women, which has been mentioned by a number of speakers, has been specifically acknowledged within the third world, and the changes that have been taking place are focused upon without necessarily commenting that that is the definitive answer.
  It was inevitable that the Minister would home in on specific worthy projects that the Government are sponsoring, and I am sure that other Conservative Members will also do so. However, the Minister did not satisfactorily explain to the House how and why Britain has dropped from second to sixth among the top seven industrial nations in the provision of overseas aid. The Government inherited a GNP contribution of 0·52 per cent., which they have reduced to 0·31 per cent. The Thatcher Government claim that they have achieved an economic miracle. Why have we not shared that economic miracle with the poorer peoples of the world? It really is not good enough for the Minister not to respond to that fact.
  The other factor that must be addressed is the way in which aid projects are managed, not just by the British Government—or, perhaps worse still, by the American Government—but by the World bank and international agencies. There is no doubt that the criteria being applied specifically by the World bank do not often meet the real needs and the real structure of the countries that are supposed to be developing.
  One problem is that the World bank seems to want assurances of stability within the Governments through which it is seeking to provide aid. The trouble is that stability tends to mean rather nasty, often right-wing, dictatorships that misuse the money to fatten their friends and to give contracts to big businesses. That does not benefit the poor people and does not reach the small businesses that might actually gain from the channelling of that aid. I wish that the British Government had done more to try to change those criteria.
  The consequence of that is that banks tend to appoint consultants who determine who gets the contracts and how they are bid. It is far too much trouble to allow small companies, which have to be vetted and investigated, to get a cut of the business. Too often, that cut goes elsewhere and leaves the people of the country feeling alienated. Often, they are actually disrupted or even moved from their land to accommodate projects proposed by big business interests that are hostile to the interests of the people living in that country—yet it is all done in the name of overseas aid for poor communities.
  It is interesting that, within Europe, Sweden and Holland have taken a high profile in trying to alter the character of the regimes to which they will give aid, singling out those to which other countries often refuse to give aid. They apply criteria that seek out and encourage progressive Government policies within countries to which they are giving aid.
  266
  I was recently asked to review a book commissioned by Friends of the Earth called "Exploited Earth," by Teresa Hayter. She says something worthy of report, especially in relation to tropical rain forests:
  "If the Governments of the major western powers and their agencies genuinely wanted to save forests in the third world, the best thing they could do would be to stop discriminating in favour of repressive and inegalitarian Governments and support, or at least refrain from attacking, third world Governments with progressive policies."
  That is something we should actively encourage. We should be seeking to change the character. We should not conform to capitalist models, but to ones that are genuinely socially responsive and can reach down to the people who most need the aid.
  We are all in grave danger of inadvertently patronising third-world countries when we talk about the problems of aid. I am conscious of it myself. I do not feel that it is necessarily my job to tell third-world countries what they should do, although it is legitimate to tell them what they should not do in circumstances where there is clear exploitation.
  For example, the Brazilians have stated quite clearly that they do not understand why the Brazilian rain forest should be treated as a lung for the planet, because it is needed as a resource for their teeming population. The problem is how one ensures that that population can secure development in a way that nevertheless meets the wider needs of the planet and the long-term interests of the Brazilian community, which is too pressured by short-term needs and concerns.
  With all respect to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington)—and I recognise his commitment—the problem of population control falls into that difficulty. We can look at the third world and say that the population is growing too fast, the pressures are too great, and that if we do not do something about it, the planet will not survive. That is all true, but it is also a fact that, for most third-world countries, large families are a substitute for the lack of a welfare state. They are a means of security, an economic advantage and a welfare support.
  Until that is changed the fundamental problem will not be dealt with and there is a clear correlation that constructive economic development and improved economic well-being actually reduce the pressure of large families. I acknowledge the fact that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie referred to that.
  The other problem, which we will have to address across the whole of the developed world and right across the political boundaries is how we will deal with the problem of the greenhouse effect. It causes me some concern that the British Government, together with the American Government and others, have failed to achieve, or get anywhere near achieving, a figure of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product overseas aid budget. How on earth will they persuade people in the developed world to make the necessary sacrifices to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions so that the third world can achieve even a fraction of the growth to which it aspires? A much bigger chunk than 0·7 per cent. of GNP must be earmarked.
  It has been suggested that an international world programme could be delivered—perhaps that is idealistic. It could determine the total greenhouse gas emissions that the world is currently producing and aim to freeze those emissions, and subsequently reduce them. It would then allow bids for the allocation of that share of greenhouse

  267
  gases—in extremis on a population basis. The consequences of that would be a major cut in the greenhouse emissions of the developed society to allow the third world to achieve the growth to which it aspires.
  I note that the Minister is grimacing at the severity of what is required. We know that that could not be done overnight—it may take a generation. However, the third world will not stand being lectured about how it cannot aspire to the glories and pleasures of the western developed world just because we have already got there first and are not prepared to cut it in. Ultimately the third world will not put up with that. We must be prepared to make some fairly major sacrifices collectively, across party lines and national boundaries, in the west if we are to allow the underdeveloped countries to alleviate some of their poverty and to fulfil some of their aspirations.
  The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) is right to say that this issue should not be made too party political as that would render it specious. The scale of the problem we face is such that if we spend too much time scoring party-political points off each other we shall not address the wider issues of how we reach solutions to the urgent problems.
  The nature of politicians and of this place is such that we cannot resist scoring party political points. It is the duty of Oppositions to oppose and of Governments to extol the virtues of what they have achieved. We must acknowledge, however, that if we are to make a contribution to solving the problem and if we are serious about it, we must seek out cross-party consensus. We must adopt long-term policies that will be pursued by Governments of whatever political persuasion and by many Governments at a time. We must do that soon; otherwise, the problems will become academic as it will be far too late.
  I am a natural optimist—in my party, the one thing one learns is to be one—and I believe that there is a great deal that we can achieve if we put our minds to it. Obviously we can make technical contributions, but we must be prepared to acknowledge that attitudes must change and that societies within the developed countries must acknowledge the problems of the developing world and its right to a share of the benefits of the globe. We must recognise that, if we do not adopt a concerted environmental policy, we shall be destroyed by the third world's attempts to gain what it regards as its rightful share of the world's benefits.
  The problem is sometimes described on such a global scale that we cannot relate to it; there are too many issues with which to deal at once. I was therefore encouraged to find that that dry American verser, Ogden Nash, had an appropriate little verse that puts things in perspective while saying the right thing:

  "I think that I shall never see

  A billboard lovely as a tree,

  Perhaps, unless the billboards fall,

  I'll never see a tree at all".

  That sums up the fact that we cannot make a positive contribution to reducing environmental pressures if we determine our approach entirely by commercial factors. We must accept that the west must make some substantial sacrifices if the people of the third world are to have a real chance of a share in the resources of the planet.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Rupert Allason: In view of the time available, I shall keep my remarks brief.
  First, I should declare an interest as I am vice-president of Operation Raleigh on a non-remunerative basis. In that capacity, I thank my right hon. Friend for all the support that she has given to Operation Raleigh and to Voluntary Service Overseas. I know that in the past she has given great assistance to environmentally friendly projects and schemes run by Operation Raleigh all over the world, and that is much appreciated.
  Last night in the debate on the police the Opposition made a considerable financial commitment, and earlier this evening in the transport debate they made a similar one. In this debate, the Opposition reaffirmed their commitment to achieve a target contribution to overseas aid of 0.7 per cent. of GNP within five years. When the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) gave us a tour d'horizon of all the environmental problems of the world, I thought that she also made a commitment to subsidise the reduction in or removal of CFCs in the People's Republic of China.
  I could be wrong, but I believe that the Labour party will have its work cut out if it should ever be elected to Government. That point should be made because those who listen to or read about this debate should appreciate that people must be judged on their performance. The October 1974 Labour party manifesto made the commitment that 0·7 per cent. of GNP would be given in overseas aid, but history proves that that figure was never achieved.
  I congratulate the Government on the cancellation of debt, particularly in Africa, and while I urge them to pursue that line, I have some concerns about Government aid. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) spoke of propping up corrupt regimes and the need to monitor the way in which money is spent. I am concerned about some of the £13 million in aid that has gone to Ethiopia. I should like to know how much of it has gone directly to the people and how much has been filched to perpetuate a continuing civil war.
  The same can be said of the £8·5 million recently given in emergency aid to Mozambique. I am worried about how much of that, plus 10,000 tonnes of food aid, has gone to the army and how much has gone to people in desperate need. Perpetuating corrupt regimes should not be the purpose of our overseas aid, and we now have an opportunity to pass on some of our know-how in that respect.
  In my constituency, the South Devon technical college has offered aid to eastern Europe. I congratulate the Government on their plans to aid the eastern European countries which are, frankly, environmental disasters. Aid programmes have already been announced for Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. I have written to my right hon. Friend pointing out that South Devon technical college has played a great role in the past in supplying language skills to south-east Asia. The college is anxious to participate in any aid programme to eastern Europe. The amount of money being sought by eastern Europe is astronomical. I heard Eduard Shevardnadze talking on the radio on Monday about £8·5 billion being needed by the Soviet Union. If such aid is given, it should have major strings attached.

  269
  I appreciate that it is all to easy to be patronising about aid. Imposing western developed nation standards on intermediate, dirty, industrialised third-world countries has inherent dangers, particularly when there are many problems that we have not tackled.
  I draw attention particularly to nuclear submarines in this country which are mothballed and about which, apparently, nothing can be done. It seems that no decision has been made about whether to tow them out into the Atlantic—that was the original intention—or to decommission them in some other way. That is a major problem of our own making and, so far as I am aware, there is no solution to it.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment was in his place earlier in the debate. I hope that he or a Minister from that Department will have an opportunity to explain to the House the level of CFC reduction that we propose to reach by the year 2000 and why that level will be only about 50 per cent. of what it should be.
  Reference has been made in the debate to numerous projects. I have time to refer to just three. The first is land degradation. I understand that in sub-Saharan Africa the husbandry of goats has played a major part in removing the soil. I hope that in future great thought will be given to dealing with that problem.
  The second point—sea levels—was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. I urge her to put pressure on the Government to avoid grandiose schemes of the kind that in the past were regarded as prestige projects. When we consider projects such as the Aswan dam 20 or 30 years later, we realise that such grandiose schemes have been catastrophically counter-productive.
  While many people will welcome the thermal power efficiency programmes which have been introduced and are being sponsored by the British Government, many constituents are horrified to hear of the vast sums being spent by the Pakistani Government on sabre-rattling exercises, mobilising troops and tanks along the Indian frontier. That is truly horrific.
  I acknowledge that the Government have been in the forefront of many important issues in recent years and months—one of which affected my constituency. A tanker-load of toxic waste from west Africa was heading towards the United Kingdom and my constituency, causing great concern. I recognise that the European Community has introduced a system of certificates for toxic waste to ensure that it does not go to third-world countries.
  There has been little time to cover all the issues in this important debate, but I urge the House to support the amendment.
  9.11 pm
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo: No one can doubt the scale of the crisis facing the third world and all of us. It is a crisis affecting the environment, health, housing, agriculture, food, famine and debt. There is no room in this Chamber or any hon. Member's heart for complacency or self-congratulation on what we have done to date to tackle this massive task.
  Like many hon. Members, I have constituents who are active in world development and aid. When they hear us arguing about how much money we spend, they answer that that money is but a pittance in comparison to the massive transfer of wealth and resources from the south to
  270
  the industrialised north. If we were to repay but a tiny proportion of that money, the miniscule current aid budget would dwindle into insignificance.
  The Minister made one point that I was shocked to hear, although I was not too surprised, when she said that we would not continue to pour British taxpayers' money into countries that had not learnt the lesson that socialism does not work. Aid is supposed to be based on the principle of sustainable development in the poorest countries of the world. That is its prime objective. The vast majority of the poorest people in the world are women.
  I had not intended to speak about population control, but I must say that it is an inappropriate solution to world poverty. It is seen by many as a way to reduce the populations of the poor. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said, the people in the north, the industrialised countries, are consuming considerably more. We fail to recognise the link between poverty and people's need for large families to have some chance of survival.
  Many people would like to see millions of dollars being invested in population control even though dreadful and horrific damage has been caused to the lives of women in third-world countries by such programmes. That money would be better invested in establishing basic health care structures in villages, towns and cities throughout the world. Birth control is based on the woman's right to control her fertility and to make decisions about her life. Nobody should assert that we should force population control on people as a way of dealing with the problems that we face. I sincerely hope that such a course will not be proposed in the debate.
  The document entitled "Environment and the British Aid Programme" is strong on rhetoric and weak on action. I appreciate what the Minister says, but we do not seem to have grasped the basic problem, which is that bad environments are the result of poverty and cause poverty. Aid programmes should be directed at identifying ways in which we can provide resources so that people can determine their own future without fear of exploitation and intimidation, whether by the economic and foreign policies of this country or any other or by the might of a multinational company. The document does not say enough about reducing the levels of carbon dioxide, the problems of CFCs and the general problem of global warming which will devastate the agriculture and the development of other nations.
  The vast majority of poor people are women, and Britain's aid programme is harming such women in the third world. It does not recognise their unpaid work in the home, in the fields and in the community. They grow, buy and prepare food. They carry out cleaning and fetch water, firewood and household goods. They care for the young, the ill and the elderly. Such work is essential for everyone's survival, yet it is not classified as productive. Women's contributions as workers, farmers, traders, thinkers and carers is central to sustainable development. Their contribution is taken for granted, and they seem to be invisible to economists and most politicians, and unfortunately, they are not considered in many development plans.
  Britain's aid is decreasing in quantity and quality. Each year, less than 20 per cent. of the total aid budget is spent on development projects for the world's poorest people. As we have heard, Britain's aid is increasingly being used to promote British exports and to further the

  271
  Government's foreign and economic policies. Some 80 per cent. of the total aid budget is not deemed by the ODA itself to be relevant to women, yet women make up 60 to 80 per cent. of the agricultural work force in Africa. About 50 per cent. of those who care for animals are women, and all women are involved in food production and precessing.
  Most aid programmes aimed at improving local agriculture are directed to assisting men, even though women are central to the ownership of smallholdings and the work in them. Women get a tiny proportion of agriculture scholarships and are excluded from credit facilities through straightforward discrimination and lack of collateral and income. It is a vicious circle, because sustainable aid is propagating the very problem that it claims to be addressing and attacking.
  Women have the right wherever they are in the world to education, health, employment, food and shelter, as does every poor and not-so-poor person in the world. They have the right to participate in debates and to shape the future of their communities. Any aid policy which does not achieve that profoundly conflicts with the aims of sustainable aid. Women's position in society and in the world is crucially linked to the environment.
  Much has been said about environmental projects that have been undertaken and about the IMF and the World bank and the ODA's relationship with those organisations. In The Guardian last Friday, nine projects—just nine—were selected to demonstrate how aid is damaging the environment. I presume that they are not the only ones.
  I give just one example in conclusion. It is about the African forest and the national forestry scheme in the Cameroons which is part of the TFAP. The article says that the programme is
  "alarming environmentalists. The plan for Cameroon, completed in 1988, envisages that the country 'could become the most important African exporter of forestry-based products from the start of the 21st century'."
  Those programmes are not about involving people in shaping their future; they are about making them dependent on yet another cash crop that will tie them further into the debt crisis. That is profoundly wrong and evil. None of us has any right to be complacent, and I hope that we will do all that we can to ensure that our aid programme is liberating, not devastating.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Jim Lester: The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) spoke from the heart. Those Conservative Members who are present when England is playing in the world cup—there is no score after 60 minutes—also reveal a great deal of heart in that we want to take part in this critical debate.
  The hon. Lady talked about women. I cannot follow her criticisms precisely, because virtually ever conference to which I have been, every scheme that I have seen enumerated and every area of development assistance from the developed world now involves women and women's participation. The real problem is caused by the standards of the developing world and the way in which it sees and treats women rather than the way in which we try to reach out from the developed world with schemes to assist them.
  Action Aid programmes in the Gambia have deliberately targeted women. They have deliberately
  272
  created gardens for the ladies, setting up their own committee to produce better food for the community and a market economy in which to sell their extra produce down the line. The whole focus now is on women and women's involvement, because their critical importance has been recognised. I am sure that the ODA and many of the schemes that it has put forward have that as a central element, along with the environment.
  So many of these debates tend, as has been said, to start off on the wrong foot on the basis of the motions in which one side says that everything is wrong and the other that everything is right. I often suspect that the truth lies somewhere between the two. That is true of today's debate.
  The suggestion in the Opposition's motion that ODA funds could ever be raised sufficiently to tackle the immense environmental problems of the third world is a mirage. There is no way in which ODA funds will in themselves meet the tremendous environmental challenges that we face now and will face in the next century.
  Equally, the suggestion that the ODA should use those funds in an environmentally conscious and better way is something that we do applaud, and that is a fact. That approach was begun by my right hon. Friend the Minister's predecessor and has been continued. That is an essential element in the way in which we develop environmentally conscious schemes in the transfer of international resources.
  As we move towards 1992 and the Heads of Government United Nations conference on the environment, we must establish benchmarks for the next century. We should think through the roles of all forms of resource transfer—whether they involve technology, the major United Nations institutions, the World bank, IMF, the European development fund, the cumulative effect of ODA funds across the developed world, or the response within the developing countries themselves—and not pick on the one particular aspect of the ODA's own aid budget. The integration of efforts to overcome the major problems that have been spelt out is a task to which we should all apply our minds.
  With that proviso, I agree that the ODA's budget should be increased. It is effective, and one sees its good effects in different parts of the world. It is logical to argue that, given the same conditions, twice the budget would be twice as effective in terms of the people that aid would reach and the programmes that could be assisted. Our programmes are very successful in assisting the poorest people and the poorest countries of the world in an environmentally conscious way.
  We must press for that element in the transfer of resources to be increased. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister would welcome it if the Treasury could be convinced of that. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have fought, often with our votes, to increase our development programme, and would like to see it increased still further. However, the scale of funding required in terms of technology transfer and the global environment is considerable. Many of us support the idea of a global fund that would assist developing countries to measure up to changes, and the emergence of that point of view at Bergen caused the Americans to back off the joint communiqué.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was critical of power stations, but I fail to comprehend why we should pick on them as symbols of western degradation. If

  273
  the hon. Lady had ever been caught in Khartoum when the power station had broken down and the supply was cut, she would know what it is like for the 6 million people who live in that city. Everything comes to a halt. The heat is intense and the effects are dramatic. Factories stop producing and cotton is no longer spun. We built the original power station in Khartoum, and only restored it so that it would suffer no more brown-outs, to help the economy there. If any economy needs help, that one does—and it has started to recover.
  As to criticisms of the aid and trade provision, its share of the budget is tiny, being only £60 million out of £1.6 billion. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee examined the budget and acknowledged that, under international rules, it had to come under ODA control. We accept that it is one way of assisting British industry and developing countries to obtain the goods that they need. If the hon. Lady thinks that the ATP budget should be scrapped, perhaps she will explain how the environment will be improved if a French, Italian or Japanese company installs precisely the same facility instead. I do not see that there is any direct relationship to the environment.
  My hon. Friend the Minister and others firmly believe that the ATP should not serve as a slush fund for British industry. Other countries, particularly the French and Italians, use their aid budgets, even though they may appear to be a bigger proportion of GNP, much more successfully in promoting their own industries. I suspect that we are rather more puritan in that respect, and we should remain so.
  There are two imperatives for sustainable development. One, which is sometimes misunderstood and is not given sufficient priority is the development of human resources in the developing countries, through education programmes and health. I agree with the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who spoke about population, and said that, unless the population were educated, it was difficult for the people to appreciate the sheer scale of the difficulties caused by excessive population growth in an environmentally unfriendly situation. We want to develop human resources and we also want environmental integrity.
  One of the critical points that my right hon. Friend the Minister made was that we have to have the willing participation of host countries. It is very patronising to hear people talking about "our" rain forests, as if they belonged to us. They do, in the sense that our economy is global, but if the Brazilians talked about "their" coal mines when they were referring to mines in this country, we should be angry. They are not our rain forests, but a part of the world ecology which belong to the country which is sovereign.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) mentioned, unless we have the co-operation of host countries, the prospects for change are difficult.
  Opposition Members have accused us of supporting dictatorships or restrictive regimes, but absolutely the opposite is the case. The World bank and the Foreign Secretary have made it clear that democratic accountability and good government are two of the essentials to ensure that aid transfers function. For example, Burma had had a dictatorial Government for the past 40 years, and not only has it achieved gradual growth of poverty, in a country which is rich in natural resources, but there has been one attempt to overthrow the Government. Burma
  274
  proves that, without legitimate democracy, poverty increases and environmental damage also increases, and it is almost impossible to stop it.
  For example, next-door Thailand has a democracy, and popular pressure has caused them to be more environmentally conscious and to stop plundering forests. What has happened? The SLORC military Government in Burma have granted licences to Thai loggers, who have moved into the Burmese forests and are now extracting trees at three times the rate that they were cut down before, including seed trees, which is environmentally degrading and is almost impossible to contemplate. No amount of aid could possibly help that situation because the developed world has withdrawn its aid programme from Burma, as a mark of its complete indignation and rejection of the human rights record and the standards that the Burmese Government have established. Unless we can establish basic human values and accountable democracy, we cannot begin to operate sustainable aid or protect the environment.
  I am getting all sorts of signals, but I understood that I had a few minutes more before the Front Bench spokesmen speak. I shall not mention commodities and population, but I must raise two other issues—first, debt. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a welcome statement, that we must reconsider debt and especially the debts owed to the Bretton Woods institutions by African countries. We must consider a 10-year moratorium of debt repayments to recreate a breathing space during which we can solve their problems.
  The second issue is military expenditure. The United Nations Development Programme report on human values has carefully given a league table of military expenditure in the developing world. It is clear that many developing countries spend a higher proportion of gross national product on military expenditure than on education, on health or on matching and working with resource transfers from the developed countries. That call comes not only from me—I am not being patronising—but from the UNDP and the various other institutions and from the people of those countries that seek an end to excessive military expenditure to prop up regimes that would be otherwise unsustainable.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the United Kingdom is the world's second largest arms supplier?
  Mr. Lester: Of course, but that does not make the fact that some countries spend excessive amounts on arms any more welcome. I am calling for a reduction in military expenditure, and it should be reduced because the risk, and hence the necessity for such expenditure, is diminishing every day.
  My last point concerns public debate and public awareness. We need to raise the level of public debate in our constituencies and across the country because if we do not, it will be very difficult to bring about changes—to transfer resources and to increase the ODA's budget. In a Harris poll taken for the Centre for World Development Education and the Commonwealth Trust, 86 per cent. of those questioned said that they wanted more news about developing countries. We must meet that need.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley mentioned southern non-governmental organisations. As a result of the intiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister,

  275
  we have managed to establish for the first time a formal north-south quadrilogue so that we can now participate fully on a pan-European basis—across the countries of the Council of Europe and across eastern Europe—in a debate between non-governmental organisations, Governments, local government and Parliaments.
  We now look forward to 1992 and to a restatement of the views expressed in the recent BBC television programme, which was a brave attempt to promote public education and to discuss the problems of the environment and sustainable development—the real challenges of the future. We are now part of a system that will facilitate the work of southern NGOs in partnership with our own NGOs. It will facilitate the work of local government in terms of twinning. It will facilitate the work of Parliament and it will facilitate Government schemes to promote the essential development education without which we cannot proceed with the policy changes that we all seek.
  9.37 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I shall greatly curtail my remarks so that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has a chance to speak for a few moments.
  This is an extremely important debate, in which we have brought together the two most important challenges that face Britain and the rest of the world in the final decade of this century—the need to tackle the problems of the developing nations and the need to tackle environmental problems. In both cases, worldwide action is needed. It is right that the subjects should have been linked in the motion because they bear a close relationship to each other.
  A few weeks ago, I was in Mozambique for a few hours. I saw thousands of people who had left their land and I saw agricultural land lying derelict as a result of the civil war and strife that have tragically afflicted that country for so many years. I saw many people suffering from starvation. I clearly remember the young child who came up to me with what I thought was a doll in her arms; it was actually an almost lifeless baby brother or sister. Pictures of those who suffer such conditions, which are repeated elsewhere in the world, have a tremendous effect when they are shown on television, but when one sees such things in real life, they mean far more—perhaps more than anything else. If we can really justify the amount of overseas aid that we give at present and if we believe that we should not give more, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. Our record brings shame on Britain and on the Government.
  We must do considerably more. We have recognised what needs to be done to tackle the environmental problems that have arisen in this country. Our greed and our industrial capacity have done much to damage our environment over the past 200 years.
  We can see the damage that has been done to the environment in eastern Europe. We can also see the damage that has occurred in the Third world because of the need for those countries to service their debts and feed their populations. The developed world has controlled things for many years. Therefore, we must face the fact that if we are to tackle those problems, we shall have to take extremely difficult decisions.
  276
  The developed nations such as Britain, the United States and Canada must pay to tackle the problems in the United Kingdom, in eastern Europe and in the Third world. We must recognise that damage to the environment, wherever it occurs, recognises no boundaries. We must deal with that problem on a worldwide basis. It is no good stopping the production and sale of CFCs in this country if we allow them to be produced and used elsewhere, because CFCs damage the ozone layer that we all share.
  We must accept that if we are to tackle the problems that will arise because of the Third world's growing need for energy, we must allow those countries to develop a positive policy towards the environment. I attended a conference in Ottawa recently about global warming. We considered charging $10 for every tonne of carbon emitted into the atmosphere or the equivalent of approximately $2 per barrel of petrol. That would allow for the collection of £55 billion a year, which is a substantial amount.
  I could have made many other points if time had permitted. However, I shall say only that we must recognise that we have spent billions of pounds preparing ourselves for an attack from an imaginary enemy in the east, so we should be prepared now to spend a similar amount to tackle the problems facing the Third world and the environment. That is the real challenge and we shall fail our children and our grandchildren if we do not wake up to that responsibility.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want it to be taken as a precedent, but I shall call the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) now.
  9.42 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I promise to be extremely brief, Mr. Speaker, because I understand that both Front-Bench spokesmen want to reply to the debate. This has been an extremely important debate and the Opposition Front Bench are to be congratulated on choosing this subject and on giving it the importance that it deserves. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) is to be congratulated on her excellent speech which I fully support. I similarly support the Opposition motion.
  There will be a demonstration tomorrow on the Albert embankment outside the Montreal protocol meeting about CFCs. Most of the demonstrators, including people from Friends of the Earth and other groups, will be calling for a complete ban on CFC production. I fully support that. That is a crucial decision because we must decide whom we support and consider the environment.
  If we are to ban CFC production completely, as I believe that we should, we must also accept that considerable support must be given to other countries which wish to continue to produce refrigerators and similar products. The technology to produce those goods without CFCs must be transferred to China, India and other countries which need it. If that does not happen, we cannot lecture those countries about producing CFCs while we hold that technology to ourselves and use it as an economic lever against poorer countries and poorer people throughout the world.
  The economic imbalance between countries is at the root of the world's problems. Some Conservative

  277
  Members spoke eloquently and at great length with an inbuilt assumption that resources automatically flow from the richest people in the richest countries to the poorest people in the poorest countries. That simply does not happen, and it has not happened for several hundred years. The resources of the poorest countries have been plundered and taken to the industrial countries, and it is still happening now. The debt crisis means that $50 billion flows north. Economic models have been implanted in the debtor countries by the International Monetary Fund. Schools, hospitals and social services centres are closed, and environmental damage is imposed on those countries by the debt crisis.
  I crave the indulgence of the House briefly to quote from one of my favourite newspapers, the Utusan Konsumer, produced by the Consumers Association of Penang—an excellent organisation which sponsors the third-world network. That newspaper has a full page headed "Dicing with debt". It explains exactly what has been happening in the past 10 years. The real price of sugar has dropped by 20 per cent., linseed oil by 9 per cent., and groundnuts by 9 per cent. The amount of exports required by poorer countries simply to maintain interest payments on the debt has shot up year after year, at the same time as the United States Government are maintaining a massive federal Government spending deficit and promoting massive arms expenditure.
  If we are to sort out the problems of poverty and of the environment, we require a real restructuring of the world's economy. That will not be achieved by imposing a model of market forces on the poorest people in the poorest countries but by paying those people for the products that they produce, not hoarding technological advances for ourselves but sharing and spreading them around the world, and not persuading and pushing countries to revert to monoculture production, which is dangerous and damaging to the environment.
  Much more could be said, and the debate is crucial. I hope that the Government will recognise that cuts in their aid budget show no real concern for the rest of the world and merely demonstrate their meanness towards the rest of the world while promoting an economic policy which continues to promote the flow of wealth from the poorest to the richest.
  9.46 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: Hon. Members who have participated in this excellent debate should be congratulated. I refer in particular to English hon. Members who, as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) rightly said, eschewed other competing attractions. As a Scot, I can only wish the English team well—we are not there any more. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) deserves congratulations not only because he eschewed other attractions but because he was present throughout the debate—on his birthday. All hon. Members appreciate his commitment to this topic.
  The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), having regretted the party political nature of the debate, made the most partisan speech so far. What he said was rubbish. He may not realise it—he may not wish to admit it—but in the last few years of the Labour Government, aid was rising as a percentage of the gross national product, and by 1979 it was more than 0·51 per cent. It is now only 0·31 per cent.
  278
  The Minister has been misusing statistics. In attacking my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), she denied—or pretended to deny—that our commitment to 0·7 per cent. within five years existed, even after I pointed out the error. She then tried to get the best of both worlds by attacking the consequences of our commitment to 0·7 per cent., by saying that it was expensive and profligate. Yet Germany already gives 0·41 per cent., France 0·78 per cent., the Netherlands 0·94 per cent., and Denmark 1 per cent., in all cases with a much healthier gross national product than the United Kingdom. The Government's official development assistance has reduced by a quarter in real terms since 1979. Those are the real facts, not the ones that we got from the Minister and from the hon. Member for Gravesham. Their statistics are not facts.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley referred to the green glossy handbook on the environment and the British aid programme.
  It is, indeed, the pinnacle of doubletalk and contradiction from the Government. Under a smiling and attractive colour photograph of the Minister of State, her foreword reads—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady will have her opportunity to reply. The foreword reads:
  "In the last three years we have given a major boost to environmental issues".
  Later, in what might be considered an unusual bout of honesty, the foreword continues:
  "Words and deeds are sometimes a long way apart".
  Words and deeds are certainly a long way apart under this Government. That is true in relation to pollution, global warming, ozone depletion, the tropical rain forests and Antarctica. The reality of the Government's deeds is a long way from the rhetoric of their words.
  Mr. Rooker: The proof of the pudding is, indeed, in the eating. The report of the National Audit Office on bilateral aid to India has already been mentioned. The Public Accounts Committee took evidence on that issue in February. The report has not yet been published, although the evidence has. Hon. Members who serve on that Committee were extremely surprised to learn that the ODA has only two specialist advisers on environmental matters, who have worldwide responsibilities.
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend has made an excellent point, which does not need any amplification.
  The astonishing theme of the publication to which I have just referred—my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) also referred to it in his excellent speech—is the alleged compatibility of economic development on the one hand, and environmental protection on the other. There is a supposedly effective combination of market mechanisms and regulations. The Government seem to be saying to the developing world, "Fear not, market forces will protect you." That is the astonishing theme of that document. But that is not the experience of the victims of the Bhopal disasters or the Exxon Valdez and Balvia Paraiso oil spillages. Fishermen in many a polluted sea or river have other tales to tell about who discharged the toxic waste and how they need regulations to protect them from free market forces which put the pursuit of profit above all else.
  Sir Ian Gilmour rose—
  Mr. Foulkes: I shall not give way. This has been an interesting debate for hon. Members who have been present throughout, which the right hon. Gentleman has not.
  The principal example with which I shall demonstrate the doubletalk of Toryspeak is their policy towards Antarctica which is the world's only relatively unspoilt continent and has a unique ecosystem. Almost a year ago—on 4 July 1989—I led our opposition to the Government's Antarctic Minerals Bill on the basis that, far from protecting the Antarctic, the Bill represented a prospectors' charter. We supported a proposal from the Australian Government that Antarctica should be designated a world park and kept free from exploration and development. Even then, that proposal was receiving support from France, although the Minister tried to pretend that the opposite was the case. In fact, France is now a co-sponsor of the plan, which also has the support of Belgium, Italy, West Germany and New Zealand, and now even Poland, America and the Soviet Union are having second thoughts about the minerals convention.
  If the Government are really serious about conservation and wish to put the interests of the environment before commercial interests, they will join the growing chorus rejecting the Antarctic minerals convention, and they will join the growing support to establish a world park in Antarctica. I will give the Minister a chance to intervene if she can tell us that at the meeting in Santiago in November the British Government will at the very least support a long-term moratorium on mineral prospecting in Antarctica. Better still, I hope that the Government will take a leading part in supporting the world park plan. The next Labour Government will certainly do so. Moreover, we shall make 0·7 per cent. of GNP our aid target within the lifetime of our Administration after the next election. That is why the people of the third world, as much as the people of the United Kingdom, are waiting, hoping and praying for the return of a Labour Government.
  9.54 pm
  Mrs. Chalker: As always, this has been an interesting debate. In the few minutes available to me I shall try to respond to some of the points that have been raised. I refer in particular to the National Audit Office report on the Indian aid programme, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker).
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) made highly selective references to the NAO report, in particular to the Rihand power station project. I have a copy of the report to hand now, although it was not available to me earlier in the debate. I do not intend to comment in detail on it; the Public Accounts Committee has yet to report. In order, however, to put matters in context, I intend to refer to paragraphs 19 and 20. The National Audit Office found that
  "the Administration"—
  that is, the Overseas Development Administration—
  "have developed sound procedures which their staff operate in a professional and competent manner. Aid projects have certainly produced highly beneficial results in terms of the Administration's objectives.
  Reference is made to the projects in the following paragraph. The NAO says that projects
  "continue to have worthwhile outcomes which have a positive impact on development."
  Despite the fact that it has had problems, Rihand is a highly successful project. We were aware of the ash
  280
  disposal and other problems. That is why I undertook, as soon as I arrived at the Department, to work with the Indian Government on solving them. The most important point abut Rihand is that it will use efficient and clean technology. Anything of that sort that is done must help a nation that is trying hard to help itself to produce, to trade and to earn currency. The hon. Lady ignored the many jobs that are provided both in India, as a result of Rihand, and in this country, in companies that are involved with the project. I reject also as beneath contempt the serious allegations which have no foundation whatever, which the hon. Lady made on other matters.
  As for the environment, we have not heard very much about the non-governmental organisations, but I pay tribute to them for their work on environmental issues. With them, we support 56 environmental projects costing £6 million. They are doing extremely well. Reference has been made to global warming. The Overseas Development Administration has commissioned the only study into the options to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the third world. The ODA has also undertaken a study of the options for phasing out chlorofluorocarbons. Much of the work initiated by my Department lies behind the work now being done on the Montreal protocol.
  In January I made it absolutely clear that western technology needed to be shared with the third world. I said that I was prepared to investigate the use of the aid and trade provision for sharing that technology. That is exactly the way in which the west should help the third world to adopt modern, good and sound technology if we are to reduce the environmental problems that face us.
  I endorse all that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) in his speech on the aid and trade provision. He was absolutely right; I shall not repeat what he said. I congratulate also the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on what he said about the critical importance of population planning. He was right to refer to the importance of women, not just in health, education, housing and welfare. We are pursuing an active programme to enhance the status of women through the development programmes. An excellent Bangladeshi non-governmental organisation has been successful in helping women to achieve investment through credit unions. I recommend to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) the Bangladeshi rural action committee project in Bangladesh.
  We have an excellent programme. We want to do more to help the third world improve the environment through our aid programme. We have a good foundation on which to build. I am determined to ensure that that is successfully carried out, in full co-operation with our partners in the European Community and worldwide through UNDP and all the other good organisations.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 260.

  Division No. 264]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Allen, Graham

  Fearn, Ronald

  Alton, David

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Anderson, Donald

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

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Flannery, Martin

  Ashton, Joe

  Flynn, Paul

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Foster, Derek

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Foulkes, George

  Barron, Kevin

  Fraser, John

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bell, Stuart

  Galloway, George

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

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

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Blair, Tony

  Gould, Bryan

  Blunkett, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Boateng, Paul

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Boyes, Roland

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bradley, Keith

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hardy, Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Buckley, George J.

  Haynes, Frank

  Caborn, Richard

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Callaghan, Jim

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Carr, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Clay, Bob

  Howells, Geraint

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoyle, Doug

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ingram, Adam

  Cousins, Jim

  Janner, Greville

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Crowther, Stan

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cummings, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kennedy, Charles

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kilfedder, James

  Darling, Alistair

  Lambie, David

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lamond, James

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

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dewar, Donald

  Leighton, Ron

  Dixon, Don

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dobson, Frank

  Lewis, Terry

  Doran, Frank

  Litherland, Robert

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Livsey, Richard

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAllion, John

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fatchett, Derek

  McCartney, Ian

  Faulds, Andrew

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  238

  McKelvey, William

  Ruddock, Joan

  McLeish, Henry

  Salmond, Alex

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Madden, Max

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Short, Clare

  Marek, Dr John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martlew, Eric

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

  Maxton, John

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

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Michael, Alun

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Snaps, Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Soley, Clive

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Strang, Gavin

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Straw, Jack

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Nellist, Dave

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

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  O'Brien, William

  Turner, Dennis

  O'Neill, Martin

  Vaz, Keith

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wallace, James

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Parry, Robert

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Patchett, Terry

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Prescott, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wilson, Brian

  Randall, Stuart

  Winnick, David

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Reid, Dr John

  Worthington, Tony

  Richardson, Jo

  Wray, Jimmy

  Robertson, George

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Rogers, Allan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mr. Allen Adams.

  Rowlands, Ted

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Alexander, Richard

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Allason, Rupert

  Butcher, John

  Amess, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Ashby, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Atkins, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Atkinson, David

  Conway, Derek

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Cran, James

  Benyon, W.

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Day, Stephen

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Devlin, Tim

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Body, Sir Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dunn, Bob

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Durant, Tony

  Boswell, Tim

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Evennett, David

  Bowis, John

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Fallon, Michael

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Favell, Tony

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brazier, Julian

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bright, Graham

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  239

  Forman, Nigel

  Key, Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Forth, Eric

  Knapman, Roger

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Franks, Cecil

  Knowles, Michael

  Freeman, Roger

  Knox, David

  French, Douglas

  Lang, Ian

  Gale, Roger

  Latham, Michael

  Gardiner, George

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lightbown, David

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Lilley, Peter

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Lord, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Gorst, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Gow, Ian

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Maclean, David

  Gregory, Conal

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Ground, Patrick

  Malins, Humfrey

  Grylls, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Hague, William

  Maples, John

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Marland, Paul

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Marlow, Tony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hannam, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

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

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Harris, David

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hayes, Jerry

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hayward, Robert

  Mills, Iain

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Moate, Roger

  Hill, James

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hind, Kenneth

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Morrison, Sir Charles

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

  Moss, Malcolm

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Norris, Steve

  Hunter, Andrew

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Irvine, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Paice, James

  Jack, Michael

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Jackson, Robert

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Janman, Tim

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jessel, Toby

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Price, Sir David

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Redwood, John

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  240

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Riddick, Graham

  Sumberg, David

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Summerson, Hugo

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Rost, Peter

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Ryder, Richard

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Thurnham, Peter

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Tracey, Richard

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Trippier, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shelton, Sir William

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Walden, George

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Ward, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Warren, Kenneth

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wells, Bowen

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Whitney, Ray

  Speed, Keith

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilshire, David

  Squire, Robin

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wood, Timothy

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stern, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mr. Nicholas Baker and

  Stokes, Sir John

  Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Division No. 265]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Allen, Graham

  Barron, Kevin

  Alton, David

  Beckett, Margaret

  Anderson, Donald

  Bell, Stuart

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  281

  Blunkett, David

  Janner, Greville

  Boateng, Paul

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Boyes, Roland

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Bradley, Keith

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Lambie, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Lamond, James

  Buckley, George J.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Caborn, Richard

  Leighton, Ron

  Callaghan, Jim

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Lewis, Terry

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Litherland, Robert

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Livingstone, Ken

  Canavan, Dennis

  Livsey, Richard

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Carr, Michael

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  McAllion, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Clay, Bob

  McCartney, Ian

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Cohen, Harry

  McKelvey, William

  Coleman, Donald

  McLeish, Henry

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Madden, Max

  Corbett, Robin

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Marek, Dr John

  Cousins, Jim

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Cox, Tom

  Martlew, Eric

  Crowther, Stan

  Maxton, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Meale, Alan

  Cummings, John

  Michael, Alun

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Dewar, Donald

  Morley, Elliot

  Dixon, Don

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dobson, Frank

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Doran, Frank

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mullin, Chris

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Nellist, Dave

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Eastham, Ken

  O'Brien, William

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Fatchett, Derek

  Parry, Robert

  Fearn, Ronald

  Patchett, Terry

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Pike, Peter L.

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

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Flannery, Martin

  Prescott, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Foster, Derek

  Randall, Stuart

  Foulkes, George

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Fraser, John

  Reid, Dr John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Richardson, Jo

  Galloway, George

  Robertson, George

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Rogers, Allan

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Rooker, Jeff

  Gould, Bryan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Graham, Thomas

  Rowlands, Ted

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Salmond, Alex

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Grocott, Bruce

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Henderson, Doug

  Short, Clare

  Hinchliffe, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hood, Jimmy

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

  Howells, Geraint

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

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Snape, Peter

  Hoyle, Doug

  Soley, Clive

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Stott, Roger

  Illsley, Eric

  Strang, Gavin

  Ingram, Adam

  Straw, Jack

  282

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

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

  Wilson, Brian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Winnick, David

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Turner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Vaz, Keith

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wallace, James

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Mrs. Llin Golding.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Forman, Nigel

  Alexander, Richard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Allason, Rupert

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Amess, David

  Franks, Cecil

  Arbuthnot, James

  Freeman, Roger

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  French, Douglas

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Gardiner, George

  Ashby, David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Gill, Christopher

  Atkins, Robert

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Atkinson, David

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gow, Ian

  Bendall, Vivian

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Benyon, W.

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gregory, Conal

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Ground, Patrick

  Body, Sir Richard

  Grylls, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hague, William

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Boswell, Tim

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hannam, John

  Bowis, John

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

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Harris, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Hayes, Jerry

  Bright, Graham

  Hayward, Robert

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

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Butcher, John

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hill, James

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Cash, William

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Irvine, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Jackson, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Janman, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jessel, Toby

  Dunn, Bob

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Durant, Tony

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Key, Robert

  Evennett, David

  Kilfedder, James

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Fallon, Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Favell, Tony

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Knowles, Michael

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Knox, David

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lang, Ian

  283

  Latham, Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Page, Richard

  Lightbown, David

  Paice, James

  Lilley, Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Lord, Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Pawsey, James

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Maclean, David

  Portillo, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Price, Sir David

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Redwood, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Mans, Keith

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Maples, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Marland, Paul

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Marlow, Tony

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Rost, Peter

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Rowe, Andrew

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Ryder, Richard

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Mills, Iain

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Shelton, Sir William

  Moate, Roger

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Moss, Malcolm

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Needham, Richard

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Neubert, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Squire, Robin

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  284

  Steen, Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Stern, Michael

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Ward, John

  Stokes, Sir John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Sumberg, David

  Wells, Bowen

  Summerson, Hugo

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wood, Timothy

  Thurnham, Peter

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Trippier, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Trotter, Neville

  Tom Sackville and

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholas Baker.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes the high quality of the Government's substantial and growing aid programme; commends the Government for its efforts to integrate environmental concerns to achieve sustainable development; and applauds its actions and proposals to help developing countries tackle both local and global environmental concerns.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Pakistan Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day

  Pakistan Bill [Lords]
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The Bill welcomes Pakistan back into the Commonwealth. The first conference following the readmission of Pakistan to the Commonwealth, which was attended by representatives from Pakistan, was opened by Mr. Speaker, being the Commonwealth conference on delegated legislation. The conference is held about every five years and is concerned with the scrutiny of delegated legislation passing through the various commonwealth legislatures. As chairman of the conference, and as the United Kingdom was its host, I was pleased to welcome a delegate from Pakistan who played a useful part in providing the conference with information about the scrutiny of delegated legislation in that country.
  The conference examined the scrutiny of delegated legislation. Many other Commonwealth countries have had far more comprehensive powers of scrutiny than we have in our legislature. The Commonwealth has some good examples of how the delegated legislation committee can invoke powers to stop abuses by Ministers, as sometimes occurs in our legislature.
  It was a good conference and Pakistan took its first step back into the Commonwealth by attending it. It was a coincidence that the conference took place then, but Pakistan's move was welcomed by delegates from other Commonwealth countries, more than 30 of which were represented. On that basis—I am sure that the whole House approves—I welcome the Bill's Third Reading.
  10.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I am glad that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) joins the others who have welcomed the Bill, as does the whole House. I assure him that nothing in the Bill affects the procedures of scrutiny of legislation in either the British or Pakistani Parliament. I hope that the House will give the Bill a good Third Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  Killingbeck Hospital (Heart Surgery)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the subject of Killingbeck hospital and heart transplants. I raise the issue, which is a Yorkshire and Humberside regional matter and not a constituency one, because it relates to the provision of heart transplant services in the Yorkshire region. I am involved because a friend whose young daughter recently had a heart transplant asked me why Killingbeck hospital in Leeds was not designated as a regional heart transplant centre.
  Killingbeck hospital was the first paediatric cardiology unit in the country. Since it was designated as a centre for child heart surgery it has built up quite a reputation and one would have thought that it would therefore have become a designated centre for heart transplants. A tremendous amount of skill and expertise has been built up at the hospital in the past few years, and it can offer as good a service as anywhere else in the country.
  The facilities that have been built up at Killingbeck hospital are first class, as is the surgeon, Mr. Duncan Walker. It also has facilities that one would not usually expect. For instance, it has a bungalow in which parents can stay overnight or for extended periods when their children are undergoing heart surgery. Most of the cost of those facilities comes from charitable donations. Yet the Government have refused to recognise Killingbeck as a heart transplant centre and have even criticised the unit for carrying out transplants. As I hope to show today, that means that the Government are, in effect, criticising Killingbeck hospital for saving lives.
  At present, the designated centres for child heart and lung transplants are Great Ormond street hospital in London, Harefield hospital and Freeman hospital in Newcastle, although at present Freeman hospital has no programme of heart transplants for children and Harefield hospital is not itself a designated centre. Technically, therefore, Great Ormond street is the only hospital which can offer that service.
  There is a tremendous shortfall in the provision of this acute medical service for people in Yorkshire, Humberside and the north midlands. Great trauma surrounds heart transplant surgery. Apart from the obvious trauma of one's child or relative having to undergo such surgery, there are the added strains and stresses placed on parents who have to visit units for assessment over three to six weeks before an operation takes place. The patient has to spend about eight weeks in intensive care after the operation. Following that, the patient has to visit the hospital twice and sometimes three times a week. That all adds to the pressure placed upon parents. In addition, there is the problem of arranging time off work and travelling, with the associated costs, so as to be near children undergoing this type of surgery.
  A letter was sent to the consultant surgeon at Killingbeck hospital by a couple whose child had a heart and lung transplant. The letter has been passed to me. In it the parents said that they supported the surgeon at Killingbeck. They said that their daughter, Debbie, had a heart and lung transplant at Harefield hospital on 18 October 1985. Unfortunately, the child died in 1986. They

  287
  had to go to Harefield hospital because no other transplant centre was available. In the letter, the parents said that it was extremely good of the surgeon at Killingbeck to stick his neck out and do such operations locally. The couple spent nearly four months at their daughter's bedside. She received extremely good care and attention, but they were 200 miles from home and from their family and relatives and the young child was away from her brother. That illustrates the type of problems experienced by parents in such cases.
  The expectations of parents and children in Yorkshire and Humberside should be the same as those of parents and children in any other area of the United Kingdom. They should have access to a local heart transplant centre, and Killingbeck should be the designated centre for that type of surgery.
  The Northern general hospital in Sheffield has been designated as a heart transplant centre for our region. I believe that that hospital has carried out one heart transplant so far and has stated that surgeons at the hospital would not have attempted heart surgery on a three-year-old child. Sheffield hospital has little expertise or experience in this field of surgery. Killingbeck, however, is an experienced centre for child heart surgery. The Freeman hospital in Newcastle has carried out heart transplants but currently has no programme for heart transplants on children. It is interesting to note that Freeman hospital has carried out heart transplants even though it was not a regionally recognised centre. The Government in their wisdom decided that it would be designated as a heart transplant centre and it is continuing with its programme.
  The Leeds general infirmary has been mooted as a possible successor to Killingbeck, and it has been agreed that facilities at Killingbeck should be transferred to Leeds. It seems that the Leeds general infirmary is being set up as a centre to opt out of the national health service. Facilities have been transferred to that hospital even though they are already in situ at Killingbeck, whose expertise could be broken up by a transfer to Leeds. Already there are reports of surgeons leaving Killingbeck because of the doubt and uncertainty surrounding that hospital. I have also been told that nurses at Killingbeck are wary of transferring to a hospital where late shifts could mean being in the city centre late at night. It is a glaring omission that Killingbeck has not been designated as a transplant centre. The political ideology reflected in the transfer to Leeds general infirmary will lessen the service and will cost lives in Yorkshire and Humberside.
  The Government maintain that, by taking hearts and other donated organs, Killingbeck is reducing the supply to the national network. Before its current programme, the Leeds hospital donated hearts to the national network, but when it began its heart transplant programme it used organs which had been donated locally. The Government maintain that Killingbeck is threatening the national donor scheme by not offering those organs nationally, but if Killingbeck did not have its own heart transplant programme, those organs would not have been donated. It is only as a result of increased awareness that the number of organs donated has increased. If Killingbeck did not use the heart and lungs donated to it, they would be wasted. Hearts have been offered to Harefield and to Great
  288
  Ormond street and have been refused, either because there was no surgeon to carry out the operation or, surprisingly, because no recipient was available.
  On the reverse side of the coin, organs have been donated to Killingbeck through the national network despite the fact that it is not a regional centre. One young chap, Stephen Hollis, is alive today with a new heart and lungs because Killingbeck was ready and willing to undertake a transplant operation when the heart and lungs became available through the national network after being turned down by the two other national centres.
  The French experience shows that when one moves from a centralised national system to a regional system, the number of donated organs increases dramatically. Harefield is not a designated heart transplant centre—it has simply carried out such operations in the past—but the Government have not complained that it is undermining the national scheme or doing anything wrong. Why is Killingbeck treated differently?
  Killingbeck hospital is clearly increasing the number of organs available for transplant as a result of its programme. It is essential that that programme should be encouraged to continue and that the hospital should be designated as a transplant centre. I ask the Governnment to recognise Killingbeck as a transplant centre mainly for child heart transplants. That hospital, with its wealth of expertise, cries out to be made a designated centre.
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on raising this important issue about the long-term future of Killingbeck hospital. He has clearly shown the extent to which the hospital and its staff are a national asset and resource.
  I want to ask the Minister one or two questions and to ask him to consider one or two of the issues raised by myself and my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Minister will accept that the work of Duncan Walker and his colleagues at Killingbeck hospital is of high repute. It has put Leeds on the map and it is good for Britain and the NHS.
  There is widespread concern in Leeds that a team with such a reputation of excellence is in danger of being broken up. I hope that the Minister, with his responsibility for the NHS, will be able to assure us tonight that he will make every effort to ensure that that team stays together so that its excellence and expertise are available to all NHS patients. It would be a great pity if those skills were lost to the national health service or, as seems likely, to this country. What steps will the Minister take to ensure the future of the team that has developed so well under Duncan Walker at Killingbeck hospital?
  My next question arises from the confusion felt by many of my constituents and by most residents in Leeds. A decision has been made, which I am not criticising, to develop certain facilities at Leeds general infirmary. At the same time, facilities at Killingbeck, which have an excellent reputation and record, are to be closed. In doing that, the regional health authority has also sanctioned a decision to put extra money into Killingbeck in the short term. It seems strange that a good team and a good hospital should be threatened with closure, while at the same time more money is to be put into that hospital in the

  289
  short and medium term. Surely the logic that flows from that decision is to keep the hospital open and, above all else, to keep Duncan Walker's team working there.
  The Minister should look again at the future of Killingbeck hospital. I can tell him from my local knowledge and experience that it has a great deal of public support and sympathy, and the people of Leeds would like the Minister to reconsider the hospital's future, keep the hospital open, and keep Duncan Walker's team working there.
  There is much pressure to bring a regional heart centre to Leeds, and I am sure that the Minister relates to that. But in the shorter term, we also want assurances about Killingbeck's future. I hope that the Minister will agree tonight to consider that issue and that he will return with a positive answer.
  10.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on creating the opportunity to debate the issue that he has brought before the House this evening, and the hon. Member for Barnsley, Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on his contribution. I am conscious that they have raised a matter of considerable concern to people in Leeds and more widely throughout Yorkshire, who understandably want the undoubted cardiothoracic skills in the Leeds area developed.
  I am more than happy to acknowledge that Duncan Walker is a distinguished surgeon and that his team has done a great deal of valuable work at Killingbeck hospital. However, the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central made it clear that he was prompted to raise the issue after a conversation with a friend that concentrated on the particular question of developing transplant surgery at Killingbeck. The hon. Gentleman described it as not a constituency but a regional matter. I shall try to explain to him and to he House why the Department does not regard transplant surgery even as a regional matter but one properly ordered on a national basis, and why that is in the interests of heart transplant patients generally in Yorkshire, like everywhere else.
  Before doing so, I may say that a considerable expertise in cardiothoracic surgery has been developed in the Leeds area, and the Government are anxious to see it increase still further. There is more than one reason why. We recognise that heart disease occurs more extensively in Yorkshire than elsewhere in the country. That clearly establishes the need for a proper regional centre of expertise in general cardiothoracic care—I am not talking at the moment about transplant surgery, to which the regional health authority has demonstrated a real commitment.
  In 1988, the authority set up a review of the arrangements for cardiothoracic surgery in the county, and it decided that two major sites should be developed. I understand that there is little disagreement about the site which should be developed in the eastern side of the region, and that Castle Hill hospital was decided upon. There was somewhat more discussion about precisely where the centre for the western side of the country should be based.
  The regional health authority asked the Leeds hospitals to provide alternative proposals for the development of an area facility for the western side of the region by March
  290
  1990. In response to the proposals made to it, the authority recently decided that the best course of action open to it was to develop a major new facility at Leeds general infirmary.
  In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point about why the region is apparently committed to the closure of Killingbeck hospital—although that decision has not yet been taken—two points have to be made. First, any impartial analysis would recognise that Killingbeck hospital does not have the highest standards of physical accommodation. There is a desire that the new facilities should offer the highest standard of accommodation possible. That is why the scheme that the regional health authority is promoting now involves the expenditure of £16.8 million to provide the new facility as part of the phase 1 development of Leeds general infirmary, which has a total budget of some £56 million. That is a major commitment of health service money to the development of cardiothoracic care in the Leeds area.
  As regards the future of Mr. Walker's team, it seems inconceivable to me that anyone planning the future of cardiothoracic care in West Yorkshire would be seeking to do so without a role for the expertise that Mr. Walker has developed.
  Although, understandably, the hon. Member asked why there was not a role for Killingbeck, the answer is that the regional health authority and the people directly involved in the field in Leeds have considered the available options, and have concluded that the best interests of patients in the area are served by developing cardiothoracic care at Leeds general infirmary, and have provided a substantial investment budget to back up that commitment.
  Mr. Illsley: Could the Minister give an indication of the Government's attitude to Leeds general infirmary's designation as a transplant centre? Assuming that there was a complete transfer of Duncan Walker's unit from Killingbeck, what would be the status of the LGI?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has neatly anticipated the matter that I was about to deal with. I wanted to set the context of general cardiothoracic care in the county, to underline the recognition that such care is really needed in Yorkshire, and that the region and the health service plan to meet that need.
  Mr. Fatchett: Before the Minister moves on to that point, could he make the position clear about the development of the Leeds general infirmary? Will he tell us what action he will take to ensure that Mr. Walker and his team have a future role of some significance in its development?
  Mr. Dorrell: I am not sure that it is open to me to do that. Clearly, it will be for the managers of the infirmary and for Mr. Walker to agree the terms under which Mr. Walker might work in that context. I am not sure that it would be sensible for me, in the House of Commons, to seek to determine a contract between a man and a manager whom I have never met. As I have said, it seems to me inconceivable that someone should seek to develop cardiothoracic care without using the resources that have been developed at Killingbeck hospital.
  Let me deal now with the question of heart transplant surgery and the way in which we seek to develop the management of that facility within the service. I think that

  291
  it is important to recognise that the national health service seeks to develop heart transplant surgery as a national facility, rather than—as the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central suggested in his opening remarks—purely a local one. It is not realistic to suggest that heart transplant surgery should be available, within a local heart transplant service, to every heart transplant patient around the country.
  Heart transplant surgery is still a relatively new branch of surgery and, as the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central stressed, involves considerable trauma for the patients concerned. The heart transplant programme started with a grand total of three operations in 1979, and by 1988 had expanded to 375. Until this year, it has been carried on in four designated centres. The hon. Gentleman listed a number of names, and not everything that he said about the designated centres was precisely correct. So that there should be no misunderstanding, let me make it clear that the four centres which, until this year, have been designated centres for heart transplant surgeries are the Freeman hospital in Newcastle, Papworth hospital, Harefield hospital and the Wythenshawe hospital in Manchester. Great Ormond street does some operations in association with Papworth; they are counted as one designated centre.
  On the advice of the appropriate committee, the Secretary of State has recently designated two new centres for heart transplant surgery—St. George's in London and the Northern general hospital in Sheffield. It has also been made clear that heart transplantation in young children is still regarded as very much an experimental course of treatment and that heart transplant surgery on young children should be concentrated, within the designated sites, on the Great Ormond street hospital in London and the Freeman hospital in Newcastle. Even within the limited programme of designated sites, our policy is to seek to concentrate heart transplant surgery for children at two of the six.
  Mr. Illsley: But as Killingbeck has now carried out five heart and lung transplants on children as young as three, the Government ought surely to consider Killingbeck as a designated centre along with the Freeman hospital in Newcastle. Moreover, I understand that at present the Freeman hospital has no programme of child heart transplants.
  Mr. Dorrell: The Secretary of State has chosen to designate those sites because child transplant surgery is
  292
  regarded as an experimental course of treatment. Given the high-tech nature of the treatment, and as it is still regarded as experimental and therefore relatively high-risk surgery, all the evidence suggests that it is good management for us to concentrate the resources on a few centres and to seek to develop in those centres teams of particular expertise, rather than encouraging the development of teams offering such treatment on a more general basis around the country.
  We do not have, and do not seek, the power to interfere with clinical judgments. But we have, and we seek to use, the power to encourage the concentration in regional centres because we believe that that is the best way of facilitating an effective heart transplant programme. The object of the arrangements is to foster the planned development of services, including the concentration of services at a limited number of sites, because we believe that it is in the best interests of patients to do so. The policy is based on evidence that success rates in complex therapeutic procedures or in managing rare conditions depends on the number of operations or therapies performed. In simple terms, centres with a large throughput get the best results.
  Other countries have experienced a proliferation of activity; the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) referred to France. In France and elsewhere, there has been a proliferation of activity, with many small units doing too little work to achieve the best results from that course of treatment. It is not unfair to say that those countries look with envy at our heart and liver transplant programme and regard it as a role model for them to emulate.
  The arguments for concentrating services apply with particular force to heart transplants, because the units depend on the supply of a scarce resource. The success of the British organ sharing arrangements depends on priority being given to designated units.
  The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central referred to organ availability. We have set up elaborate arrangements to try to ensure that organs are passed on as quickly as possible when they become available. Only by concentrating around the arrangements that have been created will the NHS have the best opportunity of delivering the most effective heart transplant programme that can be engineered. That is my objective and I am sure that it is the objective of the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central. The arrangements that we have put in place are the best way to deliver that objective.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

WALES

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many relatives of glaucoma sufferers in each district health authority area in Wales received free eyesight tests in each quarter of 1988–89 and in each quarter of 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 type within district health authority areas.

  Schools (Mid Glamorgan)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he has any plans to help fund the replacement of dilapidated temporary classrooms with permanent structures in Mid Glamorgan;

  (2) what plans the Welsh Office has for helping Mid Glamorgan county council to meet its ongoing annual commitment on repairs and maintenance of the county's schools;

  (3) if any provision will be made for the captial building programme to provide funds to replace any of the Mid Glamorgan schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Local education authorities are responsible for the provision, repair and maintenance of their schools. As in previous years the level of potential capital investment for 1990–91 is sufficient to enable all Welsh education authorities, including Mid Glamorgan county council to continue to meet their obligations according to their own priorities. Nationally the 1990–91 capital settlement included an allowance of £53.7 million

  Consultants in post as at 30 September1

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  19893

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  Clwyd

  6

  5·4

  6

  5·9

  6

  5·9

  6

  5·9

  6

  5·9

  7

  6·9

  East Dyfed

  7

  3·2

  7

  3·3

  8

  3·9

  8

  4·3

  8

  3·7

  7

  4·1

  Gwent

  6

  5·7

  7

  7·0

  7

  7·0

  7

  7·0

  7

  7·0

  7

  7·0

  Gwynedd

  6

  3·0

  6

  3·2

  7

  3·1

  7

  3·1

  7

  3·1

  7

  3·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  9

  8·5

  8

  7·8

  9

  8·8

  10

  9·8

  11

  10·8

  11

  10·4

  Pembrokeshire

  2

  2·0

  2

  2·0

  2

  2·0

  2

  2·0

  3

  3·0

  3

  3·0

  Powys

  5

  0·5

  5

  0·5

  5

  0·8

  5

  0·5

  4

  1·0

  8

  0·3

  South Glamorgan

  8

  6·4

  8

  6·6

  8

  6·6

  8

  6·6

  9

  7·6

  10

  8·2

  West Glamorgan

  6

  4·6

  6

  5·5

  6

  5·5

  6

  5·5

  6

  5·5

  7

  7·0

  Wales2

  44

  39·3

  44

  41·8

  46

  43·7

  47

  44·7

  50

  47·7

  53

  50·1

  1Excluding locums.

  2Individual authority numbers will not add to Wales total as consultants working in more than one authority are counted in each.

  3Provisional.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria have been used by his Department to determine how sums of money allocated to support the all-Wales strategy for mental illness should be distributed.
  124
  for education, a 60 per cent. increase over the equivalent 1985–86 figure. Mid Glamorgan had its fair share of that allowance.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the circulars and other documents of guidance he has issued on the workings, implementation or interpretation of the Children Act 1989 in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The following documents have been issued in Wales:

  Circulars
  Welsh Office Circular 62/89: the Children act 1989: Notice of Royal Assent and the provisions to take immediate or early effect.
  Welsh Office Circular 10/90: Training Support Programme 1990–91—Children Act 1989.
  Welsh Office Circular 12/90: The children Act (Admission of Hearsay Evidence) Order—Statutory Instrument 143/90.

  Other Documents
  Children Act 1989: Training Together—Training and Curriculum Model.
  An Introduction to the Children Act 1989.
  The Care of Children: Principles and Practice in Regulations and Guidance.
  Consultation Paper No. 1—Secure Accommodation (Guidance and Regulations.)

  Obstetricians
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many consultant obstetricians are employed by the national health service in Wales; and what is the number on a full-time equivalent basis(a) in Wales and (b) in each district health authority in Wales in the current year and in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Grist
  The available information, which relates to consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology, is given in the following table:

  Mr. Grist
  Allocations are made on the basis of individual county plans, having regard to their quality and the extent to which they are in line with the principles of the all-Wales strategy. Allocations for the current year have been targeted particularly to help establish the
  125
  essential infrastructure for the new patterns of services, including the development of community mental health teams, the provision of accommodation and of community-based services such as drop-in centres.

  Determined

  Dismissed

  Undetermined

  1989

  1990

  1989

  1990

  1989

  1990

  Snowdonia NP

  Meirionnydd

  18

  11

  14

  8

  2

  7

  Dwyfor

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Arfon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Aberconwy

  6

  6

  2

  6

  0

  6

  Montgomery

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Brecon Beacons

  Dinefwr

  1

  2

  1

  2

  0

  5

  Brecknock

  13

  17

  10

  13

  0

  11

  Cynon Valley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Blaenau Gwent

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Torfaen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Monmouth

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  4

  Pembrokeshire Coast

  South Pembrokeshire

  10

  9

  6

  6

  2

  9

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  7

  7

  5

  7

  2

  10

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Poverty
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of United Kingdom bilateral aid was allocated to poverty alleviation, for the most recent three years available, using the same criteria used for the figures supplied by the Overseas Development Agency in the NAO report, "Bilateral Aid to India", fig. 2, page 10.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Figures for expenditure on poverty alleviation for the bilateral aid programme overall are not available. The figures for India supplied to the NAO by the Overseas Development Administration related to specific projects in the housing, welfare, education and renewable natural resources sectors which were regarded as being for direct poverty alleviation.

  Poverty alleviaton is an important objective of the aid programme and is pursued indirectly through support for sustainable economic growth and by direct action. Projects and programmes supported with aid vary in the extent to which they contribute directly to poverty alleviation. It is not possible to collate meaningful statistics on expenditure that can be categorised as concerned with poverty alleviation and that which cannot.

  European Development Fund
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to how many ecologists are employed at the European development fund and as to how many administrative staff are employed to deal specifically with environmental issues.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There are seven staff in the environmental unit within DG VIII, which is responsible for the

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, column 472, if he will give for each year and each district the number of planning appeals (a) determined, (b) dismissed and (c) undetermined.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is set out in the following table:

  administration of the European development fund. There are two administrators responsible for environmental policy; an ecologist with responsibility for the relevant budget line; two foresters (both seconded to the Commission as "national experts", one from the United Kingdom); and two support staff. The unit is able to call on additional assistance as required from DG XI, which has responsibility within the Commission for environmental matters.

  Climate Change
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the contributions by the United Kingdom and other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development donors to assist developing countries to participate in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  Mrs. Chalker
  According to the report of the IPCC special committee on the participation of developing countries (June 1990), the following contributions were received in 1989 from OECD members other than the United Kingdom:

  Equivalent in Swiss francs

  Australia

  $ 15,175

  24,963·05

  Canada

  C$ 11,000

  14,519·50

  Denmark

  $ 5,000

  7,550·00

  Finland

  $ 5,000

  7,950·00

  France

  FF 100,000

  25,303·00

  Federal Republic of Germany

  SFr 43,750

  43,750·00

  Japan

  $ 50,000

  75,500·00

  Netherlands

  $ 25,000

  40,250·00

  Norway

  $ 15,000

  25,050,00

  Switzerland

  SFr 55,000

  55,000·00

  United States of America

  $ 120,000

  199,500·00

  127
  The United Kingdom paid £50,000 (approximately equal to SFr 129,400), making us the second largest contributor in 1989. This year, we have offered a further £25,000.

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, 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.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: In common with many other Government-funded institutions, including national museums and galleries, the natural history museum is now expected to develop its ability to attract non-Exchequer revenue. The work referred to in Malaysia and Cameroon yields no financial remuneration to the museum, and the museum authorities consider that it will be more appropriate to develop research projects in those countries in collaboration with the ODA's executive agency—the Natural Resources Institute—and with other external funding agencies. I shall be keeping in view the museum's progress to that end, but I have no plans at present to discuss the matter with the French and West German Governments.

  Mr Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: My Department is not funding any work in Surinam on shield-bugs, nor is it commissioning any research on coccids. There are specialists on both insect groups working at the natural history museum for the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International's institute of entomology, without any duplication of effort as the range of insect species is so vast. I do not anticipate that the planned staff reductions at the museum will have a serious impact on agricultural development programmes supported by the United Kingdom. However ODA's Natural Resources Institute will be continuing to discuss with the museum and the institute of entomology the future of taxonomic and identification needs in support of agricultural development and pest management programmes funded by my Department.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Iraq
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether trade protocols one, two and three with Iraq contained any military components, explosives or propellants.

  Mr. Redwood
  The British exporters supplying goods to Iraq under the 1983–1986 financial protocols were of course responsible for applying for obtaining export 128
  licences for controlled goods in the normal way, and were required to confirm that the relevant Government approvals had been obtained.

  Film Industry
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on assistance to the British film industry.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government provide support of £1.5 million a year through British Screen Finance Ltd. for feature film production, together with a further £0.5 million a year for short films and script development. Our present five-year commitment to British Screen is due to expire at the end of this year, but we announced in July 1989 that funding will continue at the present level of £2 million a year for a further three years, until the end of 1993.

  We announced on Friday 15 June that the Government would in addition provide £5 million over the next three years to provide pump-priming finance to support producers seeking to enter European co-production. We also announced a range of other measures including the setting up of a working party to be chaired by my Department to look at the structure of the film industry and how to attract greater private sector finance into United Kingdom film production, and to report back in the autumn.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received in opposition to the Exchequer subsidising the British film industry.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department has received no representations in opposition to the Exchequer subsidising the film industry.

  Civil Servants (Workplaces)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessments under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations have been undertaken at all workplaces used by civil servants in his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  My officials have carried out the assessments required under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations in all workplaces occupied by the Department, in accordance with the guidance issued by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has anything to add to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 387, in respect of solid fuels.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department does not use solid fuels.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 383, about energy consumption, if he will give the square footage of office space to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The energy consumption figures relate to the total space of 5.8 million square feet occupied by the Department, including office space, specialised and storage buildings.
  129
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in the latest available year.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: In past years, responsibility for such investment has been divided between the Property Services Agency and the Department, with the result that this information could be assembled only at disproportionate cost. However, it is being collected for future years.

  Stock Group (Channel Islands) Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what authorisations were granted by his Department for the activities of Stock Group (Channel Islands) Ltd.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Stock Group (Channel Islands) Ltd. has never received authorisations from the Department. It has carried on stockbroking business in the United Kingdom by virtue of its membership of the international stock exchange until the entry into force of the Financial Services Act on 29 April 1988 and thereafter through authorisation from the Securities Association.

  Dunsdale Securities
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether Dunsdale Securities made annual returns of audit certificates for each year it had business authorisation from his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958, audit certificates in support of an application for a licence to deal in securities were not required until Aptil 1983 when revised licensing regulations were introduced. After that date each application and monitoring return submitted by Dunsdale Securities was duly verified by an auditor.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Closures
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in respect of each of those local education authority-maintained single-sex schools in South and West Yorkshire which have been closed since 1985, he will list (i) the gender of pupils, (ii) the maintaining local authority and (iii) the number of pupils on roll and physical capacity of the school at the most recent convenient date before closure.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is given in the table. Information on school capacity is not available centrally. There have been no closures of single-sex schools in South Yorkshire since 1985.

  Pupils on roll in January preceding closure date

  Local education authority

  Boys

  Girls

  Calderdale

  The Heath School

  345

  —

  The Princess Mary School

  —

  368

  Brighouse Girls Grammar School

  —

  712

  Hipperholme Grammar School1

  377

  1

  130

  Pupils on roll in January preceding closure date

  Local education authority

  Boys

  Girls

  Rastrick Grammar School

  339

  6

  Leeds

  Moor Grange Boys High School

  98

  —

  West Park Girls High School

  —

  93

  St. Michael's RC College

  364

  —

  Notre Dame High School

  —

  396

  1 Became an independent school in September 1985.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in respect of each of those local education authority-maintained single-sex schools in(a) the former county of West Midlands and (b) Tyne and Wear which have been closed since 1985, he will list (i) the gender of pupils, (ii) the maintaining local authority and (iii) the number of pupils on roll and physical capacity of the school at the most recent convenient date before closure.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is given below. Information on school capacity is not available centrally. There have been no closures of single-sex schools in Tyne and Wear since 1985.

  Pupils on roll in January preceding closure date

  Local education authority

  Boys

  Girls

  Birmingham

  Erdington School1

  —

  529

  Alderlea School

  55

  —

  Longmeadow School

  —

  73

  Selly Oak School

  97

  —

  Coventry

  Cardinal Wiseman Roman Catholic Secondary School for Boys1

  717

  —

  Cardinal Wiseman Roman Catholic Secondary School for Girls1

  —

  961

  Dudley

  Old Swinford Hospital School2

  544

  —

  1 Closed for the purposes of amalgamation.

  2 Became a grant-maintained school in September 1989.

  Scientists
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the meeting of the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) with Professor Duff and representatives of British scientists abroad.

  Mr. Jackson
  I met Professor Michael Duff on 20 June. The main points which I made at our meeting were set out in Department of Education and Science press notice 202/90, dated 20 June, in which I pointed out that:Science is international, and it is highly desirable that scientific careers should include experience of working abroad.
  No single country in the modern world can afford first class facilities in every branch of science—and the British Government are actively promoting the development of first-class research facilities in selected areas in Britain, through:

  (a) an overall increase in the science budget—up 27 per cent. in real terms since 1979;

  (b) the development of specialist "interdisciplinary research centres"; and

  (c) the more selective allocation of university research funding by the UFC.

  The "brain drain" is a field in which anecdotes are drawn upon for lobbying purposes, but in which facts are hard to

  131
  come by. The only overall statistics which are available are those collected by the universities and published in the Universities Statistical Record. These show (a) that there has been a net inflow of academic staff into British universities from abroad in every year since 1983; and (b) that there tends to be a net inflow at the professional level, indicating a net gain in quality. This conforms with the finding of the 1987 Royal Society study of the brain drain, that there was a broad balance between the outflows and inflows of scientists from Britain.
  The Government accept that the Universities Statistical Record data may not provide a complete picture. This is why I asked the CVCP last year to conduct a review. In the meantime, however, I stressed that, in determining public policy it is better to make use of such information as is available rather than simply to ignore it.
  Not all British post-doctoral scientists can, or should, expect to find jobs in British higher education. At least a third of those whose council-funded research studentships ended in 1988 proceeded to work in British industry and public service—and more should do so. Meanwhile, the proportion of "Post Docs" going abroad has fallen from 35 per cent. in 1963 to 12 per cent. in 1988. Recent data from the United States National Science Foundation show that, while the numbers of scientists immigrating into the United States from abroad increased by 19 per cent. between 1984 and 1987, the numbers from the United Kingdom decreased by 6 per cent. during that period.
  The USR statistics do not support recent suggestions that there is an "internal" brain drain from the universities into other employment within Britain. They indicate that, in each year since 1983, there was a net inflow of university staff from industry/commerce and public service.
  Finally, I suggested to BSA that they should reflect on the implications of their statements for the image and self-image of British science. International comparisons of scientific publications suggest that Britain remains second only to the United States in world science—a position it has maintained throughout the 1980s. I suggested that there is something profoundly wrong with a style of lobbying for public expenditure that leads self-appointed spokesmen for British science to run down their country's scientific achievements and prospects.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the applications for grant-maintained school status notified to his Department from within the seven counties of the south-west.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Of the 54 proposals for GM Status that have so far reached my right hon. Friend for a decision, he has approved 44 schools. The approvals include seven schools in the south-west. Three schools in that area had their applications rejected. The list of applications is as follows.

  List of schools in the seven counties of the south west who have applied for grant-maintained status

  County and School

  Application Details

  Avon

  Beechen Cliff School, Bath

  Approved, now incorporated.

  Dorset

  Bournemouth Grammar School

  Approved for incorporation on 1 September 1990.

  Foster's Grammar School for Boys' Sherborne

  Rejected.

  Lord Digby's School for Girls, Sherborne.

  Rejected.

  Devon

  Colyton Grammar School

  Approved, now incorporated.

  Gloucestershire

  Ribston Hall High School, Gloucester

  Approved, now incorporated.

  132

  County and School

  Application Details

  Marling School, Stroud

  Approved for incorporation on 1 September 1990.

  Stroud Girls' High School

  Approved for incorporation on 1 September 1990.

  Pate's Grammar School, Cheltenham

  Approved for incorporation on 1 September 1990.

  Highwood, School, Nailsworth

  Rejected.

  Currently, no schools in Cornwall, Somerset and Wiltshire have applied for GM status.

  Computers
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of the school timetable on average English school pupils spend using computers.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is not available.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has anything to add to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 392, in respect of solid fuel.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. The Department does not occupy any accommodation which consumes solid fuel.

  Assessment Tests
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what restrictions he has placed on the circulation within the National Foundation for Educational Research of its work on standard assessment tests commissioned by his Department.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  None.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the cost of each of the pilot assessments for seven-year-olds.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Separate figures for the costs of the pilot assessments are not available. However, the pilots were mounted by the three agencies undertaking the development of standard assessment tasks for seven-year-olds in the core subjects as one aspect of their contracts for this work with the School Examinations and Assessment Council. The total provision made in the School Examinations and Assessment Council's published corporate plan for the continuation of these contracts in 1990–91 is £2.5 million.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list by individual subject the key phases of the national curriculum which will be introduced in September 1990.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  National curriculum subject requirements will be introduced with effect from 1 August 1990 for key stages as follows:

  Key stage

  Pupils aged

  Subject

  1

  ⅚

  Technology

  2

  ⅞

  English

  133

  Key stage

  Pupils aged

  Subject

  Mathematics

  Science

  Technology

  3

  11/12

  English

  Technology

  Last year, English, mathematics and science were introduced at key stage 1, starting with five to six-year-olds. Mathematics and science were also introduced at key stage 3 last year, starting with 11 to 12-year-olds.

  In addition, national curriculum subjects must be taught for a reasonable time as follows:

  Key stage

  Pupils aged

  Subjects

  With effect from

  1

  ⅚–⅞

  All

  1 August 1989

  2

  ⅞–11/12

  3

  11/12–13–14

  English

  1 August 1990

  4

  14/15

  Mathematics

  Science

  Assessment Tests
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer of 20 June,Official Report, column 558, what assessments of each of the pilot studies of standard assessment tests at age seven years are to be made by bodies which are independent of the agencies which developed the pilot studies.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Responsibility for evaluation rests with the School Examinations and Assessment Council which will collect common data about the performance of the SATs used in the pilot assessments from each of the SAT development agencies, and which will report to my right hon. Friend in due course.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Civil Servants (Appointments)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what civil service guidelines lay down concerning civil servants becoming company directors prior to the termination of employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The civil service pay and conditions of service code states that civil servants may not accept a directorship, except as a nominee of the Government or with the express permission of the permanent head of their Department, in any company holding a contract with their Department. More generally, the code provides that civil servants must not subordinate their public duties to their private interests, and must avoid conflicts of interest.

THE ARTS

  Film Industry
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what responsibilities fall to him with regard to the British film industry; and if he will make a statement.
  134
  Mr. Luce
  My Department funds both the British Film Institute and the national film and television school. I also take the lead in co-ordinating Her Majesty's Government's views on the Commission's proposals for a MEDIA programme designed to strengthen the European audio-visual industry.

  Theatres (Audio-description)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps his Department is taking to encourage audio-description in theatres.

  Mr. Luce
  The Arts Council is committed to improving access to the arts for disabled people. As part of its arts and disability initiative, it is encouraging audio-description in all its theatres. From October, the council will be monitoring how its clients are implementing this initiative.

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has had about the circumstances of the redundancy payments to long-employed scholars in the service of the natural history museum in South Kensington.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received no formal representations from trade unions about redundancy payments at the natural history museum. However, I understand that, at a recent meeting between the Office of Arts and Libraries and union representatives, officials of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists outlined their concerns about the museum's proposals, including the nature of redundancy arrangements. My officials have subsequently briefed me on the outcome of this meeting and have discussed a number of the points with the museum's management.

  All questions of staff management such as the circumstances of redundancy payments are the responsibility of the natural history museum's director and trustees.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he has anything to add to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 607, in respect of solid fuel.

  Mr. Luce
  No. No solid fuel is used.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts, pursuant to the answer of 1 May,Official Report, column 475, about energy costs, what is the square footage of office space to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The figures given in the answer of 1 May relate to 14,261.6 sq. ft. of floor space.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Unitary Taxation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last raised the issue of unitary taxation at a European Council of Finance Ministers meeting.
  135
  Mr. Lilley
  The European Community continues to take an active interest in unitary taxation and last June, the Government played a prominent part in the Community demarche on unitary tax to the United States Treasury. In response, the United States Treasury said that the issue of unitary taxation remained of serious concern to the Administration of President Bush and that further progress was required before federal concerns on this matter could be put to rest.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the joint Government and United States administration review on unitary tax will be completed.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is anticipated that the joint review with the United States Treasury on unitary tax will be completed this summer.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what direct action Her Majesty's Government will take to support the efforts of British business with regard to legislation being considered by the Californian legislature on unitary tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government are fully aware of the difficulties which unitary tax still causes for British businesses and fully support further legislative reform in California. In this connection, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote earlier this year to Secretary Brady at the United States Treasury and Governor Deukmejian in advance of a small delegation of senior Government officials to California to assess the situation as part of the unitary tax review.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in negotiating an amendment to the United Kingdom-United States double taxation treaty on unitary tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  The United Kingdom sought such an amendment in the 1970s, only for the United States Senate to refuse to ratify such a provision. The United States authorities have in the last few years made it clear that they were looking for progress towards resolving the unitary tax issue in California rather than at federal level. They have, however, equally made it clear that further progress is required before federal concerns on the issue can be put to rest.

  Save As You Earn
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when save as you earn will be extended to the banks; and on what terms.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed in his Budget that, in addition to the Department for National Savings and building societies, banks may offer SAYE contracts. Provision has accordingly been included in the Finance Bill. Subject to Royal Assent, approved banks will be able to offer SAYE contracts later in the year. The terms of new SAYE contracts associated with approved employee share option schemes, which enable participants to save up to £150 a month to purchase shares in their company, are to be improved at the same time. The bonus paid on completed contracts will be increased from 12 times to 15 times the monthly contribution (when proceeds are taken after five years) and from 24 to 30 times that contribution (when proceeds are taken after seven years).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Eastern Europe
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much food aid has been provided to eastern Europe by the EC and member states so far in the current year.

  Mr. Maude
  The amount of food aid given by the Community to the countries of central and eastern Europe remains as set out in my answer to the hon. Lady's question of 10 May at column 205. In addition, four member states (Belgium, Spain, France and Luxembourg) have together provided some 2,200 tonnes of food aid for Romania, according to information available to the Commission who are co-ordinating western aid to eastern Europe.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the EC Commission's scoreboard of assistance from the G24 countries to Poland and Hungary has been updated since 24 April.

  Mr. Maude
  Yes. The Commission updated the (324 scoreboard of assistance provided by the G24 countries to Poland and Hungary on 18 May. A new version is expected in advance of the G24 ministerial meeting on 4 July and this and any future versions will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has anything to add to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 405, in respect of solid fuel.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No solid fuel is used in office buildings either in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Overseas Development Administration.

  Immigration
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the posts at which delays of more than nine months elapse between receiving applications for entry clearance and first interview taking place.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As at 30 April 1990, overseas posts with estimated waiting times to first interview of nine months or longer are:

  Post and category

  Waiting time (months)

  Bombay

  Settlement reapplicants

  10.0

  Islamabad

  Fiancé(e)s

  10.0

  Settlement reapplicants

  19.0

  Dubai

  Non-resident applicants1

  9.5

  1 Mainly Iranians.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the latest estimated
  137
  waiting times for interviews in all categories of applicants for entry clearance at posts on the Indian subcontinent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As at 30 April the estimated waiting times (in months) are:—

  Settlement

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Islamabad

  3

  6

  10

  19

  Karachi

  1

  3

  3

  6

  Dhaka

  3

  3

  3

  9

  New Delhi

  0

  3

  5

  8

  Bombay

  1

  6

  9

  10

  Madras

  All settlement applicants 2 months.

  Calcutta

  No settlement queues.

  Setlement queues are organised as follows:

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

  Q2. All spouses, and all children under 18 years.

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

  Q4. Re-applicants.

  Visitors
  Due to seasonal high demand applicants for visit visas in Islamabad requiring a full interview can expect to wait up to five days. Elsewhere they are dealt with on day of application.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the present estimates, when he expects the main queues of those applying for entry clearance to the United Kingdom from the Indian sub-continent will be cleared; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not possible to forecast how many applicants will apply for settlement entry clearance in future years nor therefore to predict the length of settlement queues.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he takes to ensure that claimants of social security benefits are fully informed as to their entitlements.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government's policy on take-up of benefits is set out in the White Paper on the Government's expenditure plans 1990–91 to 1992–93, chapter 14, paragraph 27, which is in the Library.

  B1 Form
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what mistakes were found in the revised and printed B1 form which led his Department not to issue it; how much was spent on the withdrawn B1 form; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No mistakes were found in the April 1990 version of form B1, and it was distributed in the normal way. No stocks have been withdrawn.

  Benefit Claimants
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what type of assistance would be available to a claimant who, about to start work and unable to manage 138
  until they get their first week's wages, approaches a local social security office, as suggested in the revised UB40/UBL18, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Since income support is normally paid fortnightly in arrears, an unemployed person has two weeks' benefit on which to manage until he receives his first wage. Nevertheless, if a person runs out of money and there is serious risk to his or his family's health or safety, a crisis loan from the social fund may be made.

  Pensioners
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those pensioners who have recently retired are receiving income from occupational pensions or savings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available figures show that in 1987, 90 per cent. of those pensioners who had recently retired1 had income from either occupational pensions or savings or from both of these income sources.
  Source: 1 Family expenditure survey.
  "recently retired" includes those pensioners within five years of pensionable age.

  EC Citizens
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if any record is maintained of the sums paid out from his Department's offices to EC nationals and the citizens of overseas territories of EC member states.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No record is kept of the total sums paid by the Department to EC nationals and the citizens of overseas territories of EC member states.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many executive officers there are in his Department's office in(a) Caernarfon and (b) Porthmadog; how many of these, respectively, are Welsh-speaking; how many new appointments have been made during the past 12 months to such posts in each office; and how many of these new appointments are Welsh-speaking.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Caernarfon local office has 16 executive officers in post, of whom 10 are Welsh-speaking. No new executive officer appointments were made during the past 12 months.

  The Porthmadog local office has 14 executive officers in post, all Welsh-speaking. One new appointment was made during the past 12 months.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instruct his Department's office at Clarence road, Manchester, to reply to the letters of 28 February, 2 April and 3 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. B. P. Madden, 4 Barnesdale close, Manchester.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The manager of Longsight local office has written to the right hon. Member on 25 June in reply to his letters of 28 February, 2 April and 3 May on behalf of Mr. B. P. Madden of 4 Barnesdale close, Manchester. I very much regret the uncharacteristic delays by the local office in responding to the correspondence.

  Income-related Benefits
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether a person who deprives himself of a substantial amount of capital is entitled to receive an income-related benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Where the independent adjudicating authority decides that a person has deprived himself of capital for the purpose of receiving an income-related benefit, regulations provide for him to be treated as notionally still possessing that capital, Benefit may be payable, however, if the total capital, including any notional capital, that he possesses does not exceed the capital limit for that benefit. As my noble Friend Lord Henley announced in another place on 25 June, regulations are to be introduced into all the income-related benefits from October to provide for the phased reduction of the national capital according to the circumstances of the particular case.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will break down into the different benefits the extra £100 million which is being spent in real terms on income-related benefits in comparison with the old scheme.

  Individuals in lowest quintile of income distribution showing proportion living in households receiving benefits by family type of benefit unit 1979

  A. Lowest quintile before housing costs

  Percentage receiving:

  Supplementary benefit

  Other income-related benefit

  Other benefit (mostly retirement pension and child benefit)

  No benefit

  Total

  Married pensioners

  25

  50

  25

  0

  100

  Single pensioners

  45

  35

  20

  0

  100

  Married with children

  15

  15

  70

  0

  100

  Married without children

  20

  25

  20

  35

  100

  Single with children

  65

  10

  20

  0

  100

  Single without children

  40

  15

  25

  20

  100

  TOTAL

  29

  25

  41

  5

  100

  B. Lowest quintile after housing costs

  Percentage receiving:

  Supplementary benefit

  Other income-related benefit

  Other benefit (mostly retirement pension and child benefit)

  No benefit

  Total

  Married pensioners

  25

  55

  20

  0

  100

  Single pensioners

  55

  30

  15

  0

  100

  Married with children

  15

  15

  70

  0

  100

  Married without children

  20

  25

  20

  35

  100

  Single with children

  75

  10

  15

  0

  100

  Single without children

  40

  15

  25

  20

  100

  TOTAL

  31

  25

  39

  5

  100

  Notes:

  1. Figures for individual family types are rounded to nearest 5 per cent. Figures may not add to 100 per cent. because of rounding.

  2. SB: Supplementary Benefit; RP: Retirement Pension; CB: Child Benefit.

  3. Benefit receipt is to the household as a whole. Thus, for example, where two or more benefit units are sharing a household, all household members would be shown in the supplementary benefit column if any of them was receiving supplementary benefit.

  4. Figures are according to the definitions used in "Households Below Average Income".

  5. People receiving more than one relevant benefit appear in the first appropriate column.
  140
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government's estimates of expenditure in April 1988 suggest that overall expenditure on weekly benefit payments in the pre and post-reform schemes was broadly the same. However, owing to the very different nature of the two schemes, and subsequent improvements in the benefit system, straightforward comparisons between overall expenditure on income-related benefits under the old and new schemes have become less meaningful with the passage of time.

  Family Incomes
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)Official Report, 3 May, column 653, what proportion of the lowest quintile were dependent on social security benefits broken down by family type and type of benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is set out in the tables.

  The tables show the proportion of people in the lowest quintile in 1979 who were in households receiving the various benefits. The tables do not show what other sources of income may have been received by these households.

  Social Security Benefits
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently receiving family credit or income support in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 20 June 1990]: The figures requested are set out in the table.

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  Strathclyde

  Scotland

  Income Support1

  16,076

  275,812

  490,067

  Family Credit2

  883

  14,995

  36,000

  1 Data are derived from a 100 per cent. count of cases in action in May 1990, which include a number where benefit payment has ceased but other action is continuing and are provisional and subject to amendment.

  2 Number of families receiving Family Credit in Greenock, Port Glasgow and Strathclyde on 1 June 1990 ie excludes awards on claims made before that date but not decided at that stage. For Scotland caseload is as at the end of March 1990, including backdated awards and is therefore provisional. Information on this basis is available only for Scotland as a whole.

  Home Visits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many home visits, excluding those made for the purpose of investigating suspected fraud, were made per 1,000 claimants for the latest year available.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: In the year 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990, 149–34 home visits were made per 1,000 income support claimants. Specialist visits, including those for the purpose of investigating suspected fraud, have been excluded from the calculation.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases awaited determination before the immigration appeal tribunal as at 31 May or the nearest available date.

  The Attorney-General
  As at 22 June 1990, 237 cases awaited determination before the immigration appeal tribunal.

  Factortame
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the juridical implications of the ruling of the European Court of Justice in Factortame.

  The Attorney-General

  The Context

  Owners and operators of certain fishing vessels formerly registered as British have claimed that some of the registration conditions contained in part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 are incompatible with Community law. They have applied to the High Court for judicial review.

  The divisional court has referred the relevant questions of Community law to the European Court of Justice for a ruling. But the applicants also asked the divisional court for interim relief to protect their claimed rights in the meantime, by disapplying the relevant provisions of the Act pending final judgment.
  142
  The Secretary of State for Transport has opposed this application strongly.

  The divisional court decided to grant the interim relief that was asked for. It ordered that the relevant part of the 1988 Act should be disapplied, so as to allow all previous registrations to remain in effect pending the European Court's ruling.

  The Secretary of State appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed that order, and the House of Lords upheld the Court of Appeal. It held that, as a matter of national law, the divisional court had no jurisdiction to make any such order.

  The House of Lords itself, however, referred to the European Court the separate question whether in the circumstances of the case Community law either obliged the national court to grant interim relief by suspending the application of a national measure, or alternatively gave it power to grant such interim protection of the rights claimed; and, if so, upon the application of what criteria.

  The immediate effect

  The United Kingdom argued before the European Court that Community law neither obliged nor enabled a national court to grant interim relief suspending the application of a national measure where the national court was debarred by national law from doing so. The court has, however, ruled that, where a national court would have granted such interim relief in order to protect directly effective Community law rights had it not been for a rule of its national law prohibiting it from so doing, it must as a matter of Community law set aside that rule.

  In consequence the application for judicial review now returns to the English courts for decision as to whether interim relief should now be granted and, if so, on what terms. The Secretary of State will make submissions as to the general criteria to be applied and will argue strongly that interim relief ought not to be granted in the present case; but since the matter is sub judice it would be wrong to say more. Meanwhile, the practical position as regards fishing rights remains unchanged pending resolution of this issue.

  The juridical significance

  When a country joins the Community it is obliged to reconcile its constitution, whether written or unwritten, with Community membership. It has to provide for the application of Community law within its territory, which means providing for Community law to have supremacy over any conflicting provisions of its own national law.

  Community law requires that directly effective Community law rights must be fully and uniformly applied in all the member states. If the provisions of any national law might prevent, even temporarily, Community rules from having such force and effect as Community law requires, national courts shall be able to set them aside. This requirement derives from article 5 of the treaty of Rome. It is Parliament that has given effect to requirements such as this, by means of the provisions of section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972:
  "All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties, as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom shall be recognised and available in law, and be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly; …"

  In Factortame the Court of Justice held that the full effectiveness of Community law would be impaired if a

  143
  jurisdictional rule in the law of a member state prevented its national courts from granting interim relief so as to preserve directly effective rights claimed under Community law, where the national courts would otherwise consider it appropriate to do so. The House of Lords is accordingly now under a Community law obligation to give effect to the ruling, because that ruling is automatically brought into English law by the operation of section 2(1) of the 1972 Act. Moreover, by virtue of section 2(4) of the Act, Parliament has provided that an Act of Parliament such as the 1988 Act is to be construed and have effect subject to the obligations and powers which arise under section S2(1):
  "[S2(4)] … and any enactment passed or to be passed, other than one contained in this Part of this Act, shall be construed and have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this section …"

  Finally, it is important to note that the ruling of the Court of Justice applies equally to the national courts of every member state.

SCOTLAND

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how his Department intends to monitor the quality of training provided by LECs.

  Mr. Lang
  It will be for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise respectively to monitor—through regular data returns and visits—the quality of training delivered by the local enterprise companies in their areas. The Scottish Office will monitor the performance of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise in carrying out this task.

  Trials (Angus Sheriff Courts)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases did not proceed to trial on the day allocated in Angus sheriff courts; and what assessment he has made of the ability of Scottish courts to cope with the volume of business they are currently undertaking.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  During May 1990, 29 summary trials did not proceed on the day allocated, seven due to lack of court time and 22 for other reasons. The ability of Scottish courts to cope with business is kept under continuous review.

  Brook Advisory Centres
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make additional funds available to the Brook advisory centres in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Brook advisory centre in Scotland receives grant assistance from the Scottish Home and Health Department towards the administrative costs of its all-Scotland education activities. For 1990–91 the centre has been awarded a grant of £6,700. No representations have been received regarding the level of grant and all the available resources have been fully allocated.

  Civil Servants (Workplaces)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessments under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations have been undertaken at workplaces used by civil servants in his Department.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Responsibility for undertaking these assessments in the Scottish Office and for acting on the results has been delgated to heads of divisions and professional units. Because the performance of many diverse tasks is relevant, and because the responsibilities often in practice overlap with other management responsibilities no attempt is made to maintain central records of the issues that have arisen.

  Rents-to-mortgages Scheme
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there are any plans to extend the rents-to-mortgages scheme to new town properties in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The rents-to-mortgages scheme has been available to tenants of development corporations and Scottish Homes since its introduction in 1989.

  Privacy
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement in respect of his response to the recommendations of the committee on privacy and related matters so far as they affect Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In his statement on 21 June, at columns 1123–24, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary expressed the Government's warm welcome for the general approach taken in the report of the committee. The committee concluded that existing civil law remedies against press intrusion offences were adequate in Scotland, and it endorsed the Scottish position on the identification of victims of crime. The committee noted that some of the most serious forms of press intrusion might be subject to criminal proceedings under Scots common law. As recommended by the committee, we shall consider whether any extension of the law of Scotland is required in respect of the three new criminal offences proposed by them.

  Sheriff Officers
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sheriff officers operating under section 7 of the Law of Distress Amendment Act 1888, and certificated by a sheriff principal, are operating in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. The Law of Distress Amendment Act 1888 does not extend to Scotland.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many certificated sheriff officers are operating within the courts in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Sheriff officers are not certificated. They hold commissions from sheriffs principal and as at 1 January 1990 there were 191 individuals with commissions. An individual can hold commissions for more than one sheriff court area.

  Capital Assets
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the regions which have now completed their register of capital assets; and if he will give the number of entries made on each register.

  Mr. Rifkind
  All health boards are currently working towards the completion of asset registers.

  Sewerage
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to make any funds available to Scottish regional and islands councils for expenditure on sewerage improvements.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Government are committed to further improving the quality of our rivers and coastal waters. There are pressing needs for new and upgraded sewage treatment and disposal facilities to meet European Community bathing water and other environmental standards and Scotland is disproportionately affected. Accordingly, I have decided, subject to the necessary legislation and in due course the approval by Parliament of funds, to make available to regional and islands councils a capital grant of £130 million over three years for works on sewerage, sewage treatment and disposal to reduce pollution or otherwise benefit the environment. The amounts available, at a grant rate of 75 per cent. on eligible works, would be £30 million in 1991–92, £45 million in 1992–93 and £55 million in 1993–94.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the new system for home improvement grants will come into operation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: No date has been set for the introduction of a new improvement grant system in Scotland. The Government's proposals for reform of the present system were set out in a consultation paper which received many constructive comments. These are being considered fully as details of the proposed new system are developed. It is our intention that a further consultation paper will be issued before legislation to reform the system is placed before Parliament.

  Table 1: Training Measures

  (a) Spending £ million

  (b) Number of participants1

  (i)

  (ii)

  (i)

  (ii)

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91 (estimate)

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91 (estimate)

  Youth Training Scheme2

  93·416

  102·445

  102·690

  96·570

  37,102

  39,543

  35,497

  n/a

  Adult Training3

  20·094

  12·379

  3·242

  —

  43,406

  37,845

  n/a

  —

  Community Programme4

  138·600

  n/a

  —

  —

  37,182

  12,903

  —

  —

  New Job Training Scheme4

  2·490

  n/a

  —

  —

  11,600

  6,946

  —

  —

  Employment Training5

  —

  46·777

  124·100

  145·000

  —

  28,528

  55,311

  n/a

  Business Enterprise Programme (outwith Employment Training)6

  —

  —

  0·331

  0·265

  —

  —

  1,802

  1,876

  Community Industry

  5·591

  6·275

  6·425

  6·625

  1,441

  1,577

  1,560

  1,550

  n/a=not available

  1 Number of participants means number of entrants to the programmes or number of starts in training as appropriate.

  2 This covers YTS, and in 1990–91 Youth Training. The expenditure figures do not include elements of National Providers Unit expenditure paid for from a GB budget.

  3 Adult Training includes the original Job Training Scheme, Training for Enterprise, Access to Information Technology, Self Standing Work

  Social Workers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to how many extra social workers and support staff are being appointed and what training provisions have been made to implement the community care programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: No information is kept centrally as to the number of extra social workers or support staff being appointed by local authorities specifically for community care, but the total number of staff on a whole-time equivalent basis employed by local authority social work departments increased from 32,453 in October 1987 to 35,228 in October 1989.

  In order to ensure that local authorities and other agencies will be equipped to undertake their new responsibilities anticipated in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, the Scottish Office has funded the university of Dundee to provide a training programme for key members of staff in the social work departments and the other agencies involved in community care for a three year period from 1990, with a possible extension to five years. Discussions are also being held with officials of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Dundee university and the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work on ways of providing short-term training for the staff immediately involved in establishing the new community care procedures and the production of a training pack for use by local authorities in training the wide variety of staff involved in community care.

  Training
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the spending and (b) the number of participants in each of his training and employment measures in (i) the last three years, (ii) the current year and (iii) projections for the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Information about projected numbers and spending on training and employment measures in Scotland for the next three years is not available. For the last three years and the current year, it has not been possible to provide all the information requested in precisely the form required. In so far as data are available, they are set out in the tables:
  147
  Preparation and Training linked to the Community Programme. The 1989–90 expenditure is residual and includes Community Programme and New Job Training Scheme.

  4 The Community Programme and New Job Training Scheme ended in August 1988 and 1988–89 expenditure cannot be broken down below GB level. Numbers of participants for 1988–89 are until the end of August 1988.

  5 This programme took over from Adult Training, Community Programme and the New Job Training Scheme on 2 September 1988. The expenditure figures do not include elements of National Providers Unit expenditure paid from a GB budget but do include expenditure on Community Opportunities. These figures include an element for trainee allowances.

  6 This programme started at the same time as Employment Training.

  Table 2: Training Measures

  (a) Number of starts/projects

  (b) Expenditure £ million

  Financial year

  Options

  2 (Business skills seminars)

  2 (Growth programme

  3

  4

  5

  Business Growth Training

  i 1987–88

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1988–89

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1989–90

  6,704

  43

  207

  10

  2

  0.913

  ii 1990–91 (estimate)

  7,137

  60

  133

  13

  10

  4.408

  Notes:

  This programme started on 11 April 1989

  Option 1: Business Kits—no separate Scottish figure available. Paid for from GB budget.

  Option 2: Business Skills Seminars and Growth Programme.

  Option 3: Managing Business Change Projects.

  Option 4: Joint action on Skills Programme.

  Option 5: Innovation and Technology Programme.

  Table 3: Employment measures

  (a) Spending (£ million)

  (b) Numbers of participants1

  (i)

  (ii)

  (i)

  (ii)

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91 (estimate)

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91 (estimate)

  Jobclub

  1·000

  1·961

  2·192

  2·319

  14,568

  18,733

  20,820

  n/a

  Restart courses

  1·262

  0·710

  0·735

  0·710

  7,113

  6,957

  7,362

  n/a

  Jobstart

  0·682

  0·453

  0·685

  0·455

  1,493

  1,466

  1,890

  n/a

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme

  17·417

  17·234

  14·834

  13·349

  9,689

  8,494

  6,972

  6,606

  Sheltered Employment

  3·369

  3·752

  4·497

  5·971

  2,373

  2,457

  2,598

  n/a

  n/a=Not available.

  Note:

  1 Number of participants means entrants for the Enterprise Allowance Scheme, starts for Restart courses, acceptances for Jobstart, throughflow for Jobclubs and filled places for Sheltered Employment.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that access funds are sufficient to meet the applications of all entitled students.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 June 1990,]: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced on 26 March 1990, Official Report, column 34, the Government have increased to £20 million the access funds available for higher education, making a total provision—including £5 million for the further education access fund—of £25 million in 1990–91. The purpose of this increase is to give the higher education institutions greater scope for extending discretionary assistance on a flexible basis to their students, notably those facing relatively high accommodation costs.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of each of the access funds associated with the student loans scheme has been allocated to him to disperse.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: My right hon. and learned Friend has made provision for a total of £2.1 million to be distributed to non-university institutions of higher and further education in Scotland in 1990–91.
  148
  The breakdown of this figure between the three funds is as follows:

  £ million

  Postgraduate Fund

  0·26

  In Scope of Loans Fund

  1·10

  Further Education Fund

  0·76

  12·1

  1 Rounded.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what guidelines about entitlement he has established for access funds in Scotland;

  (2) whether any categories of application for access funds will have priority funding.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Subject to the terms of the necessary regulations, a statement of the terms and conditions for the payment of access funds, together with associated guidance notes, will be prepared. It is intended to issue these to grant-aided colleges, education authorities and further education colleges in Scotland during July. Individual institutions will be entirely free to manage the administration of their share of the access

  149
  funds in accordance with those terms and conditions and to determine the priority to be afforded to any particular category of applicant.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions have been held between the Scottish Education Department and education institutions about access funds; and what was the outcome of the talks.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Officials of the Scottish Education Department have held discussions with representatives of the Conference of Scottish Centrally Funded Colleges on the proposal to introduce access funds, with particular reference to the position of the Scottish grant-aided colleges. Similar discussions have been held with representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland in relation to further education colleges in Scotland. These discussions were necessarily of a preliminary nature. It was made clear that the detailed provisions of the access funds would be set out formally in advance of their introduction in Session 1990–91.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what administrative procedures he has established to allocate access funds in Scotland;

  (2) what action he is taking to ensure that access funds are available at the start of the academic year.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The level of resources for access funds to be allocated to each grant-aided college in Scotland will be determined by my right hon. and learned Friend, broadly on the basis of the number of full-time students in attendance at that institution. A similar allocation system will apply to each further education college in Scotland, taking account of the numbers of full-time students aged 19 and over.

  Subject to the terms of the necessary regulations, payment of access funds' allocations will be made so that they are available for distribution by institutions with effect from 1 September 1990.

  Lord Advocate (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the dates when the Lord Advocate was abroad on official business during the present parliamentary Session.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate was abroad on official business on the following dates:

  21 to 26 January 1990

  4 to 6 March 1990

  12 to 27 April 1990

TRANSPORT

  Aircraft Fleets
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to amend the system of certification for work on existing aircraft fleets to deal with new acquisitions.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Civil Aviation Authority has the statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of civil aviation, and the certification of aircraft is part of the regulatory process. There is no reason for the Department to interfere.
  150
  I understand that any aircraft coming on to the United Kingdom register of aircraft has to meet the full requirements of the air navigation order for both initial issue and renewal of its certificate of airworthiness. Aircraft not on the United Kingdom register which are used by British operators may be leased only from states which are signatories to the convention on international civil aviation and which thus comply with the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

  Bus Companies (Subsidies)
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove of 19 June on subsidies to bus companies, what is the present annual cost to public funds of subsidies to bus companies in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Freeman
  We estimate that some £6.6 million in fuel duty rebate was paid to bus companies in Greater Manchester in 1988–89, and some £30,000 in rural bus grant. In addition, the passenger transport executive made direct subsidy payments to bus companies for running socially necessary services of £10.7 million; they also gave support to the bus industry in other ways such as the provision of bus stations and publicity for timetables.

  Aircraft (Counterfeit Parts)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a study of the use of counterfeit parts in commercial and private aircraft with landing rights in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It would be quite impracticable to investigate the service history of the thousands of aircraft which may land in the United Kingdom in order to study the possible use of counterfeit parts; it would be a gross intrusion into the responsibilities of the states of registry of the aircraft concerned; the industry is well aware of the problem and is taking effective steps to combat it; and the Civil Aviation Authority, which has the statutory responsibility for the regulation of civil aviation, is also aware of the problem.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the relationship between civil aircraft accidents in the United Kingdom, or over United Kingdom airspace, and the use of bogus or faulty replacement parts.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the safety data analysis unit of the Civil Aviation Authority, which has been keeping the relevant statistics since 1976, that there have been no accidents to public transport aircraft in any way related to unauthorised parts.

  There have been seven accidents to private aircraft after which the investigation discovered unauthorised parts, but these were not directly the cause of the accidents. Three of the aircraft involved were light aeroplanes, three were microlight aeroplanes and one was a light helicopter.

  Airport Maintenance Engineers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss the resources being devoted
  151
  to the Civil Aviation Authority inspectorate for work on monitoring the qualifications and resources of maintenance engineers at British airports and the effectiveness of the certification process.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority from time to time and discusses, among other things, the Civil Aviation Authority's resources. However, the detailed allocation of those resources is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority, which has the statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of civil aviation.

  Roads
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken since the publication in November 1989 of the National Audit Office report on road maintenance and building.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department has completed preliminary consideration of the recommendations made by the NAO and the accounting officer has given evidence to the Public Accounts Committee. It has already reviewed its quality control reporting procedures. The Department will decide whether further action is necessary when it has received and considered the committee's report.

  A40 Western Avenue
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the estimated cost of the A40 Western avenue improvement scheme in November 1987; and what is the latest estimate for these works.

  Mr. Atkins
  I presume that my hon. Friend is concerned with the scheme to improve the A40 Western avenue at its junction with Long lane. The estimated cost quoted in the Secretary of State's decision letter of November 1987 was £18.2 million (1986 prices). The latest published estimate was £4.1 million (1987 prices). The cost of the scheme has been reassessed, in accordance with the Department's usual practice, before tenders are invited this summer for the first of two major construction contracts. For commercial reasons it is not the Department's practice to reveal such estimates at this stage. An indication of the size of the contract will be given when notice of intention to invite tenders is published in the EC'sOfficial Journal.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions have been reached about conducting heavy goods vehicle and public services vehicle driving tests on Saturdays.

  Mr. Atkins
  The recent 12-month trial has confirmed that Saturday vocational testing is a practical proposition and provides a service that is welcomed by customers. During the year some 4,300 Saturday tests were conducted and the number of centres where the waiting times for vocational tests were at or below four weeks doubled. I have decided to continue the service on a permanent basis and to make it available at all centres where Saturday testing is feasible and there are examiners available.

  EC Transport Council
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the outcome of the meeting of the European Community Transport Council on 18–19 June.
  152
  Mr. Parkinson
  I attended the meeting of the European Council of Transport Ministers which was held in Luxembourg on 18 to 19 June. My hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping was also present.

  I am particularly pleased that the Council adopted a second package of measures which seals the commitment to the liberalisation of air transport in the European Community by the end of 1992.

  The new package builds on the first set of measures agreed in 1987. It contains arrangements for setting fares which introduces an element of double disapproval and simplifies the existing zonal system; further relaxes the limits on capacity sharing; and eases access to the market. The Council accepted the need to deal quickly with predatory practices; agreed principles against which air cargo services should be further liberalised; and agreed to open aviation negotiations with the EFTA countries.

  The Government welcome this second package. We have taken the lead in pressing for maximum progress, and the agreement which we have won will give airlines greater scope to respond to market demands. The way is open for airlines to offer greater choice to consumers.

  On shipping matters, the Council adopted resolutions highlighting the importance of safety on ferries, in the light of recent tragic accidents; and on pollution at sea. It was agreed that a regulation on block exemptions for consortia should be adopted by the end of the year. There were discussions, but no agreements, on cabotage, and on the transfer of vessels between EC registers. The Commission gave a report on implementation of the 1986 measures on liberalisation.

  A conditional agreement was reached by the Council on a further ad-hoc programme to December 1992 to support the development of certain transport infrastructure projects. This is subject to the resolution of outstanding questions on the scope of the programme and the way in which it will be operated.

  On inland transport the Council agreed to abolish minimum hire periods for vehicles without drivers and restrictions on hire of vehicles under 6 tonnes by own account operators. Discussions were held on measures in the event of a crisis in road haulage; road haulage quotas for 1991 and 1992; the maximum length of road trains; road safety; and fiscal harmonisation and the proposed German lorry tax. The Commission reported the state of play in the negotiations between the Community and Switzerland, Austria and Yugoslavia over third country transit.

  Among the items discussed briefly under "Other Business" were air traffic control, transport relations between the two Germanies, European high-speed railways and the alignment of Community and AETR (the European agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport) rules on drivers hours. The Commission responded favourably to a United Kingdom request for regular reports on implementation of EC transport legislation.

  Noise Insulation
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what regulations govern the eligibility of householders for grants to cover the cost of insulation when traffic noise levels exceed 68 decibels.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 govern eligibility for an offer

  153
  of insulation or grant to owners or tenants of dwellings and other buildings used for residential purposes. The criteria in the regulations apply in respect of new or altered roads. There is no provision for insulation against increased traffic noise from existing roads.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total value of insulation work carried out and grants made(a) as a duty under regulation 3 of the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 and (b) as a power under regulation 4 of those regulations, since 1985.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Information on expenditure for noise insulation is not held in the form requested. Since 1985 the total value of insulation work carried out and grants made in respect of the trunk road programme in England is estimated at £7 million. This figure includes insulation provided under regulations 3 and 4 and under regulation 5 against construction noise.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answers of 10 May,Official Report, column 217, and 30 April, Official Report, column 434, about energy consumption, what is the square footage of office space to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Energy consumption and expenditure figures quoted in the answers of 10 May, Official Report, column 217, and 30 April, Official Report, column 434, relate to the total of 3,619,718 sq ft of accommodation occupied by the Department of Transport.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in the latest available year.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Of the order of 10 per cent. of its expenditure on energy is estimated to have been invested by the Department of Transport in energy efficiency measures in 1989–90.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Social Security
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many children claimed under the community grant heading of the social fund from 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990; and of these how many received payment at each of the social security offices in South Down.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  Social Fund Community Care Grants 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  Social Security Office

  Number of applications

  Number of awards

  Ballynahinch

  294

  103

  Banbridge

  734

  433

  Downpatrick

  858

  386

  Kilkeel

  255

  192

  Newcastle

  383

  216

  Newry

  2,432

  1,211

  Total (South Down)

  4,956

  2,541

  Teachers
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision is made under local management of schools for cover teachers in the case of illness; what representations he has received concerning the relationship between this provision and the present practice of employing a substitute teacher on the third day of absence; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Under local management of schools the cost of substitute cover after the 20th day of a teacher's absence because of illness will not be a charge on a school's budget but will be met centrally. The cost of illness cover before this will fall to be met from the school's budget. Where substitute cover would not apply under the normal arrangements and the board of governors of a school has delegated responsibility for managing teacher costs, it is, of course, open to the school to use some of its budget to fund such cover.

  I have received one representation on this matter and have no plans to change the arrangements.

  Privacy
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement in respect of his response to the recommendations of the committee on privacy and related matters so far as they affect Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The terms of reference of the committee did not extend to Northern Ireland. We are considering whether the proposals might be appropriate for introduction in Northern Ireland.

  Terrorist Bomb Damage
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how payments to loss adjusters are calculated in Northern Ireland in respect of terrorist bomb damage.

  Mr. Cope
  Payments made to loss adjusters are in respect of fees. These are calculated in accordance with scales agreed with representatives of companies which act for the Northern Ireland Office in criminal damage claims. The fee payable in each case depends on the amount of compensation determined.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the report he has received from the Standing Advisory commission on Human Rights on religious and political discrimination and equality of opportunity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I am publishing the report today as a command paper (Cm. 1107) and copies have been laid before Parliament.

  The report "Religious and Political Discrimination and Equality of Opportunity in Northern Ireland: Second Report" concluded a major review by the commission of the laws and institutions dealing with religious and political discrimination and equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland. The commission's first report "Report on Fair Employment" was published as a command paper (Cm. 237) in 1987.
  155
  I am grateful to the commission for the considerable effort which has been devoted to the preparation of the report which I regard as a valuable one and a welcome contribution to how human rights might be further protected in Northern Ireland. It would be inappropriate of me to commit the Government to accepting the commission's recommendations before there has been an opportunity for these to be fully considered, but I am firmly committed to eradicating discrimination and ensuring equality of opportunity for everyone in Northern Ireland whatever their religious background. I shall therefore be giving the report and its detailed recommendations the very careful consideration they deserve before reaching any conclusions.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy on the application of the reports of the maternity services advisory committee by health boards.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 June 1990]: The four health and social services boards in Northern Ireland have been asked to ensure that the recommendations made in the maternity services advisory committee reports are taken into account in the planning and organisation of maternity services in their areas.

  Bangor Post-primary School
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reason the South Eastern education and library board excluded all-ability, co-educational and integrated status for the proposed post-primary school for the Bangor area, in their current consultations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: It is a matter in the first instance for the South Eastern education and library board to decide the character and type of post-primary provision which will meet the best

  Percentage of planning decisions made within eight weeks, by planning authority

  Percentages

  Quarter of Decision

  Local Authority

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  4th

  1st

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  1st

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  1st

  2nd

  3rd

  Cannock Chase

  80

  73

  73

  82

  74

  74

  83

  82

  80

  75

  80

  60

  East Staffordshire

  88

  88

  88

  87

  89

  87

  90

  82

  74

  70

  75

  68

  Lichfield

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  54

  66

  53

  73

  66

  59

  57

  63

  57

  Newcastle Under Lyme

  92

  88

  97

  89

  92

  90

  91

  93

  85

  90

  86

  75

  South Staffordshire

  71

  72

  74

  56

  63

  60

  54

  48

  35

  40

  41

  37

  Stafford

  85

  86

  88

  90

  85

  81

  85

  78

  39

  22

  52

  71

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  39

  37

  45

  40

  42

  62

  63

  55

  48

  40

  29

  10

  Stoke on Trent

  74

  68

  76

  64

  67

  66

  73

  70

  69

  63

  63

  22

  Tamworth

  75

  76

  77

  79

  80

  81

  78

  77

  69

  68

  56

  68

  Peak Park1

  55

  54

  59

  58

  57

  68

  55

  49

  49

  51

  54

  38

  n/a=not available.

  1=This includes figures for areas outside Staffordshire.

  Lincolnshire County Council (Planning)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to change the regulations that allow local authorities to give themselves deemed planning consent.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Yes. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South
  156
  educational interests of secondary age children in the Bangor area. The consultation which it carries out in this issue is a matter for the board.

ENVIRONMENT

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have reduced nursery school places by more than 10 per cent. as a result of community charge capping.

  Mr. Portillo
  Although I have no information about whether authorities have reduced their nursery school places, I can say that the Government have proposed to cap only those councils which are budgeting to spend well in excess of what we believe it would be appropriate for them to spend.

  Searches
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the average length of time taken by each of the district councils in Staffordshire to undertake searches for solicitors in the four most recent three-month periods for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chope
  None.

  Planning Decisions
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the percentages of planning decisions made in four weeks, eight weeks, and 12 weeks by each of the district councils in Staffordshire and in the Peak District national park in the 12 most recent three-month periods for which figures are available.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Information on planning decisions made by local authorities is not collated in the format requested. The information which is available is listed in the table.

  Hams (Mr. Steen) on 7 February, Official Report, volume 166, column 638. I am currently considering responses to the consultation paper referred to in that reply.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to intervene in the case of Lincolnshire county council and its plan to grant planning permission contrary to structure plan policy, at
  157
  Surfleet near Spalding without any determination from South Holland district council.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department has issued a direction to Lincolnshire county council under article 14 of the Town and Country General Development Order 1988, preventing the council from deeming itself planning permission for this proposed development without special authorisation from the Secretary of State. A decision will be made in due course on whether to require the council to apply to the Secretary of State for planning permission for the development.

  Councillors (Pecuniary Interests)
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to amend circular 105/73 so as to dispense only those councillors who are not in rent arrears from the obligations and disabilities arising from the pecuniary interest provisions of the Local Government Act 1972.

  Mr. Portillo
  None. We consider that the general dispensation under circular 105/73 does not extend to councillors who are in rent arrears voting on questions relating to such arrears. There is, however, no reason why the existence of arrears, for which there may be a good explanation, should disable a councillor from speaking or voting on other questions of general housing policy.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when and in what manner he expects the London Docklands development corporation to publish its budget for the financial year 1990–91.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The corporation will provide details of its expenditure programme for 1990–91 in its corporate plan to be published in September.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress his Department has made in its re-examination, in relation to the grant-related expenditure assessment for 1989–90, of the standard spending assessment for 1990–91 for Torbay.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made it clear that he is willing to consider any fresh evidence on standard spending assessments before making decisions for 1991–92. Officials are currently discussing with the local authority associations the evidence which has been brought forward.

  Threatened Species
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to secure an EC ban on the transit of threatened species through the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. Such a ban would be inconsistent with the provisions of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora and regulation EEC No. 3626/82.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the achievement of target completion dates in respect of BATNEEC notes for prescribed processes and scheduled processes under the Environmental Protection Bill.

  Mr. Trippier
  The production of BATNEEC notes is proceeding according to the programme for introducing integrated pollution control, a copy of which was placed in the Library on 26 April 1990.

  Particle and Fibre Board Industry
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment(a) if he will list the membership of the working party concerned with the particle and fibre board industry, indicating which members are (i) representatives of HMIP, (ii) representatives of local authorities, (iii) representatives of environmental or community groups and (iv) employed with the particle and fibre board industry; and (b) what criteria he used to determine the membership of the working party.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  (a) The membership of the working party is as follows:

  Dr. M. G. Bigg, HMIP

  Mr. A. S. Fidling, Glyndwr District Council

  Representatives of the particle board and fibre board industry

  Mr. T. Allison

  Mr. K. H. Bryant

  Mr. D. G. Duke-Evans

  Mr. N. F. Hodnett

  Mr. C. P. Towl

  Mr. R. Kenworth

  Mr. A. F. Kerr

  Mr. R. N. Stewart

  Mr. A. Twitchett

  In addition to the working party meetings discussions have taken place between Dr. M. G. Bigg and the following representatives of local authorities whose residents are affected by particle board and fibre board processes:

  Mr. A. Millie, North Devon District Council

  Mr. A. Fuller, Alyn and Deeside District Council

  Mr. S. Fraser, Cullinghame District Council

  Mr. D. Hubbick, Tynedale District Council

  Mr. N. Findlay, Coleraine District Council

  Mr. T. Rose, Sterling District Council

  Mr. A. Fidling, Glyndwr District Council

  In addition a meeting has been held with representatives of the following community groups:

  Central Scotland Environmental Action Group (CSEAG)

  The National Association for the Control of Chipboard Industry Pollution

  Chirk Residents Environmental Group (CREG)

  Mr. A. Fidling, Glyndwr District Council was also present at this meeting.

  (b) HMIP invited the local authority associations, local government professional institutions, and the industry to nominate members to serve on the working party. All the members nominated were appointed.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the terms of reference of the working party concerned with the particle and fibre board industry.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A group is preparing the first draft of the guidance for local authority air pollution
  159
  control of the manufacture of particle board and fibre board. The terms of reference of this group are to determine the appropriate techniques to meet the objectives set down in section 7(2)(a) of the Environmental Protection Bill.

  The objectives are: ensuring that in carrying on a prescribed process, the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost will be used:

  (i) for preventing the release of substances prescribed for air into air or, where that is not practicable by such means, for reducing the release of such substances to a minimum and for rendering harmless any such substances which are so released; and

  (ii) for rendering harmless any other substances which might cause harm if released into any environmental medium.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the re-appointment of the chairman of the London residuary body.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend has today re-appointed Sir Godfrey Taylor as chairman of the London residuary body for a further term from 12 August until 31 March 1993.

  The bulk of the London residuary body's remaining GLC-related property, rights and liabilities were transferred by order to the London boroughs and other functional successors on 30 March. This marked the virtual completion of the residuary body's highly

  Average weekly council rent (£)

  Rent as percentage of average male earnings2

  Rent as percentage of retirement pension

  single person

  married couple

  April 1987

  17·20

  8

  44

  27

  April 1988

  18·82

  8

  46

  29

  April 1989

  20·70

  8

  47

  30

  April 1990

  123·36

  8

  50

  31

  1 Provisional figure.

  2 Full time adult males whose pay is unaffected by absences.

  Frogs
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made so far in Leicester polytechnic's study of the population levels of frogs; when it expects to complete its research; and what assessment he has made of the implications for policy.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The Nature Conservancy Council advises me that it has contracted Leicester polytechnic to update a survey made in the early 1980s into the population status and trends of nine widespread species of amphibians and reptiles, including the common frog. Questionnaires have recently been circulated and the polytechnic is due to report to the Nature Conservancy Council in October.

  World Cup
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with his counterparts in other countries in connection with the monitoring of the behaviour of football fans in Italy for the World Cup competition; and if he will make a statement.
  160
  successful role in relation to the abolition of the GLC. Its main task now is to discharge the responsibilities which it has inherited as a consequence of the abolition of the ILEA.

  The re-appointment reflects the confidence of my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Education and Science, in Sir Godfrey's and his board's ability to complete the residuary body's new tasks by 31 March 1993.

  Council Rents
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the average English council rent level as a percentage of(a) average male earnings and (b) the national insurance retirement pension for a single pensioner and a pensioner couple in each of the years since 1987 for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 June 1990]: Average council rents expressed as a percentage of average earnings and national insurance retirement pension levels are notional calculations. In particular, it should be emphasised that council tenants whose sole income is a national insurance retirement pension would usually qualify for rent assistance through housing benefit and others with incomes from other sources may also qualify. For example, in 1988, 1.3 million retirement pensioners were receiving rent rebate from their local authority; the average value was £17.81 a week for pensioners receiving housing benefit and income support and £12.54 for pensioners receiving housing benefit only.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: I have held a number of discussions with the Italian authorities to assist them in making safety and security arrangements for England's participation in the tournament and for the appropriate monitoring of the behaviour of English supporters.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when officials or Ministers in his Department plan to meet officials of the Football Supporters Association in Italy.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Officials from my Department have had meetings with the Football Supporters Association in connection with the World Cup both in England before the tournament began and in Italy during the England team's stay in Sardinia.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has requested from the Football Supporters Association for use in assessing the behaviour of English football supporters at the World Cup tournament.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I have today given

  161
  to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). My Department has not found it necessary to seek such information from the Football Supporters Association, as officials in Italy during the World Cup are able to provide me with a first-hand assessment.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what aid his Department has granted to the Football Supporters Association towards establishing its football embassy in Italy.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: My Department welcomed the setting up of the Football Supporters Association advice centre in Sardinia in connection with England's participation in the World Cup. The question of Government financial assistance for the centre has not arisen.

  Geographic Information
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what actions have been taken by his Department following the receipt of the report by the Chorley committee on the handling of geographic information in 1987.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The Government's response to the report of the committee of inquiry chaired by Lord Chorley was published in February 1988. This document sets out the Government's reponse to each of the recommendations made by the Chorley committee and where these relate to the Department of the Environment my officials are actively engaged in carrying them forward.

  One of the key responses to the report of the Chorley committee has been the establishment of the Association of Geographic Information (AGI), the launch of which was attended by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan). The Department is a sponsor member of the AGI and is represented on its council.

  Environmental Assessment
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the relationship between article 1.5 of Council directive 85/337/EEC, on the environmental assessment of certain projects, and the private Bill procedure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: A number of representations have been received in the last two years about article 1.5 of directive 85/337/EEC on environmental assessment which provides that the directive shall not apply to projects, the details of which are adopted by a specific act of national legislation. The Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedures included in its 1988 report (HC 625 Session 1987–88) a recommendation that promoters of works Bills must deposit either an environmental statement or a certificate from the appropriate Secretary of State saying that an assessment is not necessary as the project does not fall within the scope of the directive. The Government have welcomed this recommendation and are consulting the authorities in both Houses about its implementation.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contacts he has had with the 162
  Commission of the European Communities concerning compliance by the United Kingdom with the requirements of Council directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, in respect of works intended to be authorised by the private Bill procedure.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: In the case of the King's Cross Railway Bill currently before Parliament the EC Commission forwarded a complaint in January this year alleging that directive 85/337/EEC was being infringed. The Commission was advised in response on 27 February that, although those proposals were exempt from the provisions of the directive because they were contained in a private Bill, British Rail—the promoters—had produced an environmental statement voluntarily. The Commission was advised of the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedures in so far as it related to environmental assessment and the Government's acceptance of that particular recommendation.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals for further regulations to implement Commission directive 85/337/EEC on environmental assessment.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: As indicated in the recent consultation document on "Private Bills and New Procedures" (Cm. 1110) environmental assessment requirements would be included in the new procedure proposed in that document. Apart from some regulations which are currently in preparation to complete implementation of directive 85/337/EEC in Northern Ireland, the Government have no proposals at present for further regulations relating to environmental assessment.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will amend paragraph 68 of "Environmental Assessment: A Guide to the Procedures", to give guidance to persons who could have obtained authorisation for proposed works by procedures under legislation to which the requirements of Council directive 85/337/EEC on environmental assessment have been applied by regulations, that private Bill procedure should not be seen as a possible means to avoiding the submission of an environmental statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: No. As the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedures made clear in its report (HC 625), the private Bill procedure is not an alternative which is generally available to every developer since the purpose of the Bill must be one which cannot be effected without parliamentary authority. The procedure cannot therefore be chosen simply to avoid the need for environmental assessment. Paragraph 68 of the booklet "Environmental Assessment: a Guide to the Procedures" makes clear the Government's view that the promoter of a private Bill should provide an environmental statement if his project would otherwise require one.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to issue a revised statement of view as to legal requirements in connection with Council directive 85/337/EEC on environmental assessment published by his Department.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: I see no need for such a revision at present.

  Rented Housing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the percentage of rented housing in the United Kingdom and other OECD countries.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer as 25 June 1990]: The available information is as follows:—

  Percentage of rented housing

  Year

  Australia

  32

  1986

  Austria

  50

  1981

  Belgium

  39

  1981

  Canada

  38

  1986

  Denmark

  44

  1987

  Finland

  39

  1980

  France

  49

  1984

  Germany

  59

  1985

  Greece

  28

  1982

  Iceland

  not available

  Ireland

  24

  1981

  Italy

  36

  1986

  Japan

  38

  1983

  Luxembourg

  40

  1981

  Netherlands

  56

  1985

  New Zealand

  29

  1980

  Portugal

  44

  1981

  Spain

  24

  1980

  Sweden

  43

  1985

  Switzerland

  70

  1980

  Turkey

  38

  1979

  United States

  36

  1987

  Yugoslavia

  not available

  Corresponding estimates for the United Kingdom are 42 per cent. for 1982 and 35 per cent. for 1988.

  Figures for the various countries are not all compiled on a comparable basis and should be interpreted with caution.

PRIME MINISTER

  Bradford
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she expects to pay an official visit to Bradford Forster Square station.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has at present no plans to do so.

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she is satisfied with co-ordination between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Education and Science, and the Office of Arts and Libraries on the future of science at the natural history museum in south Kensington.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is satisfied with the degree of co-ordination between Government Departments over the future of science at the natural history museum.

  I understand that the museum is in discussion with the Government's chief scientific adviser and the Office of Arts
  164
  and Libraries about its position in relation to the United Kingdom science base. The Minister for the Arts has indicated that he will be calling a further meeting with the chairman of trustees and the museum's director to discuss the natural history museum's corporate strategy and these wider issues.

  European Community
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government plan to put proposals to other European Community states concerning the structure of the relationship between the European Parliament and the Commission of the European Community and the relationship of these two with national legislatures within the European Community.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are participating fully in the Community debate on institutional reform. In particular we believe the Commission should be more accountable to the European Parliament, especially on financial issues, and that closer links should be established between national and European Parliaments, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs explained to the House on 11 June.

  Boxley
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Boxley.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has at present no plans to do so.

  Engagements
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the European Council meeting in Dublin.

HEALTH

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the studies conducted inside his Department by management consultants in the last 10 years, naming the consultancy, the cost, the subject and the outcome in each instance.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A list giving details of consultancies and projects for the years 1986–87 to 1989–90 has been placed in the Library.
  165
  Details prior to 1986–87 are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The amount paid to individual consultants is subject to commercial confidentiality. Information on the outcome of each consultancy is not collated centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Studies prior to April 1989 were undertaken on behalf of the then Department of Health and Social Security; therefore some projects listed do not relate solely to health matters.

  Inequalities in Health
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to implement the recommendations of the Black report on inequalities in health; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since the publication of the Black report in 1980, a copy of which is available in the Library, a number of preventive and health promotion measures have been introduced. These have contributed to an overall improvement in the health of the nation and life expectancy and a reduction in infant mortality to an all-time low. Programmes for breast and cervical screening and vaccination and immunisation have been important factors along with targeted health promotion schemes by the Health Education Authority, such as the "Look After Your Heart Campaign". The Government will continue to promote the equitable distribution of health services throughout the country and ensure these are available to all.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been sponsored by his Department into social inequalities in health since the publication of the Black report by(a) the Medical Research Council, (b) the Economic and Social Research Council and (c) any other research body.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is the main public body funding research in this area. A major programme of work has been funded by the council at the centre for health economics, York, which covers studies on:intergenerational inequalities in health;
  gender and race inequalities;
  use of health status as an indicator of social position;
  and the role of health status in the process of social mobility.

  Other projects funded by ESRC include:
  development of new techniques for measuring inequality in health;
  an econometric technique to examine the relationship between individuals' states of health and socioeconomic factors such as housing conditions, income, occupation, education, employment status, and so on;
  restructuring health care provision in England: its spatial implication;
  and distributional consequences of changes in United Kingdom health policy.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to advise district health authorities in England and Wales to take full account of the reports of the maternity services advisory committee when drawing up contracts for the maternity services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The maternity services advisory committee reports remain the basis of our 166
  policies for the delivery of maternity services. They should be used by health authorities to help them draw up contract specifications for these services. There is evidence that this is already happening.

  School Health Statistics
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what school health statistics are routinely gathered relating to the results of tests of hearing, vision and measures of height and weight; and if he will publish a list of data published as school health statistics.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is a standard health authority school medical examination form on which height and weight are recorded with the results of tests and assessments of vision, hearing, locomotion, manipulation, speech/language and behaviour. It is for local health authorities to decide what aggregate statistics to publish from this information. Information of this detail is not collected centrally.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which persons or bodies may initiate the process to apply for the self-government of a hospital; and what measures are taken to seek to obtain the opinion of the majority of those affected by a decision to make an application.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Initial expressions of interest in NHS trust status may be made by any individual or group with links with an NHS unit. When applications for NHS trust status are submitted, following parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will direct regional health authorities to consult such other bodies as the authority considers appropriate in addition to community health councils. In all cases this should include health authorities, staff, patients, GPs and the local community as well as other groups with a particular interest in the application.

  Royal National Institute for the Deaf
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)Official Report, 24 April, columns 160–64, if he will provide details of the grant awarded to the Royal National Institute for the Deaf under section 64.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The grant was for the administrative expenses of the National Rubella Council (NRC) for which the director of finance of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf (RNID) acts as honorary treasurer.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the health implications for humans of chronic exposure to pesticides.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Pesticides are approved for use by Ministers after receiving the advice of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, which considers all relevant data including the possible effects of chronic exposures. If any significant adverse health effects are a possibility, approval is not recommended.

  Menopausal Clinics
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals in England have menopausal clinics.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make extra funds available to regional health authorities to meet the costs of military assistance provided during the ambulance workers' dispute.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no plans to make extra funds available. Regional health authorities are aware that contingencies of this nature must be met from within existing resources.

  Chrysoidine
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if chrysoidine has been investigated by the carcinogenic substances committee.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has considered chrysoidine, a dye which has been used to colour maggots used by coarse fishermen, on a number of occasions in the past. At its meeting on 29 October 1985 when it was last reviewed the committee reaffirmed earlier advice that it would be prudent for anglers who wanted to use chrysoidine to avoid skin contact with the dye by, for example, using gloves when handling the dye or when baiting hooks with the dyed maggots. The Government conveyed this advice to the National Federation of Anglers and the angling press at the time.

  Civil Servants (Workplaces)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessments under Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations have been undertaken at all workplaces used by civil servants in his Department.

  Mr. Dorrell
  An initial assessment of potentially hazardous substances was made to comply with the regulations. This assessment is subject to continual review.

  Hospital Laundering
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those health authorities that purchased their laundry services from other health authorities during 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply on competitive tendering on 1 March,Official Report, column 301, if he will explain how the figures relating to the savings generated by competitive tendering are calculated.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The detailed basis of calculating the annual saving made in consequence of tender action was left to district health authorities to determine. Generally 168
  previous annual costs were compared with the new costs following tender action inclusive of any redundancy or other similar additional costs averaged over the contract period.

  Liverpool RHA
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with Mr. G. R. Scaife, regional general manager of Liverpool regional health authority, on the subject of community health councils; and if he will list dates and any correspondence between his Department and Mr. Scaife on this subject.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As part of the process of planning for the NHS review, an official wrote to Mr. Scaife on 22 September 1989 about the future role of community health councils. Mr. Scaife discussed the subject very briefly with the Department on 5 October 1989 before responding constructively to this letter on 9 October. The Department's subsequent reply to Mr. Scaife was dated 22 November. We know of no other discussion between Mr. Scaife and the Department of Health on the subject of CHCs.

  Helicopter Emergency Services
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the progress of the study being conducted by regional ambulance officers into helicopter-borne emergency medical services;

  (2) if he intends to publish the results of the study into helicopter-borne emergency medical services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The regional ambulance officers' working party on helicopter transport has reported. The report will be made available to the NHS.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many relatives of glaucoma sufferers in England received free eyesight tests in each quarter of 1988–89 and in each quarter of 1989–90.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Statistics prior to 1April 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 65,050 national health service sight tests for relatives of 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 but conducted before that period.

  NHS Land Disposal
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the proceeds from the disposal of national health service land in the Trent region, and in each of the district health authorities in the Trent region for each of the past 11 years; and if he will list the reasons given for the disposal of that land.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested on disposal proceeds has been placed in the Library. The land and
  169
  property sold was surplus to requirements as a result of changes in service provision determined by local health authority management.

  The land sales exclude sites of less than an acre or £50,000 in value.

  Blood Supplies
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information he has on hospitals which are currently short of blood supplies; and if he will list the name of the health authority in which they are located;

  (2) what steps he is taking to improve the supplies of blood to hospitals;

  (3) how much money is spent on advertising the need for blood donors to national health service hospitals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Blood supplies can fluctuate but are at present satisfactory and there is no need for any hospital to cancel elective surgery due to shortage of blood.

  To maintain blood supplies the national blood transfusion service (NBTS) has been allocated a central publicity budget of £627,000 for the current financial year. This central funding is supplemented by regional health authorities for local publicity campaigns.

  The NBTS is constantly seeking better ways of matching supply and demand for blood. These include improved communications with blood donors to encourage more recruitment, retention and response to call-up; improved arrangements through the national directorate of the blood transfusion service to transfer blood when needed between regions; and improved communications between hospitals and transfusion centres so that demand may be foreseen and the level of supply planned in advance. However, the availability of blood ultimately depends on the good will and generosity of our blood donors. We are grateful to them.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the savings to each health authority within the Trent region which have resulted from each hospital closure during the last five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is not held centrally.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the circulars and other documents of guidance he has issued on the workings, implementation or interpretation of the Children Act 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The following documents which are available in the Library have been issued:Local Authority Circular LAC(89)/16: The Children Act 1989: Notice of Royal assent and the provisions to take immediate or early effect;
  Local Authority Circular LAC(89)/17: Social Services Training Support Programme: Financial Year 1990–91;
  Local Authority Circular LAC(90)/3: The Children Act 1989 (Admission of Hearsay Evidence) Order—Statutory Instrument 143/1990;
  Children Act 1989: Training Together—A Training and curriculum Model;
  An Introduction to the Children Act 1989;
  The Care of Children: Principles and Practice in regulations and Guidance:
  Children Act 1989 Consultation Paper No. 1—Secure Accommodation (Guidance and Regulations).

  Consultation paper No. 2—Policy and Standards of Day care and Educational Services (Guidance)—will be issued later this week; further consultation papers are being prepared, and will be issued shortly.

  In addition, the Department of Health produces "Implementation News", a monthly newsletter which provides a forum for the exchange of information about courses, conferences and seminars, training material, progress on implementation, news from the regions, and initiatives by local authorities and voluntary and other agencies. "Implementation News" is widely distributed to local authorities, voluntary and professional agencies and other relevant organisations.

  Bone Marrow Transplants
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the total number of bone marrow transplants carried out in the latest year for which figures are available at the Royal Marsden, Hammersmith, Westminster, Royal Free and Great Ormond Street hospitals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Outcome Assessments
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he has any proposals to standardise outcome assessment in national health service trust hospitals;

  (2) whether he has any proposals to standardise outcome assessments in district health authority-managed hospitals.

  Hospital consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology showing numbers and whole time equivalents as at 30 September each year

  Year

  1988

  1987

  1986

  1985

  1984

  1983

  No.

  Wte.

  No.

  Wte.

  No.

  Wte.

  No.

  Wte.

  No.

  Wte.

  No.

  Wte.

  England

  753

  697·4

  747

  693·0

  743

  687·0

  729

  674·1

  721

  663·3

  703

  649·

  Northern

  63

  58·5

  63

  56·1

  64

  57·8

  64

  58·8

  60

  55·4

  60

  55·5

  Yorkshire

  59

  55·5

  57

  53·8

  63

  54·5

  60

  52·3

  56

  48·3

  53

  48·2

  Trent

  70

  60·3

  67

  58·6

  66

  57·5

  65

  57·1

  65

  56·6

  64

  55·2

  East Anglia

  31

  29·9

  31

  30·1

  31

  29·5

  32

  30·9

  32

  30·9

  31

  29·9

  North West Thames

  60

  50·6

  58

  51·5

  58

  50·5

  59

  49·2

  63

  51·3

  61

  49·3

  North East Thames

  79

  67·1

  79

  63·2

  78

  67·8

  76

  65·8

  79

  66·3

  81

  67·5

  South East Thames

  55

  50·2

  60

  53·8

  57

  50·9

  58

  51·6

  59

  51·6

  56

  49·3

  South West Thames

  42

  38·7

  42

  37·4

  43

  37·9

  44

  37·0

  42

  37·0

  44

  38·6

  Wessex

  42

  37·2

  40

  36·8

  40

  37·7

  37

  34·5

  38

  35·3

  37

  33·6

  Oxford

  38

  34·9

  36

  33·8

  35

  32·8

  35

  31·9

  33

  30·8

  30

  28·4

  South Western

  45

  39·7

  45

  39·8

  46

  38·0

  45

  39·2

  41

  35·7

  40

  34·4

  West Midlands

  74

  71·9

  76

  73·9

  71

  68·6

  68

  65·9

  67

  64·9

  62

  60·6

  Mersey

  38

  34·0

  39

  34·1

  35

  31·7

  35

  31·2

  35

  31·2

  36

  32·2

  North Western

  65

  62·2

  66

  63·7

  67

  63·3

  65

  61·2

  65

  61·2

  64

  60·4

  SHAs

  16

  6·9

  15

  6·3

  18

  8·5

  17

  7·3

  17

  6·8

  15

  7·0

  Source: Medical and Dental Census.

  (1) Includes permanent paid and honorary staff.

  (2) From 1987 Senior hospital Medical Officers (with allowance) are excluded. These are included with Other Staff.

  (3) Staff holding two or more appointments with the same of different regions are counted only once. Differences in the sum of numbers of staff for all regions is due to the duplication of staff holding appointments in more than one region. Such staff are included separately in each region. This duplication does not occur in the WTE component.

  GPs (Operations)
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any assessment has been undertaken on the benefits to out-patients' departments of requiring general practitioners to undertake all minor surgery operations, rather than a selection of such operations.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No, but it is a reasonable expectation that the more minor surgery that GPs can carry out in their own surgeries, the fewer visits patients will have to make to the out-patients' department (OPD) and the more time OPD doctors will have to respond to other patient care needs. There is a practical difficulty in assessing with any accuracy the effect of the new arrangements on out-patient departments. Once on the minor surgery list, a GP is not required to undertake every procedure in which he or she is competent every time a patient presents with the relevant condition. It has to be a matter of clinical judgment on the part of the GP as to what action to take in the light of the particular circumstances. Arrangements for monitoring the GPs'
  172
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health authorities will he expected to assess outcomes in monitoring the contracts they make with providers of health services. The new purchasing role will give district health authorities strong incentives to move from specifying input to developing measures of health outcome. The Department is developing a methodology for outcome assessment, and guidance for health authorities to equip them to monitor outcome effectively.

  Obstetricians
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultant obstetricians are employed by the national health service in each regional health authority in England; and what is the number on a whole-time equivalent basis in the current year and in each of the past five years.

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

  new contract will, in time, provide helpful information on the extent to which minor surgery has expanded in general practice.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the operations in which general practitioners are now required to have competence to qualify for inclusion in the minor surgery list; and whether there have been any changes from the original list in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The procedures in which GPs must be competent before gaining admission to the minor surgery list are set out in the table. There have been no changes to the original list which appeared as schedule 1B of the NHS (GMPS) Regulations 1974 (as amended). However, we have recently agreed to amend the list of procedures by removing ligation of varicose veins.

  Minor surgery procedures

  Injections

  intra articular

  peri articular

  varicose veins

  haemorrhoid

  173
  Aspirations

  joints

  cysts

  bursae

  hydrocele

  Incisions

  abcesses

  cysts

  thrombosed piles

  Excisions

  sebaceous cysts

  lipoma

  skin lesions for histology

  intradermal naevi, papilloma, dermatofibroma and similar conditions

  warts

  ganglions

  removal of toe nails (partial and complete)

  Currette cautery and cryocautery

  warts and verrucae

  other skin lesions (eg molluscum contagiosum)

  Other

  ligation of varicose veins

  removal of foreign bodies

  nasal cautery

  Family Planning
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give the total number of family planning cases seen by general practitioners in 1982 and in the latest year for which figures are available in Greater London;

  (2) if he will give the total number of family planning cases treated at family planning clinics in 1982 and in the latest year for which figures are available in each health district in Greater London.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1982, a total of 295,383 women received contraceptive services from general practitioners in Greater London compared with 374,560 in 1988.

  In 1982, the number of people seen in family planning clinics in Greater London was 353,320 compared with 294,629 in 1988–89. The breakdown for each district health authority in Greater London is shown in the following table:

  Number of family planning cases seen at family planning clinics

  1982

  1988–89

  Barnet

  14,355

  8,586

  Harrow

  9,599

  7,699

  Hillingdon

  10,701

  4,460

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  14,903

  12,584

  Ealing

  8,572

  11,887

  Riverside

  20,694

  15,224

  Parkside

  22,490

  18,658

  Barking/Havering/Brentwood

  14,826

  12,830

  Hampstead

  3,992

  3,080

  Bloomsbury

  26,915

  27,393

  Islington

  11,653

  10,383

  City and Hackney

  10,453

  6,712

  Newham

  6,379

  3,936

  Tower Hamlets

  6,659

  4,953

  Enfield

  10,253

  3,987

  Haringey

  10,341

  10,819

  Redbridge

  6,193

  5,382

  Waltham Forest

  7,017

  6,049

  Dartford and Gravesham

  5,529

  960

  Bexley

  9,301

  5,182

  Greenwich

  8,256

  5,878

  174

  1982

  1988–89

  Bromley

  10,529

  9,316

  West Lambeth

  2,001

  6,796

  Camberwell

  6,911

  10,687

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  25,283

  23,287

  Croydon

  16,783

  12,132

  Kingston and Esher

  7,690

  4,613

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  11,715

  8,210

  Wandsworth

  16,659

  16,529

  Merton and Sutton

  14,745

  16,417

  Hammersmith special health authority

  1,923

  0

  GREATER LONDON TOTAL

  353,320

  294,629

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were closed in each region for 1989–90, 1988–89 and for the latest six months.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Centrally held statistics record only beds available at the end of each financial year. Comparing year-end figures does not provide a measure of beds closed because the published figures are also affected by new beds opening or reopening during the year. The information requested is therefore not available centrally.

  Cervical Smear Test
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the total number of cervical smear tests carried out in the latest year for which figures are available in each of the four Thames regions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on the number of smears examined by NHS laboratories in each of the Thames regions is given in the table. Smears taken from women in a particular region are sometimes analysed by laboratories in other regions.

  Cervical Cytology—Number of Smears Examined

  Regional Health Authority

  1987–88

  1 1988–89

  North West Thames

  317,000

  375,000

  North East Thames

  325,000

  326,000

  South East Thames

  317,000

  326,000

  South West Thames

  248,000

  267,000

  1 Provisional

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of general practices and general practitioners in each district health authority area within the Northern region; and what is the number of such general practices and general practitioners that have expressed an interest in becoming practice budget holders.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on numbers of general practices in each district health authority is not available centrally. The latest figures for the numbers of practices and general practitioners in Northern region by family practitioner committee are given in the table. A total of 65 practices in Northern region expressed their interest in the fund holding scheme and the regional health authority announced on 27 March 1990 that 31 practices which met the eligibility criteria will be undertaking the necessary preparatory work for the fund holding scheme.
  175

  Breakdown of the number of practices and unrestricted principals by family practitioner committee in the Northern region as at 1 October 1987

  Family practitioner committee

  Number of practices

  Number of general practitioners

  Cleveland

  83

  273

  Cumbria

  100

  269

  Durham

  83

  289

  Northumberland

  50

  165

  Gateshead

  34

  109

  Newcastle

  50

  156

  North Tyneside

  34

  102

  South Tyneside

  31

  79

  Sunderland

  53

  142

  518

  1,584

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 1 May,Official Report, column 535, whether the discussions with Ordnance Survey concerning general practitioners' practice leaflets have yet been concluded.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes. A circular clarifying the position will be issued to all family practitioner committees shortly

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the necessary computer software packages for the management of general practitioner practice budgets will be available; and what Government subsidies will be paid to computer companies for the development of appropriate software packages.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 25 June.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the standard mortality ratios for coronary heart disease for(a) women and (b) men aged 15 to 64 years in each district health authority area and each regional health authority in England.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information covering the years 1983–87, for men and women aged 15 to 64 years, has just been published in a report from the Health Education Authority, "Mapping the Epidemic—Coronary Heart Disease". Copies are available in the Library.

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the existing membership of family practitioner committees will be kept in place with full responsibility until 31 March 1991.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is our intention that regulations ending family practitioner committees and commencing family health services authorities will be laid shortly after the National Health Service and Community Care Bill receives Royal Assent.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money is likely to be spent in each of the next five years in administering the indicative prescribing scheme under the proposed national health service reforms.
  176
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The indicative prescribing scheme should lead to more effective and efficient prescribing by GPs, the cost of which is currently £1.8 billion per annum. The scheme will require a "one-off" capital investment of around £7 million and have a recurring cost of around £7.5 million per annum at current prices.

  Capital Assets
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all district health authorities which have now completed their register of capital assets; and if he will give the number of entries made on each register.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Most district health authorities had completed their asset registers by the end of May 1990. The few authorities which had not achieved completion of registers by that date are expected to have done so by the end of June. The number of entries made on each register cannot be given as this information is not held centrally.

  Erythropoietin
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his intention to make Erythropoietin, when it receives a full licence, freely available to doctors to prescribe for any patient for whom it is appropriate.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Erythropoietin has received a licence, as announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) on 11 June at column 39.

  Responsibility for funding hospital prescribing of this product is for the health authorities concerned. General practitioners are also free to prescribe erythropoietin provided they are content to accept clinical responsibility for that aspect of the patient's care.

  Encephalopathies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has yet established if the infective agent responsible for human encephalopathies can be transferred subcutaneously; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A small number of cases of the human spongiform encephalopathy, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, can be attributed to inadvertent transmission by transplantation of nervous tissue and corneas and the use of dura mater and human growth hormone. Similar information is not available for kuru, another human spongiform encephalopathy that at one time was common in certain tribes in New Guinea.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being undertaken to establish any possible connections between Alzheimer's disease and human spongiform encephalopathies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department of Health has not commissioned any such research. The Medical Research Council (MRC) is the main Government agency for the promotion of medical and biomedical research in the United Kingdom. The MRC receives its grant in aid from the Department of Education and Science.

  Drug Expenditure
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health wht is the expenditure figure allowed for drug expenditure in the family practitioner service in real terms in 1991–92 as stated in paragraph 3.1 of the document, "Improving Prescribing—Working for Patients".

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The public expenditure White Paper shows that gross expenditure on the family practitioner services as a whole in 1991–92 will be £6,520 million, an increase of 3.9 per cent. in real terms over the previous year.

  The numbers given for 1991–92 onwards are planning figures only and are subject to revision. To quote disaggregated figures, for example, for drugs alone, would therefore be misleading. Firm expenditure plans for 1991–92 are being discussed in this year's public expenditure survey, and the outcome will be published in due course.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the financial implications in terms of dispensing fees of the Boots monitored dosage system.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Monitored dosage systems have no financial implications in terms of dispensing fees.

  Medicines Resource Centre
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the anticipated annual cost of the medicines resource centre.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The medicines resource centre cost £250,000 in 1989–90. We expect costs of the same order annually for the following three years up to 1992–93.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people will be employed by the medicines resource centre.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The medicines resource centre employs four staff—three pharmacists (including the director) and one secretary.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the first medicines resource centre bulletin will be issued; and how often they will appear.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The first medicines resource centre bulletin was issued during the week commencing 11 June. All GPs should by now have received a copy. The medicines resources centre bulletins will be issued monthly.

  Leeds University (Prescribing Unit)
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the anticipated annual cost of the prescribing unit at the department of general practice at Leeds university.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The detailed scope of the work to be undertaken by the prescribing unit and the costs are still under discussion.

  Regional Health Authority Budgets
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what savings each regional health authority is having to make in the current year in order to have the required balanced budget for financial year 1991–92.
  178
  Mr. Dorrell
  It is essential for health authorities to establish a sound financial position in 1991–92. Elimination of underlying deficits has been made a priority in the current financial year. Measures to be taken by individual health authorities are for agreement between the region and district concerned.

  Cervical Cancer Tests
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for every month in each of the last two years the district health authorities not meeting the one-month target for cervical cancer test turnround time; and if he will state the time taken in each of those authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: Health authorities must aim to return the results of cervical smear tests to the doctor who undertook them within one month. Since December 1989 around 80 per cent. of districts have been meeting the target. A table of district health authorities not meeting this target over the past two years has been placed in the Library. The average processing times are shown in weeks. Since June 1988 this information has been collected on a quarterly rather than a monthly basis.

  Blood Supplies
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if operating costs of the blood transfusion service are currently covered by a standard national charge for each unit.

  Mr. Dorrell
  At present in 12 of the 14 English regions no charges are made by the national blood transfusion service (NBTS) to national health service hospitals for operating costs. The remaining two regions have introduced arrangements by which the operating costs are recovered in proportion to the district's demands on the regional transfusion centre (RTC) for blood supplies. The reimbursement to the RTCs will not include any element for the blood itself. This is freely donated by voluntary donors to whom we are all indebted.

  There are, however, standard national blood handling charges designed to recover the costs incurred in supplying non-NHS hospitals with blood and blood derivatives. Again, these charges do not include any element for the blood itself which is donated free of charge to the NBTS for use where needed.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Discipline
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to bring to the attention of prisoners the alteration in prison rule 47 made in 1989; and when the booklet made available to prisoners concerning matters relating to discipline was last revised.

  Mr. Mellor
  Circular instruction 25/1989, issued in June 1989, advised governors that information should be made available to prisoners about the change made to the disciplinary rules on 1 April 1989 and asked them to consider what steps they needed to take for this purpose. An extract from the new rules was also sent to prison establishments in March 1989 for inclusion in the manual on the conduct of adjudications, a copy of which is
  179
  available to prisoners in every prison library and which they may purchase if they wish. A revised prisoner information booklet containing details of the new code of offences will be circulated shortly; the booklet was previously revised in 1986.

  Departmental Research (Expenditure)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total identifiable expenditure on research by his Department in each year since 1979; what proportion was awarded on a customer-contractor basis; and what proportion of his total departmental budget was expended on research for each year.

  Mr. Waddington
  Details of the proportion of research awarded on a customer-contractor basis are not held centrally and could not he obtained without disproportionate cost. The information shown in the table relates to research and development. Variations in the percentages shown in column 3 are attributable in part to changes in the scope and classification of departmental expenditure.

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  Year

  Amount spent on research and development

  (2) as percentage of total Home Office cash limited expenditure or equivalent

  £ million

  1979–80

  6·1

  1·43

  1980–81

  8·7

  1·48

  1981–82

  11·2

  1·75

  1982–83

  12·2

  1·77

  1983–84

  12·7

  1·59

  1984–85

  13·2

  1·56

  1985–86

  13·7

  1·50

  1986–87

  13·3

  1·28

  1987–88

  14·2

  1·24

  1988–891

  13·3

  0·98

  1 Provisional.

  Police (Training and Promotion)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review methods of training and promotion in the police forces in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Over the past three years there has been a comprehensive review of police training in England and Wales, which has led to the introduction of new training courses for recruits, experienced constables, sergeants and inspectors. The programme of command and carousel courses at the police staff college has also been revised and updated.

  The system of qualifying examinations for promotion to the ranks of sergeant and inspector has recently been reviewed by the police promotion examinations board. The main recommendation of that review is that the existing system of examinations should be replaced by a two-part examination, consisting of a factual written paper and a series of performance-related tests.

  Promotion to the ranks of chief inspector, superintendent and chief superintendent is a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned. For the most senior appointments the Government share the Home Affairs Committee's view that it would be desirable for all officers appointed to chief officer rank to have attended the senior command course or to have had acceptable equivalent
  180
  training such as the chief police officer course which is to be held at the police staff college in 1991 and 1992. We intend to introduce this as a general policy when sufficient numbers have pased through the senior command course and chief police officer course to provide a good field of qualified candidates.

  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest information available to him about the prevalence of the illegal taking of drugs by injection in Her Majesty's prisons.

  Mr. Mellor
  Reports of finds of needles and syringes and of substances such as heroin and cocaine suggest that the incidence of drug misuse by injection in establishments is relatively low. Over 90 per cent. of finds of substances involve cannabis and only 3 per cent. heroin and cocaine. The results of research studies which have been conducted, including those recently reported in the British Medical Journal, need to be treated with some caution because of the small size of the samples. But we are studying the findings. As my hon. Friend is aware, we are considering whether some form of screening, whether for clinical or control purposes, should be introduced, and we are looking at other means to assist in assessing the scale of misuse.

  Immigration and Nationality Department
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to introduce(a) computerised file tracking in the immigration and nationality department and (b) computerisation of the immigration appellate authorities.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The immigration and nationality department plans to start implementation of the file tracking system in December 1990. Responsibility for the immigration appellate authorities rests with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports and letters were awaiting acknowledgement in the B1 division of the immigration and nationality department on(a) 28 March, (b) 27 April and (c) 31 May.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of passports and letters in IND awaiting acknowledgement was 3,471 on 30 March; 5,134 on 27 April; and 4,437 on 1 June. On 1 June the waiting period before acknowledgement was two working days for passports and four for letters.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the standard cost of processing applications in respect of citizenship applications.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Fees for citizenship applications are set at a level intended to cover processing costs. The present fees, set in 1986, are:

  £

  Registration

  60

  Naturalisation on grounds of residence

  170

  Naturalisation as the spouse of a British citizen

  60

  These fees are under review to take account of prevailing cost levels.
  181
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to review staffing levels at the immigration and nationality department in Lunar house; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Staffing levels at the IND in Lunar house are reviewed regularly in the light of up-to-date workload, staffing and financial information. In the process of review the Government will also be taking account of the recommendations about staffing levels at IND made by the Home Affairs Committee in its fifth report on "Administrative Delays in the Immigration and Nationality Department", published on Wednesday 20 June. The Government's formal response to these, and the other recommendations in the committee's report, will be made in due course.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time between receipt of application for naturalisation in the immigration and nationality department and determination of such applications as at 31 May or the nearest available date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 20 June at column 574.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters currently await acknowledgement by the immigration and nationality department; what is the comparable figure for each quarter since 1 January 1988; what is the average time taken by the immigration and nationality department to acknowledge correspondence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 15 June the number of items of mail awaiting acknowledgement in IND was 4,850. The comparable figures for each quarter since 1988 were:

  Items of mail awaiting acknowledgement

  1988

  1989

  1990

  January

  181,892

  1,228

  5,622

  April

  122,546

  4,523

  3,774

  July

  1,086

  2,165

  —

  October

  3,126

  5,844

  —

  On average letters are being acknowledged within three days and citizenship applications within seven days of receipt in the Department.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases in the past year the immigration and nationality department has admitted to the loss of a case file; in how many cases applicants in all categories have been asked to re-submit documents when the originals were lost or mislaid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the categories of application received by the immigration and nationality department and (b) the number of applications, in each category, which are currently (i) unopened, (ii) allocated to a caseworker, (iii) subject to inquiry, (iv) decision recommended and (v) awaiting dispatch; and if he will make a statement.
  182
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The principal categories of applications received by IND are:

  Variation of leave

  Refugee status

  Political asylum

  Referred entry clearance

  Travel documents

  Re-entry visas

  Citizenship applications

  The information requested at (b) is not fully or readily available. I shall reply as soon as possible providing such information as is available.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East enclosing one from Mrs. C. D. Scott sent to him on 11 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A number of right hon. and hon. Members have written to my Department on behalf of Mrs. Scott and all have received a reply. However, we have no record of a letter being received, on behalf of Mrs. Scott, from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist).

  I have today received a facsimile copy of the hon. Member's letter, and enclosure, and will reply promptly.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for the latest date available what percentage of sentenced female prisoners had been convicted of an offence which involved violence, robbery, sex or drug trafficking;

  (2) how many and what percentage of male and female prisoners in England and Wales are accused of, or have been convicted of, drug-related offences.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The latest readily available information relates to the sentenced population and is published in table 8 of "The Prison Population in 1989", Home Office statistical bulletin 12/90, copies of which are in the Library. Offences of drug trafficking are not separately identified.

  Female Prisoners
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for the latest date available how many female prisoners in England and Wales were serving a prison sentence that was(a) less than six months and (b) between six but less than 12 months;

  (2) for the latest date available how many female prisoners in England and Wales were serving their sentences because of a fine default.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The latest readily available information is given in the table.
  183

  Population1 of females under sentence in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June 1989: by sentence length and type of sentence

  Type of sentence

  Length of sentence

  Immediate custodial

  In default of payment of fine

  All types

  Under 6 months

  82

  24

  106

  6 months and under 12 months

  143

  —

  143

  12 months and over

  1,030

  —

  1,030

  All lengths

  1,255

  24

  1,279

  1 Provisional figures.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the latest date available; how many probation psychiatric voluntary hostel places were available in England and Wales for female offenders.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: There are 91 beds funded by the Home Office for use by the probation service in voluntary after-care hotels dealing with ex-offenders with histories of mental illness or personality disorder. Only two of these beds are designated specifically for female offenders, but the remainder would be available to them.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the latest date available what was(a) the weekly cost for a female probation hostel place and (b) the average weekly cost of a female prison place.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: There are no hostels taking only women on probation, although there are two probation-bail hostels designated for women offenders and defendants. Other probation-bail hostels accept men and women, but the costs relating to women cannot be disaggregated.

  From information available for 1988–89 for those hostels which took women only the average weekly cost per occupied place was £152. This compares with an average weekly cost in 1988–89 of £155 per occupied place in all probation-bail and bail hostels. The average weekly cost of a place at a women's prison establishment in 1988–89 was £399.

EMPLOYMENT

  Pre-entry Closed Shop
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the provisions contained in the Employment Bill to outlaw the pre-entry closed shop to take full statutory effect.

  Mr. Howard
  The Employment Bill, which is currently being considered in another place, includes provisions which will make it unlawful for an employer to refuse to employ a person because he is, or is not, a member of a trade union. We expect the Bill to become law before the end of this Session and intend that individuals seeking employment should have the benefit of this important protection as soon as is practicable after Royal Assent.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he intends to bring forward as a result of his Department's review of the work permit scheme.
  184
  Mr. Nicholls
  I am discussing with colleagues the implications of my Department's review of the work permit scheme before making proposals.

  Industrial Training
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary for State of Employment what plans he has to improve the quality of industrial training.

  Mr. Howard
  Employer-led training and enterprise councils (TECs) are being set up all round the country with the primary responsibility of improving training performance within their local labour market. In addition, industry training organisations have a major role in establishing recognised standards and promoting them within their sector.

  Labour Statistics
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total unemployment figures and the rate of unemployment in May 1990, and May 1980.

  Mr. Howard
  In May 1990, the seasonally adjusted level of unemployment in the United Kingdom was 1,611,000 or 5.7 per cent. of the work force, compared with a level of 1,224,400 in May 1980 or 4.6 per cent. of the work force.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of unemployed in 1979; and what it is now.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In May 1990 the level of unemployed, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom, was 1,611,000 or 5.7 per cent. compared with 1,088,500 or 4.1 per cent., in May 1979 on the consistent basis.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the unemployment rate in the northern region in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In May 1990, the rate of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the north region was 8.5 per cent., compared with 10.4 per cent. in May 1989 and 12.4 per cent. in May 1988.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in Lambeth below the age of 18 years are unemployed and not in training or in full-time education.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In May 1990 the number of unemployed claimants aged under 18 in the Lambeth local authority district was three.

  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the figure for unemployment in the west midlands in(a) 1980 and (b)

  Mr. Nicholls
  In May 1990 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the west midlands, was 149,300 or 5.8 per cent., compared with 119,000 or 4.7 per cent. in May 1980 on the consistent basis.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in the Rugby-Daventry travel-to-work area; and what was the figure three years ago.
  185
  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest available employment estimates for travel-to-work areas are from the September 1987 census of employment. There were then 46,200 employees in employment in the Rugby and Daventry travel-to-work area. This compares with a figure of 46,100 in September 1984 when the previous census of employment was taken. The figures exclude the self-employed and members of Her Majesty's forces.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has fallen in Cumbria since June 1987.

  Civilian work force in employment in each standard region of the United Kingdom

  Thousands1

  June 1979

  December 19892

  Males3 total

  Females total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Males3 total

  Females total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  South East

  4,839

  3,285

  2,006

  1,279

  5,019

  4,152

  2,659

  1,492

  East Anglia

  481

  300

  178

  122

  537

  405

  243

  162

  South West

  1,032

  712

  417

  295

  1,151

  926

  538

  388

  West Midlands

  1,452

  920

  550

  370

  1,357

  1,055

  616

  439

  East Midlands

  1,013

  658

  393

  265

  1,024

  826

  474

  352

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,302

  842

  480

  362

  1,189

  966

  530

  436

  North West

  1,700

  1,190

  719

  471

  1,571

  1,295

  754

  541

  North

  802

  522

  314

  208

  714

  573

  313

  260

  Wales

  716

  441

  276

  165

  686

  528

  311

  217

  Scotland

  1,333

  929

  597

  332

  1,254

  1,027

  618

  410

  Great Britain

  14,677

  9,803

  5,789

  4,015

  14,504

  11,752

  6,705

  5,047

  Northern Ireland4

  359

  239

  n/a

  n/a

  329

  262

  n/a

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  15,036

  10,042

  n/a

  n/a

  14,833

  12,014

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Unadjusted for seasonal variation.

  2 Latest available.

  3 Regional full-time and part-time breakdown for males is not available.

  4 Figures for full and part-time employment are not available for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent initiatives he has implemented to reduce unemployment.

  Mr. Tim Eggar
  My Department's aim is to support economic growth through promoting a competitive, efficient and flexible labour market. As a result many of the initiatives that we implement will help to reduce unemployment either directly—through giving more effective help to unemployed people to help them find work, or improve their chances of doing so—or indirectly, by improving the working of the labour market in other ways and removing barriers to employment.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the proportion of new jobs created during the last five years which are of part-time and low-paid character.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Between December 1984 and December 1989, part-time employment in Great Britain rose by 965,000. This represented 37 per cent. of the increase in the work force in employment.

  There is no official definition of low pay.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide the latest unemployment figures for Sheffield expressed as a percentage; and what is the national average.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In May 1990, the unemployment rate for the Sheffield travel-to-work area was 8.1 per cent. on the unadjusted basis. The comparable figure for the United Kingdom was 5.5 per cent.
  186
  Mr. Nicholls
  Since June 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the county of Cumbria has fallen by 9,292 or 48 per cent. on the unadjusted basis. Direct comparisons are slightly affected by the change in benefit regulations for under 18-year-olds in September 1988.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many men and how many women(a) full and (b) part-time there were in employment in each standard planning region in the United Kingdom in June 1979 and the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is as follows:

  Tourism
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the provision of accommodation within the tourist industry after the introduction of the poll tax.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations from a wide cross-section of the tourism industry on the possible effects of the introduction of the community charge and the uniform business rate.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many tourists from the United States of America have visited the United Kingdom for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The estimated number of visits to the United Kingdom by residents of the United States of America for the years 1985–89 are as follows:

  Number of visits

  1985

  3,166,000

  1986

  2,288,000

  1987

  2,800,000

  1988

  2,620,000

  1989

  2,814,000

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to reinstate section 4 grants in England.
  187
  Mr. Nicholls
  There are no such plans.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the chairman of the Heart of England tourist board; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not met the chairman of Heart of England tourist board, but my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde, the Minister with responsibility for tourism, has met members and officers of the Heart of England board during visits to the region, and hopes shortly to have an opportunity of a discussion with its chairman.

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many holidays in the United Kingdom were taken by United Kingdom citizens in 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest estimates show that United Kingdom residents took 64.5 million holidays in the United Kingdom in 1989.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to promote tourism in Essex.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the year beginning 1 April 1990 the East Anglia tourist board will receive a subvention of £410,000 from the English tourist board, 66 per cent. more than in the previous year. The East Anglia tourist board is working on a number of initiatives, in partnership with local authorities and the private sector, which will benefit tourism in Essex.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's review of tourism.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply of 28 November 1989 by the then Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan),Official Report, column 212.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has recently met the chair of the British Tourist Authority and English tourist board to discuss tourism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for tourism regularly meet the chairman to discuss matters relating to tourism. The two boards are implementing the outcome of the review of tourism policy and their total grant in aid has increased by 10 per cent. compared to the amount in the last financial year.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many overseas visits to the United Kingdom were made in the first quarter of 1990.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Overseas residents made an estimated 3,510,000 visits to the United Kingdom during the first three months of 1990, 4 per cent. higher than in the equivalent period of 1989.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were self-employed in tourism-related industries in(a) 1983 and (b)

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information is published in the footnote to table 8.1 of the June 1990 issue of Employment Gazette.
  188
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of overseas visitors to the United Kingdom, and the income generated from such tourist activity, during the first three months of 1990; and what were the comparable figures for 1989.

  Mr Nicholls
  It is estimated that overseas residents made 3,510,000 visits to the United Kingdom during the first three months of 1990, 4 per cent. higher than in the equivalent period of 1989. Spending in the United Kingdom by overseas visitors in the same period is estimated to be £1,305 million, 10 per cent. higher than in 1988.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those years since 1960 with a greater number of stoppages due to industrial action than 1989.

  Mr Howard
  The year 1989 had the lowest number of stoppages for over half a century.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any proposals to alter the legislation concerning secondary industrial action.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The March 1989 Green Paper "Removing Barriers to Employment" (Cm. 655) proposed changes to the present law to make it unlawful to induce industrial action by workers of an employer not party to a trade dispute except in the case of lawful picketing. The current Employment Bill, which had its Second Reading in another place on 15 June, contains provisions which will bring those changes into effect.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of stoppages due to industrial action in(a) 1977, (b) 1978, (c) 1979, (d) 1987, (e) 1988 and (f)

  Mr. Nicholls
  The recorded number of stoppages due to industrial action is given in the table:

  Year

  Number of stoppages

  1977

  2,737

  1978

  2,498

  1979

  2,125

  1987

  1,016

  1988

  781

  1989

  701

  Jobcentre, Hackney
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to visit the jobcentre on Mare street, Hackney.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans at present.

  Employee Share Ownership
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to help promote among his European Community counterparts the introduction on a European Community-wide level of employee share ownership trusts.
  189
  Mr. Howard
  Our publication "People and Companies" has been widely distributed round the European Community to draw the attention of our counterparts to the merits of our approach to employee involvement, including employee share ownership trusts.

  Part-time Work
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement concerning the proposals for a European Community directive concerning part-time work.

  Mr. Howard
  The proposed directives on part-time and temporary work are misguided and unnecessary. They would damage job prospects in Britain and right across Europe. They are in conflict with the well-established principle of European Community legislation that issues which are best dealt with at national level should be left to member states to decide. We shall oppose the directives vigorously.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils have now signed their operational contracts.

  Mr. Howard
  Fifteen training and enterprise councils have now signed operating contracts.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what role the Government envisage within the training and enterprise councils for those agencies in the voluntary sector which have participated in Government-initiated training schemes.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) are free to contract with the training providers they feel are best placed to deliver their plans, based on the needs they have identified. Training providers from the voluntary sector are likely to continue to have an important role in the delivery of programmes such as youth training (YT) and employment training (ET), particularly in relation to trainees with special needs.

  Newspaper Industry (Disputes)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received regarding current disputes in the newspaper industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Representations have been received from the National Union of Journalists about various disputes in the newspaper industry concerning trade union recognition.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Health and Safety Commission's annual report 1988–89.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and for Barnsley, West and Penistone, (Mr. McKay),Official Report, 13 March 1990, cols. 147–48 and 149–50.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the Health and Safety Executive on resources.
  190
  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no such discussions. Officials keep in regular contact with the staff of the Health and Safety Executive over a variety of matters including resources.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to improve the employment prospects of disabled people.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new measures he intends to introduce to enable people with disabilities to participate fully in the work force.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department already maintains a comprehensive framework of services to help people with disabilities find and retain jobs. The adequacy of current measures to help people with disabilities to participate fully in the work force has been considered in the review of services for people with disabilities which my Department has just undertaken. We will be publishing the consultative document giving the results of the review within the next few days.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to alter the 3 per cent. quota provision for the employment of people with disabilities.

  Mr. Eggar
  All aspects of the quota scheme have been considered in the review of services to people with disabilities which my Department has just undertaken. We will be publishing the consultative document giving the results of the review within the next few days.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his proposals for the future of the quota system in respect of the employment of people with disabilities.

  Mr. Eggar
  All aspects of the quota scheme have been considered in the review of services to people with disabilities which my Department has just undertaken. We will be publishing the consultative document giving the results of the review within the next few days.

  Civil Servants (Buy-outs)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what buy-outs by civil servants in his Department are currently being considered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I have taken no decision to privatise any further areas of my Department's activities. Therefore, I am not considering any buy-outs by civil servants.

  Long-term Unemployed (Training)
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further measures he intends to introduce to enable the long-term unemployed to receive training.

  Mr. Eggar
  Employment training already provides a full range of opportunities for all long-term unemployed people to acquire the skills and experience they need to
  191
  compete for jobs. The flexibilities available to training and enterprise councils in delivering employment training will ensure that training provision will be even more responsive to local needs.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of employment training.

  Mr. Eggar
  The flexibilities which training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and local enterprise companies in Scotland will have in delivering employment training will make it even more responsive to the training needs of both individuals and employers in local labour markets and further reinforce its success in helping long-term unemployed people to get jobs.

  Training (Young People)
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends further to encourage training for young people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The new youth training arrangements which build on the success of YTS will deliver relevant vocational training for young people to enable them to achieve recognised qualifications. The training credits pilot schemes announced on 27 March 1990 will have the potential of strengthening the motivation of young people to seek continued education and training after leaving school. The compact initiative is helping to encourage training for young people in urban programme authority areas by guaranteeing a job with training or training leading to a job to all young people who meet their locally agreed goals.

  Construction Industry (Safety)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to improve safety in the construction industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Prime responsibility for health and safety rests with employers and employees in the workplace. As part of a continuing process to promote long-lasting change in the industry, the Health and Safety Commission has proposed regulations to:

  (a) strengthen management of health and safety on construction sites;

  (b) require all employers with more than five employees to obtain relevant safety advice.

  The Health and Safety Executive is also targeting inspection activity where it will be most effective. Inspectors will focus on more hazardous activities like roofwork and demolition and on the quality of site management and its ability to manage health and safety.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees have been killed and injured on construction sites in the past five years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is set out in the following table:
  192

  Injuries to employees in the construction industry reported to all HSC/E enforcing authorities 1984 to 1988–891 3

  Date of accident

  Fatal

  Major4

  Over three day

  1984

  100

  2,288

  2—

  1985

  104

  2,239

  2—

  51986–87

  99

  2,736

  16,468

  51987–88

  103

  2,767

  16,622

  2 51988–89

  100

  2,865

  16,240

  1 Provisional.

  2 Not available.

  3 Reported to HSE's Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates and all other relevant enforcing authorities, under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1980 (NADOR) and the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 for later years.

  4 As defined in NADOR for the years 1984 to 1985. The introduction of RIDDOR widened the definition of the major injury category thereby making direct comparison of figures with those for earlier years impossible.

  5 Years beginning 1 April.

  Czechoslovakia
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of his last visit to Czechoslovakia.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on Tuesday 5 June,Official Report, columns 457–58.

  Women Returners
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to encourage women back into the workplace after having children.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) on 13 March,Official Report, column 214.

  YTS (Scotland)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many YTS trainees there were in Scotland at the latest date.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At 31 March 1990, there were about 45,100 young people undertaking YTS training in Scotland.

  Inner-city Areas
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated expenditure of his Department in inner-city areas in 1990–91.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department will spend about £1.1 billion during 1990–91 in the 57 areas on which the Government's action for cities measures are targeted.

  Scottish Conservative Party Head Office
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set up an official inquiry into employment practices and industrial relations at the Scottish Conservative party head office, Chester street, Edinburgh.
  193
  Mr. Howard
  No.

  Labour and Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment under which articles of the treaty of Rome the decisions were made at the Labour and Social Affairs Council meeting in Brussels on 29 May.

  Mr. Eggar
  Based on the articles of the treaty of Rome, the following decisions were made in Brussels on 29 May.Article 118A, adoption of the Council directive on the minimum health and safety requirements for handling heavy loads.
  Article 118A, adoption of the Council directive on the minimum health and safety requirements for work with display screen equipment.
  Article 118A, agreement of a common position on the Council directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to biological agents.
  Article 128, adoption of the council directive for a proposal for action programme on continuing training (FORCE).
  Article 235, adoption of the Council decision for a third joint programme to encourage the exchange of young workers within the Community.
  Other decisions taken, for which no treaty basis is required, were: adoption of resolutions on the dignity of women and men at work, long-term unemployment and the fight against racism and xenophobia.

  Female civilian work force in employment in the European Community: 1987

  Thousands

  Females

  Civilian workforce in employment

  Percentage of civilian workforce in employment

  United Kingdom

  10,729

  24,755

  43

  Germany

  10,042

  25,440

  39

  France

  8,822

  20,976

  42

  Italy

  7,065

  20,584

  34

  Netherlands

  1,829

  5,251

  35

  Belgium

  1,419

  3,621

  39

  Luxembourg

  58

  169

  34

  Ireland

  346

  1,067

  32

  Denmark

  1,201

  2,663

  45

  Greece

  1,236

  3,597

  34

  Spain

  3,477

  11,383

  31

  Portugal

  1,724

  4,169

  41

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the projected growth in the labour force between 1989 and 2001 is female.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information required is contained in the article "Labour force outlook to 2001" published in Employment Gazette, April 1990, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  EC Commissioner for Social Affairs
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the European Commissioner for Social Affairs to discuss employment legislation.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what the trend of full-time employment in the agriculture industry has been over the past five years; and what assessment he has been able to make of future trends.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of full-time employees in employment in the agriculture industry over the past five years is shown in the table. The Department does not make forecasts of future trends in employment.

  Full-time employees in employment in the agriculture industry Great Britain: Thousands

  Number

  December 1984

  253·7

  December 1985

  247·1

  December 1986

  237·6

  December 1987

  231·5

  December 1988

  220·6

  December 1989

  208·1

  Women in Work
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the member states of the European Community with a greater number of women in work than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1987, the latest date for which comparable data are available, the United Kingdom has more women in civilian employment than any other member state.

  Mr. Howard
  I last met the European Commissioner at a formal Council of EC Labour and Social Affairs Ministers in Brussels on 29 May.

  Hungary (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of his visit to Hungary.

  Mr. Howard
  I visited Hungary from 3 to 5 June. During my stay I met the newly appointed Minister of Labour, Mr. Sandor Györivanyi, and other members of the Government. I also had discussions with Hungarian business men and entrepreneurs, and visited a factory.
  195
  Discussions focused on the importance of ensuring that the climate is right for small firms to flourish, and the more immediate practical help and advice my Department can give.

  On 5 June Mr. Györivanyi and I signed a joint statement on co-operation between our two countries in the labour market area. We agreed a programme of immediate assistance which will include advice and practical help in the development of training and retraining, including open learning, employment services, and small firms and enterprise.

  In addition, I invited the Hungarian Government to send officials to Britain for an extended visit to study the relevance of our conciliation and arbitration systems.

  I am pleased that the Hungarian Government have asked my Department for assistance and that we have been able to agree a programme of co-operation. I look forward to the development of a rewarding and beneficial relationship between our respective Ministries.

  Trade Unions (Injunctions)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any proposals to alter the liability of trade unions to ex parte injunctions.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. The law gives an employer threatened with an unlawful call to take industrial action the right to seek an injunction against the relevant union in order to protect his business. The procedure for obtaining an injunction against a trade union is no different from the procedure for obtaining an injunction to stop unlawful behaviour by any other organisation, and my right hon. and learned Friend has no intention of changing that.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received any representations calling for the introduction of a national statutory minimum wage.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Since 1 December 1989 my right hon. and learned Friend has received 21 representations on this subject.

  Employment Medical Advisory Service
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the staffing of the employment medical advisory service within the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 April 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 134 staff in post in the Health and Safety Executive's employment medical advisory service (EMAS). In addition, there were 21 staff in post performing headquarters functions for EMAS in HSE's medical services headquarters.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will monitor the effectiveness of job creation programmes by category of sector in which the jobs are created, examining specifically those related to infrastructure.
  196
  Mr. Eggar
  The Government do not run job-creation programmes as such. Our approach has been to develop an economic and labour market framework which encourages competition, flexibility and enterprise and thus frees business to create new jobs. The success of this policy is demonstrated by the fact that, at over 27 million, employment is now at its highest level ever, and has grown by more than 3.5 million since March 1983. Within this approach, my Department operates a range of programmes designed to help unemployed people back into work, through training, counselling and help with job search.

  Home Workers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of home workers employed within the Greater London area.

  Mr. Eggar
  A survey conducted in 1981 found about 37,500 homeworkers in the Greater London council area.

  No later estimates are currently available.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received on the 100-day rule and the provision of bed-and-breakfast accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A number of representations has been received from across the industry reflecting a wide range of views. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is fully aware of the tourism industry's concerns on this issue.

  TVEI, Kirklees
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what amount of money was made available, or planned, for the technical and vocational education initiative in 1989–90 and 1990–91 for Kirklees metropolitan council area.

  Mr. Eggar
  Kirklees was given £284,630 in 1989–90 for its TVEI preparatory project. The planned expenditure in its preparatory project in 1990–91 is £278,820.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he proposes to make any changes in the financial arrangements for those undertaking employment training to place their children in nursery, creche or playcare.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 22 June 1990]: The former £50 limit on weekly payments to childminders has been abolished. Training and enterprise councils and training agency area offices have discretion over the means by which they ensure the provision of child care support for lone parents on employment training.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state in real terms the amount to be spent on employment training for each of the financial years 1989–90 to 1992–93.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The following table shows, in real terms, the amount spent on employment training in 1989–90 and the amount expected to be spent in 1990–91 to 1992–93.
  197

  Expenditure at constant (1988–89) prices

  £ million

  11989–90

  1,030

  21990–91

  1,034

  21991–92

  993

  21992–93

  976

  1 Actual expenditure.

  2 Planned spend.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training contracts with training providers for(a) YTS and (b) ET have not been renewed for the present financial year, listing in each case the name of the training provider, the reason for non-renewal and the number of training places involved for both YTS and ET.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Information in the format requested would be available only at disproportionate cost. The process of renegotiating YT and ET contracts for this year is nearly complete. The latest information is that of about 3,450 YT contracts to be renegotiated, 105 have not been renewed, and of about 1,300 ET contracts, 15 have not been renewed.

  Skills Training Agency
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the privatised Skills Training Agency and its contribution to the tackling of long-term skill needs.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: A key objective of the sale was to transfer as much of the Skills Training Agency to the private sector as was possible.

  The Government are highly satisfied with the successful sale of 51 skill centres, together with other STA training services.

  The terms agreed for the sales were designed to give purchasers a good prospect of long-term viability as training businesses. All purchasers have indicated their intention to develop skills training that meets market needs.

  Retirement Pensions
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, in light of the recent decision by the House of Lords in the case of James v. Eastleigh Borough Council, what advice he is now offering to employers in respect of age eligibility for retirement pensions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  The James case deals with concessions for people over state pension age. It does not extend to social security or occupational pension schemes.

DEFENCE

  Radar
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the facilities provided at the proposed military radar base at St. David's, Dyfed, could be used as part of a guidance system for either the tactical air-to-surface missile or Tomahawk missiles.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The over-the-horizon radar transmitter proposed for a two-year trial at St. David's airfield,198
  Dyfed, will be a long-range, very early warning installation, and will not have the accuracy necessary for use in conjunction with TASM or Tomahawk missiles. There are therefore no plans to utilise the OTHR as part of a missile guidance system.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give consideration to using the former United States navy base at Benbradagh mountain at Dungiven, County Londonderry, as a site for the radar installation currently proposed for Brawdy, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The site at Dungiven is too far north to be a suitable location for the proposed two-year trial of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom.

  "Open Verdict"
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of "Open Verdict" by Tony Collins.

  Mr. Neubert
  The MOD library already possesses a copy of this work.

  Holy Loch
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what information he has on the planned retirement date for the Poseidon missile-equipped submarines currently deployed at Holy Loch;

  (2) what discussions have been held between his Department and the United States authorities concerning United States Navy use of the Holy Loch base after the retiral of the Poseidon missile from United States navy service.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 20 March 1990 at column 521.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional duties at the Holy Loch base will be performed by United States personnel to be accommodated in the new houses to be leased by the United States navy in the Dunoon-Sandbank areas.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None. The United States Navy's requirement for additional housing is to alleviate a longstanding shortfall.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current number of military and civilian personnel assigned to the United States navy base at Holy Loch; and what changes are planned in these levels over the next three years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Approximately 2,000 personnel work at the Holy Loch facility. No significant changes in numbers are currently envisaged by the United States navy.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision is made for(a) firefighting, (b) nuclear emergencies and (c) maintenance support of submarines at the Holy Loch facility during periods of absence of the USS Simon Lake.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In periods of absence of the submarine tender, the United States navy has alternative
  199
  arrangements to cover emergencies, of which Her Majesty's Government are aware. The provision of maintenance support for its submarines is solely a matter for the United States Government.

  Air Defences
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current assessment of the threat to United Kingdom air defences.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The principal potential threat to United Kingdom air defences is that posed by the medium bombers of the Soviet Air Force based in the western USSR.

  This force has been—and continues to be—steadily modernised by the deployment of the supersonic Backfire, which is replacing the older Badger and Blinder.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current assessment of the need for(a) ground attack aircraft, and (b) air defence aircraft; and what was the assessment one year ago.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The assessed need for combat aircraft has been reflected in the plans described in successive statements on the defence estimates. We are currently reassessing our defence requirements as part of the "Options for Change" study.

  Defence Review
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what communications have taken place with the defence industry regarding the economic and industrial implications of the study of options for change;

  (2) what communications have taken place with the defence industry regarding future equipment requirements of the armed forces as part of the study of options for change.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I am in constant touch with industry and the whole range of procurement matters is discussed. The issues which arise are being taken into account during the current exercise.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Quotas
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet representatives of the fishing industry to discuss quotas.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet representatives of the fishing industry to discuss quotas.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet representatives of the fishing industry to discuss quotas.

  Mr. Curry
  I and my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office will be representing the United Kingdom at the next Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 27 June. I expect to meet representatives of the fishing industry on that occasion.

  Shellfish
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now consider introducing a scheme of compensation for losses incurred in the course of the recent shellfish health warnings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 12 June, column 131.

  "Chickengate"
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has yet completed his consideration of the conclusions reached in the book entitled "Chickengate", co-authored by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and Mr. Richard North.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 18 June,Official Report, column 471.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce the results of the experiments with bovine somatotropin.

  Mr. Maclean
  The companies conducting field trials using BST will decide on the announcement of the result of their work.

  Bees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the impact upon the spread of bee diseases of the decision to reduce the numbers and scope of bee inspectors.

  Mr. Curry
  There is no evidence to suggest that the change in policy for inspections by bees officers had led to any change in the incidence of bee diseases in the United Kingdom.

  Live Animals (Transport)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to bring forward legislation or orders to improve the transportation of live animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We intend to amend our legislation regarding the transport of unfit animals. We shall seek to negotiate high welfare standards in the context of proposed EC measures on the protection of animals in transit.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the discussions on the directive relating to the controls operated by Her Majesty's Government on the export of live horses and ponies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Only one Community meeting has been held to discuss the Commission's proposals on protection of animals during transport. We will be pressing to retain our controls on the export of horses and ponies.

  Food Distribution
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to encourage investment in fresh food distribution facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government give top priority to food safety and consumer protection as indicated by the Food Safety Bill. However, investment in particular sectors of the food industry is a matter for commercial judgment. The food industry can take advantage of DTI-funded aid schemes and other general Government measures towards this end, and may be eligible for EC-funded grant schemes designed to promote rational marketing and simple processing of primary produce.

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what foodstuffs are approved for consumption by mink and foxes.

  Mr. Maclean
  The safety and final quality of feed sold for feeding to fur livestock animals, including mink, are governed by the Agriculture Act 1970 and the Feeding Stuffs Regulations 1988, as amended. Foxes are not included in the definition of livestock animals.

  Farm Animal Welfare Council
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he is awaiting from the Farm Animal Welfar, Council.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) on 19 April 1990,Official Report, Vol. 170, column 1543.

  Consumer Panel
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his consumer panel last met; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Maclean
  The last meeting of the consumer panel took place on 2 May 1990. It discussed a wide range of issues including water quality, food labelling, BSE, hygiene training for food handlers and food irradiation. The minutes of this meeting are publicly available.

  Food Safety
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Consumers Association to discuss food safety.

  Mr. Maclean
  On 3 April 1990 representatives of the Consumers Association attended the first of the periodic meetings set up by my right hon. Friend with representatives of consumer organisations; a further meeting is planned for 12 July.

  Farmers' Incomes
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the National Farmers Union to discuss farmers' incomes.

  Mr. Curry
  I frequently meet representatives of the National Farmers Union to discuss farm incomes and other issues.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received from the Tyrrell committee on the question of the removal of bovine brains.

  Mr. Gummer
  As I indicated during the debate on bovine spongiform encephalopathy on 21 May, I asked the advisory committee on spongiform encephalopathies to consider slaughterhouse practices. I received verbal advice from the committee on 13 June that the recovery of head meat from bovine skulls should not be undertaken after the removal of the brain. I have accepted this advice and have issued appropriate guidance to local authorities. I shall, of course, take account of any further advice that the committee offers in formulating future action on slaughterhouse procedures.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures he has introduced to protect farmworkers who handle cattle placenta from the possibility of cross-infection with the agent responsible for bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Patrick Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) has recently produced an advisory note on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) for farmers. This includes advice on calving animals suspected to be suffering from bovine spongiform encephalopathy, including the handling of placentae.

  This advice has been discussed with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and reinforces the executive's advice on the procedures needed to minimise the risks of transmission of all infections from animals to man. The Health and Safety Executive is closely watching research developments in this field and will produce further advice as and when necessary.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what precautions are in force to protect workers in abattoirs who handle animal tissue deemed unfit for human consumption and bovine offals banned for human consumption from the possibility of cross-infection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive's field staff is available to give advice on work activities to employers and employees when necessary on any health risks associated with cattle, their carcases and their products which may be infected with BSE. The HSE has produced a free leaflet entitled "BSE and carcase disposal" which sets out hygiene precautions that will protect workers from diseases of cattle known to affect man. It has also agreed guidance that has been published by the British Meat Manufacturers Association which is being distributed to all slaughterhouses, and meat preparation and butchery sectors.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the possibility of the subcutaneous transference of the infective agent responsible for bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The risk to human health from such transmission is remote, but the Health and Safety
  203
  Executive has issued advice to guard against occupational exposure by cuts and abrasions. Experimental studies are in progress to determine the transmissibility of BSE to various host species by parenteral and oral routes of exposure.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculure, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing the distribution of the total number of confirmed cases of BSE, by county, in the United Kingdom in the four weeks to 17 June.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information for Great Britain is as follows:

  County

  Number

  Avon

  20

  Bedfordshire

  4

  Berkshire

  7

  Buckinghamshire

  10

  Cambridge

  4

  Cheshire

  30

  Cleveland

  1

  Clwyd

  8

  Cornwall

  46

  Cumbria

  11

  Derbyshire

  23

  Devon

  97

  Dorset

  103

  Dumfries

  7

  Durham

  7

  Dyfed

  47

  Essex

  3

  Fife

  5

  Glamorgan Mid

  4

  Glamorgan South

  2

  Gloucestershire

  26

  Grampian

  15

  Gwent

  5

  Hampshire

  39

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  18

  Hertfordshire

  5

  Highland

  2

  Humberside

  4

  Isle of Wight

  9

  Kent

  23

  Lancashire

  18

  Leicestershire

  28

  Lincolnshire

  4

  London

  1

  Lothian

  1

  Manchester

  1

  Norfolk

  20

  Northants

  8

  Northumberland

  7

  Nottinghamshire

  5

  Orkney

  1

  Oxon

  13

  Powys

  5

  Salop

  24

  Somerset

  106

  Staffordshire

  26

  Strathclyde

  9

  Suffolk

  14

  Surrey

  4

  Sussex East

  15

  Sussex West

  22

  Tayside

  1

  Warwickshire

  13

  Wiltshire

  64

  Yorkshire North

  33

  Yorkshire South

  5

  Yorkshire West

  8

  Total

  1,041

  204
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what circumstances cattle may be awarded a veterinary certificate stating they are free from BSE; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no test for BSE in the live animal, so no such certificate can be given.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ascertain whether BSE or a related condition is present in Holsteins of north American origin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  BSE has been confirmed in most breeds, including Holsteins. I am not aware that any of these originated in north America. The epidemiological survey carried out into BSE discounts imported cattle as being the cause.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the infective agent responsible for BSE has been detected in cattle placenta; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  No, but transmission experiments are in progress using placenta from BSE-affected cattle.

  Cattle and Sheep Exports
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy in respect of the export from Britain of scrapie-infected sheep.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is up to importing countries to determine what conditions they wish to impose upon sheep exported from Great Britain.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those countries which have banned imports from Britain of(a) live cattle and (b) live sheep, giving the date of the introduction of such ban in each case.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Country

  Date

  (a) Live cattle

  Australia

  December 1988

  Austria

  May 1990

  Canada

  February 1990

  Finland

  January 1989

  Israel1

  New Zealand

  December 1988

  Saudi Arabia

  February 1990

  Sweden

  October 1988

  Tunisia

  February 1990

  Turkey

  June 1990

  United States of America

  July 1989

  USSR

  March 1990

  (b) Live sheep

  Austria

  May 1990

  Canada

  May 1990

  Sweden

  October 1988

  Turkey

  June 1990

  USSR

  March 1990

  1 Not applicable—no health certification agreed.

  Southwood Committee
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to avoid a potential conflict of interest resulting from the presence of the Southwood committee of members operating in practice in the embryology research area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am fully confident that the Southwood working party's recommendations were made after an objective assessment of all the scientific data available.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those members of the Southwood committee who are expert in the scrapie family of diseases giving in each case their relevant qualifications.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 5 June,Official Report, column 497.

  Tyrrell Committee
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the members of the Tyrrell committee who have received any financial remuneration, other than as expenses as members of the committee, from his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  One member of the Tyrrell committee, Dr. Richard Kimberlin, who is an independent consultant with over 30 years' experience in the field of spongiform encephalopathies, provides expert advice to my Department.

  Nitrate Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he has made an assessment of the percentage of farmers in the 10 designated nitrate sensitive areas who will have to reduce their fertiliser use in order to qualify for payment under the nitrate sensitive area scheme; and if he will make a statement;
  206
  (2) what reductions in the use of nitrate fertilisers he anticipates as a result of the introduction of 10 nitrate sensitive areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  One of 18 obligations within the basic payment scheme is a requirement to apply no more than the economic optimum amount of inorganic nitrogen fertiliser for any crop, not more than 25 kgN/ha below that optimum for winter wheat or barley, and not more than 50 kgN/ha below for oilseed rape. I would expect the latter reductions to result in lower applications for most participants with arable land. More definitive information will be provided through the evaluation of the pilot scheme.

  Notifiable Diseases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what circumstances animal diseases for which there exist no practicable diagnostic tests are made notifiable; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are a number of factors to be considered in determining whether a disease should be made notifiable, including any implications it may have for public and or animal health and whether it is amenable to diagnosis, either in the field or in the laboratory.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to extend the countryside premium for set-aside land to new areas of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 18 June, Official Report, volume 174, column 467.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Sunday Trading: Court Proceedings
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in the light of the High Court decision quashing a conviction of two companies for a breach of the Shops Act 1950 in proceedings brought by Peterborough City Council; and what has been the cost to public funds imposed by the proceedings in this case.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government are prepared to consider reform of the Shops Act 1950, short of total deregulation, if a solution can be found which is widely accepted, enforceable, practicable and likely to command a parliamentary majority. No such solution has yet emerged. It is not possible to give a precise figure for the costs of proceedings in Peterborough. It is estimated, however, that the magistrates' Crown and and divisional courts' costs were £1,100, £3,300 and £7,600 respectively. The legal costs of the appellants have not yet been notified but they will be paid out of central funds in accordance with the judgment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Are the Government aware that the law on Sunday trading is now in a state of hopeless confusion which is unfair both to individual retailers and to the local authorities which have responsibility for enforcing it? Are the Government—unless they obtain some formula for agreement—content to leave the law like that?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government's position is that they continue to regard the law on Sunday trading as outdated, full of anomalies and in need of reform. Following the defeat of the Shops Bill in 1986, however, and despite extensive consultations and discussions, no proposal to reform the law has yet been put forward which would command widespread agreement. Discussions are continuing but unless a wider measure of agreement on reform of the law can be achieved, there is little prospect of early legislation.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, would not the Government consider following the example of that god-fearing country, Scotland? I am sure that there would be unanimous agreement to following the Scots, who are famous for their religion.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The position in Scotland is entirely different. In 1986 that argument was prayed in aid as support for the Shops Bill, but the legislation failed.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, does the Minister accept, as Lord Justice Mustill put the matter in the case in question, that things that can be sold on Sunday are,
"a strange miscellany of goods now ossified in the fifth schedule in the 1950 Act"?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the fifth schedule is the only one which allows goods to be sold or lists the goods that can be sold. That is the part of the Act which the Government feel is outdated.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the light of the chaos which the Minister informs the House exists, and in view of his pessimism as to agreement being reached on new legislation, what does he advise the country, and especially local authorities, to do regarding the present law? Will he comment on the great number of areas which are now surprisingly claiming to be holiday resorts?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord's final point, it is the holiday resorts which claim another exemption from Section 47 of the Act. That is perhaps a means whereby holiday resorts have quite properly sought to achieve their objective.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, does my noble friend recall the Auld Report which gave rise to the earlier Bill and nine days of debate in your Lordships' House? Can he say whether that report still forms the basis of Her Majesty's Government's consideration of the problem?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The Government have the Auld Report in front of them, but the current law remains the law. It is up to local authorities to prosecute if they think fit.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, everyone is aware of the anomalies linked with Sunday trading. Are the Government of the opinion that Sundays should always be a special day or have they decided to amend the Commandments?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not believe that the Government have an opinion on that matter. However, I confirm that the Government believe that the Shops Act 1950 is outdated.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, although I agree that the law needs to be reformed, is my noble friend aware that a special meeting of about 40 local authority senior officers and councillors who were attending the annual conference of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration on 20th June condemned the small group of large retailers and very highly-paid lobby groups for their attitude to this issue? Is he further aware that, since November 1989 when the European Court upheld our Sunday laws, over 250 enforcement prosecutions have been instituted all over the country, culminating recently in the Torfaen prosecution of B&Q? Will he take that into account?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall certainly take that into account. But I do not think that any of your Lordships would expect me to comment on the Torfaen case, which is subject to appeal.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, if unfortunately it is impossible to change this rather surprising law and a great deal of the trouble lies in its schedule, is it possible to amend the schedule?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that route has been considered. It was felt that the law itself needed reform rather than just tinkering with the schedule.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend regard it as proper for a responsible government to accept that the present state of the law is confused, unenforceable and unfair to all concerned and yet say that they propose to do nothing about it?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, I sought not to give that impression. I was trying to give the impression that consultations were still taking place in order that some measure of agreement can be achieved before further practical details are arrived at.

Housing Corporation: Finance
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take action to alleviate the financial difficulties of the Housing Corporation.
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the Housing Corporation's programme of grants and loans to housing associations is set to increase from £935 million in 1989–90 to £1,736 million in 1992–93. Because expenditure on schemes already approved for grant is running much faster than expected, many projects it had been hoped to start this year must now be deferred. The Housing Coporation greatly regrets the disruption to associations' programmes.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we had the same Answer quite recently? Does he accept that unless additional finance is forthcoming for the Housing Corporation, housing starts in 1991 may grind to a complete halt? Is he also aware that the Housing Corporation has asked for an advance of £400 million for next year in order to keep the building programme rolling? Does the Minister not agree that that makes sense? Will he urge his right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place to grant the Housing Corporation's request?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that the Answer is similar to an earlier one. But it was a similar Question and that is why he received a similar Answer. He will not be
1434
surprised that my supplementary answer to his supplementary question is that the expenditure which has taken place to date is above that forecast and that is the reason why less will be spent. The reality is that more houses will be completed sooner.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, perhaps I may ask again a question to which we tried very hard to get an answer last week. The Government are quite commendably providing extra money on an accelerating scale for the Housing Corporation over the next few years. Is it not the case that the housing associations are completing faster than expected and therefore it would be better to phase the increase in money differently? Does the Minister not agree that it would be better to allow some of the money allocated for future years to be brought forward to this year? Did not the Government allow that to happen last year, in that they allowed £120 million to be brought forward to this year? Since there is the great danger of cancellation of projects which are ready to start, does he not agree that the idea which was so successfully implemented last year can be sensibly applied this year?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Lord rightly said, there has been a considerable increase in the level of expenditure. It would be difficult to return to the Treasury to ask for a further draw-down on resources of about £400 million, which is the sum that has been referred to. We are not talking about cancellations but about early completions.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is a great waste of money for housing associations to get projects off the ground and then to have to suspend them? Properties that could be occupied therefore lie empty, damage is caused to them and the whole programme is put back for a year or more. Does he not agree that that in itself is a substantial waste of public money?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I return to the answer that I gave the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. The reality is that there has been an increase in the number of completions. That is the important point.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the very small housing associations that provide specialised housing for particular groups of people are suffering great hardship and some of them will almost go into receivership? In view of the fact that affordable social housing will not be provided by the housing associations because of the cutback in capital expenditure, will the Government consider allowing local authorities to spend more of their capital receipts to fill the gap that will be caused by the lack of provision by the housing associations?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Baroness is attempting to broaden the Question beyond the housing associations to local authority-provided housing. As I have pointed out on two occasions already on this Question, we are not talking about a reduction in the number of houses but about a reduction in the amount of cash available because

1435
of the additional money that has been spent to provide more units earlier due to improvements in efficiency by the housing associations.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the behaviour of the Housing Corporation rebounds on housing associations by producing a lack of confidence among councils in the performance of housing associations? Is he further aware that delays not only increase costs and deprive the homeless of a place to live but also cause schemes to be jettisoned? Will he comment on the latest announcement that in order to get out of the present crisis housing associations are being asked to accept a 5 per cent. slippage in their programmes? What exactly does a 5 per cent. slippage mean in this context?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that the problems are brought about essentially by success and not by disaster. If more money is spent with the result that more houses are provided sooner, fewer houses will be built later. But the actual net effect should not be any different from that which was originally planned.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Now answer the question!
Lord Northfield: My Lords, why was it possible to bring forward to this year £120 million from last year when the same thing is not being allowed for this year when it is equally necessary?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, earlier, the sum of money that has been mentioned for this year is £400 million and not £120 million.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one of the worst facets of what is now taking place is that because of their financial situation some of the housing associations are having to dispose of land which they bought two or three years ago when prices were at their peak? They are now having to sell it in a depressed market at a much lower price, thereby further depleting their meagre financial resources. Will he consider that point to see whether assistance can be given in that direction?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the remarks of the noble Lord on the price of land to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not about time that we abandoned semantics and niceties of accounting and got on with the job of providing homes at rents that people can afford?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that that is applicable not only to my own department but to many other departments. It would result in the unbelievable situation of sympathy being shown to the Treasury.

Former Ministers: Private Interests
2.52 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards government ex-Ministers taking posts in privatised industries which have been affected by government policies.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, successive governments have taken the view that it is in the national interest that former Ministers should be able to put their experience at the service of industry. These matters are left to the discretion and good sense of the individuals concerned. It is a principle of public life that Ministers must order their affairs so that no conflict arises between public duties and their private interest, including their foreseeable future private interests.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Does he agree that it is of the utmost importance that there should be a clear separation between the exercise of political power and activities within the commercial world, the main objective of which is the making of profit? As four former Ministers are now participating in some form in privatised industries which the Government have privatised, is this not derogating from that principle and allowing the commercial world the benefit of the inside knowledge gained from ministerial experience?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords. The noble Lord's question is answered by part of the Answer which I gave; namely, that it is important to recognise that a Minister's actions towards a company when he is in office are constrained by well-established principles. If I may say so, there is very little difference as concerns that principle between a Minister in the Government going to work in a privatised company and a Minister going to work in an industry in the public sector.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Lord not recognise that the fact that the Government have made serious mistakes in this field is in no way exonerated by the fact that a previous Labour Government made equally bad mistakes?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I would not accept either of the theses which the noble Lord puts to me.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that some people are concerned when they see former Ministers from this Chamber and another place taking chairmanships and other high-salaried posts in companies which they helped to privatise in the very recent past? Does he not understand that people outside do not readily accept that as wholesome conduct?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I have answered that question. He is seeking to distinguish between those who work in government taking chairmanships in undertakings

1437
in the public sector and former Ministers taking positions in undertakings in the private sector. All I can say to him is that successive governments have always taken the view that it is in the national interest that former Ministers should be able to put their experience at the service of industry and that there should be a two-way flow between industry and government and government and industry. There is therefore no change in the principle.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, from the standpoint of practical politics, what sanctions do the Government have against non-pensionable former Ministers?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the sanction sought by the noble Earl is to be found in an area which I am sure has occurred to him and which I shall put to the House. There is an important consideration for Ministers. They are public figures and both they and the companies concerned have a strong motivation to protect their good name.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the Leader of the House confirm that rules in this matter exist in relation to senior civil servants? Does not recent experience suggest that it would be a good idea if similar rules were published and were adopted by Ministers?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is a difference between the position I set out in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and that of civil servants. Civil servants are not normally public figures but are far more likely to have had detailed contractual dealings with their prospective employers and to be privy to trade secrets of competitors. It is worth noting that the rule for civil servants is not a prohibition for a period of time when they may not take a paid business appointment. The rule is that within a period of two years they must seek permission to do so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the Leader of the House recognise that with the privatisations that have taken place there is a somewhat different dimension for Ministers and their future careers outside government? Ministers are responsible for privatisations. Privatisations are completed by government and Ministers are responsible for their departments. Is it not therefore rather odd that there are no rules governing the future careers of Ministers who are actually in charge of the privatisation of the companies which they then join?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, what the noble Lord is temporarily overlooking is the fact that in every case that I can think of the privatisation has always been accompanied by regulation—indeed, in some cases by very strict regulation. Therefore I go back to the original thesis of my first Answer. Provided a Minister has made absolutely certain that his affairs are so conducted that there is no conflict between public duties and private interest, the position we have had for many years of people working in government being able to put their experience at the service of industry should be continued.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, should there not be an interval of some kind before a Minister takes a position? Although he may be of great value to the industry does it not look very bad if within a month or two a Minister joins a private firm which he has privatised?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, usually there is an interval and usually it is a quite substantial one. I repeat that for members of the Civil Service there is no mandatory interval. The rule is that within a period of two years there has to be an application for permission to take a paid business appointment.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I certainly do not wish to make personal charges against any noble Lord or any right honourable or honourable Member of another place. But is it not the case that the privatisation measures which are the base of this charge were highly contentious both in Parliament and in the country? Is it not further the case that the right honourable gentlemen in question were members of the Cabinet who were responsible for those measures and in some cases took part in the debates in relation to privatisation? In those circumstances would it not have been better to allow a period to elapse before their appointment?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I recognise what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is saying about the desirability of there being a reasonable lapse of time. However, I have already answered that point. The difference between going into the public sector or the private sector is that, in many cases, those going into the privatised companies move into companies which have been made into profit-making concerns. This has been for the good not only of them but also of the country. There have been concerns—this applies in all the cases about which I can think—which have always been regulated, and very strictly regulated indeed, in the legislation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord convey to his right honourable friend the general feeling that there is something not quite right about this situation?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that I do not agree with him in that argument.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, despite what some people may think, there are many Ministers and former Ministers who can bring an enormous amount of influence and practical experience to many companies, in the same way that many people involved in companies can bring a good deal of experience and practicality to another place and, indeed, to this House?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. That is the view which has been taken by successive governments over many years.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: my Lords, I have been intrigued by the discussion which has taken place so far. If the noble Lord will look back at the records, he will find that in the 1960s I questioned the scandal of senior civil servants leaving government departments and, within a short time, taking jobs in companies with which they had had relations in their civil servant capacity.
The matter was taken up by Hugh Gaitskell, the then Leader of the Opposition, and the ruling was made that senior civil servants would not be allowed to embark upon careers in private enterprise until they had left the government department concerned for two years. That is how the ruling was established.Why cannot this be done now in respect of Ministers?
There are scandals taking place. The noble Lord knows this. It is smearing Privy Counsellors and right honourable gentlemen who have held posts in government and who are now taking posts in private enterprise with which they have had contact. They have been bought because of their knowledge—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that this is quite true. Therefore, there ought also to be a two-year rule for Ministers.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can only repeat that there is not a two-year prohibition so far as concerns the Civil Service. However, there is a two-year period during which it is necessary for those in public service to apply for permission if they wish to take a paid business appointment. I shall not go over the same ground. I believe that the position we have at present is right.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, are we not perhaps taking rather too serious a view of the matter? After all, there have been Ministers in all governments, if I may say so, who have taken jobs. I can see two former Prime Ministers who saw some of their Ministers properly take jobs after leaving their position in the Government. Similarly, there are others who have not done so.
It seems to me perfectly simple. Some Ministers who have a perfect expertise and who would be valuable to industry are employed by them and others—of whom I can name one very easily—do not seem to have such a value and, therefore, are not employed in that way. Therefore, there is no reason to differentiate between them.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, apart from the self-criticism indulged in by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, I could not have put the position better myself.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if noble Lords will be quiet I shall get on with it! Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House tell us whether what he said applies to British institutions or organisations which have been privatised and which, having been privatised, now have overseas and foreign elements
1440
involved in them? I repeat; does what he has said up to now involve such organisations containing a foreign element which have taken over British companies?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in so far as I could hear the content of the noble Lord's question, I think that the answer is yes, indeed. My answers have taken account of that aspect of the matter.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to point out to my noble friend that we have now taken 27 minutes to deal with three Questions. We have far exceeded the time allotted for Question Time. If this very important point is to be continued, should it not be continued by way of a debate? I think that we should now proceed with the next Question.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that we are in danger of turning this matter into a debate. However, I am in the hands of the House.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before we move to the next Question I should like the noble Lord to answer the question which I put to him. Does he agree that it is important for public confidence sharply to separate political power and ministerial access to commercial and political information from the use of such information in the private sector of industry? In particular, will he comment upon the negotiations which took place when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that Mercury would be given a licence and then, less than 12 months later, the same Secretary of State became chairman of Cable and Wireless which owns Mercury?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I have already said.
A noble Lord: Well done!

Defence Sector Companies
3.7 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will launch a study, in conjunction with companies in the defence sector, of how the defence industry could manage a smooth transition to production for civilian uses, in the light of the anticipated reduction in demand for armaments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): No, my Lords. Decisions on the way companies conduct their businesses are best left to the commercial judgment of the individual companies concerned.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, does he recall the statement made by the Department of Trade and Industry in its White Paper that,
"open markets do not mean Governments should rely solely on the operation of market forces or stand by as a passive observer of the economy"?

1441
In view of the fact that redundancies have been annouced in the industry and that further redundancies are anticipated, does that not indicate that the DTI is standing by, whereas it should begin dialogue as the purchaser of arms with the suppliers of ar s to ensure a smooth transition?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can only repeat to the noble Lord that, as regards defence, we prefer to allow our suppliers to follow their own commercial judgment in deciding their markets.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are more than 325,000 people employed in the defence industry? That means that there are over 1 million people whose livelihoods are affected by employment in the industry. Surely he cannot simply say that we should leave the future of those individuals, within the context of a national policy and strategy, solely to market forces and the decisions taken in a dozen or 50 boardrooms.
Can the Minister not grasp this nettle and recognise the fact that this is a perfect time, and a perfect case, for the Government to show broad leadership by bringing together the TUC, the CBI and even local authorities involved, where whole towns are affected by the situation, to produce an alternative for the future?
Lord Denham: No, no, no!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Yes, yes, yes!
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that, under the Options for Change review, when it is decided as to what and by how much armaments are to be reduced, the defence firms will be fully informed and consulted. At the end of the day their decisions lie in their hands.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister say what relations the Government have with companies in the defence sector?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government have very good relations with them.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend think that perhaps the "groundnut" scheme might be useful in this respect?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I would be somewhat dubious of that suggestion.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there would be less disruption if these companies could be given more notice of changes in procurement policy? Further, is he aware that it is difficult to see why the Tornado decision could not have been taken earlier? Indeed, many of us on this side of the House wonder why the defence review was not started earlier.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is not a defence review. It comes under the heading of a policy review under Options for Change, as the noble Lord well knows. In my previous answer, I said that when the time is right the defence industry will be informed and fully consulted about the future of defence armaments.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, do the Government and the Minister accept that 50 per cent. of government-funded research and development is in the defence industries as against 12 per cent. in Germany and 6 per cent. in Japan? Does not the new defence policy offer the opportunity to return scientists to civilian manufacturing?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is some 45 per cent. of total government-funded research. The figure for research and development under the defence budget is just under £2 billion. It is scheduled that that figure will decrease gradually over the next few years.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Denham: My Lords, of course I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. However, when he has asked his question and my noble friend has answered, perhaps I may make the business statement.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, it is a short question designed only to avoid future misunderstanding. Will the Minister explain the difference between the defence review and the Options for Change?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in the past defence reviews have normally been resource-led. Under Options for Change, the review is policy-led as a result of the diminishing threat from the East.

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 an hour, and that during that adjournment the Report stage of the Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Bill will be taken.
At a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Carlton Club explosion.

Marriage (Registration of Buildings) Bill
3.11 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Bill
3.12 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness, having been informed of the purport of the Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Bill have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass —(Lord Mackie of Benshie.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill
Report received.

Term and Quarter Days (Scotland) Bill
3.13 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environmental Protection Bill
3.14 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 203B:
Before Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("National Council JOr Environmental Waste Policy

.—(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of the date of Royal Assent establish a National Council for Environmental Waste Policy, for the purpose of developing an integrated policy covering waste minimisation, the re-use of waste materials, recycling and the disposal of waste.

(2) The Council established under this section shall have the following functions—

(a) the development and publication of the proposals referred to in subsection (1) above, after consultation
1444
with local authorities, industry, waste producers, trades unions, consumer organisations, environmental organisations and such other persons as it considered to be concerned;

(b) the promotion of the use by companies of raw materials conforming to environmental criteria specified by the council; and

(c) the monitoring of environmental audits undertaken by companies, and the notification to shareholders and investors of any failure to meet environmental criteria specified by the Council.

(3) For the purposes of exercising its functions under subsection (2)(c) above, the Council shall undertake corporate investigations at cost to the companies concerned.

(4) The Council shall provide advice and assistance to waste collection authorities and waste disposal authorities respectively with respect to the development by them of plans under sections 47 and 48 below.").

The noble Earl said: The new clause that I propose in the amendment which is to be inserted in the Bill immediately before Clause 47 was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, when he moved his Amendment No. 2. He has already spoken about the need for an environmental protection executive—he has reminded the Committee of the parallel Health and Safety Executive—related to waste issues as proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in his Environment Protection Bill.
My amendment, which relates to the establishment of a national council for environmental waste policy, has been subject to previous debate and scrutiny not merely in this House through my short debate on 9th May on a call for national environmental waste policy, and my contribution to the Second Reading of the Bill, but in debate and scrutiny elsewhere.
Last April, I had the privilege of hosting an international conference here on the same theme as my short debate. The conference attracted speakers from the European Commission, the United Nations Environment Programme, and the Minister of State for the Environment and the Countryside as well as the distinguished environmental lawyer, Mr. Andrew Waite, who is the Secretary-General of the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association. The audience was no less distinguished. It was made up of leaders from waste regulatory authorities, chief executives of major companies, academics, scientists, waste policy experts and Members of the House.
Immediately before the conference, a survey was conceived and conducted at my request by Strategy (Europe) Limited. That survey demonstrated the need for a national waste policy and strategy which the Minister here, and the Minister for the Environment, conceded are not contained in the Bill, although the Minister in my short debate believed that the strategy was needed. That concession by the Government is reported in the May issue of the ENDS Report as:
"something which would have been unheard of even a few months ago".
The opinion of many of those who attended the conference was that there should be not just a national environmental waste policy, but that there was the need for the establishment of a body possibly to be called the national council for environmental waste policy. That council should be set up partly

1445
against the background of the long-term traumas of HMIP and its inability satisfactorily to enforce the existing legislation, let alone its capacity to enforce the myriad of measures proposed in the Bill.
During my short debate, the Minister argued that the much government-supported CBI and the Chemical Industries Association, with the vested interests of their respective toxic waste producing members, would fare the public well-being much better than an independent body such as the one that I outlined in my proposals.
However, the body that I propose would be beholden to no one other than corporate body of people in this country and the quality of its life over the next 10 to 20 years. Environmentally responsible waste producing companies which therefore have nothing to hide would find an ally in such a proposed council. On the other hand, those companies which conceal unacceptable environmental activities under the green flag of convenience would soon see that the council was no voluntary sop to government and industry, but a genuine force to be reckoned with—CBI, CIA or no.
The council too would be no middle ground between the Friends of the Earth on the one hand and the CIA and the Government on the other. It would have no truck with waste, economic expediency and political environmental compromises. In terms of waste issues, it would seek to help put back integrity into the philosophical meaning of sustainable economic development.
The role of the proposed national council for environmental waste policy would be, first, to evolve an integrated environmental waste policy related to waste minimisation, re-use, recycling and disposal. That policy would be based on consultations with local authorities, industry and the business community, directly and through trade and employers' groups. Trade unions, public and consumer pressure groups, as well as specialists in the waste sector, would also be consulted.
Secondly, it would ensure that manufacturing companies committed themselves to using raw materials meeting environmental criteria as laid down by the council. Thirdly, it would monitor environmental audits leading to acceptable corporate environmental strategies. Where a waste-producing business did not meet an acceptable environmental criterion laid down by the council, a notification would be posted to the shareholders and the other investors involved in that company, together with notification to the appropriate government departments.
Fourthly, it is proposed the council should have its own corporate investigative arm. The method of investigation could best be compared with the quality systems employed by companies such as Shell which are checked by independent third parties against the requirements of British Standard 5750. Fifthly and lastly, the investigation of a company's environmental audit and corporate environmental strategy by the quality systems type investigators would be paid for by the company and that company would be obliged to co-operate by law.
We shall eventually have to have such a body and not continue with naive reliance on codes of conduct
1446
issued by representatives of vested interest bodies, however well intentioned. Responsible companies will no doubt abide by such codes, but in a field already rife with fly-boys, who can expect them even to know, let alone observe, such codes? I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understand that it is for the convenience of the Committee that we deal with the noble Earl's amendment together with my Amendments No. 204, 205 and 211, as well as Amendment No. 219C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Layton. That is the right way to approach the matter because in many ways the three amendments or the sets of amendments are complementary and they all tend towards the same objective.
First, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Earl on recycling his speech so successfully. It was a good speech when he first made it in May. It was another good speech when he made it on Second Reading. I believe that it was slightly shorter this time, which is all to the good.
Many Members of the Committee may be surprised to hear that I approach this matter from a businessman's point of view. What is needed is something which any business entering a new period of investment with a new organisational structure ought to require and which the directors ought to require of the management. I am astonished that, while requiring business plans and waste management plans from the individual waste management authorities, the Government have given no thought whatever to requiring the same of themselves.
In Amendment No. 204—Amendments Nos. 205 and 211 are purely consequential—we propose that the Secretary of State should have an obligation within six months of the coming into force of the section on the national waste plan. The contents of that waste plan should be: national targets for the recycling of waste over the following five years; guidance on the development of waste recycling plans by collection authorities; and a national assessment of arrangements for the treatment and disposal of controlled waste, including estimates of volume and types of waste over the following five years.
If I were considering the substantial amount of investment of public money involved in this part of the Bill, the least I should require is that there should be a business plan. I shall come back to that in a moment. In the meantime, I wish to remind the Committee that we are not exactly taking a lead. In September last year the European Commission published a Community strategy for waste management in which it set out many of the contents which ought to be part of the Government's business plan for waste management. The headings of such a plan are well known to any noble Lords who have taken part in any of these debates, which seem to occur with considerable frequency.
The first option is the prevention of waste; or if that is not possible, the recycling and re-use of waste materials; or, if that is not possible, the safe disposal of non-recoverable residue. In proposing such a

1447
strategy—and the matter is still under consultation—the European Community has set the framework in which a whole series of further draft directives is now being prepared. For example, we are now at the stage of the fourth draft of the directive on landfill sites. This is of great importance, as the Committee will recognise, because of the information which has recently become available about the extent to which there are toxic wastes in landfill sites and the quite horrific nature of the cost of the remedial action which will be required. A number of amendments down for debate this afternoon cover that issue.
Perhaps I may continue with the example of landfill sites, which are only one of the means of waste management that we shall discuss. There is inevitably an interdependence of the different methods used for waste management. An individual waste management authority can hardly consider what landfill sites are required unless it goes on to consider what those landfill sites will dispose of and how in regard to the total waste for which the authority has responsibility that relates to the balance between landfill sites and incineration, for example.
The problem with this is that the local authorities, which have responsibility under the Bill for the local control of waste management—and we do not object to that—have insufficient knowledge about what their neighbouring authorities are doing in terms of landfill and incineration. I shall keep to those two examples. Incineration plant is often on a much larger scale than landfill sites. The whole economics of landfill depend on there being a short distance to the site, whereas incineration has a quite different economic basis. It depends on the steady supply of suitable materials for incineration which may come from quite a wide area.
With the best will in the world, local authorities which are being set up under this part of the Bill do not have all the information they need in order to produce a waste management plan which makes sense and which takes account of the optimum provision for facilities of each type that will be required for an efficient and economic system; and yet the Government criticise individual authorities for failing to have their own waste plans. What we are proposing here is that the Government should take their own medicine. They should treat this matter in a businesslike way and provide a national waste plan along the lines laid down in Amendment No. 204 to the Bill. I firmly believe that amendment would be a constructive addition to the provisions of this part of the Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: I have added my name to Amendments Nos. 204 and 205. I wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had to say, particularly about Amendment No. 204. My attention was drawn to an article which appeared in the Independent on 13th June. The article considers the latest proposed European Commission directive. It states that the Government have commissioned a report by experts from the Environmental Safety
1448
Centre of the Atomic Energy Authority's laboratories at Harwell. The article continues,
"Experts from the Environmental Safety Centre of the Atomic Energy Authority's laboratories at Harwell examined 100 tips, mostly run by local councils, representing half the waste landfilled in Britain.
Most sites had no measures for controlling pollution of groundwater or for methane emissions.
About a third did not find out if their operations were causing any off-site water pollution or methane leakage. Of the ones that did monitor, more than half found problems. The Harwell survey found very few sites met the UK permeability recommendation of three metres per year. More than 45 had adjoining rocks which were of a permeability thousands of times higher … landfill operators were trying to improve the way they prepared, ran and then closed tips, but the widespread lack of proper monitoring for pollution was undermining their efforts".
That paints a pretty horrific scene. Therefore I strongly support the idea that we should have a national plan.
Lord Layton: I shall move Amendment No. 219C because I think it puts matters in the right order. Both the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, deal with a national plan but from the wrong direction. We have here a situation where the waste regulation authorities are supposed to produce a plan. The noble Earl and the noble Lord are suggesting that the Government should produce a plan which the WRAs should then follow. However, I suggest in my Amendment No. 219C that the Government gather together all the plans that the WRAs have prepared. That will give the Government a basis of logistics and statistics which will enable them to find out what capacities and capabilities exist. From that information the Government can perhaps derive a plan which would not otherwise be available.
The first step is to collect the plans. Under the terms of Clause 48(10) it is a requirement that the WRAs submit plans. The next and fairly obvious step is for the Secretary of State to collate all the plans and come up with a national plan. If we try to do it the other way round, we shall find that no one will be able to do anything because no one will know what is going on in any direction.
Lord Renton: We have a number of alternatives to consider simultaneously. The Bill contains a pretty elaborate national plan in Part II set out in 46 clauses. The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, who has done so much work on this subject and whose views are always entitled to great respect, has put forward the next alternative that I wish to mention, which is that,
"The Secretary of State shall … establish a National Council for Environmental Waste Policy".
The noble Earl said that that council should formulate the policy after consultation with various people, including government departments. However, government departments are not mentioned in his amendment. I should have thought if we were to accept such a scheme that there would have to be consultation with the Secretary of State.
Another difficulty that I find with the amendment is that one wonders to whom the national council would be answerable. There is nothing to indicate

1449
that it would be answerable to the Secretary of State, although he appointed it. There is nothing to indicate how it would become answerable to Parliament. I must confess that I find difficulty with the noble Earl's amendment.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and of my noble friend Lord Layton come nearer to what I should have thought is constitutionally acceptable in that they make it quite clear that the Secretary of State is brought into the matter not merely through having appointed the national council in the case of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but also through having carried out the inquiries himself in the case of the amendment of my noble friend.
I ask the Committee to consider whether any of these alternatives is necessary or is as good as the provisions in the Bill. A national policy has been worked out by the department and the Secretary of State and we have set out in 46 clauses how it is to be implemented. We must be jolly careful here. This Bill is elaborate enough as it is. We are falling into a grave error in some of our legislation in trying to do too much.
Lord Hesketh: In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, I should like to begin by paying tribute to the valuable contributions that he has made in recent months to stimulating debate and raising informed interest in waste issues. We had a long and serious debate on the noble Earl's Motion on 9th May, after my honourable friend the Minister of State took part in a stimulating seminar on waste which was held in your Lordships' House on 23rd April.
Having said that, I must in all honesty add that the noble Earl's commendable enthusiasm has slightly run away with him. During earlier debates we have all had ample opportunity to hear his arguments for a national waste disposal strategy and for a national council to provide for it. While the Government have agreed that it is desirable to provide for a strategic approach to waste disposal planning across wider areas than counties, we are not persuaded that such strategies require any independent national body to construct them. Indeed the more we have heard, the more the Government are convinced that we do not need or want anything like the body which this amendment seeks to establish.
I say this in the knowledge that the noble Earl has been reported as saying that the Government support such a council. I can only conclude that there has been some small misunderstanding. Neither I nor the Minister of State have ever subscribed to the idea of a national council on waste. What we have said—I am happy to repeat it today in the Chamber—is that there is need for some strategic thinking and policy on waste issues on at least the regional scale; if anyone wishes to dub that with the title of a national waste strategy, so be it. Yes, we need a strategy, most usefully at a regional level, but we do not need a council to devise or implement it.
It is clear from the amendment that such a council would not have a job of its own to do. The functions listed are readily allocated between government, local authorities and industry. Where these tasks
1450
would be assisted by formal consultation arrangements or committees, the Government have set them up. For instance, there are a great many consultation arrangements and committees for the recycling of waste where the lead is taken by the Department of Trade and Industry in order to promote the development of markets for recycled products. In such circumstances it is right that the issues are fully discussed with those who are best able to take the action on the ground.
We do not see a need for an all-embracing national council. We prefer to deal with the development of policy which is finely targeted to the audience it addresses. In this respect each arm of the public and private sector has its role to play. It is the Government's job to consult on, produce and promulgate waste policy and to advise collection and regulation authorities on their plans. It is the job of local authorities and for processes covered by integrated pollution control (the subject of Part I of the Bill) of HMIP to police companies and to ensure a high standard of management of wastes when they are stored, recycled or disposed of. It is the job of industry itself, with the help and advice from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, to develop and apply its own environmental policies, including the investigation of its disposal and recycling options, the scope for waste minimisation and the protection of the environment through such tools as environmental audits.
None of those functions needs a new body on top of the existing system. In particular, industry already produces its own waste strategies for those sectors that produce the greatest volumes of waste or those that produce difficult wastes. There is no need to duplicate the effort. I am convinced that the industrial organisations that have produced such guidance in the past, such as the CBI and the Chemical Industries Association, will continue to keep the needs of their industries under revue and will provide further guidance as necessary.
Amendments Nos. 204 and 219C are in a similar vein and also seek to produce a national waste plan. Amendments Nos. 205 and 211 require collection and disposal authorities to have regard to such a national plan in drawing up their plans. That seems like a curiously top-down approach to planning. The provisions of Clauses 47 and 48 for recycling and disposal plans set out a programme of operation. The first thing that they require an authority to do in both cases is to carry out an investigation of its area to see what waste actually arises in the area for which disposal or recycling arrangements will be necessary. That must surely be the right way to approach the matter: first find out what wastes you have to deal with and then determine what would be the most sensible way of dealing with them.
Of crucial importance in that process is an analysis of the facilities which are already in existence and in those which need to be provided in the future. Any planning system that started from the opposite end—from the top down—could only produce a series of pious intentions divorced from reality. The Government are in no position to provide such information or such a plan from the outset, even if

1451
they thought such a plan sensible. In the 1960s and 1970s a series of national plans for various matters were produced by governments of different political hues. They achieved nothing and the concept is thoroughly discredited.
The Government would like to see more co-ordination of waste disposal plans at a regional level. I have already said in the debate on Clause 29 that the Government are discussing with the local authority associations ways of improving co-operation between regulation authorities at a regional level. That was the subject of an amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Layton. One of the objectives of the process will be to prepare regional strategies for disposal, especially with a view to ensuring that each region is able to provide the majority of waste management facilities for its own needs.
I therefore cannot agree that any national waste disposal council or plans are needed or desirable. I hope that the noble Lords will not feel that I have been unduly harsh but I feel that I owe it to the Committee to make the Government's view quite clear beyond any possibility of misrepresentation. By all means let us have strategies where they count—at local and regional level.
I have gone on for quite long enough. However, perhaps I may take up the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton, who quite rightly drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that there are 46 clauses in the Bill which I believe represent a national policy. That is why we resist the amendments.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I do not know whether Her Majesty's Government realise that several scientists have just invented a process by which they can turn the straw from corn into materials to make utensils which at the moment are made of plastic. That will be a great help in the future. Although it is not strictly relevant to the amendment, I believe that it is important that the Government should inquire into the matter. The process can be used to make utensils of all sorts. The material will fade away in about six months or so. Therefore there will be no need to recycle that form of waste because it will vanish.
Lord Hesketh: I believe that my noble friend is referring to the funding of the AFRC research in this field. I am very glad that he drew it to the attention of the Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It may be helpful if I respond to the Minister's remarks about my amendments. The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, will want to wind up the debate by referring to his amendment.
The Minister fears that we may find his reaction harsh. I should never have accused him of being harsh; he has just missed the point almost entirely, which is quite different. He embarked on what seemed to me to be a quite irrelevant attack on the
1452
national plans of the 1960s and 1970s, accusing his own party of indulging in them, as well as Labour Governments. He said that such a concept was thoroughly discredited. The Minister totally ignored the fact that that is not what is proposed in my amendment in particular or in the version moved by the noble Lord, Lord Layton.
What is proposed here is much more akin to a business plan, as I sought to make clear, obviously unsuccessfuly, when I introduced the amendment. We are talking about the systematic collection and interpretation of the information which is necessary in order for the investment decisions which have to be taken to be made on a proper and efficient basis. That is very different from the 46 clauses—if I may revert to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton—which set out the policy of the Government.
There is nothing wrong with the Government setting out their policy in legislation. Indeed, that is what they have sought to do in Parts I and II of the Bill. However, that is not a substitute for the detailed planning of the requirements of a national waste management policy on the ground, locally area by area. It is not a substitute for determining the options open to the Government and their agents in the waste management authorities, the cost of those different options, the balance between them and the correct conclusion to be arrived at. Those are not matters to be provided for in legislation or by setting out a policy. They are provided for by detailed, businesslike planning of resources, options and opportunities. That is what our plan proposes.
The amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, has a number of advantages to which I thought the Minister did scant justice. The particular advantages which I see in his amendment are the close relationship between his council and the companies particularly concerned with the production of waste. His proposal that there should be an obligation on the council to report directly to the shareholders of those companies about the environmental effect of their policies strikes me as a very valuable addition. It is not something that necessarily has to be included in legislation but it is something that the Minister ought to have recognised. He ought to have indicated that the Government supported it and would seek to provide for it, if not in legislation at least in regulations.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Layton, is closer to mine than I think he recognised. There is not a great deal of difference between the top-down and bottom-up approach. The Minister misinterpreted both of them in that respect. The main difference between our amendments is that the noble Lord's provides for a national waste disposal plan, whereas mine makes it clear that the three options in order of priority are the prevention of waste, the recycling of waste and the disposal of waste which can neither be prevented nor recycled. To that extent I believe that my amendment is all-embracing and will be more effective than his, with due respect to the careful drafting and excellent presentation of the noble Lord.
The Minister's response to Amendments Nos. 204, 205 and 211 is so unsatisfactory that I should warn

1453
the Committee that whatever decision the noble Earl. Lord Shannon, makes about his amendment, and subject to anything else that other noble Lords have to say, it would be my intention to seek the opinion of the Committee on the amendment in due course.
Lord Layton: I should like to take further the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and those made about my amendment in particular. I take his point about setting out priorities. It is a very strong point against which I have no defence. There is no provision in the 46 or 47 clauses of the Government's national plan for that information to be gathered together and published from the plans collected from the WRAs so as to allow local authorities, waste disposal authorities, waste regulatory authorities and all the other various authorities that are involved to produce regional or local plans on which their business decisions will be based. Unless that is forthcoming, I do not believe that anybody can come up with a rational plan at any level. One must know the overall situation in the country.
Basically my amendment seeks to say, "When you have the statistics, for God's sake tell everybody what they are". In that way it can then be known whether there are shortfalls or excess capacities. Therefore one can now say, "This is what we have to do; this is where investment must be encouraged and where it must be discouraged. This is the direction that we should take and these are the things that we should avoid".
For that reason I feel very strongly that the Government should take that point. It is in fact a very simple point. They should take that step and publish the plans of the modifications that the WRAs make to their own plans. That information should then be published as a national plan. If it is not thought desirable to publish it as a national plan, then they should give it as a national set of statistics in order that other plans at the other levels can then be worked out to the best of people's ability and with the best information available. Otherwise, they are not worth working out.
The Earl of Shannon: I am most grateful to all those who have spoken with reference to my amendment and especially to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, even though he said that my speech was somewhat recycled. I thought that there might possibly be noble Lords who were not present on the previous occasion. I should draw the Committee's attention to the fact that we had exactly the same recycled reply from the Minister. His brief was exactly the same as the one that he read out on two previous occasions.
These amendments fall into two different groups. My amendment tries to deal with planning and enforcement. The other amendments grouped with it tend to deal with planning based on information. I have nothing against them although they do not go so far as I should have liked. I ought to have realised and learned by now, after some years in this Chamber, that it is quite impossible to get any amendment past the critical and miscroscopic
1454
scrutiny of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who will always find just that little loophole that you did not think was there. He always does it, certainly with my amendments. Nevertheless I am grateful to him.
The noble Lord made the point that the amendment could not in itself be fully constitutional and that it was defective. I feel, however, that it is not unacceptable in intention. There may be 46 clauses outlining government policy, but, as we have heard, the Government do not have the information. They cannot do the planning. Equally well, as we have heard on previous occasions, there is quite definitely no possible chance that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution will ever be able to fulfil its duties under this provision. There are not enough people to carry out enforcement of what has already been legislated for. Yet we require it to do other things which it will never be able to do. Unless the Minister can say that it is intended to enlarge Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution about 50 times, he is just airily saying, "Let us do this. This is government policy. Let us hope that everyone will forget about it".
That is just not good enough. If the Minister is prepared to say, "We shall produce the resources that are required to implement the Bill", we shall be quite happy. It is not on at all merely to say that this has to be done but that they will not give any more resources to do it.
I agree that my amendment as it stands may be defective, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out. Therefore I have no option but to consider what has been said and possibly reserve the right to come back to this matter on a future occasion. For the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead: With the leave of your Lordships, I shall now—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are dealing with a group of amendments which have been debated together by common agreement. I think that it might be better if we conclude the immediately succeeding amendment, which is on the same point and which need not be debated again, before we resume the House and have the Statement. I am not in any way anxious to delay the Statement but at this point it may confuse the arguments on the Bill.
Lord Belstead: I apologise to the noble Lord. I entirely agree.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 204:
Before Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("National Waste Plan

.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to publish within six months of the coming into force of this section a National Waste Plan including the following matters—

(a) national targets for the recycling of waste over the following five years, together with guidance as to the development of waste recycling plans by collection authorities under section 47 below;

(b) a national assessment of arrangements for the treatment and disposal of controlled waste, including estimates of volume and types of waste over the following five years,

1455
the likely pattern of licences and guidance as to methods for disposal and treatment, for purposes of providing guidance to regulation authorities in the development of plans under section 48 below.

(2) The Plan prepared in accordance with subsection (1) above shall include national targets for the minimisation of waste, and the Secretary of State may by Order require producers of waste to comply with standards or requirements as to the minimisation of waste as reasonably appear to be necessary to secure the attainment of the targets contained in the Plan.

(3) Before publishing the Plan, the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations representative of authorities exercising functions under this Part, waste producers, environmental organisations, consumers and other persons as appear to him to be concerned.

(4) The targets contained in the Plan shall be drawn up subject to the overriding requirement to secure the maximisation of recycling and the minimisation of waste.").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
3.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 204) shall be agreed to.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 146.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Hunt, L.

Airedale, L.

Hylton, L.

Annan, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Aylestone, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Blease, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kennet, L.

Brightman, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kintore, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Leatherland, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Listowel, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carter, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Longford, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McCarthy, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ennals, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Molloy, L.

Ezra, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mulley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Galpern, L.

Nicol, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Ogmore, L.

Glenamara, L.

Oram, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Parry, L.

Peston, L.

Grey, E.

Phillips, B.

Hampton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hanworth, V.

Porritt, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Rochester, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sainsbury, L.

1456

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Scanlon, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Seebohm, L.

Tenby, V.

Shackleton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Shannon, E.

Varley, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Somerset, D.

Walston, L.

Stallard, L.

Whaddon, L.

Stedman, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Winstanley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Hooper, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Allerton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Alport, L.

Joseph, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Balfour, E.

Kitchener, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Layton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Lovat, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Butterworth, L.

Manton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Middleton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Milverton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cockfield, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Cottlesloe, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Munster, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Nelson, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

De L'Isle, V.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Derwent, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dormer, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Peel, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pender, L.

Effingham, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Elibank, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Elles, B.

Prior, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pym, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Quinton, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Radnor, E.

Faithfull, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Reay, L.

Foley, L.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rodney, L.

Gainford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Geddes, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

St. Germans, E.

Gisborough, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Grantchester, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gridley, L.

Savile, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Selborne, E.

Haig, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Halsbury, E.

Sharples, B.

Harlech, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Havers, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hayter, L.

Henley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swansea, L.

Hives, L.

Swinfen, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Teviot, L.

Hood, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

1457

Tollemache, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Trumpington, B.

Windlesham, L.

Ullswater, V.

Wise, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wootton, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Young, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Carlton Club: Bomb Incident
4.4 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary about the bombing of the Carlton Club last night. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the explosion at the Carlton Club, St. James's Street, last night. In view of the fact that this matter was raised on the Floor of the House last night, and the Lord President indicated that I would consider whether I should make a Statement today, I thought that this was the right thing to do.
"The explosion occurred at the Carlton Club, 70 St. James's Street, London W 1 at 8.39 p.m. yesterday evening. Seven persons were injured by the blast and were taken to Westminster and St. Thomas's hospitals for treatment. None is in any danger, and three were discharged without being detained overnight. The injured include the porter of the club, a former Member of this House and now a Member of the other place, and two uniformed police officers. Our sympathies go to all tile injured and their families, and we wish then- a speedy recovery.
"The explosion has caused severe damage to the premises, the extent of which has yet to be fully assessed. Forensic examination of the scene is under way. The police believe that a large explosive device had been left in or near the doorway of the club. No one has claimed responsibility for this attack, but it seems to have been the work of the IRA.
"The emergency services reacted with great speed, arriving within minutes of the explosion. I pay tribute to them. It should always be remembered that they face the additional hazard of risk of injury or death from secondary devices designed to kill those who come to save life.
"The House is united in condemning this attack. Following the recent one on Lord McAlpine's former residence it looks as if the IRA are being driven to attack different sorts of targets. Whether they strike at military or civilian targets, barracks or private homes, they are attacking democracy itself and they do not care who is killed or injured in the process.
1458
"This apparent change of tactics requires renewed vigilance on the part of everyone. For their part, the police are constantly reviewing the means by which the threat, as it varies, can be met. I have this morning discussed developments with the Commissioner and there is absolutely no doubt about the determination of his force, and other police forces in the United Kingdom, to continue to do everything possible to prevent such outrages and to track down the perpetrators. The House should be aware that much is done every day of the week to prevent and deter and to combat terrorist activity and most of its cannot be safely revealed. But terrorists operate by stealth, surprise and with a callous disregard for life, and from time to time they may register what by their perverted standards they regard as a success. It is not something against which, in a free society, anyone can provide an absolute guarantee.
"What is needed to support the efforts of the police is renewed and constant vigilance on the part of every citizen. I ask people to report any packages left in public places and suspicious behaviour by individuals. They must not be worried about troubling the police unnecessarily.
"We have been here before with the bomb attacks against the public in the 1970s. They did not succeed then. Nor will they now."
4.9 p.m.
Lord Mishcon:My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating that sombre Statement. Perhaps I may at once, on behalf of every single person sitting on the Benches behind me, register our sympathy with noble Lords opposite. On an occasion such as this there are only physical divisions in your Lordships' House.
We should also like to extend our sympathy to those who were injured and to wish them a speedy recovery. At this moment we are thinking especially of the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry. I have it on very reliable authority that he is doing well, and we are all delighted to hear that. Perhaps I may sound a personal note. Exactly 40 years ago the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry, was my political opponent in north-west Leeds in the 1950 election. I should like your Lordships to know that apart from his political views and the fact that he won, he has always had my unstinted admiration.
Rightly, the noble Lord the Leader of the House repeated the Home Secretary's praise for the auxiliary services. Not only did they arrive promptly on the scene but they were magnificent in freeing people from the debris. We on this side of the House admire and praise them.
As was said by the head of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist squad this morning, the Statement indicates that the tactics of the IRA appear to have shifted from attacks on soft military targets to attacks on private subjects. It is right that admonition and warnings should be given. It is also right that the public should be advised to assist the authorities where possible by reporting anything of an extraordinary nature such as a suspect package or suspicious behaviour. Perhaps the noble Lord the

1459
Leader of the House and those responsible for such matters can think of a way of bringing them closer to the attention of the public without creating a feeling of panic or giving the impression, which none of us wishes to give, that the IRA is disrupting the whole of our affairs. It is not, and it will not.
During the course of reading the Statement the Leader of the House said that no one has claimed responsibility for the attack. The word "claimed" appears to indicate that someone is out to claim merit for something that has been done. If, unfortunately, we have to announce a similar incident in the future I suggest that we should use the words "admitted responsibility" and not "claimed".
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Home Secretary's Statement. On behalf of Members on these Benches, I express regret for the injury caused to the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry, and to others by this despicable attack.
Is the noble Lord aware of our admiration for the work of the emergency services—the ambulancemen, the firemen and the policemen? Last night they entered the building despite the ever-present risk of a second explosion. I understand that some American visitors were injured. I am sure that I express the hope of all Members of the House in saying that those in the United States who give financial support to the Provisional IRA should consider the character of the organisation that they are backing. It is deplorable that after attacks on innocent citizens in this country a fund-raising organisation remains in existence in the United States and is generously supported by many American citizens. Is the Leader of the House aware of our strong approval of the words of the United States ambassador in describing as contemptible the acts of the Mayor of New York who has seen fit to name a street in New York after a convicted IRA terrorist?
Is the noble Lord further aware of our agreement with the Home Secretary? It is essential that the public should inform the police immediately of any suspect packages or suspicious behaviour by anyone. In the light of the increasingly vicious campaign by the IRA, those responsible for the security of buildings which may be seen by the IRA as being soft targets should immediately review their security arrangements.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their reception of my right honourable friend's Statement. I am particularly grateful for the sympathy they expressed and the mention of my noble friend Lord Kaberry. It will take more than this to get him down and I am sure that he will be back among us.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is right to ask whether the Government can think of ways to encourage greater vigilance. I content myself by saying that that is one of the reasons for the
1460
Statement being made this afternoon. I hope that members of the public will think along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, as indeed will the Government. I take his point about the word "admitted". This was a cruel attack which will not alter our resolve to combat terrorists in the United Kingdom until terrorism is no more.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for his comments about fund-raising abroad. He rightly quoted the condemnation of such activities by the United States ambassador. I cannot improve upon the noble Lord's concluding words about the need for eternal and active vigilance.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, to his enormous regret my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, who is chairman of the Carlton Club, is unable to be present. He has asked me, as his predecessor, to say a few words on behalf of the club. I too thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. To members of the Carlton Club it is important, and in its wider implications it is probably a Statement of considerable national importance. On behalf of my noble friend and the members of the club, I too express gratitude to the police and the fire service who responded with great speed and their habitual courage in order to rescue injured people and to do what they could to rectify the situation.
I am glad to be able to confirm from fairly recent information that my noble friend Lord Kaberry is making good progress. I have similar good news about the porter, Mr. Henry, who is the other seriously injured person. Recent reports of both are excellent.
The club has no intention of being put down in any sense—except the purely physical and structural—by any episode of this kind. Curiously enough, it is almost 50 years since the Carlton Club in its premises in Pall Mall was bombed by another enemy of this country. As your Lordships know, it recovered from that seemingly complete disaster and in circumstances which involved the safety of half of the Cabinet of the day, although I suppose that there may be differing views in this House. The club will not be deterred by the incident. The building will be repaired and the club will continue to serve the causes that it has served during the years. It will provide a home and a friendly meeting place for many members of the public as well for those who are politically interested.
Although it will be some time before the necessary physical repairs can be effected, the club has every intention of continuing as a living and active entity. We hope that members of the public and those who are inconvenienced by the situation will understand and that they will be as helpful as possible. For many of us this is a tragic episode. It was wholly unnecessary: it is impossible to express the depth of one's feelings about it.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his intervention, and on behalf of the Government I should simply like to offer sympathy not only to

1461
members of the club but also to its staff. I suggest that this is an occasion when the whole House will say that we are pleased that rebuilding is to take place.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I should like to echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord the Leader of the House and by my noble friend Lord Mishcon regarding those who have been injured in this barbarous act. I am personally sorry to hear of the injuries sustained by my friend the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry. I hope that he, together with all others affected, will fully recover.
The killing of civilians by the Provisional IRA is no charge of policy: the Grand Hotel at Brighton, Enniskillen and the Australians in Europe are all proof of that. Your Lordships will perhaps be aware that the old Irish Republican Army contained Irish rebellious elements and their battle was versus the British Army. They regarded the battle as a form of traditional warfare. But when the Provisional IRA broke away from the Official IRA they embarked upon killing the RUC and prison officers—that is, the supporters of the security forces—and thereafter they killed civilians who were building prisons or police stations. So killing civilians by the IRA is not new.
What is different, in my opinion, is the type of Irish terrorist who is now recruited and involved. In place of what might be regarded as the old traditional army terrorist, with the occasional attack on the established authority which caused some civilian casualties, we now have a younger breed of mindless, adventurous militants, addicted to the adventure and thrill of bombing and killing and taking on unguarded establishments. They do not have to be trained or to be sophisticated: thrill of the kill is sufficient. That, in my opinion, is a distinct change. A small band of reckless terrorists of that kind can create havoc in any of the cities in our land. I believe that is their goal. Therefore eternal vigilance is absolutely necessary by everybody at all times, with special attention being given by those who are in a position of surveillance and concerned with the security of persons, enterprises and local and government establishments.
Finally, it is imperative that the public should be totally aware that these terrorists are in their midst, and suspicious activities of any kind such as Irish people hiring cars, booking short-term stays in guest houses, using lock-up garages for short periods at a time, and so on, must be reported to the police. Harassment pays, and although some innocents may be perturbed and affected, chasing the terrorists will certainly pay. On the whole they have been harassed and chased out of Northern Ireland. Now that they are here, we have to do the same in Great Britian.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, with his background of very distinguished service as Secretary of State in Northern Ireland, has thought it right to intervene. I agree with him that attacks on the civilian population by the IRA are not new. I only add that I believe they have no friends of any credibility.
1462
Perhaps I may say on behalf of the Government that the Statement deliberately was not too long and could not accommodate the kind of advice which the noble Lord gave in his intervention. Therefore it was very valuable that he should do so. Eternal vigilance is the watchword and so also are the necessary powers for the police in that connection. Again I say on behalf of the Government that I believe the Prevention of Terrorism Act remains an essential part of our armour. However, perhaps we ought not to pursue these matters too far now. I should like to thank noble Lords for their responses to this sombre Statement.

Environmental Protection Bill
4.25 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 47 [Waste recycling plans by collection authorities]:
[Amendment No. 205 not moved.]
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 205A:
Page 51, line 22, leave out ("waste collection authority") and insert ("waste regulation authority').
The noble Lord said: With this amendment should be taken Amendments Nos. 207A, 209A, 210ZA and 210A. The Bill places a duty on waste collection authorities to produce waste recycling plans together with powers, along with waste disposal authorities, to recycle waste. The waste regulation authority has the duty to prepare a waste disposal plan. This division of responsibility is unfortunate. There is no clear and coherent strategy for recycling as between the three authorities. Waste disposal authorities need to plan for the disposal of collected waste, and to do that effectively they need to know the likely volume of waste that the collection authorities could divert from the waste stream for recycling.
Disposal facility operators need to know the volume of waste they are going to receive for some years ahead if they are to make informed investment decisions. Furthermore, it is important that there are no inconsistencies between the waste recycling plans that each collection authority prepares. There is thus a need fully to integrate disposal plans with recycling plans, and a need to ensure a coherent approach to recycling across each county as a whole. The authority best placed to do that is the waste regulation authority. This amendment would ensure much better co-ordination of key waste management arrangements. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: These amendments, as my noble friend explained, would switch the responsibility for preparing and implementing recycling plans from waste collection authorities to waste regulation authorities. In our view that would be an unsatisfactory change, for the following reasons.
Waste collection authorities, which are mainly district councils, are in the front line in dealing with household waste. They empty our dustbins, usually, and many provide or service the local facilities

1463
associated with recycling, such as bottle banks. Many already have arrangements with contractors to take away recyclable materials, and some noble Lords may be acquainted with the excellent schemes run by many councils. They have local contact with all the people who make recycling work: local shops and firms, schools and legions of committed volunteers. We want to see this activity spread so that all councils come up to the standard of the best. That is the purpose of requiring them to draw up and implement local waste recycling plans. These amendments would have the effect of removing that requirement.
Waste regulation authorities, to which the amendment would transfer this responsibility, are very different animals, operating as they do at county level. In their way they are equally important for recycling, but their role is not to draw up local detailed recycling plans like the collection authorities; it is to take a wider strategic view of what happens to all waste arising in their area. Although they are required to have regard to the desirability of giving priority to recycling waste, they are not in a position to adopt the local approach of the districts.
I hope that on reflection my noble friend will agree that collection authorities are the right organisations to draw up and implement local waste recycling plans.
Lord Gisborough: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation, which I will pass on to the people who are interested in these amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 51, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) in accordance with guidance with the Secretary of State, to investigate the extent of the market for recycled products deriving from the waste;
( ) to consider what arrangements it could reasonably make to stimulate the market for recycled products in its area;").
The noble Lord said: We are dealing with Clause 47, which sets out the duty of each waste collection authority. Subsection (1)(a) to (e) sets out what the responsibilities of the waste collection authorities should be.
We suggest in the amendment that two further small additions should be made: first, to investigate the extent of the market for recycled products deriving from the waste and, secondly, to consider what arrangements the local authority can reasonably make to stimulate the market for such products in its area. The amendment would oblige a waste collection authority when drawing up its plans to investigate the extent of the market for recycled products derived from the waste that it collects and the ways in which it could stimulate the market in its area.
Those of us whose wives collect waste paper all know from experience that at times the market collapses. It is in a collapsed state at the moment. I
1464
suspect that a great deal of paper that has been stored in barns is probably about to be dumped in holes in the ground because there is no market for it at present, although it will revive later. If we could achieve some consistency in the matter, it would be an enormous advantage. We also know that tin cans are not wanted, but that aluminium cans are wanted. There is a bottle bank in my town, but nowhere to put cans. There is a well-organised collection point for cans in the next market town, but unfortunately it is 10 miles away.
The most important step in a recycling programme is market research. Without it, the programme will fail and people who were once keen to take part will become disillusioned. That is exactly the description that I used on Second Reading. People collect things thinking that they will be recycled; but they then find, to their horror, that the items have gone nowhere and have simply been dumped. Before putting a waste recycling plan into effect, the authority should carry out such market research. It should also examine how it can stimulate the market by, for example, using more recycled products itself—we should do that in this place—and by encouraging others to do so. When local authorities have premises to let, they should try to ensure that the firms which take those premises make some use of their waste products. The Secretary of State should draw up national guidance as to the overall market for recycled products, and should help the authorities by giving them that information and so assist them in drawing up or modifying their plans.
Amendment No. 206ZA is consequential. It contains a printing error. The word "on" should read "or" so that the amendment reads:
"the recycling, or the facilitating of the recycling of waste".
I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Without committing myself to the terms of the amendment—I am not quite sure how it would work—I should like to say that in my opinion the noble Lord has done a valuable service in drawing attention to the inadequacy of some of our existing arrangements for dealing with waste.
For example, I suspect that, like me, all noble Lords live in an ocean of paper that comes through the post. Being a keen conservationist, I save all my paper. I have saved about half a tonne in the past 18 months. I keep it in a shed. I have become rather tired of taking small quantities in my own car to a waste paper factory 15 miles away. That is the nearest one, as I live out in the country five miles from Huntingdon. The people in the waste factory say that, if I get a tonne, they might collect; it depends what other loads they have to collect. They would like three tonnes. I reckon that it will take me a good many years to collect that amount.
That is a serious and practical point. It would save trees galore, carbon dioxide and all sorts of things, if we collected our waste paper and recycled it. However, turning aside from that, the noble Lord's suggestion that we need more bottle banks is a valuable one. It is not difficult to keep boxes in which wine bottles arrive, to use them to put the

1465
empty bottles in after they have been consumed, put them in one's car, and, as one passes through a town where there is a bottle bank, shove them into it. However, as I understand it, not many towns have them, especially in convenient places where you can park your car nearby. The best place to have one is at a car park.
In my own mind I cannot quite fit the machinery that is described in the amendment into the Bill; but I shall be interested to hear what one of my noble friends may have to say about the matter. I hope that he will have something encouraging to say.
Lord Ezra: I should like to support the amendment moved by my noble friend. It would add substantially to the clause that we are debating.
I should explain that I have an interest in these matters as I am president of the UK Reclamation Council. The Council represents those sectors of industry concerned with paper, metals, glass, and so on, which are interested in stimulating recycling, not only as part of their own activities but to obtain the full support of the public.
One point has been clear throughout our deliberations; namely, that the state of the market for recycled products must be well known by all concerned. That was the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred in connection with his assiduous collection of waste paper. People are not particularly well advised on those matters. If clear guidance could be given at the regional and local level by the authorities as to which areas of recycling were important at any one time and they could consider ways in which those could be stimulated, that would be most helpful. The amendments add considerable force to the clause.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rcss—Amendment No. 206—raises an issue of fundamental importance. There is no point in collecting and processing recyclable waste if there is no end market. As he rightly pointed out, all you get are soggy stockpiles of newspapers, and can and glass mountains. You also get many disheartened consumers who see their efforts to segregate waste literally going to waste.
Our approach has been to look at recycling as a loop with the consumer at the beginning and the end. At the household level, we have put in place the right collection and sorting systems and we are backing a number of pilot schemes. The waste collection authority must have the right facilities to deal with waste collected and can also help with providing and servicing what are called "bring" systems such as bottle banks. Next in the loop are the local companies which process waste and pass it on to the manufacturers who produce new materials. In some cases—for example, with glass—the middleman may be bypassed by the glass manufacturer himself. Finally, there is Mr. and Mrs. Green, again buying and using recycled products.
The markets for each waste stream can be very different. Paper is an internationally traded commodity and its price can fluctuate considerably. At the moment, the price of waste newspaper is very
1466
low, although that for other types of paper, such as computer paper, is holding up well. Most types of glass are in demand, and the aluminium and steel can manufacturers could take a great deal more cans and offer a guaranteed price for them.
We are encouraged that, subject to the necessary clearances, the new owners of Reedpack, the paper company, intend to go ahead with a major investment at Aylesford in Kent. That plant will produce newsprint with 100 per cent. recycled waste paper content. If that goes ahead, it will greatly increase the capacity to process waste newspaper and will mean the end of the current glut which, I am well aware, has been the subject of a number of Questions in the House over the past 18 months.
Turning back to the amendment, I am always impressed by the versatility of local authorities. However, I do not regard market researching as one of their fortes. Naturally, they will come to know about the local market for recycled materials, but it would place too much of a burden on them to go in for formal market investigation. However, I agree with the implication of the amendment that central government should, wherever possible, help local authorities to find a market for recycled goods. That is why we set up an expert advisory group on recycling with membership from local authorities as well as industry and voluntary organisations.
That group split into several teams which investigated the markets for different recyclable commodities in depth.
The exchange of information was extremely valuable. The Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry are currently considering how to carry forward the findings of these teams and how to keep up an effective exchange of information about market issues.
Under the current wording of Clause 47, waste collection authorities will be required to carry out an investigation of arrangements for dealing with waste for the purpose of recycling it. They are required to report on those arrangements in the recycling plan. Amendment No. 206ZA in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Ross and Lord Addington, would restrict the scope of the plan to a report on recycling arrangements without covering the essential preparatory work of sorting and baling recyclable waste.
Waste collection authorities must look at the arrangements for waste separation and sorting in their area. We are currently working with local authorities to investigate, for example, the extent to which source separation of waste by householders is desirable or feasible. I recently opened such a scheme in Milton Keynes. Waste recycling plans must necessarily take such issues into account.
I hope I have not detained the Committee too long. The amendments raise a central issue of importance. In the light of what I have said I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will not find it necessary to press the amendment to a Division.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and my noble friend Lord Renton raised the matter of bottle banks. At present there are 4,000 bottle banks in the United Kingdom. We hope to raise that figure to 10,000 by

1467
the end of the century along with our stated desire of achieving 50 per cent. recyclability.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ross, replies perhaps I could make one further point which arises from the response of my noble friend regarding the low price of waste paper. I firmly believe in market economies. But we have a dilemma here. It is a dilemma increasingly recognised by the Labour Party for which I give that party credit. The more efficient the collection of waste paper becomes the lower the price is likely to fall. We must not allow the collection of waste paper to be impeded or delayed by the fall in the market price.
I cannot expect my noble friend to answer that dilemma immediately, but I hope that it will be borne in mind that the effective collection of waste paper must not be impeded by the operation of the market price.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ross, replies, perhaps I may say that I am fascinated by the response of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I commend to him my Amendment No. 207B, which I believe answers the point that he raised.
Lord Hesketh: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ross, responds, perhaps I could draw my noble friend's attention to the proposed plant in Kent. The key problem regarding newsprint is not a question of subsidy or financial encouragement; it is the physical availability of the plant to process the soggy pile of paper about which my noble friend is concerned. One hopes that when the plant is completed, there will be capacity in excess of the available market which will result not merely in an underpinning, but an increase in the price in the United Kingdom.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Is the Minister suggesting that the garage of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, leaks?
Lord Ross of Newport: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee for their contributions, I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his support. The government response is good news. I know that the Minister is particularly pleased with what is shortly to happen in Kent because it will put a bottom into the market.
However, I find it sad when two private individuals—young men—start up in business collecting newspapers for recycling. They buy a van and set the business up but the whole thing collapses and they go bust. That is very sad. I believe that local authorities could help in such a situation by providing storage and similar facilities, pending a revival of the market.
The Minister gave a very full reply. I realise that the amendment may damage some aspects of baling and packaging. I do not want to do that. It is a good clause and I congratulate the Government on their approach. I am also interested in the guidance the
1468
Government are receiving from their committees. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 206ZA not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 206A:
Page 51, line 32, at end insert ("having regard to any scheme drawn up under section (Subsidy far waste recycling) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 206A I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 207B and 210B. The first two are consequential upon Amendment No. 210B, which is the new clause after Clause 47 providing for a subsidy for waste recycling.
I was greatly encouraged by interventions in the previous debate, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Once again the noble Lord proclaimed his devotion to market economics and suggested that we might agree with him. That led me to indicate to him that he may find virtue in our Amendment No. 210B. I also invite him to contrast Amendment No. 210B with the government amendment on a similar subject, Amendment No. 222A. It was not decided to group one with the other but that could have been done.
There is already recognition that the operation of the market pure and simple is not adequate to provide for a flourishing recycling industry. That is borne out by statements including that of the Minister in his response to the last amendment. In turn, a flourishing recycling industry is necessary to ensure that there is enough impetus on the orginators of recyclable waste to prepare and collect that waste for recycling. No less a body than the Recycling Advisory Group of the Department of Trade and Industry—not noted for its references to market failures—points out the following. Changes in commodity prices, to which the Minister referred when talking of the prices for different types of paper, aluminium cans, glass and so forth, make the recycling firms highly vulnerable to swings in commodity prices. That, as they say,
"is not a market failure but a genuine reflection of risk".
Something must be done if the market is to be given the necessary support in order to provide for the continuity of supply and disposal of recyclable materials which will be necessary if we are to achieve the targets which, to do them credit, the Government set for themselves in improving our record on recycling.
Amendment No. 222A contains a recycling credit proposal which in effect shifts funds around within the recycling process. That is perfectly valid. If we are reduced to that, I shall not oppose that amendment. However, I want to put to the Committee—particularly to the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Renton—that we are proposing a market-led solution. We are proposing that subsidies should be used to encourage the use of recycled material. In other words, they should be aimed at the end product of the recycling process rather than shifting money around in the intermediate stages. The second is not necessarily ruled out by the first; the second may well be valuable. We shall support

1469
the proposal; but to encourage the use of recycled materials—which is the purpose of Amendment No. 206A—by the kind of subsidies set out in that amendment is the real contribution which can be made to recycling. Everything else, however worthy, is secondary.
If the Minister convinces me that the wording of Amendment No. 206A is defective, but that the Government accept the principle and will bring forward suitably worded amendments to achieve our objectives at a later stage, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, the amendment deserves the serious consideration of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may say that while I appreciate the constructive spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, speaks to his amendments, it is really Amendment No. 210B that we should consider. His first two amendments are paving ones.
There are two matters on which I shall be grateful for enlightenment. It may be my ignorance, but can the noble Lord explain what is a waste producer? Who is a waste producer? It is rather an ambiguous term. I am a producer of waste. I collect paper and I submit it to a factory which disposes of it. I am producing the waste paper and therefore I am a waste producer. Is that what the noble Lord means in this amendment? I do not think that it can be because it does not fit in with the meaning of the amendment.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has a clear mind on this matter. He refers to subsidies. They can take various forms; for example, they can take the form of a capital grant for establishing equipment for recycling purposes; it can take the form of a price subsidy, or form a guarantee in case the market price falls. What kind of subsidy does the noble Lord have in mind? That is fundamental to his argument.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may offer one or two comments on the matter. In doing so, I declare an interest. I am chairman of a company which acts as an agent for the importation into this country of paper from Scandinavia. The paper industry in this country is increasingly alive and alert to all the various problems of pollution and conservation. It has a very close interest in these matters.
I wish to make two points and then to comment on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. A great deal has been said about waste paper. There are two points to be made about it which Members of the Committee should have in mind. I was very interested to hear of the plan by Reedpack which my noble friend mentioned in connection with the last amendment. There is a similar proposal using the Gartcosh Mill in Scotland. Originally it was a Scottish company, but I understand that it has now been bought by a Canadian paper company. It too tends to produce large quantities of paper based on waste paper.
The fact is that with existing technology it is probably not feasible to consider the production of
1470
paper based entirely on recycled paper. There are two reasons. The de-inking processes that are necessary to produce an acceptable shade of paper for most, but not all, uses are still not perfected. A good deal of research is being done on this matter. As Members of the Committee can imagine, the kind of process that is needed to extract the inks of a variety of different chemical formulations, colours and consistencies from a heterogeneous collection of paper is not a simple process. De-inking is more than a rudimentary process but it still has a long way to go before it can produce a paper which is acceptable alongside paper made from fresh pulp.
What is more serious is one of the inherent characteristics of the fibre which goes to make up paper. There is a limit to the number of times any particular fibre can be recycled and still retain the inherent strength which is essential for virtually every use of paper. It is for that reason that hitherto it has been found practicable, when considering the use of recycled paper, to employ a mixture of new fibre, which may be chemical or ground wood pulp, with a certain amount of recycled paper. One of the common percentages is that about 60 per cent. of recycled paper requires 40 per cent. of new pulp in order to provide an acceptable product.
I shall be interested to know about the Reedpack plan. It may be that it will try to produce a quality of paper where it is possible to use a proportion of recycled paper higher than the 60 per cent. I have just mentioned. It is quite clear that, hitherto, for most commercial and domestic uses paper that has been entirely recycled has an obvious attraction for, if I may use my noble friend's phrase, Mr. and Mrs. Green. The fact of the matter is that, if I am not putting it too bluntly, you end up by putting your finger through it. It may also produce a form of newsprint which looks rather tatty. That means that, because of competition in the market, people will not, except as a green gesture, buy magazines printed on that kind of paper. Therefore, there must be a note of caution about how effective this measure will be in the present state of technology.
That brings me to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. As a former Treasury Minister, I have some hesitation in embracing what appears to be an open-ended subsidy. I recognise that he has done his best to include a variety of controls and has given the Secretary of State the right to amend the scheme and, presumably, to withdraw it. If one provides an open-ended subsidy between the producer and the consumer, it is contrary to all experience to imagine that the difference in prices will remain a constant or anything approaching a constant or that the suppliers, the purchasers and the market will not automatically adjust their prices to the fact that there is the injection of a subsidy.
At the moment there are large quantities of waste paper lying about. I share exactly the experience of my noble friend, Lord Renton. I have a barn which at the moment is piled high with paper and it is impossible to persuade anyone to take it away. There is a suggestion that there should be payment to close the gap so that it is then worth while for someone to collect the paper. However, once one opens the

1471
door to a scheme of that kind, all one's experience suggests that there are plenty of people who are going to climb on the bandwaggon. All the other prices will move in response to the existence of the subsidy. In the end one may finish up in much the same position as before, but with a substantial volume of public expenditure added. When the scheme does not work and it is withdrawn, there will be an enormous row and everyone will say that the Government are being wicked in withdrawing the subsidy.
I look at this scheme with a very great deal of caution. I confine my remarks to waste paper, though there may be other waste products where the scheme may be more relevant. I believe that the Government's scheme is perfectly reasonable because it does not involve the injection of new money. In fact, they are making sure that the costs and benefits of the whole process are shared in ways which will lead people to behave as we should like them to do in the interests of reclamation. That is perfectly appropriate.
Once the tap is opened for new money, it is surprising how quickly and effectively some of the people in this kind of trade will take advantage. The flow from the tap will become a flood and then the tap will have to be turned off. I do not believe that is a position that any government would wish to get into. I shall listen with great care to what my noble friend says and to the reply by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. However, for the moment he has not convinced me that his scheme is practicable.
Lord Ross of Newport: I was attracted to this amendment not because of paper but because of used tyres. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that recycled paper is very good for toilet rolls and also it provides a great deal of writing material. I hope that many more people will use it. At long last I have got my wife buying it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I entirely agree. In 1984 I was the first Secretary of State to get a government department to use nothing but recycled paper. That was the Department of the Environment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: This is very absorbing!
Lord Ross of Newport: I am delighted to hear that news and I congratulate the noble Lord.
In my Second Reading speech I drew attention to the number of tyre dumps in this country. There is one within a mile or two of where I live. It is called Motorway Remoulds. Eighty per cent. of the tyres which come off lorries on motorways are not in a good enough condition to be remoulded. Unfortunately, they are dumped. In my area they are dumped in a beautiful valley. The dump is 60 feet high and growing. There is a scheme in the Midlands to set up a recycling plant. An American company has actually applied for planning permission.
I can see a case for subsidising a firm to hold onto the tyres instead of dumping them in the valley.
1472
Perhaps it would be better to call them financial incentives rather than subsidies. There would then be a continuation of supply so that firms that were recycling could be sure of getting that supply. If there comes a time when firms stockpile, perhaps they will then look to a local authority to give them financial assistance in that regard. The local authority will be saving money, as will the National Rivers Authority.
Because some idiot is believed to have set fire to the dump to which I referred, or perhaps because of internal combustion, we now have to have permanent checks on it to ensure that the streams around it are not permanently polluted. Some pollution has occurred. Such checks cost money too.
I recognise that the Treasury would be horrified at the thought of subsidies. When I was in local government I can well remember firms such as Plessey knocking on my door and saying, "What financial goodies do you have for us?" I was horrified. What the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said is perfectly true. If one opens the door slightly, all kinds of people appear, many of whom could do without any subsidy at all. I agree that that is one of the drawbacks. On the other hand, if we are serious about trying to get recycling going on a permanent basis so that there is no lack of supply of materials—waste paper, tyres, aluminium, cans or glass—the local authority should be in a position to step in on occasion and perhaps hold the fort by providing some small subsidy. That is why I like the amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: Disregarding the Treasury and the recycling credit amendments which come later, we have touched on the importance of getting the market right for recycled materials. There are always ways of helping the market along, and the system of recycling credits which we hope to introduce through a later amendment will, we hope, do just that. We can help through changing public procurement policies and other such measures. I am pleased to tell the Committee that the Department of the Environment is continuing to pay a reasonable premium for recycled paper and to review its policy on specifying materials in order to favour recycled goods. We very much hope that other public bodies and private companies will adopt a similar policy of positive discrimination.
This amendment adopts a different approach. It would provide for subsidies to be paid by waste collection authorities to waste producers or others in order to keep up the supply of recyclable waste. The Secretary of State would cover any shortfall. In a way that is a market manipulation. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he describes it as a market solution. In a way it is a command economy for recyclables. Recyclable materials are goods in the market. That market is in some cases international. Attempts in West Germany and the United States to insulate one waste stream—paper—from the market by pumping in price subsidies contributed to the worldwide collapse of the low grade paper market. What we need to do is to make recycling a natural, economic and environmental option by creating a level playing

1473
field through raising landfill standards and hence costs and by ensuring that the economic benefits of recycling get to those who are bringing it about and by improving collection and sorting systems.
It is true to say that I rarely disagree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I agreed with very nearly everything he said. However, on one item I have to inform him that he may be slightly incorrect. It is possible to achieve higher standards than 70 per cent. retrieved newsprint. I am told that even the Morning Star is produced on over 70 per cent. retrieved newsprint.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, understands that, while we resist the amendment, we do not resist the principle of recycling in the amendments that he has put forward. We just believe that the credit system that will come later is a preferable solution to answer part of the problem.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, replies I think that he may now be in a better position to give us an idea of what kind of subsidy he has in mind and also to answer my question. What is a waste producer?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister has made it difficult to conduct an effective debate because he has specifically excluded his own recycling credits amendment, Amendment No. 222A. If it had been up to me I would have wished to have the two amendments debated together. We would then have had a more effective debate.
We are discussing a number of different ways of trying to achieve an objective which we all share. We are looking at what ways are likely to be most effective, least onerous and least likely to lead to what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, fears, which is an open-ended commitment for the public purse. I certainly agree with him that that would be most undesirable. But we have not exhausted the options open to us if we really want to achieve a greater degree of recycling.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee of the recommendations of the DTI Recycling Advisory Group. Many of them were a good deal more draconian than that which I have just put forward in my amendments. The Department of Trade and Industry Recycling Advisory Group listed three options which I have not put forward to the Committee today. First, it suggested that there should be compulsory recycling and that it should be an offence not to recycle materials under certain circumstances. Secondly, it suggested that public procurement policies should be devoted to recycling. In 1984 the Department of the Environment went over to recycled paper—and all credit to it and all credit to the Secretary of State—but that example has not been followed by all government departments. It would achieve considerable results if public procurement policy were consistently and universally devoted to recycling.
The third option, which is the closest to that which we are recommending, was that there should be subsidy for the build-up of buffer stocks—in other words, payment to build up a usable stock, which comes right back to the collection forming in the
1474
garage of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and in the barn of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. It is close to what we are trying to do in Amendment No. 210B, which is to create a market.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked whether our amendment involves a form of open-ended subsidy. I invite him to look forward to Amendment No. 222A, the government amendment on recycling credits. I suggest to him that that amendment involves a subsidy, first, in subsection (1) by waste collection authorities; and, secondly, in subsection (2) by waste disposal authorities. The only evidence of recoupment is in subsections (6) and (7), which deal with reimbursement of the cost of making arrangements for the disposal of industrial and commercial waste.
If the new clause is to be effective I suggest that there will be public money involved. There will be public money from the authorities—not directly from the Treasury—but in the end public money will be involved. I suspect that the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will apply to this amendment as well. Indeed, the Minister has in a sense confirmed that in his reply. He boasted of the Government's financial involvement in recycling. For example, it must be the case that it is not resource efficient to recycle CFCs, particularly from used refrigerators. But the Government have taken a creditable and laudable initiative in seeking to encourage the recycling of CFCs or the collection of CFCs in such a way that they do not damage the environment. That involves an open-ended public subsidy. The Treasury would identify it as such.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am sorry, but I feel that I must intervene at this point. However, I am willing to be corrected on what I have to say by my noble friend or anyone else. I do not call that recycling; it is taking necessary steps to protect the public from what would otherwise be very harmful material. I think that that has always been a perfectly proper expenditure of public money, as we know when we go back to the history of public health. I am not sure that the point the noble Lord is making is valid in the context of his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I accept and appreciate that distinction. However, as we shall come to realise when we deal with later amendments, much recycling could well be of waste which is contaminated or capable of contamination. The distinction is not quite as clear-cut as the noble Lord would have us believe.
I turn now to deal with the objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I confirm that it was our intention in referring to "waste producers" to refer to industrial and commercial waste producers as regards those who would require a subsidy. I do not think that those who collect on their own behalf, whether filling their garages with paper, bottles, cans or whatever, are appropriate to receive a public subsidy. However, I can see that the wording of the amendment is not entirely clear. For that reason, if for no other, I do not propose to press it to a vote.
As regards the noble Lord's request for my definition of the limits which would be placed on

1475
the subsidies—I think that was the thrust of his point—the controls which are provided in the new clause for the Secretary of State to control the scheme are adequate for the purpose. There is no reason to fear that the Secretary for State will allow such a scheme to run away with public expenditure. However, if he did so, someone would undoubtedly insert the phrase "with the consent of the Treasury" into the legislation and then we would be safe and in order once again.
Because of the incomplete nature of this debate, I am not satisfied that we have received the kind of answer which we should have been given. I do not think that we have as yet come to the heart of the recycling issue. There will be many amendments put forward on this matter seeking to make improvements. In my view, this amendment makes a point which will need to be reverted to at a later stage. However, because of the difficulties which have been pointed out in regard to the precise wording of what is proposed, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 206B:
Page 51, line 40, after ("cost") insert ("and savings").
The noble Lord said: The Government clearly expect recycling to increase through becoming increasingly financially attractive. Therefore I feel that they should have no objection to this and the other amendment in the grouping which make explicit the possibility that collecting waste for recycling could result in financial savings.
It is also important that authorities consider and calculate savings arising from the increased collection of waste for recycling. Waste collection authorities will have powers to pass such savings on to voluntary groups (which we must continue to encourage in this sector) and other bodies collecting waste for recycling. Waste disposal authorities will have a duty to pass such savings on to waste collection authorities. I attach considerable importance to this question of the calculation of savings arising from waste recycling. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has a perfectly reasonable and fair point in his Amendment No. 206B that a waste collection authority may actually make savings by implementing its waste collection plan, particularly in later years when it has got over the initial hump of expenditure on equipment or manpower. Some authorities already claim to be making a surplus on their recycling operations, although their methods of accounting do not always allow a clear assessment to be made.
The Bill certainly does not stop any authority from including details of savings in its plans. Indeed, one would expect any authority making substantial savings to shout it from the rooftops. The reason the provision specifically refers to costs is that the costs are the most significant item when it comes to the interchange between a local authority and the Department of the Environment over its capital and
1476
revenue expenditure. But we would hope that a waste collection authority would certainly include details of savings—or negative costs as they might be termed—in its plan, and I can undertake that we will include this point in guidance to local authorities.
Amendment No. 213A, which is also tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, seeks to require regulation authorities to take account of the savings as well as the cost of any arrangements proposed in their disposal plans. As I explained with regard to Amendment No. 206B, we are not convinced that adding the word "savings" is necessary. However, we should like to consider further the issue of the cost and savings of the arrangements set out in recycling and disposal plans. If the noble Lord is willing to withdraw his amendment, I can assure him that we shall return to these points at a later stage.
Lord Ezra: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his response. In view of his remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 207 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 207A and 207B not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 208.
Page 52, line 6, after ("authorities") insert ("and waste disposal contractors").
The noble Earl said: This minor drafting amendment inserts an additional reference to "waste disposal contractors" into subsection (3)(d) of Clause 47. It is consequential on a similar amendment to Clause 48(1)(c) which the Government accepted in Committee in another place. It puts the intended meaning of the subsection beyond doubt; that is, that in drawing up their recycling plans, waste collection authorities in Scotland must include information about the recycling arrangements they expect to make with both waste disposal authorities and private contractors. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 52, line 11, at end insert:
("(3A) It shall be the duty of the authority in preparing the plan and any modification of it to consult the waste disposal authority for its area and any person appearing to it to have an interest in the collection, recycling and disposal of waste in its area, and to take into consideration any representations made to it in the course of such consultations before determining the content of the plan or modification.").
The noble Lord said: The reasoning behind this amendment is quite simple. At present authorities have no statutory duty to consult anyone before drawing up waste recycling plans. The amendment would effectively mean that they would have to consult the waste disposal authority and any other bodies or individuals which are interested. The groups concerned could be the Association of Waste Disposal Contractors, any other local bodies or, for example, such groups as Friends of the Earth which have genuine environmental concerns and

1477
knowledge to back up such concerns. I suggest that the kind of consultation proposed should be undertaken for the simple reason that otherwise author ties may simply overlook such matters. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: Under Clause 47, waste collection authorities are already required to carry out an investigation with a view to deciding what arrangements are appropriate before preparing a waste recycling plan. All plans have to be sent in draft to the Secretary of State for the Environment and it would be readily apparent if adequate consultation had not been carried out.
We are concerned that to impose a formal requirement such as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, suggests could set back the cause of recycling for the following reason. It is quite possible that a difference of opinion could arise between the waste collection authority and the waste disposal authority. Our policy is that the waste collection authority should have rights of first refusal on recyclable waste unless the disposal authority has an existing contract with a disposal contractor to recycle the waste. We want to protect those rights of first refusal.
The collection authority must of course let the disposal authority know what waste it intends to hold back for recycling. That requirement is incorporated in the Bill. But we believe that it would be wring to impose the formal burden of consultation on waste collection authorities, with all the bureaucratic machinery it would entail.
Consultation is somewhat like motherhood and apple pie. It seems cruel and heartless to oppose its spread. We believe that we should let collection authorities get on with the job of recycling rather than getting bogged down in elaborate consultation exercises. No decent plan could in any case be drawn up without adequate consultation and we therefore see no need to place such a formal requirement on the face of the Bill. In view of those reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Addington: The Minister's reply hinges on the fact that he believes that consultation could lead to greater delay and to bureaucratic obstacles being placed in the way of the recycling process. I agree that there is a danger of that; but I also believe that there is a danger in not listening to all those concerned. However, I should like to study what the Minister said before I decide what to do about the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 209A and 209B not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 52, line 25, at end insert:
("(c) to carry out its functions in conformity with any waste collection plan made for its area").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 220. Clause 47 provides that waste collection authorities should have a duty to prepare recycling plans. Subsection (5) requires them to publicise the plans and to send a copy to the waste disposal
1478
authority. However, the clause, as drafted, is defective as there is no duty on waste collection authorities to implement their recycling plans. It is pointless for authorities to be statutorily required to make plans setting out the policies for the exercise of their functions without then being required to exercise their functions in accordance with the plans that they make. The amendment adds that requirement to the end of subsection (5).
Amendment No. 220 relates to Clause 49. Clause 48 provides for waste regulation authorities to make waste disposal plans. Clause 49 imposes a duty on waste disposal authorities to arrange for the disposal of waste collected by waste collection authorities in accordance with Schedule 2 Part II. Although it might be considered implicit in Clause 49, it would be worthwhile seeking to ensure that the normal arrangements made by the waste disposal authority for disposal should be in accordance with the waste disposal plan for the area, which is what Amendment No. 220 asks for. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: The amendment would require a waste collection authority to carry out its functions in conformity with any waste collection plan made for its area. I take it that by waste collection plan the noble Baroness has in mind the waste recycling plans to be drawn up by waste collection authorities under the provisions of Clause 47.
Baroness David: That is correct.
Lord Reay: In that case we have a great deal of sympathy with the underlying purpose of this amendment. In straightforward terms, it is saying that there is little point in a waste collection authority having a recycling plan if it does little or nothing about implementing it. The plan, after all, is intended to be an action document. That is why we brought forward Amendment No. 202, which, as the noble Baroness may recall, required a collection authority to have regard, in deciding what recycling arrangements to make, to its waste recycling plan. I suggest that that amendment, now incorporated in the Bill, has the same aim as that of the noble Baroness.
I should like to add that the Secretary of State for the Environment will see copies of waste recycling plans in advance so that he can raise with local authorities any instances of their recycling proposals being substantially out of step with their waste collection or disposal policy as a whole.
I turn now to Amendment No. 220. I fear that the amendment is a product of some confusion about the role of a waste disposal plan. We may not have done enought to clarify the exact status of those plans in the future. In that case, I should like to attempt to set the record straight. The first point to bear in mind is that disposal plans will be prepared by regulation authorities and not by disposal authorities. The regulation authority will identify the types and quantities of waste generated in its area. It will detail the existing and planned sites in the area licensed to deal with that waste. It will then estimate the number and type of new disposal facilities needed to deal with any expected increase

1479
in waste generated, taking account of existing facilities which may need replacement.
Regulation authorities will in that way be able to guide future investment in waste disposal facilities by giving a steer to disposal companies (local authority and private sector alike) about the future demand for new sites while also setting out the authority's policies on various disposal options, including recycling.
Regulation authorities are the only bodies which will have the necessary information, gained from their licensing role, to prepare a meaningful plan. Why then do we resist the amendment? The noble Baroness seeks to tie the decisions of the disposal authority, which has the job of arranging for the disposal of waste, to the plan made by the regulation authority.
As I have sought to explain, the role of the plan is mainly to guide investment in waste disposal facilities. Disposal plans should not be prescriptive. It is for the disposal authority to consider the various options open to it, taking account of the environmental and value-for-money factors. It is worth remembering that any disposal facility chosen will have anyway to be licensed by the regulation authority to the amendment's underlying aim is probably already met. With those points in mind, I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Earl of Barlfour: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may say this. I was interested to hear the comments of my noble friend the Minister. However, I should like to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that Clause 46 does not apply to Scotland, whereas Clause 47 does. Perhaps consequential amendments can be introduced on Report to include the important words added to the end of Clause 46(2) as a result of Government Amendment No. 202. Otherwise, I feel Scotland will be left out of that important provision. The point is a technical one.
Lord Reay: My noble friend always does careful research, and I should like to consider the point that he makes.
Baroness David: I have to confess that I was not here the other evening when Amendment No. 202 was discussed. I shall have to read that discussion with care to see whether that amendment fulfils the functions of Amendment No. 210. I thank the Minister for his full explanation on Amendment No. 220. I should like to read it before I decide whether I am convinced by it. I should also like to consult the Association of County Councils, which asked me to table the amendment, to see whether it is satisfied with the Minister's reply. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[Amendments Nos. 210ZA and 210A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 47, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I might mention a small point which I possibly should have raised by
1480
way of an amendment. I hope that my noble friend will be able to deal with the matter. Clause 47(7) gives the authority power to decree timetables—obviously different timetables in different circumstances. I am told that the NCC has asked why there should not be one timetable covering all authorities, which would be a more effective way of dealing with the matter, rather than having a series of different timetables produced in different cases.
I do not know how far I can elaborate on that point. Clause 47 provides a welcome new process, but perhaps we should consider the matter between now and Report. My noble friend may be able to give me a brief explanation of why different timetables are thought appropriate for different authorities in different circumstances rather than one national timetable.
Lord Hesketh: I do not have the specific answer to my noble friend's point. I can assure him that if it is satisfactory I shall write to him immediately after this debate with the answer.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 210B not moved.]
Clause 48 [Waste disposal plans of waste regulation authorities]:
[Amendments Nos. 211 and 211A not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 52, line 50, at end insert:
("( ) to determine and make public the period to which the plan in paragraph (c) above refers, and the timescale for the introduction of the proposed arrangements.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 212 I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 213, 214 and 218, the last of which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Addington. On Amendment No. 212, the Bill does not make it clear that local authorities should state in their plans the period of time for which they are planning ahead or by which they intend to implement that plan. Not all plans can be implemented by a particular date because authorities may have contracts that will not have expired by such a date. Therefore it must be for each authority to set its own period of implementation. The amendment will still allow local authorities to set their own timescale but it will ensure that they are required to set some timescale.
I believe that it is important to ensure that plans are not just vague statements of intent at some indeterminate future date but that real commitments with a stated time are put forward. Making the period publicly known will enable local residents and community organisations to find out what and when initiatives are planned to start. The local authority should also find this discipline useful as a means of establishing procedures for monitoring and evaluating progress.
Perhaps I may briefly also speak to Amendment No. 214. The Bill at present also does not make it clear that local authorities are expected to consult with local recycling agencies on the contents of their

1481
plans for waste recycling, although the Government have said that they ought to do so. The amendment would simply put this right and introduce such an obligation at the appropriate point. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: Amendment No. 218 is another amendment primarily concerned with consultation. The Bill states that the authorities have a duty to consult those parties which are likely to be engaged,
"by way of trade or business in the disposal or treatment".
That includes the reclamation of controlled waste in the area. I suggest that other groups should be consulted. There is no reason why merely those involved in any form of business transaction or commerce concerned with waste should be consulted, as everybody has an interest in these reclamation issues in the context that everybody has a stake in the environment as a whole. I suggest that these groups should be included in any consultation if the business community is included.
Lord Hesketh: I apologise for the confusion and the delay in answering. It was entirely my fault. I thought that my noble friend Lord Reay was attending to this amendment but I realise that I am responsible. I humbly request the forgiveness of your Lordships' Committee and also of my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, who was confused. He thought that I thought that he was dealing with the amendment.
Amendment No. 212 seeks to add a requirement that regulation authorities must make public the period to which the plan refers and when any proposed arrangements are to be introduced. I can appreciate and support the logic of the first of these aims. However, I feel it is a matter of common sense that plans include some detail of the period to which they refer. I would also draw the noble Lord's attention to subsection (3)(a) of this clause, which requires plans to state the periods to which they relate, and the end of that subsection, which would allow the Secretary of State to modify this if it became necessary.
I do not accept the second aim of this amendment for the simple reason that the regulation authority will have no control over the implementation of arrangements made with contractors. Those arrangements will be between waste producers and contractors. The regulation authority's role will be to publish details of arrangements known to it and then to license and enforce waste disposal in its area.
Amendments Nos. 213 and 214 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, seek to impose a duty on regulation authorities to consult such relevant interests and organisations as they consider appropriate about any modification to their plan. I would draw the noble Lord's attention to subsection (5) of Clause 48 which already imposes a similar duty and thus, we believe, makes these amendments superfluous.
Amendment No. 218, which will be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, refers to widening the scope of the consultation about disposal plans to include other persons affected by the environmental impacts of the plan. We do not accept the need for such a duty to be imposed on regulation authorities.
1482
It would be in effect to widen the scope of the consultation to include everyone resident in the regulation authority's area. Clearly such a requirement would be impracticable. I can assure the noble Lord that regulation authorities will be required to give adequate publicity to their draft plan or to any modification thereafter to it. They will also be required to consider any representations made in response to the plan or modification, including representations made by the public. In this way everyone affected by a disposal plan will have been given the opportunity to make representations to the regulation authority about it. That is why we resist the amendments.
Lord Ezra: I wish to consider carefully what the noble Lord has just said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 213 to 214A not moved.]
Baroness Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 214B:
Page 53, line 35, at end insert:
("(3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations made under subsection (3) above require a waste regulation authority to have regard in drawing up any plan under this section to any likely changes in the kinds and quantities of controlled waste to be disposed of within its area as a consequence of any charges which the Secretary of State may require such an authority to make in respect of the use of virgin raw materials undergoing significant processing for conversion into goods or sources of energy.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 214B and 257C would enable the Secretary of State to use whatever means he thought appropriate to discourage the use of virgin materials in industry and commerce by reference to their presence in the waste stream. We are all agreed that the waste stream must be reduced. By this means of discouraging the use of virgin materials, and incidentally therefore encouraging the use of recycled materials, the objective would be achieved.
These measures would also be an incentive to producers to avoid unnecessary over-packaging. The latter problem has perhaps been over-stated in debates up to now, but nevertheless packaging accounts for 20 per cent. in weight of the waste stream. Anything that one can do towards reducing that is helpful.
I wish to draw attention to the wider problem of the need for all manufacturers of whatever product where possible to use recycled material and to avoid the use of virgin materials. I should have made clear that I am moving Amendment No. 214B and speaking to Amendment No. 257C. There is little more to be said. I do not believe that this aspect of the Bill has been explored in another place and I hope that the Minister may have a constructive answer for me. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may intervene briefly before my noble friend responds to the noble Baroness. One must be cautious about the wholesale condemnation of virgin materials—to use the expression in her amendment—and the preferability of using recycled materials.

1483
We must draw a distinction. There are virgin materials which are themselves renewable. I referred earlier to the paper industry. It is a fact, particularly in developed countries, that the production of timber for the purpose of making paper is becoming increasingly an entirely self-sustaining renewable process. Governments and regulatory authorities in many of the timber growing countries have a requirement, which they enforce in the most rigorous and stringent fashion, that whenever a tree is cut down for the purposes of the timber industry whether for the production of timber, board, paper or pulp, it must be replaced.
The country that I am best acquainted with in this context is Finland. Finland has a firm and strict regime with regard to its timber industry. Whenever forests are culled and trees are cut down, replanting must take place. The industry is perpetually renewable. In the south of the country it takes about 30 years for a larch or other tree to reach the stage when it can be used. In the north of the country that process takes rather longer, perhaps 40 or 50 years. Nevertheless each time a tree is cut down, it is replaced.
It is an important part of this whole argument that one should consider the source of paper. One should consider whether its source is a country which has a strict regime as regards its timber industry so that virgin products—I indicated earlier the advantages virgin products can have over some renewable products—are themselves perpetually renewable and self-sustaining.
One must also consider whether its source is a country which is a good deal less careful about creating a renewable timber industry and cuts swathes through its forests and does not replace them. The Americans are getting better at this, but not so long ago the tree fellers simply marched across the forests of Canada and the northern United States and left a wilderness behind them, with no thought of replanting. However, the timber industry in North America is now being dealt with much more effectively. The north Americans are following the lead of the Scandinavian countries.
I have every sympathy with the motives of the noble Baroness, but with the greatest respect I do not think it is right to condemn automatically so-called virgin materials. Those materials themselves may be environmentally extremely valuable. One could take the argument to the point of absurdity, and there is always a danger in that. What would happen, for example if one suddenly told large numbers of Scandinavians that no more trees were to be cut down? In that case those trees would reach the end of their lives, fall and rot. We would be back in the situation of the primeval forest from which mankind has hauled itself out over a series of millenniums. However, no one is asking us to go back to that state. We can cultivate our natural resources and use them sensibly and wisely. We can replace our forests, and that is an entirely proper and benign process. That should be recognised. A blanket distinction between virgin and recyled products does not seem to me to make a great deal of sense.
Baroness Nicol: I must respond to the noble Lord. For once in my life I was not defending forests, because I support the idea of a dynamic forestry industry and have done so for some time. There are many reasons for supporting such an industry, not least the fact that a young tree absorbs about 300 per cent. more carbon dioxide than a mature tree. Therefore there is a need to continue planting forests.
I did not concentrate solely on the paper industry. I was speaking rather about the waste stream and the need to reduce waste. That is a problem in this country at the moment. Apart from waste, we also have the problem of metals, many of which are reclaimable. However, they do not come from renewable sources. I wished to address my remarks to a wider area than just defending forests.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has proposed a resource tax with the intention of minimising the waste that we have to dispose of. She hopes that by making it more expensive to use virgin raw materials people will use less of them and that they will switch to using recycled raw materials. She intends too that the beneficiary of the tax will be the waste regulation authorities, although she does not say what those small bodies would do with the large sums of money that could be generated by even a minimal tax applied throughout the UK industry.
I submit that the proposed tax would have two principal effects. The first would be to increase inflation. There is only one way that manufacturers of products that are affected could raise the money to pay the tax and that is by passing on increased prices to their customers.
The other effect would be to encourage people to switch to imported products that were unaffected by the resource tax. I shall let the Committee speculate on the impact that this would have on our balance of payments. The amendment might achieve its intended effect of encouraging people to recycle waste instead of disposing of it in other ways, but only if the material was there in the first place. I am convinced that tampering with the operation of market forces would not be a recipe for success. In this case, there will be an immediate rush by manufacturers to lay their hands on the finite supplies of recycled waste. What happens when an item is in short supply and in demand? Its price rises. So again I believe the effect will be inflationary.
A scheme such as is proposed by this amendment would be unfair in its impact on different parts of the country. Post-consumer waste arises in similar amounts all over the country depending only on the number of people living in an area, but if manufacturing industry had to pay a tax to its waste regulation authority, the proceeds would be concentrated in the traditional manufacturing regions while the more rural parts of the country would lose out. I cannot believe that the proposal of the noble Baroness would work. Economic measures to encourage the proper management of waste may be a possibility but they cannot be introduced like this in a piecemeal fashion. They must be fully evaluated an all possible implications considered.

1485
One tax imposed in isolation will cause far more harm than good. That is why we are taking a more cautious but, I suggest, sensible approach by leaving the whale question to be covered by the White Paper on the environment which is to be published this autumn That will allow everyone to take a rational look at all the options and to come up with a workable system.
I ask the Committee to consider whether Amendment No. 257C adds anything to the already extensive guidance that is set out in Clause 48. There is already a duty on the waste regulation authority under subsection (3) to include in the plan information as to the kinds and quantities of waste arising in the area and moving into or out of the area as well as the waste that the authority expects will be disposed of in the area. If a waste regulation authority did not have regard to the effects of such a fundamental factor as a resource tax, it would hardly be doing its job properly. Even if this were not the case, the Secretary of State has the power to add, by regulations, further matters for consideration in the plan. I would expect this to be done, if necessary, by any regulations that were made instituting a resource tax. It is for those reasons that I ask tie noble Baroness whether she might consider withdrawing her amendments.
Baroness Nicol: I am grateful to the Minister for that full reply. He raised some interesting arguments which I must confess I had not thought of. I wish to consider carefully what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 215:
Page 53, line 38, leave out ("where reasonably practicable").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to remove the words "where reasonably practicable" from rage 53, line 38. If those words were not included, the subsection would state:
"In considering what information to include in the plan under subsection (3)(d) above, it shall be the duty of the authority to have regard to the desirability of giving priority to recycling waste".
I suggest that that is a reasonable requirement to make when asking an authority to use recycled waste. If one includes the words, "where reasonably practicable", one so weakens that requirement as to make it virtually useless. Any authority which did not have a desire to use recycled products or which decided for reasons of convenience that it did not want to use such products could wriggle out of the requirement. There are far too many opportunities for those who do not wish to be bothered by considerations of using recycled materials to ignore their usage. I suggest this is a perfectly reasonable requirement. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: Amendment No. 215, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is another of those amendments which is driven by good intentions to encourage recycling. However, we remain convinced that the Bill as drafted is already sound. I shall explain briefly why. I appreciate that this is another of those cases where the Committee
1486
may feel the words in the Bill do not go far enough in imposing duties on authorities to recycle ever more waste. However, it must be right that there is some measure of flexibility in any such duty. The words under debate here, "where reasonably practicable", seem eminently sensible to us. We cannot impose a duty on authorities to consider recycling where it is impractical.
Perhaps I may say once again that we welcome the spirit in which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was intended; but I hope that he will agree with me that authorities should only give priority to recycling where it is practicable to do so. It is in no one's interests to have white elephant recycling schemes; they just undermine the serious recycling which we all want to see and which achieves results. I hope that that explanation will persuade the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Addington: The answer which the noble Lord has given is one that I anticipated. Such phrases tend to so water down a provision that it becomes virtually meaningless. Saying "where reasonably practicable" is like saying that something will be done provided it is not too much trouble.
At this stage, I do not believe that it would be correct to press the amendment. There is a fine line between avoiding putting people to undue trouble and asking them to look at something at some time in the future. I believe that in this case the Government are on the wrong side of that line. However, at this point I am not prepared to press the matter, but I reserve the right to come back to it at a later stage. 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. 216:
Page 53, line 43, leave out ("whose area includes any of the relevant land") and insert ("any part of whose area is included in the area of the waste regulation authority").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 216, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 217. The amendments are both minor drafting amendments. The first makes a small improvement in clarity, and the second corrects an obvious error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment Nos. 216A to 216C not moved.]
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 54, line 2, leave out ("disposal") and insert ("regulation").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 217A to 218C not moved.]
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 55, line 2, at end insert:
("( ) It shall be the duty of the authority to revise the existing waste disposal plan for its area in accordance with the procedure and having regard to the criteria outlined in subsections (1) to (9) of this section.").
The noble Lord said: In accordance with Clause 48(4), which we have just considered in connection

1487
with the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Addington, waste regulation authorities have to prepare their waste disposal plans having regard:
"to the desirability, where reasonably practicable, of giving priority to recycling waste".
What is not clear is whether, before new waste disposal plans are prepared under this Bill, existing waste disposal plans will be updated. If such plans are updated under the terms of previous control of pollution legislation, they will presumably not be subject to the provisions of this Bill. If that is so, it would take some time before the proposal in regard to waste recycling is taken into account. The proposed amendment therefore would ensure that waste disposal authorities would have a duty to review existing plans explicitly in line with the new priority given to waste recycling. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: Amendment No. 219 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord McNair, is one which we can support in principle but must reject in practice. The amendment seeks to impose a duty on regulation authorities to revise their disposal plans in accordance with the subsections (1) to (9) of Clause 48. We accept that any modification to the disposal plan should follow the procedure set out in this clause for the preparation of plans. Indeed that idea has always been incorporated in the Bill. Clause 48 is drafted in such a way that it refers to preparation or modification of plans at every stage. In this way the same procedure would be followed when an authority revises its plan as was followed when it was originally drafted. I trust that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel that he does not need to press his amendment.
Baroness Phillips: Can the noble Lord explain that in simple language? That would make a change! He said that the Government agreed in principle but did not like it in practice. Perhaps he would enlarge, because he did not give an answer. Two noble Lords who are very knowledgeable on these matters have put their names to the amendments. If it is the duty of the authority to revise existing waste disposal plans, surely that would not contradict anything that is already in the Bill. It would only strengthen it.
Lord Reay:The noble Baroness pulls me up for having said that we can support the amendment in principle but must reject it in practice. The point here is that Clause 48 as it now stands refers to the preparation and modification of plans, and that that procedure will be followed. The clause will apply to any modification of existing plans under the Control of Pollution Act.
Lord Ezra: In the light of that categoric statement that the provisions of the present Bill when passed will apply to any modifications of plans prepared under the previous control of pollution legislation, I am glad to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 219A and 219B not moved.]
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 219C not moved.]
Clause 49 [Functions of waste disposal authorities]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 219D:
Page 55, line 12, at end insert ("and for the disposal of waste so deposited").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 219D, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 221A, 221B, 221C, 221D and 221E.
This group of amendments in my name for the most part simply clarifies the provisions of Clause 49 of the Bill. However, the amendments also provide some important new provisions to widen the powers of disposal authorities. First, Amendment No. 219D makes it clear that disposal authorities have a duty to dispose of waste deposited at civic amenity sites. Secondly, as the Committee will be aware, the Bill provides that disposal authorities will transfer their existing assets to a LAWDC or make some alternative arrangement which satisfies my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Clause 49, as previously drafted, allowed authorities some scope to hold land to be used by contractors for the disposal of waste. If the Secretary of State approved, disposal authorities could grant the contractor a lease to cover the active life of the site. In this way authorities could retain the freehold on disposal sites which had a specific use for the authority after they had finished their active life, such as landfill sites that were to be used as parks or sports facilities.
Amendments Nos. 221A to 221E widen that power. Authorities will continue to be able to own land to be used by contractors as disposal sites as I have just outlined. In addition to that disposal, authorities will be empowered to own land, plant and equipment in certain other circumstances. I shall attempt to explain each of those circumstances in turn.
First, in relation to waste collected by collection authorities, disposal authorities will be able to own plant and equipment to be used to store the waste prior to its transportation, or to treat it so that it may be transported more easily. Amendment No. 221B is aimed at transfer stations. An authority would be able to own transfer station equipment, including skips in which waste is stored, and compacting equipment reduces the volume of waste to be transported. Disposal authorities will not operate the plant or equipment themselves. They will simply make it available to the contractors to use.
Secondly, Amendment No. 221E will allow disposal authorities similar powers in respect of their duty to provide civic amenity sites. Again they will be empowered to hold land to be used by contractors as civic amenity sites. Disposal authorities will also be able to provide plant and equipment to be used by contractors for storing waste delivered to civic amenity sites and also for treating such waste to make it easier to transport for disposal elswhere. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have some concern about this series of amendments which we have not had very much time to consider. In the first instance I should like to phrase my concerns as questions

1489
to the Minister. Am I right in thinking that this amendment provides that the waste disposal authorities have the power to hold land, plant, buildings and so on to deal with the deposit, transfer, treatment, disposal etc. of controlled waste and that they can divest themselves of the capital assets but may keep them for their own use? If I am right about that, where does that leave the waste disposal contractors?
It looks as though a waste disposal authority is unlikely to set up a waste disposal contractor if there is an alternative, which I understand these amendments provide, of holding the assets and letting them on contract to a waste disposal contractor. If the authority has that option and uses it, does that mean that the waste disposal contractors will be at a disadvantage compared with the private sector? In effect, they will be labour-only subcontractors and will have great difficulty if private sector contractors are willing to under-price a contract in order to get operational control of the facilities, such as transfer stations.
I am concerned about what that means for the relationship between the waste disposal authorities and the waste disposal contractors. I wonder why this series of amendments has come before Parliament at such a late stage with so little explanation of what has gone before.
Lord Hesketh: I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, takes an interest on behalf of the contractors and believes it possible that the contractors might lose out. There may well be circumstances in which it is preferable from both the authorities' and the contractors' points of view for them to come to some arrangement, lease or rental agreement over certain essentially capital equipment. That is the object of the exercise. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no hidden scheme arriving at this point in the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: With respect, that does not answer my questions at all. I had very specific questions. Under what circumstances do the Government believe that a waste disposal authority will let the local authority waste disposal contractors (those are the ones about which I am concerned—the LAWDs) have control of its land? Why am I thinking that the natural tendency will be for the waste disposal authorities to keep control of the land and assets and simply let out a tender to labour-only subcontractors? I did not receive an answer to that question.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord may say that he did not receive an answer. I thought that I gave him a fairly specific answer to his question. I think that he is trying to over-complicate what is quite a sinple issue.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall not pursue this exchange as a dialogue in which I do not receive any answers. This is a matter to which we may have to come back at a later stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 220 not moved.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 55, line 21, leave out from ["Saturday") to end of line 22 and insert ("or Sunday of each week except Easter Day and a week in which the Saturday or Sunday is").
The noble Earl said: I refer to the part of subsection (2) which is in parenthesis,
"(including at least one period on the Saturday",
which then goes on,
"or following day"
To me the following day has always been Sunday. How long-winded can a parliamentary draftsman get? My amendment will alter the subsection to read:
"the Saturday or Sunday of each week except Easter Day and a week in which the Saturday or Sunday is 25th December or 1st January)".
That covers the main holidays of England. However, as the clause applies only to England, I may be on dangerous ground. Scotland recognised Christmas Day as an official holiday only in 1952. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: Amendment No. 221 attempts to exempt local authorities from the requirements that they open their civic amenity sites on Easter Sunday. Civic amenity sites should be available at places and times which encourage their use. Civic amenity sites form a crucial part of the recycling initiative because many local authorities co-locate their recycling facilities and their public disposal, facilities, and we must do all we can to promote them. Bank holiday weekends are often the time that people find most convenient to sort out their bulky waste and take it to the civic amenity site. It is clearly important that civic amenity sites should not be prevented from opening at such times. It is a sad fact of life that people, having sorted out their waste and taken it to the civic amenity site, may well fly-tip that waste if the site is not open when they visit it. That is a good reason for resisting any restriction on civic amenity site opening periods.
Furthermore, I should like to point out to my noble friend that there is no requirement that authorities must open their sites on Easter Day. Clause 49(2) of the Bill merely requires that civic amenity sites must be open on at least one Saturday or Sunday of each week except where Christmas and the New Year fall on a Saturday. That gives local authorities sufficient flexibility to avoid having to open their civic amenity sites on Easter Sunday, or any other Sunday, if they so wish. They will simply have to open their sites on the Saturday instead. Alternatively authorities may choose to open their sites on Saturdays and Sundays. Clearly such a decision would greatly reduce the potential for fly-tipping, but it is rightly a matter for the individual authorities themselves to decide.
We are convinced therefore that the clause as drafted gives local authorities sufficient discretion about when to open their civic amenity sites and that this amendment, though well intentioned, is not necessary.
Lord Jenkin of Boding: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he can deal with the question, so fairly put to him by my noble friend Lord Balfour, as to why the draftsman has used the words "or

1491
following day" instead of saying "Sunday". Sunday comes after Saturday. Why not say "Saturday or Sunday"?
That seems to me to be a perfectly fair point. The present wording adds a little piece of obscure gobbledegook to what otherwise would be a perfectly clear clause. Having said that, I entirely accept the point made by my noble friend about Easter Day.
The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful for the explanation that I had from my noble friend the Minister. Perhaps he will look at this point between now and Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 221A:
Page 55, line 35, after ("above") insert ("as respects controlled waste collected as mentioned in that paragraph").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 221B to 221E:
Page 55, line 37, leave out from ("which") to ("is") in line 38 and insert ("such waste").
Page 55, line 40, leave out from ("which") to end of line 41 and insert ("such waste may be treated or kept prior to its removal for treatment or disposal").
Page 55, line 42, leave out paragraph (c) and insert:
("(c) may make available to waste disposal contractors (and accordingly own) plant and equipment for the purpose of enabling them to keep such waste prior to its removal for disposal or to treat such waste in connection with so keeping it or for the purpose of facilitating its transportation;
(cc) may make available to waste disposal contractors (and accordingly hold) land for the purpose of enabling them to treat, keep or dispose of such waste in or on the land;").
Page 56, line 5, at end insert:
("(4A) For the purpose of discharging its duties under subsection (1)(b) above as respects household waste deposited as mentioned in that paragraph a waste disposal authority—

(a) may arrange for the provision, within or outside its area, by waste disposal contractors of places at which such waste may be treated or kept prior to its removal for treatment or disposal;

(b) may make available to waste disposal contractors (and accordingly own) plant and equipment for the purpose of enabling them to keep such waste prior to its removal for disposal or to treat such waste in connection with so keeping it or for the purpose of facilitating its transportation; and

(c) may make available to waste disposal contractors (and accordingly hold) land for the purpose of enabling them to treat, keep or dispose of such waste in or on the land.

(4B) Where the arrangements made under subsection (1)(b) include such arrangements as are authorised by subsection (3) above, subsection (4A) above applies as respects household or other controlled waste as it applies as respects household waste.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 221B to 221E en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 222 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 222ZA:
Page 56, leave out lines 6 to 27.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 222A. I sense
1492
unanimity on the need to ensure that, where practicable, waste is put to good use rather than consigned to landfill. To some extent straightforward commercial common sense means that with rising raw material costs, more materials are recycled within factory gates or are reclaimed at later stages. The provisions of Part II of the Bill, with their emphasis on raising landfill standards and hence costs, will of themselves give a further boost to recycling.
However, we need to go further. We should give a positive incentive to those local authorities and others who divert waste from landfill to recycling. In particular it is important to encourage waste collection authorities, which are the first port of call for waste after it leaves the consumer, to make arrangements to recycle as much as possible of the waste they handle before it leaves them to pass to waste disposal authorities. This is not to say that the waste disposal authority itself cannot arrange for waste to be recycled. In some cases that may be more appropriate. But, generally speaking, the waste collection authority will be the prime mover in recycling.
Turning to the specific amendments, government Amendment No. 222ZA would remove the existing permissive provisions. Government Amendment No. 222A provides in subsection (1) for recycling credits to be paid by waste disposal authorities to waste collection authorities. Those credits should represent the net saving of expenditure on the disposal of the waste.
Subsection (2) enables waste disposal authorities to pay such credits to bodies or individuals other than waste collection authorities, and subsection (3) empowers the Secretary of State to turn that permissive power into a duty, specifying as necessary the types and quantities of waste in question. Subsection (4) puts a gloss on the term "net saving" and subsection (5) gives the Secretary of State a duty to make provision by regulation for the precise determination of the net saving.
I know that these provisions have a highly prescriptive ring to them. The reasoning behind that is as follows. At the moment few disposal authorities make credit or rebate payments to collection authorities who save them landfill costs. I pay tribute to those authorities like Lancashire County Council which have been doing that for some years. But the existing powers to pay rebates are little used. That is not surprising, since they are permissive. Thus the only incentive at present for waste collection authorities to recycle materials is the return they can get in the market as it stands. They get no credit for the economic and environmental savings brought about by saving on landfill. Using market mechanisms rather than subsidies, this amendment ensures that the benefits reach the parts that the current system does not reach.
We considered leaving it to waste disposal and collection authorities to agree on what the net savings might be. But we came to the conclusion that this could make for endless negotiation and confusion and large inequalities from area to area. I am the last one to favour administration by diktat, but in

1493
this case central government must take the responsibility for making sure that there is a clear and agreed methodology for assessing net savings. That is the purpose of subsection (5) of the new clause.
Thee Department of the Environment is about to commission detailed research into possible methodologies and we will be consulting widely both on the possible scope of regulations to be made on payments to third parties under subsection (3) and on the regulations to be made on determining net savings under subsection (5).
Subsections (6), (7) and (8) deal with reimbursement of the costs of disposing and delivering industrial and commercial waste and simply replace and clarify the provisions previously in subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 49 which in turn were carried over from the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
I am sorry to have dwelt on these amendments at length but we believe that their provisions underlie the whole trust of our recycling policy. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to echo the immortal words of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, in his response to an earlier amendment. We welcome these amendments but have some doubts as to their practicality. In order not to provoke a comment from my noble friend Lady Phillips, I shall try to explain those doubts simply in words of one syllable.
Baroness Phillips: You will still get the comment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is right that there should be intervention and that the intervention should be as widespread as possible. The moves which the Government are now making to advance on the present permissive arrangements for local and waste disposal authorities are very welcome.
As I said, the problems are practical. What is the definition of the savings which are to be made? I give two examples of definitions in use at present. The West London waste disposal authority pays a subsidy of £8·26 per tonne on all sorts of recyclable waste that is, paper, glass, cans and so on. The figure is arrived at by calculating the cost per tonne of disposal of statutory waste in other ways, normally by landfill sites, estimating the amount saved and, therefore, basing the price per tonne on the average cost.
On the other hand, the Merseyside waste disposal authority pays a subsidy of £3·40 per tonne for glass and £3·90 per tonne for cans. I do not have the figures for other materials. However, it is calculated on the basis of marginal cost. It is calculated that the facilities, sites and labour must be provided in any event. Therefore, there is only the additional cost of the marginal tonne of material which would otherwise have to be disposed of. So, a lower figure is arrived at.
Which of those two methods are the Government tending towards? Whichever it is, how are we to secure that a subsidy, which might be £3 or £8 per
1494
tonne of material, will be well spent when, in the end, the material to be produced—for example, paper for recycling—is worth £1 per tonne?
The danger of that procedure as compared to the market-led procedure proposed in Amendment No. 210B is that we finish up subsidising the private paper and/or glass industry. I can see the arguments but the Government have not brought out those arguments. That was not part of the brief given for the amendments. I doubt whether the intention was that which I have described but I challenge the Government to show me that that will not be the effect.
Our further doubt is the possibility of fraud. We have heard about the paper stored in the garage of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the barn of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I am sure that they will not shift the paper from garage to barn and from barn to garage in order to twice gain a subsidy. However, what about scout hut A or church hall B where the materials are being collected? What assurances can be made that the subsidy will not be collected twice, as is the case with so much of the common agricultural policy. Subsidies are collected several times for agricultural materials which are moved in or out of different countries or territorial waters. We need more assurances that the scheme has been carefully thought out before we can accept that, however admirable it may be in principle, it will work in practice.
Lord Hesketh: It was interesting that the noble Lord said that we should end up paying subsidies. When replying to the noble Lord's earlier amendment I referred not to the market but to the command economy, as I saw it. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the word "subsidy". Whatever financial return or benefit accrues, it accrues within the waste itself. It is not, as in the amendment of the noble Lord, extra cash coming in from outside in order to try to rig the market. It is an internal transaction and keeps within the policy of the loop which I outlined earlier to the Committee of trying to create improvement and achievement within the system rather than that coming in from outside.
The noble Lord referred to recycling and tried to link with that the aspersions which he cast on the Common Market. I have discovered many aspects about the Bill since I first looked at it a considerable time ago. However, the relationship between recycling and butter mountains moving inexorably between various Mediterranean resorts is going a little further than I would have expected of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—
Noble Lords: No, no.
Lord Hesketh: I do not disagree with the noble Lord in saying that whatever system one tries to employ in order to encourage recycling will have difficulties. I should be the first to admit that there will always be difficulties when we try to achieve what we set out to do.
As regards the system of recycling credits, the Government propose to go out with their research and consult widely. The points raised by the noble

1495
Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the definitions taken by various authorities with regard to waste are important because we must set the system in the middle. After consultation we shall go to regulation.
The purpose of our system is not to affect the market but to encourage the result. That is unlike the system proposed in the previous amendment; it was to affect the market by putting money into it. We are trying to achieve the same net result but by two different methods.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I fear that the Minister is playing with words. It is a question of what is a good word and what is a bad word? What I call a "subsidy" he says is all right because it is only a credit. When I say that something is market led he describes it as being the command economy. However, he goes on to describe his amendments as being prescriptive, which appears to be the same as issuing commands. If I am wrong about my interpretation of those words I stand to be corrected.
The noble Lord accused me of being unfair about the Common Agricultural Policy. I was not as stern as the Prime Minister has been on occasions, or as many Members of the Committee have been, about the well-known abuse. The noble Lord would not call it a "subsidy" system but the Common Agricultural Policy consists of a series of credits which the Government are recommending. Those credits are being widely abused and I fear that the present provisions are also at risk of wide abuse.
The detailed defects of the amendments are clear and have not been effectively gainsaid. However, ultimately the only way in which one can have any effect on the market is to provide effective support for the consumption of recycled materials. Our amendment provided for that; these amendments fail to do so.
Baroness Phillips: Amendment No. 211D reads:
"may make available to waste disposal contractors (and accordingly own) plant and equipment".
If that provision is so important, it is strange that, the Bill having passed through the other place and reached this Committee, the Government suddenly find it necessary to insert it. Surely it relates to a question of policy. One wonders how much research goes into the preparation of some of the legislation that we debate, of which the Bill is a clear example. Such provisions are points of policy. Where have they been until now? That is the only caveat that I should enter because an example occurs in almost every Bill. I have been a Member for a long time and I believe that in Committee we should not have to consider so many policy amendments. They should have been written into the Bill or dealt with earlier.
As regards the EC, I heard an interesting conversation here, although not in the Chamber. A farmer was saying that he drove his cows over a border to collect one subsidy and then drove them back again to collect another. I do not believe that we can escape the fact that, as usual, people have become wise to that possibility.
Lord Ross of Newport: I wish to place on record the fact that, in tabling the amendments, the Government are carrying out a promise made in another place and that therefore we welcome them. My only criticisms are that the arrangements may be difficult to work in practice and that the payments for third parties will be discretionary. That may be one of the less attractive aspects of what has been put before us. However, we on these Benches as well as the outside waste authorities will welcome the Government's action in this respect.
Lord St. John of Bletso: I too support Amendment No. 222A, which seeks to enhance the recycling powers of the Bill. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will be keen to ensure that the emerging recycling capabilities of the private sector have at least as good an opportunity to compete in the tendering processes as do the less environmentally friendly disposal techniques such as tipping. Currently that is funded entirely from the public purse.
Following the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I ask the Minister to define the Government's meaning of the word "net" which appears in subsection (4) of the amendment. Does it mean that local authorities will not be permitted to disguise the costs of disposal that were traditionally met by other budgets when competing in the tendering process with those in the private sector, who must include all their costs?
Can the Minister assure the Committee that before the regulations specified in subsection (5) are made there will have been full consultation with representatives not only of local authorities but also of private organisations and that the emphasis will be on the need to encourage recycling?
Lord Parry: The Minister's faith in the market-led economy and its mechanics is understandable coming from his side of the House. Does he agree that the collection and recycling of glass has been made more difficult because in Wales no plant can deal with the recycling of glass? Therefore, the value of the glass to the authorities which are collecting it falls below the cost of that collection as the market-led economy rises and falls.
The Duke of Somerset: I wish to intervene because this is an important clause and it is similar to the one which I shall be moving later. It allows a financial incentive for those who seek to divert waste from landfill in favour of recycling and reclamation. It is important to ensure that any schemes competing or applying for financial credits can do so on equal basis.
The Minister has referred to the regulations which will govern the administration of the part of the Bill. However, I hope that he can confirm that the consultation process which will precede these regulations will include the opportunity for all those with skills in the field of recycling to participate. It is hoped that such consultations will include the views of private recycling firms which have an ability to advise on the most cost-effective and efficient ways of establishing a recycling infrastructure.

1497
Can the Minister tell the Committee when the regulations will be in place? Will the consultations and subsequent regulations ensure that source separation and mechanised separation are able to complete on the same basis? Can he confirm that, when the provisions in the amendment are in force, one will not have an advantage over the other? It is hoped that the new amendment and its subsequent regulations will make the option of landfall financially less attractive in order to avoid the inherent environmental problems which we have heard about, such as methane.
Lord Hesketh: I welcome the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that he was right in saying that the amendment fulfils a promise made in another place. It is a comparatively modest amendment compared with those that I have seen tabled on occasions by Members on the other side of the Committee in an attempt to change the course of various Bills.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, mentioned the market. I must refer him to the earlier remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when introducing his amendment. He extolled the market as being one of the attractive features of his amendment. Concerning crushing facilities in Wales, I do not have the necessary information to hand, but I shall communicate with the noble Lord, Lord Parry, later.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, and the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, referred to consultation. I said earlier that consultation will be on the very widest basis. I hope that covers the points made. The regulations will be appearing within 12 months. In answer to the noble Duke's question, separation will be part of the calculation. One of the objects of this Bill is to reduce landfill as a principle, not only through method but through other means.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 222A:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause:
("Payments for recycling and disposal etc. of waste

.—(1) Where, under section 46(2) above, a waste collection authority retains for recycling waste collected by it under section 43 above, the waste disposal authority for the area which includes the area of the waste collection authority shall make to that authority payments, in respect of the waste so retained, of such amount representing its net saving of expenditure on the disposal of the waste as the authority determines.

(2) Where a person other than a waste collection authority, for the purpose of recycling it, collects waste arising in the area of a waste disposal authority which would fall to be collected under section 43 above, the waste disposal authority may make to that person payments, in respect of the waste so collected, of such amounts representing its net saving of expenditure on the disposal of the waste as the authority determines.

(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, impose on waste disposal authorities a duty to make payments corresponding to the payments which are authorised by subsection (2) above to such persons in such circumstances and in respect of such descriptions or quantities of waste as are specified in the regulations.

(4) For the purposes of subsections (1), (2) and (3) above the net saving of expenditure of a waste disposal authority on the disposal of any waste retained or collected for recycling is the
1498
amount of the expenditure which the authority would, but for the retention or collection, have incurred in having it disposed of less any amount payable by the authority to any person in consequence of the retention or collection for recycling (instead of the disposal) of the waste.

(5) The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, make provision for the determination of the net saving of expenditure for the purposes of subsections (1), (2) and (3) above; and any question arising shall, at the request of the authority or person concerned, be referred to him for determination.

(6) A waste disposal authority shall be entitled to receive from a waste collection authority such sums as are needed to reimburse the waste disposal authority the reasonable cost of making arrangements under section 49(1) above for the disposal of commercial and industrial waste collected in the area of the waste disposal authority.

(7) A waste disposal authority shall pay to a waste collection authority a reasonable contribution towards expenditure reasonably incurred by the waste collection authority in delivering waste, in pursuance of a direction under section 49(4)(a) above, to a place which is unreasonably far from the waste collection authority's area.

(8) Any question arising under subsection (6) or (7) above shall, in default of agreement between the two authorities in question, be determined by arbitration.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Duties of authorities as respects disposal of waste collected: Scotland]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 223:
Page 57, line 11, after ("43(5)") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: Clause 50 applies only to Scotland. Page 47 of the Bill, subsection (11), states that subsection (5)(b) shall not apply to Scotland. I therefore beg to move this amendment, which I think is a necessary one.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: This amendment is a purely technical drafting amendment, which I am quite happy to accept.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 [Special provisions for land occupied by disposal authorities: Scotland]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 223A:
Page 57, line 34, after first ("waste") insert ("in or").
The noble Earl said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 223A and 223B together. The wording should read "in or on land". These words are consequential upon similar amendments which were discussed and were inserted into the Bill last Thursday. I beg to move.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I am happy to accept these drafting amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 223B:
Page 57, line 37, at the beginning insert ("in or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 57, line 44, after ("regulations") insert ("made by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: This amendment effects a minor clarifying change in the drafting. Amendments Nos. 225 and 226 indicate small changes consequential on amendments agreed to at an earlier stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 225:
Page 58, line 5, leave out ("severe") and insert ("serious").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 225A:
Page 58, line 20, at end insert:
("(ii) the Health and Safety Executive").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 58, line 28, leave out ("water") and insert ("waste").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 226 corrects what must have been a printing error in the original production of the Bill. We do not have water disposal authorities.
I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 227 and subsequent amendments. Although there is no difference in the meaning of "in pursuance of" Section x and "under" Section x, let us at least have the same expression used throughout the whole clause. I have always believed that if one word will do, that is all that should appear in Scottish legislation. This has been confirmed by a group of similar amendments which were moved by my honourable friend Mr. Trippier during the Report stage in another place. I beg to move.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I have no quarrel with any of these amendments and am quite happy to accept them in their entirety.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 226A:
Page 58, line 30, leave out from ("which") to end of line 35 and insert ("the river purification authority, the Health and Safety Executive or the general planning authority makes to it during the allowed period;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendments Nos. 227 and 232:
Page 59, line 6, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
Page 59, line 9, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
Page 59, line 14, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
Page 59, line 19, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
Page 59, line 21, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
Page 59, line 25, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
The noble Earl said: These amendments are all concerned with similar wording, and I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 232A:
Page 59, line 29, after second ("authority") insert ("or the Health and Safety Executive").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendments Nos. 233 to 235:
Page 59, line 33, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
Page 59, line 46, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
Page 60, line 3, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
The noble Earl said: In rising to move Amendments No. 233 to 235 en bloc, I should like to record my thanks for the letters and discussions that I have had with my noble friend Lord Sanderson concerning the many questions that I have raised on this Bill. This clause seems to me a good example of where we have much improved the wording. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 236, 236A, 236B and 236C:
Page 60, line 7, leave out subsection (12).
Page 60, line 11, after ("authority") insert (", the Health and Safety Executive").
Page 60, line 14, leave out ("the authority") and insert ("that body").
Page 60, line 15, leave out ("the other authority") and insert ("that body").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 236 and, with it, Nos. 236A to 236C en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Powers for recycling waste: Scotland]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 61, line 16, leave out ("used again") and insert ("recycled").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendments No. 237, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 238 and 239. These are drafting amendments consequential on the insertion into the Bill in another place of Clause 29(6), which gives a broad meaning to the term "recycling". Thus we have been able to simplify the drafting of Clause 53 using the term "recycled" instead of the other expressions. I hope that these drafting changes will need with the approval of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, as he raised these points in correspondence with my noble friend Lord Sanderson. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 238 and 239:
Page 61, leave out lines 17 and 18.
Page 61, line 21, leave out from ("being") to end of line 22 and insert ("recycled").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
The Duke of Somerset The Duke of Somerset moved Amendment No. 240:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Incentive for recycling waste Payment by waste disposal authority to waste collection authority
Where a waste collection authority establishes for its area, or any part of it, a system of waste storage and collection which enables householders in that area to separate domestic waste so that all or part of that waste is separately contained or stored prior to collection by the collection authority or its agent or contractor, and that waste is thereafter recycled by the local authority or its agent or contractor, the waste disposal authority for that area shall pay to the collection authority a sum equal to the real avoided landfill cost which the waste disposal authority would otherwise have incurred in receiving and disposing of that waste either in its own disposal facilities or those of its contractor.").
The noble Duke said: In moving Amendment No. 240, should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 241, 242, 243 and 244.
I am grateful to the noble Lords who have added their names in support of these amendments as they come from many sides of the Committee. I am also happy to see that the Government have tabled their own amendment after Clause 49 which is similar in principle to this amendment. Many of my points were debated during our discussions on that amendment. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to assure the Committee that they will be similar in practice.
It is important to ensure that any new system of financial credits does not favour or disciminate against one means of recycling as against another. Financial credits should be available to the method or organisation that can most effectively recycle the greatest volume of domestic waste. The private sector must play an important role in the establishment of a recycling industry. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me when I say that a market-led solution is essential when addressing the ever-increasing problem and the ever-increasing volumes of domestic waste.
If the Government wish to see 50 per cent of domestic waste recycled by the year 2000, they will need more than the statute book as an incentive. When one realises that we currently recycle only 5 per cent. of household refuse, it is clear that we are racing against time to reach that laudable target.
I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government will not rely on source separation of domestic refuse in isolation to reach their target. Although source separation is useful and should be assisted on performance by financial credits, so should other means of recycling and reclamation. Presently about half of household waste is recyclable by traditional means of source separation and mechanical and physical methods. If the 50 per cent. government target is achieved, a great amount would therefore still go to landfill. That would mostly
1502
include the organic components which generate methane and thus contribute to the greenhouse effect. Methane is a great deal more damaging to the atmosphere than CO2.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that Birmingham City Council already operates, in joint venture with the private sector, a recycling and reclamation initiative which does not rely on any kind of source separation. I gather that it now claims to be in a position to reclaim 92 per cent. of the waste stream that goes through the plant.
Local authorities like Birmingham should be encouraged to seek partners in industry who are able to help them tackle those problems. Such ventures must be part of an overall strategy that helps to reduce the volume of waste that we consign to the ground by processing it into a form which is useful and which eases the burden on natural resources such as fossil fuel and peat.
I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that financial credits will be available to all sensible organisations, whether in the private sector, the public sector or a combination of the two, and that the administration of those credits will operate on the simple criterion of volume diverted from landfill. In landfill sites methane can still be produced for 30-odd years and after completion needs careful monitoring.
Both my amendment and that of the Minister refer to the need for regulation in the administration of this part of the Bill, especially in relation to the determination of the saving that has occurred in financial terms by diverting certain volumes of waste from landfill. On that point, I should like to quote the Secretary of State for the Environment, who made an excellent speech on recycling on 25th March. We heard parts of it last week. He said:
"Through the Environmental Protection Bill, we will be able to see for the first time the real measure of landfill costs and the benefits of recycling. This is not just in terms of some narrow financial balance sheet but taking into account the range of environmental and economic costs and benefits".
I ask the Minister to confirm that the regulations to which he refers in his new clause will reflect the equation on the value of avoiding landfilling and diverting waste so clearly put by the Secretary of State in his speech three months ago.
Perhaps the Minister will consider the point further and reflect on what the Secretary of State went on to say in that same speech. He described the way in which the Americans assess the value of litter. He said:
"Some American States have litter assessment levies on different materials according to their potential to create litter, with the proceeds put into litter control and recycling".
I wonder whether the Minister will look at those sentiments of his right honourable friend, extend them slightly and look at the possibility of making "potential for nuisance" a factor when deciding the amount of value that should be attracted towards the removal of certain kinds of waste from landfill when financial credits are calculated. That is an important point which should be addressed when setting regulations.
If one successfully removes all the paper and glass content, one is left with a higher percentage of

1503
landfill content that is of a putrescible nature, such as vegetable matter. If financial credits on a sliding scale encourage the recycling of that content into such products as refuse-derived compost, then the financial credits system will be working well and will encourage an industry-led solution to the problems of recycling. That must be good news for those already concerned by the mounting burdens on the public purse.
In conclusion, and following on directly from that point, perhaps the Minister will give one final and important commitment. I hope that he will be able to assure all noble Lords who have an interest in this matter that he will include as many people as possible when it comes to the consultation process that will precede the regulations that he outlines in his new clause. Naturally, that should include industry, which is already involved in recycling. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McNair: I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, which also bears my name.
We have set ourselves just one decade in which to recycle 50 per cent. of household waste. We start from a very poor 5 per cent. today. If we are to get anywhere near that figure, we need to encourage all those engaged in recycling. We need to let the recycling industry compete on equal terms in the hope that its combined efforts will help us to reach the Prime Minister's laudable target by the year 2000.
I understand that the Government initially looked at a system of financial credits in order to finance source separation. It now appears that the Minister is happy to allow that facility to be extended to those who can demonstrate a recycling capability. That is welcome news, expecially to those of us who believe that source separation alone will not achieve that 50 per cent. target and, more importantly, will be vastly expensive to implement and maintain.
I should like to conclude by pressing the Minister for an assurance that full consultation will take place before regulations are set effecting the implementation of the relevant clause in the Act and that those consultations will include private sector companies which are already involved in pioneering recycling technology for domestic waste.
Lord Renton: The noble Duke and those who support him deserve credit for putting forward this concept. The idea of incentives for solving the waste problem is a good one. However, there is one matter that arises from the amendments which requires explanation. The savings to be achieved—that is to say, in the words of the amendment:
"a sum equal to the real avoided landfill cost which the waste disposal authority would otherwise have incurred"—
are necessarily in every case a hypothetical amount.
We need to consider how that amount would be estimated. One way would be to decide what area of land the landfill would take up and what would be the value of that land. It may very often be an old brickfield being filled in, or something of that kind.
1504
Another way of measuring might be by deciding the weight of the waste to be put into the landfill site. Another way would be to decide by the volume, by measuring the number of cubic metres.
We must realise that, as a matter of practicality, the cost savings must be considered and worked out. I hesitate to criticise the amendments because in principle they are aiming at something worth considering. However, when we examine how they will work we must look a little deeper. We must consider in particular how the hypothetical sum is to be calculated.
Lord McNair: Perhaps I can enlighten the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I believe that the costs are calculated on a volume not a weight basis. It is the amount of space that the waste takes up that decides for how long the landfill site can be used. Future amendments deal with that subject in more detail, but I understand that there are three types of cost which should be taken into account when one is looking at the avoided landfill cost.
One is the gate fee or tipping cost; another is the monitoring cost, which is a long-term cost; and there is also the maintenance cost. It is difficult to attribute a specific tonne cost to each lorry load that is tipped. The monitoring and maintenance costs relate to tipping which occurred in the past. However, I hope to be in a position to enlighten the Committee when we consider further amendments.
Lord Hylton: It is clear that the practice of landfill tipping is likely to continue for many years, with the best will and incentives. It is also obvious that there are many completed sites quietly decaying.
When the Minister replies, it would be helpful and enlightening if he would say something regarding the progress made in collecting and using the methane generated from the sites. Perhaps he would also say whether greater improvements are likely in the next few years.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is obvious from debates on previous amendments that we are sympathetic to the ideas behind this amendment. We believe it shows a considerable degree of ingenuity in the design of financial incentives. I do not wish to criticise the detail of the wording, especially as the noble Lord, Lord McNair, to a considerable extent answered the criticisms already made.
However, I believe the amendment raises a question which I brought up on earlier amendment regarding the basis of the subsidies or credits. The Minister did not respond when I gave the example that some local authorities were using avarage costs and some were using marginal costs. He did not say which was his preferred basis of calculation.
The same difficulties arise with the "real avoided landfill cost", which is the basis of these amendments. The calculation could become extremely complicated. A reference to methane has already been made. That could be a cost or it could be a benefit if the methane is used. The reinstatement of the landfill site in due course could be a benefit later, but that could be many years way and the

1505
calculation of the cost could be complicated. We must have better answers from the Government than we have had so far to this kind of amendment.
Lord Parry: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may ask whether or not there are already sufficient data available to show the costs incurred over the years by local authorities in the acquisition of hollows and wasteland for the creation of infill tipping. Is not the cost per tonne also included in the records of the various authorities? Far from being a hypothetical issue, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, it is a practical one for which all records are kept.
Lord Hesketh: Amendments Nos. 240 to 243, standing in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, the noble Lords, Lord McNair and Lord St. John of Bletso, and my noble friend, Lord Sudeley, seek to establish precisely the sort of recycling credits scheme about which I spoke—at some length—a little earlier. We are at one in the desire to see a clearly understood methodology for establishing the cost savings made by avoiding landfill in favour of recycling.
We also agree that the economic benefit of recycling should if possible be passed on to whoever is responsible for recycling, be they in the public or private sector. We are, for example, very aware of the efforts made by companies in the private sector, such as Secondary Resources plc, to devise systems which maximise the recycling of waste.
Amendment No. 244 refers to a rather different issue. It seeks to exempt authorities from the competitive tendering requirements where they propose to make arrangements with a contractor for recycling. Again, I appreciate the spirit behind the amendment, which aims to encourage as much recycling as possible. But authorities will be able to take environmental considerations into account in assessing tenders, and it is surely both healthy and potentially beneficial for recycling that authorities should not be locked into existing disposal methods and that the private sector should be encouraged to come up with innovative methods of recycling.
Both noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendment they had tabled referred to what they saw as the limitations of source separation. I should make it clear, as I did at the end of speaking to my own amendment a short while ago, that credits will be available to all sensible organisations, be they in the public or the private sector. The main points made particularly by the noble Duke referred to his concern at the level of consultation. I can only reaffirm that we believe consultation should be on the very broadest basis.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made an interesting interjection into the debate. He said that I had not answered his question regarding the different forms of costs. If we are to consult, there is not much point in having a closed mind before consulting. The purpose then is rather lost, if I may say so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government must have some mind, whether closed or open.
Lord Hesketh: It has a broad mind, which is why we are waiting to know the views of those who have something to contribute to the debate.
Lord Renton: May I suggest that the Government may need an open mind?
Lord Hesketh: I am once again grateful for an intervention of my noble friend Lord Renton. In many ways there are similarities between this amendment and the amendment I moved earlier. I shall look forward with interest to the finer and more technical amendments that the noble Lord, Lord McNair, foreshadowed in his remarks.
The Duke of Somerset: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. On the basis of the Government's new amendment tabled subsequent to mine and of his explanation, I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage in order to examine what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 241 and 244 not moved.]
7 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 244A:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Matters relating to approved recyclers

.—(1) In preparing a plan under section 47(1) above of the arrangements appropriate in its area for the recyling of waste, a waste collection authority shall have regard to the existence of approved recyclers capable of serving the locality.

(2) In preparing a plan under section 48(1) and 48(7) above of the arrangements appropriate in its area, a waste regulation authority shall have regard to the existence of approved recyclers capable of serving the locality.

(3) An approved recycler shall be entitled to treat, keep or dispose of waste without having applied for a waste management licence provided that the material that it is keeping or treating shall be non-contaminated material capable of, and wholly or primarily intended for, reuse.

(4) The waste regulation authority shall authorise by approved recyclers' licence the treatment, keeping or disposing of waste without a waste management licence.

(5) The Secretary of State, may by regulation, make provision as to the conditions upon which an approved recyclers' licence is, or is not to be, granted by approved recyclers.

(6) The Secretary of State may, as respects any approved recyclers licence for which an application is made to a waste regulation authority, give to the authority directions as to the terms and conditions which are, or are not, to be included in the licence: and it shall be the duty of the authority to give effect to the direction.

(7) It shall be the duty of waste regulation authorities to have regard to any guidance issued to them by the Secretary of State on the discharge of their function in relation to approved recyclers.

(8) For the purposes of this section an "approved recycler" shall be a person or undertaking wholly or primarily involved in the keeping or treating, or disposing of non-contaminated waste capable of and intended for reuse, or who is carrying out such approved processes of recycling as the Secretary of State may by regulation determine.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 244A deals with another aspect of the facilitation and stimulation of recycling. It is intended to apply to those involved in the recycling of non-contaminating material. The proposed new clause results from work being done by the British Secondary Metals Association, which acts on behalf of companies

1507
involved in the recycling of non-ferrous metal. As president of the UK Reclamation Council, I believe that the clause might have application to a wide range of recycling activity that might otherwise end up by being over-regulated in the Bill.
It is relevant to draw the attention of the Committee to the preamble to the EC draft directive on the transit of waste. It is stated in the 14th recital that less stringent rules may be applied to waste which is to be further used. It also states that non-contaminated waste intended for further use should be excluded from controls on transit.
The Committee had the opportunity to debate some of these principles in relation to the recycling of secondary metals in connection with Amendment No. 154 to Clause 32 which was ably moved by my noble friend Lord Ross of Newport. Since then the Committee has had occasion to debate important and welcome clauses to the Bill which seek to encourage recycling.
The purpose of the proposed new clause is that firms whose work is wholly or primarily recycling, which do not handle contaminated material and which achieve certain minimum standards laid down by regulation for the conduct of specified recycling processes should be awarded a licence as an approved recycler. Such recyclers would be open to future inspection to ensure that they were not undertaking activity outside the approved categories and that they were maintaining due standards.
However, beyond that they would be freed from the supervision otherwise envisaged for waste management. The procedures would be simple and the criteria clear. My amendment suggests that regulation authorities should be guided by regulations and guidelines produced by the Secretary of State. Such guidelines can be drawn up after discussion with the appropriate representatives of recycling bodies such as the BSMA previously referred to, the BSF and other members of the UK Reclamation Council.
I believe that the status of approved recycler is one that would be eagerly sought. It would ensure support from the public and would protect the recycling industry from unnecessary regulation. Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider the positive advantage of a proposal that I believe will carry wide support in the recycling industries. I ask the Minister to consider this provision seriously and to let me have his views. This is by way of being a probing amendment. The suggestion is one that could help to achieve the recycling objectives which are fully covered in the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will be sympathetically considered. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Of course we are sympathetic to the idea brought forward by the British Secondary Metals Association that there should be an exemption from the onerous obligations of regulations which necessarily apply to large numbers of categories of controlled waste. Before saying that we can support this amendment I would have to be sure that it does not go further than the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, intends. With this
1508
amendment he is creating a new category of people called approved recyclers. They would have the right to treat, keep or dispose of waste without having to apply for a waste management licence.
Clearly in the case of non-ferrous metal, to which I am sure the noble Lord is referring, there should not be any difficulty. The problem is that the amendment does not specify what materials are being referred to. It may well be that the boundary between contaminated and non-contaminated material, as provided for in the proposed subsection (3), is not as clear as the amendment intends. What will happen if the material for recycling is contaminated? What will happen if it can cause contamination? That is particularly important with metal substances that are not contaminated themselves but which can be the cause of contamination.
The problem is that almost any waste can contaminate or damage the environment. The degree of contamination depends not only on the material but on its reaction on surrounding materials and sometimes on its quantity. I am sorry to appear to be so unwelcoming to a provision that is basically good. The danger with this amendment is that it could be a way round the control of contaminated material. Unless we know clearly who checks whether a material is contaminated and who pays for the checks, the Government should be wary to some extent of this amendment.
Lord Hesketh: I have the utmost respect for the valuable contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to recycling policy as chairman of the UK Reclamation Council. When he enters a special plea on behalf of the recycling industry we do well to listen. We sometimes hear special pleadings that seem to be suggesting that any industry engaged in reclamation and any material destined for recycling are inherently a good thing and should therefore be exempted from every control or regulation known to man. The noble Lord is far too experienced and knowledgeable to fall into such exaggeration. This proposed new clause is moderate and reasonable in its demands. Indeed, it is so reasonable that I hope to be able to demonstrate to the noble Lord that all its essential points are already met in the Bill as it stands.
The noble Lord's scheme would exempt specified waste recycling processes from waste management licensing. Instead recyclers approved by a waste regulation would be issued with approved recycler's licences. Such licences could be issued subject to conditions: the Secretary of State could direct an authority as to licence conditions and the authority would have to have regard to guidance from the Secretary of State.
That has a familiar ring to it. The noble Lord's proposed licences for recyclers would be little different from waste management licences. I am afraid I do not see the point of exempting recycling from one system and replacing it with another system. Surely that would not ease the burden. A waste management licence may also be issued subject to conditions and the Secretary of State has power to set such conditions for licences in general or for

1509
classes of licences. The main difference in the noble Lord's system is that there is no provision that failing to abide by a licence is an offence. I assume this is an inadvertent omission. Without some sort of criminal sanction in reserve, a licensing system would be of little use. In fact I do not see anywhere in this new clause a provision for recyclers to have regard to pollution of the environment or harm to human health.
I can assure the noble Lord that everything his proposed system is designed to achieve can be done within the Bill as it stands. The licensing system is designed to cover activities like recycling as well as simple disposal. That is why we have changed the name from "waste disposal licences" in the 1974 Act to "waste management licences" in this Bill. There is plenty of provision for flexibility. The conditions attached to a licence should be wide or narrow, tight or loose, according to the dangers posed by the activity being licensed. That is the key criterion. Of course we must bear in mind the ultimate good of recycling, but we must have overriding regard to whether the materials and processes involved are threatening to people or the environment. The process of recycling a toxic material can be as dangerous as the process of disposal and as much in need of control.
Under the waste management licensing system there are provisions in the Bill for the authority to vary licences and to revoke or suspend them if it feels that the activities of the licence are causing pollution of the environment or harm to human health. Without this kind of back-up for a licensing system, an authority would be powerless to act on the occasions where the recycler suddenly started to cause problems or risked the health of humans.
I turn to the finer details of the amendment. I am afraid that I cannot see that the system would be workable. For a start, how would a recycler become an approved recycler if the authority had no powers to refuse a licence? If the authority imposed conditions in the recycler's licence, how would the licensee protect himself against overburdensome conditions? There is no right of appeal in this clause. Another point is that of inspection. Under the waste mangagement system an authority has to check the conditions in a licence and see that they are being complied with. There is no provision in the clause for such an inspection.
I hold no brief for regulation for the sake of it. If the Government were convinced that a particular class of activity required only minimal conditions, there is provision for the Secretary of State to direct that only certain conditions should be set in such licences. This can be seen in Clause 34 of the Bill which sets out the waste management system. If we were convinced that some processes were so innocuous as to need no licensing at all, there is provision for complete exemption. Indeed we have already used this power to exempt from licensing the processing of waste paper.
The new clause would require authorities to have regard to the existence of recyclers in drawing up their waste disposal and recycling plans. I have to say that it would be a strange plan that did not do so. My department will be issuing guidance on the
1510
content of plans, and an assessment of the capacity and location of recycling will certainly be a factor which plans should embrace.
The Government fully share the noble Lord's aims of promoting the recycling industry and eliminating unnecessary burdens. I hope he will accept that the legal framework for doing so is already in the Bill.
Lord Ezra: I thank the noble Lord for his consideration of the proposal and for his emphasis on two points which I think are most important. The first is that the way in which waste management licences are intended to be applied will be flexible and will take full account of the activities of the licensee. It follows that, if the licensee is largely recycling valuable materials to make them even more valuable, the conditions of the licence will reflect that activity. I take it that that is what he meant.
Secondly, I am pleased to note that the intention would certainly not be to apply onerous conditions where those were unnecessary. I should like to study carefully what the noble Lord said. I recall that when my noble friend Lord Ross moved an earlier amendment the noble Lord agreed that there could be contact between the trade associations concerned and the Minister to discuss these matters further. In the light of that assurance and in the light of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 [Power of Secretary of State to require waste to be accepted, treated, disposed of or delivered]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 245:
Page 62, line 6, at end insert:
("(9) The Secretary of State shall consult the waste regulation authority before exercising any of his powers contained or referred to in this section.").
The noble Lord said: I move the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady David. Clause 54 concerns enforcement. Having dealt in Clauses 34 to 42 with the revision of the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 we now come to the replacement in the Bill of Section 17(3)(a) of the 1974 Act. Quite properly Clause 54 provides for sanctions against those who hold waste and fail to deliver it to a specified person—in other words, to deliver it for treatment in a proper way—and also against the waste regulatory authorities who are required to accept certain kinds of controlled waste when it is offered to them.
There is nothing wrong with that. It is right that there should be enforcement in this clause and in Clause 55 for Scotland. What puzzles me about the clause as drafted—and this explains why my noble friend wished to move the amendment to add the requirement for consultation with the waste regulation authority—is that in some respects it gives the Secrtary of State greater powers than the waste regulation authority.
Waste regulation authorities are on the ground. They know better than Secretaries of State the waste being produced in their areas that needs to be disposed of. We are not suggesting that there should

1511
not be this long stop provision. But we believe that as waste regulation authorities are being given considerable powers they should at least be consulted before their own rulings and their own enforcement provisions are overruled in turn by the powers given in Clause 54 to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Reay: Under Clause 54 the Secretary of State has a power to give directions in respect of the management of waste. This is an extension of powers contained in the Control of Pollution Act for special waste to cover all controlled waste. It is very much a reserve power for use when the normal negotiating arrangements for the disposal of waste have broken down.
It is not the Secretary of State's intention to become involved in the day to day management of waste. These arrangements are normally very satisfactorily made between the producer of the waste and his chosen contractor. However, there have been isolated incidents where it has appeared that genuine difficulties may arise in finding a contractor to take the waste in question or where the holder of the waste is disinclined to make any arrangements for it. Either event may prevent waste being disposed of, which is obviously an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
It is in such circumstances that the Secretary of State would intervene. It is not envisaged that this power would be used frequently if indeed at all. Such circumstances would be the result of a breakdown in relationships, and during the course of negotiations with the parties concerned the Secretary of State would take the advice of the waste regulation authority and HMIP.
I can therefore assure the noble Lord that if this power needs to be invoked it will be as a last resort when attempts to secure agreement between the parties have failed. In the course of such attempts the waste regulation authorities would have been consulted. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured by my explanation and will feel that he need not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not certain that I am reassured. We understood that it was to be a last resort provision. That was never in question. I find it difficult to understand why, as we have the Government's assurance that the waste regulation authorities will be consulted, they cannot accept the amendment. After all it will not be a terrible burden on the Secretary of State as he will use these powers very infrequently. In this case the Government could have shown a little generosity and flexibility. The amendment cannot do any harm and it adds to the clarity of the Bill by introducing those provisions which the Government have made clear they intend.
However, I have no doubt that my noble friend will want to think about the response to her amendment. In order that she can do so, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Powers to require removal of waste unlawfully deposited]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 246:
Page 62, line 11, after ("deposited") insert ("in or").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 246 seeks to add clarity to the clause. The clause gives the regulation authority or the collection authority power to serve a notice on the occupier of land to remove waste unlawfully deposited on any land. This amendment adds the power to require the removal of waste which is in land.
Perhaps I may refer back to the debate on Clause 34 when my noble friend tabled amendments to include areas below ground. I take this chance once again to reassure noble Lords that waste in or on land, above or below ground, will be covered by this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, does that much more quickly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Layton Lord Layton moved Amendment No. 246A:
Page 62, line 14, leave out ("occupier") and insert ("person who deposited or caused or knowingly permitted the waste to be deposited").
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to broaden Clause 56(1) to cover an area which has been causing tremendous problems for some time to local authorities. I understand that the contents of the clause are copied directly from Section 16 of the Control of Pollution Act. Unfortunately, it does not seem to address the difficulties which local authorities have to face. It applies only to occupiers who have deposited waste on their own land.
The object of this amendment and of Amendment No. 246B which follows on to tidy up a modification in the light of the first amendment is to deal with the much bigger problem of the unlawful deposit of waste by third parties. It is a problem which most local authorities have been seeking to address and one which this clause as it stands at present does not cover. The amendment would broaden the scope of the clause to cover such undesirable actions. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: In my view the word "occupier" should not be removed. However, I think that it would be advantageous if the proposed words were to be added to the legislation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My name is also attached to this amendment. I should like to add my support for the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Layton. We are not seeking to implement something new in this proposal; we are seeking to apply the principle of strict liability to Clause 56. We are doing so in line with recommendations from the European Commission which set out proposals in October 1989 to apply a common system of strict liability for waste throughout the Community.
Lord Renton: I do not think that the noble Lord appreciates the fact that by leaving the word "occupier" out of the legislation he is weakening the principle of strict liability.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall have to think carefully about that point. It certainly was not our intention to weaken the legislation. Very often the concept of proceeding against the occupier has been unsuccessful. Our intention was to pin the blame on the,
"person who deposited or caused or knowingly permitted the waste to be deposited".
That phrase has a very precise meaning, which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, welcomed. However, I must admit that he may have a point in what he said about the word "occupier".
Lord Layton: I should like to deal with this point. It concerns the issue of whether a person is an occupier and knowingly permits the waste to be deposited. The implication here is that the,
"person who deposited or caused or knowingly permitted the waste to be deposited",
could be the occupier, but that is not necessarily the case; the person concerned could be a third party. Therefore, the wording of the amendment would cover an occupier if that was the case..
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In other words, the occupier is innocent if he did not deposit the waste or cause or knowingly permit the waste to be deposited. On reflection, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right. However, this gives me an opportunity to rectify my negligence in failing to answer the noble Lord's question earlier when he challenged me to define a producer of waste. The European Commission defines a producer of waste as someone producing the waste in the course of his occupation or activity. That is the definition we had in mind. However, I concede that the wording we have used has not been adequately defined in that way.
Lord Hylton: I think that we have reached the point in the Bill where we are concerned with illegal and unwanted fly-tipping; that is, the depositing on land of refuse and rubbish of all kinds. I speak with some feeling on the matter as one who has been the victim of such procedures on occasions in the past.
Clause 56 talks about "any land". Therefore, it could be any owner or occupier who is the innocent victim of fly-tipping. It does not seem to me that the Bill does much to protect the innocent victim. Moreover, I am not sure that the amendment provides any further protection. Perhaps the Government can throw some light on the matter.
Lord Reay: I must say that we have considerable sympathy with these amendments which seek to take the burden off the occupier of the land and put it on the person who deposited the waste. We certainly would not want to see innocent occupiers of land who are victims of fly-tipping being held responsible for the removal of the waste and having to pay for it. However, there is already relief in the clause for innocent occupiers and provisions for recovering costs from the fly-tipper.
Under subsection (3) occupiers of land are protected against having to remove waste and having to pay for its removal as long as they did not deposit
1514
the waste or did not permit its deposit on their land. That leaves the question of trying to get at the guilty fly-tipper as well as the conniving occupier. Under subsection (8)(b) there is already a power to recover costs from the person who deposited the waste. I think that this is better than a power to force him to clear it up. We would not want to trust a fly-tipper to make a good job of clearing up the waste he had deposited. One might ask oneself where he would be likely to put it next. Therefore, there is no need for these amendments.
Lord Layton: I do not find that response very satisfactory. At the end of the day, we still have the situation where the innocent occupier has to pay out the money and then reclaim it. For example, what happens if the fly-tipping is of a very unpleasant controlled waste of some kind which will cost a considerable amount of money to remove? Will the occupier be responsible for that expenditure and then have to recover the money afterwards? Does he have to arrange to have the waste removed from his backyard, his field or wherever when he is totally innocent? Does he have to take on this burden? Finally, do the Government feel that this responsibility should be shifted on to a totally innocent party?
I shall study carefully the Minister's response but I feel that I may have to return to the matter at a later stage. I reserve the right to do so. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 246B not moved.]
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Duty of waste regulation authorities as respects closed landfills]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 246BA:
Page 64, line 23, after ("gases") insert ("(including methane)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with Clause 58. I think it would be helpful to the Committee if I read out the first section of the clause. it says:
"Except as respects land in relation to which a site licence is in force, it shall be the duty of every waste regulation authority to cause its area to be inspected from time to time to detect whether any land is in such a condition, by reason of the relevant matters affecting the land, that it may cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health".
Then we move on to subsection (2), the subject of the amendment, which reads:
"The matters affecting land relevant for the purposes of this section are the concentration or accumulation in, and the emission or discharge from, the land of noxious gases" —
and we are inserting at that point the words "including methane"—
"or noxious liquids caused by deposits of controlled waste in the land"
The Minister will have deduced that this is a probing amendment. We want him to say something specific about what the Government have in mind when he tells the Committee, as I am sure he will, that they are as concerned as anyone that the

1515
problems of methane gas should be dealt with. In other words, we should like to know what they intend to do in this respect. Do they intend to lay a duty on other people and not upon themselves or do they intend to deal with the problems caused by methane gas?
The Minister may say that the wording of Clause 58(2) can also cover methane gas. Methane gas causes a number of problems. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us how the Government contemplate dealing wih contaminated land in general. On Third Reading in the other place reference was made to the decision that district councils will be required to produce registers of contaminated land. To date, there have been no indications of how that requirement will be introduced into the Bill.
We are anxious to make progress, and although a great deal more could be said, it would be helpful to the Committee and to those who have professional and environmental responsibilities if the Minister could explain what will happen. Landfill gas is a mixture of potentially explosive toxic asphysciant gases. The environmental consequences of landfill gas migration can be substantial. They range from nuisance to damage to persons, property and vegetation. I have heard on the radio and read in the newspapers some disturbing illustrations of where the escape of methane gas from various landfill sites has permeated property, brickwork, and so on. It is an important matter, and I should be pleased to hear the Minister's comments.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may intervene for a moment. If the amendment had been changed so that the clause reads,
"from, the land of noxious gases or combustible gases or noxious liquids",
that would have covered the whole issue. One of the problems is that a number of combustible gases have no smell and one is unaware that they exist until one strikes a match—and then, bang!
Lord Hesketh: I fully understand the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and his desire to put the words "methane gas" on the face of the Bill. Pure methane gas may be colourless, and odourless. However, it is the potential danger against which we want to protect ourselves and the environment. That gas is flammable and can form explosive mixtures which in my mind means that it is potentially damaging to the environment and to those persons living in it. Hence the word "noxious" which, according to my dictionary, means hurtful and must include such a substance.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the amendment is on that basis unnecessary. The dangers of methane gas from landfill sites are well understood, and local authorities are fully alive to the need for monitoring and for controls and remedial work where necessary.
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution has issued Waste Management Paper No. 27 as a technical
1516
memorandum on monitoring and control, and has also conducted a survey of sites with local authorities which has identified some 1,000 sites as potentially at risk from landfill gas. The Government have specifically earmarked £33 million as a capital allocation to local authorities for remedial work on closed sites for 1990–91 with the prospect of similar allocations for further years. Priority will be given to work on any of the 1,000 identified sites and that will include any preparatory monitoring. Project approvals worth some £19 million have already been issued to local authorities for their use of resources within that allocation. Work on active sites will continue as a feature of day-to-day operations.
I can assure the noble Lord that monitoring of noxious gases includes methane gas, and I am sure that he will see that local authorities will continue to monitor landfill gas under those responsibilities.
The point about "noxious" is that if methane gas were the only trouble to come out of landfill sites it would be simpler to say so. The difficulty is that many nasty things come out of landfill which is why the provision is as it is in line 23.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister. He will understand that I do not want to press the matter. I was interested to hear that the survey had identified about 1,000 active sites. My information is that it uncovered 1,300. The local authorities must be having a major blitz and getting rid of those sites by the yardfull. Whether there are 1,000 to 1,300 active sites from which noxious gases can escape, there are grave anxieties.
As the Minister is aware, those matters have been drawn to our attention by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities which has the support of the ACC. I hope they will take heart from what the Minister said and understand that the amendment is not necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Reay: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the House does not return to this business before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Bill
7.35 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Causing or permitting child under 14 to ride on road without protective headgear]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, after ("permit") insert (", without reasonable excuse,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I moved three amendments whose central purpose was to protect from prosecution parents and

1517
de facto guardians, and owners of horses and ponies who are not parents or guardians, in cases where children, in particular older children, had, for example, undone their chinstraps without the older person's knowledge or consent.
The basic aim of the amendments received considerably more support, it is fair to say, from noble Lords in all parts of the House than most of our other amendments. Protection from prosecution of the absentee owner of a horse or pony, acting in good faith, was urged by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, and, subject to one proviso to which I was happy to agree, by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret. However, in the end, one amendment was negatived and the other two were withdrawn on the understanding that I would return at a later stage with an improved version, taking into account the reservations that had been expressed in Committee.
I had it in mind to introduce two inevitably complicated and verbose amendments on the lines of, "It shall be a defence to any prosecution brought under this section to prove" and so on; but I decided that it was far better in every way, from the point of view of simplicity and clarity to follow the excellent precedents set by other statutes, merely to interpose the three words, "without reasonable excuse".
The concept of "reasonable excuse" is found in statutes dating back to at least 1870—that is to say, 120 years. The most recent example—and from the Bill's point of view the most pertinent and relevant—is to be found in the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Chilren) Act 1988. The parallel with the Bill is a precise one because when the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Bill was being drafted, it was recognised that parents can only do their best. They cannot do more. They can buckle the children's belts up in the back seat and tell them firmly not to undo the belts, but in the last resort they cannot watch their children like hawks every minute of the journey. Parents must keep their eyes on the road. Therefore there is a necessity for the insertion of the words, "without reasonable excuse", which significantly do not appear in the Bill concerning the wearing of seatbelts by adults also piloted through the House by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford.
It is no use saying that in such circustances probably the police would not prosecute or that in the event of a prosecution probably the courts would not convict. Once certain powers are laid down for the police, there is no absolute guarantee that they will not be used. In effect there is an absolute offence. Even if the defendant is acquitted or the conviction is overturned on appeal, he or she still has the trauma of going to court, with all the worry and the cost involved. There are plenty of precedents for this kind of legislation. Naturally the excuse must be reasonable. An unreasonable excuse would not convince the police or, if it came to it, the courts, and would still invite prosecution.
During the Committee stage debate, at col. 989 of Hansard for 20th June, my noble friend Lady Masharn said:
"I do not think that, if he has done his best, the owner should be liable".
1518
Nor do we. That is why, following in the footsteps of the "seatbelts for children" Act, to paraphrase, it is both reasonable and necessary to provide safeguards for that owner or the conscientious parent who has done his or her best. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. It is true that the police will not come in to premises and keep watch to see whether or not children have hats on. The problem is that if there is an accident, there is an inquiry. If there is an inquiry, the facts come out and it is all a matter of insurance and damages involving people who deal with children. It is important whether or not the children wear the hats and the problems occur where there is an accident. It is matter of the parent using his best endeavours, and one cannot do more than that. If "without reasonable excuse" is the same as using one's best endeavours, then that is fair enough.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am sorry but I have to take issue with my noble friend Lord Gisborough. The amendment is quite unnecessary: it opens the floodgates to people arguing about what is and what is not reasonable. People can always think up an excuse for not doing things in this life. If they are not given the excuse in the first place, there is no argument.
The purpose of the Bill is to require young children to be properly protected with the proper headgear. It is quite clear: either one agrees with that or one disagrees with it. If we agree with it then we should not put in other provisions that we will excuse this or that. There is no excuse. It is verging on being criminal to allow any young child to ride any animal without the proper headgear. I hope that your Lordships will reject the amendment.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, in supporting the amendment I begin by saying to the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, that the question of reasonableness comes before the courts every day. Courts are always having to determine whether somebody acted reasonably: it is the commonest occurrence in the world. I should like to think that we could establish a rule that no Private Member's Bill would ever create an offence involving strict liability. That is to say that the person charged has no defence at all provided that the facts stated in the legislation are proved by the prosecution.
I say that because, generally speaking, Private Member's Bills are of limited application and limited interest to Parliament. There must be exceptions to that. If a Private Member were to introduce a Bill to restore the death penalty, I dare say that great interest would be aroused. However, generally, Private Member's Bills deal with rather small matters which do not engage the same amount of parliamentary attention as government Bills involving larger issues.
In Committee I ventured to cite the licensing Act because, if not exactly a precedent for this Bill, it is a parallel matter. It involves the sometimes rather difficult problem of a licensee of a public house having to decide whether a child whom he has never

1519
seen before is above or below the permitted age. That is much the same problem as that faced by the proprietors of riding establishments under this Bill. Under the licensing Act, having been given a great deal of attention by Parliament, a statutory defence was inserted into the Act. If the licensee proves that he acted in good faith and that the young person was apparently over the permitted age, that is a good defence. If prosecuted, the licensee is not guilty.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, now cites the perhaps closer parallel of the legislation on seat belts for young children. It is written into the Act that the person charged is guilty only if he has acted without reasonable excuse. Parliament is criticised for creating too many criminal offences. We do not wish to create unnecessary criminal offences by saying that every riding establishment proprietor is liable to be guilty of an offence, however much he acts in good faith, when faced with the rather difficult matter of deciding a child's age.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that parents could only do their best. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, said that parents could only use their best endeavours. Licensees can only use their best endeavours. The proprietors of riding establishments can only use their best endeavours. They may make mistakes, but if they do their best and act in good faith, let us not automatically make them criminals because the Bill involves strict liability and does not allow a defence.
I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Then we shall not unnecessarily make criminals out of riding establishment proprietors.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. Clause 1(2)(b) appears to create an absolute offence, in that the owner of the horse, who might be a thousand miles away, is automatically guilty. I know that this was covered at Committee stage and that amendments to clear up the matter were rejected. However, it seems to me that this amendment would also cover the situation and would mean that the offence would no longer be potentially a statutory one.
The whole matter arose before over the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965. The case of Sweet v. Parsley reached this House on appeal before it was decided that the categories of statutory offence should not be extended without clear and express words in the section of the Act creating a new offence. The House referred back to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1920 in order to construe the words used in the 1965 Act. It was decided that the categories of statutory offence should not be extended and that there should be an element of mens rea; in other words one should be aware that one is committing an offence.
However, the Bill quite specifically states that "any owner" of the horse may be liable. It seems quite clear that there is no preceding Act under which we may construe that this is not a new absolute offence. Without the words "without reasonable excuse", someone will have to bring a test case all the way to the House of Lords at incredible expense, or alternatively he will be fined because he cannot
1520
afford to do so. There are a lot of people who cannot afford to bring cases to the House of Lords but who are not eligible for legal aid either. They are caught in a trap between those two margins. This is a reasonable amendment and would clear up what could potentially be a great difficulty.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, if it is a matter of the age of the child, would it not be easy for the child and the parent to give the child's date of birth to the owner of a riding establishment before the child signs on for lessons?
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will not accept this amendment. It would seriously weaken the Bill. One of the enormous attractions of the Bill as it stands is its simplicity and clarity. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, admires that in other legislation. The introduction of the phrase "without reasonable excuse" would lead to endless arguments in the courts about what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, illustrated that. We have to remember that we are legislating to save children from accidents. The question of the owner of the horse is well covered in Clause 1(2)(c), which states:
"any person other than its owner who has custody of or is in possession of the horse immediately before the child rides it".
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, under the terms of that paragraph both those people would be guilty of an offence. It is not a matter of one or the other. Both the owner and any person other than the owner who has custody could be prosecuted under the terms of the paragraph.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, possibly they both could be prosecuted, but it is unlikely that prosecutions would be brought against an owner who was 1,000 miles away.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, that occurred in the case of Sweet v. Parsley in 1969.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we are on Report and I must press on and finish. I believe I have covered all the points I wanted to make. There is the question of opening the Bill to abuse. There are unscrupulous people who will use the phrase "without reasonable excuse" to avoid their responsibilities. I ask your Lordships once again to remember that we are legislating to protect children. In that case we must do everything to keep the Bill as straight, simple and clear as we possibly can. I hope that the amendment will not succeed.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she tell the House whether she or any Member on the Labour Benches objected to the inclusion of these words in the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Act where precisely the same considerations as she has just advanced apply?
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, on this occasion I speak for myself and not for my noble friends. I was not present during the passage of the legislation on seat

1521
belts. I have not read Hansard and I do not know the answer to the question of the noble Lord. However, there does not seem to me to be a parallel case.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that she thought that the two people in question would not be prosecuted. That is marvellous if that is the case, but there is no reason why they should not be. We are not legislating for what might happen. A police force could bring such prosecutions.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I think perhaps I should speak before the noble Baroness. I must say first of all that I am surprised that my noble friend Lady Nicol is so rigid on this matter. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will not heed her advice and will accept this amendment. It is a most reasonable amendment and will give the protection to parents or other owners of horses that should properly be given to them. After all, the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Act 1988 was a Government Bill. Therefore one must trust that the Government knew exactly what they were doing. They introduced that protection because they thought it was reasonable to do so. The words of that Act bear repeating. New Section 33C(i) states:
"Except as provided by regulations a person shall not, without reasonable excuse, drive a motor vehicle",
etc.
Both pieces of legislation concern movement. One is about driving a motor car and the other is about riding a horse. Both pieces of legislation concern the movement of people. This Bill concerns the movement of people and animals. Both pieces of legislation are about protection. One concerns the protection of children in the rear seats of cars and the other concerns the protection of children on horseback. I cannot therefore understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, should refuse to accept the amendment. I sincerely hope that she will accept it. If she does not, all kinds of things may happen. I have heard of instances where magistrates have found it difficult to decide in cases of truancy whether parents were liable. The parents have rightly claimed that they sent their children off to school and threatened that there would be trouble if the children did not attend school. Nevertheless, the children did not attend school.
However, the magistrates in many cases still fined the parents, although there was no way in which for various reasons they could physically have pushed their children through the gates of the school. The parents may have had to attend work, for example. That is the kind of case that may well occur unless the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is accepted.
The noble Baroness is an able and doughty debater. I have heard her criticise the Government Front Bench for rigidity on various other Bills. Therefore I hope that she will not take a Civil Service line in this case, read from her brief and say that she cannot accept the amendment under any
1522
circumstances. I believe that the amendment is reasonable. The noble Baroness should accept it and I am almost convinced that she will.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I have just one point to make. I should say that I am no lawyer. Clause 1(1) of the Bill states:
"it is an offence … to cause or permit a child under the age of 14 years to ride a horse on a road unless the child is wearing protective headgear".
Do the words "to cause or permit" cover the point that is being raised? If that could be explained, it would clear up everything.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Monson has taken the wording from the legislation on child seat belts. However, that Act was framed in a very different way to this Bill. The Act provided for an absolute offence of carrying a child in a car when the latter was not wearing a restraint and where a suitable restraint was available.
There was, therefore, a need to provide a reasonable excuse defence where, for example, a driver was driving along a motorway, having ensured that his child was belted up. However, his child may find the release button after much struggling and release himself. A parallel case for the horse rider may occur where a dutiful parent has strapped a helmet to his child's head and told him to take care on the ride. However, as soon as the child is out of sight he decides the helmet is too hot and loosens the strap. The parent, however, has quite clearly not given permission to ride with the strap loose and cannot be prosecuted because in the Bill it is an offence only to cause or permit a child to ride a horse without a protective hat.
I can see no situation in which a responsible parent could reasonably require or permit a child to ride unprotected. A reasonable excuse defence is therefore unnecessary; it would serve only to reduce the effectiveness of the Bill. Therefore, I urge my noble friend Lord Monson to withdraw the amendment.
8 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be helpful if I intervene to say a few words about the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has explained the difference between this Bill and the Motor Vehicle (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Act 1988. As the noble Baroness said, legislation is carefully drafted to allow for defences where they are considered to be reasonable. The advice of parliamentary counsel was taken in the drafting of the Bill as in others. There was lengthy correspondence on how "cause or permit" would be interpreted in the courts. The matter was also debated in another place and examined again afterwards. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will accept my assurance that "cause or permit" is the best form of words in this instance.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down can he say whether the Government would accept in principle an amendment at Third Reading on the lines: "It shall

1523
be a defence in any prosecution brought under this section for the defendant to prove that he had taken all reasonable care"? Is that acceptable to the Government in theory?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, as this is a Private Member's Bill I cannot give any assurances as to what the Government might or might not accept at another stage.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am not very happy about this. I am extremely grateful for all the support that I have received from the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, my noble friend Lord Erroll, and my noble friends—on this particular issue—Lord Airedale and Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Both the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and my noble friend Lord Erroll cited legal precedents which I believe have a bearing in this case. The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, did not object when those words appeared in the rear seat belts for children Bill, possibly for the reasons advanced by my noble friend. Nor did anybody on the Labour Benches object. I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, a semi-rhetorical question. I can tell her that I was present at all stages of that Bill and no objections were raised to the inclusion of those words.
It seems to me that the key word here is not "excuse" but "reasonable". A trivial excuse would get nowhere. I believe that if the phrase "without reasonable excuse" is left out prosecutions could be brought unjustly, despite the advice of parliamentary counsel. However, I am conscious of the fact that if I were to press the amendment tonight that would obviate any amendments being brought forward at Third Reading with the same general aim. Tempted as I am, in view of the great support that I have received tonight, to press the amendment I do not want to risk not being able to press an amendment at Third Reading. At that stage we might be able to tighten the definition still further so as to get round the technical objections that have been raised in connection with this amendment.
As I said, the key word is not "excuse" but "reasonable". It is only reasonable objections that would get anywhere. I am not convinced that the defence which it was suggested could be put forward by a potential defendent would work in every case. However, it is probably best to study what has been said and to take further legal advice. For that reason I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Interpretation]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 22, after ("foal") insert ("(over the age of five months)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, moved an amendment to delete the word "foal" from the list of animals to be included under the broad definition of "horse". I was happy to support him on the grounds that to legislate against
1524
non-existent dangers makes the law an ass. After all, nobody is going to put a saddle and bridle on an unbroken foal and ride it on grass, let alone on the road.
However, my noble friend maintained that, contrary to the expert advice that I have received—namely, that a foal ceases to be a foal and becomes either a colt or a filly at the age of six months—the upper age limit for a foal is in practice rather imprecise. It may be that her expert advice is more expert than my expert advice. I do not rule that out. However, that has only a minor bearing on the argument. The idea of riding a foal of nine or 12 months on the highway is almost as improbable as the idea of riding one of six months. Nevertheless, I decided to reintroduce an amended version of my earlier amendment to take the reservations of my noble friend Lady Masham into account.
To avoid the risk of being accused of tautology in the event of the upper age limit of the foal being indeed six months, I propose now an age limit for the purposes of this Bill of five months. That has the added merit of being the earliest age at which a foal can be weaned. Six months is more usual but foals can occasionally be weaned at five months.
As I see it, there is only one objection which the Department of Transport could raise to the proposal. The department believes passionately in the scientific maxim that whatever can happen sooner or later will happen. In other words, however unlikely it seems today that someone will ride a young foal on the highway, at some unspecified time in the future somebody is sure to do so. If that is to be the argument, in order to be consistent I shall have to move Amendment No. 3 to include zebras in the Bill. This may be a good moment to discuss Amendment No. 3.
There are a number of things not all of your Lordships will know about zebras. The first is that they are definitely members of the horse family, just like asses. Biologically, a zebra is closer to a horse than is an ass. The second is that although it is difficult to break in and train zebras for riding, it has been done on occasion. I understand that in the 19th century a Member of your Lordships' House was in the habit of driving a four-in-hand in which the horses had been replaced by zebras. Between the wars some intrepid white settlers in the Happy Valley of Kenya occasionally rode zebras, although I do not know whether they stayed on very long.
Thirdly, zebras can be crossed with both horses and asses. The resulting hybrids are probably somewhat easier to break in and train than zebras are: that is another possibility that ought to be covered. The fourth point, which has a bearing on a matter we discussed at some length in Committee, is that Huxley, writing in 1862—there were very many more mules and pack animals working in Britain at that time than there are today when they are practically non-existent—stated:
"It is a very rare thing to see a Hinny in this country".
From that, given how things have changed in the past 128 years, the conclusion must be that there are many more zebras in Britain than there are hinnies. So, if such improbable and unlikely mounts as young

1525
foals and hinnies are to be covered by this Bill, just in case someone at some unspecified time in the future may ride them, certainly zebras ought to be included. For the moment, I shall revert to Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, we are going over a little of the ground that we have already covered in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that he had not heard of anybody riding a foal. He asked me at Committee stage whether I had heard of anybody riding a foal. I said no but that if I waited long enough, I was quite sure that I should do so. I am equally sure that there will be some idiot out there who is prepared to put a small child on a small animal—a foal. As I said before, that damages the foal and we must think of protecting the animal as well as the child. The likely result of a small child on the back of such a young animal is that the animal will dislodge the child. There will thus be the situation of a soft skull meeting a very hard pavement.
With regard to Amendment No. 3, I agree with the noble Lord. Every conceivable kind of equine quadruped should be covered by the Bill. Should the noble Lord move that amendment, I shall support it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, at this stage, to save the time of the House, I should like to put forward a proposition which may please my noble friend Lord Monson. Having given thought to foals and zebras, perhaps I could bring back an amendment at Third Reading to include the definition used in the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975, which would be comprehensive. The definition reads:
" 'horse" ' includes pony, mule, donkey or other equine animal".
That would include all ages and all equine animals.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, if the noble Baroness were to table such an amendment at Third Reading, the Government would support it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is nice to get somewhere at last. It is not that I feel very strongly about this point; but it seems sensible. I do not think, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, suggested, that anybody would put a saddle and bridle on a foal and take it onto a public road: that is what we are talking about. We are not speaking about perching a child on a foal of under five months in a field in order to take a photograph, even assuming that that could be done, holding the foal by a halter. We are talking about taking an animal onto a public highway. I think it is extremely improbable.
However, if my noble friend will, as it were, rewrite that clause of the Bill so as to bring in the definition—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord has given way. Before he accepts that proposition, I hope he understands that it will extend the scope of the Bill. I thought that he and I wanted to narrow its scope.
Lord Monson: My Lords, that is perfectly true. I should indeed like to narrow it, certainly so far as concerns exempting people who act in good faith. With regard to the range of animals, I rather feel that we lost that battle last time round. I wish that that were not the case and that the rest of the Committee had seen the force and merit of our arguments but it did not seem to do so. At this stage or at Third Reading it would be a waste of time to pursue that point.
If the Bill is to pass into law, it ought to be sensible and comprehensive. There is a school of thought which maintains that it is far better not to improve a Bill of whose objects one basically disapproves because the more anomalies and inconsistencies there are in it, the more silly it will look on the statute book and the less attention people will pay to it. However, one must be responsible about these matters. It is probably sensible to accept the offer of my noble friend Lady Masham although, as I said, I do not feel very strongly about this point. It is logical, given that the department feels that every conceivable contingency must be covered just in case.
For that reason, unless my noble friend wishes me not to withdraw this amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 P.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.15 to 8.35 p.m.]

Environmental Protection Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 58.
Lord Layton Lord Layton moved Amendment No. 246C:
Page 64, line 32, at end insert ("In the case where waste was deposited prior to 1st Janauary 1976, the waste shall be deemed to be controlled waste where it would have been controlled waste if it had been deposited after 1st January 1976.").
The noble Lord said: The words "controlled waste" only became a term in law by the implementation of the relevant section of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 on 1st January 1976. That is the legal situation. It seems doubtful whether waste deposited prior to that date would be classed as controlled waste. Although intended to cover waste deposited prior to January 1976, the words in brackets,
"whether before or after 1st January 1967",
do not appear to fulfil that intention.
It is suggested that the words of the amendment clarify the position. This is purely a legal matter and I have been told that the problem arose on consideration of a case. Because the definition was not sufficiently exact it was impossible to continue with the case. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: There is general recognition that we need a proper basis for tackling the problems of

1527
landfill gas and leaching at closed landfill sites. We may differ on the details. However, there seems to be a consensus. Waste regulation sites must be surveyed. Problems must be assessed and dealt with. I hope that the debates on this clause will be illuminated by this consensus rather than darkened by our minor differences of approach.
These amendments are a good example. There is no difference in our objectives, simply a difference of drafting. We entirely agree that this clause must cover waste deposited at any date, however long ago. The problems of such sites might persist for 30 or more years and we have no intention of setting any backstop date on the effect of the clause.
I can assure my noble friend that in spite of his misgivings the clause has this effect. The phrase,
"whether before or after 1st January 1976",
unambiguously brings under the clause all sites where waste has been deposited that would have been controlled waste if the Bill had been in force when the deposit was made. This is made clear in the supplementary definition of "controlled waste" for the purposes of this clause only at the end of subsection (3). Because of that definition, controlled waste in this clause is household, commercial and industrial waste as defined in the Bill. That means that a single definition applies to deposits of waste made in the period before 1976, the period from 1976 until this Bill comes into force and to future deposits. We would not want any possibility that a WRA would have to undertake a kind of archaeology of rubbish to put a date on waste before deciding whether the site came under Clause 58.
I hope that my noble friend is heartened by these assurances and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Layton: I am sure that the legal brains have been working on this matter. I accept the Minister's explanation. I hope that he is right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No 246D not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 246E:
Page 64, line 45, at end insert:
("4A) Where it appears to a waste regulation authority that any land is in such a condition as to be likely to cause pollution to the water environment it shall be the duty of the authority forthwith to inform the National Rivers Authority.".
The noble Lord said: Clause 58 places a duty on waste regulation authorities to monitor and secure the safety of closed landfill sites where a site licence is not in force. The purpose of the amendment is to require a WRA to notify the National Rivers Authority when any land in its area is likely to cause pollution of the water environment.
Under Section 115 of the Water Act 1989 the NRA has the power to take action to prevent water pollution. However, if the authority is to exercise that power effectively it must have as much information as is available to the WRA in respect of landfill sites whose condition is likely to cause pollution. I suggest that the amendment speaks for itself. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: It is a particular pleasure to be able to welcome an amendment tabled by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Onslow and the noble Lord, Lord Moran. We have heard how important it is that our water supplies should be protected against leachate from waste sites. There is already recognition of this in the procedures for consulting the National Rivers Authority when granting licences. It does indeed seem entirely reasonable that the NRA should also be consulted about problems with disused sites.
I have only one or two slight doubts about the wording of the amendment. In particular I ask: is it actually enough merely to "inform" the NRA? Perhaps it would be better to require the WRA to "consult" the NRA, giving it a statutory voice in the measures that should be taken at a problem site. With that very slight qualification, perhaps my noble friend will not be too upset if I undertake to take away the amendment and overhaul the wording with a view to bringing it forward again on Report.
Lord Crickhowell: The Committee will recognise the fact that, as chairman of the National Rivers Authority, I am particularly pleased that the Minister has agreed to take the amendment away and look at the wording. In doing so I ask him to examine a couple of related matters to which I need not return when we reach Clause 61. Clauses 58 and 61 are related. Clause 61(1)(j) refers to publicity and public registers in regard to the exercise of any power under Clause 58.
Two separate points arise. It is extremely important that the National Rivers Authority is informed and consulted. It is equally important to ensure that there are full and comprehensive registers for public inspection of all such events. I am uncertain about the wording because paragraph (j) refers to the powers of the WRA under Clause 58. However, with the exception of subsection (7) and the power given in subsection (3) by the word "may", Clause 58 refers to "duties". Powers and duties are different. I am by no means clear that when registering the information it will be necessary to register only the cases in which action is taken in order to correct a situation or whether it will be necessary for WRAs to include in the register every visit and every inspection carried out.
I do not expect my noble friend to respond immediately to these detailed points. However, it would be helpful for the Government to confirm that the wording is right and that the words "duty" and "power" are correctly drafted and do not need amendment.
I wish to take the opportunity of repeating the question that was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. He asked about the register of contaminated land which on 30th April the Minister in another place undertook to introduce by means of an amendment in this Chamber. One of our difficulties in considering the clauses is that as yet we do not have the Government's amendment. In a public statement made at that time the Minister said:
"We envisage that these registers will identify sites of potential contamination, based on past land use. In this way, they will

1529
provide a means of alerting interested parties to the potential for contamination so that, where necessary, more detailed site surveys can be undertaken. At the same time, I want to ensure that we avoid extending planning blight in those parts of the country with a legacy of industrial land use".
That statement is relevant to a later amendment tabled by the Opposition.
I understand that the Government are consulting and wish to get the provision right. However, as we discuss the powers that are available and the information that should be contained in the registers, it would be helpful if as soon as possible the Government could indicate their intentions as regards the promised amendment which we still do not have.
8.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord, Lord Renton, responds to the amendment, I wish to add my support to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, particularly as he referred to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Graham. It is extremely important, and by now extremely urgent, that the Government's commitment to provide at least a register of contaminated land should be honoured. We should be given a better indication of the reason why a commitment made in another place has not yet been honoured. Since amendments have not appeared we must, at the very least, be given a commitment that they will appear in good time before the Report stage in this House. The reminder given by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is extremely valuable.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps between now and Report consideration can be given to making reference to Section 115 of the Water Act 1989 in this legislation so that there is a cross reference. There are occasions on which an authority may not have locked at other legislation: it is always helpful to draw its attention to that.
Lord Renton: I thank my noble friend Lord Arran for the forthcoming way in which he accepted the principle of my amendment. I look forward to seeing a government amendment tabled on Report which will fulfil the same object but drafted as he has advised.
I am sure that meanwhile my noble friend will take seriously the important points raised by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell on behalf of the National Rivers Authority. They are points which should not be overlooked. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Layton Lord Layton moved Amendment No. 246F:
Page 65, line 11, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 13.
The noble Lord said: As the clause is currently worded, the local authority has powers to clean up polluted land where it is creating pollution or harm to human health. They then attempt to recoup the loss from the landowner. This seems rather a convoluted way of doing things which may create unnecessary delay and may affect local authority
1530
spending. It also seems to create unnecessary legal difficulties: for example, disputes between the landowner and the local authority as to whether the work was truly necessary in the first place, as under Clause 58(7). The amendment proposes a much more straightforward solution. The local authority would be able to get the landowner to clean up the problem himself and pay for it.
This would be much less of a burden on public expenditure as it seems to apply the polluter pays principle directly. It would be up to the landowner to decide the best methods by which to abate the problem by appropriate means. Only as a last resort should the local authority do the work and attempt to recoup the cost. The onus for the cleaning up is clearly placed upon the owner of the land and not the local authority or the community charge payer. The only exceptions would be in the case of land where a WRA has issued a certificate of completion under Clause 38. The existing Clause 58(9) is retained in the amendment, renumbered as Clause 58(15). This ensures that local authorities have regard to any guidance received from the Secretary of State. Such guidance should prevent local authorities from being over-zealous in the use of these powers. This is perhaps the other side of the coin referred to in Amendments Nos. 246A and 246B. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This group of amendments introduces two issues: who should undertake the legal works and who should pay for them. I have to say that these issues have been the subject of more soul-searching and scrutiny in my department over the past few months than any other in Part II. We are not unaware of the difficulties but have concluded that the course we have chosen, with crucial government amendments yet to be discussed, is right.
I have listened carefully to the noble Lord's arguments, but they have merely strengthened my belief. I do not find the alternative system offered by these amendments very attractive and I shall not bore the Committee with the technical detail or defects—for example, there is no offence in subsection (6) as referred to in Amendment No. 246H. Rather, I shall try to outline the objections in principle to the noble Lord's proposals.
As I say, there are two issues here. The first is the easier to settle: who should undertake remedial work on long-disused landfill sites? We must remember that we are talking about sites where there is no licence. The current owner and occupier may well have nothing to do with the waste deposits and are unlikely to know anything about landfill gas or methane. We are not talking here about a simple job like clearing litter. This is highly technical work which may well involve excavation, boreholes, drains and the installation and operation of complex equipment to extract or burn off methane.
As I said to your Lordships last week, this is not a job for amateurs. It has to be done and supervised by experts in order to avoid serious risks of fire, explosion or contamination of water supplies. That is why we believe that the experts and the waste regulation authorities should be responsible, if necessary using specialist outside contractors. In

1531
passing, perhaps I might express the hope that this will give the lie to the accusation of always trying to take work away from local authorities. In this case, the Government firmly believe that this is the proper function of the public sector.
Having disposed of the question of who should do the work, there remains the question of who should pay. The arguments were rehearsed exhaustively in another place during Committee. There are four people who might be asked to pay for remedial work: the person who deposited the waste, the waste regulation authority who does the remedial work, the present occupier of the land and the owner of the land. Pursuing the person who deposited the waste will often be fruitless and, if they have a licence, unfair. It would not be reasonable to call on a former licensee who had acted within the terms of his licence and the conditions laid upon him by the authority at the time. Nor, in many cases, could the person still be found. The intention is that future licensees would remain subject to long-term conditions after site closure, for ex-licensees may be companies who have disappeared. Nor do we want to make waste regulation authorities pay for works out of the public purse, except as a last resort. As noble Lords opposite have pointed out, we have to have regard to the cost burdens of new duties on authorities.
That leaves only the present-day occupier and the owner of the land. Of the two, we have opted to charge the owner. After all, it is he who will benefit from any increased value of the land consequent upon remedial works. For these reasons, I do not accept that the occupier should undertake and pay for the work done, as suggested in the amendment. My noble friend's Amendment No. 246M seems restrained on this point. I note that the occupier would have to undertake the work specified in a notice, and presumably would be expected to pay for it. However, if the occupier defaults and the local authority has to undertake the work, then the cost is recoverable from the owner. That is the correct course, and it is the one adopted in the clause as at present drafted.
The only other feature of these amendments is the suggestion of an appeals system. The Government considered the possibility of an appeal against cost recovery, which was suggested in Committee in another place; but there are some grounds for appeal. The grounds suggested in Amendment No. 246 add nothing to that proviso. We already have in subsection (7) the proviso that no one need pay their costs where they have been incurred unnecessarily.
When I move to Amendments Nos. 246J and 246L, I shall explain the Government's solution to hard cases where it would be oppressive to recover costs from the landowner. I am grateful to my noble friend for the meticulous work that has gone into the alternative arrangements that he has suggested, particularly as it has given me a chance to put the Government's case at some length, and for that I apologise to the Committee.
Lord Layton: I thank the Minister for a very full reply. This was in many ways a probing amendment. I am not totally happy with the reply, but I am not
1532
totally happy with the amendment either. I beg leave to withdraw it at this point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 246G and 246HA not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 246J:
Page 65, line 16, at end insert ("or part of the cost").
The noble Lord said: In one sense, Amendments Nos. 246K and 246L are a continuation of my reply a moment ago to the noble Lord, Lord Layton. Having regard to the time I took over the last set of amendments, I shall hope not to delay your Lordships too long on this matter. The only remaining flaw has been the possibility that the costs of remedial works may be quite disproportionate to the means of the landowner. At the extreme there might be housing built on or next to an ancient waste site. We hope that would not happen now, but it might have done in the past.
We do not want an authority to seek to recover what might be multi-million pound bills from owner-occupiers of housing who might not even know they were on a former landfill site. Rather than rely entirely on the mercy and discretion of authorities, this pair of amendments requires them to have regard to any hardship that might result from recovering the full costs. They may then remit all or part of the costs. In such exceptional cases, the balance would have to come from the public purse. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It does not come very well, I suppose, to stand up from this Dispatch Box and oppose the recognition of hardship. However, I am worried about the opening which is given by Amendments Nos. 246J and 246L. The point is that we are trying to defend all the time the polluter pays principle. The Minister has given, in the example that he chose, a touching case of owner-occupiers who have inherited much later pollution which is on the land they own, but for which they had no responsibility at the time the pollution was caused.
The difficulty is that that is not what is reflected in the two amendments as drafted. They allow for the defence of hardship and for the possibility that hardship should be a suitable derogation from the responsibilities which would otherwise fall upon the occupier: in other words, in most cases the polluter.
There is a serious risk that the polluter will not defend the environmental standards that he should be required to defend, but will concentrate on proving inability to pay. The selective example that the Minister gave in proposing the amendments does not deal adequately with that problem. He should come back to the Committee and say what will happen, not if some distant, worthy successor—no doubt widows and children living in those owner-occupied houses—but the polluter himself then pleads hardship. How will the polluter pays principle be enforced if the amendments are agreed to?
9 P.m.
Lord Hesketh: I understand what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says, but I am interested to know

1533
whether he suggests that there should be no recourse for home owners who find themselves in the situation that I have described. In my experience, one of the most problematical areas is where there is housing built on what was a waste tip. The noble Lord suggests that that is a rare example, but it is not so rare as he thinks.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not suggest there should be no rules; I suggest that the amendment should be more tightly drawn. If that is what the Government intend—that may well be a geniune case and I do not dispute it—the amendment should be drawn to cover only those cases where the occupier or the owner bears no causal relationship to the person who caused the pollution. As the amendment stands, the original polluter who is still the owner or occupier may plead hardship and get away with it. That is not acceptable. Even if we do not oppose the amendments and they arc incorporated in the Bill, the Government should at least agree to look again at the matter and try to distinguish between the innocent parties and the guilty parties.
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may draw the noble Lord's attention to the remarks that I made earlier in reply to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Layton, which referred to cases where the authority has the right to retrieve from those who are the polluters. The examples that I gave involved cases where the polluter had disappeared. That is why we must protect the innocent parties.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The examples that the Minister gave are not the same as those that would be covered by the amendment. The amendment does not distinguish between innocent parties and guilty parties. That is the point I am trying to make.
Lord Hesketh: I shall be interested to hear the noble Lord when he presents his amendment at Report stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 246K not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 246L:
Page 65, line 23, at end insert:
("(In deciding whether to recover the cost and, if so, how much to recover of the cost which it is entitled to recover under subsection (7) above, the authority shall have regard to any hardship which the recovery may cause to the owner of the land.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 246M and 246N not moved.]
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 247:
After Clause 58, insert the following new clause:
("Tenders: Value of recycled waste
In assessing tenders for waste disposal, relevant authorities shall have regard to the desirabilities of recycling and shall assess the short-term cost saving per tonne of landfilling against any financial credits or resale value derived from diverted waste which is ultimately recycled or reclaimed where such value can be clearly demonstrated.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to end the practice of diluting the real cost of consigning domestic waste to the ground during the competitive tendering stage.
Most people now recognise that landfilling is at best a waste of valuable resources and at worst a major environmental hazard which blights the land for decades and allows methane to pollute the ozone layer and leachates to pollute the waterways. We must therefore ensure that the Bill prevents tenders containing only part of the cost of landfilling, especially as we are now likely to see recycling options being considered alongside.
As I said when speaking to Amendments Nos. 240 to 244, it is extremely difficult to analyse on a per tonne basis the ongoing costs of site checking and maintaining landfilled sites. However, it will be possible to work backwards from the total costs for a waste disposal authority and obtain some idea of the average cost for all methods of disposal. Escalating costs that are not foreseen or foretold are not good housekeeping and do not make sense. There is little point in allowing the market to be distorted on the one hand while at the same time hoping to see alternatives to landfill develop.
More precisely, when tenders are awarded at present, a cost per tonnne must form part of the tender price. The volume of waste that is not tipped therefore represents a saving on the tipping fee per tonne. That figure could be part of a financial credit as it clearly is money saved. A more elaborate formula could be worked out subsequently as we move towards the 50 per cent. figure. That way, there need be no increase in public expenditure as the money for the credit will come from an existing landfill budget.
When the Minister discussed those issues in the excellent amendment that he moved earlier, he referred to a terminology whose definition is relevant to this amendment and to the question of net cost. My noble friend Lord St. John of Bletso asked for clarification as to the precise meaning of the word "net" in that case. I must have missed the Minister's reply and should be grateful if he would refresh my memory as to exactly what the Government intend net cost to mean. I hope that the Minister will be in a position to demonstrate that the Bill will see an end to "obscure accounting practices", as the Environment Secretary put it, and that, when evaluating tenders to process domestic waste in the future, authorities will be able to compare like with like on a cost basis and like with like on an environmental basis. I beg to move.
Lord St. John of Bletso: I support the amendment and I ask the Minister to give the Committee an assurance that the Bill will not allow the long-term and, by definition, real costs of land filling to be disguised at the competitive tendering stage. Furthermore, will the Bill address and cure what the Secretary of State recently described as an artificial depression of the real costs of landfill because of the way in which local authorities organise their accounts?
Lord Reay: This group of amendments concerns the tendering for waste disposal contracts. Amendments Nos. 247 and 248 are, I believe, founded in a genuine desire to give recycling a fair chance to compete against other, possibly cheaper, disposal options. We unequivocally support that intention. The competitive tendering requirements contained in Schedule 2 were deliberately drafted so as to impose a duty on disposal authorities to consider the comparative environmental advantages of recycling and waste minimisation. Let me make it absolutely clear that disposal authorities will not be required to accept the lowest tender. That said, we maintain that these amendments would add nothing to that requirement.
Amendment No. 247 restates that disposal authorities should weigh up the long-term benefits of recycling as opposed to the short-term cost savings of landfill. Quite simply they already can and indeed they are required to take account of such factors under Schedule 2, paragraph 18 of the Bill. Amendment No. 248 would require authorities to seek indicators or real costs as opposed to gate fees. Again this amendment is unnecessary for the simple reason that disposal contractors will be tendering on the basis of their full costs. There will be no way a contractor could hide the restoration and aftercare costs from the authority, except possibly by subsidising the costs himself. Those contractors will know full well that they will be held responsible for the costs of restoring their sites and dealing with any future remedial works. They will be left holding the baby, so the onus is on them to get their tenders right in order to take account of the full range of liabilities to which they are subject.
Amendment No. 249 seeks to impose a duty on contractors to disclose any impending legislation which may affect the cost of their tender. Again this point is covered by the fact that a contractor should when tendering take account of any factor likely to affect the cost of disposal, including impending legislation. Contractors will do everything possible to avoid being caught out because of course they will have a responsibility to dispose of the waste under the terms of the contract once it has been signed.
I am convinced therefore that these three amendments, worthy in intention as they are, are simply not necessary. Disposal authorities will in future be in a much better position to evaluate the comparative costs and benefits of various disposal options including recycling. It is up to the contractors to get their sums right in drawing up their tender for diposal contracts.
Lord McNair: I thank the Minister for his very full reply. However, I should like to press him regarding the definition of net costs that will become part of the formula to be used during the consultation process with interested parties.
Lord Reay: I am afraid that I cannot now give the noble Lord any further definition. I shall have to write to him.
Lord McNair: I am grateful to the Minister. We shall consider his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 248 and 249 not moved.]
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Waste other than controlled waste]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 250:
Page 66, line 29, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: On moving Amendment No. 250 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 251. Although Part II of the Bill does not directly affect agriculture there are provisions contained in it whereby the Secretary of State may by regulation extend controls to premises used for agriculture. In March of this year my honourable friend Mr. David Trippier indicated that his department was discussing this problem with the Ministry of Agriculture. Perhaps my noble friend could give the Committee the result of those discussions.
Amendment No. 251 would ensure that any regulations that affect agricultural waste were made jointly by the environment and agricultural Ministers. I believe that to be important. I accept that farmers are not always tidy—I am certainly guilty of being untidy at times—but keeping a farm tidy is not easy. I should like to know what advice the Government have in mind for clearing up such things as fertiliser and silage bags and other difficult to dispose of farm rubbish. For instance, recently the problem of disposing of dead animals due to BSE has become quite serious.
I raise this matter because usually the easiest way to get rid of rubbish is to burn it. However, the other day a Cleveland farmer was fined for doing just that. What have the Government in mind? Personally, I should prefer to burn my plastic and other rubbish, including string, rather than to see it scattered around the countryside making it hideous. I am concerned that banning burning of this rubbish might make the situation worse unless there is a practical alternative available. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Reay: This clause provides for non-controlled wastes to be brought under control through regulations. Non-controlled wastes are, as the noble Lord pointed out, wastes from mines and quarries and wastes from agricultural premises. The amendment would require such regulations to be joint regulations issued by the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, and to have regard to the possibility of wastes from these sources being detrimental to the countryside.
We dealt on Clause 29 with an amendment to bring agricultural wastes within the controls of this part of the Bill. I explained then that controls are already applied to disposal of such waste on farms under MAFF codes of practice. In the Government's

1537
view there would be no necessity for bringing the majority of those wastes which are disposed of on farms under these codes of practice within the provisions of this Bill.
The Agriculture Act 1986 contains provision in Section 17 that the Minister of Agriculture shall, in discharging any of his functions, have regard to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside in so far as this is consistent with the promotion and maintenance of a stable and efficient agricultural industry. It is already the case, therefore, that any guidance issued by MAFF concerning the disposal of agricultural waste on farms would be subject to this section of the 1986 Act, and would be required to take account of the need to protect the amenity of the countryside.
Similarly, in deciding whether to bring certain agricultural wastes under the control of this part of the Bill, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, will have regard to the potential for pollution of the environment or danger to human health that these wastes hold. The Government accept, for instance, that there is a need to ensure that the disposal of pesticides is subject to appropriate statutory controls. Discussions are continuing between the Department of the Environment and MAFF on how this might best be achieved.
Therefore, I am able to reassure the noble Lord that the amenity of the countryside will be taken into account in the preparation of MAFF codes of practice on the disposal of wastes. In drawing up regulations to bring any of these wastes into control, the Secretary of State would consider whether such wastes presented a risk to the environment.
My noble friend raised the case of a farmer prosecuted for burning, though I am not sure under what provisions the farmer was prosecuted. It does not seem likely that it was under the Control of Pollution Act. It may be that the burning of the waste caused a nuisance and the farmer was open to prosecution under legislation that will be replaced by Part III of this Bill. I hope that my noble friend will not feel the need to press his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am reasonably satisfied with that answer. Pesticides and their disposal are already very tightly controlled, and correctly so. I am not entirely happy with the answer about burning. The prosecution was under the Control of Pollution Act. The judgment was made on the blackness of the smoke. I am not sure that is a very good measure of whether something is polluting or not. I did not get as categorical an answer as I should have liked that the matter will be looked at very sympathetically in the future. At the moment, farmers are somewhat frightened of burning rubbish. The result is that sacks are wandering all over the countryside, which makes it hideous. I shall look very carefully at what my noble friend has said. I thank him for his assurances and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 251 not moved.]
Lord Layton Lord Layton moved Amendment No. 251A:
Page 66, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) A person who deposits or who knowingly causes or knowingly permits the deposit of any waste, other than controlled waste, that has the characteristics of special waste on any land shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

(a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding £20.000 or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both.

(2A) A waste regulation authority may grant a person a licence to deposit waste, other than controlled waste, with the characteristics of special waste on any land in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: I think there is a little problem of drafting here. Clause 60 as currently drafted is likely to prove very difficult to use. In particular the wording of subsection (2) is very unclear and uncertain. First, it is possible to argue that,
"if the waste were special waste and any waste management licence were not in force",
catches all uncontrolled waste deposits on land as a licence would not authorise the deposit of uncontrolled waste. Licences are concerned only with controlled waste. Secondly, it can also be argued that the wording,
"if the waste were special waste",
can be construed to mean all uncontrolled waste or only such waste with the characteristics of special waste. The words "characteristics of special waste" have therefore been added to the amendment.
Although there may be other ways of interpreting the wording of the clause, there is sufficient room for doubt for it to require redrafting. This amendment seeks to clarify the position. All waste that has the characteristics of special waste should have some form of control. This may be provided by other enactments but where it is not, the WRA should be liable to issue those persons, particularly farmers and so on, with a general or specific licence for the disposal of the waste.
Finally, there also seems to be a need in the case where uncontrolled waste is deposited at a licensed waste disposal site for appropriae conditions to be enforceable which relate not only to the deposit of controlled waste but also to the deposit of uncontrolled waste. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments are a lawyer's paradise. In this clause we are dealing with waste that is not controlled waste. Unless this clause provides otherwise, none of the controlled waste regime elsewhere in this part applies to what I shall term non-controlled waste.
Amendment No. 251A is a question of drafting. I can assure the Committee that all the points made here are already covered, though I accept that it is by no means easy to discern how. The first part of the amendment offers a much expanded redrafting of subsection (2). The expansion is substantially correct and I am glad that it shows how well Members of the Committee understand the subsection. But it is not necessary. The current wording already provides for a case where particularly noxious waste is deposited, waste bad enough to be special waste

1539
if it were controlled waste. The deposit of such waste will attract the same penalties as those in Clause 32 for the illegal deposit of controlled waste. I should add for any Member of the Committee who doubts the drafting of subsection (2) that it is not new but is carried forward substantially unchanged from the equivalent provision in Section 18(2) of the 1974 Act. One parliamentary draftsman is unlikely to err but two are infallible.
The other part of Amendment No. 251A is more straightforward. The proposed subsection (2A) would permit an authority to licence the deposit of non-controlled waste. We already go most of the way towards this. Clause 34(5) already provides that, where non-controlled waste is deposited at a licensed site, that may be governed by conditions in the site licence. That prevents the nonsense of a single site taking different wastes only some of which may be governed by the licence. I would not wish to go further. In any case, if we wanted to extend licensing to the deposit of non-controlled waste at a site that was not already licensed, we would have the power to do so by regulations under Clause 60(1). For these reasons I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord that the whole of Amendment No. 251A is already covered in the Bill.
That is also true of Amendment No. 251B. Members of the Committee have spotted some apparent gaps in the symmetry of our arrangements but they are not real gaps. Under subsection (2) an illegal deposit of non-controlled waste would be an offence under Clause 32. But no one can be convicted of an offence under Clause 32 if he also has a defence under Clause 32. So all the defences in Clause 32 already apply here. It is not necessary to repeat them. This applies equally to the offence where waste is deposited from a motor vehicle; the person in a position to control the use of such a vehicle will be equally guilty of an offence under Clause 32 by reason of Clause 32(5) without the necessity for repeating that provision here.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Layton has followed me through this maze with regard to the clause and has seen that there is no difference in our intentions.
Lord Layton: I thank the Minister for his very full reply. This is something of a maze. I shall study his reply, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 251B not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment no. 252:
Page 67, line 6, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 253:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause:
("Prohibition of landfill of clinical waste

.—(1) Within three years from the date of passing of this Act, the disposal of clinical waste to landfill shall be prohibited absolutely.

(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations to empower a prescribed authority to exempt waste disposal contractors from the provision of subsection (1) above in an emergency or where it would otherwise be impossible to dispose of such waste by incineration.

(3) The chief inspector appointed under section 16 above shall maintain a list of sites where the landfill of clinical waste may be permitted in accordance with the terms of an exemption granted under subsection (2) above but the deposit of such waste at such a site without such an exemption shall be an offence under section 32(6) above.").

The noble Lord said: This new clause has been inspired by the Select Committee on the Environment of another place which recommended that clinical waste should be disposed of wherever possible through incineration. The effect of the amendment would be that inside three years there would have to be sufficient hospital incinerators to take care of all clinical waste. This would include used dressings, bandages, needles and scalpels. In regard to that particular category of materials, it does not take a great deal of imagination to relate the matter to the AIDS or the hepatitis B virus. Therefore, it would seem most sensible that such clinical waste should be disposed of in the most thorough form possible.
The amendment also makes allowance for the situation where an incinerator is not available due to a breakdown or because of industrial action, and so on. It provides that there should be specific landfill sites made available which will have a clinical waste placement. It also ensures that most landfill sites will not have this type of waste placement which is so potentially dangerous.
As the amendment takes its inspiration from a Select Committee in another place, I suggest that the Government should at least accept the principle behind it. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for again raising this matter which is of great concern to us all. The amendment gives me the opportunity to restate the Government's policy in relation to the disposal of clinical waste and how its safe disposal is addressed by the provisions contained within the Bill. Clinical waste may not be only offensive in nature; it can also carry with it a high risk of infection. Inadequacies in the management of clinical waste have led to a number of incidents which have aroused public anxiety and it is perfectly proper to consider how far this might require amendment to the Bill.
As regards legislation, current public anxiety is already addressed in the duty of care proposals in the Bill with the associated codes of practice (to which the National Health Service will be subjected) and in the Government's recent paper on special waste. The paper quite clearly defines clinical waste as one of the categories of waste which, if it also possesses any of the characteristic properties such as ecotoxicity, toxicity or is infectious, will be special waste and therefore not only subject to the rigorous

1541
control procedures set out in the consultation document, but also subject to the higher penalties within this Bill if it is disposed of illegally.
It is not a matter for government to stipulate whether clinical waste can or cannot be subjected to a particular disposal route, even with particular exemptions as proposed in subsections (1) and (2) of this amendment. While general advice on best management practice for disposal of a variety of wastes is issued by the department in the waste management paper series, acceptance of particular wastes at specific sites is more appropriately handled by the licensing system.
We do not consider that HMIP should issue a list of sites where landfill of clinical waste is permitted. This is clearly a matter for the waste regulation authority. Clause 61 of the Bill provides that waste regulation authorities keep a public register of all licences. It is fair and proper that such matters of public anxiety are readily available to the general public who may be quite genuinely worried about a site in I heir area.
However, the Government are worried at the apparent lack of suitable incineration capacity and at signs that clinical waste segregation and management systems might not be all that they should be. For this reason, the department is obtaining a full consultants' review of clinical waste and management systems to report back later this financial year. Further action will depend upon the contents of that report. Should that require the application of specific licence conditions or restrictions on a national basis, there are powers in the Bill for the Secretary of State to make appropriate determining regulations.
Lord Hylton: I have a great deal of sympathy for the spirit and intention of this amendment. However, I should like to know what it is intended should happen with clinical waste arising from ordinary doctors' surgeries. In some cases this waste could be highly infectious or dangerous. It seems undesirable that it should go either into general landfill sites or into water-borne sewage. We could hardly expect every surgery to have its own incinerator. Therefore, there seems to me to be a need for some policy on the matter.
Lord Hesketh:I must tell the noble Lord that, if he visits his local surgery, he will see that there are special bags which are used for this purpose and they are given special disposal treatment.
Lord Addington: The Minister has given me an extremely full reply and one which, I must admit, left me straggling behind him at certain points. His speed of delivery probably represents a record for him and for this Chamber. I managed to glean that the situation has been noted and is in hand. I should like to read what the Minister has said. While retaining the right to return to the point at a later stage, if necessary, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 61 [Public registers]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 254:
Page 67, line 32, leave out ("(whether in relation to a licence so granted or not)") and insert ("in relation to that licence").
The noble Lord said: As the Bill stands, it appears that if any company has a conviction, that conviction can be recorded on the register not just of the waste regulatory authority in whose area the offence took place but in all other areas where the company may have a site. Where a large company with a number of sites has a conviction it is not appropriate that the company should be disadvantaged at another end of the country by having the conviction registered.
What will be the position of a partially owned operation where an industrial conglomerate has joined, through a subsidiary, another waste disposer so that there are now three companies involved? Will all the sites operated by all those companies, even if they are not necessarily in concert one with another on other sites, appear on the various registers? How will the registration of conviction work?
The amendment to which I seek the Committee's agreement will ensure that only a conviction relevant to the licence held at the site where the offence took place will be placed on the register in that area. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: The amendment seeks to prevent the recording of convictions other than those which relate to the licence registered with the authority. It would not be right to accept the amendment. It is the Government's intention to enable the public to have as much information available to them as possible. As in the case of judging a "fit and proper person", we are concerned about whether someone is the sort of person who should be involved with waste management anywhere. It does not seem to us reassuring to know that someone has committed an offence elsewhere but not at the particular site on the register page in question. It is relevant to his conduct as a licensee there or anywhere else. If a person has committed an offence of unlicensed illegal disposal of waste, then we would wish the public to know that, wherever the offence took place.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining the reasons for the retention of the subsection as written. However, he has not told me how the transfer of information will take place. He has not told me who is the responsible person. Is it the site owner? I have to repeat my question: what happens where the site is owned by three parties one of them perhaps being separate from the other two?
Lord Reay: I am glad that my noble friend has given me a further opportunity to answer that question. The intention is that any conviction may be relevant. We want to guard against companies changing their names or associations to avoid the Bill's intentions. I can assure my noble friend that the Secretary of State will be issuing guidance to local authorities on how the provision is to be interpreted.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am sure that my noble friend will expect me to give futher consideration to what he has said. Meanwhile, I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Exclusion from registers of certain confidential information]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 254A.
Page 69, line 20, 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: Amendments Nos. 254A and 256A provide for what I hope would be a remote contingency. A company which asks for its information to be kept off the register for reasons of commercial confidence should be entitled to a swift decision. These government amendments set a deadline of 14 days. There is a provision for varying the deadline by order. If an authority does not decide on an application in that time, then in default of a decision the information is to be treated as commercially confidential. These provisions mirror similar amendments which the Committee agreed to make to Clause 22 in Part I of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I recognise that these amendments are comparable to those that we have already discussed. I am still puzzled by the relative timescales involved. We are talking about a determination of confidentiality which will last four years. The amendments propose that a determination has to be made within a period of 14 days beginning with the date of the application. I assume that that means 14 calendar days, not 14 working days. I should be glad to have that confirmed or otherwise by the noble Lord on behalf of the Government. I do not know what his experience of local government is, but that means that such a determination has to be made by officers. It cannot be considered by elected members. I am not sure that that is desirable, nor am I convinced that the contrast between 14 days for the determination and four years for the life of the determination is the right balance. Can the Minister say anything on that which will help us?
Lord Reay: I should have said at the outset that in speaking to Amendment No. 254A I was at the same time speaking to Amendment No. 256A. The 14 days is 14 calendar days. I take the noble Lord's point. If the timescale proves to be unworkable, the Secretary of State will be amenable to reconsidering it and may lay an order to extend the period. The main point is that in these cases where a company has asked for information to be kept off the register for reasons of commercial confidence, we feel that it should be entitled to receive a swift decision. That is the purpose of the provision.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I find that quite unsatisfactory. I know that it is meant well, but to tell us that the Government propose to put on to the face of the Bill—not in regulations—a requirement for a determination to be made in 14 days, and then for the noble Lord on behalf of the Government to say that if it proves to be unworkable, the Secretary of State will take it back, is not the way to propose legislation.
The Minister has nothing to lose. On this occasion I recommend him to take the amendment back and bring it forward if necessary at Report stage. He should recognise that we know all that is necessary to know. We know about the contrast between 14 days for the determination and four years for the life of the determination. We know that it means in practice that such a decision will always be taken by officers. There will be no intervention by elected members. What else is there to learn? On this occasion I ask the Minister to be a little flexible, take the amendment back and let us reconsider it at Report stage.
Lord Reay: I cannot give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks. I shall consider what he said. If he wishes to put down a further amendment, we shall expect to see it at Report stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 255:
Page 69, line 48, at end insert ("save that any hearing in accordance with subsection 2(c) of that section shall in all cases be held in private.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to protect commercially confidential information. If a hearing were to occur under this subsection to discuss the potentially confidential nature of certain information, it should obviously not be held in public. As the intention of the clause is to protect commercially confidential information, a public hearing would be totally inappropriate.
I have taken full regard of what my noble friend the Minister had to say the other evening when we were discussing Amendment No. 123 which concerned the issue of individual or commercial confidentiality being swept aside in favour of the greater national need. I accepted the viewpoint that was put forward at that time. However, in this case we are not talking about anything of that nature. We are talking about exclusions from registers. It seems to me only reasonable therefore that any hearing should be held in private. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: This amendment would require private hearings for appeals against furnishing information on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. Almost all appeals are already determined by written evidence together with site inspections. Hearings are rare. The Secretary of State has discretion as to how appeals are determined. I can assure my noble friend that my right honourable friend will not be so perverse as to hold a public hearing of information that is commercially confidential. I believe the point that is being made is that in some cases appeals will not only be concerned with commercial

1545
confidentiality. There is not in our view, however, any need to bind the hands of my right honourable friend by statute.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: There is no question of binding the hands of the Secretary of State by statute. It is a matter of what is fair, reasonable and proper. In my judgment it is not good enough to say that almost all of these matters are dealt with privately. There are the exceptions. Even though an exclusion may encompass matters other than confidential matters, there may have to be two interrelated inquiries.
I do not believe that the Minister's answer will give much comfort to those who seek commercial confidentiality. In the light of the answer of my noble friend, I shall wish to consult further with those people who feel that they may be materially affected by the provision. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 256 not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 256A:
Page 70, line 15, 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.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 64 and 65 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 257 not moved.]
Clauses 66 to 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Meaning of "waste" and household, commercial and industrial waste]:
Lord Layton Lord Layton moved Amendment No. 257A:
Page 78, line 33, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State may make regulations to prescribe substances that are or are not to be defined as wastes or circumstances which may or may not make a substance a waste.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is really a piece of parliamentary convenience. The European Commission recently drafted a definition of waste in the proposed Council directive amending the current directive on waste. Although it is not agreed at this point, it is clear that a single EC definition of waste is needed for the effective control of trans-frontier waste shipments, especially in the light of 1992 and the single market. The insertion of this proposed subsection would mean that changes to primary legislation are not required when such a definition is finally agreed—if it is agreed—by the Council of Ministers. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment tackles the difficult question of the definition of waste. It is a difficult area to define; one man's waste is another's raw material. When does an article that one person wishes to discard become something that another person wants? It might be thought that it is at
1546
the very moment when the second person takes possession of it, and in most cases that will be right, but there are other cases where the article or material is of no interest to the second person without some form of processing. The processing will take away some elements of the article which even the second person does not want. Those elements will remain waste, though in our view those elements that he wishes to keep will generally cease to be waste from the time that they are so separated.
That may seem to be a very complicated and perhaps over-elaborate way of deciding when a material is a waste product. I assure the Committee that it is not; for the crucial point about this whole matter is that the material is being processed, and during processing it can pose a serious risk to the environment. That is one reason why, in our view, it is certainly necessary to include in the definition of waste, and hence in the definition of processes that need to be licensed, the management of material that is being recycled.
Much of the scrap going into scrapyards is not simply scrap metal. The metal is often in the form of equipment which must be broken up to extract the metal, but the equipment will also contain oils, solvents, plastics, acids and a whole host of other substances which can be highly polluting if they are not properly controlled. The Committee will not, I am sure, need convincing that the breaking process must be properly controlled to avoid pollution.
Another reason for including recyclable waste in the definition of waste is that waste must be subject to the controls we have been discussing in Committee. Consider the wide range of materials that can be recycled. Does the Committee want to see this range of waste exempted from the duty of care and pollution control simply because it could, under some conceivable circumstances, be recycled? I very much doubt it.
However, I can say that where it is clear that recycling operations do not pose a threat to the environment, there is a mechanism for exempting them from licensing, and indeed we already do so. The Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations 1988 exempt, for instance, the processes involved in the recycling of waste paper and rags. We do not wish to impose any unnecessary obstacles to recycling, and we shall always consider very carefully whether a recycling process can be exempted. However, I have to say that we gave careful consideration to the exemption of scrapyards at the time the regulations were made. HMIP advised that the processes undertaken at scrapyards could pose a risk to the environment and we therefore were not able to offer such an exemption. However, I am very pleased to note that the President of the British Scrap Federation is reported in Materials Reclamation Weekly in December as saying that none of the federation's members has reported any difficulties in obtaining a licence. If any difficulties do arise, the appeal mechanism is there to resolve them.
I do not believe that the definitions of waste that we have in the Bill can be improved upon through regulations as suggested by my honourable friend the Member for Hornchuch. The definitions we have in the Bill have been carried forward from the

1547
Control of Pollution Act, and in that Act they have served us well. By placing the emphasis on the attitude of the person who produces the material and his behaviour towards it, the definition allows the courts to examine each case individually. There is now a significant amount of case law on which to base our interpretation. In no case has the definition been interpreted by the courts in a way which causes us anxiety.
It would be impossible to set out in regulations which substances are waste. Substances of themselves are not waste. They become waste only when they are unwanted, as the definition in the Bill states. Neither would it be possible to set out all the different circumstances that could possibly occur in which any one substance would or would not be a waste product. We can, and we have, set out our interpretation of the meaning of the definition of waste using the decisions of the courts to guide us. That guidance can be found in Annex 2 of Circular 13/88, which is the circular accompanying the Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations 1988. I urge anyone who is unsure whether the materials or articles they are dealing with are waste to consult that circular.
Lord Layton: Another wonderful answer from the Minister! However, it did not really address the problem on which I sought an answer; namely, what will happen in 1992 when there are totally different definitions of waste throughout the EC? When that time comes and the boundaries are down, there has to be a definition of waste. As the Minister said, one person's waste is another's raw material.
There is a problem with this definition. How shall we deal with the definitions that come from the Germans, the French, the Belgians and so on? If they say, "This is not waste. We are recycling something. Therefore so far as we are concerned it is a recycled material. It is not toxic waste; neither is it special waste. It does not come under your definition of controlled waste. Why don't you want it?" Do we then reply, "I am sorry, but your definition does not suit our definition. We cannot have it"?
At some point there has to be a common definition of waste throughout the EC. This amendment was intended to go some way to help the Government at some point to put that definition into legislation so that there would be a degree of understanding within the EC of what was intended. I should like to hear the Minister's observations on that point.
Lord Hesketh: The definitions in the Bill are entirely compatible with the EC directives. That being the case, and if all others follow the EC directives, a satisfactory result should ensue.
Lord Layton: That is provided that the new definition is not different. Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 257B:
Page 79, line 2, leave out from first ("any") to end of line 6 and insert ("of the following premises—

(a) any factory (within the meaning of the Factories Act 1961);

(b) any premises used for the purposes of, or in connection with, the provision to the public of transport services by land, water or air;

(c) any premises used for the purposes of, or in connection with, the supply to the public of gas, water or electricity or the provision of sewerage services; or

(d) any premises used for the purposes of, or in connection with, the provision to the public of postal or telecommunications services.").

The noble Lord said: This is a straightforward drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is an open invitation. When the Minister says that a substantial amendment of this kind is a drafting amendment. I have to question him on what the drafting means. The amendment in four different parts defines premises reasonably precisely. Does the definition include factory farming?
Lord Hesketh: I suggest that factory farming is probably a colloquialism.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is very real and a real producer of waste, as the Minister will recognise. We have debated this matter before. There is such a thing as agricultural waste arising from agricultural premises. There is a substantial possibility of very dangerous waste being exempted as agricultural waste arising from agricultural premises.
I shall ask the question in another way. Is there any aspect of waste from agricultural premises which is included in this amendment?
Lord Hesketh: I am not sure that the noble Lord will be entirely satisfied with my answer. It will be a kind of reverse negative: there were exemptions in an earlier part of the Bill and that which would be considered as waste in many areas, in farming would probably be considered beneficial. As a typical example, chicken muck resulting from intensive farming of chickens which is put back on to the land is seen in some quarters as for the public good in organic terms.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am reluctant to pursue this discussion in this way. It arises because the Minister fails to answer my question. We should not be carrying on this duologue if I had been given a straight answer to my original question.
Is it not the case that a substantial amount of waste arising from agricultural premises is by no means as beneficial as chicken muck? I repeat my question: is there waste arising from agricultural premises which is covered by this amendment?
Lord Hesketh: The advice which I received is very similar to the advice that I have just given to the noble Lord; namely, that if the processes fall within the Factories Act, they come under the industrial part of the amendment as referred to earlier.
Lord Ross of Newport: That Act was passed in 1961. Factory farming took off in the 1960s and 1970s. I wonder whether the point which the noble Lord has raised is a matter which we ought to look at again.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer. It appears that the amendment has been drafted without regard to the events of the last 29 years. This is perhaps a matter to which we shall return at a later stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 257C not moved.]
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Transition from Control of Pollution Act to this Part]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 258:
Page 30, line 6, leave out ("relevant").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 258A. Amendment No. 258 is a minor drafting amendment to delete the word "relevant". I believe that that is what is known in the trade as a missed consequential; that is, the word "relevant" was removed from several other places as a consequence of an amendment passed and in error was left in here.
Amendment No. 258A is one which I am sure will be welcomed by the Committee because it allows existing disposal authorities to continue to recycle waste directly themselves until their disposal assets are vested in a LAWDC. After the vesting of assets disposal authorities will of course continue to be able to arrange for waste to be recycled by contractors. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 258A:
Page 80, line 30, at end insert:
("(5) As respects any existing disposal authority, until the date which is, under subsection (3)(a) above, the date until which the restriction imposed by section 49(1) of this Act is disapplied:—

(a) the powers conferred on a waste disposal authority by section 52(2)(a) and (b) of this Act as respects the recycling of waste and the use of waste to produce heat or electricity shall be treated as powers which the authority may exercise itself; and

(b) the power conferred on a waste disposal authority by section 46(4) of this Act to object to a waste collection authority having waste recycled where the disposal authority has made arrangements with a waste disposal contractor for the contractor to recycle the waste shall be available to the waste disposal authority where it itself has the waste recycled.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 130 [Power to prohibit or restrict the importation, use, supply or storage of injurious substances or articles]:
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 259:
Page 128, line 6, leave out ("importation") and insert ("import").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 262, 263, 264 to 266, 337, 340A and 403. My noble friend Lord Hampton apologises that he cannot be here to move this amendment but has asked me to do so on his behalf. As the Committee may know, he is a stickler for simple English and I support the aim of these amendments. They are all virtually the same. They seek to simplify the language of the Bill without changing its meaning in any way. The words "importation" and "exportation" are unnecessarily long and in our view should be replaced by "import" and "export".
The Oxford English Dictionary indicates that as nouns they are interchangeable, so why do the Government choose this pompous language? There is a steady deterioration in the general use of language which needs to be resisted. Even in this Chamber the word "argumentation" is used instead of "argument" or "arguments" and "documentation" instead of "document". We refer to "transportation" when speaking of transport problems on the roads or railways. "Transportation" used to mean sending people off to Austrialia. The list is endless and somewhat depressing. "Dual carriageway" is a ridiculous description of what can be more simply described as a double road. In a slightly different context I should say that my pet hate is the phrase "going to go". Why can one not say that one is "going"? I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that "import" and "export" read much better than the current text of the Bill which refers to "importation" and "exportation". However I regret that I cannot accept these amendments. The use of importation and exportation is necessary for historical reasons. The Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, which has effect for the purposes of the Customs and Excise Acts and other enactments, refers to the importation and exportation of goods. So, for example, the timing of importation is deemed to be when, in the case of goods brought by sea, the ship bringing them comes within the limits of a port. The Act also refers to "exportation" rather than "export". I am advised that were we to refer to "import" and "export" in these clauses we would run the risk of casting doubt as to whether we meant the same thing as "importation" and "exportation" and therefore break the link with Customs and Excise legislation. We cannot afford to do that. Therefore, somewhat against my limited linguistic preferences, I ask the noble Lord not to press these amendments.
Lord Ross of Newport: I wish that my noble friend Lord Hampton had been present to hear that response. I believe that the Minister is on my side and I congratulate him on some of his responses in the debate. It is a tragedy that we must follow tradition. Obviously, I shall not divide the
1552
Committee but I hope that some of the advisers in the box will take an interest in what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Loud Ross of Newport Loud Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 259A:
Page 128, line 14, at end insert:
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers under subsection (1) above to prohibit the importation of any waste for direct landfill within the area of the United Kingdom.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the increasingly scarce facilities are retained for waste produced within the UK and are not available for the direct disposal of imported waste. The amendment is intended to prevent the importing of waste straight to landfill sites in the UK.
The import of waste for treatment is, arguably, a legitimate trade, although one can take a different view on that matter. If such an argument is to be accepted, there must be a tighter definition of what constitutes treatment and a knowledge of whether facilities exist for the handling of such waste together with sufficient capacity.
I call in aid the report on hazardous waste disposal produced by the Select Committee on Science and Technology of this House. It states:
"The Government accept international trade in waste disposal services for specialist treatment and incineration provided this is proper y controlled and monitored but consider that transfrontier movement directly to landfill should be exceptional and only when permitted by the importing country".
In other words, the United Kingdom.
In its report on toxic waste the House of Commons Environment Committee stated:
"We are concerned that the prospect of the importation of large quantities of putrescible domestic waste",
that is, smelly waste,
"with no guarantee of the content, no prospects of returning them to source and no ability to enforce the duty of care … The import of waste for direct landfill, whether or not for co-disposal, should not be permitted under any circumstances".
I now seek to write that provision into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We on these Benches fully support the amendment. I hope that the Minister will not produce technical arguments against it. I believe that the British public strongly object to waste from other countries—whether noxious, toxic, dangerous or hazardous—finding a home inside the British Isles.
The amendment is straightforward. We do not believe that any waste from abroad should go directly to a landfill site within the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Minister will have many illustrations of ships from other countries which have travelled around the world in an attempt to unload their obnoxious materials.
It is a good, sensible amendment. Unless the Government have powerful reasons unrelated to money, I hope that they will demonstrate their interest in the problem and accept the amendment.
Lord Layton: The amendment makes the greatest sense in calling for the banning of direct landfill,
1554
because landfill sites in this country are an ever decreasing facility. If we import waste as well as trying to find facilities for our own landfill uses during the next few years we shall run out of appropriate sites a great deal more quickly. We cannot afford to do so and therefore I support the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: I must point out that the clause under consideration deals with the importation, use, supply or storage of injurious substances or articles and does not deal with wastes. That is the subject of the following clause, Clause 131. Nevertheless, I shall try to deal with the points made in relation to that clause and to explain the Government's policy on trade in waste, which will set the scene for several of the debates on later amendments.
Clause 131 provides very wide-ranging powers for the Secretary of State to prohibit or restrict the importation or exportation of wastes. The powers that it provides shall be exercised in order to prevent the risk of pollution or harm to human health, or in order to conserve disposal resources.
It is the Government's intention that there shall be a notification system for all wastes and that this system shall closely resemble that currently in force for toxic and dangerous wastes under the EC Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Wastes Directive. This would require that waste regulation authorities shall be notified of any intended shipment of waste to this country and they may then object to the shipment taking place if it is likely to cause pollution or threaten the availability of disposal resources for United Kingdom needs.
The implementation of this clause will in part depend on negotiations within the European Community. Noble Lords will recognise that, particularly in matters involving the movement of materials between member states, there are obligations under the Treaty of Rome. Nevertheless I am happy to report that the United Kingdom's initiative in highlighting the need for more stringent controls over waste movements has been generally welcomed in the Community. In fact at the last Environmental Council in June, the Council approved the text of a new framework directive on waste disposal which embodies the principle of each member state being self-sufficient in its waste disposal capability wherever possible. That is an important landmark for the United Kingdom as regards achieving our objective for developed industrial countries to be self-sufficient in waste disposal facilities.
We are also greatly encouraged by developments in the implementation of the Basle Convention through regulation of the EC, which will apply the provisions of the convention directly to the legislation of member countries without the need for domestic legislation. These developments suggest that the Commission's proposals will apply the convention to the movements of all wastes. If this does indeed come to pass, many of the provisions of Clause 131 will have been implemented.

1555
Perhaps I may say a word on our intentions regarding the control of the export of waste. We do intend that these controls shall be every bit as tough as those on imports. At present I must say that the United Kingdom does not export waste to any significant degree. There may be valid reasons for such exports in the future, but they will have to pass very stringent tests. In particular, the Secretary of State will wish to be assured, before granting any consent for the export of wastes, that the country to which the waste is to be sent possesses the technology necessary to deal with it and, moreover, that the government of that country is fully aware of and consents to the import. We are of course particularly concerned that there shall be no deceit practised on the countries of the developing world in the matter of the disposal of wastes from industrialised countries.
I hope this preamble in explaining the Government's intentions on the importaton and exportation of waste will set the scene for the debates on this and following amendments. The Government's policy has been quite clearly stated, not least to the Science and Technology Committee of this House by a former Secretary of State that there would have to be very compelling reasons indeed for the granting of any consent for the importation of wastes into this country for direct landfill. The precise mechanisms to achieve this effect cannot be introduced until regulations are enacted under Clause 131 and I have explained to your Lordships the constraints within the Community that prevent immediate implementation through words on the face of the Bill.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will accept my assurances that we are at one on this matter and that the necessary regulation will be laid as soon as negotiations can be completed with other member states. I hope therefore that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I take from that reply, first, that the amendment may be defective in that it refers to the wrong clause in the Bill. I accept that criticism. I shall of course study what the Minister has said, as also will local authorities. I cannot understand why this cannot be written into the Bill. When I was in Parliament I represented an island which had run out of landfill sites and we were thinking of having to export our wastes to somewhere in Oxfordshire. However, we put in some equipment which is dealing with the incineration and total regurgitation of all our waste. I do not know whether it has been acceptable, or successful, or not. However, I feel it would be much simpler if we actually said that we will ban imported waste from landfill sites. I understand the Government are saying that in all probability they will ban it, but that is not written into the Bill. I shall study what the Minister has said, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 260:
Page 128, line 23, leave out second ("or").
The noble Earl said: I am rising to speak to Amendments Nos. 260 and 261. In this part of the Clause it states that:
"Regulations under this section may—
(a) confer on the Secretary of State power to direct that any substance … whose use … is prohibited or restricted is to be treated as waste …"—
and I am suggesting controlled waste and special waste. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to many places in which the drafting of the Bill may be improved. However, on this occasion I must respectfully point out that the drafting of the clause is indeed correct.
The clause gives the Secretary of State powers to restrict or prohibit the use of injurious substances or articles. Subsection (3) then allows him to declare that those substances shall be treated as wastes and that they shall be disposed of. That power is necessary in order to ensure that such injurious substances are not stored indefinitely where such storage presents a hazard.
In that respect, it is necessary for the Secretary of State to be able to declare that the substances or articles are waste and to be able to direct that they be disposed of. The subsection allows the Secretary of State to declare not only that the substances or articles shall be treated as controlled waste, but also that they may be treated as waste per se. That allows the Secretary of State to exercise his powers in relation to substances which would not normally fall within the definition of controlled waste; in other words, agricultural materials or materials from mines and quarries.
However, controlled waste includes special waste. Special waste is merely a subset of controlled waste as defined in Clause 72(9) which reads:
" 'Special waste' means controlled waste as respects which regulations are in force under section 59 above".
Clause 59 defines special waste as controlled waste of any kind which is, or may be, dangerous or difficult to dispose of.
I hope that that explanation satisfies my noble friend on the two points that he has raised.
The Earl of Balfour: I shall need to read carefully what my noble friend has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 261 not moved.]
Lord Layton Lord Layton moved Amendment No. 261A:
Page 128, line 33, at end insert:
("(bb) confer on the Secretary of State power, where a substance or article has been imported, landed or unloaded and differs substantially from the analysis or samples originally supplied by the generator or consignor, to require that the generator or consignor take back the substance or article at his own expense; a condition of the waste disposal licence being that all licensed facilities shall incorporate such a provision into the contract for waste disposal;").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State power to send back substances which should not have come here because they have been contaminated accidentally or through

1557
poor analysis, bad practice or for whatever reason.
Basically, the amendment states that if a person who has accidentally received something in this country finds out that it is not what he was told it would be, the Secretary of State has the power to send it back at the consignor's or generator's expense. However, how will you get him to take it back? That is the reason for the second part of the amendment which proposes that the duty should be written into the contract. If it is put on the face of the Bill as the amendment proposes, the contract then has the backing of the Secretary of State.
There was an incident last year in which such a power would have been of great help and would have saved the person who received the contaminated waste many hundreds of thousands of pounds when he was forced to deal with it. It would have solved the problem that arose for several waste disposal authorities in dealing with strikes and containing the contaminated waste. It would have been consigned back to where it had come from with people forced to pay because the obligation had been written into their contract in the first place. It is only by including the obligation as a condition of the licence that you can Force it to work. That is why I included the second part of the amendment. Obviously, the Secretary of State is not in a position to tell someone from a foreign country to take something back unless it is possible within the courts of that country to take him through litigation and have a strong case because of the original contract.
The reason for the amendment is to save the innocent party at this end the problems that can easily arise by contamination and through someone choosing to offload something that he cannot deal with himself by means of a false sample or analysis. However, if the analysis at this end proves to be different, the consignment should be sent back. The amendment forces on to the consignor at the other end the condition that he must first have had an analysis carried out. That provision does not apply at the moment. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My noble friend Lord Layton raises an important point in this amendment. Unfortunately, as sometimes has happened at sea, what is on the bill of lading is not necessarily what is inside the cases. I apologise for not being familiar with the latest merchant navy legislation, but I should briefly like to relate something which happened to me. We loaded around 56 cases of what we believed from the bill of lading to be tomato ketchup. It turned out to be butter. By the time we had sailed through the Red Sea there was nothing to discharge.
Sometimes a merchant navy officer takes on face value what he is receiving and it may turn out to be something competely different. Under those circumstances perhaps something could be written into the legislation to protect him.
Lord Hesketh: Merely for the sake of clarity I should like to point out that again we have an amendment put down for Clause 130 which rightly
1558
belongs in the debate on Clause 131 on restrictions on trade in waste itself. I understand the noble Lord's concern that any system set up to control movement of waste should be watertight. If we require that waste be accurately described before we agree to take it for disposal there should be some means of redress if when it arrives on our shores we find that it does not comply with the description that we have previously been given. That is the aim of the noble Lord's amendment. I should like to explain that under the provisions of the Basle Convention and those of Clause 131 we already have that matter fully covered.
Under the provisions of the Basle Convention, which the UK signed in October 1989, a shipment that does not conform in a material way with the pre-notification document is deemed to be illegal traffic. The state of export is under a duty to ensure that the waste in question is taken back by the consignor or generator where they are responsible. The convention applies to hazardous waste, municipal waste and ash from municipal incinerators.
The convention is to be implemented throughout the European Community by way of an EC regulation. Since EC regulations apply their provisions directly into the law of each member state, there will be no delay in implementation in any country and there will be no danger of different interpretations being translated into national laws by individual member states.
The regulation is not yet drafted but it is likely that the Commission will extend the provisions to all waste. The regulation is likely to require that there must be contracts between the consignor and consignee before a shipment can be agreed to by the relevant authority and that this contract will include a condition that the consignor will take back any shipments that do not conform with the description on the notification document. The return of shipments to another country must of course be the subject of international agreement because a country of import cannot prescribe what a person in a country of export must do.
The provisions of the Basle Convention accord very closely with the provisions that we have set down in Clause 131 on trade in waste. Subsection (5)(b) allows the Secretary of State to restrict or prohibit the movement of wastes subject to conditions, and it is the Government's intention that any regulations made under this clause would contain similar requirements to those of the Basle Convention which I have described. However, if the ratification of the convention by the European Community continues to make rapid progress it may well be that such regulations under that particular clause will not be necessary.
I hope that the noble Lord will be assured that there is no loophole in the Bill concerning the return of waste that is not as described. Indeed we already have provision to cover the matter twice—first in the EC regulation implementing the Basle Convention and, secondly, in the provisions of our own Clause 131.
Lord Layton: The problem with that reply is that not every country signed the Basle Convention. I do not believe that it was signed by Russia, Japan or the United States. If someone from the United States sends something to this country, the Basle Convention does not apply. That is one of the objects of tabling the amendment, so that those countries which are not part of the convention are forced to accept back the goods that they sent in a contaminated state.
The Minister rightly pointed out that an importing country cannot force an exporting country to do anything. That is why the second part of the subsection to the clause was inserted, so that the waste disposal licence includes the provision in the contract. Under a contract the consignor can be required to accept the return of the goods. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about dealing with the American situation.
Lord Hesketh: The Basle Convention prohibits trade between non-signatories except through bilateral arrangements. We would require these points to be included in any bilateral arrangement. As regards the specific example of the United States I shall have to write to my noble friend.
Lord Layton: I shall consider this matter for a later date. I wait to hear from the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 130 agreed to.
Clause 131 [Power to prohibit or restrict the importation or exportation of waste]:
[Amendments Nos. 262 and 263 not moved.]
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby moved Amendment No. 263A:
Page 130, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers under subsection (1) above to prohibit the export of technological services or equipment which are likely to cause, or are capable of causing, pollution within another country at a level which would, if it were caused within those parts of the United Kingdom to which Part I above applies, represent a contravention of an authorisation under that Part.").
The noble Lord said: I believe that the purpose of this amendment is perfectly simple and I hope non-controversial. I doubt whether there will be any argument over the fact that it is wrong for industries which cannot operate lawfully within the pollution control laws of the developed countries simply to export those industries particularly to less-developed countries where restrictions are less tight and where the power and mechanism of control is inevitably weaker.
In 1985 the OECD saw this problem. At that time it urged countries not to export development and investment projects which produced important quantities of toxic waste. That was five years ago. It is quite apparent that on environmental issues pollution does not recognise national boundaries. Therefore, it is not only a moral issue but also a matter of self-interest that standards should not be
1560
undermined simply by exporting dangerous technology.
The issue of health also comes within this amendment. The best example is the tragedy at Bhopal, which is symptomatic of this kind of problem involving the export of industries which are dangerous to third world countries. One can include such aspects as chemical-making technologies which can also be used or abused for dangerous military purposes.
I refer also to the amount of pharmaceutical manufacturing which takes place in Latin America to avoid the laws of the United States. I have considerable experience of the export of baby milk from this and other industrial countries to Africa without there being the necessary hygiene infrastructure.
The amendment is intended to empower the Secretary of State to deal with the matters to which I have referred. In the past the Government have made certain provisions to forbid the export of advanced technology to the Soviet Union. There was also the embargo on Rhodesia at the time of UDI. In addition there are the current mandatory sanctions on South Africa. It would not set a precedent. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment so that the export to other countries, particularly third world countries, of dangerous technology, services and equipment that would not be allowed in this country is specifically prevented. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: On these Benches we support the amendment so well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. We see it as an issue of morality. One has to make a judgment. I am quite certain that on the debit side someone may say that it is not in certain interests. I am not concerned about those interests. I am concerned about the interests of mankind and humanity, especially mankind and humanity in the third world or the less developed countries. Whatever the motive—and at the end of the day the motive will be profit—we do not want to see our less well-off brethren in other parts of the world suffering because someone is making a fast buck.
This is a good opportunity for the Government to make a statement—a declaration—and to be seen to be doing something. I do not mean a "statement" in parliamentary terms. The Minister is wondering why the Government should make a statement. I believe that by accepting the amendment they will be making a statement. They will be telling the whole world that we are prepared to pass legislation which on the margin may not be to our advantage but may be to the enormous advantage of millions of people who suffer by having to accept this terrible situation. We support the amendment.
Lord Reay: I listened carefully to what the noble Lords, Lord Hatch of Lusby and Lord Graham of Edmonton, said but I do not think it would be right for the Government to accept the amendment. I say that for two reasons. First, I do not think it would do anything to lessen pollution in other countries; indeed it might only serve to increase it. Secondly,

1561
I am not convinced that we should dictate to other countries whether a piece of environmental equipment is good or bad for them. Looking at it the other way round, we would certainly not be amused if HMIP wished to require a particular piece of equipment for a process prescribed for integrated pollution control, only for the government of the country of origin to refuse an export licence.
Part I authorisations will rely on the use of the best available technology not entailing excessive cost. The effect of the amendment would be to apply the standards of this country, which will be high, to all other countries of the world. This is catching them between the devil and the deep blue sea. The devil may be the anachronistic equipment that is being used now. The deep blue sea may be the most modern, technologically complex piece of equipment which has just been invented. The money would not be there to afford it in some countries.
Some Members of the Committee, particularly those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, may remember the work of E. F. Schumacher, who argued that the appropriate technology for the developing world was not the most advanced, the large and the complex; rather, it should be intermediate, smaller scale technology. It is the export of precisely that kind of technology that the amendment would hit the hardest.
What the amendment would mean in practical terms is that if a government of a foreign country wished to import a piece of equipment that was better than that currently being used in that country, but not as good as that required in Britain, we could not export it. If the United Kingdom was the sole supplier of the equipment in question we would, in effect, be forcing the other country to use its existing old-fashioned, more polluting technology. The amendment is therefore as likely to increase pollution in other countries as to reduce it. That cannot be right. If the United Kingdom was not the sole supplier the amendment would serve no practical purpose as the importing country would turn elsewhere for its supply of the technology it wanted. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore not press his amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I do not know what the Liberal Benches have to say about the work of Schumacher but I worked with him and I cannot understand how, by the wildest stretch of the imagination, the noble Lord can drag in his name on this amendment. It is totally irrelevant. I am sure that if Schumacher were here he would support the amendment.
The noble Lord has said nothing that answers the amendment. He asserts that the amendment could cause extra pollution but gives no reasons. As regards the export of high technology, surely the size of the technology has nothing to do with the amendment. The noble Lord said that we would be arrogating to ourselves the right of determining what is and what is not polluting. That is not so; this is an objective view. One knows whether technology and machines will be capable of polluting. We determine that within our law. It is also determined internationally.
1562
The Government's answer exposes the hollowness of their claim that, with the Bill, they are protecting the environment.
The noble Lord must surely know what has been and is going on all over the world—the export of technology, machines and substances to the detriment of the people of the third world, to the world as a whole and to all mankind, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said. We must act now in our own self-interest, in the interests of every living being and of generations to come.
It is too late to divide the Committee but I hope that the Government will look at the amendment again, that they will read it in the sense in which it is written, and that they will come back on Report with a more constructive and positive answer than the complete negativeness we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Reay, tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 263B:
Page 130, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this section, any material which is dangerous, whether or not recyclable, shall fall within the definition of waste to which subsection (1) above applies.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment because it is difficult to find the right wording to deal with the problem it addresses. If I describe an example of what we refer to, the Government will recognise the nature of the problem and will be sympathetic, I hope, to the idea of an amendment even if we do not have the right words.
The Minister may know that I am referring to what is called the "Wath" incident. This occurred when an American company shipped waste material to a south Yorkshire company called Wath Recycling, in Wath upon Dearne, near Rotherham. The waste material was not sent direct from the American company but through a broker. It was described as metallic oxides, which could be reclaimed. When it arrived in Yorkshire it was discovered that it was contaminated with xylene and furans—organic compounds which are dangerous in that they could be carcinogenic. As a result of that discovery, it was beyond the capacity of the company, Wath Recycling, to deal with it and, in any event, it did not have a licence to deal with such material.
Therefore, this dangerous material was left for a considerable time in a siding in Leeds. The British Rail staff who worked there refused to handle it. This meant that some of it was left in a siding in Leeds and some of it was left on the ground in the premises of Wath Recycling. This is an ongoing situation, as Private Eye would describe it; in other words, it is still happening. The material is still there, although it has been put into drums in order to minimise further pollution.
There has been legal action in order to try to get the material returned to the producer in the United States; but I understand that British courts are not able to handle the case—presumably because the law is defective in that way—and it is now to be heard

1563
in the American courts. In the meantime, there is no provision in United Kingdom law which will enable the material to be safely dealt with. It cannot be dealt with by the people who have it on their premises because they do not have a licence for it and there is no one else who is willing, or who can be required, to take responsibility for the material.
Therefore, by the simple fact that the material was incorrectly described—it was described as being "recyclable"—it got round the controls which are supposed to exist in order to deal with waste. It may well be that Clause 131, which is very complex, ought to cover the situation. However, that still remains dependent upon the requirement that the material has been defined as waste. If it comes into the country as being recyclable material which is not waste, I put it to the Government—and this is why I look keenly to their response—that there is a risk that Clause 131 will not apply. Indeed, if Clause 130 can deal with the matter, there is a serious question as to whether Clause 131 is necessary.
I do not particularly commend the wording of the amendment. I do not think that we have yet found a way of dealing with this quite difficult problem, where there is a complex chain of ownership and misrepresentation about the nature of the material. However, I urge the Government to share with Members of the Committee the anxiety which they must feel, and which must have been expressed to them, about the inadequacy of British law to deal with the Wath case and to deal with the chemicals which are still in Yorkshire to this very day. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: We have debated several times over the past few days the Government's views on the status of recyclable waste. In response to amendments seeking to remove recyclable waste from controls, I made clear that the Government's first responsibility in this area is the protection of the environment. Since it is quite clear the processing of recyclable waste can pose as much an environmental risk as its disposal, we have given our assurances that there can be no exclusions from the definition of waste itself. The definitions in the Bill both in Part II and in this clause do not exclude recyclable material from the definition of waste. Therefore, we believe that there is no need for this amendment.
I have said that there is provision in the Bill for the exemption from certain controls of genuinely innocuous activities, and we are certainly prepared to look at any case that the industry wishes to put forward. But I repeat my assurance that in principle the controls must cover recyclable waste. We are aware that to fail to do so could provide a loophole for those who are either not as careful as they should be about the descriptions of the waste that they transport, or those who are perhaps downright evasive of controls.
As I mentioned earlier, the European Commission is preparing the text of regulations to implement the Basle Convention, to which I shall return later. The convention contains provision for simplified procedures for the movement of recyclable materials
1564
and the Commission is looking at how that might be translated into the provisions of the regulation. In the negotiations on that regulation the UK will be mindful of the particular need to avoid unnecessary obstacles to the free movement of recyclable waste.
That is, I am sure, an objective we share since we all wish to see much more recycling of waste; but we must be sure that any simplified procedures to not open a gate to abuse or even to genuine mistakes which can have unfortunate effects on those left holding material which is not as it was described and cannot be reclaimed because of its contamination, as the noble Lord pointed out.
The case of recyclable material brought into this country under the simplified procedures of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations is a well publicised case of good intentions in speeding the trade in recycling going wrong. As has been said, although imported into this country as recyclable metal, on arrival it was found to be heavily contaminated and could not be recycled as intended. We do not want to see that situation recurring, and it is for those reasons that we must be vigilant to ensure that the search for speedy procedures for the movement of recyclables does not provide this kind of loophole.
The Government have been involved in the negotiations on the Wath material with all the relevant parties in the UK and the USA. Those negotiations are not proceeding as fast as we would like, but in principle there is no obstacle to the return of the waste to the USA for disposal. The waste concerned has been drummed, as the noble Lord pointed out, under the supervision of the Health and Safety Executive and HMIP.
The contention here reverts to the point made by my noble friend Lord Layton on an earlier amendment in respect of the Basle Convention, of which the United States is a signatory but not a ratifier. Where there is a signatory but no ratification—one has also the European position—the Basle Convention prohibits the ratifiers, of which we are one, trading with non-ratifiers except under bilateral agreements—this is important—with equivalent conditions, so that the convention's requirements are not circumvented. My noble friend Lord Layton earlier made the point that there is effectively a transitional period. He asked what will happen if something falls through the net. That is the relationship between ratifiers and non-ratifiers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sure that the Minister will not object if I describe that reply as being worthy in principle and pointing in the right direction but unsatisfactory in outcome. He acknowledges that the material in Wath is still there. When he says that it can in principle be returned to the United states, he is in fact saying that it is not being returned to the United States and that there is no genuine prospect of it being returned to the United States because of its status as a signatory and not a ratifier of the Basle Convention.
The Minister will have to agree that the outlook is not good. The question then arises: if we all

1565
have the same laudable objectives of preventing any loopholes in the law relating to the import and export of hazardous waste, what will we do with it? When talking about Amendment No. 259A, the Minister referred to the need for the pre-notification of hazardous waste movements. That is all very well as far as it goes. No one objects to that. But surely we should go one step further: where there is any reason to suppose that a risk might arise—for example, the original producer of the waste is unknown or has been known to be unsatisfactory—there should be some sampling procedure. Can the Minister say, first, whether he would support such a move, which would be a protection that would go further than the pre-notification, and, if so, whether he will consider with his right honourable friends whether that is a proposal which might be considered, if not for inclusion in the Bill, as a subject for further regulation?
Lord Hesketh: I think that the noble Lord will appreciate that we are moving into a slightly difficult transitional period. There is an EC overlay to all this. Effectively there are three levels: the Bill before your Lordships' Committee, the Basle Convention and the example of a non-ratifying signatory, and EC regulations, which may not make UK regulations redundant but may overtake them. That is the difficulty about saying that we wish to have a UK initiative, which is what I believe the noble Lord suggests. That is different from what is proposed on a broader scale.
10.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not going as far as that. I simply ask the Minister to agree with me that on the face of it the requirement for sampling would be a protection which the requirement for pre-notification does not provide. Without any commitment to what any of his right honourable or honourable friends might think, I ask the noble Lord to agree to recommend that there should be a British Government contribution to the negotiations at European Basle Convention and national level.
Lord Hesketh: There would be nothing wrong in drawing attention to what the noble Lord has to say in order to put in that equation. The points he has made this evening on that are relevant.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am most grateful and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 264 to 266 not moved.]
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 266A:
Page 131, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall not permit the import of any special wastes into the United Kingdom unless it has been demonstrated that the country of origin of such wastes has no suitable facilities for the safe disposal of such wastes.").
The noble Lord said: During 1989, some 41,000 tonnes of hazardous wastes were imported into England and Wales. The major sources of these imports were Western Europe and North America; that is the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, the
1566
United States, Sweden, Italy, Eire and Canada. Surely all these countries should have sufficient resources to tackle their own waste. The concern is that this volume of waste coming into England and Wales from wealthy industrialised countries is adding to landfill problems and to unwelcome incineration activity. Moreover, there are clear dangers associated with the transportation of such wastes over large distances.
The principle that needs to be established is that special wastes should only be imported from countries which do not have the necessary technical capability or resources to dispose of or treat the waste in a proper and safe manner. This would leave the route open to poorer developing countries such as the Philippines, the major third world source of special wastes imported into England and Wales. The Netherlands produced 1,400 tonnes last year compared with the Phillipines which brought in only 29 tonnes. That is an indication of how much the imports into the United Kingdom would drop if this principle were to be adopted. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: It is our intention that wastes should not be brought to this country for disposal unless there are very good reasons for it. Uppermost in our minds is that a country may not have disposal facilities of its own and since it is in the best interests of the world environment that wastes should be disposed of to the highest standards available, they may need to be brought to this country.
The EC has demonstrated its receptiveness to the principle of self-sufficiency by including a statement of it in the text of the draft framework directive on waste. It will be developing instruments for applying this principle throughout the Community in the regulation to implement the Basle Convention. But it must also, through negotiation with all member states, consider how to implement the principles within the internal market after 1992.
I assure the noble Lord that we are at one on the matter, but I would ask him not to press his amendment to have the provision on the face of the Bill. Clause 131 contains provisions for the Secretary of State or waste regulation authorities to prohibit the import of waste where its import would risk pollution or where we need to conserve our own facilities. As I said in earlier debates, it is necessary in these international matters to carry our fellow members of the European Community, and indeed our partners in international organisations, with us.
Lord Gisborough: I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. However, will he comment on the future of waste from the north American continent which constitutes about 5,000 tonnes? Perhaps that would not be covered by what my noble friend has already said.
Lord Hesketh: On a previous amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and on a preceding amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Layton, we discussed the relationship between the United States and this country and the relationship between those who are signatories to the Basle Convention and those who have ratified the convention. I hope that

1567
answers the noble Lord's point without going over the whole matter again.
Lord Gisborough: I am grateful for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 267:
Page 131, line 24, at end insert ("or any of them").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend I wish to move Amendment No. 267 which is a minor drafting amendment to make clear that pollution of the environment includes pollution of land, water or air both collectively and individually. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 131, as amended, agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 267A:
(After Clause 131, insert the following new clause:
("National Audit of Toxic Waste

.—(1) The Secretary of State shall within three months of the date of Royal Assent establish a national auditing process for the purpose of identifying, registering and planning measures in relation to, toxic waste kept or deposited within the United Kingdom.

(2) For the purposes of the effective implementation of this section, the Secretary of State shall request such assistance as he considers to be necessary from the chief inspector, waste regulation authorities, environmental organisations or other bodies interested in the matter.

(3) Any person shall comply with such reasonable requests for information made by or on behalf of the Secretary of State as may be conducive to the implementation of this section.").

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 267A and 267B, although they have significant differences, are attempts to straighten up the procedure whereby information about waste and treatment facilities is collected, collated and used. We have introduced into Amendment No. 267A the concept of toxic waste. I am the first to recognise that that concept has not been defined elsewhere in the Bill. The problem is that the definitions of waste for importation and exportation purposes are seriously confusing. There are records on hazardous or special waste but they are often inadequate. There are even more inadequate records available on domestic arisings—I believe that is the technical term—of hazardous and/or special waste.
The definition of the waste which ought to be covered by this part of the Bill is quite unsatisfactory. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 appeared to put the matter right: Section 1 of the Act had what appeared to be a good declaratory introduction. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would approve of it in retrospect. The section stated the purpose of the Act. The problem is that over 16 years the section has never been implemented. Therefore the duty on a disposal authority,
"to ensure that the arrangements made … for the disposal of waste are adequate for the … disposing of all controlled waste which becomes situated in its area",
1568
has never been brought into force. To that extent the law has been defective under governments of both political persuasions for a long time.
When we look at the information available to the Secretary of State and to waste authorities, we realise that there is a great imbalance between information available about treatment facilities, which is quite good, and information about the quantities and nature of the waste arising, and even on the nature of waste being imported and exported, which is poor. It is for that reason that we are led in this amendment to propose that there should be an auditing process,
"for the purpose of identifying, registering and planning measures in relation to, toxic waste kept or deposited within the United Kingdom".
I have talked about the Wath incident. There have been innumerable incidents of inadequate controls of toxic waste which will be very familiar to Members of the Committee, almost all of which have arisen as a result of inadequate information about the origin, destination and nature of the toxic wastes.
In the North-East of England there has been a very valuable innovation in attempting to provide for proper planning of the treatment of toxic wastes. A linked inquiry is being carried out involving both Tyneside and Teesside, which are totally separate local authority areas in which separate authorities are responsible for waste regulation. The authorities have decided to hold a joint inquiry in which they deal together with the facilities required for the whole region. That is an admirable initiative, but it presupposes that there is some capacity to understand the nature of the waste problem which faces that region of the country. I seriously doubt whether that information will be available unless we institute an audit of the kind proposed in this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I cannot see that it would serve any useful purpose for there to be a national audit to determine the amount of special waste that is produced in the United Kingdom. I use the words "special waste" in preference to the words "toxic waste" not to score a cheap point but because special waste is the term used in this Bill, and in the Control of Pollution Act before it to denote waste which is dangerous or difficult to dispose of. I believe it is helpful to those who will read the record of this debate to use the words that are defined elsewhere in the Bill.
There is no virtue in collecting statistics for the sake of the exercise. Statistics should be collected where there is a genuine need for information in order to carry out an executive function. There are no executive functions at a national level. There would be no purpose in identifying special waste, registering it, or planning measures in relation to it at a national level. There is no role for central government in this. Identifying special wastes is a task for the waste regulation authorities in the course of administering the special waste regulations. Planning for the disposal of special waste is likewise a task for the regulation authority in preparing its disposal plan. As regards registration of special waste, it will not come as a surprise that the Government see no need for the registration of either

1569
special waste as called for in this amendment or waste in general as called for in the next.
The executive functions in waste regulation therefore lie with the waste regulation authorities. They have duties to control special waste movements and to produce waste disposal plans. In both there is a genuine need for information, but the Bill also provides the powers to obtain it.
Special waste is subject to extra controls over its movement from producer to disposer. The existing provisions of the Special Waste Regulations are carried forward to this Bill and those regulations themselves are being totally rewritten in a separate exercise. That will extend the scope of the regulations to include a much wider range of substances and more stringent tests of danger to the environment. Under the provisions of the Bill more people will be required to keep records of the movement of special waste including waste regulation authorities themselves. The consignment note system will ensure that the authorities have full information about the arisings of special waste in their area. Every movement will be notified to them. It is now for the authorities themselves to ensure that they make the best use of the information that they obtain from chat source.
A second need for information on arisings of special waste is the preparation of waste disposal plans. The special waste consignment note system provides one useful input into the preparation of those plans and supplementary information may be obtained by the authorities through surveys. Clause 48(1)(a) specifically puts a duty on regulation authorities to undertake investigations for that purpose.
That is not to say that there is no role whatsoever for central government in the compiling of national statistics. The department has for some years comp led data from local authority returns on special wastes. When the new system for the control of special waste is in place (after the review of the regulations is complete) we very much hope that those statistics will improve.
It is certainly true that information on the movements of waste in and out of the country has greatly improved since the implementation of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Directive of 1988. That information is tremendously useful in the formulation and monitoring of policy. But the information must come from the grass roots in the first place.
We believe that there would not be a useful purpose in producing a system of national audits for special waste. The need for such information is essentially a local need, and local authorities already have sufficient powers to obtain the information. At the same time, the information can rise to the top if required, but it comes from the grass roots in the first place, as I said earlier. That is why we resist the amendment.
11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I fear that there is still a substantial level of misunderstanding of the content of the amendment shown by the reply. We
1570
recognise that the information has to come from a local level. Indeed, subsection (2) of the proposed new clause states:
"For the purposes of the effective implementation of this section, the Secretary of State shall request such assistance as he considers to be necessary from the chief inspector"—
that is, of HMIP—
"waste regulation authorities, environmental organisations or other bodies interested in the matter".
Subsection (3) states that they shall be required to respond to such requests. So there is no question about where the information comes from. But the point is that the information has to be produced on a consistent basis if action is to be taken on the incidence of waste which arises in a wider area than a single waste authority area. That will not happen unless the Secretary of State takes the lead in specifying what the information should be and how and where it must be produced.
There must also be the other side of the equation: that the facilities to deal with such waste are in existence. But how are we to tell whether the facilities which exist are adequate for the purpose unless we know on a consistent basis the nature and quantity of waste arising? A single waste regulation authority cannot plan beyond its area. We already have disputes between even the larger waste regulation areas—for example, between West Yorkshire and West Midlands, because West Midlands does not want the hazardous waste from York.
The Secretary of State must take a lead and to some extent lay down the form in which the information is collected. Nobody questions the collection of the information. We are in agreement about that. We want to ensure that it is collected effectively. If the Minister had any of the experience that I have had over many years of collecting factual information from sample surveys and trying to see whether they were consistent and could be used on a consistent basis, I think that he would be a little more sympathetic to this notion than he has been in his reply.
However, it was an extremely complex reply, which I shall have to consider more carefully before deciding whether or not to bring back this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved amendment No. 267B:
After Clause 131, insert the following new Clause—
("Registration waste producers

.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made within six months of the date of Royal Assent, establish a registration system of—

(a) waste producers operating within the United Kingdom; and

(b) waste producers seeking to export waste to the United Kingdom, or to import waste into it.

(2) The Secretary of State may for the purposes of any system established under this section require waste regulation authorities to undertake registration functions within their areas subject to the requirement to satisfy himself that adequate resources are available to enable them effectively to fulfil such a function.

1571

(3) Any registration system established under this section shall have the purpose of improving the regulation of all types of waste, including dangerous waste, and in particular of requiring the adequate labelling of waste which is being transported, treated, kept, deposited or disposed of.

(4) The Secretary of State shall in making regulations under this section specify after consultation with waste regulation authorities, environmental organisations, waste producers and other interested persons, the types of waste to which labelling and registration requirements are to be applicable.").

The noble Lord said: Let us try again to approach the same issue from a different angle, because we are not getting very far and it is our duty not to be discouraged by the kind of responses that we are receiving. I think it will be agreed that we all want a consistent and effective method of control of the generation, movement and disposal of waste, and hazardous wastes in particular. In other words, in the jargon phrase, we want a cradle-to-grave approach to waste management. That is common ground.
If we are not to have a national audit and the collection of information on a consistent basis, there is another approach which could be used to provide the information required; namely, the analogy of the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, which empowered the Secretary of State to set up a system for registered carriers. The direct analogy with that is that there should be a registration system of waste producers operating within the United Kingdom, seeking to export waste from or import waste to the United Kingdom.
I deal with the question raised earlier this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. We are not speaking of domestic waste producers but of those for whom it is part of their occupation; namely, producers of industrial and commercial waste. Clearly any such regulations will include provision to exclude the smallest waste producers. We shall be concerned only with major waste producers if the Secretary of State has any sense.
It is necessary to know the origin and destination of waste of this kind because we have no equivalent to the effective HAZCHEM system which is used when dealing with chemical products. If chemical products are being dealt with which are not waste but are dangerous in transit, it is possible to specify in detail what they are, and to give them codes and symbols on the side of the vehicles transporting them so that if there is an accident, the fire authorities, and so on, know immediately what action should be taken. The chemicals are not then sprayed in the wrong way or treated in a way which would cause greater danger.
There is no equivalent when we are talking about waste because invariably it is a compound of different materials. The significance of the waste will not be the basic make-up of materials, but whether it has been treated in one way or another, possibly only with trace elements. Therefore, to that extent, we do not have the capacity, which we have in the chemical industry, for a simple labelling system. We must rely on something which is rather more complicated.
The amendment proposes a registration of producers in order to provide a substitute for the
1572
simpler system. However, something must be done if we are to have effective control. As drafted, the Bill does not provide that. This amendment goes some way towards remedying the defect. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment has a long history. It was back in the early 1980s that the Science and Technology Committee of this House first recommended that the producers of hazardous waste should be registered with the local authority. Another recommendation made at the same time was for the licensing of waste carriers, and last week we debated that point in connection with Clause 29.
Many Members of the Committee will know that those recommendations were given very long and serious consideration by the Government. The joint review committee deliberated for several years on those and other matters, but concluded that the registration of hazardous waste producers could not be justified. The resources involved would be enormous, as the amendment now before us implicitly concedes in requiring the Secretary of State to give an open ended guarantee that he will ensure that whatever resources are needed for this gargantuan task will be provided. And what would the registration of producers of waste provide?
We discussed in the course of Amendment No. 267A that the information on producers of special waste is already available to waste regulation authorities through the special waste consignment note system. A register of special waste producers would not therefore add a great deal to the information held by these authorities. But the amendment goes further than this and therefore much further even than the recommendation of the Science and Technology Committee so many years ago. It requires the registration of every waste producer in the country. Charitably assuming that the amendment intends to register only businesses producing waste and not households as well, we would still be left with a register of every business in the country. The telephone directory would be as much use.
The noble Lord wishes the register to contain details of the kinds and quantities of the waste that each business produces, and has argued that this is necessary for the regulation authorities to do their job. Such a register could not be managed. Apart from the sheer size of it, how would it be kept up to date? Businesses change. They change inasmuch as they come and go. How would an authority keep a check on who had come and who had gone? They also change their production methods, their product lines and their stocks. How would an authority keep a check on all these items? There would need to be in this clause an elaborate system of duties for each business to inform its waste regulation authority every time some event changed its waste stream, with penalties on those who did not comply. This proposal runs counter to the changes of the times throughout the world where the trend is towards less information centrally held on individuals and less bureaucracy.

1573
It was precisely because a system of registration would not be workable that the Government developed one of the most central and important parts of Part II of the Bill, the duty of care. Without the bureaucracy of registration of producers, the duty of care is specifically designed to ensure that the items listed in subsection (3) of the amendment are achieved. It will be a central part of the duty of care that waste must be adequately packaged and labelled for any storage on the producers' premises and for any journey that it subsequently makes. By placing real duties on waste producers we shall achieve far more than we could possibly achieve through a registration system that would swamp the authority in paper that it could not handle. The duty of care means that waste producers are not subjected to a massive form-filling exercise but are under the pain of criminal sanction for things that they actually do with their waste. They will be required to take as much care over the fate of their waste products as they do over the fate of those that they sell. This is a much more effective tool for waste regulation than an enormous register.
I cannot believe that the proposal to register every business in the United Kingdom, no matter how small, is the right way to cope with the problem.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That was a classic case of setting up an Aunt Sally in order to knock it down. The amendment says nothing about an enormous register. It provides that the Secretary of State shall by regulation set up a registration system. The Secretary of State has the freedom to make that registration system as restricted as he wishes and in order to make it effective to concentrate as necessary on the major producers and importers and exporters of waste. It does not invalidate the amendment to state in it that adequate resources should be provided. Of course adequate resources should be provided; they should be provided for all the provisions in the Bill. It would have been neglectful of us not to make that provision in the amendment.
The Minister seeks to counter the amendment by referring to the duty of care provision and the consignment note procedure which is to be introduced into those provisions. I put it to him that the number of consignment notes that will be required is much greater than the registration of the major producers. The amendment contains no implication that every single detail of the major producers should be kept up to date at all times and included in the register. The register should contain enough information to identify the type of business in which the producers are involved and the type of risk that may be identified if something goes wrong with anything that they produce.
I suggest that the registration system would simplify the consignment note provisions made in the earlier parts of the Bill. The amount of bureaucracy would be less. However I have not convinced the Minister at this stage and it may be a matter to which we shall return. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 132 [Powers to obtain information about potentially harmful substances]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 268 and 269:
Page 132, line 41, at end insert ("or any of them").
Page 133, line 9, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 268 and 269 are small drafting changes intended to ensure that Clause 132 is unambiguous and consistent with other parts of the Bill. The purpose of Amendment No. 268 is to make it clear that "environment" includes any or all of air, land and water. Amendment No. 269 clarifies the exclusion for food products based on a definition of food in the Food Act 1984. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Clause 132(4)(i) on page 132 states:
"make any public authority designated by the regulations responsible for the enforcement of the regulations to such extent as may be specified in the regulations".
That is a bit of a mouthful but I wish to know whether the provision includes the police. I hope that they are included in that particular case.
The Earl of Arran: I am bound to say that it sounds a very interesting question, but I am afraid I cannot give my noble friend a secure answer. I shall be writing to him in the very near future on this point.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 132, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 270 had been retabled as Amendment No. 379A.]
Schedule 11 [Injurious or Hazardous Substances.. Advisory Committee]:
11.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 271:
Page 192, line 4, at end insert ("of this Act").
The noble Earl said: It is the usual custom in a schedule, when referring to clauses of a Bill, to use the words "of this act" after those clauses. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: We are delighted to accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Renton: Before we proceed any further, I should just mention that I have spoken to the Leader of the House and have suggested to him that, as we are now reaching a very important part of the Bill, we really should not continue our consideration tonight. It is so important because it deals with statutory nuisances and clean air. Not only is there the whole question of atmospheric pollution, which is causing great anxiety these days because of the damage to the ozone layer and so on, but there are also various kinds of statutory nuisance to be dealt with. All the provisions have to be dovetailed with

1575
the Clean Air Act of 1956, the Clean Air Act of 1968 and the Control of Pollution Act of 1974.
There are a great many amendments on the Marshalled List, some of them of considerable importance. I have alerted my noble friend the Leader of the House to this and I should like to suggest that it will take a very long time—probably several hours—to deal with this part of the Bill if we are to do it satisfactorily. We are reaching the end of the third of seven days allotted to the Committee stage and I should have thought that some of the provisions to be dealt with on the remaining four days were really a good deal less important than those which we are now approaching. I am not quite sure whether I am in order, but I beg to move that further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.
Lord Belstead: I think that we are to some extent in the hands not only of this side of the Committee but of Members on the other side. We have a working agreement always in this Chamber as to how far we wish to get each day and the present agreement was that we would get rather further than my noble friend Lord Renton is saying—with some justification, I realise—he feels we ought to go. If the Opposition feel that we should continue, I have to say in all friendliness to my noble friend Lord Renton that we ought to try to reach the point we had earlier intended, in agreement with the Opposition, to get to. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, what his view is?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The idea that we should proceed to the end of Part III of the Bill was originally a proposition which I put to the Government some four weeks ago. It is always difficult early on to anticipate what the volume of business is likely to be on any particular day. Members of the Committee will have noticed that a large part of today's business has not come from the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps our anticipations in that respect were not correct.
I foresaw that there might be difficulty in this way. I must say, in order to set my reputation straight with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that I offered to the Government that we might stop rather earlier than we now propose to do, but it was not convenient for the Government for reasons that I well understand. In the circumstances, with much regret (because I should prefer to deal with these matters at a time when more Members were able to be present), I suggest that we should continue as originally agreed.
Lord Renton: In view of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said, and in view of information that my noble friend Lord Belstead has given me, I suppose that one must accede to the suggestion that we should continue. However, it is regrettable that such important provisions will be discussed when there are so few Members here to take part. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 271A:
Page 80, line 45, at beginning insert:
("( ) For the purposes of this section, a statutory nuisance shall be any matter specified in or under subsection (1) below which either causes harm to the environment within the meaning of section 1 above, or causes harm to the health of any person and in this subsection the health of a person shall be taken to include a state of physical well-being, and not merely an absence of disease.").
The noble Lord said: I do not know whether it helps the noble Lord, Lord Renton, if I say that, although as he rightly said the matters with which we deal in Part III of the Bill—statutory nuisances—are not only of great intrinsic importance in themselves, but are of great day-to-day concern to many millions of people in this country, they are not dealt with satisfactorily in this part of the Bill.
Whatever time of night it may be the approach that has been made to Part III of the Bill, which is more or less the approach of a consolidation Bill rather than an attempt to think again about the problem of statutory nuisance as a whole, is not satisfactory. That is the reason why we have a significant number of amendments tabled to this part of the Bill.
I need only draw the Committee's attention to the fact that Clause 76(1)(h) allows the Government, without further reference to Parliament, to add to the list of statutory nuisances, to make it clear that we have here one of the classic cases of enabling legislation without any acceptable or understandable statement of principle about that with which we are concerned.
This part of the Bill needs a single unifying concept of what is meant by statutory nuisance. That is what is lacking and that is the reason why we have to table specific amendments about such matters as cable burning, floodlighting and motor vehicles, rather than dealing with the essence of statutory nuisance. That is why the Government have felt it necessary to go further in Clause 76 and to suggest that they themselves should have the power to add to the list of statutory nuisances. What we have is little more than a revised restatement of existing legislation rather than an opportunity taken, as it should have been, to think again about the purposes of legislation regarding statutory nuisance as a whole.
In this amendment we seek to deal with one of the major issues of statutory nuisance; namely, what is meant by health. We referred to that matter in dealing with earlier clauses in the Bill, and when we talked then about health we suggested that health should be defined more broadly than physical health. I suggest to the Committee that, in this case, the health of any person should be taken to include:
"a state of physical well-being, and not merely an absence of disease".
I put that forward as the most important single example of the way in which the Bill has adapted—almost without significant rethinking or possibly without significant thought—the concepts which existed in preceding statutory nuisance legislation.
There can be no doubt that statutory nuisance legislation is one of the areas of our law which causes the most difficulty as between local authorities and their electors; between local people and environmental health officers. Local people cannot understand why what is a nuisance to them, what is causing them to suffer ill-health, is excluded from legislation. They cannot understand why the environmental health officer has to say either, "I do not have the resources to deal with this", or "The law does not allow me to deal with this".
One of the ways in which environmental health officers would be enabled to deal with statutory nuisance more effectively would be if the definition of "health", which is so narrowly stated, were extended along the lines suggested in the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: If this modest looking amendment were accepted, there would be no need for most of the rest of the Bill. The point is that the amendment would load onto the statutory nuisance provisions, and hence on local authorities, the function of policing all processes that might give rise to any damage to the environment and atmosphere or upset the ecological balance.
Traditionally, the law has consistently defined a statutory nuisance as something which is either prejudicial to health or a nuisance to persons; something that adversely affects personal comfort or interferes with the enjoyment of one's property. Now such a nuisance may coincidentally cause damage to the environment or atmosphere but not necessarily; for example, a nasty smell can upset one's wellbeing but not damage the planet.
This amendment would wrench the whole concept of statutory nuisance into something quite inappropriate. It would place on local authorities the awesome responsibility of assessing the impact of some local phenomenon on the environment as a whole. The hardpressed environmental health officer would have to become master of the greenhouse gas effect. Councils would be inundated with requests for them to take action from all manner of well-intentioned but over-enthusiastic residents who had read some new report of environmental menace in the latest copy of the New Scientist.
Rather than using that blunderbuss approach, we believe in clear, targeted controls to prevent damage to our environment such as those contained in Part I of the Bill. We need to look at the specific processes which cause environmental or atmospheric pollution and to lay down limits on emissions and the means of dealing with them. Part III deals with the essentially local nuisances which affect individuals. Of course there is no hard and fast line between what affects individuals and what affects the environment as a whole—
"No man is an Island"—
but we consider that it is useful for environmental health officers to have this distinction in mind.
The amendment would also define health as including a state of physical well-being. The existing definition of prejudicial to health—which incidentally we are extending to noise nuisance for
1578
the first time through this Bill—has stood the test of time well and does not seem to hamper local authorities in carrying out their responsibilities so far as we are aware.
It is for those reasons, and with those thoughts in mind, that I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: When I first heard that response, I thought it was over the top; when I heard the noble Earl quoting Donne in his defence I knew it must be over the top.
The concept that we are proposing in the amendment is not foreign to the Bill as drafted. Part I defines the environment in terms of the environmental media including buildings and other natural or man-made structures. Statutory nuisances arise in premises, from activities in premises, in relation to land or living things or the creation of noise or other pollution within the broad terms envisaged by Part I of the Bill. Part I of the Bill was introduced to set those broad terms. This amendment borrows the concept of harm set out in Part I of the Bill. Clause 1(4) includes,
"harm to the health of living organisms or other interference with the ecological systems of which they form part".
It also includes,
"offence caused to any of his senses or harm to his property".
One would not think that the Bill was like that having heard the response which the noble Earl has just given. It was as if we were somehow throwing the entire Bill in the air by proposing this modest updating of the definition of health.
Any doctor will tell the Government that health is more than the absence of disease. Health is a matter of well-being and it is the responsibility of us all as part of the environment to secure that we have more than just the absence of disease and that we are contributing to well-being. I totally reject the noble Earl's suggestion that the amendment is damaging to the concept of the Bill as a whole. I also totally reject his arguments. One does not get rid of the danger from fumes simply by calling them a nasty smell as he did. Smells are caused by something and it is not just that they are nasty. They can he dangerous in a way which it would be easier to control if this amendment had been accepted.
Perhaps I may make one general point about this part of the Bill in the light of the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, a few minutes ago. At this time of night I do not think that we shall propose any Divisions on this part of the Bill. I am not suggesting that we shall seek the opinion of the Committee. If that means that the payroll vote can go home, then good luck to them. Having said that I shall stick to it.
It means that all these amendments will be treated as probing amendments. When we come to the end of this discussion we shall certainly be seeking a timetable for Report stage at which statutory nuisance is given suitable prominence. It may be that we shall have to return to a considerable number of the issues being debated at this time of night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 271B:
Page 80, line 45, at beginning insert—
("( ) This Part shall have effect for specifying those statutory nuisances which it shall be the duty of a local authority to take into account in undertaking any audit of the physical environment of its area.").
The noble Lord said: I do not think that there is anything startling about the concept proposed in this amendment. What we are trying to do is to link the concept of statutory nuisance in Part III of the Bill with the undertaking concerning environmental audits by local authorities.
That is not a completely new concept. It is becoming more widely accepted in local and central government. I shall be very surprised if the White Paper promised by the Government for September of this year does not involve to some extent the concept of environmental audits. No answer is required on that because it is not a direct question. But I would be prepared to lay some small bets that environmental audits play a significant part in any government White Paper.
The local authority associations are looking at good practice in this field. One of the conclusions that they are coming to quite readily is that it is a good way of focusing attention on the state of the environment which will enable everybody concerned—not just the local authorities but voluntary organisations and individuals—to play their part in the improvement of the environment.
Statutory nuisance is a significant part of the quality of our daily lives in the environment. The environmental audit has a significant part to play in improving the quality of our lives by improving the definition, identification and removal of statutory nuisance. We are suggesting that local environmental health officers can play an important part in determining the environmental state of the area. We already have concerned communities looking at the background and roadside level of pollution. It is very valuable that, for example, the Evening Standard is beginning to publish such assessments on a daily basis.
That is an example of the kind of environmental audit that we should like to see set up. It would be valuable as a warning to those who are creating pollution what it is they are in danger of contributing to. We are not suggesting that there should be anything prescriptive about this. We are saying that it is important to increase awareness of people's rights under the statutory nuisance provision. This amendment could play an important part in helping the public to know its rights and in ensuring that those rights can be enforced. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: We touched on the subject of environmental or green auditing by local authorities and others during discussion of Part I of the Bill. This is something which a number of local authorities are already undertaking and can be highly effective if properly conducted. Officials in the Department of the Environment have been discussing with the local authority associations how this might be carried forward.
1580
I hope that in due course the local authority associations will arrive at common guidance for those authorities wishing to carry out environmental audits. The Department of the Environment will certainly offer all the help it can in this respect. But we believe that it would be inappropriate to lay down on the face of the Bill what would amount to a selective contents list for such audits.
I agree with the noble Lord that it may well be that local authorities will wish to use data concerning statutory nuisance in arriving at an assessment of how local environmental quality in their area has improved or declined over time. They may also have other measures which they wish to take into account which will probably alter over time as new means of collecting and assessing environmental information become available. The noble Lord will gather that we do not consider Amendment No. 271B to be the right way of getting to what is nonetheless an agreed goal.
Amendment No. 387ZA would cancel the repeal of Sections 91 to 100 of the Public Health Act 1936 which are essentially being replaced by Part III of this Bill. It would therefore leave on the statute book an exactly parallel though older piece of legislation. My noble friend explained on Second Reading why we consider that Part III of the Public Health Act 1936 needs improvement and updating. Its basic provisions have stood the test of time well and have been effectively used by generations of environmental health officers. But the legislation is showing some signs of age and extensive consultation in 1986 revealed a number of areas where changes were necessary. I might add that the Government are very grateful to the local authority associations, the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and other bodies who have responded so helpfully to consultation and are directly responsible for many of the amendments before us, in the Government's name and otherwise.
We consider that the strengthened statutory nuisance regime that will emerge from the Bill should give a further 50 years of trouble-free service. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister's response was not very well directed to the nature of the amendment. It is by no means the case that the amendment specifies a selective list of duties on a local authority which by implication excludes other duties. All the amendment requires is that:
"This Part shall have effect for specifying those statutory nuisances which it shall be the duty of a local authority to take into account in undertaking any audit of the physical environment of its area".
It does not even require the local authority to undertake any audit of the physical environment of the area. All it says is that if the authority is going to do so—the noble Earl and I clearly agree that pressure is increasing for environmental audits—it shall take account of the provisions of Part III of the Bill.
I find the amendment very much less threatening and dangerous and very much more helpful and moderate than the noble Earl does. I shall seek to

1581
convince him at a later stage of the virtue of this approach. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 272
Page 80, line 45, leave out ("and (3)") and insert ("to (5)").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend I speak also to Amendment No. 278. Amendment No. 272 is a minor technical amendment. It is purely and simply a correction to the drafting of Clause 76(1). Without it subsection (1) would not cross-refer to the two subsections covering steam and aircraft exemptions which were added in another place.
The Government have brought forward Amendment No. 278 because we have concluded that in certain circumstances Clause 142 does not provide sufficient safeguards for the interests of national security where operational activities of the armed forces are involved. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We are very worried about this amendment. It is clearly a case of applying Crow immunity. The Minister referred to "certain circumstances". What are those certain circumstances? All the Minister said was that the Government had concluded that, in certain circumstances, this exclusion should apply. He owes an explanation to a great many people of how he justifies Crown immunity.
The Minister knows, because he is well versed in these matters, that a steady process over many years has culminated in Crown immunity being lifted from such places as hospitals and schools. There is great agitation to lift it from prisons. However, with this amendment the Government are applying Crown immunity.
I am grateful to a Dr. Hartley Dean who lives in Westbrook, Margate. He has drawn my attention to a number of ways in which this protection would be detrimental to his area. He refers to Manston airbase which is used by the RAF's fire service central training establishment. He informs me that what are called controlled fires are regularly started. These emit massive palls of dense black smoke which often drift for several miles, directly over Margate, before dispersing into the atmosphere. The precise nature of the pollutants in the smoke is not known.
The fires have been the subject of frequent complaints for several years but, because the Ministry of Defence enjoys Crown immunity, no action can be taken by the civil authorities to control those activities. If any Members of this Committee were affected by such fires they would be as concerned and outraged as Dr. Hartley Dean. The Ministry of Defence can offer no satisfactory assurance. It admits that there are, on average, four fires a day at Manston—I repeat, four fires a day—which is a staggering statistic. It is a fire school. I can understand that the fires are necessary in order to train the firemen. However, I ask the Government to think again about this easement in what is, after all, a Bill to protect the environment.
We understand the requirements of defence and the exigencies of the armed services. We are prepared
1582
to go along with the Minister. We are responsible as a party and as individuals. Nevertheless, the Minister must justify this amendment in the light of a Bill specifically designed to extend protection.
Lord Renton: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in what he said about Amendment No. 278. I too am opposed to it. No one can object to Amendment No. 272 which deals merely with re-numbering.
I implore my noble friends on the Front Bench to reconsider Amendment No. 278. By giving a blanket exemption to the armed forces the Government are taking a great risk, for reasons given by the noble Lord. When we are trying to improve the environment, the armed forces, being disciplined, have a great part to play in setting an example to the rest of the community. However, this amendment will discourage them from so doing.
In moving the amendment, my noble friend Lord Arran said that for operational reasons it may be necessary to give the forces some exemption. However, the amendment says nothing about operational reasons. A very large part of the lives of those serving in the armed forces in this country in peacetime is non-operational. It really is not good enough that we should have this blanket exemption for them.
I should like to say a word about visiting forces. I happen to know of an American aerodrome where a great amount of dark smoke—which is a terrible nuisance and, again, a bad example to the rest of the community—is caused by burning large quantities of used tyres and other such materials. Yet this bad practice will be given full justification by the amendment. It really is not good enough.
I ask my noble friends not to ask Members of the Committee to accept the amendment this evening. I suggest that they give an undertaking that they will consider what has been said. They can then move the amendment afresh—if they think it should be moved—on Report, with or without it being modified.
The Earl of Arran: I have listened with great care, diligence and attention to the concerns expressed by noble Lords. I can say that, with or without modification, we shall consider this amendment very carefully and return to the matter on Report.
Lord Renton: I am most grateful to my noble friend, as, I am sure, is the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am indeed most grateful to the Minister. I appreciate the significance of his remarks. If a short consultation would be helpful in order to facilitiate procedures on Report, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and myself will be able to make ourselves available.
The Earl of Arran: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 273:
Page 81, line 1, after ("premises") insert ("or motor vehicles").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 273A, 274, 275 and 275A. All of these amendments are concerned with the statutory nuisance or, unfortunately, the non-statutory nuisance which is caused by motor vehicles. I think if the question were put to the general public as to what they understood to be the most common sources of nuisance, it would be found that they were not very familiar with the concept or the phrase of a "statutory nuisance". However, if they were asked about things which caused them trouble and which ought to be put right, they would list motor vehicles among them.
The Government have congratulated themselves in advance on the addition to the list of statutory nuisances the idea of there being a noise nuisance. I join in those congratulations. In my view, it is a very welcome step forward. However, let us now have another really welcome step forward which would make the Government extremely popular. It would not, of course, overcome their other deficiencies in public popularity; but it certainly would not do them any harm. I refer to their recognising the fact that what ordinary people understand as being a nuisance includes the effects of the motor vehicle. These amendments which seek to deal with nuisance from motor vehicles should be accepted.
Amendment No. 273 adds the words "motor vehicles" to the list of matters which constitute statutory nuisances; in other words, they will be inserted after the word "premises".
Amendment No. 273A is a special case. It deals with smoke emitted from diesel engines. Noble Lords who spend any time in Parliament Square will be aware of the smoke emitted from coaches and lorries, especially almost stationary coaches and lorries. It is a significant nuisance which should be statutory.
Amendment No. 275 is a cleaning-up amendment. The need for Amendment No. 275A can be observed by looking out in Parliament Square, because it is noticeable that coaches tend to run their engines when they are stationary—in summer to keep the air conditioning going, and in winter to keep the heating going. It is extremely offensive, apart from the damage that it does to energy conservation.
The argument that has been used, which is clearly an interdepartmental argument that should not affect Parliament if we can possibly avoid it, is that the control of nuisance from vehicles is the responsibility of the Home Office and the police. They do not want those responsibilities, however. They do not want to be concerned with smoke emissions, air pollution or noise pollution from motor vehicles. In so far as they are concerned with motor vehicles—I imagine that most of the police wish that they were less concerned with motor vehicles—it is because they have to be concerned with road safety and with offences committed involving motor vehicles. Those are the core
1584
responsibilities of the police, and behind them of the Home Office in respect of motor vehicles. In every other respect, the police and the Home Office believe that those matters should be the responsibility of local authority environmental health officers.
That does not mean that we are suggesting the creation of a completely new force of uniformed para-police inspectors with the power to stop motor vehicles and say to the drivers, "Your exhaust is too dangerous". That would not be necessary. There are good ways of carrying out occasional blitzes. That already happens with the police and local authorities. There are good ways of employing a combination of police and environmental health officers, just as there is a combination of police and traffic wardens which deals with certain types of motoring offence.
A great deal of what we are talking about in the amendments, especially diesel fuel emissions and the problems caused by stationary vehicles, could be dealt with without any chasing after the vehicle. One merely notes the number and invites the owner to present himself to prove that his vehicle is not committing the offence of statutory nuisance of creating unwanted and dangerous smoke emission or air pollution. If those problems are suggested by the Government in their reply, they can be easily got round. The ordinary people of this country will want the definition of statutory nuisance to include motor vehicles. This is an opportunity for the Government to recognise what ordinary people want, and to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: In relation to the amendments there is one important and fundamental question which I should be grateful if my noble friends on the Front Bench would answer. Perhaps only my noble friend the Leader of the House can answer it. The question is: is it intended that the Bill shall be part of our country's effort to join other countries in protecting the ozone layer? If it is, then we should be considering the pollution caused by motor vehicles, aircraft and any other form of combustion, because the damage to the ozone layer is caused by the production of carbon dioxide.
It is well known that motor vehicles, aircraft, the burning of fossil fuels, and so on—all things that go with our daily lives—create carbon dioxide. We know that an international conference is being held in London at the moment to decide how to protect the ozone layer. If it be the fact that the Bill is not part of the Government's contribution towards solving that problem, I should have thought that we would be quite justified in doing nothing about motor vehicles, as the noble Lord suggests, or about aircraft, diesel engines and so on. Various other branches of the law can already deal with the bad cases. There are prosecutions from time to time of motorists who cause dark smoke to come from their vehicles. That has been so for years and years.
Without an answer to that question, we cannot—or I certainly find I cannot—form an intelligent opinion on this group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has done us a service in drawing attention to the problem of pollution caused by motor vehicles. However, we

1585
need to know the answer to that fundamental question.
Lord Hesketh: I wish that I could give my noble friend Lord Renton a clear and certain answer. In a way, the answer is partly yes and partly no. When we debated amendments to Part I of the Bill, certain amendments made direct reference to CO2 emissions. My noble friend Lord Renton has rightly mentioned the ozone layer. At this very moment in London, the matter is being discussed with the extension of the Montreal Protocol regarding CFCs. That is a slightly separate issue.
If there is a single vein that runs through this Bill in terms of precedence and importance, it is this. We have a Bill in which the number one principle is integrated pollution control. That in itself is not so much to do with CO2 emissions, the ozone layer or the greenhouse effect. Many other important matters are dealt with in the Bill which range from the Nature Conservancy Council to the amendments concerning dogs and various other aspects.
It is fair to say to my noble friend that the most important part of the Bill is on integrated pollution control. The Bill touches on other areas which bite on the problems that he has mentioned, but it would not be true for me to say that the principal part of the Bill relates to CO2. The debates we had on Part I of the Bill also referred to the Government's White Paper which addresses far more the principle of CO2 and the results of the intergovernment panel on climate change. It is crucial and will appear in the autumn.
Lord Renton: I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend. Although he could not give a completely positive statement in relation to Part III of the Bill, he reminded us of the provisions for integrated pollution control and air pollution control by local authorities under Part I. However, to what extent is Part III intended to be in aid of Part I? If it is intended to be in aid of Part I, I should like to see Part III improved in various ways which I shall mention in the discussion on whether Clause 76 shall stand part. We should also get it quite clear in our minds whether or not in order to fulfil the objectives of Part I we should be dealing with motor vehicles, and perhaps even aircraft—aircraft also produce a lot of carbon dioxide—in Part III.
12 midnight
Lord Hesketh: I think it would be fair to say that Part III is consistent with Part I of the Bill. On the matter of whether or not it is in aid of Part I of the Bill I defer to my noble friend's superior understanding of these matters. It is also important to remember that we tabled a consistent number of amendments with regard to motor vehicles and large power stations in Part I of the Bill.
Lord Renton: No one should have a greater understanding of a Bill than the Minister in charge of it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Touché! The Minister is certainly right in saying that our approach to Part
1586
I and Part III of the Bill has been consistent. I shall certainly not repeat my Second Reading speech on the subject; but we have taken the view that integrated pollution control in all its aspects requires the inclusion of the role of what is now the Department of Transport in respect of enforcement of pollution controls on motor vehicles, that of the Home Office and certainly that of the Department of Energy, because energy conservation is an essential, integral part of pollution control. In so far as this is and remains a Department of the Environment Bill and neglects the aspects of administration and public life covered by the Home Office, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transport and the Ministry of Defence—perhaps we have won a minor victory there—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Not minor.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, not minor. I yield to my noble friend Lord Graham. Perhaps there has been a significant shift in the Government's attitude on that. Our view is that if we are to have integrated pollution control, we must include motor vehicles in that provision. That is why both in Part I and in Part III of the Bill we have introduced appropriate amendments.
The Government will not be readily forgiven by those who suffer as my neighbours do—I live within a quarter of a mile of the A1—from vehicle emissions, if they brush vehicle emissions on to one side and refuse to deal with them in the context of integrated pollution control and statutory nuisance. It is not enough to say that there are existing laws. In order for there to be existing laws there must also be the means and the willingness to enforce them.
The police in particular are grossly overstrained in the other aspects of their duties which are to them, and to many other people, more important, and in so far as they have time to deal with traffic at all they are not surprisingly concerned to deal with motoring offences and road safety. Here is an area where the control of pollution could well be civilianised. It could well become the responsibility of environmental health officers who cost a good deal less than the police although they cost just as much to train as they are just as skilled. Those officers could and should take an active part. This is a matter to which we shall certainly return on Report. We would not be forgiven if we neglected to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 273A to 275A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 275B:
Page 81, line 13, at end insert:
("(gg) the illegal burning of any cable so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;").
The noble Lord said: I hope that this is largely a technical amendment. After a considerable debate in Committee in another place the Government amended Clause 76(1)(d) so that it now reads:
"any dust, steam, smell or other effluvia arising on industrial, trade or business premises and being prejudicial to health or a nuisance".
It was pointed out in another place at Committee stage that illegal cable burning does not take place on business premises. It tends to take place on open land, in lay-bys or wherever people who undertake the activity find it convenient. Therefore, so far as we can see, it is not covered by any of the provisions in paragraphs (a) to (g) of Clause 76(1). I hope that the Government did not intend that. It would be inconceivable that they did, and I hope that they will take this opportunity to correct the situation. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Although the noble Lord described this as just a technical amendment it is a matter of some importance. I do not agree with the wording. The word "illegal" is quite unnecessary. If there is to be such a provision it should not be confined to cable. I believe that it should read:
"The burning of any material which, when burned, is prejudicial to health or a nuisance".
That would make much more sense.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can save the Government the obligation of replying. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has made a very valid point. I shall not wait for the Government's reply. I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment and bring it back at a later stage in the form which has been suggested. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 275C:
Page 81, line 13, at end insert:
("(gg) floodlighting at a time or intensity which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance;").
The noble Lord said: This is another matter which may seem to be marginal or incidental but it certainly is not marginal or incidental to those who suffer from it.
There are three kinds of floodlighting. There is floodlighting which is purely decorative and which people have in their gardens. My neighbours have lighting in nasty changing colours. I find it rather offensive but I would not claim that it was a statutory nuisance. Then there is exterior lighting which is used to guide people to a house or for security purposes. It would be easy to define conditions under which that would be allowed and would not be prejudicial to health or a nuisance. There is also floodlighting, some of it on industrial or commercial premises, sometimes for exaggerated security reasons, and some of it on domestic premises, which is extremely offensive and causes great pain and anguish to those who suffer from it.
I have been bombarded with examples of such floodlighting since the amendment was first seen. It ought to be and I am convinced could be dealt with by the statutory nuisance provisions. I very much hope that the answers that were given in another place to comparable amendments which relied on the necessity for more modest floodlighting on occasion—which we acknowledge—will not be repeated now. I hope that it will be recognised that
1588
there is a genuine public demand for action to deal with the problem of floodlighting at an intensity or at a time which are prejudicial to health or which are a nuisance.
I am advised that one of the significant elements which constitutes a nuisance is when the primary light source is in sight of the people who suffer from it. I am quite convinced that environmental health officers could advise the Secretary of State as to how such a statutory nuisance could be defined in operation. I am sure that the Government would be well advised from the point of view of meeting public demand to accept this amendment or something very like it. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: I should like to speak in support of the amendment. Although it may be believed that this is a problem that occurs in urban areas, I can assure the Committee that it also occurs in rural areas. I live in an area where the farm buildings are floodlit all night long. I do not know why. It may be to help fowl to lay more eggs.
There is also the other side of the coin, with roads being floodlit as a safety precaution. Although I sometimes wonder why we have to have all these lights on at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning in fact I accept that it is a safety measure. The Minister may well say that in response.
The Earl of Arran: We are not convinced that we should be justified in setting up a new category of statutory nuisance to catch nuisance caused by floodlighting. The matter was raised in another place. My honourable friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside undertook to give further consideration to the question of nuisances caused by light. We have consulted as widely as time allowed. Enquiries which officials made of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers have not disclosed that this is a widespread problem nor that any widespread measure of support appears to exist on the part of local authorities for having such powers.
Most floodlighting installations would be subject to planning permission. The physical development involved in the installation of floodlighting apparatus amounts to development for planning purposes. In determining an application for planning permission, a local planning authority is required to have regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other "material considerations". The effect of the development on local environment and amenity would be a material consideration for a planning authority to take into account in deciding whether to grant permission.
However, my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is prepared to look further at the adequacy of the present planning controls, and indeed we are prepared to consider this matter further.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is disappointing that the Minister has not been able to come to the Chamber with amendments but I understand the point that he made about the short time available for consultation. I accept with gratitude the offer

1589
that he made to return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 276:
Page 81, line 18, at end insert ("and in the case of noise nuisance to take all reasonable steps to investigate a complaint from any person living within that area.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 276, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I also wish to speak, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, to Amendment No. 277 which is grouped with it.
The purpose of Amendment No. 276 is to extend the activities that a local authority shall undertake in its area. As the clause is drafted, the authority shall inspect its area from time to time to detect statutory nuisance. The amendment seeks to ensure that, with regard to nuisance caused by noise, a local authority would respond to complaints from the public. The Government may say that the proposal is covered by the term "from time to time". If so, that is welcome. But it is important to recognise that noise nuisance may often be of a transitory nature. For instance, a late night party, while not necessarily health-threatening in the same way that fumes or gas may be, must be dealt with as soon as practicable.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, had hoped to be present to speak to his amendment, Amendment No. 277. It is not strictly on all fours with Amendment No. 276, but there are common elements. Amendment No. 277 alludes to the current legislation upon which these matters rest; namely, the Public Health Act 1936 and the Control of Pollution Act. They give power to investigate complaints rather than to send inspectors periodically to investigate premises generally.
The National Conference on Clean Air undertook a survey. Three out of four local authorities responded to the effect that they investigate complaints; one out of four does not. There is a disparity of approach which could well be seen to be unsatisfactory. The United Kingdom Environmental Law Association and the National Society for Clean Air have suggested in separate reports that the situation should be put right in favour of the majority view adopted by local authorities. I beg to move.
12.15 a m.
Lord Hesketh: The working party on the Department of the Environment's review of noise has recommended that action should be taken to clarify the duty on local authorities. The Government are favourably disposed to the amendments in principle, but believe that consultation with local authorities and other organisations is necessary. We shall be consulting shortly and if the response supports the intention behind the amendments, we shall return with an amendment at a later date. I therefore hope that the noble Lard will not press his amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is not only the best offer that I shall get at this time of night, it is
1590
the best offer that I am likely to get at any time of the day! I am grateful to the Minister. In the light of what he said and subject to him delivering the goods, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 277 and 278 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 279:
Page 82, line 17, at end insert ("and, subject to subsection (11) below, any vessel;").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 280 and 282ZA. Clause 76(10) already provides for vessels in territorial waters to be subject to the nuisance provisions of Part III. However, Part III of the Bill contains nothing explicit about the application of the nuisance provisions to vessels in inland waters. That is an omission which we need to rectify. Our intention is to maintain the status quo. At present vessels in inland waters are subject to the nuisance provisions of the Public Health Act 1936 by virtue of Section 267 of that Act.
That is no doubt the reason for the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Craigton and I am grateful to him for his perspicacity. We have brought forward our own amendment designed to make clear that vessels in inland waters—excluding preserved and recreational steam vessels—are subject to the nuisance provisions. I therefore hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
As regards Amendment No. 282ZA, Part III was amended in another place so as to exclude vessels powered by steam reciprocating machinery. Subsection (11) contains the relevant provision. Our objective was to exempt from the nuisance provisions of Part III preserved and recreational steam vessels. My noble friend seeks in this amendment to confine that exemption to vessels in territorial waters. If the amendment was accepted, nuisance controls would apply to such vessels when operating in inland waters.
Preserved and recreational steam vessels give pleasure to a great many people. They are relatively few in number and the effect on the environment is negligible. It is right that we should crack down on the real polluters. We are doing so in raising the maximum fine for statutory nuisance caused by industry from £2,000 to £20,000. But legislation should be flexible enough to exclude activities which benefit many but cause insignificant environmental harm. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 280 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 280A:
Page 82, line 35, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 282A. This amendment reflects a good deal of puzzlement in our minds as to the Government's intentions regarding the ways in which environmental health officers are supposed to enforce the statutory nuisance provisions in this part of the Bill.
Members of the Committee will recall that in discussing earlier parts of the Bill, we have not looked at the concept of best practicable means, which is included at subsection (8), but at the alternative formulations of BATNEEC—the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost—which is the Government's preferred solution or the solution which we prefer and which the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution prefers; namely, the best practicable environmental option.
It may seem that those are merely words. However, it is interesting that having discussed this matter in Committee here and in another place, in Part III the Government have done what they threatened to do in Part I; namely, to retain the concept of best practicable means. That concept first entered into legislation in 1874. As one might expect of a concept which has been in existence for over 100 years, it has become ground down. It no longer has the necessary effectiveness. After one has been sharpening a knife for 116 years, one tends to gain in flexibility but lose in cutting power because the knife becomes too thin to sharpen any more.
Environmental health officers have been obliged to treat "best practicable means" as being an invitation not to enforce action against statutory nuisance but to negotiate with its perpetrators. In negotiation they have been obliged to consider such questions as: what is reasonably practicable? What is suitable with regard to local conditions and circumstances? What is possible with regard to the state of technical knowledge? Above all, and most dangerous, they have been obliged to consider what are the financial implications. Therefore, one tends to achieve not enforcement but compromise.
That is not the way in which we should be approaching statutory nuisance in 1990. It may not affect everyone, but those whom it affects are affected deeply. People who contact us because of floodlighting, burglar alarms ringing all night, emissions, noise from loud parties, fumes from motor vehicles or factories, or whatever, may not be a majority of the population but they are very angry people. They demand to be heard and the powers that they have evolved from legislation during the years are not adequate to protect them, otherwise they would not be so angry. I ask the Government why we are left with the 1874 formulation and why do we not have at least the BATNEEC formulation from Part I? Indeed, why do we not have the much better formulation of the best practicable environmental option which is preferred by Members on these Benches and by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution? I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 281.
Lord Renton: The expression "best practicable means", which is defined in Clause 76(8), occurs only in relation to the defence which is made available in Clause 77(7). As there is to be a defence that the best practicable means were used to prevent
1592
or counteract the effects of the nuisance, it is only right to define the expression. It is clearly defined and the important part is that:
"the test is to apply only so far as compatible with any duty imposed by law".
I appreciate what the noble Lord said, but I believe that the Government are right in having the definition where it is.
The Earl of Arran: I am grateful for my noble friend's closing remarks. Perhaps I may spend a few minutes trying to enlighten the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on our intentions. These amendments raise the important question of the concept used to determine what practical limits should be placed on the obligation of an industry, trade or business to take steps to minimise statutory nuisance.
It does look odd to have two different definitions of what is essentially the same concept in different parts of the Bill; that is best practicable means (bpm) in Part III, and best available techniques not entailing excessive cost (BATNEEC) in Part I and Part VI. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in Amendment No. 282A refers to yet another term of art; the best practicable environmental option (bpeo), which had its genesis in the 5th report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution some 14 years ago.
Is there not, one might ask, a prime opportunity to do a bit of rationalisation and impose a standard definition throughout the Bill? We have looked very carefully at this, but have concluded, for reasons that I shall explain, that the apparently compelling argument for aligning the definitions is not so attractive when considered closely.
Best practicable means has been with us for a very long time. So far as we can tell, the term originated in a local law applying in Leeds in 1842—although the noble Lord said 1874—under which a fine could be imposed on offenders who had not used the best practicable means to prevent or abate smoke nuisance. Application of the term was progressively extended under the Alkali Acts and other provisions, including more recently the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Notes on best practicable means are published for a range of processes by HMIP and describe the treatment plant to be used and its maintenance, with methods of operation, and may also lay down presumptive limits for emissions. Bpm is an essentially dynamic concept, in that it can take account of advances in scientific understanding and pollution limits which can be tightened by HMIP to keep up with advances in abatement technology.
I rehearse this background because there is a great deal to be said for the maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". We consulted widely about the working of bpm in 1986 and the consensus was that, although changes were desirable in some areas, on the whole bpm was well understood by environmental health officers and should be retained.
BATNEEC is a rather different animal. It is a formulation used in EC directives—in effect the Continental cousin of bpm. But it has no firm basis in case law in this country or elsewhere, and it

1593
applies to cross-media pollution issues such as are addressed by Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) rather than the essentially local, one-off problems that bpm has been used to tackle.
Bpeo specifies the pollution control technology which is the best practicable means for the environment as a whole—considering the total impact on water, land and air pathways together. It does not encompass a judgment about the cost implications of a particular pollution prevention or reduction strategy. This could mean that the bpeo for a particular industry could be so expensive as to be uneconomic.
The effect of Amendment No. 282A would be that the only defence a business could have in a statutory nuisance case brought against it under the relevant provisions of Clause 76 would be that it was using bpeo. It would remove the current defence enjoyed by businesses—including thousands of local small firms—that they were using the best practicable means to contain pollution as laid down by HMIP and its predecessor agencies. This would be a very serious step and I hope the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, understands our reasons for resisting this particular amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is certainly true that it would be a serious step; I do not deny that. But I am not convinced that the Government have shown in that reply a proper understanding of the balance between the need for proper continuity of response to those who are committing statutory nuisance. One must pity the sinner as well as the victim, and also consider the needs of those who are suffering from statutory nuisance.
The fact is that environmental health officers feel that they are acting with inadequate powers, and they spend a considerable amount of their time apologising to local residents for the inadequacy of their powers. One of the most difficult things is the accretion of interpretation of best practicable means, some of which is spelt out in Clause 76(8), which, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, applies to the whole of Part III of the Bill and not simply to Clause 77. Some of this ought to be dealt with by means of a definition which is more consistent with the rest of the Bill rather than just Part III. I will gladly give way.
Lord Renton: In view of what the noble Lord has just said, will he point out where else in this part of the Bill we find the expression "best practicable means", apart from Clause 77(7)? I cannot find any other reference to the phrase.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was relying on the indication in Clause 77(8):
"In this Part 'best practicable means' …"
I confess I have not carried out a trawl of Part III of the Bill. If the draftsman had meant Clause 77(7) rather than this part of the Bill, I assume that he would have said so. It may be as well for me to withdraw that comment and study Part III of the Bill rather more closely. With those words I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 281:
Page 82, line 40, at end insert ("to the person responsible, and the size of any business conducted on the premises.").
The noble Lord said: I am getting badly out of my depth. I have great sympathy with the belief of my noble friend Lord Renton that this part of the Bill should be dealt with tomorrow. Some remarks have been made which give one quite a lot to think about, not least those of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on his Amendment No. 271A.
The noble Lord was speaking of physical well-being. He did not define it; he almost got down to the fact that it was peace of mind and spiritual well-being. I do not think he or I would wish to enter into that debate tonight, especially in the absence of any right reverend Prelate. He was getting into a deep subject and we should perhaps look at the matter more clearly another time.
I raise that matter before turning to my amendment because I shall now deal with the completely opposite side of the picture, which, although not entirely supported by the Minister in response to the noble Lord's previous amendment, was slightly supported. I am a little lost tonight and feel that we are in fairly deep water.
Amendment No. 281 poses the question of whether the expression "best practicable means" takes into account the size and profitability of the business. I take as an example the small farmer, though similar situations will occur in relation to other small businesses such as those referred to by my noble friend. A problem will arise where the best practicable means for preventing a statutory nuisance for a large business could cost a relatively small amount in relation to that business but for a small business—I have in mind the family farm, but other small businesses would be in the same position—it would be impractical and might put the owner out of business, as my noble friend said in the debate on the previous amendment.
I therefore ask my noble friend whether "best practicable means" could be sensitive to the varying conditions between businesses. It is a Catch-22 situation. If my noble friend replies that "best practicable means" does not allow for sensitivity in size and profitability, it will be another nail in the coffin of the small business or the family farm; if the answer is the opposite, the neighbour to that business will not appreciate that the small farmer's pigs do not constitute a statutory nuisance though they smell as much as the large farmer's pigs.
I am muddled and should like some guidance on this complex matter. It is rather late to imbibe all that has been said. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Clauses 77(7) and 79(5) provide that it shall be a defence to prove that the best practicable means have been used to prevent or to counteract the effects of a nuisance. This defence is available in the case of nuisances arising on industrial, trade or business premises and smoke nuisances arising from chimney emissions.

1595
The purpose of Clause 78(8) is to define how the term "best practicable means" is to be interpreted. In particular, subparagraph (a) lists matters to which regard is to be had in deciding what is reasonably practicable. My noble friend wishes to add to this list and proposes there should be specific requirement for regard to be had to the person responsible and to the size of any business conducted on the premises.
In reply, I would say that the best practicable means definition in Clause 78(8)—which is derived from that employed for the noise provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and has stood the test of time well—has the merit of simplicity and flexibility and does not attempt to spell out every conceivable matter to which regard must be had. Subparagraph (a) lists certain matters to which regard is to be had but in doing so it includes the expression "amongst other things". The expression is certainly wide enough to enable a court to take into account the matters to which my noble friend refers in his amendment. As I have indicated, it may be an old and well-tried definition. But it has been around for years and there is no evidence that the terminology has caused problems for particular types of businesses.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: As I understand it, my noble friend is saying that the courts will be sensitive. I shall read very carefully what he has said. But if that is what he is saying, then it is what I want him to say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 282 and 282ZA not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 76, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I gave notice to my noble friends on the Front Bench and to the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, that I wish to make various comments on Clause 76. At the foot of page 80 of the Bill the clause begins by stating that,
"the following matters constitute 'statutory nuisances' for the purposes of this Part".
That is a reference to Part III of the Bill. Therefore, surprise, surprise! When we come to subsections (2) and (3), the Bill has to be dovetailed with the Clean Air Acts of 1956 and 1968. I should disclose that when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power I helped to pilot the Clean Air Act 1956 through another place so I have some recollection of what it does. I have also refreshed my memory.
Clause 76(1) is all right from the drafting point of view, but subsection (2) states that,
"Subsection (1)(b) above does not apply to"—
various things such as—
"(i) smoke emitted from a chimney of a private dwelling within a smoke control area".
That immediately raises a contradiction with the Clean Air Act. It is arguable that if we are going to legislate to bring the Clean Air Act up to date we should be making the whole country into a smoke-control area so that nobody is allowed to
1596
produce dark smoke from a chimney. I remind the Committee that subsection (1)(b) refers to,
"smoke emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance".
We are then told in subsection (2)(i) that,
"smoke emitted from a chimney of a private dwelling within a smoke control area"
is not a statutory nuisance. That is what the Clean Air Act 1956 was all about. I am critical in particular of subsection (2)(iv) which states:
"dark smoke emitted otherwise than as mentioned above from industrial or trade premises".
That is not a statutory nuisance either. I am merely complaining of the drafting. I feel very sorry for the draftsman at various parts of this Bill. He must have been under great pressure of time. He must have had elaborate instructions for drafting: it is a wonder he got it all down. As he has got it down, we might as well try to help him and others to get it right. For example, I suggest that subsection (3) could perfectly well read:
"Subsection (1)(c) applies only to private dwellings".
Instead it has a double negative and reads:
"Subsection (1)(c) above does not apply in relation to premises other than private dwellings".
That is not the best way to legislate. If we want the Bill to be a success it has to be read and, we hope, obeyed by ordinary people.
My problem with the presentation of the clause does not end there. Halfway down page 82 of the Bill we find:
"any expressions used in this section and in the Clean Air Act 1956 or the Clean Air Act 1968 have the same meaning in this section as in that Act"—
it should read "as in either of those Acts"—
"and section 34(2) of the Clean Air Act 1956 shall apply for the interpretation of the expression "dark smoke".
That is good. But I wonder whether my noble friends' study of the Bill—I know that they have had so much work to do on it—has enabled them to go forward to page 198 and Schedule 13 where various amendments are made to existing enactments.
In paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 13 we find that the Clean Air Act is excluded for prescribed purposes. There is an amendment to the Clean Air Act purporting to achieve that purpose. I wonder whether my noble friends can tell me how that exclusion links up with Clause 76 of the Bill. I need not worry the Committee with paragraph 6 which deals with ordinary minor amendments. However, we need to have an explanation because, with such experience as I have, I just cannot find how we can reconcile subsection (1) of Clause 76, subsection (2) of the same clause and paragraph 5 of Schedule 13.
If my noble friends say that at this time of night they and their advisers cannot be expected to give a rational and full answer to the various questions that I am endeavouring to put, I shall understand. But at some time we must have an explanation. I hope that even at this late hour we may have one.
The Earl of Arran: I shall do my best. I am not absolutely certain that I shall be able to put to bed all my noble friend's concerns but perhaps an answer to a few of them will suffice at this time of night.

1597
He has my firm assurance that I shall most certainly write to him to explain more comprehensively the points on which he has anxieties.
The Clean Air Acts are our main legislation covering pollution by smoke, grit and dust from domestic and certain industrial sources. Nothing in Part III of the Bill essentially alters this legislation. My noble friend will be aware that Clause 76(2) spells out that Part III does not apply to smoke emitted from a private dwelling in a smoke control area under the Clean Air Acts. Dark smoke is also covered by regulations under the 1956 Act. Part III of the Bill relates to other matters. However, I appreciate that my noble friend is concerned to ensure that there is no conflict between this part and the Clean Air Acts. I can assure my noble friend that there is no such conflict and that the two sets of controls dovetail satisfactorily. Furthermore, Part I is intended to cover emissions from major polluting sources; that is, petro-chemical industries, large combustion plants such as electricity generating plants, and so on.
Processes scheduled for integrated pollution control under Part I emissions, such as smoke and dust, which otherwise might cause a statutory nuisance will be caught by the strenuous system of controls. If a process is not scheduled for IPC, it will be subject, like any other potential source of statutory nuisance, to the controls of Part III. Simply put, Clause 76 is extended from processes prescribed for control under Part I.
That reply may not have covered all my noble friend's anxieties, but, as I said, I shall certainly be writing to him to explain more fully.
12.45 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to detain the Committee. If the noble Earl is writing to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I should be grateful for a copy of the letter.
The Earl of Arran: Yes, of course.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to my noble friend for his valiant attempt to explain the contradictions. The day after tomorrow—it cannot be sooner—I shall read in Hansard what my noble friend said. I may have to return to the matter on Report because it seems to me that subsection (2), even with the explanation given, is unnecessary nonsense. I shall reserve my opinion until I have read my noble friend's reply. Meanwhile, I no longer resist the proposition that Clause 76 should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Summary proceedings for statutory nuisances]:
[Amendment No. 282A not moved.]
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Supplementary provisions]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 282B:
Page 85, line 15, at end insert—
("(4A) An authority may make such reasonable requests for information of the owner or occupier of premises, or any person who is or appears to be causing a nuisance, and that person shall comply with such requests").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 283A and 283B. These are relatively simple amendments. They deal with requests from local authorities to have the enforcement powers they consider to be necessary. Again, this is not a matter of local authority officers taking on paramilitary roles, having uniforms, or anything of that sort. However, it appears to the local authorities that when they have to request information from persons appearing to cause nuisances, or the occupiers of premises from which nuisances are being emitted (if that is the right construction) they should have power to see that the persons concerned comply with the request. That is the purport of Amendment No. 282B.
Amendment No. 283A simply adds to what they may take away under Schedule 3. In addition to samples, they may take away equipment and that seems to be a logical extension of the powers already provided in Schedule 3. Amendment No. 283B is again a matter of compliance with reasonable requests for information from people in occupation of premises to which entry has been sought. These are practical requests made on the ground by those with experience of enforcing the statutory nuisance legislation. I hope they will be received sympathetically by the Government. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: First, I take Amendments Nos. 282B and 283B. We do not consider that local authorities need these powers in addition to the powers of entry and inspection provided by Schedule 3. It would be wrong to provide further powers which could require a person to provide information that might be self-incriminating. Statutory nuisance relates to fairly simple matters such as smoke, smell or dust, and local authorities have all the inspection and information gathering powers they need. The tradition of statutory nuisance enshrined in legislation, which dates back many years, has been that it is for the local authority using its powers of entry as necessary to establish whether a nuisance exists.
The noble Lord's amendment, Amendment No. 283A, seeks to ensure that an authorised officer who has entered premises under the powers conferred in paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 may take away not only such samples or articles as he considers necessary for the discharge of any of the local authority's functions under Part III but also equipment. It is arguable whether the term "articles" used in subparagraph (4)(c) of paragraph 2 includes equipment. We are prepared to consider whether an amendment of the provision is needed to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that last comment. I shall, therefore, withdraw Amendment No. 282B with a good deal more alacrity than I shall show in not moving Amendments Nos. 283A and 283B. I shall read carefully what the Minister said. I do not believe that he will have satisfied those who have the day-to-day responsibility for enforcement of this legislation. I fear that an opportunity has been lost. However, in order to consider the matter further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 283 not moved.]
Clause 78 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Statutory Nuisances: Supplementary Provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 283A and 283B not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 284:
Page 154, line 19, at end insert:
("Statement of right of appeal in notices
6. Where an appeal against a notice served by a local authority lies to a magistrates' court by virtue of section 77 of this Act, it shall be the duty of the authority to include in such a notice a statement indicating that such an appeal lies as aforesaid and specifying the time within which it must be brought.").
The noble Lord said: In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, I move Amendment No. 284. At the same time, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 285. I must tell the Minister that I have had sight of the correspondence which has passed between him and the noble Lord. Having read it, I respectfully submit that the arguments contained in his letter of 20th June appear to a legal authority that I intend to quote to be fundamentally flawed.
The legal adviser to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said:
"I accept the view of the court in Bentham, relating to Section 94(2) of the Public Health Act 1936. Proceedings under that subsection are criminal because the magistrates' court has the option of imposing a fine.
However, the structure of proceedings under Sections 58 and 59 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and Clauses 77 to 79 of the EPB is entirely different from that under Section 94(2) of the Public Health Act 1936. Under both Section 39(2) and Clause 79(2) of the Environmental Protection Bill the person aggrieved makes a complaint to the magistrates' court. If the court is satisfied that a nuisance exists or is likely to recur it must make a nuisance order which requires the defendant to abate the nuisance and/or prohibits its recurrence. If, but only if, the defendant contravenes that order without reasonable excuse, does he commit an offence: Section 59(4) and Clause 79(4).
The procedure under Section 99 of the Public Health Act 1936 is different, in that the magistrates' court may impose a fine in addition to making the nuisance order: Section 94(2) of the Public Health Act 1936. The power to impose a fine under Section 99 proceedings means that they are criminal and must accordingly be commenced by way of information: Northern Ireland Trailers Limited v. County Borough of Preston (1972) 1 All ER 260; R. v. Newham Justices, ex parte Hunt (1971) 1 All ER 839 at 842. See also R. v. Inner London Crown Court, ex parte Bentham (1989).
Conversely, proceedings under Section 59(2) of the Control of Pollution Act and Clause 79(2) of the Environmental Protection Bill do not empower the court to impose a fine at the stage where the abatement order is made. The proceedings are therefore civil.
Appeals under Clause 77(3) to the magistrates' court against an Abatement Notice served by the local authority are clearly
1600
civil proceedings. An appeal under this clause has no relationship with the criminal proceedings envisaged by Clause 77(4) and (5). There is an equivalent procedure for appeals against noise abatement notices under Section 58(3) Control of Pollution Act 1974. Appeals lie from the magistrates' court to the Crown Court under Section 85(1). However, there is no comparable right of appeal against an abatement notice under Part III Public Health Act 1936.
If the right of appeal to the Crown Court is not included in the Environmental Protection Bill, the only avenue of appeal will be by way of case stated to the Queen's Bench Division. In view of the pressures on the higher courts such a move would appear to be undesirable".
That is why I move the amendment.
The Earl of Arran: I believe that I can be short on both amendments. Amendment No. 284 is acceptable to the Government. Amendment No. 285 raises a complex legal issue that we need to explore further, but in the meantime we are happy to consider it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am more than grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 285 not moved.]
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 [Summary proceedings by persons aggrieved by statutory nuisances]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 285A:
Page 85, line 30, leave out ("a complaint made") and insert ("an information laid").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 285B, 285C, 285D, 286A and 286B. Clause 79 has attracted the greatest amount of correspondence—for me at any rate—on the Bill other than the proposals for the NCC and dog registration. I say straightaway that the representations that have been made to me come from both sides of a dispute which is clearly an anguished one in parts of the country. Many members of tenants' associations and tenants' associations themselves have written to me expressing great concern that the provisions of Clause 79 take away the rights of tenants under the 1936 Act to take direct action in the courts to deal with repairs of damage to their property which amounts to a statutory nuisance. They say that Clause 79 has been drafted to weaken that right. It is an important part of their protection against landlords, and although the protection against landlords that was intended in 1936 was protection against private landlords, it is now much more against local authority landlords. That is one side of the case.
The other side of the case was put to me by local authorities, which are finding that under the 1936 Act tenants and their lawyers are using the provisions of that Act not merely to go to court—the local authorities do not complain about that—but to go to court without informing the local authority landlord that the repairs are necessary. The local authorities say—it is an allegation that I repeat for what it is worth—that there are lawyers who are doing that rather than seeking redress for the repairs because

1601
of the order for costs in their favour that they will obtain when they go to court.
It is difficult to find an amendment which will reconcile those points of view. I have considered the representations made to me and there are two outstanding points. First, it is wrong that complaints should be made to the courts without the local authority being notified and being given an opportunity to put matters right before court proceedings are taken. Otherwise we shall land up in the position where more money is being spent on court costs than on the repairs. Therefore I propose in Amendment No. 285B that there shall be,
"reasonable notice in accordance with subsection (1B) below specifying the nuisance and requiring the same to be remedied",
served on the landlord or the person to whom the rent is normally paid. Since it is extremely difficult to calculate the reasonable period of notice—I am certainly not capable of doing so—we put on to the Secretary of State in subsection (1B) the responsibility of specifying the form and period of any notice by regulation. It is a trick which the Government have played many times and I am sure that they will not object to my shuffling off the responsibility on this occasion. I have no doubt that precedents are available to the Government and the department which are not available to me to determine what is useful.
That is one side of it. The other side of it is that there must be an obligation on the local authority. In other words, if notice has been served and the ability to go to the courts should not be taken away, the local authority or the other landlord must be obliged to take action as fast as is reasonably practicable to put things right.
The object of the exercise is not to take away the rights of tenants under this legislation but to ensure that those rights are exercised responsibly by giving notice to the landlord and giving a reasonable time for the matter to be put right before it goes to court. I do not know whether it is possible in the time that we have had to do this, to get the final form of words right, but I hope that the Government will recognise that we seek a reasonable balance on a very controversial issue. I hope that the Government will indicate that they understand the reasoning behind this and will aim for the same objective as ourselves. I beg to move.
1 a.m.
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I may take first Amendments Nos. 285A and 285C. Amendment No. 285A appears to be a paving amendment for Amendment No. 285C. We suggest that the latter amendment is both misconceived and unnecessary. It is misconceived because it would insert provision for a fine at a stage in the proceedings when the matter before the court is whether a nuisance order should be made. An offence is not committed unless the requirements of the nuisance order are contravened or not complied with. The amendment is unnecessary because subsection (4) makes provisions as to penalties for such an offence.
On Amendment No. 285B, we understand the concern of local authorities that local authority
1602
tenants should be required to give notice to them before making a complaint to the magistrates' court in respect of housing defects alleged to constitute a statutory nuisance.
We are also aware of the judgment in the Sandwell v. Bujok case, which was that a local authority tenant has the right to go direct to court without first informing his landlord that a repair is needed and allowing time for it to be undertaken. One of the main arguments of the local authority in the Bujok case was that under the existing legislation in the 1936 Act, where proceedings are brought under Section 99, the effect of Section 94(3) is that, if it is proved that the nuisance existed or was likely to recur at the date of the making of the complaint, the court must make an order for costs in favour of the informant. There is no such automatic entitlement to costs under Clause 79. The normal discretionary rules on costs will apply.
In our view the new statutory nuisance code will remove any case there might have been for mandatory notice to be given to the person responsible for a nuisance before summary proceedings are commenced for a nuisance order. We consider that to impose such a requirement would complicate unduly what should be a simple and accessible procedure. In awarding costs a court can take account of the effort made by the complainant to identify the property owner (no trivial matter in some private sector cases), the notice given to the defendant and whether the nuisance existed at the time of the complaint.
We also understand that the local authority will usually have been informed that a complaint has been made, if the tenant has not given it any earlier notice. In the time lag that normally occurs between the making of a complaint and the court hearing it will have a period in which to rectify the nuisance.
We are happy to consider the proposal in Amendment No. 285D. Amendment No. 286A would provide for the mandatory award of costs to the complainant if it is proved that the nuisance existed or was likely to recur at the date of the laying of the information. We are not in favour of such a provision. Under Clauses 77 and 79, the normal discretionary rules on costs would apply. The Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1973 gives the court inherent jurisdiction to award costs in such cases, and we are advised that a court would not unreasonably refuse to do so. As regards Amendment No. 286B, we are certainly willing to consider the position.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a complex answer which deserves careful study. I am grateful to the noble Earl for referring to the Sandwell case. As he well appreciated, it was behind a number of my amendments. I am grateful for the understanding with which he has approached two at least of my amendments. It may well be possible to bring back the others in a form which would meet the Government's requirements and still meet the undoubtedly conflicting interests of those who have been in touch with us. We have never sought to reflect the views of those who make representations to us blindly, but we have sought to reach a reasonable compromise which reflects the

1603
conflicting interests of landlord and tenant. We shall read the noble Earl's reply with great attention before we decide in what form to bring our amendments back. As regards the amendments that the Minister is willing to consider sympathetically, we would welcome an opportunity to talk to him about them between now and a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 285B to 285D not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 286:
Page 85, line 45, at end insert:
("( ) Where more than one person is responsible for a statutory nuisance, subsections (1) to (3) above shall apply to each of those persons whether or not what any one of them is responsible for would by itself amount to a nuisance.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 286 adds to Clause 79 a provision covering the situation where nuisances are caused by more than one person. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 286A and 286B not moved.]
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Termination of Public Health Act controls over offensive trades etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 287:
Page 87, line 24, at end insert ("or business").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend I wish to move Amendment No. 287 which is a minor technical amendment. It adds a reference to "business", being the Scottish equivalent of the term "trade" which is used for England and Wales, at the end of subsection (2) of Clause 81. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Lord Reay: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eight minutes past one o'clock.

  EC TRANSPORT MINISTERS COUNCIL, 18th–19th JUNE
  EC TRANSPORT MINISTERS COUNCIL, 18th–19th JUNE
  HMT "DUNERA": TREATMENT OF JEWISH REFUGEES
  HMT "DUNERA": TREATMENT OF JEWISH REFUGEES
  "AFTER SCREENING": REPORT ON BREAST CANCER DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES
  "AFTER SCREENING": REPORT ON BREAST CANCER DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES
  SHIPPING INDUSTRY STUDY: WORKING PARTY MEMBERSHIP
  SHIPPING INDUSTRY STUDY: WORKING PARTY MEMBERSHIP
  LONDON SIGHTSEEING BUSES: TRAFALGAR SQUARE STOP
  LONDON SIGHTSEEING BUSES: TRAFALGAR SQUARE STOP
  AIR TRANSPORT NEGOTIATIONS: EC COMMISSION COMPETENCE
  AIR TRANSPORT NEGOTIATIONS: EC COMMISSION COMPETENCE
  GATT NEGOTIATIONS: EC POSITION ON RESTRAINTS ON TRADE
  GATT NEGOTIATIONS: EC POSITION ON RESTRAINTS ON TRADE
  CHURCH SCHOOL CLOSURES
  CHURCH SCHOOL CLOSURES
  PUPILS' ATTAINMENT IN ENGLISH: ASSESSMENT
  PUPILS' ATTAINMENT IN ENGLISH: ASSESSMENT
  SAYE: AVAILABILITY THROUGH BANKS
  SAYE: AVAILABILITY THROUGH BANKS
  UK CITIZENS ABROAD WITH VOTING RIGHTS
  UK CITIZENS ABROAD WITH VOTING RIGHTS