Sitting of 5 March 1990

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

    Pensioners (Income)
    Mr. Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the increase in pensioners' average net incomes from (a) 1974 to 1979 and (b) 1979 to date.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Between 1974 and 1979, pensioners' average total net income rose by 3 per cent. in real terms. Newly available figures show that between 1979 and 1987 it rose by more than 30 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Harris: Given the significant difference between those two figures, will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the substantial record of this Government is far more important than the rhetoric of the Opposition, especially as the figures show that the Labour party has a miserable record in this important area?
    Mr. Newton: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. Taking the picture as a whole, it is certainly striking how much better pensioners have done under this Government than under the previous Labour Government. We have sought, by using income-related benefits, to assist, in particular, pensioners who do not have savings income and occupational pensions.
    Mr. Battle: Will not the Secretary of State admit that the removal of the transitional arrangements for housing benefit has meant that this year's increased pension for pensioners on income support has been wiped out? They are worse off this year—with the increase—than they were last year. Is not that the reality for many pensioners today?
    Mr. Newton: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is talking about the housing benefit transitional protection arrangements, but the change in those that is intended to take place in April represents a smaller proportion of the pension increase this year than last, so his point does not stand up to examination.
    Mr. Andrew Bowden: Although I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what has been achieved, will he look carefully at the position of the wartime generation of pensioners, many of whom were unable to save or to own their own homes, and many of whom have not shared fully in the increased standard of living of the vast majority of pensioners?
    Mr. Newton: Let me make two points. First, the figures to which I referred show that the proportion of pensioners in the lowest fifth of income distribution fell sharply between 1979 and 1987. Secondly, as I said in answer to the first supplementary question, we have sought to direct extra help to those who do not have savings and occupational pensions income.
    Mr. Flynn: The Minister will realise that we are less impressed by the figure of 30 per cent. because we read yesterday that top people's incomes have increased by 28 per cent. in a single year. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that under Labour basic pensions increased by 20 per cent., whereas under this Government they have increased by a miserly 2 per cent? Is not the truth that the rich are becoming richer on a prodigious scale while the poor are becoming poorer very rapidly? Is not the Minister filled with self-disgust at his role? Is not he tempted to leave office and do a runner or, as we say in Wales, do a Walker?
    Mr. Newton: On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I congratulate him on his ingenuity in asking the question and return a firm no to it. As to the rest of his question, he cannot have been listening to what I said. The other point that emerges from the 30 per cent. figure is that pensioners' incomes have been rising faster than those of the population at large.

    Income-related Benefits
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional help is being provided for families in receipt of income-related benefits.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): As a result of the reforms in April 1988, we provided an extra £200 million for low-income families with children. A further £70 million was provided under last April's uprating. From this coming April, we are providing additional help to less well-off families amounting to some £75 million in a full year, including help for families with disabled children and, through the social fund, maternity payment for expectant mothers. That brings the total amount of extra help provided for families with children in receipt of income-related benefits to over £350 million a year in real terms since April 1988.
    Mr. Taylor: My right hon. Friend gives some extremely welcome figures. As a general uprating of child benefit would not have helped those receiving income-related benefits and family credit, does my right hon. Friend agree that the specific targeted help under the family premium for those families is particularly important and more likely to hold them together, which is very important in this day and age?
    Mr. Scott: I agree with my hon. Friend. The help that we shall introduce in April with the family premium, help within the family credit scheme over and above compensating for inflation, extra help with housing benefit, the lone-parent premium—which is being improved in housing benefit and community charge benefit—and the earnings disregard are all examples of how we seek to target help on those who need it most.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister come clean and admit that many people are suffering since he abolished single

    573
    payments and replaced them with the social fund? Will he explain why a woman with five children in my constituency, who is being rehoused because of domestic violence, has been refused money under the social fund to buy beds for her children? She would have received that money under the single payments scheme.
    Mr. Winnick: Disgraceful.
    Mrs. Mahon: It is disgraceful, as my hon. Friend says. Why does not the Minister examine the failure of the social fund?
    Mr. Scott: There are several questions later on the Order Paper about the social fund. The decisions are taken by independent social fund officers. Anyone who is dissatisfied with a decision can ask for the case to be reviewed and, if necessary, investigated by a social fund inspector.

    Residential Care Homes
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding state support for pensioners in residential care homes.
    Mr. Scott: We have received a significant number of representations. Part of our response has been to provide an extra £100 million to increase all the national income support limits for people in residential care and nursing homes from this April. Current spending on income support payments to people in homes is now well in excess of £1 billion a year.
    Mr. Colvin: The House will be pleased to note the action already taken by the Government to close the gap between the cost of nursing homes—particularly following the welcome and substantial pay increase to nurses two years ago—and the cost to old people of living in those homes which is assisted by the Department of Social Security through income support.
    Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the Government's proposed top-up arrangements do not apply to existing residents in nursing homes? Will he therefore join my hon. Friends and myself in lobbying the Department of Health to extend that help to existing residents of nursing homes, not just to new entrants?
    Mr. Scott: I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes the fact that under the new arrangement people under and over pension age will be helped. With regard to the existing cases, we continue to have discussions with our colleagues in the Department of Health, but I cannot comment further than that today.
    Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister confirm that almost half the residents in residential care do not have their fees paid in full, even though they are on income support? Will we have to wait for evictions from those homes before the Government change their policy?
    Mr. Scott: No, I do not think so. Our commitment to improvement in residential care has been proved by the way in which we have allowed expenditure to increase from £10 million when we came to office to £1·1 billion now, by the continued growth in the population of those in residential and nursing homes and by the something like 10 per cent. per annum increase in the number of homes providing such care.
    Sir David Price: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the report of the Select Committee on Social Services which deals directly with the problem and makes a series of recommendations with which I will not detain the House now? Those recommendations require an early response before the Social Security Bill comes back to the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Scott: We received the report only on Friday. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that we want to give it rather longer consideration than just the past few days. I recognise the concern and feeling about the subject, not least as a result of my two appearances before the Select Committee on Social Services, of which my hon. Friend is a member. We are considering the matter carefully, but I do not believe that the Government can simply write a blank cheque to meet any charges, however high.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware of the increasing insistence of local authority leaders of all political persuasions that their lack of funds for community care is forcing more people into residential care who could live in the community with adequate local services and that the poll tax will compound their problems? Will he at least ensure that income support payments keep pace with the charges agreed by local authorities for new residents?
    Mr. Scott: I am not sure whether I can agree that. We introduced the new arrangements for community care which are part of the legislation currently before the House precisely because we believed that there was a perverse incentive for people to go into residential care, even when it was not the most suitable place for them to be. Making extra sources available for local authorities to provide care in the community is the right way to ensure that judgments can be made in the interests of patients or clients.

    Pensioners (Income)
    Mrs. Roe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the most recent figures he has for the change in pensioners' incomes from savings.
    Mr. Newton: Newly available figures show that between 1979 and 1987, pensioners' average income from savings more than doubled in real terms.
    Mrs. Roe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. What proportion of retired people receive income from occupational pensions?
    Mr. Newton: The proportion of pensioners overall who have income from occupational pensions is just over half, but among more recently retired pensioners the figure is now nearly three quarters.
    Mr. Winnick: Instead of trying to defend the shabby way in which pensioners have been treated by the Government, will the Secretary of State explain why, time and again, pensioners are penalised because they have saved during their working lives? If they have accumulated a sum of money, even quite a modest one by present-day standards, they are penalised in receiving benefit and unable to get rebates. As the Secretary of State and the Minister are well known for being somewhat wet in the Tory party, why do not they have the guts to do what the Secretary of State for Wales has done?
    Mr. Newton: Perhaps I may take the opportunity to remind the hon. Gentleman that, less than two years ago, the amount of capital that people could have and still receive supplementary benefit was only £3,000.
    Ms. Short: That is because they increased it to £10,000.
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady should check her facts before making sedentary interventions.
    There is now a taper from £3,000 to £6,000. The hon. Gentleman knows that the limit for housing benefit was raised to £8,000.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people who thought that they had made adequate provision for their retirement saw their savings devastated because of the rate of inflation under the Labour Government in the 1970s? Is he further aware that there is concern among Conservative Members about the savings threshold, particularly for community charge benefit? It appears to be a tax on thrift and prudence, because retired people may lose all claim to rebates if they have made efforts to save during their working lives.
    Mr. Newton: I recognise that the level at which capital limits are set is a matter for judgment. Our judgment was to increase them about two years ago, especially in relation to housing benefit and rate rebates. I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the more generous arrangements for community charge benefit than for rate rebates, in that it has a lower taper, will significantly help many people.

    Child Benefit
    Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of uprating child benefit to bring it to the same level in real terms as prevailed in 1984.
    Mr. Newton: About £635 million net in the current financial year.
    Ms. Primarolo: Is not the Secretary of State ashamed that child benefit, the most efficient way of getting money to families, is worth 19 per cent. less than it was in 1984? As the Government are notorious for leaks, will the Secretary of State confirm the rumour that the Government are to abolish child benefit, and will he make a statement on the matter, either before the Mid-Staffordshire by-election or before the next general election?
    Mr. Newton: We have no plans to do anything other than what we are committed to do and have been doing, which it to review the rate of child benefit each year in the light of all the circumstances and, of course, to devote considerable resources to assisting the least well-off families, as we have done on a large scale.
    Mrs. Currie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would not be sensible to use the enormous sum that he mentioned—two thirds of £1 billion—to assist not only the poorest families but some of the wealthiest in the country through child benefit uprating? If he wished to help the poorest families, would not it be wiser to make some modest change in the tax rules on benefits in kind to assist members of families who wish to get back to work?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, with her characteristic ingenuity, makes a point which I shall need to transmit to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall ensure that it is drawn to his attention. In response to the first part of her question, over £1 billion of expenditure on child benefit goes to 1·75 million families whose incomes are over £20,000 a year.
    Ms. Short: Is not it time that the Government came clean with mothers in Britain about their plans for the future of child benefit—a popular benefit with mothers at all income levels? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government's failure to uprate child benefit in line with inflation is depriving every child in Britain of £1·35 per week? Will he admit that the Government have breached their promise to the nation in the previous election manifesto? Does he agree that it would be hypocritical for a Government who have massively cut taxes for the rich to argue that child benefit should be means-tested when the effect of means-testing would be to deepen the poverty trap for women on low incomes wishing to return to work?
    Mr. Newton: The answer to every part of the hon. Lady's question is no. We have faithfully maintained the commitment in the 1987 manifesto and at the same time directed substantial additional resources to helping the least well-off families with children. As a result of what will happen next month, about 1·5 million families, with one quarter of the nation's children, will do better than if we had uprated child benefit.
    Mr. Kirkhope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the extra £70 million that will become available in income-related benefits to a quarter of children will give them substantially more than if there had been a general increase in child benefit, which is surely inequitable now?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, Sir.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total social fund allocation by grant and loan for the current financial year; and what was the equivalent figure for the last year of the single payments scheme.
    Mr. Scott: Expenditure on single payments in 1987–88 was £214 million with an average award of £77. The total social fund allocation to local offices for 1989–90 is £204 million with an average award of £203 for budgeting loans and £260 for community care grants.
    Mr. Corbyn: Last week, the High Court ruled that the administration of the social fund was illegal. What plans do the Government have to ensure that sufficient social fund money in local social security offices is available to meet the needs of people in every community, and that there will be equity in decision-making throughout the country? Does he agree that the present system of administration of the social fund is blatantly unfair, has resulted in a great deal of misery and represents an enormous cut in social security expenditure? Will he revert to the previous system of statutory single payments so that people in genuine and desperate need can get the help that they require and need not rely on the discretion of a local office which is cash-limited?
    Mr. Scott: I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of the social fund. If he took the trouble to look at the figures that I gave to the House—indeed if he had listened to them—he would see that what he said was manifestly out of order. Nor do I recognise his description of the High Court decision. The court simply said that some guidance had been drawn in too prescriptive a manner. Nothing in the judgment undermined the fundamental principles of the social fund. The judge said that he understood that Parliament expected the social fund to be run under strict monetary limits. I see no need to respond in any positive way to the hon. Gentleman's questions.
    Mr. McCrindle: Am I correct in thinking that about £3 million of additional resources have been directed to the social security offices under greatest pressure from claims under the social fund? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, irrespective of where one lives or the period of the fiscal year in which a claim is made, it means that, subject to all the conditions being satisfied, there should be no difficulty meeting the claims?
    Mr. Scott: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend back to the House and confirm that what he says is true. We undertook to monitor the operation of the social fund when it was introduced and found £3 million extra to help 106 local offices that were under particular pressure. I cannot completely agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's statement. Discretion, flexibility and targeting help on those who need it most may mean that different decisions will be taken in different parts of the country. However, our new procedures and the social fund inspectors seek to combine that discretion and flexibility with fairness.
    Mr. Meacher: Having been found guilty by the High Court nearly a fortnight ago of operating the social fund illegally, why has the Secretary of State still not issued any revised guidance to end the illegality? Is he aware that contrary to what the Minister of State just said, Lord Justice Woolf declared that the Secretary of State has imposed budget restraints in mandatory terms that were inconsistent with the intended flexible nature of the scheme? When will the right hon. Gentleman remove those budget restraints on the relief of poverty which should never have been imposed in the first place?
    Mr. Scott: Nothing in the judgment does anything to nullify the fact that social fund officers should have regard to the budget when making their decisions. The judgment stated that the guidance was an overriding priority when making those decisions. We have notified our local offices that for the time being the budget should continue to be taken into account but that it should not have an overriding impact. We are further considering what other action we may need to take in that area.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The Government must take more concrete and positive action as a result of the High Court decision and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do that with some urgency. It must be incompatible on the one hand to expect adjudication officers to use their discretion while on the other hand they run up against cash-limited budgets. Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that it is a double indignity to be given approval for a social fund payment in principle and then to be told that its payment is impossible because the
    578
    budget has been exhausted? That will simply lead to people being discouraged from making social fund applications in the future.
    Mr. Scott: We wish to ensure that the Government come forward with proposals and we shall want to consider whether they will be purely administrative or will need some legislative underpinning. In essence, I want to combine budgetary limits with flexibility. I do not believe that they are incompatible. They can operate in the interests of the taxpayer and of claimants.
    Mr. Rowe: Has my right hon. Friend heard a clear statement from any Opposition party that the implied suggestion that there should be no limit on the social fund is its policy?
    Mr. Scott: The Labour party has suggested that it wants to return to the old system of single payments, under which 80 per cent. of the money went to fewer than 20 per cent. of the claimants, and where we had an open-ended budget that rocketed up. All hon. Members know from constituency experience that the single payment system was open to widespread abuse.

    Family Incomes
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people live in families with incomes which are on, or within 40 per cent. above, the benefit level appropriate to their circumstances.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The information requested used to be published in the low-income families tables, but these are no longer published because of technical shortcomings and methodological deficiencies. This was explained in the report of the technical review of low-income statistics. The last figures covering the period up to 1985 were published in May 1988 and are available in the Library.
    Mr. Banks: Is not it true that the Government have ceased to collect statistics because they are so embarrassed about the number of people now in poverty? I understand that such figures have not been produced since 1985. How much has poverty increased under the Government? We understand that it has increased by 100 per cent. since 1979 and we believe that 10 million people now live in poverty. What is the truth? Does the Minister know? Should not the Minister be ashamed that this country's biggest growth industry appears to be the number of people in poverty?
    Mrs. Shephard: As I have said, the Government ceased to use the low-income family tables because of technical shortcomings and methodological deficiencies. We did so because the same measure was used for defining poverty and for the means of relieving it. The obvious concurrence of that was a cut in benefits, leading to a reduction in the number of those in poverty. That was a ludicrous approach.
    In response to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, all groups in the population have experienced an increase in their living standard over the past 10 years. Between 1981 and 1985, couples with children in the bottom decile had an increase of 8 per cent. There was an increase of 6 per cent. for those in the second bottom decile.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the plain truth is that under the Conservative Government those with the lowest incomes have done extraordinarily well and far better than under the Labour Government, when they saw their real incomes hardly move? It has been realised throughout the world that the creation of wealth comes first and that its distribution comes second. Unless we get it in that order, we shall never help the poor.
    Mrs. Shephard: The increase in the size of the social security budget is the direct result of the Government's successful economic policies. More than £1 billion a week is spent on social security benefits. That amounts to £20 per week for every man, woman and child.
    Mr. Meacher: Is it the Government's intention that the 7 million to 8 million adult claimants on income support will have to pay a sizeable chunk of poll tax? Is the Minister aware that the Government's 20 per cent. personal allowance applies only to their laughable guideline poll tax figure of £278, so that those on the poverty line will have to pay poll tax on at least a further £100? The Prime Minister said that the poorest would be protected from the poll tax. Is that yet another promise broken, like the right hon. Lady's promise 10 years ago that prescription charges would not be increased?
    Mrs. Shephard: Those on income support will be expected to pay 20 per cent. towards the cost of their community charge, for which an allowance is made within income support rates. Any increases during this year will be taken into account during next year's exercise.
    Mr. Paice: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important sector of the benefit population—those living on benefit—is single parents, primarily single mothers, where the father has abdicated any responsibility for the family? Will she ensure that the Government bring forward proposals as soon as possible to make sure that fathers do not get away with it, and that if necessary there will be an attachment of earnings or a deduction from benefit?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend will be aware that there have been increases in premiums in housing benefit and in community charge benefit for lone parents, and that there is to be a much more generous disregard for housing benefit with effect from October. He is right in saying, however, that much closer attention needs to be given to the amount of maintenance that is paid by fathers for the upkeep of their children. That is precisely what the Government's study and review are intended to achieve.

    Incomes
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people live on incomes below the appropriate benefit level for their circumstances.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Estimates of eligible non-recipients of income-related benefits are contained in the technical notes on take-up, copies of which are available in the Library. These notes contain analyses for 1985, the latest year for which information is available.
    Mr. McAvoy: Is not the Minister's answer that, in effect, the relevant figures indicative of the Government's attitude to poorer people have been phased out? As the
    580
    Minister said, the latest figures available are those for 1985. Does she think that by abolishing the figures that reflect poverty, she is abolishing poverty?
    Mrs. Shephard: No. In reply to earlier questions, I said that the series of income analyses, based on the households with below average income, are designed to provide an appropriate and accurate measure of people's differing living standards. They are the result of a technical review conducted by officials in the Department. They will focus on the incidence of incomes below the average, and we believe that they will give a more realistic picture.
    Mr. Hind: Of those living just above benefit level, many are pensioners, a high proportion of whom are living on fixed incomes. All these people are hit hard by increases in standard charges, whether for heating, electricity or the community charge. Should not we keep material evidence on that group, to assess how those in it are coping? Will my hon. Friend look at that problem again?
    Mrs. Shephard: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. One of the problems with a social security system is that one has to draw lines somewhere. As I have already said, those lines, and levels, will be reviewed as part of this year's exercise.

    Family Incomes
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children live in families with income on, or within 40 per cent. above, the appropriate benefit level for their circumstances.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to question No. 11.
    Mr. Pike: When will the Minister accept that the poorest section of the community suffers worst as a result of the freezing of child benefits, the forcing up of council house rents because of ring-fencing, and mortgage interest increases? Does she intend to increase the number of people at or just above poverty level? Is it not time that the Government gave more help to those most in need?
    Mrs. Shephard: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the considerable improvements aimed at helping poorer families. Since April 1988, some 1·5 million families with 3 million children have had what I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree are quite substantial increases in their income-related benefits, amounting to £350 million in all. That includes increases in premiums, an extra £1 a week above inflation in the pocket of the mother, lower-paid working families getting family credit and additional help in housing benefit. The Government's social security system targets help.
    Mr. Viggers: Is not the European Community definition of poverty, on which the Opposition make so much play, bogus, because it depends on a standard of benefit that is so ridiculous that it would mean that the more that we increased benefit, the more poor people there would be?
    Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have a network of proper income support, which is not to be found in the countries of our European Community partners.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister accept that the problem is not caused by technical deficiencies or deficiencies in methodology? Is she aware that every time she or any of her colleagues are challenged about the refusal of one benefit or another, they say that the appeals system will take care of that? However, the appeals system is clogged up because of the directions that she and other Ministers have given that payments should be reduced.
    Mrs. Shephard: I accept that the work load of the appeals system fluctuates from time to time. I remind the hon. Gentleman that while some people are worse off than others, one thing is certain—no Government have ever accepted the proposition that one can draw a single poverty line with some on one side and some on the other. I remind him that the social security system, with its total budget of £55 billion a year, gives more extensive and better coverage than any other social security system that we have had.

    Staff Relocation
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in relocating his Department's staff away from the London area.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 14 November 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that a substantial amount of the Department's work in London was to be relocated to Leeds. A site for the new headquarters building in Leeds has been identified, and I expect that the relocation of posts from London will begin from the end of 1991.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I give cautious thanks for that reply, for two reasons. First, is not my hon. Friend concerned that the hon. Gentleman who leads for the Opposition on this topic, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), seems to be in total opposition to the move from London to the midlands and the north, which represents a much-needed improvement of the economy and employment? Secondly, I should have hoped that any reasonable person would consider that the city of Nottingham was a much better place to go than the city of Leeds.
    Mrs. Shephard: Nottingham was included among the possible locations for the move of the Department of Social Security. Leeds was decided upon after the most careful consideration of its advantages, which are many. Indeed, it was the first choice among the staff who had an interest in relocating.

  THE ARTS

    Charitable Status
    Mr. Charles Wardle: To ask the Minister for the Arts what assessment he has undertaken of the impact of charitable status upon arts bodies.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): Arts bodies that are charities derive considerable benefits from their charitable status. Under the new arrangements for the unified business rate, the minimum mandatory rate
    582
    relief that local authorities must give to charities is to go up from 50 to 80 per cent. Local authorities continue to have discretion to give up to 100 per cent. relief to charities.
    Mr. Wardle: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House roughly how many gainers there will be among arts bodies as a result of the change to charitable status? Have not various recent Government initiatives led to a substantial increase in corporate and private donations to the arts, and has not central Government and local government spending increased considerably as well?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. It is not possible to be precise about the number of net gainers among the charitable bodies in the arts. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that the four national companies—the royal opera house, English National Opera, the royal national theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company—are all net gainers. My hon. Friend is right that the amount of corporate sponsorship is still increasing. It is estimated to be at least £35 million a year in support of the arts.

    National Film and Television School
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has any plans to expand the National Film and Television School.
    Mr. Luce: I am increasing the grant to the National Film and Television School from £1·7 million in 1989–90 to £1·85 million in 1991–92 and will shortly be considering plans for its longer-term future.
    Mr. Haynes: What a measly increase. When will the Minister do his job properly? Is he aware of the massive expansion of the school? Is he aware that there is a need for a European school? Is he aware of the expansion that there will be, and that the European School needs to be in the United Kingdom? If he funds the school properly, we shall get the European school here. The Minister should remember that we have had many successful actors—we have produced the finest in the world and we want to continue to do so. It is necessary for us, in the United Kingdom, to be involved with the European school.
    Hon. Members: Encore.
    Mr. Skinner: Will you refuse your Oscar, Frank?
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) anticipated me. I am deeply disappointed that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has not yet received an Oscar for drama, but no doubt it will come in due course. I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the film industry, so I am all the more surprised that he has not acknowledged that in the past 10 years there has been an increase in real terms of 83 per cent. in Government resources and overall resources for the National Film and Television School. If he had acknowledged that, I might have been able to take his question a little more seriously.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to Radio Nottingham, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has been offered a part in a film by none other than David Puttnam? Can he confirm that, following the hon. Gentleman's departure from the House after the next general election—which all Conservative

    583
    Members regret—the National Film and Television School will be able to provide a place for the hon. Gentleman if he applies?
    Mr. Luce: That is one of the best recommendations that I have heard, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

    Arts (Southwark)
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the amount of Government money which went to arts organisations or activities in Southwark in the last year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Luce: In the current year, Greater London Arts has given £477,000 to 60 different activities and organisations in the borough of Southwark. The imperial war museum received £10·4 million, and the local museums and galleries in London receive financial support and advice via the Museums and Galleries Commission.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for the Minister's answer. Is he aware, however, of the double danger that faces boroughs such as Southwark in the coming financial year? Much of the money provided for the arts on the abolition of the GLC expires this year and will not be renewed. If the Secretary of State for the Environment were to poll-tax-cap Southwark, there would probably be no funding for the arts at all, either in Southwark or docklandswide. Will the Minister talk to his right hon. Friend, and make sure that the implications of poll tax and poll-tax-capping are clear? Discretionary funding will probably disappear altogether if any such idea crosses the desks in Marsham street.
    Mr. Luce: It is entirely up to the borough of Southwark to decide what sums it can and should provide for artistic activities on behalf of its ratepayers. I note with interest that, over the past year, Scottish local authorities—despite the introduction of the community charge in Scotland a year ago—have been keeping up their support for the arts: vast sums are not required to provide them with good support and to enable them to flourish.
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the great work done by arts institutions in Southwark such as the Southwark Heritage Association, the Shakespeare Globe trust and the Dulwich picture gallery, and of the enterprising way in which they have attracted not only public support but business sponsorship. Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment at Southwark council's reluctance to support those artistic institutions financially, morally or in some other way?
    Mr. Luce: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's view. The Dulwich picture gallery, for example, is an outstanding centre of excellence. It makes a strong bid for private sector support and, indeed, I am going there to support its appeal for extra funds. Certainly such bodies deserve support, as does any centre of excellence.

    National Companies
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will discuss with the Arts Council steps to reduce the deficits of the national companies.
    Mr. Luce: It is for the Arts Council to decide the level at which the national companies are funded. In 1990–91 they will each receive a grant increase of 11 per cent.
    Mr. Banks: What other European country would treat its national companies as the Government treat ours? The Minister knows that the companies have been examined independently, and that the way in which they spend their grant has been found to be most efficient. Will he consider providing additional funds? Could his Ministry, for instance, fund the national centres directly rather than through the Arts Council—or will all this be stopped by the Queen of the Goths over at No. 10?
    Mr. Luce: Clearly the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. I have already told him that next year will see one of the biggest cash increases ever provided: the total increase for the four main national companies will be just under £4 million.
    I also find it odd that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that copying other countries is necessarily the right answer. The key question that we must ask ourselves is, "What is the quality of these national institutions?" We must ask ourselves whether they are of the highest quality—and the answer is yes. We have every reason to be proud of them.
    Mr. Jessel: The national companies are indeed of tremendously high quality. In view of the 11 per cent. increase that my right hon. Friend has announced, however, does not he think that they should try a little harder to live within their means?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. Every institution in the artistic world must live within its means and manage i is resources carefully, given the total amount of money that it has. However, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said earlier, the Arts Council is to receive a substantial increase next year—£20 million extra in cash resources—and 22 per cent. extra, in cash terms, during the next three years, together with three-year funding. That must be a sound basis on which to plan its finances.
    Mr. Fisher: Does not the Minister realise that, even after taking into account last year's increase, the funding of all those companies will be below the rate of inflation over the past five years? That is why the accumulated deficit of the national companies comes to over £7 million. The figures that the Minister announced today will not begin to tackle that problem. The deficits will not go away. The Minister cannot run away and hide from them. If he does not pay off the deficits, it will not be just the Royal Shakespeare Company in London that will close; other companies and other theatres will close. Ten years of Tory mismanagement will leave the arts bankrupt—literally.
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. He is again asking me directly to intervene and to undermine the arm's length policy. If a Socialist Government were ever elected, they would undermine the arm's length policy that has operated since the end of the Second World War under successive Governments. The hon. Gentleman seems to ignore the plain fact that the Arts Council is to receive a £20 million cash increase in the coming year. It is for the Arts Council to decide how to distribute that sum—not the Ministry, not my officials, not me. That is the right principle on which to operate.

    Opera and Ballet
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has held with the chairman of the Arts Council regarding the funding of national opera and ballet companies.
    Mr. Luce: I meet the chairman regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest, including the funding of arts bodies.
    Mr. Bowis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who fought long and hard on behalf of English National Opera and its sister ballet company for an increase in funding and then for saving the Westminster funding element are grateful to him for managing to solve those twin problems? However, can he reassure me that that problem will not arise year after year and that he will ensure that there is adequate funding, particularly to cover the Westminster funding element, in the years to come?
    Mr. Luce: Like my hon. Friend, I am glad that the Arts Council has decided largely to replace the funding that has been withdrawn by Westminster city council. As I explained in the House during a recent Adjournment debate, the method of funding by the London boroughs arises from the London rate equalisation scheme, which allows the subsidy to be shared among all the boroughs and to be paid by Westminster city council. In recent years, Westminster city council's domestic ratepayers have not been paying a subsidy to support the two institutions that my hon. Friend mentioned. There will now be substantial increases for English National Ballet and English National Opera.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Staff Numbers
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Minister for Civil Service what is the latest figure he has for the total number of Civil Service staff in post; and what was the comparable figure in 1979.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary informed the House in December 1989, the total number of Civil Service staff in post is about 565,000. That represents a reduction of over one fifth on the figure for 1979 of about 732,000.
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend expect further reductions to be made in coming years? Is he satisfied that in the senior grades one to four of the home Civil Service non-industrial grades only about 5 per cent. of the posts are held by women? If he is not satisfied, how could he achieve greater equilibrium?
    Mr. Luce: On my hon. Friend's latter point, only 6 per cent. of the posts in senior grades one to three are held by women. That is a very disappointing figure. It is largely for that reason that we have put in hand an action programme to promote equality of opportunity for women. It is not possible to predict the size of the Civil Service in future years, but it is to the great credit of the Civil Service that one of the reasons for the decrease in its size during the
    586
    past 10 years has been its programme for getting better value for money. That has led to a decrease in the number of civil servants employed, totalling 110,000.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Minister explain how it can be a credit when the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the accounts of the national insurance fund, published last week, had to qualify that? The report stated that there was a serious lack of skilled resources to tackle deliberate evasion by some employers, with the resulting huge under-collection of national insurance contributions. Will the Minister explain why it takes 30 days for the passport office to process passports and why the civil servants working in the Department of Social Security at Tottenham were on strike a few weeks ago because of understaffing? Will the Minister pay more attention to providing quality standards for the public and stop boasting about the number of civil servants he can cut?
    Mr. Luce: Of course, the quality of public services provided by the Civil Service and the Government is a matter of great concern. That is one reason why agencies are being established around the country. One of their main purposes is to introduce performance targets and to improve the quality of service. We already have an outstandingly good Civil Service and we are trying to help it become even better.

    Civil Service Training College
    Mr. Ashby: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last visited the Civil Service training college; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Luce: I last visited the Civil Service college three weeks ago.
    Mr. Ashby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of our Commissioners in Brussels has expressed the view that he is better served by higher quality civil servants, than the other Commissioners in Brussels? Is not that a reflection of the high quality of our civil servants and particularly their training?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is quite clear from the evidence of a number of other countries in Europe and elsewhere that are interested in what is happening in the British Civil Service and the introduction of the latest reforms, that there is great admiration for the standard of our Civil Service. The Civil Service college at Sunningdale, which concentrates on senior management, is doing an outstanding job and we should be very proud of it.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Surely, pride in the quality of training in no way offsets the worries that the Minister should have about the increasing resignation rate among the high flyers, the fast stream in the Civil Service, as there are increasing differentials between their pay and that of their counterparts outside. What does the Minister have to say about that increasing trend and what does he intend to do about it?
    Mr. Luce: Although recruitment is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, unless the right hon. Gentleman is focusing on one area, there is not a massive loss of high quality civil servants. There is bound to be some interchange, and that is not unhealthy for the Civil Service. We also have secondments,

    587
    but certainly we have a much more flexible pay policy, which is designed to deal more effectively with recruitment and retention.

    Agencies
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on progress on implementing the agency programme.
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many areas of activity have now been granted executive agency status; and how many new agencies he expects to be created over the next 12 months.
    Mr. Luce: Progress is very good. Eleven executive agencies have so far been established and I expect many more shortly. The first agencies are achieving tangible improvements in the efficiency and quality of Government services.
    Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress that has been made. Will he confirm, despite the disgraceful and partisan scare campaign, that those who work in the agencies enjoy Civil Service conditions of work and Civil Service pensions?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right on the latter point. When an agency is established, that does not mean that the civil servants automatically lose their status. On the contrary: they remain a salient part of the Civil Service, and unless, after consultation, their conditions are adjusted, those also remain the same. There is now a great speeding up in the introduction of agencies. There will be a major introduction with the employment service becoming an agency next month, and I expect that by the summer a large proportion of the Civil Service will be moving in that direction.
    Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, with the 11 agencies already established, when the 43 agency candidates identified become agencies, more than one third of the Civil Service will have done so? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that gives a better sense of identity to the employers in those agencies and will answer the Comptroller and Auditor General's report when the collection of employers' contributions comes under an agency?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. All the candidates—which now amount to 44, including the DSS contributions and benefits agencies—amount to one third of the Civil Service. We are now making steady progress and with the introduction of a large number of agencies this spring and summer, the Civil Service will begin to transform in a major way.
    Mr. Loyden: Has the Minister any plans to reduce the number of civil servants who administer the benefits system as a prelude to its privatisation, which I understand may lead to an American firm operating it?
    Mr. Luce: That subject is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. A decision has been taken to create two large agencies to
    588
    administer the benefits and contributions functions of the Department of Social Security. Under our agencies policy, we first decide whether services are fit to be privatised. If the Minister decides that they are not suitable, the next option is to decide whether they should be established as agencies. As agencies, they remain within the Government system and their staff remain civil servants.

    Trade Unions
    Mr.Skinner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he has any plans to meet Civil Service trade union representatives; and what matters he proposes to discuss.
    Mr. Luce: I meet the Civil Service unions from time to time to discuss a range of matters.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister have a look at the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, which states that about £350 million for the Inland Revenue has not been collected from employers, who have taken that money off employees? Will he ensure that proper inspectors are appointed so that those arrears are collected? Will he bear it in mind that people who claim unemployment and other benefits are being told by the Department of Social Security, "You cannot claim benefit because your employer has not handed over the proper contributions"? If he looks into that and stops hounding one-parent families, he will be doing his job properly.
    Mr. Luce: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the creation of those agencies will make the Civil Service ensure that it obtains good value for money. The service already achieves that, but the creation of the agencies will move us further in that direction and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support that objective.

    Racial Discrimination
    Mr. Charles Wardle: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to eliminate racial discrimination in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Luce: The Government are an equal opportunity employer. They have a range of policies to prevent racial discrimination and are drawing up a formal programme for action to increase equality of opportunity for people of ethnic minority origin, which I plan to launch in May.
    Mr. Wardle: Is not it essential that the Civil Service leads the way in this country, in ensuring that racial discrimination does not affect the progress of anyone at work?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the policy of equality of opportunity, it is right to have a positive action programme for such subjects. About 4·2 per cent. of ethnic minorities are represented in the Civil Service, which roughly reflects the working population. They are not represented at senior level, but we must ensure true equality of opportunity.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Oh, dear. I shall take the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) first.
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the current edition of The House Magazine?
Mr. Speaker: But I do not have responsibility for that.
Mr. Holt: I know that, Sir, but you do have responsibility for your instruction on taxis at the Members' entrance. Consequently, I should like to draw your attention to an article written by Simon Heifer, in which he threatens Members of Parliament. He says that journalists are keeping a "list of offenders" of Members of Parliament who exercise their right to take precedence at the taxi rank.
Mr. Speaker: It does not seem to be a matter of great parliamentary moment.
Mr. Holt: I am sorry that you, Mr. Speaker, do not see this as important, but then you do not have to queue up for a taxi. The article says that at least one of the journalists
"is keeping a list of offenders, some of them occasionally look to the press to report uncritically their views on certain important matters. Should they be concerned about the future quality of that reporting, a little less urgency"
will be required.
There is an order at the Members' entrance in your name, Mr. Speaker, stating that Members will take precedence. In the light of the threat in that article, will you kindly look into this and let us have your views?
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is such a notice. I hardly think that the hon. Member needs my protection in a matter of this kind.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker—that one.
Mr. Speaker: All right.
Mr. Skinner: I think that you could have responded to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), who referred to not being able to get a taxi, by saying that, if he hangs around a little longer, he will find that some ministerial cars are empty. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman makes inquiries of the Secretary of State for Wales and asks the Prime Minister how many more Cabinet Ministers whispered in her ear last September, "Give it a few months—I shall be leaving."
Mr. Speaker: There are many things that I might have said to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). The House knows that the Services Committee has reported on this matter and that precedence is indeed given to Members who require a taxi.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It cannot really be further to the point of order.
Mr. Haynes: Well it is, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Is it really? Very well.
Mr. Haynes: I do not know whether you are aware of the all-party cycling group. I suggest that you tell the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) to join it, and get some of that weight off.
Mr. Speaker: Good idea.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: May I raise a serious and genuine point of order with you, Mr. Speaker? I know that that sounds unusual. On the proper day laid down for questions to the Department of Trade and Industry, I tabled a question to ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to give the trends in manufacturing industry productivity over the past 12——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Was the question transferred, or disallowed?
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It was transferred. None of my questions would be disallowed—all my colleagues know that. I came to the House today in my usual innocent manner and found that my question had been transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I did not mention interest rates, where the Exchequer always likes to get its hand——
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Surely I can finish my question, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must have heard dozens of times——
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member has, because he is in the Chamber regularly. This matter has been put to me dozens of times. I have no responsibility for the transfer of questions; that is entirely a matter for the Goverment.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: May I continue once more, Sir? I hate to bore you, but surely you, as Mr. Speaker, are in charge of allowing Members to ask questions of Secretaries of State without them, as in some kind of Russian roulette, changing them so that no one has to answer. If a Secretary of State does not want to answer a question, he can transfer it to someone else, which means that the Member concerned will not have a chance to ask that question for another month. We must have some protection against this transfer system.
Mr. Speaker: It has ever been thus. Ministers who believe that they have no responsibility——
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) is getting desperate. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak will listen to me, not to Members across the Gangway.
It has always been a fact that Ministers transfer questions if they are not within the responsibility of their

591
Department. I feel sorry for the hon. Member, because this occasionally happened to me, but he must take up his complaint with the Department concerned.
Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. No doubt it has been reported to you that there was a bit of bother in the Chamber on Friday, because we did not reach the Radiation Exposed Crown Employees (Benefits) Bill, which would have given pensions to veterans who had taken part in nuclear tests. During the filibuster on the Planning Permission (Demolition of Houses) Bill, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) failed early in his speech to declare his interests. It was only after the intervention of about five Opposition Members that the hon. Member said:
"I shall eventually come on to the part of my speech in which I declare that interest."—[Official Report, 2 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 551]
I then quoted, at column 552, "Erskine May":
"A Member will normally declare his interest at the beginning of his remarks."
Later——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is quite right: I was not present on Friday. However, I always look at Hansard. I see, in column 551, that this very matter was dealt with by Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to that; there is nothing more to be done about it now.
Mr. Boyes: If an hon. Member, on either side of the House, has an interest to declare, the person in the Chair must at some time determine whether or not that Member has spoken for long enough to have declared his interest. On the basis of Friday's interpretation, a Member could make a one-hour speech and declare an interest only in the 59th minute. Before his declaration, a number of points affecting the whole debate might have been made. "Normally" has to have some specific meaning.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go back on this matter. However, later this week there will be a debate on the whole matter of Members' interests. The whole House knows the rule: that if an hon. Member on either side of the House——
Mr. Skinner: That debate is about John Browne's body.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that, if a Member has a personal interest to declare, he should always declare it.
Mr. Ray Powell: On a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker, not a bogus one. It is very relevant, and I am sure that you will be able to give a decision on it. Last Thursday—St. David's day—we debated Welsh affairs for six hours. During that time, the Secretary of State for Wales had an opportunity to announce his impending retirement. Have you, Mr. Speaker, received from the Government any notification concerning a statement regarding——
Mr. Speaker: No. I am afraid that points of order do not come much more bogus than that.

Orders of the Day
  Aviation and Maritime Security Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Aviation and Maritime Security Bill
    New clause 1

      COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN MEASURES TAKEN UNDER PART III
      ".—(1) The provisions of this section have effect where, in compliance with a direction under section 24 of this Ad or in compliance with an enforcement notice, the person to whom the direction was given or on whom the notice was served takes any measures consisting of the construction, execution, alteration, demolition or removal of a building or other works on land either within or outside a harbour area.
      (2) If the value of any interest in that land to which a person is entitled is depreciated in consequence of the taking of those measures, or the person having such an interest suffers loss in consequence of them by being disturbed in his enjoyment of any of that land, he is entitled to compensation equal to the amount of the depreciation or loss.
      (3) If any land other than the land on which the measures are taken is injuriously affected by the taking of those measures, any person having an interest in that other land who suffers loss in consequence of its being injuriously affected is entitled to compensation equal to the amount of the loss.
      (4) Any compensation to which a person is entitled under this section shall be payable to him by the person by whom the measures in question were taken.
      (5) The provisions of Schedule (Provisions relating to compensation) to this Act have effect for the purposes of this section; and subsections (1) to (4) above have effect subject to the provisions of that Schedule."—[Mr. Portillo]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.42 pm
      The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, we are to discuss Government amendment No. 10.
      Mr. Portillo: This Bill is a serious measure dealing with serious matters. I think that every member, from which ever side of the House, of the Standing Committee would agree that it was considered very seriously in Committee and that Government, Official Opposition and SLD Members made their best contributions to try to improve its wording. For that, I pay tribute to all concerned.
      New clause is accompanied by Government amendment No. 10, which relates to the schedule that would go with the new clause. The schedule relates to compensation procedures for third parties whose land interests are affected by security measures. This matter was raised in Committee, and the Government indicated that they would introduce appropriate legislation. Both the clause and the schedule parallel existing provisions available under aviation security provisions.
      Although, when the Bill was drafted, it was not envisaged that such compensation facilities would ever be needed—indeed, experience of the aviation provisions supports that view—it seems right to have a system available to ensure that no third party would ever be unduly penalised by security works. The compensation will be paid by the person who carried out the work required by a direction. It would be for him to decide how

      593
      to finance the cost of the compensation, although, in all likelihood, it would be treated in the same way as any other security provision cost.
      Despite the probably infrequent use of this clause, I commend its addition to the Bill as a necessary safeguard for, and help to, those people indirectly affected by the Bill's proposals.
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) in particular was worried about how disagreements on levels of compensation might be settled. The proposed schedule in amendment No. 10 is modelled on a schedule that is already available in the Aviation Security Act 1982, which provides that the values will be calculated in accordance with rules laid down in the Land Compensation Act 1961.
      In the event of any disagreement, the matter can be referred to the Lands Tribunal for settlement.
      I think that the hon. Gentleman was also concerned about how the costs might be applied to certain people who were affected. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to clause 28(2), which allows that any person given a direction requiring works that affect a third party can object to it because the measures are excessively onerous. The onerousness could come from the level of compensation being sought. The minimum objection period of 30 days could be lengthened by the Secretary of State while the issue is resolved—probably by reference to the Lands Tribunal.
      I hope that the new clause, which we discussed in outline in Committee, and the accompanying schedule commend themselves to the House.
      Mr. Frank Doran: I thank the Minister for the way in which he has introduced the new clause, which, as he made clear, deals with points that we raised in Committee.
      I seek clarification of one or two aspects of the new clause. The Minister for Aviation and Shipping led us to expect that, under the new clause, the harbour board would be responsible for all compensation but it now appears that the party who is subject to the notice will be liable for his own compensation. That is obviously progress, although the Opposition remain concerned about a number of matters.
      We have a now elaborate system of direction and enforcement notices, set out in legislation and backed by severe penalties but, as I understand it, where no compulsory powers are attached to the operation of the directions, any third party can stifle the operation and intention of a direction or enforcement notice served by the Secretary of State. That is a cause for concern not in respect of the more mundane changes that may be required in security arrangements—day-to-day changes, which are subject to negotiation—but in respect of urgent circumstances. Perhaps the Minister will explain exactly what will happen in such urgent cases.
      I also seek clarification of the effect of the notices and directions. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the circumstances in planning law under which property can become blighted. Is it possible that property will become blighted as a result of the service of directions, and what are the implications of that?
      594
      On the broader issues, we accept and welcome the new clause, because it takes account of the serious points made in Committee.
      Mr. Portillo: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps Ministers' explanations in Committee were not as clear as they might have been. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) has correctly understood that the directions can apply to any party, and that it is the party to whom the directions apply who will be responsible for awarding compensation to third parties who are affected; it could be a harbourmaster, it could be a shipping line or it could be another party.
      I hope to go a long way to answering a number of the hon. Gentleman's questions by explaining that it seems likely that in many cases the works that need to be carried out will be works in the harbour area. In circumstances in which the works fall within the harbour area, the Bill settles the matter clearly because the directions within the harbour area overrule any other Act or rule of law—that is made clear in clause 34—and will apply irrespective of anything that might be in contract. If the works are in the harbour, it is clear that the direction takes precedence. The party to whom the direction has been addressed is responsible for ensuring that the works are carried out and can compensate a third party. In other words, the third party may well be within the harbour area.
      For example, a harbour authority may be given a direction which required it to construct a wall. That wall may impinge upon a third party—for example, a shipping line which has property within the harbour area. The direction within the harbour area would take precedence over any other Act or rule of law or contract, but the harbourmaster would arrange compensation with the third party in that case.
      Mr. Barry Field: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have discussed the concerns of the British Ports Federation on this point and the requirement on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under the Bill to order harbour authorities to demolish or alter buildings. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the new clause has the agreement of the British Ports Federation and also meets the precise point with which the federation has been in consultation with the Department of Transport?
      Mr. Portillo: I have no further information about what discussions may have continued about that since we last spoke about it. Perhaps I will receive more news during the course of the debate and I will come back to my hon. Friend about that if I do.
      Mr. Field: So far as I can understand the new clause, it appears to meet the precise point that the British Ports Federation asked me to make in Committee.
      Mr. Portillo: I realise that my hon. Friend made his intervention in a helpful spirit, and I hope to give him some confirmation about that.
      In response to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, I believe that it is rather unlikely that a third party outside the harbour area would be affected. If we were considering the construction of a wall along the boundary of the harbour and the adjoining area, the rules governing party walls, which I understand are general rules to be found in planning law, would apply.
      If we were considering a matter that took the harbour authority considerably outside its own terrain, the hon.

      595
      Member for Aberdeen, South would be right to say that there was nothing in the new clause to force the third party to grant that the necessary works be carried out. On the other hand, in such an unlikely event, there is a method in the new clause to settle the compensation.
      To show how unlikely that event is, I should say that, during the time that the equivalent provisions have been in operation for aviation security, there have been no cases in which such compensation has had to be paid. Whereas most cases are likely to be within the harbour area, it is likely that the parties would agree among themselves on compensation. If a direction was given to the harbour authority and perhaps a corresponding direction to a shipping company and each must carry out works, I imagine that they would probably agree between themselves on appropriate compensation, although there is a fallback, in that it can be referred to the Lands Tribunal.
      Mr. Doran: What about blight?
      Mr. Portillo: It seems most unlikely that blight will arise. The probability is that the works would be within the harbour area. I cannot see blight occuring within a harbour area, and that would not be blight in any commonly accepted way. I find it hard to imagine, except perhaps through the building of a wall along a boundary, what works would go far outside the harbour area. That is why the question of blighting does not arise. If, on reflection the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South believes that there is a point to pursue on that, perhaps he can take it up with me in correspondence.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 2

      RESPONSIBILITY OF OWNERS, CHARTERERS AND MANAGERS
      '.—(1) Any direction under section 21 or 24 of this Act shall be given first to the owner, charterer or manager of a ship in respect of which such a direction may be given.
      (2) The Secretary of State may give a direction under section 21 or 24 of this Act to the master of a ship only after the Secretary of State's best endeavours have failed to secure compliance by the owner, charterer or manager with a similar direction in respect of that ship.'.—[Ms. Ruddock.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Ms. Joan Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments Nos. 1 to 3.
      Amendment No. 11, in clause 29, page 32, line 7, after 'Act)', insert,
      'provided that the best endeavours of the Secretary of State have failed to secure compliance by the owner, charterer or manager of a ship with the direction to which such an enforcement notice relates,'.
      Government amendments Nos. 4 to 7 and Government amendment No. 15.
      Ms. Ruddock: The new clause follows on from the debate in Committee, in which we sought unsuccessfully to remove "master" from clause 17 and to insert "master" in subsequent clauses. Our purpose, then as now, was to recognise the reality of the world in which shipmasters operate.
      596
      In the Bill as originally drafted, the Government had implicitly recognised the difference between masters and the other three categories of persons, namely, the owners, charterers and managers, to whom directions might be given or from whom information might be sought. A distinction was made between foreign and British-owned ships. It was clear to us, and the Minister admitted in Committee, that the master of a foreign ship was being drawn into the provisions of the Bill simply because he was thought to be more accessible than the owners, charterers or managers. Opposition Members argued then and we still maintain that the onerous responsibilities and penalties that are imposed by the Bill should fall on those who have the resources and authority to comply.
      Our new clause is an attempt to recognise those realities while accepting the Minister's intransigence. In new clause 2, we propose that when a direction is given, it is
      "given first to the owners, charterer or manager".
      In a consequential amendment, No. 11, we provide for an enforcement notice to be served on a master only when
      "the best endeavours of the Secretary of State have failed to secure compliance by the owner, charterer or manager".
      The National Union of Maritime, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers complained bitterly that misconceptions about the power and authority of a shipmaster abound and that the law is being framed as though a master has complete control of his ship and can call on unlimited financial, technical and human resources. The union feels strongly that the Bill would place responsibilities on masters that legislators would not dream of placing on captains of aircraft.
      A recent article on masters by Michael Gray in Lloyd's List states:
      "Rich in responsibility but poverty stricken in authority would seem to sum up the wretched modern master and his miserable life afloat.…in port after port come the legions of those earnestly requesting the master's signature to sign his life away, to commit himself to all manner of circumstances over which he cannot possibly have any control whatsoever. He is required to take responsibility for matters well beyond his actual minimal authority. And no matter how energetically he notes protest, how carefully he seeks to absolve himself from the consequences of his actions, it is his signature that is on the document, it is he who is ultimately liable."
      According to the article, at a recent conference, Captain Colin Evans, the secretary general of the International Federation of Shipmasters' Associations, said that he believed that
      "the burden on shipmasters had increased beyond the bounds of reason.
      He saw a combination of factors conspiring against the master's peace of mind—tight manning, the multi-cultural crew, ever increasing pressure to sail, to stand on, to arrive in time. The master, said Captain Evans, was just not given the resources or the authority to enable him to do his job properly."
      It is in recognition of the facts as presented to us by NUMAST that we move new clause 2. Without that clause, Government amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 cannot be justified.
      Briefly, the amendments would ensure that the same duties are imposed on masters of British ships as are imposed on masters of foreign ships. That is a retrograde step, because the real responsibility, whether they are British ships or foreign ships, lies with the owners, charterers and managers. We seek to place responsibilities on masters of British ships. It was previously acknowledged that the inclusion of "masters of foreign ships" was

      597
      an expedient because it was most likely that masters could be contacted more easily than those who are actually responsible.
      Surely it must be acknowledged that a master, in seeking to comply with a demand for information or with the onerous directions for search and so on, must consult his employers. He will undoubtedly need to do that, because they undoubtedly have the authority and resources. We believe that that is where responsibilities should properly be placed. Therefore, I have moved new clause 2 to give effect to those feelings.
      4 pm
      The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): We cannot accept the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). For certain directions we have introduced an ability to give a direction to a master. There was considerable disquiet on this point among Opposition Members, but after considering their points, we feel that they are wholly unjustified. We shall extend the possibility of giving directions to masters only to matters on which they are competent and responsible to act. As they cannot be given directions under clause 24—the main direction-making power which can require measures to be taken—no liability is placed on them to take decisions which involve capital expenditure. That, of course, is the responsibility of the ship operator.
      Masters will be likely to receive only directions which require information or prohibit them from allowing people or property to be brought near or on a ship, from allowing the ship to go to sea unless searches are carried out and from allowing a ship to go to sea unless certain modifications are carried out. All those matters are within the master's scope of responsibility.
      Ms. Ruddock: The measures which the Minister suggests that a master might have to take are serious measures when it comes to commercial interests. It is our view that the master could not, or would not be willing to, undertake such measures unless he could consult the owners, operators or charterers.
      Mr. McLoughlin: The issues may be serious but so would the reasons why the directions were issued. We are not in the game of issuing directions for the sake of it. We are not taking the power to issue unnecessary directions or directions for minor reasons. Directions would be issued for serious reasons. They would be issued only where necessary and where, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it was not possible to implement the same action against the ship operator.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Why does the Minister have such objection to this modest new clause? All it says is that the Secretary of State "may" give directions. Would it not be right for the Secretary of State to take a reserve power to cover all eventualities? No one expects the Minister to give directions to a master for minor reasons. Surely, in the interests of security and safety, the widest powers should be available in case they are needed.
      Mr. McLoughlin: That is exactly what we seek to do throughout the Bill. We seek to provide the widest powers
      598
      possible, so that, in the eventuality, we have the right measures to require various operators to take the action that we require. If we have trouble finding the operators—I shall come to this when I deal with the Government amendments—we want to be able to serve notices on the master of the ship, because sometimes it may not be possible to trace the owners or operators as quickly as we should like.
      I understand that it is convenient to speak now to Government amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15. Following the debate in Standing Committee, the Government undertook to take steps to remove the discrimination in the application of legislation to British and foreign ships. First, clause 21, which contains a power to impose restrictions on ships, can now be applied against both British and foreign ships when they are in harbour areas.
      I stress that those powers of direction will not be the main way in which improvements in security will be implemented. Most directions to create a positive improvement will be given under clause 24—that is, the general powers to direct measures to be taken. The powers provided in clause 21 are for use only in certain circumstances.
      I hope that my next point goes some way to answer the hon. Lady's point about amendment No. 11. We have introduced an ability to give a direction to a master. Again, the considerable disquiet about this point is not justified, because we shall extend the possibility of giving directions to masters only on those matters on which they are competent and responsible to act.
      Mr. Doran: Does the Minister accept that our apprehensions relate not to his intentions, but to the way in which the law will operate in practice? As was made clear in Committee—and accepted by the Minister then—in every case the first line of contact will be the master, and no attempt will be made to contact the owner, charterer or manager, because whoever is responsible for enforcing the direction will go to the most obvious point, the master. We have tabled our amendments for that simple reason.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I appreciate the way in which the hon. Gentleman has made that point. I can only assure him time and time again that only if there are problems with contacting or communicating directly with the operator will we use the powers to contact the master. It would be wrong of us not to have those powers. That is why we have tabled our amendments and why we feel that the master needs to be included in the "final line".
      If we have trouble in contacting the operator, we need to be able to contact the master. I emphasise that security reasons may be involved and that we would not do that lightly. We do not want to take that action at every stage, but if it is difficult to contact a foreign operator for whatever reason—there may be many reasons—we should be able to tell the master of the vessel that certain actions are required of him. We need the power in statute to do that. That is important.
      The concern was raised in Committee, and in various other discussions with me, that we were somehow discriminating against British ship operators in favour of foreign ship operators. We had to do everything we could

      599
      to explain that that was not the case and that we were taking the action so that ships of whatever nationality would be obliged to abide by what we are asking.
      Ms. Ruddock: Even if Government amendment No. 1 is made, the clause still provides a seven-day period during which the information has to be given up. How often does the Minister think that the master of either a British or a foreign-owned ship will be in harbour for as long as seven days? Does not that period give the Minister ample time to contact the real owners, charterers or managers?
      Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Lady raises an important issue. It is certainly true that modern ships and shipping operations are in harbour for only a brief period. That is why we need the power, if necessary, to place that responsibility and request on the master if we are having trouble in getting hold of the operator. That is an important point.
      Mr. Robert Hughes rose——
      Mr. McLoughlin: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I should like to make some progress.
      Mr. Hughes: I apologise for not having scrutinised the Bill in detail, because the answer to my question may be there. Has the Minister taken the power to prevent ships from sailing if there is difficulty in contacting the owners or in getting the master to carry out the directions?
      Mr. McLoughlin: Yes: if the direction is not carried out, we have the power to prevent the ship from leaving the harbour until the direction is complied with. We have that power, and it is wholly right that we do. I do not believe that there is any difference between us on that point—there was certainly no difference on it in Committee.
      If an elimination process were written into the Bill, it would inevitably cause delay, during which the ship could disappear because no prosecution or enforcement action could be effected unless it could be proved that adequate steps had been taken to reach the operator before tackling the master. A month may be necessary to convince the courts that adequate time had been given and reasonable steps taken for notifying foreign-based operators. To avoid this procedural trap and yet acknowledge and mitigate the concerns of the Opposition, it would probably be best to offer an assurance that, wherever practicable, action will always be taken against the operator first. We give that overwhelming assurance. It must be acknowledged, however, that the powers are needed at the end of the day.
      No liability would be placed on the master of a ship to take decisions which involved capital expenditure. Such decisions are the responsibility of ship operators. Masters will be likely only to receive directions which require information or prohibit them from allowing people or property to be brought near or on their ship, or for the ship to go to sea unless searches are carried out or certain modifications are implemented. All these requirements come within the scope of a master's responsibility. The powers will be used only where necessary and where, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it is not possible to impose the same requirements on a ship's operator. The provisions are far more likely to be used when dealing with the masters of foreign ships, as it is those ships that will present the most problems when it comes to locating the operators and achieving the desired results.
      600
      We are not legislating to ensure that only foreign ships implement the measures that we feel are required. Several foreign shipping lines have voluntarily introduced high levels of security standards. We want to be able to take the powers which we consider necessary. We shall always attempt, first and foremost, to contact the ship's operator and require him to give us information. When that is not possible, we feel that it is necessary to be able to serve a request upon the master of the ship. A master has considerable responsibility for the overall conduct and safe transit of his vessel.
      Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are essentially editorial. They represent an attempt to be more specific about the way in which administrative matters connected with the detention of a ship are implemented. Amendment No. 5 makes it clear that it is for an authorised person to certify that a direction has not been complied with. Amendment No. 6 places a requirement on an authorised person to deliver the certificate to the officer to detain the ship, if he does not use his powers to detain the ship himself. In both instances, a master must receive a copy of the certificate when his ship is detained, so that he knows the reasons for the detention.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) will agree that the Government have gone a long way to meet some of the issues which were raised in Committee.
      In Committee, we undertook to remove discrimination in the application of legislation to British and foreign ships. Amendments Nos. 15 and 7 ensure that that will happen, in two ways. First, the prohibition powers that are contained in clause 21 will, if the amendments are agreed to, be applied against both British ships and foreign ships when they are in harbour areas. These powers of direction will not be the main way in which we shall implement improvements to security. Most directions relating to positive improvements will come under clause 24. The powers in clause 21 are for use only in certain circumstances.
      I ask the House to reject new clause 2 and to agree to the Government's amendments.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: My concern is about the way in which the Government approach their responsibilities and how vigorously they intend to apply the proposed legislation. When I have approached the marine inspectorate about the alterations made to ships in harbour, which have caused people to believe that they might be unstable, quick action has been taken by the Department to put things right and to prevent a modified vessel from going to sea—this applies especially to trawlers—where there is a fear that safety and life might be endangered. That is something to be applauded.
      On the other hand, there have been instances when the Department and other arms of the law have not acted in the proper spirit of the law. I have in mind especially foreign ships where the crews have not been paid Representatives of the National Union of Seamen have tried to prevent ships from sailing until the crews have been properly paid. However, the police are brought in. the representatives of the NUS are taken off the ship and arrested, the crew are simply placed on the quayside and the ship sails merrily off, having not met its international obligations and responsibility to members of the crew.

      601
      I seek from the Minister an assurance that he will act vigorously not only within the letter of the law as it will be when the Bill is passed, but within the spirit of it, so that there is no shilly-shallying. I hope that there will be nobody saying, "It's a bit difficult. It may be a marginal case so we will let things go." We have to be specific, rigorous and determined to apply the law. If the Minister gives that assurance, and subject to the advice of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, I will not vote against the Government's amendments.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Barry Field: I hope that my hon. Friend can confirm that the amendments meet the concerns expressed by the General Council of British Shipping about foreign vessels and the ability of the Secretary of State to get to grips with them. If that is the case, as I believe it is, the deputy director-general of the council, Jim Buckley, has asked me to convey the council's gratitude to my hon. Friends for their acceptance of these amendments.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I was surprised by what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, because it seemed to be more in accord with our views than those of his Front Bench spokesmen.
      Mr. Robert Hughes indicated dissent.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I see him denying that, and I do not want to embarrass him.
      We are introducing a new kind of legislation, which is a mirror image of the security set up in the aviation industry as much as possible, although one cannot tie up the two word for word because of some differences. As a result of this legislation, we shall have on the statute book a set of directions that we can make and require companies to carry out. In such circumstances, I am conscious that it would be wholly wrong if foreign vessels were allowed to operate under a different set of rules from British operators and vessels. This legislation is designed solely to meet security directions, so it would not be a proper use of the legislation to extend it outside that power. That is an important point, but I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the wider implications for the shipping industry.
      I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) the assurance that these amendments meet the various points brought to our attention by the General Council of British Shipping. I have explained some of the reasons why we have accepted them, one of which is that it would be wrong to introduce regulations applying to British shipping but not to foreign vessels. That is why we have tabled the amendments. I hope that they find favour with the House.
      Ms. Ruddock: We are most disappointed by the Government's response to new clause 2, because we tried to produce a compromise. In Committee, the Minister assured us, as he has been assuring us all afternoon, that there will definitely be an attempt to contact, first and foremost, those who are truly responsible—the owners, the charterers and the managers. We are delighted that he has made that clear, but because he has done so, we find it difficult to understand why, after we has so carefully introduced this compromise and tried to reach agreement
      602
      with him, he has been unable to accept the new clause. However, as he has made his position clear and I do not expect to persuade him any further, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and new clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 3

      DIRECTIONS IN RESPECT OF FIXED PLATFORMS
      'For the purposes to which this Act applies, the Secretary of State may give a direction in writing to any person who operates, owns or manages a fixed platform, requiring him to take such measures as are specified in the direction.'.—[Mr. Doran].
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Doran: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 13, in clause 10, in page 15, line 6, leave out
      'or by threats of any kind'.
      No. 14, in clause 11, in page 15, line 27, at end insert—
      '(c) by its nature or design, is intended to raise the apprehension that it is intended to destroy or damage a ship or fixed platform, or endanger the safe navigation of a ship, or safety of a fixed platform.'.
      Mr. Doran: New clause 3 relates to discussions that we had in Committee, when I set out in detail events when a hoax bomb was planted on a gas production platform in Morecambe bay.
      One matter that caused me concern when I read the details of the event was trying to relate it to what the Government propose in the Bill, which creates more that 40 new offences—some of them serious and carrying the most serious penalties—and a mass of restrictions and regulations, and a bureaucratic system of direction and enforcement. However, nowhere in the Bill have the Government or industry been given the responsibility to do the simplest thing—to train and to prepare for the type of events that occurred on that platform.
      New clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to give directions which would apply to owners and managers of fixed platforms to meet the gap in the legislation.
      For the benefit of hon. Members who were not able to hear the Committee proceedings, I shall summarise the circumstances surrounding the events on the CCP gas production platform in Morecambe bay which was operated by a subsidiary of British Gas.
      On 9 October 1989, at about 8.30 am, a suspected bomb was found on the platform. None of the men on the platform was notified until about one hour later, and then they were not given detailed reasons why they were expected to gather at the muster points and life stations. It was not until a quarter past ten in the morning that the men were told that a bomb had been found, and that caused some alarm. It transpired that a taped package, measuring 6 in by 7 in, with wires that appeared to be a timing device attached, had been found in a cellar close to one of the 26 in gas riser pipes coming on to the platform. A number of such high pressure pipelines come on to the platform and all the men knew that they were of the same sort that exploded on the Piper Alpha platform and caused that tragedy. Therefore, there was some concern among the work force.
      The men were kept at the muster stations in the recreation area until 2.30 pm, when the installation's

      603
      operations manager decided to address them. He told them little more than they had been told in the morning, but he confirmed that the bomb had been found and that bomb disposal squads were not expected until 4 o'clock. Again, that caused some concern.
      The men were aware that the package had been discovered at 8.30 am, and they were also well aware from all the hectic activity around them—the naval vessels and helicopters—that experts who would have been able to deal with a bomb were in the area because of the Conservative party conference which was taking place a few miles away in Blackpool. They could not understand why the experts could not reach the platform any sooner than 4 o'clock, despite the fact that the bomb had been found about eight hours previously.
      The men were not told until 6 o'clock that the bomb disposal squad had decided to try to blow up the suspected bomb, and that also caused considerable concern. The men were aware that attempts had been made to depressurise the pipelines, but one had not been depressurised and the consequences of a bomb exploding in those circumstances would have been horrific.
      Throughout the day, there had been some panic and pressure from the men to get off the platform, but none was allowed to leave. They were threatened that if they went off they would not be allowed back. Effectively, they were told that their jobs were on the line. I have told that story because it is a graphic example of a real emergency. I understand that legal proceedings are likely to follow.
      As it took place on an offshore installation, the incident relates at least to part II of the Bill. According to the evidence that I have been given so far, the management dealt with it in a way that could not possibly be described as skilful; it could, indeed, have been calculated to cause the maximum distress. The men had no idea what to do. The arrival of the specialist bomb disposal experts was considerably delayed, and all their requests to be evacuated were refused. Although the package proved eventually to be a hoax, no one knew that until the disposal squad had dismantled it; meanwhile, unnecessary distress was caused. That could easily have been dealt with by management, who could have evacuated the platform.
      In the Bill, the Government have created more than 40 new offences. They have also created a very bureaucratic system of direction and enforcement notices, yet the Secretary of State has not been given the simple power to require training and exercises to deal with such incidents. The problem is not hypothetical; oil and gas platforms are vulnerable, volatile and dangerous. In the event of a further hoax, or even the placing of a real explosive device on a platform, the men must not be subjected to such pressures again.
      In Committee, the Minister said that he would contact the Department of Energy as a matter of urgency, and I shall be interested to learn whether the Department has any lessons to pass on. In the meantime, the new clause would allow the Secretary of State to enforce a requirement for training and exercises.
      Amendment No. 13 would deal with a problem that was raised on Second Reading—threats against the work force. Industrial disputes have occurred on offshore installations, and I fear that there will be more this summer as a result of offshore unrest and dissatisfaction. Few people in the industry do not expect that to happen. On
      604
      previous occasions, men working on North sea platforms have been subjected to intimidation of which an offshore management would not be capable.
      I can give two examples. The first relates to industrial action taken on MSV Stadive earlier this year. The ship is used in the northern sector of the North sea, in the Shetland basin, as a special response vessel: it is expected to respond to emergencies, and its crew have already dealt with two highly publicised incidents. The first involved the Chinook helicopter disaster in 1986, when they were required to collect bodies; the second was the serious blow-out 18 months ago on the Ocean Odyssey drilling rig, in which a radio operator was killed.
      The vessel's crew were required to remain with the vessel, which was positioned over the blow-out well for about three weeks until the emergency had been dealt with and the well capped. It was a dedicated crew. The men were employed by a company that acted as contractor for Shell UK Ltd. Recently, Shell UK Ltd. decided to dispose of that contractor and to employ a new one. Most of the men had worked for the contractor for nine years; some of them had been there for 15 years. All were told that they were to be made redundant. If they had been working onshore, they would have had certain rights; their employers would have been under an obligation to them.
      As the men appeared to have no rights, the employers entered into a battle about who would be responsible for redundancy payments. The men were left high and dry in the middle. Industrial action followed. Every member of the crew was intimidated and threatened with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970, which provided for a maximum fine of £2,000. That ended the industrial action. All the men were sorely intimidated.
      4.30 pm
      According to the drafting of the provisions, an employer faced with industrial action would be entitled to threaten his men with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, which might lead to a £2,000 fine, and with the provisions of clauses 9 and 10, and to say that an offence had been committed. The maximum penalty in that case would be life imprisonment.
      The Minister has told me that any prosecutions under this measure would require the sanction of the procurator fiscal or the Crown Office. That would carry little weight with a work force that was engaged in an industrial dispute that was perfectly legal onshore. The evidence shows that employers would use such threats and that the work force would be intimidated. For that reason, therefore, we have tabled amendment No. 13.
      Amendment No. 14 is designed to deal with what was perceived in Committee to be a major gap in the legislation. I relate it to the incident in Morecambe bay. The Bill deals adequately with threats and offences. However, it does not deal with the hoax which, as the Morecambe bay incident showed, can be just as alarming as a real threat or incident. According to the amendment, any substance or package that raises
      "the apprehension that it is intended to destroy or damage a ship or fixed platform, or endanger the safe navigation of a ship, or safety of a fixed platform"
      would also constitute the kind of offence that appears to have occurred on the CCP platform on 9 October. In Committee, all sides appeared to accept that that was a serious gap in the legislation. I shall be pleased to hear the Minister's response.
      Mr. Portillo: I remind the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) that part II is intended to allow the United Kingdom to ratify and implement the provisions of the convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against safety of maritime navigation, which is known as the Rome convention, and the linked protocol, which is known as the Rome protocol. The hon. Gentleman will remember that, in Committee, we laid considerable emphasis on the need to establish in law very exact wording that was in line with the convention and the protocol. Under the convention and the protocol, all those who ratify the convention should introduce legislation that is more or less identical, so as to ease the extradition from one country to another of those who have committed offences. If the offences are defined in exactly similar terms, that process is considerably eased. For that reason, we are reluctant to deviate from the wording in part II. I admit that the part of part II relating to warships is outside the convention, but it does not touch in any way upon the wording of agreements under the protocol. I have difficulty with the hon. Gentleman's proposals on that point.
      I shall take the amendments in reverse order. The matter raised in amendment No. 14 is already covered by section 51 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. I did not say to the hon. Gentleman in Committee that I thought there was a gap. The hon. Gentleman will know rather better than I do that United Kingdom law applies on platforms by virtue of the Continental Shelf Act 1989. Subject to further comments that the hon. Gentleman might make, his point about somebody introducing a package which is meant to look like a bomb and cause anxiety or fear is extremely serious, but is already covered in United Kingdom law which I hope applies to platforms.
      Mr. Doran: The Criminal Law Act 1977 certainly applies to gas platforms in the southern sector and to the gas platforms in Morecombe bay, but it would not apply to installations in the Scottish section of the North sea—those lying off Aberdeen and Shetland. There may be an equivalent measure, but that is a different point.
      Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman helps me by saying that there may be an equivalent measure. I suspect that that is the case, but I shall try to get him some verification of that.
      On amendment No. 13, I had hoped that, when we discussed the matter in Committee, I had gone a considerable way to allay the hon. Member's fears. I had hoped that I had gone so far as to make it possible for him not to introduce a further amendment on the subject. Perhaps I can remind the hon. Gentleman how far I went in Committee:
      "I offer the hon. Gentleman some further comfort by telling him that, in Scotland where prosecutions are initiated by procurators fiscal, they have considerable discretion but are subject to directions from the Lord Advocate. When a new Act is introduced, the Lord Advocate circulates information and sets out the policy on prosecutions. I shall draw his attention to this part of the Bill and ask him to take account of the point that it gives effect to a convention on terrorist acts and is not intended to be used in industrial dispute cases."
      The hon. Gentleman was generous when he said at column 105:
      "I am especially grateful to the Minister for suggesting bringing the matter to the attention of the Lord Advocate…I am still concerned, although not enough to wish to press the matter to a vote"—
      and at column 106:
      606
      "I take on board all the points that the Minister has made and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment"— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 February 1990; c. 104–106.]
      I cannot say any more to the hon. Gentleman today than I did on that occasion. It is perfectly clear—as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State confirmed a moment ago in answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes)—that the Bill is about terrorist acts and security, and part II is about the Rome convention and protocol. If the Bill becomes an Act, I shall have no hesitation in fulfilling the undertaking that I gave to write to the Lord Advocate and point out to him the purpose for which the Bill is intended.
      In regard to new clause 3, I well understand why the hon. Gentleman was so concerned about the incident which he reported to the Committee, and to which the Committee listened with great interest, and I understand why he would want to raise the matter again. I confirm that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to draw to his attention the points that the hon. Gentleman made in Committee and to ask him to consider the matter.
      I also remind the hon. Gentleman of the point that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made in Committee: there is a distinction between the measures proposed in the Bill to render more secure a platform, ship, aircraft or installation against attack or infiltration and the procedures that should be in place so that an installation may be evacuated in case of emergency. Sound evacuation procedures must be available to deal with a bomb, fire or another emergency.
      The matters raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South go beyond the scope of the Bill. They apply to the security of platforms against not only terrorist attack but natural threats such as fire and explosion. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has issued the directions necessary for the purpose. Having received the letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and read the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, he may wish to reflect further on them, but at present he believes that new clause 3 is unnecessary.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is responsible for the safety of fixed platforms. He takes the view that a special regime for them is no more necessary than for, say, a large chemical factory on the mainland.
      In important respects, fixed platforms differ from ships and aircraft. They do not move, except between operations, and they do not carry passengers or, equally important, passengers' luggage. There is little or no international element involved in them. Although the objectives of new clause 3 are laudable, they are outwith the scope of the Bill.
      Although fixed platforms may appear to be sitting targets, they are, fortunately, difficult to approach. or to board uninvited. With sophisticated equipment on board, platform managers know what is approaching and can communicate quickly with the mainland. The police can use their normal powers on platforms, and the ordinary criminal law applies.
      I am not saying that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South does not have an important point. He was right to raise his concerns, and I do not blame him for using the opportunity in Committee and on Report to do so, but the proposal to tighten platform managers' response to an

      607
      emergency is well beyond the scope of the Bill. I hope that the regulations made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will cover those procedures. The hon. Gentleman has given my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the opportunity fully to consider those matters, but at this stage he does not wish to establish the special regime proposed in new clause 3.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I must admit to being disappointed by the Minister's response. He rested his case for not accepting new clause 3 or the amendments on the fact that they are well beyond the scope of the Bill. That defence carries little weight, because, had they been outwith the scope of the Bill, they would not have been accepted for debate. They are well within its scope and well worth arguing for.
      It is difficult for hon. Members to appreciate the feelings of workers in the North sea. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) and I have had varying contacts with the survivors of Piper Alpha and of incidents such as Ocean Odyssey. Hon. Members think that they have some understanding of the psychology of workers in the North sea, but none of us appreciates the lingering horror for people directly involved in Piper Alpha or for anyone who lived through those dreadful hours from the moment when it was thought to be a minor incident to the sudden realisation of its full horror.
      To some extent—perhaps this is a difficult argument to put—the fear of those not directly involved in Piper Alpha is greater than those directly involved. People's minds work differently. Those who have been through a traumatic incident often come to terms with it—some of those involved in Piper Alpha have returned to work in the North sea— whereas others who perhaps only saw what happened are more fearful. That uncertainty is of immense concern.
      We are all worried about the time it takes to decide whether to evacuate. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South spoke of an incident involving a hoax bomb. Hon. Members' blood must have chilled at the prospect of people hanging about not knowing what was happening, not knowing the location of the suspected bomb and not knowing what might happen if wrong or precipitate action were taken. The security of workers on a platform must be as important as any other consideration.
      4.45 pm
      A fatal accident inquiry is about to begin into the Ocean Odyssey incident. That inquiry should have begun earlier, but the problem is how all the different arms of Government should dovetail to work together on security.
      The Minister takes too narrow a view of security. I understand that the aim of the Bill is security and that its main provisions aim to avoid risk to life and prevent attack from another source. He said that fixed platforms are different from aircraft and ships, because they do not carry passengers and they move only rarely. Nevertheless, baggage is taken on board, and security measures are necessary to check it. If necessary, we must advocate overkill.
      The Minister argues that the Bill covers all eventualities, that we are being too cautious and that perhaps we are asking for measures that would be better
      608
      covered by another Bill, but there are few opportunities to rectify anomalies or loopholes. Goodness knows when we shall consider another Bill on offshore installations.
      I hope that the Minister will not close his mind to accepting new clause 3 or the amendments. I hope that he will carefully read Hansard and accept that we must cover every possible eventuality and ensure that decisions to evacuate are taken earlier rather than later. We all hope that there will not be another major incident, because it is no good saying afterwards, "If evacuation had taken place half an hour earlier, the incident would have been avoided."
      We should act quickly and positively on security. That may sometimes mean platform owners bearing a cost that they would rather not bear, but the safety and security of the individual is far more important than temporary loss of production, although that may be expensive.
      I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments, which are not harmful or redundant. They offer an extra safety net, and the Minister would do well to accept them; he can do no less if he is interested in the safety and security of workers in the North sea.
      Mr. Doran: I should like to take the Minister's points in order. He rightly reminded me of my comments in Committee and of my gratitude to him for saying that he would emphasise the position to the Lord Advocate, but the hon. Gentleman ignored the thrust of my speech, which concerned not so much legal powers and provisions as the way in which they could be used to threaten the work force in a way that would not arise onshore. I do not resile one bit from my comments then. I should be delighted to note what response the hon. Gentleman gets from the Lord Advocate, but that still does not mean that the work force will not be intimidated by the threat of prosecution under these serious provisions.
      On the Minister's points about new clause 3, of course the Department of Energy is mainly responsible for the security of offshore platforms. However, I recently received a letter from the Minister which seemed to deny that responsibility. The hon. Gentleman also ignores his Department's responsibility to offshore platforms. As I understand it, the Department of Transport is responsible for firefighting, life-saving and evacuation equipment, and for standby vessels, supply boats and so on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) made clear, we get few opportunities to raise such issues in the House. Nothing in our discussions has suggested to me that the new clause and the amendments are inappropriate.
      The Minister must bear the views of the work force in mind. Nearly 30,000 people work in the offshore industry. The hon. Gentleman said that it was difficult to board an offshore platform and to put on board the type of device that would create problems similar to those in Morecambe bay. He again ignored the practical experience in the North sea. Nearly two thirds of the men who work offshore are employed by contractors, and there is little check on their record. Any sensible terrorist would find that that work provided the easiest route onto the platform. He would not follow the official route or try to sneak up in the darkest hours but would get a job on a standby vessel or with a contracting company. As we noted from the Morecambe bay incident, it is not difficult to get devices on board. Someone learned his way around a platform and planted the hoax device.

      609
      I wanted to make two points. First, this matter comes within the Department's responsibility. Secondly, it is clear that there was a breakdown in communications between the management of the platform and the authorities responsible for dealing with the emergency created on the Morecambe bay platform. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that this is the responsibility of the Department of Energy; his Department has responsibilities.
      In the light of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North about the attitude of the work force offshore after the Piper Alpha disaster, it is not good enough to say that management and the Department of Energy will sort these matters out. Some of us have little confidence in the way in which that Department performs its functions in the North sea. To say the least, there is great scope for improvement, and this is just one example.
      We do not intend to push the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 4

      EXPENSES INCURRED IN IMPROVING SECURITY
      —(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the Secretary of State may reimburse to any person who—

      (a) is the operator of one or more aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom, or

      (b) is the manager of an aerodrome in the United Kingdom, or

      (c) occupies any land forming part of an aerodrome in the United Kingdom, or

      (d) is permitted to have access to a restricted zone of such an aerodrome for the purposes of the activities of a business carried on by him, or

      (e) is the authority responsible for an air navigation installation, or

      (f) is an air cargo agent

      the whole or part of expenses incurred by such a person in improving standards of security in any matters within the control of that person.
      (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument—

      (a) determine the form, manner and extent of reimbursement;

      (b) make reimbursement subject to approval by the Secretary of State of the expenses proposed to be incurred;

      (c) make different provision for different cases.'—[Mr. Snape.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Peter Snape: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Minister of State will be relieved to hear that we do not intend the new clause to result in the Secretary of State personally, his two deputies or his Department being responsible for reimbursing security costs. For technical reasons, we were unable to table the amendment that we should have preferred, which would have reinstated the aviation security fund. We did not have a debate on that matter in Committee, but we feel that this is the appropriate stage to have one.
      Sadly, all too often over the years, additional security has been introduced only after tragedy or disaster. As long ago as 1986, following the loss of the Air India 747 off the west coast of Ireland, the Select Committee on Transport looked into security at Britain's airports. It recommended
      610
      the re-creation of the aviation security fund, which was established by the Labour Government in 1978 and disbanded by the present Administration in 1983.
      The Government rejected the re-establishment of such a fund on the grounds that it was bureaucratic, complicated and costly to administer, although they neglected to give any figures to back their assertion. They said that the fund's re-establishment would provide little incentive to efficiency. Following the second tragedy, at Lockerbie, the Government said that the industry would set up its own security fund. We should be interested to know from the Minister of State what progress has been made, if any, and whether such a fund is envisaged.
      Following the loss of the Air India 747, the Select Committee on Transport, under the chairmanship of Mr. Gordon Bagier, made a list of recommendations, one of which was the re-establishment of the aviation security fund. In paragraph 56 of the report, the Committee stated:
      "Although airports and airlines requested that the original Aviation Security Fund be wound up, it is this Committee's opinion that many are far from happy with the consequences. Some of the larger airports—and especially the BAA—may have benefited financially from running their own operation, but security as a whole has not."
      Those words were given additional emphasis after the loss of the Pan Am 747 over Lockerbie at Christmas 1988. The Select Committee continued:
      "The abolition of the fund has encouraged the splintering of security operations away from each other, so that too frequently the priority of security operators is to circumscribe as tightly as possible the limits of their own responsibility, rather than look to the needs of the whole system".
      That criticism was echoed by the Transport Select Committee in its latest report on these matters. We are aware that, all too often, the present system appears to be based more upon the persuasive powers of those arguing to extract money from the Treasury than on the security needs of Britain's airports.
      The Select Committee report continued:
      "the Committee again draws attention to the European Parliament 'Report drawn up on behalf of the Committee on Transport on security at airports' which states 'the main question an institution with legislative powers such as the European Community should ask itself is whether these powers can be used to increase clarity, effectiveness and co-ordination between international and national rules governing security duties at Community airports'. For the reasons explained above, the Committee would encourage the Minister and the Department to pursue assiduously any such initiatives."
      We should be interested to hear from the Minister of State how assiduously the Department has been pursuing these initiatives, especially in the light of paragraph 57 of the Select Committee report, which states:
      "The public is concerned that airport security should be adequate and recent research has suggested that it would be willing to pay for it."
      All research, but especially that since Lockerbie, has revealed a similar conclusion—that the public would be prepared to have a fee added to their tickets, to be spent on security. They and Opposition Members believe that, in that way, adequate funds could be made available for the provision of such a necessary facility at Britain's airports. Notwithstanding that report, the Government have not re-established the aviation security fund.
      5 pm
      Following Lockerbie, the Select Committee on Transport, this time under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), met again. In its report, published in July 1989,

      611
      the Committee made similar recommendations and gave some reasons for doing so. Paragraph 30 of the report says:
      "The levy"—
      that is, the aviation security levy—
      "did provide a means whereby airlines and the travelling public could see how much they were paying for security and make a judgment as to whether that represented value for money. At present, payment for security is subsumed under the general ground-handling charge. If greater security measures are imposed on an airport and they have, for example, to buy more x-ray machines, the cost is either accepted by the airport or passed on to the airlines. If it is passed on to the airlines, they have the choice of whether or not to pass it on to the passenger. Airlines often complain that BAA refuses to give them a breakdown on the amounts spent on security."
      In making that complaint, the airlines are not alone. The BAA is not very keen to provide that sort of information to any of us. The authority maintains that, as security is an integral part of airport operations, it is difficult to extract exact financial information on aspects of it. I may be getting cynical in my old age, but I should hazard a guess that, if the aviation security fund were re-established, BAA plc would have no difficulty in justifying claims on it to meet expenditure at the airports that it controls. There would be no argument then about the difficulty of identifying the cost of such operations.
      The Select Committee did not accept that argument. Paragraph 30 of the 1989 report, from which I quoted a moment ago, says:
      "Modern accounting techniques should make it possible to break down the cost of security by specific operation."
      So say all of us.
      We should be interested to hear from the Minister of State what justification he thinks there is for the BAA's view. Regrettably, the Department of Transport, for the second time, declined to re-establish an aviation security fund. In paragraph XV of their observations on the Select Committee's recommendations, the Government say:
      "The Government is not convinced by the Committee's arguments for re-establishing an aviation security fund paid for by a levy on passengers. The reasons for winding up the fund in 1983 remain valid despite the need now for substantially larger expenditure on aviation security measures. The fund proved to be bureaucratic, complicated and costly to administer."
      When civil servants get their teeth into a phrase like that they cannot resist regurgitating it, no matter how many years later they are asked to consider a particular problem. They are good at regurgitating, but they are not particularly good at explaining why they came up with that response in the first place. Again we press the Minister of State to tell us how much the aviation security fund that was set up in 1978 cost to administer over the years, and why he or his Department believe that it was
      "bureaucratic, complicated and costly to administer."
      The Government's response goes on:
      "In the Government's view it did not, and would not if re-established, help forward the aviation security programme."
      It is easy to make such statements, but more difficult to justify them. I hope that tonight the Minister will produce some justification for that rather abrupt and sweeping conclusion.
      The response continues:
      "The particular measure mentioned in paragraph 31—the rebuilding of terminals to ensure the proper separation of incoming and outgoing passengers—is being pursued, but the
      612
      Government believes that the most cost-effective solution will be achieved if the basic requirement is met by works financed by the airport authorities concerned."
      But the airport authorities themselves are the first to complain about the cost of such work. We believe that the reintroduction of the levy to which this amendment refers, and on which the debate concentrates, would go a long way towards meeting those charges.
      Paragraph XV of the Government's response concludes:
      "The Government remains determined that no funding problem shall obstruct the implementation of the measures in the aviation security programme."
      Again, the Minister will have to forgive Opposition Members for displaying some scepticism. We all know what financial pressures, whether in connection with security or with any other matter, are put on Ministers and Departments.
      We are offering the Government an opportunity to look again at this problem and to tell the House that they will consider sympathetically the re-establishment of an aviation security fund. We ask for no more than that. For the reasons that I have already outlined, we do not ask them to accept the new clause, but I hope that the Minister of State will agree that the present position with regard to the funding of security is unsatisfactory, causes widespread concern among the travelling public, and leads Members on both sides of the House to the conclusion that, all too often, gaps are left in airport security that could be plugged if adequate funds were provided.
      We await with interest the Minister's reply. As I have said, this is a matter which—also for technical reasons—we did not manage to discuss in Committee. The re-establishment of such a fund and of such a levy is something that Opposition Members have constantly advocated. Indeed, we voted against abolition of the fund in 1983. It seems to us that its re-establishment would be a comparatively painless means of funding the security measures that we all want to be introduced at Britain's airports. It is a step that would certainly be supported by the travelling public at large and, at least privately, by a good proportion of the aviation industry.
      Mr. Peter Fry: I do not often congratulate the Opposition, but I congratulate them today on this new clause. As a member of the Select Committee on Transport since it was set up, I have taken an interest in this subject, especially on the transfer of aviation from the Department of Trade to the Department of Transport. Indeed, it was I who suggested, after the Air India crash, the original study into airport security.
      It behoves my hon. Friend to answer the points made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). We ought to be told exactly why the unanimous decision of the Committee in relation to the levy was not accepted. We seem to be told, "Don't worry about costs. The money will be provided." The purpose of my intervention is to probe that a little further. We need an assurance that the money will be provided to ensure that adequate security is made available.
      One of the first things that the Committee realised when it looked into this matter was that the problem arises from the fact that at any major airport there is dual responsibility for security: it is the responsibility of those: who own and operate the airport and it is also the:

      613
      responsibility of the airline. The gaps in security arrangements that often appear arise out of that dichotomy of responsibility.
      Unfortunately, there have been a number of international disasters but, as far as I am aware, our airports have not been the cause of any serious security problem. I put it on record that our airports and airlines have an excellent record in this respect, but—and there is a "but"—there is no doubt that those who engage in international terrorism are becoming more and more sophisticated. That means that our methods of detecting terrorists must also become more sophisticated. It would be idle not to accept that many in the aviation industry are concerned about the cost of ensuring a safer travelling scene. When the Committee first looked into the question, British Caledonian was still up and flying. It quoted to us the cost of the machines that it would have to install to satisfy itself that it had done all it could to protect the travelling public, and bluntly told us that it could not afford it.
      That leads us to the fundamental question. If the Secretary of State decides that a certain level of search of persons, of aircraft or of cargo is necessary, he must also satisfy himself that the searches will be adequately carried out; otherwise, his reassurances to the travelling public will be empty words. As my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, we can never achieve 100 per cent. security in relation to aircraft movement, but ever more sophisticated machinery is appearing and could be employed.
      We have first to consider the sheer cost of introducing the equipment. How does my hon. Friend imagine that we shall ensure that all the foreign airlines will have the best equipment available to deal with the problem?
      Moreover, it is not just a question of equipment: it is also a question of providing the environment in which that equipment can operate. I was appalled to discover on a visit to Gatwick that, immediately after the Lockerbie disaster, one American airline had brought in the most up-to-date piece of equipment to try to check all the baggage that went on its aircraft from Gatwick to the United States and had been told that there was no room for it. It took the British Airports Authority six months to find room at Gatwick to put that machinery into operation.
      Given that airline's will to do the best for its passengers, it is worrying to think that the provision of space may inhibit the use of security equipment. We must consider the cost not only of the equipment but of providing room for the equipment to operate properly. I can understand the BAA's point of view, because its room is expensive and it can let it for a variety of purposes at a high revenue. It is not entirely surprising, therefore, if the authority is not willing to give up large spaces at a few moments' notice, which was exactly what happened after the Lockerbie disaster. My hon. Friend must show that sufficient pressure can be placed on bodies such as the BAA to ensure that the necessary space is provided.
      No matter how good our security systems may be, the security of passengers flying in and out of this country will also depend partly upon the security at other airports in other countries. One of the main arguments in favour of the levy is that, if properly administered, it would apply not just to our major airports but to our minor airports,
      614
      which find it difficult to meet the expense of installing the latest security equipment, and perhaps—with international co-operation—it could be extended to cover other airports, such as those in the Third world, where security is very lax. In the last resort, our security arrangements are truly interdependent and international.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will look again at the new clause and try to spell out to my satisfaction proposals suggesting that the Government are aware of the dichotomy between airline and airport in relation to responsibility for security and that he is aware of the problems of the high cost of equipment and of the problem and cost of providing space for that equipment.
      5.15 pm
      The Committee did not reach its recommendations lightly on either occasion. It reached them in a non-partisan manner and after considerable deliberation. As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) made clear, we have not really had a satisfactory explanation of why the levy cannot be reintroduced. I believe that airport security perturbs the travelling public, and I think that many people would be happy to pay a reasonable charge for the comfort of knowing that everything is being done that can be done.
      The great danger of the present system is that it will give rise to the suspicion that not everything is being spent that might be spent to ensure that the strongest possible security arrangements are made. At one stage in our investigations, we were given evidence, which we were unable to verify, that one improvement to security at Heathrow had not taken place because the budget for that year had been used up. The improvement therefore had to be delayed. We do not want to give the travelling public the impression that money will not be forthcoming to afford them the peace of mind they need.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will satisfy me on those points.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) is very knowledgeable about these matters, having twice served on the Committee that reported specifically on security matters.
      The terrible truth about security is that the price is always too high until people die. Those who say glibly that we have a high level of security at our airports and point to the changes that have taken place even in the past five years do themselves no great credit if they pretend that our service is capable of ensuring that no great terrorist incidents will occur in future, and I know that the Government have never taken that position.
      For many airlines, security is an overhead that slips down the accounting priorities as incidents recede into the past. Immediately after a bad crash in which many lives are lost, there is enormous outcry about the facilities that are provided at airports. Unfortunately, it is a question of pounds and pence and, as that pressure recedes, airlines are likely to relax their arrangements. They will not do so consciously—I do not think that they set out to lower their standards—but those of us who use airports constantly—the larger airports are classic examples—know that the sheer press of passengers is leading increasingly to security measures that are not as exhaustive or intensive as they should be.

      615
      New machinery is being developed all the time, but one of the safest methods of ensuring that terrorists cannot place explosive devices among innocent travellers going about their lawful affairs is to ensure that proper searching, profiling and investigation take place at the point at which the passenger enters the airport. That is absolutely vital.
      El Al representatives would say that the price of security is a life, and that there is no way in which we can put a price on a life. We have a responsibility in this House to tell the airlines that it is not enough to install security companies which, because of the pressure of bodies and freight and the number of people using the services, will inevitably monitor only a tiny percentage of the goods or people flying out of our airports. If that can be said of a country which has suffered the enormous trauma of the Lockerbie crash, how can we expect Third-world countries, which already face enormous problems of overseas debt, to invest in security systems which would safeguard our people?
      British people travel all over the world on many different airlines. They have the right to ask that they travel in safety and not in fear. The explosion of air travel in my lifetime means that the modern child regards the aircraft in the way that I, as a child, regarded road transport or trains—as a perfectly routine form of transport. That would be the case but for those who try constantly to find ways to attract the attention of the world to their specific, narrow and murderous interests by destroying forms of transport used by many people.
      Hon. Members will be aware that the Select Committee on Transport does not comprise hon. Members from only one political party. It has a wide membership and we have taken very moving and important evidence from those involved in the Lockerbie disaster. The Select Committee examined the manufacture of aircraft and specific problems with the safety of aircraft interiors; those matters will be reported upon in future. Above all, the Select Committee clearly stated that security was a legitimate expense and that, if it was to be provided at the level necessary for safeguarding our people, it had to be paid for.
      It would be extraordinary if increasing deregulation lowered the price of air flight for the ordinary passenger but raised the price of providing proper security systems, in such a way that many international airlines began to regard security as an unnecessary expense. We could deal with that problem, and also with the constant battle behind the scenes between the British Airports Authority, the airlines and freight shippers, if we provided sufficient funds to equip and build proper security checkpoints in all our airports—and I mean all. As hub travel develops, more people will come into the airline system at small airports, and they may not always have had their baggage or goods properly checked.
      I do not understand the Government's objection to this proposal. They can hardly pretend that they disapprove of taxes that are unwieldy, bureaucratic and expensive to apply. Given that they created the poll tax, that is not a legitimate or feasible response.
      The Government believe that passengers are not prepared to pay to ensure that they are travelling safely. Who asked the passengers? Who asked the mothers who put their children on planes to send them back to school four times a year? Who asked the people who take their families on charter flights for their once-a-year holiday?
      616
      Who asked the families whose parents are at risk every time they travel from one part of Europe to another on business? I do not believe that the Government have put those questions to the people.
      It is too late to consider security issues when we see the front pages of tabloid newspapers carrying horrific pictures of destroyed planes and bodies. One way that we can provide cash is to say to the passenger, "A levy will work and produce results. Will you support us in introducing a levy?" If the Government do not do that, they will be moving responsibility from themselves on to those least likely—even if they are able—to provide the proper quality of service. The cost to this country over the next 10 years may be very high in terms of human life.
      Mr. David Wilshire: Before I come to the points made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich. East (Mr. Snape), I want to comment on a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). He repeated a point that I have heard made so often. He said that one reason why space is not made available at airports, particularly those operated by the British Airports Authority, is that the authority could not be bothered to do that or could not afford it. That is grossly unfair.
      I hasten to add that I have no interest to declare in the matter, other than that an enormous number of my constituents work at Heathrow airport, and they always feel slighted when they are accused of doing a shoddy job. However, the issue is not as simple as that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough.
      I assume that the reference by my hon. Friend to the equipment at Gatwick was a reference to the TNA machine. We are not arguing that selling a few pairs of knickers or a few newspapers is more important than safety. The security machines about which we are concerned are very large and heavy and are not readily available. Indeed, the environmental lobby in the United States considers the radiation which those machines emit to be unsafe.
      The security machines to which I am referring weigh many tonnes. If they were installed in many of our airport terminals, they would fall through the floor and destroy the terminal.
      Mr. Snape: I must confess that I have heard the hon. Gentleman put that argument rather better before. As we are anxious to maintain cross-party consensus on airport security, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the BAA would be as ready to accept a TNA machine, bearing in mind the drawbacks, as it is to install Sock Shop or Knickerbox units around Gatwick airport? Is it not legitimate for some of us to express suspicions that, as there is revenue to be earned from the latter and space to be taken up through the former, the BAA is more likely to opt for commercial occupancy of space at Heathrow than to allocate that space for security purposes?
      Mr. Wilshire: Most certainly I would defend the hon. Gentleman's right to make those points, just as I am sure that he would defend my right to say that he is talking absolute nonsense when he suggests that that was the motivation of the BAA or any other airport operator. Of course all airport and airline operators want the best possible security and will fall over backwards to make that possible.
      Mr. Fry: Does my hon. Friend believe that it is satisfactory that a machine was present and ready to be brought into operation at Gatwick, but it took six months before that machine was operational? There is no criticism about the commercial nature of the BAA. However, does my hon. Friend believe that a six-month delay was satisfactory, in view of what happened at Lockerbie and the public concern over aviation security?
      Mr. Wilshire: When we consider a delay, it is important to be sure how it came about. One of the worst possible things to do with aviation security is to make statements to the effect that we will do this or that in a few moments and everything will be marvellous. That misleads the public and does no good. If it takes a week, a month or even a year to get things right, I shall defend taking the necessary time.
      The important thing to consider is that one machine on its own is of no earthly use at all. They are large and they are slow—they do about 600 bags an hour. At peak time at a busy airport such as Gatwick, about 8,000 bags must be screened every hour. It would take until the year 2000 to build sufficient machines to cover all major airports in the world. It is misleading simply to say, "All we need is one of those machines at Gatwick, and bingo—all will be well."
      5.30 pm
      Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. His hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) made the simple point that a machine was offered for trial, and it took six months to find the necessary space. That point is simple but important.
      Mr. Wilshire: I accept that. I thought that I had covered the point that one must do things in the right order. I do not have the facts on exactly why it took six months. I hope that the hon. Lady will give me the facts. If it turns out that there was a delay for the sake of delay—I hold no brief for BAA or for anybody else—and if criticism is deserved—surprise, surprise, I will criticise. However, until I see the evidence, I shall not do so.
      My main reason for intervening was to deal with the comments by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East. I have bad news for him. He made a point about accountants and about BAA's financial procedures. I shall not rise to that criticism, because my experience of accountants over the years——
      Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman disappoints me.
      Mr. Wilshire: I know that I disappoint the hon. Gentleman. However, as he said, it is a cross-party matter.
      My experience of accountants over the years is that, if they must do something, they will end up doing it. If it were to become necessary, I am sure that they could do something. I agree with that. However, I do not agree with the basic premise of returning to a security fund. I recognise the argument that there are good reasons for doing so, but I hope that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East will recognise the bad implications. On balance, the bad wins over the good.
      I have three concerns about this matter. First, if one specifies how much one spends on security, one is revealing information to those who would like to know exactly what one is doing. One may not consider that on its own to be a justifiable reason, but it is true. My second concern is
      618
      that, if we set a sum that should be spent on security, we will invite the response, "Fine, we will spend that, and we will discharge our responsibilities." There should be an open-ended commitment to spend whatever is necessary to provide the best possible security, not to set a sum of money. My third concern is that, if we specify sums of money, which will presumably vary from airport to airport, we will invite comparisons.
      The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that no one had asked the travelling public. I have done research, not on the travelling public but on the maritime sector, in which there is more choice than there is in the use of airports around London—cruise liners. I examined what was happening at the international cruise terminal at Tilbury. The operators said that their charge was £3 per passenger. They said that they were having great difficulties, because the charge at Southampton and elsewhere could be as little as less than £1
      People were not flocking to Tilbury because it is the safest place to board a ship. Ship operators were saying "It is cheaper to go to Southampton than to Tilbury, so we will go there." Similarly, passengers were asking, "Why should we pay this much more when, at Southampton, we would pay much less?" I accept that that may be anecdotal, but it is not a one-way argument to say that, the more one charges, the happier people will be.
      Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how the 1978 aviation security fund actually worked and how the moneys that were levied from that fund were dispersed around United Kingdom airports for security purposes?
      Mr. Wilshire: My reservation is that, however the money is dispersed, one publicly states how much one will spend, and what it will be spent on. Those matters outweigh the hon. Gentleman's arguments.
      I am against the amendments giving the Secretary of State powers to pay, because they would lead to the argument, "All right, the Government will pay, so we need not bother." It will result in more buck passing, not less. Airport operators and airlines already try to pass the buck to one another, saying, "The airport should pay," or, "The airline should pay." If we introduce the Government into that, there will be three sides shuffling the buck, and that will make matters worse, not better.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I do not know whether I should begin by declaring an interest as a frequent air traveller. I suppose that I am in the air about twice a week—sadly, about 100 times a year. Before I give the impression that I am a notorious freeloader or free-tripper, I should say that virtually every trip is between London and my constituency in Aberdeen. I have great experience of how passengers regard security, and the cost of security.
      The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) was extremely complimentary to the Opposition. I certainly respond in kind, because I know of his deep interest in the matter. We have always approached it in a non-partisan way and on a fairly uncontroversial note. That is why the remarks of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) are rather surprising. Of course, there are pros and cons in all such matters.
      I wholly support the new clause, because it would provide a mechanism whereby money could be found to pay not only for immediate security but for research. It identifies exactly what the costs are and where they are to

      619
      be found. I am sometimes nauseated when I occasionally suggest to airline or airport representatives that it will cost money to provide proper security, and they say, "We can't afford it—it will eat into the profits." Security must be afforded. It does not matter how the money is collected; the passenger or cargo shipper pays. Security costs will be passed on by the airport owner, the airline owner or the operator. No commercial organisation in the world would say, "We shall run at a loss to provide proper safety." It is a matter of cost-efficiency and profit making.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, people's perception of safety varies depending on the time of year and how long it is since there was a major disaster.
      A major safety measure is that, if baggage is booked on to an aircraft, but the passenger does not get on the plane, the plane cannot fly. All the baggage must be taken off, put on the tarmac, identified and put back on the plane. The baggage of the passenger who has not checked in is then taken away to be examined. It is remarkable how often people book on a flight, get to the airport and check in their baggage, but, for some reason, do not turn up. That has happened to me six times this year on my way to Aberdeen.
      Passengers are desperate to get home or to go away on business. There is at least an hour's delay, when baggage is unaccompanied. The passengers' perception is, "Heck, why do we have to hang about so long?" However, they did not say that immediately after Lockerbie. If I have my facts right, the package that caused the Lockerbie explosion was transferred from another plane. British airports' response is that responsibility for baggage checked in at another airport lies with the carrier. I do not agree. If baggage is put on one aircraft and transferred to another, it should be rechecked at every airport. Of course, people say, "What a waste of time hanging about." Generally, if they are asked whether they are willing to spend more on the levy to improve security, they will say yes.
      I accept—here I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne—that the first time that people see a 1 per cent. surcharge for security on their ticket, they will say, "What is all this about?" Of course there are dilemmas, but we must make a judgment.
      We must face the dire possibility of a terrorist attack. With modern technology, the terrorist is becoming more sophisticated and clever and may have access to better technology than that available for finding and identifying packages. We must always run ahead and anticipate the threat. We must do a great deal of research into new methods of discovering explosives, timing devices and so on.
      Often airport authorities do not appear to use the equipment that they have. I am fed up to the teeth, as many passengers are, with turning up at terminal 1 at Heathrow at busy times to find masses of people queueing from the place where baggage goes through the X-ray machines right back as far as the shops. One is almost forced to buy something in a shop to pass the time. There are four X-ray machines, but seldom are more than two in operation. If there is a backlog of people waiting to pass through, there, is immense pressure on the staff.
      We are all irritated by delays, even though we know it is for our safety. When I ask why only two machines are operating, I am told that the staff are not available to operate them. Security staff have asked me to speak to the
      620
      British Airports Authority, because they are under tremendous pressure. Every bag goes through the X-ray machine and the staff have to look at every image on the screen. There is a random search of perhaps one in three or one in five bags. There is a great deal of pressure on staff, even though the facilities are there, which can lead to something slipping through.
      Mr. Wilshire: Before the hon. Gentleman finishes his point about lack of staff at an airport such as Heathrow, will he consider the difficulties of recruiting people? There is not so much a lack of opportunities as a lack of people applying for the jobs. Another difficulty is the requirement to check back over 20 years of a person's previous work experience. That makes it a long job. It can take anything up to 16 weeks before a vacancy can be filled.
      Mr. HughesThere may be difficulties, but the British Airports Authority has never told me that the reason why it has insufficient staff is that it is difficult to recruit or that it takes a long time to check credentials. I have been told that it cannot carry staff over a period simply to cope with short-term busy periods. People cannot be employed between, say, 5 pm and 7 pm when there is a huge mass of people through security simply to sit around for the rest of the day. People usually work shifts of seven or eight hours.
      Personnel should be available and on call. All the machines available should be used, not just for the convenience of passengers, although that is important, but in order to make sure that people are not under pressure to let stuff go through. I do not accept that the reason for delays and the lack of staff is that not enough people apply for the jobs. Perhaps, if that is the case, BAA should consider the wages it pays. However, that is not a matter that I shall traverse tonight.
      We must examine the methods by which money is found. It is not good enough simply to say that it is up to the airline or the airport authority to provide the cash. They will not provide it if there is pressure on their profits. It is as simple as that. However, the money has to be found. It would be far better to apply a levy to every ticket and for the Secretary of State to reimburse the money.
      I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Spelthorne cite the example of Tilbury and Southampton. He said that operators would claim as a bonus—I hope that he is listening, because I am responding to his point——
      Mr. Wilshire: Avidly.
      Mr. Hughes: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would show on his face that he was listening.
      I do not doubt his word that people say, "Come to Southampton because the security is cheaper than elsewhere." I am surprised that he does not condemn whichever shipping company he was referring to for taking that attitude, instead of using it as a bonus point for his argument. It is disgraceful that people should say, "Come to us because our security is cheaper," as if cheaper security were something that people sought. It is a bogus argument, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
      Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman was under the impression that I was saying that cheap security was an advertising plus, I apologise. That was not what I intended to say. I said that both shipping lines and passengers regard security as an opportunity to cut costs. Shipping

      621
      lines and passengers appear to prefer cheaper security. I do not applaud that; I deplore it. I was merely observing that that is what happens.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification and for accepting the point of my argument.
      If a percentage of the cost of the ticket is levied and collected centrally, it could be distributed centrally so that there does not appear to be a difference between the cost of tickets at different airports.
      Mr. Michael Colvin: The hon. Gentleman makes his pitch for the idea of a levy collected as a percentage of the cost of ticket, which would be held centrally and disbursed among airports to ensure proper security. Does he accept that security is as strong as the weakest link in the international chain? How would he deal with the problems of international terrorism and inadequate security at other airports—for example, in Third-world countries? To operate properly, any levy system would have to be operated by the International Civil Aviation Organisation on an international basis. Everyone would have to comply with it, because otherwise it would be pointless.
      Mr. Hughes: I do not know what proportion of people buy tickets in this country and travel out and back compared to the proportion who buy tickets outside and travel in and out again. If a levy were collected on every passenger's fare, it would be possible to organise collection of the levy from all carriers, whether they originated in Britain or elsewhere. People doing return journeys have to leave the country again. The argument that people who buy a ticket in the United States, for example, do not benefit from the levy because the point of origin is not in Britain, does not hold. Such passengers have to return. There would have to be an international agreement for collecting the money.
      I shall not be diverted into a detailed discussion about safety. The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) argued that, if one boards a flight outside this country, one does not know the standard of safety. That is true, but there is nothing that one can do about it. There is no way to guarantee the safety of someone who boards an aircraft in another country, whether Japan, Australia or elsewhere. I hope that, if we take the lead, we can persuade other countries to do likewise and enhance the system of security throughout the world.
      Carriers and airport authorities wish to provide the safest possible method of travel because that is their business. If a major disaster is caused by terrorist activity, they will lose money through cancellations. However, this is not an issue about cash—as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has said, the debate is about the price of lack of safety, which is the price of a life.
      The new clause would provide a good way of collecting the money and of ensuring that people understand what it is all about. It would also provide the Government with a better opportunity for putting leverage on everyone, to ensure that they do the research and apply the existing equipment as soon as possible.
      Mr. Portillo: The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) made not only his own speech but mine. His speech was full of references to previous statements of Government policy. As the Government's policy on this matter is fairly well understood, it may not be necessary for me to dwell on it for long.
      Two distinct issues have been raised in the debate. The first is whether there should be Government grants to fund an aviation security programme, and the second is whether we should recycle money from the airlines, through Government, and back to the airports.
      The first point about whether there should be Government grants for aviation security is the issue addressed specifically by the hon. Gentleman's new clause. However, the new clause is unnecessary, because the power that it seeks to place in the Secretary of State already exists. Under section 32 of the Aviation Security Act 1982, as amended by this Bill, the Secretary of State can, with the consent of the Treasury, defray, out of moneys provided by Parliament, all or part of the expenses of the persons described in subsection (1) of the new clause for purposes to which part II of the 1982 Act applies—that is, protection of aircraft, aerodromes and air navigation installations against acts of violence.
      I do not wish to extend the list in the way in which the hon. Gentleman proposes in his new clause, but the power already exists. I do not want to deny for a moment that the Government have not sought to use that power of making grants for security purposes, because we believe that security should be paid for by the airport, the airline and the passenger. I have no doubt that passengers are willing to pay for it; it is simply a question of how they are asked to pay for it.
      I am satisfied with the present arrangements, which are that the Government specify the level of security arrangements that must be made in airports. Money does not enter into those considerations. People are required to meet the directions that the Secretary of State makes, and the Secretary of State makes the directions that he considers appropriate for the level of security he thinks fit, reflecting the degree of risk assessed for him by the security forces from time to time.
      I have listened carefully to all the speeches, but no hon. Member has argued that our present security arrangements are inadequate or, if they are, how the directions should be reinforced. I have heard no evidence that finance or lack of finance could be said to be prejudicing the security in our airports. Some hon. Members seemed to assume that, without a fund recycled through the Government, there must be a lack of money and a lack of security provision. That is wholly illogical and fallacious.
      The way in which the Government arrived at the present position of wishing to wind up the old aviation security fund and the reasons for doing so were spelt out for Parliament in a statement by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Cockfield in another place. Extensive consultations preceded that decision, which embraced not only the airlines and airport operators, but also the British Air Line Pilots Association, the Transport and General Workers Union, the Air Transport Users Committee, the Association of British Travel Agents Ltd. and the International Air Transport Association. At that time, the Government weighed all the pros and cons of having a centralised fund into which moneys were paid and then paid out again.

      623
      The Department of Trade was responsible for such matters in those days and considered the measures that applied elsewhere. My right hon. and noble Friend said:
      "The research showed that in continental Europe, with certain exceptions, airport security duties were generally carried out by national and local police and as a rule were not directly funded by revenue from airport operations. In contrast the research also showed that in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Switzerland, searching was paid for by arlines, and that in the United States and Canada all other aspects of airport security were also, in the end, paid for by the airlines. No other country operated a fund system along the lines of the United Kingdom model."
      My right hon. and noble Friend thought that the arguments were fairly evenly balanced, but said that he was concerned that
      "unnecessary and complex procedures would be avoided, incentives to carry out security measures efficiently would be increased, and cross-subsidisation eliminated, if the fund were wound up and airports and airlines financed security costs in the same way as their other operating expenditure."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 July 1982; Vol. 434, c. 359.]
      Therefore, over a period, the Government have been straightforward in explaining how they have arrived at this position.
      The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East wanted to know why we thought that it would be bureaucratic and unnecessary to proceed in this way. I remind him that, in the old days, a fund level per passenger had to be set, airport charges had to be collected, payments by the airports had to be made to the Government, claims by the airports and airlines for expenditure that they were to incur had to be made and then assessed and paid by the Department. The net result was that the security measures that the Government required to be taken were paid for by the passenger, but only after that enormous rigmarole, and the great procedure of recycling the money.
      The hon. Gentleman wanted to know how much all that would cost. If we were were to reinstate it today, it would probably cost my Department about £50,000 for the officials who would be needed to implement the provisions, but that would be only the beginning——
      Mr. Snape: Appoint a quango.
      Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman says, "Appoint a quango." I am sure that he would be happy about that, but I believe that that is an unjustified cost, which does not even begin to deal with the costs that would unnecessarily fall on the airline industry. I repeat that the Government's approach is to specify the level of security and to ensure that that level is met—and that has nothing to do with money.
      The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East was also concerned that there should be frankness and that the airports should tell the airlines the cost of security. For the sake of brevity, I refer him to what I said at columns 67 and 68 in Committee. I accept that any customer and supplier relationship should result in a willingness by the supplier to account for the reasoning behind his prices, and pointed out that section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 provides that designated airports must have adequate facilities for discussing the management of the airports. The Civil Aviation Authority conducts a quinquennial review of specified airports, covering user charges, including security.
      That point also covers many of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), whom I was pleased to see in his place, because he speaks
      624
      with great experience and considerable knowledge of these matters. The question whether up-to-date equipment is made available is really a question about whether the Government have specified the level of security that is to be met. The Government will insist that that level is adhered to by the operators. It has nothing to do with whether sufficient funding is available, because the Government will always require airports and airlines to take such measures.
      My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to the difficulties of the Third world. I am not sure that a fund would be the right way to set about the problem. When dealing with the Third world, our problems go far beyond funding. It is not just a question of installing the correct machinery; it is also a question of the training and the discipline that should go hand in hand with it. Each nation that has great experience of aviation is now trying to contact those Third-world countries with which it has a special relationship, so that we can help in a variety of ways to establish the appropriate aviation security programmes. Our own airlines continue to have responsibilities when they operate to those places.
      6 pm
      Space at airports was debated in Committee. It is our intention that all hold baggage should be screened before it goes into the aircraft. That will take some time to achieve, but we wish to proceed in an ordered fashion towards that goal. We do not wish to find that certain airlines that come first in the queue are pre-empting space. It is important that machines should be installed and measures introduced in the order dictated by the security considerations that prevail in each instance, so that we meet the maximum security risk in the most timely fashion.
      Some of the remarks about machinery being installed at airports were rather unfair. These are immensely complex matters that bear on passenger safety, space, and getting things in the right place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said, with the TNA machine the issue of radioactivity has to be considered. The necessary certificate from the United States National Radiological Protection Board has only recently been granted. In fact, it was granted last week. As I have said, these are extremely complex matters.
      I do not believe that there would be any advantage in recycling moneys in a long and cumbersome fashion, as some hon. Members have proposed. If they are saying that there should be powers for the Secretary of State, in certain circumstances, to be able to defray moneys with the approval of the Treasury, I tell the House that those powers already exist. I have heard no evidence during the debate that our levels of security are inadequate. I have heard no evidence that lack of funding has produced an undesirable situation. I have heard nothing to make me think that the recycling of moneys through a fund commends itself to me any more than it commended itself to Lord Cockfield when a thorough review was conducted, after considerable consultation, in 1982.
      The House will be aware of the results which were announced by my noble Friend. I ask the House to reject the new clause.
      Mr. Snape: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have found the Minister's reply somewhat disappointing. The main thrust of his argument was that

      625
      security had not suffered since the abolition of the aviation security levy, because the Government had at all times provided adequate funds. I have before me a draft parliamentary answer which was prepared for the previous Secretary of State for Transport after the Lockerbie disaster. It is the contention of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself that aviation security—this was argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—comes to the forefront only after a disaster. The Minister of State has told us that funds have never been lacking and security has always been adequate.
      In the draft reply, however—it looks as if it was the result of a planted question—there is reference to a package of measures to provide better security at restricted areas, the screening of all baggage and doubling the strength of the Department's aviation security division. Those provisions are introduced directly as a result of tragedy. The contention of the Opposition—it is the unanimous contention of two Select Committees over the past few years—is that these measures could be better provided for financially if adequate funds were made available from the beginning through the provision of an aviation security levy.
      Mr. Portillo: Now that the hon. Gentleman has the floor again, will he use the opportunity to make good a deficiency in his previous remarks? Will he demonstrate that there has been a lack of financing or that our security has suffered through a lack of finance, or that it would be improved by recycling moneys in a wasteful fashion through Government?
      Mr. Snape: My purpose is to illustrate the argument that security issues arise only as a result of tragedy. Money has not been spent. Had it been available, it could and should have been spent to improve security. If it had been spent in the form of an aviation security levy, perhaps some of the gaps outlined in the draft repy to which I have referred would have been closed earlier, and perhaps before the Lockerbie disaster. I can put it no higher than that.
      I ask the House to recollect the debate that took place on the Civil Aviation Bill on 16 January 1978, when the levy was first introduced. The then spokesman for the then Conservative Opposition was the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), who is now the Secretary of State for Transport. In those days, he was an avid supporter of the setting up of the aviation security fund. During the debate, he said:
      "Many people argue that it is the responsibility of the State to protect its citizens and therefore the cost of providing that protection"—
      that is, security at airports—
      "should fall on the general body of taxpayers. It is argued that hijackers are seeking to pressure not individual airlines or airports but Governments, and therefore Governments should assume responsibility for meeting the cost of protection."
      He then said:
      "It is our considered view"—
      that is, the Conservative party's considered view, as it was the Labour Government's view at that time—
      "that there are even stronger arguments in favour of transferring the cost—some £19 million"—
      that says much about inflation over the past decade, as well as security—
      626
      "from the taxpayers generally to those who benefit from the service provided, namely, those who travel by air. Such a proposal recognises something that many Labour Members are often reluctant to recognise—there is no such thing as a free lunch."
      The right hon. Member for Hertsmere, who is now the Secretary of State for Transport, has changed his mind twice. He is against the provision of an aviation security levy and he is a living, walking and talking exponent of the free lunch if ever I saw one in this place. The right hon. Gentleman concluded that debate in a way that I hope will still appeal to some of his hon. Friends who have listened to today's debate:
      "Why should the vast majority, who never set foot aboard an aeroplane, contribute to the cost which arises directly and identifiably from those who do? Why should pensioners, who have never travelled by plane in their lives and who never will, pay the costs of people who go on holiday to Majorca and to the Caribbean?"—[Official Report, 16 January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 78–80.]
      The right hon. Gentleman has revised his views since then, but the Opposition have not. That is the reason——
      Mr. Portillo: I am genuinely puzzled by the argument that leads the hon. Gentleman to claim that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was speaking on the hon. Gentleman's side of the argument. My right hon. Friend said that, in future, the costs would be borne by those who travel and not by the British taxpayer. That is what we stand for. That is the present arrangement. The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that the fund should be recycled through Government, a proposal with which we disagree, or that it should be paid for by taxpayers generally. My right hon. Friend was explicit when he said that he thought that it would be wrong for taxpayers to bear the burden.
      Mr. Snape: It is clear that the Minister has not read the report of the entire debate. We were talking about the principle of the aviation security levy in 1978. The right hon. Member for Hertsmere, who is now the Secretary of State, was then in favour of that sort of levy at the time, and so were the then Labour Government. We have remained consistent, even if the Secretary of State and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench have not. That is why we shall be pressing the new clause to a Division. Conservative Members who share our concern about security should vote for the new clause.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the logic of the Minister of State is at fault? He said in defence of the argument against the levy that the Government were prepared to find the money. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
      Mr. Snape: The illogical nature of the Minister's reply will dawn on him when he reads the Hansard report of our debate tomorrow.
      I cannot find a sufficiently emotive phrase to end the debate again, and I do not think that the House would wish me to do so. The Opposition intend to pursue the matter this evening, I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House who support the principle of better security will vote for the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 203.

      Division No. 101]

      [6.08 pm

      AYES

      Allen, Graham

      Lamond, James

      Anderson, Donald

      Leighton, Ron

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Lewis, Terry

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Ashton, Joe

      Loyden, Eddie

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      McAllion, John

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Battle, John

      McFall, John

      Beckett, Margaret

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      McKelvey, William

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Maclennan, Robert

      Blair, Tony

      McNamara, Kevin

      Blunkett, David

      McWilliam, John

      Boyes, Roland

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Marek, Dr John

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Buchan, Norman

      Maxton, John

      Buckley, George J.

      Michael, Alun

      Callaghan, Jim

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Canavan, Dennis

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Mullin, Chris

      Clelland, David

      Murphy, Paul

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Cohen, Harry

      O'Brien, William

      Coleman, Donald

      O'Neill, Martin

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Corbett, Robin

      Pike, Peter L.

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Cousins, Jim

      Prescott, John

      Cryer, Bob

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Darling, Alistair

      Radice, Giles

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Redmond, Martin

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

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Dixon, Don

      Reid, Dr John

      Dobson, Frank

      Robertson, George

      Doran, Frank

      Rogers, Allan

      Duffy, A. E. P

      Rooker, Jeff

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Ruddock, Joan

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Fearn, Ronald

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

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

      Short, Clare

      Fisher, Mark

      Skinner, Dennis

      Flannery, Martin

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Flynn, Paul

      Snape, Peter

      Foster, Derek

      Soley, Clive

      Fraser, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Fyfe, Maria

      Stott, Roger

      George, Bruce

      Turner, Dennis

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Walley, Joan

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Gordon, Mildred

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Gould, Bryan

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Graham, Thomas

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Haynes, Frank

      Wilson, Brian

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Winnick, David

      Henderson, Doug

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hinchliffe, David

      Worthington, Tony

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Janner, Greville

      NOES

      Allason, Rupert

      Atkins, Robert

      Amess, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Baldry, Tony

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Ashby, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      628

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Jessel, Toby

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Boswell, Tim

      Key, Robert

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Kilfedder, James

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Bowis, John

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Brazier, Julian

      Knapman, Roger

      Bright, Graham

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

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

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Knowles, Michael

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Knox, David

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Latham, Michael

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Burns, Simon

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Burt, Alistair

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Butler, Chris

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Butterfill, John

      Lightbown, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Lilley, Peter

      Carrington, Matthew

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Cash, William

      McCrindle, Robert

      Chapman, Sydney

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Maclean, David

      Colvin, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Couchman, James

      Malins, Humfrey

      Critchley, Julian

      Maples, John

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

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Devlin, Tim

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Durant, Tony

      Mills, Iain

      Dykes, Hugh

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Evennett, David

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Moate, Roger

      Fallon, Michael

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Forman, Nigel

      Mudd, David

      Franks, Cecil

      Neale, Gerrard

      French, Douglas

      Nelson, Anthony

      Gale, Roger

      Neubert, Michael

      Gardiner, George

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Gow, Ian

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Norris, Steve

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Page, Richard

      Gregory, Conal

      Paice, James

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Grist, Ian

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hague, William

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Portillo, Michael

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Price, Sir David

      Hannam, John

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

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

      Redwood, John

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Riddick, Graham

      Hayes, Jerry

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hayward, Robert

      Ryder, Richard

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hind, Kenneth

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Sims, Roger

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

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

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Speed, Keith

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Speller, Tony

      Hunter, Andrew

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Irvine, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Squire, Robin

      Jack, Michael

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      629

      Stern, Michael

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Stevens, Lewis

      Waller, Gary

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Watts, John

      Summerson, Hugo

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Whitney, Ray

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wilshire, David

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Wolfson, Mark

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wood, Timothy

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Thorne, Neil

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Trippier, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Trotter, Neville

      Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Viggers, Peter

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 2

      EXTENSION OF POWER TO REQUIRE PROMOTION OF SEARCHES
      Mr. Snape: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 4, line 10, at end add—
      '(5) Before issuing the direction under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall seek the views of the manager of the aerodrome concerned.'.
      The amendment deals with consultations on regional airports. It arises from the debate on the aviation security fund and, under the amendment, we have the opportunity to talk briefly about the costs for regional airports, post-Lockerbie. One of the reasons why Opposition Members plead for greater consultation with regional airport directors is that, post-Lockerbie, additional costs were incurred by regional airports for screening people who enter restricted areas there.
      I understand from the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities that Birmingham airport has paid £86,000 in capital costs and will pay £514,000 for the running costs of additional safety requirements in the current year. East Midlands airport has had to pay capital costs of £405,000—which is an enormous sum for that airport—and current operating costs are £260,000. Luton airport has had to pay capital costs of £364,000 and current operating costs are £414,000 this year for new security measures.
      I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would be desperately anxious that regional airports should not become the weak link in any security chain. I hope that the Under-Secretary will agree that security measures required at regional airports must be related to the perceived level of threat at those airports, particularly under the present financial regime.
      In our view, one of the other positive arguments in favour of an aviation security fund is that it could meet the additional costs at regional airports, rather than the airports having to meet the costs.
      The amendment would ensure that, before any additional measure was introduced at a regional airport, the widest possible consultation with airport managers, or directors—to give them their modern title—took place so that proposals were sensible and relevant to the individual airport.
      Mr. McLoughlin: The way that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has moved the
      630
      amendment is interesting, particularly in the light of previous debates. He drew some parallels with the security fund.
      I think that the case made and the evidence quoted by the hon. Gentleman prove that we are laying down strict criteria for airports to abide by. We expect them to do that, and we feel that they should try to arrange finance for it. Therefore, the examples that the hon. Gentleman gave show that the requirements are costing airports money, but they are finding the money.
      I know that the whole House agrees on the importance of regional airports for our aviation policy and in providing services for people in the region. We cannot excuse those airports from the necessity of aviation security, and it would be undesirable and wrong to do so. I accept that the Government have to ensure that the security measures required——
      Sir Dudley Smith: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. McLoughlin: Yes, but very briefly.
      Sir D. Smith: Further to what the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said, will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that, although we are talking about regional airports, many of them are becoming more international, for example, at Birmingham airport the range of flights is expanding all the time?
      Mr. McLoughlin: Most hon. Members accept the benefits that regional airports can bring to the regions and to the people who live in them. I take my hon. Friend's point.
      The security fund was dealt with adequately and properly in the previous debate, in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The Government must ensure that the security measures that it requires are both practical and necessary. That is why the Department has been discussing draft directions with those whom we consider it desirable to consult. Such consultations enable the Department to understand the practical difficulties that the industry faces when implementing new security measures, and it also allows the industry to understand why measures are necessary to meet security problems. That is one of the reasons why we have decided to issue directions rather than trying to say what should happen at an individual airport by bringing in a statute law. By their very nature, directions can change to allow for the practical details at individual airports.
      The amendment would handicap rather than enhance procedures. It requires the Secretary of State only to seek advice, and there is no requirement to take those views into account, but, what is more important, there is no exemption from statutory consultation when the direction has been issued as a matter of urgency, and that would certainly worry us.
      Statutory consultations, as envisaged in the amendment, could result in the Department having to contact as many as 50 aerodrome managers before any directions under the proposed section 13A could be made. It would be unlikely to add anything to the present system of informal consultation. The amendment would require aerodrome managers, who are not so directed under clause 2, to give their views about directions which would require others to have searches carried out. That seems to us to be misconceived, because it does not require the Secretary of

      631
      State to seek the views of those directly affected, and we have no intention of imposing unnecessary or unworkable security requirements on the industry.
      Therefore, I assure the House that, except in cases of extreme emergency, the Department will continue to ensure that there is a dialogue between it and the industry about the long-term objectives and developments on aviation security, and about the details of proposed directions. The Department will, of course, take into account the views of the industry, while at the same time trying to persuade it that the proposed measures are necessary, feasible and reasonable. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Snape: That was a disappointing reply. The Minister has said that consultation takes place between the Department and regional airports; we are merely seeking to formalise that arrangement by asking the Secretary of State to obtain the views of the management at the aeorodrome concerned. Surely that is not too much to ask. I remind the Minister that the Government have forced the establishment of local authority airports as arm's-length companies; should not they acknowledge the financial implications of their security directives, and seek the veiws of managers before introducing them?
      I am also disappointed by the Minister's failure to concede that the security measures required at regional airports are expensive, and that they should be related to a perceived threat. In Committee, he said that the perceived threat was greater in some airports than in others. In the absence of a national security levy, many airports are identifying a separate security element in their landing charges, but that does not overcome the fact that the cost of security measures at individual airports is not related to passenger throughput.
      It is a pity that the Minister does not agree that airport managers' views should be sought before directions are introduced, but I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division; therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 1, in page 21, line 31, leave out from 'charterer' to 'which' in line 33 and insert
      'manager or master of—

      (i) a British ship, or

      (ii) any other ship'.

      No. 2, in page 23, line 15, leave out 'or manager' and insert 'manager or master'.
      No. 3, in page 23, line 28, leave out from 'charterer' to 'requiring' in line 29 and insert
      'manager or master of—

      (a) a British ship, or

      (b) any other ship which is in a harbour area'.

      No. 4, in page 35, line 42, leave out 'or manager' and insert 'manager or master'.
      No. 5, in page 35, line 47, leave out from beginning to 'in' and insert
      'and the authorised person certifies'.
      No. 6, in page 36, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'deliver' and insert
      'Where the authorised person does not himself detain the ship, he shall deliver the certificate to the officer detaining the ship.
      (2A) On detaining the ship, the authorised person or other officer shall'.—[Mr. Portillo.]

    Clause 36

      INSPECTION OF SHIPS AND HARBOUR AREAS
      Ms. Ruddock: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 36, line 35, at end insert—
      (2A) An authorised person may require the owner, charterer, manager or master of a ship, the harbour authority or occupier, to provide him with such information as shall enable the authorised person to assess whether any special conditions should be included in a direction issued under this Act.'.
      Clause 36 gives the Secretary of State powers of inspection to enable him to decide whether to make a direction under clauses 21 to 24, or to ascertain whether any direction or enforcement notice has been complied with. In carrying out inspections under clause 36, the authorised person will clearly need to have in mind the powers set out in those clauses—powers to search people and property, to detain ships if necessary and to carry out modifications or alterations in harbours or on ships. No provision exists, however, to take account of the terms and conditions of work for people who will be on the receiving end of those security measures.
      Let us suppose that an inspector is concerned about security on a ship, and that it is clear to him that the person or persons responsible for security is, or are, suffering from gross fatigue. Is it not more than probable that he will consider that crew members—and the master himself—are unlikely to be vigilant about security if they are suffering from fatigue?
      In our view, good security depends on people being viligant, alert and able to make quick and accurate decisions. Our amendment seeks to give the inspector power to require information, so that he can assess whether special conditions should be included in any direction that he is to issue. He should, for example, be able to ask how long people have been on duty: that could apply not only to personnel working on the ship, but to security guards at harbours. He should also be able to take into account the fitness of the people involved in ensuring that security provisions are as effective as possible.
      In Committee, we discussed private security services at some length. We identified many deficiencies in their organisation, and in the personnel that they sought to recruit; we also referred to a report by the National Union of Marine Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers— NUMAST—about fatigue on ships. The report states:
      "Fatigue can be deadly. Its effects and dangers are well-known and acknowledged in many transport industries by controls on employees' hours—yet there are no effective limits on the hours worked by seafarers.
      Ships … carry a range of cargoes, some capable of causing massive environmental damage. Ferries and cruise ships carry passengers, specialist ships service North Sea oil and gas installations. In all these sectors, the shipping industry has clear responsibilities to provide safe services"—
      and, of course, to have regard to security.
      "NUMAST has extensively researched the problems posed by fatigue at sea. Consultations with members have produced evidence of excessive working hours throughout the shipping industry. Evidence of breakdowns in personal performance as a result of excessive hours has also been given to NUMAST.
      Increasing commercial pressures—including reduced crew levels, greater reliance upon new technology and faster turnround times in ports—are exacerbating the problem faced by our members"—
      that is, members of crews and masters of ships.
      "Changes in relationship between shipowner, managing company and charterers can distance shipowners from

      633
      masters and officers. Demands of oil and gas operators in the North Sea override seamanlike judgement on safety factors, including hours worked."
      For all those reasons, we thought it necessary to table amendment No. 12 to enable all the relevant factors to be taken into account when inspections are being conducted. There is ample evidence that in the shipping industry—which places no limits on the number of hours that can be worked—people are working excessive hours, with the result that their ability to cope with difficult circumstances is affected dramatically. That must have a major impact on their ability to handle security matters.
      I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has already given notice of a related question that I wish to ask the Minister. Is he aware of an incident that occurred at the end of last year on a P and O ferry using Dover harbour? A report has reached us recently of a bomb being found on board such a ship. My hon. Friend has written to the Minister and we shall expect a reply in due course, but I should like to know now whether he knows of such an incident.
      If inspectors are given the necessary information, and consider that it has a bearing on the implementation of the Bill, we believe that they should have the power to make special conditions to rectify what we consider to be a glaring omission in maritime law—the lack of regulation of working hours.
      Mr. McLoughlin: Let me deal first with the hon. Lady's question about the report of a device being found on a ferry. I have not yet received the letter from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), although I understand that it is on its way, and I shall carry out a thorough investigation when it arrives. It would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment on a report that I have not yet seen, as I have had no opportunity to check it.
      Ms. Ruddock: With respect, my question was not whether the Minister had received the letter or was in a position to reply, but whether he was aware of such an incident. He does not need to have received the letter to answer the question.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I thought that I made it clear that I know of no such incident.
      The Government are unable to accept amendment No. 12, for two reasons. First, it is always for the Secretary of State to decide which requirements should be included in any direction. It would be wholly inappropriate for an authorised person to have such a power, especially as the amendment provides that that should happen after the Secretary of State has made his initial direction. Secondly, under clause 19(1), the Secretary of State already has wide-ranging powers to require information, these being
      "in connection with the exercise by the Secretary of State of his functions under this Part of this Act."
      We therefore cannot accept the amendment. I ask the House to reject it.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 41
      SEA CARGO AGENTS
      Amendment made No. 15, in page 40, line 9, leave out 'or manager' and insert 'manager or master'.—[Mr. Portillo.]
    Clause 43
      ANNUAL REPORT BY SECRETARY OF STATE AS TO NOTICES AND DIRECTIONS UNDER PART III
      Amendment made: No. 7, in page 41, line 20, leave out 'or managers' and insert 'managers or masters'.—[Mr. Portillo.]
    Clause 49

      OFFENCES BY BODIES CORPORATE
      Mr. Portillo: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 47, line 35, after 'this Act' insert
      '(including any provision of Part III as applied by regulations made under section 41 of this Act) or under regulations made under section 42 of this Act'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 9.
      Mr. PortilloThese are technical amendments. They extend the scope of clause 49 and of section 37 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 in respect of regulations relating to air and sea cargo agents and regulations requiring the reporting of aviation and maritime security occurrences. If an offence under any of these regulations is committed by a body corporate, and with the connivance of, or because of the neglect of, a director or other similar senior officer of the company, that person will also be guilty of the offence.
      Amendment agreed to.

    New Schedule

      PROVISIONS RELATING TO COMPENSATION
      1. This Schedule applies to compensation under section (Compensation in respect of certain measures taken under Part III) of this Act (in this Schedule referred to as "the principal section").
      2. No compensation to which this Schedule applies shall be payable unless the person to whom it is payable in accordance with the principal section (or in accordance with regulations made under paragraph 5 below) serves on the person by whom the measures in question were taken a notice in writing claiming compensation under that section, and that notice is served before the end of the period of two years from the completion of the measures.
      3. In relation to any measures taken by any person on land outside a harbour area, any reference in the principal section to a direction or enforcement notice, or to compliance with a direction or enforcement notice, is to be construed as if subsection (6) of section 26 of this Act were omitted.
      4. In calculating value for any of the purposes of the principal section—

      (a) rules (2) to (4) of the rules set out in section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 apply with the necessary modifications, and

      (b) if the interest to be valued is subject to a mortgage, it is to be treated as if it were not subject to the mortgage.

      5. Regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument may make provision—

      (a) requiring compensation to which this Schedule applies, in such cases as may be specified in the

      635
      regulations, to be paid to a person other than the person entitled to it in accordance with the principal section,

      (b) as to the application of any compensation to which this Schedule applies, or any part of it, in cases where the right to claim compensation is exercisable by reference to an interest in land which is subject to a mortgage, or to a rent-charge, or to the trusts of a settlement, or, in Scotland, to a feuduty or ground annual or to the purposes of a trust, or which was so subject at a time specified in the regulations, or

      (c) as to any assumptions to be made, or matters to be taken into or left out of account, for the purpose of assessing any compensation to which this Schedule applies.

      6. A statutory instrument containing regulations made under paragraph 5 above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
      7. Any dispute arising under the principal section or under this Schedule, whether as to the right to any compensation or as to the amount of any compensation or otherwise, shall be referred to and determined by the Lands Tribunal.
      8. In the application of this Schedule to Scotland—

      (a) the reference in paragraph 4(a) to section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 is to be construed as a reference to section 12 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, and

      (b) the reference in paragraph 7 to the Lands Tribunal is to be construed as a reference to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland.

      9. In the application of this Schedule to Northern Ireland—

      (a) the reference in paragraph 4(a) to section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 is to be construed, notwithstanding paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Land Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (which confines the operation of that Order to matters within the legislative competence of the Parliament of Northern Ireland), as a reference to Article 6(1) of that Order, and

      (b) the reference in paragraph 7 to the Lands Tribunal is to be construed as a reference to the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland.

      10. In this Schedule "mortgage" includes any charge or lien on any property for securing money or money's worth, and any heritable security within the meaning of section 9(8) of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970.'.—[Mr. Portillo.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Schedule 1

      FURTHER AMENDMENTS OF THE AVIATION SECURITY ACT I982
      Amendment made: No. 9, in page 56, line 11, at end insert—
      '17A. In section 37 of that Act (offences by bodies corporate) for "or under regulations made under section 33" there is substituted "(including any provision of Part II as applied by regulations made under section 21 F of this Act) or under regulations made under section 21G.".'.—[Mr. Portillo.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      6.41 pm
      Mr. Portillo: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      A number of hon. Members wish to speak on Third Reading, so my speech will be brief. The Bill has received general support throughout its stages. We had an interesting Second Reading debate on a number of matters relating to aviation and maritime security. However, there
      636
      were no significant differences of opinion about the Bill's proposals. Harmony continued throughout the Committee proceedings.
      Today, we have had our most serious disagreements. The positions adopted by the Government and the Opposition have been typical. Our response, predictably, has been that we should minimise the role of Government where it is unnecessary to extend it. The Opposition's response, predictably, has been that the establishment of a central fund to recycle money could add to security. I did not expect the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) to agree with me, but I am pleased that it was only a rare moment of disagreement between the two sides.
      Outside the House, the Bill's proposals have been widely welcomed, certainly by the aviation industry and the police. However, they have been given a less warm welcome by the maritime industry, which believes that the existing voluntary arrangements are working satisfactorily. I can reassure the maritime industry that the legislation will ensure that security measures are applied even-handedly to foreign as well as to British ships. The Government believe that voluntary action is no longer adequate and that standards should be set and enforced throughout the industry. I assure the House that the legal sanctions will probably be used infrequently. However, it is important that reserve powers are available to be used if needed.
      I believe that we have made important progress towards establishing what I hope will become an Act of Parliament which will enable us to tighten up our defences against terrorism in the aviation and maritime industries. I commend the Bill to the House.
      6.44 pm
      Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I made it clear from the outset in Committee that I support all moves to strengthen security arrangements at our airports and seaports. I was concerned about the extent of the powers contained in the Bill, as first printed, but I am pleased to say that many of my fears were allayed in Committee. The Minister knows that I have always been concerned about the strange anomaly that, to protect the freedom of our people—in this case, freedom of movement—we are giving the Government and other designated people the very powers that, in different circumstances, could be used to take freedom away.
      Although we have uppermost in our minds the fact that we are endeavouring to defeat terrorism, the extensive powers of searches of persons and property—which are to be authorised by the owners and operators of our aerodromes, ports and the ships and aircraft that use our ports and by certain other categories of person under directives from the Secretary of State—are still very wide.
      As drafted, the Bill makes it clear that most of the searches will be carried out by private security personnel. In the case of our harbours, the searches are likely to be conducted by hand. There is still no code of conduct or set of standards to cover such searches; nor is there any mechanism to monitor the process or to set up a complaints procedure. I mentioned that point in Committee on two separate occasions. I still consider such a mechanism to be essential. I am still worried about the extensive nature of this power of search, which can reach land, property and personnel far removed from any airport or harbour.

      637
      In Committee, I tried to amend the clause relating to the use of firearms. I am mindful that, in reply, the Minister said:
      "I advise the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) that his amendment No. 99 has considerable attraction. I intend to reconsider the phraseology of this part of the Bill, although I am not sure that what he proposes is strictly necessary. it is clear that the mechanism for securing searches by armed constables would operate when a person receiving a direction got in touch with the chief constable of a local police force, who would ensure that arms were carried by the policemen. That would happen in any case, but there maybe advantage in reviewing the wording.
      A specific fault in the hon. Gentleman's wording is that it would require constables to be authorised to carry firearms, but that is not enough. We want to ensure that they actually carry them if that has been specified in the direction. For that reason, I shall not accept his wording. However, I should like to review it to see whether we can provide something better."—Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15 February 1990; c. 139.]
      I see no evidence of that reconsideration, or of a review or of the provison of something better. Perhaps the Minister could say why.
      As I have already stated, with the exceptions that I have mentioned, I feel that this is a good Bill. I therefore support it, as it will be an effective vehicle to combat terrorism.
      6.47 pm
      Mr. Wilshire: I was pleased to welcome the Bill when it was given its Second Reading. Both in Committee and on Report, it has been further strengthened by the changes that have been made. However, I do not believe that the process should stop here. My hon. Friends the Ministers for Public Transport and for Aviation and Shipping are well aware that several matters still need to be considered. When the Bill reaches another place, I hope that it will be possible to introduce further changes.
      The Bill improves security both at airports and at seaports. It clarifies responsibilities that have never been clarified before. The Secretary of State's role is defined. The Bill provides him with new powers to carry out his responsibilities. It ensures that everyone with access to airside at airports and with access to ships is responsible for public safety.
      The Bill also improves the checking and monitoring of security. The powers of the inspectorate at airports are to be strengthened. The Bill will provide it with greater powers to carry out checks. However, the suggestion that, because there will be more inspectors, there will, for the first time, be random tests of the system is far from the truth. All sorts of people have been trying to test the system for a long time, but more inspectors will be a welcome addition. One of the most important improvements made in Committee was the insertion of the requirement that all future lapses in security must be reported.
      The Bill provides effective sanctions that will enable enforcement to take place properly. It activates the Montreal protocol and creates new offences; the entire Committee agreed that that was about time too.
      The Bill closes some loopholes that have existed for some time. In future, businesses that operate at an airport but also have premises away from the airport will find that security will catch up with them wherever they may be operating. That is not before time.
      638
      In Committee, it was also made clear that the cargo procedures, particularly at airports, would be tightened up. I welcome that, as does the entire aviation industry, but there is still some way to go; more thought is necessary before we can be absolutely certain that we have done everything possible to improve our existing cargo systems. Although the Bill contains all those worthwhile provisions, we have to remember that no Bill will ever be a cure-all for security, as 100 per cent. security is impossible. However many Bills go through the House, the personal responsibility of every passenger and employee and the eternal vigilance of all concerned are the only ways to maximise security, even when the Bill is enacted.
      When we pass the Bill, we need to avoid three traps. First, we must not pretend to the public that we can achieve a level of security that cannot be attained, because we do not have the technology. Secondly, we must beware of bringing the system to a halt by demanding too many checks on huge numbers of people. Thirdly, as I said on Second Reading, we must avoid always looking backwards to try to close loopholes after a terrorist has found them. Having said that, I wish the Bill well. I believe that it is a practical response to a deeply worrying problem for the public.
      6.52 pm
      Mr. Snape: Earlier in our deliberations, the Minister of State said that, at every stage of the Bill, the debate has been fairly harmonious and good-tempered. We endorse those sentiments. Right from the outset, the Opposition have been in a somewhat unusual position. Normally, we oppose Government legislation, but on this occasion we felt that there was much to be said in favour of the Bill, although we were unhappy with some aspects of it and felt that some loopholes should be closed. We have not been successful in closing those loopholes, but at each stage we were grateful to the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State for listening to the arguments, and for responding positively when they were able to do so and courteously when they were not. That is not always the case on such legislation.
      From the outset, the Opposition believed and insisted that there should be a time schedule within which all aircraft baggage for transfer and in hold, as well as that carried by passengers, should be properly screened. We have not yet reached that laudable objective, although we have secured a pledge from the Minister of State that the Government will work towards it and, hopefully, it will be achieved sooner rather than later.
      We remain of the view that the major obstacle to achieving that desirable goal is money. Notwithstanding the views that have been expressed this evening, we firmly believe that an aviation security fund will be necessary to fund security adequately at Britain's airports.
      In Committee, we introduced the concept that a threat to damage or interfere with the safe passage of an airliner should be an offence. That view was shared by many Members on both sides of the Committee. Perhaps the Government's attitude will change. The perceived threat to airlines and airliners is often worrying to passengers. All too often, those who make such threats are aware that some people feel terrified, or at least uncomfortable, when they board an aircraft. The examples that we discussed in

      639
      Committee showed that the threats themselves caused enormous concern to passengers and led to heavy delays and extra expense for the airlines involved.
      Most of the maritime clauses of the Bill have been dealt with more than adequately by my hon. Friends the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran). We remain concerned and unhappy about the amount of private policing that takes place and will continue to take place around our docks and harbours.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) is not present, although I am sure there are good reasons for his absence. Some of the amendments that he tabled in Committee left us in no doubt about the concern of the Police Federation that so many policing duties are bring carried out by private security firms. In Committee, the Opposition attempted to do something about the principle of non-police officers doing work that should be carried out by the police.
      We attempted to persuade the Minister to accept amendments that would have laid down minimum standards of pay and working conditions within the private security industry before those private security firms were employed at docks, harbours or airports. As we were unsuccessful in our attempts to persuade the Government that such amendments were necessary, we hope that their refusal to accede to those eminently reasonable demands will not rebound on them in the form of further breaches of security particularly at our docks and harbours in future.
      We believe that the Bill is basically good. All right hon. and hon. Members are anxious that security at our airports, harbours and docks is the best that money can buy, regardless of where that money comes from. The fact that there was so much harmony in Committee illustrates the depth of feeling and concern, which crosses party lines. We do not whole-heartedly support every clause. We tried to close one or two gaps in the Bill, and the fact that we were unable to do so causes us concern. The parts of the Bill that must be strengthened will be considered in another place, so I conclude by expressing the Opposition's thanks to the Minister for Public Transport and the Under-Secretary for a courteous and informative debate, and I hope that they would reciprocate those sentiments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Midland Metro Bill (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7 pm
  Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am aware that there have been objections to the private Bill procedure. The word "Parliament" derives from the French "parler"—to talk. Supporters of the Bill do not object to the Bill being debated, but moving its Second Reading is the only way it can be heard. We must therefore follow that procedure. The House may consider a better procedure in the future, and that might commend itself, but at present this is the only procedure available.
  One or two hon. Members wish to oppose the Bill, and one of the happy outcomes of this debate is that they will be able to do so. I hope that they will bear in mind—I shall refer to this in detail later—the referendum carried out by the promoters, showing a majority in favour of the Bill among those who will be affected by it. Some 62 per cent. of those polled were in favour, 15 per cent. opposed it and 22 per cent. were uncertain.
  The Bill follows a long tradition that was initiated by Bills in the 18th century to construct canals and by Bills in the last century to construct railways. The same routine was used when the Birmingham-London railway was constructed in 1832. The canal that runs through my constituency was subject to the same procedure.
  Transportation patterns have changed enormously in the past few decades. When I served on the transport committee in Birmingham, it was said that the black country was no more than a bicycle ride away from a chap's place of work or home. That was the limit of his transport horizons. I remember being told by the then general manager that there was no connection between the black country and Birmingham, and that no one wished to travel on such a route. How different transport has become. We now have lines between Wolverhampton, the black country and Birmingham which were established by the passing of the first Act to build a line connecting Wolverhampton to Birmingham.
  All the surrounding areas have changed. The reference in "Jerusalem" to the dark satanic mills of industry no longer applies. They are now much more pleasant to work in and more pleasant environmentally. The back-to-back houses of the early industrial revolution have changed and are now pleasant villas in which to live. Their occupants want an alternative transport system. We have seen green changes, environmental facelifting and cosmetic work throughout the area. One of the advantages of the Bill is that, wherever the line runs, it will continue that trail of environmentally acceptable measures.
  Birmingham and many black country towns used to have tramways. There was a horse trough in the centre of Moseley, from which horses would drink before pulling trams on the last part of their journey up St. Mary's hill. Trams were abolished in the 1950s and in my office I have a picture of the last tram.
  I believe that the Midland metro will provide a better form of transport than the trams. I travelled down Bristol road to school on a tram. It was a safe method of transport, and the only method that did not provide one with an excuse for being late. The trams were open-ended, and many a friendly cap used to exit from either end of them.

  641
  Constraints on transport in urban areas have led to demands for an alternative form of transport. In previous decades, attempts were made to legislate against the car. They have not been successful, and car usage has increased enormously. It was my lot as second chairman of the West Midlands passenger transport authority to draw up the west midlands transport plan and to include a paragraph that we should bring back an electric light railway to supplement existing transport systems. We had introduced the cross-city railway line in Tyseley, and the 80 marshalling places for it, on a shoestring of about £8 million, compared with the £300 million that Newcastle was lucky to obtain for its heavy rail system. We did not begrudge Newcastle that excellent system, which we inspected many times, but we had to manage on a shoestring, and in only the past few weeks has the Secretary of State for Transport given permission for the electrification of that cross-city line, which we hope will be completed within two years. That is bad enough. The lead-in time was long, and we hope that the Bill will give us a chance to make up some of the lost time and lost line.
  Transport debates have always dealt with the differences between highways and railways, but there has been no need for that. Under the integrated transport system initiated following the Midland Metro Act 1989, buses and cars were provided with free car parks, enabling their passengers to use the trains. Usage on one line increased by 1,500 per cent.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that probably the only justification for ever providing free car parking is as part of an integrated transport system? Does he agree that free parking provided by employers and others should be a taxable perk to encourage people to use transit systems?
  Mr. Bevan: I note that point. I would not like to comment on tax-free perks, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the necessity for free parking. I have always resisted any attempt to levy a charge in the midlands.
  Five new stations have been built in Birmingham this century. Many more have been refurbished; dozens of free car parks have been provided; and the lines have been upgraded to take heavy rolling stock. Much more must be done. The Bill authorises the construction of the second and third stages of the network. Its capital costs will be substantial—about £224 million for the Birmingham-Solihull route and £139 million for the black country route. I hope that the stock will be similar to that operating in Grenoble, which is the watershed in terms of light railways. The system is ecologically elegant, being whisper-quiet and attractive. I hope that it will be made in Britain, perhaps even in Birmingham.
  Progress on a previous Bill stopped because the proposal would have destroyed far too much property and interfered with the rights of citizens and was for the wrong place at the wrong time. The task was again taken up by the West Midlands passenger transport executive, now called Centro. It has aimed to introduce a rapid rail system in the best possible way, wherever possible using disused railway lines or using designated or on-street tramways. Although there have been a few objections, the project has cross-party support on all seven metropolitan district
  642
  councils—Birmingham city council and the metropolitan borough councils of Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton.
  The west midlands metro system will play an important part in reversing the declining use of public transport. It will make a major contribution in regenerating derelict or economically depressed areas and will bring major benefits in improving the environment. The system is a constant factor of success elsewhere, being well-used and patronised throughout the world. On my visits as a member of the Select Committee on Transport, I have been impressed by rapid rail transit systems in the United States, Canada and throughout Europe, where towns vie with one another to introduce their own metropolitan transit system. I am determined that our area will not be behind. In making this move, we will initiate one of the most modern systems in the world.
  Extensive consultation has been carried out. The Bill's sponsors respectfully ask that the House give the Bill a Second Reading. The procedure that we are following differs slightly from the normal procedure for a public Bill. Granting a Second Reading will merely allow the Bill to proceed to Committee where it will be fully examined.
  The Bill's aims are to relieve traffic congestion, bring about economic regeneration, ensure increased use of the public transport network and, attendant upon the work, bring about environmental improvements. The first stage provides for 20 km of line linking Birmingham Snow Hill, a station that has recently been rebuilt, to Wolverhampton, at a cost of £60 million. The Bill providing for that work received the Royal Assent in November 1989, without objection.
  The light transit system provided for by this legislation will consist of a modern lightweight tram which has low floor boarding and runs on a standard gauge track. It will be fume-free, being powered by overhead electricity. It will be able to operate on either designated track or on shared road. It will be similar to the Grenoble design, of which I have full details, although I shall merely say that it will have a two-unit capacity providing room for 250 people, 75 seated and the rest standing.
  The system's benefits are that it will relieve traffic congestion and increase mobility because of the low floor, it is safe, environmentally friendly, fume-free and reliable and it compares favourably with other modes of transport. For my money, it is the finest system that I have seen. It will provide direct access to towns and shopping centres. Its advantages over roads are that it is safer, has lower costs and has less environmental impact. Recent transport studies do not propose roads as a solution to transport needs in urban areas. The aim of the state-of-the-art systems is to get the right mix between roads and rail, including light railways and other forms of transport.
  This system has much lower costs than heavy rail and has less environmental impact. It is more flexible, being capable of negotiating tighter bends and steeper gradients. It can share the roads with other traffic and it gives greater penetration into city areas. Compares with buses, it is more reliable, cleaner and fume-free, has greater capacity, is faster and more modern and has an upmarket image. Compared with the requirements of busways and bus priorities, it uses less space, is easier to control, can share road space and is cheaper to operate. Compared with trolley buses, it is faster and more efficient. Many other comparisons could be made.

  643
  The Bill provides for a transport route from Birmingham Five Ways, one of the five stations built this century. It will go underground through the city centre to the Birmingham Heartlands development area, a 2,000-acre redevelopment, to Bromford, Castle Bromwich, Chelmsley Wood, Arlington business park and the national exhibition centre, which is already a world beater, making Birmingham and the midlands one of the most important strategic areas in the world——
  . Iain Mills: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Bevan: The route runs through the constituency of my hon. Friend who has applauded its existence. I am sure that he will applaud the necessary transport survey. The route will take in Birmingham international railway station and Birmingham international airport. The length will be 26 km, and there will be 34 stops. Twenty-four vehicles will be required, the frequency will be every five minutes, and the cost will be £240 million.
  Then the line will go underground—under the city centre. Underground stations will serve the new international convention centre, the town hall, New street and Corporation street. The line will surface at Aston university and the general hospital—if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and I, together with our colleagues, are able to have that preserved in the health plan. The underground section will cost £100 million.
  From Wolverhampton, line 3 will go to Dudley town centre, via Wednesfield, Walsall, Darlaston and Wednesbury. It will cross line 1 at the Sandwell 2000 development. It will serve Tipton, too. Indeed, it will link all those towns in the black country whose citizens used to want to cover small distances. The length will be 26 km, there will be 32 stops and 11 vehicles, frequency will be every 10 minutes, and the cost will be £139 million.
  Major feasibility studies were undertaken to choose the route. These were partly funded by the EEC. Suffice it to say that, in the end, the district councils selected the routes on the basis of minimum effect on residential property. In the case of line 1, no residential property whatsoever will be taken out. In the case of line 2, only some residential property in a redevelopment area will be affected.
  Potential passenger use, cost, environmental effects and development proposals, as well as practicability of construction, were borne in mind. Each passenger stop will be 60 m long—sufficient to accommodate two units. Stops will be located about every 600 to 800 m, as in the case of bus stops. Kerb height will be twice the average, so that in most places the step will be precisely level. There will be a slightly inclined ramp to give pushchairs and wheelchairs access. Incidentally, a disabled passenger will be able to press a button on the tram, at the point of exit, to bring out a pneumatic step to bridge the two-inch gap between the vehicle and the kerb. Thus there will be completely safe and smooth exit for disabled people.
  No decisions about stops have yet been made. Ultimately that will be a matter for the council, after consultation with local residents. Consultation has followed a very intense pattern. Since the launch in 1987, many videos have been shown and a dedicated exhibition bus has toured round. In 1989, 300 six-minute videos were sent to residents' associations, community groups and local political parties; 64,000 leaflets were distributed; 95 presentations were given to business groups, chambers of
  644
  commerce, rotary clubs, breakfast clubs, local groups and CBI groups; 17 exhibitions were mounted at conferences and transport events; and the exhibition bus appeared on 72 days at 40 venues.
  Regarding the Bill, 115,000 leaflets were distributed within 1 km of the line of route immediately after the local council announced the proposed route. Ten different leaflets were produced. PTE or Centro officers attended 40 consultation venues or meetings.
  In the case of line 2, in Birmingham 14,000 leaflets were distributed within 1 km of the proposed route—4,000 covering the city centre section and 10,000 for the area outside the city centre to the Solihull boundary; 13 consultation venues were organised by Centro and council officers, and were attended by 1,400 members of the public; an exhibition lasting three and a half weeks was arranged at Bromford neighbourhood office; public meetings were organised and publicised by Centro and Birmingham city council, and 239 people attended; and there were 26 meetings with businesses and business groups.
  In Solihull, 25,000 leaflets were distributed throughout northern Solihull; two further leaflets—4,500 copies of one, and 14,000 of the other—were distributed to advise people of further consultation venues.
  Mr. Rooker: I have been waiting for the hon. Gentleman to come to the end of his list, and I think he has now done so.
  Mr. Bevan: I have not come to the end of it.
  Mr. Rooker: In that case, I shall put my question when he has finished.
  Mr. Bevan: I come now to line 3. In Walsall, 36,000 leaflets—three versions covering sections of the route—were distributed to households within 1 km of the proposed route; and 11 consultation venues were organised and attended by Centro and council officers.
  In Wolverhampton, 12,000 leaflets were distributed to households within 1 km of the proposed line of route; personal letters were sent to occupiers of 130 properties directly affected by the route; three consultation venues were organised, with Centro and council officers in attendance, and these were attended by 200 people; and an exhibition was held at New Cross hospital.
  In Sandwell, 12,000 leaflets were distributed to households within 1 km of the proposed line of route; three consultation venues were organised and attended by Centro and council officers, and these attracted 400 people.
  In Dudley, personal letters, with Sandwell leaflets, were sent to the occupiers of 32 homes along Birmingham New road; and 600 people visited the exhibition bus in Dudley market place.
  Mr. Rooker: I am sorry for having interrupted the hon. Gentleman before he completed his list. That list of consultations in respect of the three routes is very impressive, although I have not taken it all in. In any case, my constituency is not affected. Despite this massive public relations operation, the real test is whether people were listened to. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many changes were made in the proposed route as a result of all these consultations?
  Mr. Bevan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is necessary that the routes be promulgated along with the private Bill. Thus, by the time the Bill is published, the route is almost fixed. However, by that time all those who have a legitimate interest in the route, and who have expressed that interest, will have had their views taken into consideration. Of course, account will have been taken of locus standi. In a case like this, anyone voicing an objection must say who he is, what his interest is, and how he is affected. That cannot be altered. I understand that, in the case of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), some changes were made in the original proposed route. It would appear that the requirements have changed from time to time. I think that certain minor modifications have been made.
  Mr. Terry Davis: I had no intention of intervening in the hon. Gentleman's speech, which I have been following with great interest, but I assure him that no changes were made as a result of the leaflets or of meetings in my constituency. If he thinks that some changes were made, perhaps he will tell the House what they were.
  Mr. Bevan: I understood that there had been minor changes from the centre of the spine area originally proposed by the city council to the periphery—changes that the hon. Gentleman wanted. Certainly the route has now been arranged along the boundary of Collector road.
  Mr. Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bevan: I shall give way once more, but then I must get on.
  Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is talking about my constituency. I have to tell him that he is confusing the Bromford estate with Chelmsley Wood. Collector road is in Chelmsley Wood, not in the Bromford estate, which is in my constituency. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to mislead the House, but his description of the alleged changes is misleading.
  Mr. Bevan: I shall listen with interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech and perhaps return to the matter.
  Let us consider the concerns expressed at the many meetings and consultation sessions. One of them was noise. The vehicles are much quieter than the 1940s tram or even the Blackpool trams, and the higher frequency will mean that they will be less intrusive. The tracks will be embedded in rubber compound and ballasted when feasible, so there will be virtually no noise, and noise insulation grant will be payable under a scheme similar to that in operation for highways.
  Safety has been concentrated upon, and the tram will be a much safer form of conveyance per passenger mile than the car. There will be far fewer accidents involving pedestrians. The vehicle runs on rails and so will be more controlled than a car or bus. The driver does not have to steer and has a high level of training, and the system has been approved by the railway inspectorate under the strictest criteria.
  Concern was also expressed about property values and compensation. In 1989, Centro introduced a scheme to purchase properties directly affected by the proposals whose owners wished to sell. Moreover, evidence shows that property values increase faster when new public transport infrastructure is built. In Grenoble, only about
  646
  50 per cent. of the people had been in favour of the system before it was initiated, but after it had been running for about a year, no fewer than 93·7 per cent. expressed themselves completely in favour.
  A factor that is important to all of us here is funding. We shall seek funding from the private sector—through operating rights, stop locations and development gain. We shall seek it from the EEC regional development fund, on the basis of job creation, economic regeneration and environmental gain. I understand that about 30 per cent. of the funding may be available from the EEC. We shall seek funding from the United Kingdom Government, on the grounds of non-user benefits such as the relief of traffic congestion, environmental improvements and a reduction in accidents, as well as by the appropriate section 56 applications.
  What will the costs be? Line 1 will cost £60 million for 20 km. The lines covered by the Bill—lines 2 and 3—will cost £224 million for 26 km and £139 million for 26 km respectively, and the vehicles will cost £30 million.
  How do those costs compare with road costs? The heartlands spine road, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and I seek to bring into existence and for which we, with some other hon. Members, have obtained approval, will cost £85 million and cover 4·1 km—a cost of £20·66 million per km—and its maximum passenger capacity will be 14,500. Line 3 of the metro will cost £139 million, or about twice as much as the heartlands spine road, but it will cover 26 km, which is more than six times the road's length. The cost per km will be £5·36 million—about a quarter of the cost of the road, and the passenger capacity will be about 30,000—twice the capacity of the spine road.
  Support for the project has been pretty constant, and the groups that have given their support range from Aston Villa football club—despite yesterday's loss—and the Automobile Association, through a myriad of bodies to the Urban Wildlife Group and the west midlands branch of the CBI. There has been cross-party support from all the district councils and from most of the west midlands Members of Parliament—support which I hope will be reflected again this evening. As I explained earlier, there is widespread public support and even the groups that oppose the project because of the routes claim to support the concept and to want the metro to proceed.
  What happened in Grenoble? Before the tram was built the people were 53 to 47 in favour of its going ahead. Two years after it had opened, they were 93 to 7 in favour.
  This is a brilliant opportunity to take a gigantic transportation step forward to the benefit of citizens throughout the west midlands and of all the towns that are clamouring for the metro. We understand the necessity to debate and question, but we must not deny people their right to move freely on such a transport system. The Bill presents an opportunity which, if not grasped now, may be denied to us for ever. I am certain that there are no transportation luddites or even troglodytes among us, and I hope that all hon. Members will vote to give the Bill its Second Reading.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: I speak not as a troglodyte or as a luddite. Words of abuse may have been heaped upon me, but I have never been called either of those. Nor am I a Trappist.

  647
  One of the great problems that hon. Members face in dealing with constituency matters is how to make a judgment based on representations from individual constituents or groups of constituents, however legitimately expressed on the one hand, and representations from a wider group—which may or may not be formally made—on the other. One's judgment must be based partly on sectarian interests—I do not use the word "sectarian" in any way abusively—and partly on broader regional and national interests. Sometimes hon. Members may be cowed into silence—if not submission—on an issue that directly affects a group of their constituents, but we must try to take a broader approach.
  Although a number of my constituents—not many—have expressed their opposition to the Bill, I am secure in the knowledge that the overwhelming majority of people are in favour of the metro being constructed through my constituency and adjacent constituencies. Without the slightest shadow of a doubt, the creation of the network will bring immense advantage to my constituents, to the town of Walsall, to the black country and to the region. As Members of Parliament, we have an obligation to represent not just specific interests but wider town and regional interests.
  In my view, there is an overwhelming case for the House to endorse the Bill and to hope that it will wend its way through Committee and through a consultation process that will be a continuation of the consultations to date. I hope that eventually—not before time, as this saga has been unfolding since the early 1980s—in the mid to late 1990s, we shall see the network in operation. We must work towards that end and recognise what has already been achieved.
  As far as I am aware, the authorities were not legally obliged to begin the consultation process until the Bill had completed its passage through Parliament. What was done in my area, and, I presume, in others, was therefore discretionary. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) narrated a long tale of consultation, which I could replicate with the greatest of ease. A large number of meetings and metro surgeries were held; a hot line was established; letters were written; tens of thousands of leaflets were issued, including to all those living within a kilometre of the proposed route.
  Walsall council cannot be criticised for failing to consult. Nor can the council or the passenger transport authority be accused of not acting on a number of suggestions. A year ago, residents in Victoria road, Darlaston, heard that the line was to go past their houses. They told me that that proposal was illogical. I was told that the line would go down the road and that there would be enormous traffic problems because the road was too narrow. They said that, just 20 yd from the proposed line, there was an old railway cutting, and asked whether it would make more sense to put the line in the old cutting. However, the problem was that the council had spent money making that cutting into a linear pathway and it was not initially enthusiastic about ripping up something which was environmentally advantageous that it had constructed. When the case was put to Walsall council and the PTA, reason prevailed and the route was changed. It is obvious that, where a rational case could be presented, the authority has been prepared to reconsider and has changed the route.
  I understand that there had been a change of route in Solihull. Perhaps there will be other changes later.
  648
  However, we face problems with such proposals. People legitimately say that they do not want the proposed line to pass their houses because it might be noisy or because fishermen carrying their lines might snag them on the overhead wires. Similarly, they argue that children might be run down or that the line would have an adverse effect on house prices. Many arguments can be made with fervour and legitimacy, and perhaps some are valid.
  It is quite natural that people are reluctant to have any development near their homes. At what point do legitimate criticisms and proposed alterations to a route that might be to the public advantage turn into opposition regardless of the proposal? I have heard it argued that the metro should not be located near houses, that it should be located on some derelict land a quarter of a mile or half a mile away. That argument seems to defeat the object of the metro, which is to put a network close to where people live so that they can get on and off the line and go wherever they want within the network. If the network is located away from houses, people will not use it.
  Although I have some objectors to the proposal in one part of my constituency, the majority of the objectors in Walsall are within the constituency of my hon. Friend the member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I am satisfied that the objections have been heard and a rational decision has been taken. Clearly some people will be most unhappy, but they were consulted and the local authority pursued the consultation and administrative process incumbent upon it so efficiently that, when the ombudsman, at the request of constituents, complained to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of maladministration and lack of consultation by Walsall council—I shall not bore the House by listing the complaints—the local ombudsman concluded:
  "I am satisfied that the Council considered objections to the proposed route but concluded that on balance the original route was the best option. This is a judgment within the council's discretion."
  The council was exonerated of maladministration and it has nothing to feel guilty about.
  I was struck by the discretionary nature of the consultation. Councillor Dick Worrall in my constituency has been tireless in consulting people who have objections. He produced a leaflet informing objectors how to petition Parliament. In some ways, it is rather bizarre to offer weapons to one's opponents. However, such was the great desire of Councillor Worrall, who is a member of the passenger transport executive, to make the opportunities for protesting well known, that the information was made available in leaflets that were distributed widely. To those who sometimes argue that the consultative process was a farce and that no genuine attempt was made to listen to the objections, I respond with some authority from experience of my area, and dismiss those criticisms.
  I am sure that many hon. Members want to speak tonight, and some of them will give good reasons why the metro routes should not be laid down. However, hon. Members from the west midlands must be aware that our transport network is in deep crisis. That is obvious simply from looking at our streets and roads.
  I want to be not politically partisan but descriptively correct and to argue that our highways are clogged and the situation is unlikely to improve. In fact, if car ownership increases at projected levels, in a decade or so our highways will be impassable.

  649
  I congratulate the West Midlands passenger transport executive on its imagination with this proposal. It has not pioneered such an idea, and the concept is not unique in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. However, the executive has faced the difficulties. It has devised routes and gone to an enormous amount of trouble in hiring consultants and holding meetings. The process is now moving towards a critical stage.
  It is obvious to everyone why the network is necessary. It is required urgently because it will assist those who are not mobile to become mobile. I have seen statistics which show that the majority of the metro's critics in some areas are car owners. While it is important to encourage car owners to get on the new trams, some people would argue that it is more important to bring mobility to those who do not have it now.
  There are also arguments in favour of the metro in terms of environmental improvements and savings in fuel. It is argued that it will bring together towns in the west midlands and the black country that are now not closely linked, especially east to west. Most importantly, the metro will help to regenerate our region.
  The proposal will be costly, and we hope that money will come from central Government, local government, the European Community and private sources. The proposal is not the easy option. However, I urge hon. Members who are present in the Chamber now and others who have not yet heard the arguments to support the Bill today.
  The proposal is necessary. We must bear in mind the objectors and, even if we are victorious tonight, we must be magnanimous in victory and recognise that we must as far as possible meet legitimate objections. However, those objections must not be elevated to such a level that the public interest will be damaged by routes being vetoed. We must listen to objectors, take account of what is said, and determine whether it is possible to re-route or to compensate adequately. Everything must be done to maximise support. Perhaps, in five or six years, some parts of the region will have a rapid transit system of which we can be proud, and we shall look back to this Second Reading debate and say that we supported it.
  7.49 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate the Government's attitude. I am aware that my speech may sound rather dispassionate compared with the two heartfelt speeches that hon. Members have already heard. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) for the comprehensive way in which he moved the Second Reading.
  This is one of several private Bills—I need hardly tell the House that—providing for new light railways or rapid transit systems in and around our major cities. Light rail has many potential advantages—for example, where vehicles run on their own tracks, they can move more people more quickly than buses can. They can also run on-street and negotiate steeper gradients and tighter bends than conventional railways.
  The Government welcome the efforts that transport planners are making to assess what light rail has to offer. Naturally, it cannot be the ideal solution in all cases, but it can bring considerable benefits, as it has done in the case
  650
  of docklands light railway. Only a few months ago, we were delighted to give the go-ahead to the Manchester MetroLink light rail project, and we have also provided some funding for the development of the south Yorkshire project planned for Sheffield.
  Parliament has already negotiated for line 1 of the proposed midland metro network. I understand that the West Midlands passenger transport executive, now known as Centro, intends to apply for grant towards the cost of providing that line. When it does so, we shall look at the case on its merits and in the light of resources available. I cannot forecast the outcome of that tonight, not least because we do not yet have the submission.
  Now Centro is seeking powers for two more lines towards an extensive light rail network. It hopes to reduce existing and future traffic congestion and foster the expansion of employment and development opportunities. I understand that, in doing so, it intends to take full advantage of the skills that the private sector has to offer in designing, building and operating the system. I welcome that.
  In principle, the Bill is acceptable to the Government, but we have raised with the promoters a number of technical and drafting points that I hope will be resolved satisfactorily. The works proposed in the Bill also affect a listed building in the area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is concerned about paragraph 7 of schedule 1 to the Bill, which disapplies the special controls that normally apply to listed buildings. That issue has been raised with the promoter, and he wishes to reserve his position for the time being.
  There are 35 petitions against the Bill, and, if they are pursued, there will be the opportunity to present objections to the Select Committee. The Committee will be in a very much better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved, and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence.
  Mr. Rooker: It is a bit unfair to ask the Minister this question, but he is the only Minister present. Will every hon. Member from the west midlands be excluded, or will hon. Members through whose constituencies the lines will go be on the Committee? Frankly, that is what is wrong with private legislation. Hon. Members from the west midlands have experience of the area and could contribute to the Select Committee's proceedings. Membership of that Committee is important for a proper discussion of the Bill. How will exclusion be drawn? Will it be based on the whole of the west midlands region or county, or will it be based on Members through whose constituencies the lines will go?
  Mr. Portillo: I was not overly flattered when the hon. Gentleman said that I was the only Minister around and suggested that I would do for the purpose. He does not want a Minister to answer his question. It is not within the gift of Ministers to determine which hon. Members will serve on Select Committees. I imagine that it must be for some Committee of the House, but it certainly is not for me. I cannot predict how a Committee might interpret its role. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and it is clearly on the record for the relevant authorities to consider.
  I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading to allow it to proceed in the usual way to Committee for detailed consideration.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: Like the Minister, my brief is to express a few words of welcome for the Bill. It is the Labour party's policy to support such developments. However, I am bound to say that the Government's attitude to some parts of the country has been somewhat worrying. The Minister mentioned the docklands light railway and Manchester. Although Opposition Members are pleased with the success of those developments, we are aware that, in the case of the docklands light railway, the Government are anxious to commit some public funds—as with the extension of the Jubilee line—to prove that their private enterprise flagship can stay afloat, albeit by pumping some additional public funds into the hull.
  The Government have announced their approval of a private-public sector partnership in Manchester. Given the Minister's detailed scrutiny of such matters, it will not have escaped his attention that the lines proposed for conversion into a metro system in Manchester are existing heavy railway lines that have been used to such an extent that both lines were electrified by the London Midland and Scottish railway about 50 or 60 years ago.
  Opposition Members note that, in giving the go-ahead and steering Manchester towards the conversion of those existing heavy railway lines, the Government are aware that there will be many passengers to move along that corridor. I make no complaint about that. However, if I were a season ticket holder at Altrincham or Bury, to name but two, I doubt whether I would be looking forward with any great relish to the replacement of my fast, frequent and comfortable electric service by a metro system which, in the rush hour at least, is likely to be far more crowded than the existing conventional trains that it replaces.
  The Minister looks somewhat doubtful. He must not think that we are gullible enough to believe that public money is necessarily steered towards such projects because of the amount of public good that such money will provide. That is not the Government's way. They will guarantee the success of the Manchester metro and its private sector involvement in exactly the same way as they guaranteed the success of the docklands light railway—that is, by cramming as many passengers as possible into vehicles that are likely to give a less comfortable journey.
  If any declaration of interest is necessary, I have a mild interest to declare. Although the Minister was careful not to commit any Government money in this case, the proposed railway line runs through my constituency. Indeed, it joins Wolverhampton with Birmingham, via West Bromwich—a fact that will no doubt please my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner). We would have been grateful if, together with the Minister's good wishes, we had the promise of funds. Of course we do not have the advantage of converting a conventional railway, although the line will run along the track bed of the former Great Western railway main line and will connect with a reopened stretch of that line, if Centro's plans for conventional rail go ahead as we hope.
  There is some opposition to the Bill. Like other west midlands Members, I have received representations from those who oppose the Bill. I apologise for missing part of the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan). It was not sour grapes because he made such
  652
  a fool of himself on television in the west midlands a few weeks ago; it was because I had been ensconced on this Bench since 3.30 pm.
  For once, we agree on the project. The Labour party supports the Bill. Representations have been made to all hon. Members by those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said were primarily car owners. I do not know whether they are primarily car owners, but I am convinced of the relevance of some of their objections. However, to deny objectors the right to put a case before a Committee of the House is scarcely good public relations.
  I am aware of the recommendations of the Select Committee, behind which Centro seeks to shield itself from criticism. It has nothing to fear from criticism. and I wish that it had not taken the action that it took.
  My second criticism of the way in which the matter has been handled is that Centro occasionally appeared to be more interested in paying money to public relations firms than in speaking directly to Opposition and Conservative Members who have not only a direct interest in the future of the metro system but knowledge of parliamentary procedures which we would gladly pass on without demanding the enormous fees which no doubt were paid to public relations firms.
  I object to receiving letters from a public relations firm asking me to meet members of my own political party who serve on local authorities in the west midlands. I do riot see either the point or the relevance of such letters. On numerous occasions I have sought to impress that fact on those who are responsible for paying the bills to such companies, apparently without success.
  Mr. Rooker: It is worse than my hon. Friend says. During one part of the public relations exercise on the Bill, on behalf of the public relations firms, I received from its employee, a Member of Parliament representing a Surrey constituency, an invitation to talk to my passenger transport authority. When people send me letters to try to get my ear in that way, I tear them up. When residents write to me, I do what other hon. Members do and go to see them. I went to see people in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) in Bromford. When a company tries to reach me via another Member of Parliament from a constituency deep in the Surrey woodlands, it seems that someone is not earning his salary.
  Mr. Snape: Regrettably, what we are complaining about is that someone is earning his salary, albeit at the expense of those whom we represent. Letters from the source that my hon. Friend referred to are an extremely clumsy way, to say the least, of going about the matter.
  I make no complaint about the chairman and founder of the public relations company being a prominent member of the Conservative party, but when such an organisation sends me letters, it does not endear the cause to me. I see no reason for Centro to handle the matter in that way.
  I have no doubt that, should they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, some of my hon. Friends will state the objections to the Bill of people in the area. Any hon. Member has every right to raise objections on behalf of those whom he represents. In this case, the objectors are misguided in the long term. As the hon. Member for Yardley said, if the projections are right, traffic congestion

  653
  in and around the west midlands conurbation by the end of the decade is likely to mean that none of us will travel anywhere by motor car. By objecting to and perhaps delaying, if not preventing, the line, objectors might prevent themselves from moving around the conurbation and prevent other people from doing so in years to come.
  I have some sympathy with those who feel that there is something to fear from noise and so on, but, having seen metro schemes in operation in other parts of the world, I believe that their fears are misplaced. I repeat that they should have been allowed at least to put those fears to the appropriate Committee of the House without being challenged.
  With those twin caveats in mind—the clumsy and unnecessary opposition of petitioners and the even more clumsy and less necessary use of a fairly hostile public relations organisation—I repeat that the official Opposition support schemes such as this, and I shall vote for it tonight.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. Iain Mills (Meridan): It is always difficult to make change in complex societies. One wants to make change for the better. There is no doubt in my mind that the midland metro is a change for the better in the west midlands. I hope that both Conservative and Opposition Members will remember that I represent a constituency that lies between Birmingham and Coventry. We have seen change for the better in the shape of the national exhibition centre, Birmingham international station, Birmingham international airport, Birmingham business park and many other developments. That has created a huge complex of industrial activity, which I strongly welcome and which the vast majority of my constituency have come to welcome. It is part of the most important regeneration of our area.
  Centro—formerly the pasenger transport executive—has come along with what seems to be a good proposal. The principle is good. The majority of my constituents believe that the principle of better communications between Birmingham and the NEC, servicing on the way the constituencies of Opposition Members and mine, is good. The line will have a major effect on my constituency. Therefore, it would be wrong not to raise some of the objections that have been made to me by my constituents.
  I am not one of the luddites or troglodytes of which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) spoke so eloquently. But it seems to me that the authorities involved have been either naive or bound by the chains of bureaucracy in their approach. The consultation was brief and was carried out badly in the initial stages. However, I pay tribute to some of the officials of Centro, who did their best, when I drew their attention to some of the problems, to meet my constituents.
  In the initial stages, I was overwhelmed with people who came to my advice bureau. On one occasion, 200 people turned up out of the blue at my advice bureau in Castle Bromwich. They had not received their leaflets, because the leaflets had been dumped by the young children who were supposed to have delivered them. Perhaps that is one of the difficulties of public communications. I began by saying that we are in a
  654
  complex society. It is terribly important to involve people whose lives will be affected by changes, especially as we are a democracy.
  In the early stages of processing what is now the Bill, but was then a proposal, many people felt—and they still feel—totally disadvantaged by the fact that they had not been adequately consulted, although their lives were being affected. It is they who may not be able to park their motor cars and who will have to have a terrible tram—although, of course, it might be a light, super-quiet and benign vehicle—running near them. The whole process of consultation in the early stages was a disaster. I can say that because all the people concerned came to see me. I have with me just part of my key bundle on this. There is more, but I could not carry it all over here, even with the Minister's chauffeur-driven car and the 12 red boxes. Very many people have been to see me and have written to me about this.
  The consultation was inadequate in the early stages of the proposals, but I am now concerned that it is complicated by a serious denial of democracy, which will make me oppose the Bill unless I receive a serious reassurance from the promoters. The serious denial of democracy is that the residents' groups, which number five and of which three are in my constituency, and the 35 petitioners who wish to petition against the Bill in the Opposed Private Bill Committee, are being denied that oppor-tunity by Centro, which has challenged their objections.
  I understand that the objections have been challenged on two grounds. The first is that locus standi cannot be granted unless the line of deviation affects a particular property. Does that mean that, if the wing of an aeroplane comes within 2 in of a person's hedge, that person cannot be given the right to put his or her case to the four hon. Members who serve on that Committee? Although I understand the technicality, I find it bewildering that my three groups may not be able to make their petition. I understand that other hon. Members have heard from other groups.
  I quote from Centro's response:
  "our action in challenging the locus standi of your group is in accord with the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee of Members of Parliament on private Bill procedure which said that 'promoters should be encouraged to police the rules of locus standi'".
  That may well be correct in technical terms, but how can my constituents make their views known if I do not speak tonight and if they cannot petition the Court of Referees, which I understand meets on Thursday of this week, and which is chaired by the Chairman of Ways and Means, who is to consider the objections? I have written to the chief executive of Centro, asking him to consider withdrawing the technicalities so that the process of democracy can work.
  There is some passion in my voice tonight because, whatever the rights and wrongs of the metro, the mere fact that the line of deviation is 12 in or even 12 ft from the homes of those affected should not deny them the right of making their representations.
  Having served on a Committee considering a similar Bill relating, strangely enough, to Liverpool and Merseyside, I understand how the procedures work. My good people have briefed counsel, taken a great deal of trouble and done a lot of work to prepare their petitions,

  655
  which I have with me. If those petitions are not heard by the hon. Members who will make the judgment, that is a gross denial of democratic procedures.
  Whatever the rights and wrongs of the midland metro, we should be making a grave mistake if we allowed that to happen. A simple withdrawal of the objections by Centro would allow those people to put their petitions. Although the locus standi argument of the director general may be technically correct, it is not in the spirit of true democracy. Therefore, although I do not want to detain the House for too long, those are the reasons why I am speaking.
  The other point that has been made about the denial of locus standi is that those groups are not truly representative of the people affected. I understand that about 90 per cent. of the residents concerned are paid-up members of one of those small groups. As the local Member of Parliament, I have experienced 200 people arriving at my advice bureau when I was expecting only 15 or 20 in that area—[Interruption.] Well, perhaps the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has only about two—they know how helpful he is—but I get more than that. The fact that I had 200 people at my advice bureau shows the strength of people's feelings. Somebody had to organise that. In at least one place—in Smith's Wood—the parish council, which is established by statute, supports the objectors.
  I do not accept the argument about the line of deviation being only a few feet or metres from a person's residence. I do not accept the technical argument, that the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure has recommended that these technical matters should be considered by the promoters. I do not accept the argument that the groups involved are not representative of the individuals affected.
  Anyway, what is representation? Presumably it should be by statute, by the parish, town or borough council. However, that is to deny another element of democracy. I am talking about residents' groups, representing the most reasonable people I have come across. At my meeting this weekend, one of them, who might be seen by the promoters as their leading campaigner, said, "I cannot wait to get the metro. I cannot wait to get a better transport system, provided that it is on the right route." That is the whole genesis of my speech.
  Before I refer to details about routing—I promise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall not detain the House for longer than I have to—I am concerned that, as part of its process of consultation, Centro commissioned a firm called Terraquest to discuss their properties with those concerned. That was done so badly that people came to my advice bureau fully believing that compulsory purchase orders would be applied to their land.
  I am most grateful and pay tribute to Centro for giving me the right information so soon and for telling me that that was not the case. However, by then the damage had been done. The surveys had been carried out and people were absolutely terrified. Surely there must be a better way. Was it a question of timing? Did Centro try too hard, too soon? I know that the survey had to be carried out because of the Bill and that Centro had to know about the properties involved and whether they were freehold, but people were given the strong impression that they would lose hedges, land or even their houses. Centro's methods seem strange.
  It is wrong that the House should consider giving the Bill a Second Reading before the consultation has covered key aspects of the routing of the midland metro, such as its
  656
  stops or stations. Those matters have still not been decided. As I have said, I am opposed to giving the Bill a Second Reading unless I am given good reasons for agreeing to it. We do not know where the stops will be, because the consultation period is yet to come. That is a matter of major importance to my constituents. Of course, the stops may well be beautiful. I am sorry that I was unable to go to Grenoble. I should have liked to go, but could not, for no other reason than pressure of time. Perhaps the midland metro will sigh benignly to a halt and there will be no parking or other problems, but to proceed with the Second Reading of a Bill that gives draconian powers to Centro before those matters have been resolved is a serious matter.
  As I said, whatever the rights and wrongs, there is still great concern in my constituency about house values. That has been expressed by local estate agents and chartered surveyors. I do not know whether it is temporary or will apply in the longer term, but house values have been depressed. One of my constituents has been trying to sell his not very big four-bedroomed house. It is at the top end of Chelmsley Wood, going towards Marston Green, and is on the route of the metro. He has been advised that that property, which he could normally have expected to sell for about £65,000, is now valued at £47,500.
  It is classic that the houses on the route appear to be devalued and that houses that are occupied by those who will not be affected by the route and who will have the advantage, which I applaud, of travelling into Birmingham more easily, will not be devalued. As I said, one of my constituents has told me that he cannot wait for the construction of the metro, as it will make his life much easier, provided that it runs on the right routee. Those who live on the route deserve better consultation and greater consideration.
  Is the national exhibition centre one of the 35 petitioners? Has it petitioned against part of the route? Have the Birmingham business park and other business interests petitioned against parts of the routeing? If those interests are allowed to petition and constituent groups are not, that is an unhappy situation.
  Mr. Rooker: There is no doubt that the private Bill procedure is in a mess. That is why a Select Committee report has been produced. Attempts to stop individuals petitioning against private Bills are bound to throw the system into a worse mess. It is likely that the House will take a dim view at a later stage in the consideration of the Bill if individuals are prevented from exercising their democratic rights before the Committee. That will be especially evident if the business park is allowed to petition, subject to the Minister's answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. The business park is under construction and I have visited the site with one or two of my hon. Friends. If the park were allowed to petition arid residents were not, I do not think that the House would allow the Bill to proceed.
  Mr. Mills: It is strange that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. We often disagree across the Floor of the House. On this occasion, however, he is right.
  I have been given information, and I ask whoever is responsible to make the position clear on behalf of the promoters. Will the NEC, the business park or any other industrial interest be allowed to petition? Has any such

  657
  interest not been challenged and not referred to the Court of Reference? Will such an interest be able to brief a barrister to express its point of view on changes of route?
  With one or two exceptions, all those who have sent me documents are in favour of the metro. They are against the route, or aspects of it, but they are in favour of the metro. They are not awkward or extremely difficult people in the sense that they are saying, "Put the metro in Surrey and we shall not worry about it." Instead, they are asking for specific changes and they have petitioned for those changes. It will be extremely unsatisfactory if their petitions are not heard.
  There are three organised groups in my constituency and they are representative. Their petitions have been properly drawn up and they have been properly advised. They were prepared to present themselves as reasonble groups of people. When I spoke to them, they were quiet. Perhaps they were more softly voiced than I have been this evening, especially when I allowed some passion and unhappiness to be demonstrated by my voice. Many strident voices have been heard at many public meetings, but the groups to which I refer are representative. They have distilled logical options from the strident arguments.
  I believe that we can gain support from those who are affected by the metro if we produce reasoned alternatives. Are the promoters chained in bureaucracy? Are they unable to change the route because of the relationship with the local authority and others? Are they unable to go back and start again because of the complexities? I ask them to think again. I cannot support them even if the chains of bureaucracy are their problem.
  One of the three groups represents the majority of the residents of Auckland drive, with is a long road running alongside Collector road. Some of my colleagues may not know that charming part of Birmingham. It is near Fort Dunlop, where I spent 20 years. Therefore, Collector road is like my back yard. It has for years been extremely under-used, to say the least. It is a very quiet road. I use it many times a week. When I hold my advice bureaus, I travel to and fro on it.
  My constituents who live in the area say that the decision to position the route of the metro on the embankment is one to which they object strongly. They submit that the plan should be amended to provide for the construction of a route along the carriageway of Collector road. It is a road almost of motorway standard. It is almost as good as the M42 running north from Dunton Island towards Leicestershire. It is an ill-used road. It has been used for car parking during the motor shows at the NEC. So little is it used that there may be technical problems, but if we are to make progress, we must resolve them.
  Mr. Bevan: The route was designed by the local council. It is only a few metres from the preferred route of one of the pressure groups, the ADAM group. That is the group that represents the Auckland drive residents. Solihull council has been emphatic that it does not want to disrupt a major highway. It is especially important that the metro operates on reserved tracks. My hon. Friend should address his remarks to Solihull council.
  My hon. Friend knows that extra value has been attributed to the properties that are along the route, not negative value. He claims that the locus standi is not
  658
  democratic. A petition against a private Bill can be held only if it has locus standi. The Select Committee has been especially vociferous in emphasising that the rules must be observed.
  Mr. Mills: I referred briefly to locus standi, and I am not being facetious when I say that I am standing to put as many points as I can to the House. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, it is ridiculous that those who are intimately concerned but whose locus standi is dismissed because of the rules are unable to present their views.
  However delightful and however charming the vehicle is that passes within a few metres of the dwellings of those who are in that position, does my hon. Friend say that they should have no means of expressing their feelings? Surely they should be able to submit their views to Parliament. The private Bill procedure is arcane. As others have said, it is probably wrong. If we in Parliament have to decide, how can we be petitioned?
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Residents are unable to object for reasons other than locus standi. They are unable to do so even if their properties are adjacent to the route of the metro, not adjoining it or in the way of it. The definition of those who are unable to petition is not as narrow as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Mills: I am grateful for that advice. If the three groups that I understand are going to the Court of Referees on Thursday morning are granted the ability to approach the Committee, that will be helpful. I have served on such Committees and I am more than happy to listen to those who have an interest, and these people have an interest. For example, in Helmswood drive, the midland metro will run within a metre of their hedge. If locus standi does not permit such people the opportunity to make their points, perhaps I can make some of them for them.
  I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley, that the working group included Solihull council. However, apart from protesting at various meetings, how can my constituents press for changes in the route? Are they to have no further opportunity, as they would do at a public inquiry, where one can ask the Minister to make a reasoned judgment or to make a judgment on the basis of certain facts? Are they just to be told that it is finished and that they will have no further opportunities to make their point heard?
  The embankment at Auckland drive is important. Any hon. Member who has travelled from Birmingham to Coventry, not on the motorway but on the side roads from Stonebridge, up the Chester road and down the Collector road towards my old place of employment, Fort Dunlop, will have seen what the embankment means. It was constructed as a wind and sound barrier for the residents against both the motorway and the Collector road. It has a considerable amount of wildlife. One does not expect Solihull council, much loved by me and by those in Chelmsley road, to make claims like this.
  There is also the amenity value for the residents, which the presence of the metro on some or all of the embankment would substantially reduce. Proximity of the metro would also have an effect. Having had the advice of experts on this subject, I know that, while the metro may not have a detrimental effect on the capital value of the houses of the majority of those living in Chelmsley road, it would certainly affect those living right by it.
  Mr. Bevan: I can quickly answer that point made about possible erosion of the embankment and harm to wildlife, and I hope to my hon. Friend's satisfaction. There will be little erosion. A retaining wall will be used where necessary to keep the embankment height, and further planting will take place.
  Mr. Mills: I thank my hon. Friend. I was going to press him later on landscaping and further planting. He has a good point, because it may be possible to do that on this embankment. I do not accept the arguments of either Solihull council or Centro about siting the metro on part of the embankment when it could just as easily, more acceptably, and without any effect on the wildlife, be positioned on one side of the Collector road.
  As a result of lines 50 to 52 of schedule 3, the
  "Footpath between subway under Collector Road and Auckland Drive at junction with Nightingale Avenue"
  will be extinguished. My constituents are most concerned about that and would like the problem resolved. The footpath is used by adults and children and it would be dangerous if it crossed the metro track.
  I am aware that I am taking up an unfair share of the time, but this matter is important. I press my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley, or the promoters who might care to reply elsewhere, or even my hon. Friend the Minister who may be able to advise me, about compensation. Little has been said about that. Those who will be adversely affected directly—that is, if the metro line runs across their property—will be compensated under present legislation. Those who feel that they will be adversely affected indirectly, in the sense that the wing-tip of the aeroplane is within 1 ft—that is, if the metro runs within a short distance of their land—do not know. What provision will there be? How is it proposed to consider compensation? What happens and how does it work? What rights do they have?
  Is there any provision in the Bill to require the executive to construct safety fences and noise barriers between the metro and houses occupied by my constituents? It may be that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley about the wall on the embankment at Auckland drive has answered that question.
  The next part of my constituency to be affected is Bacons End—a charming part of the world, to be recommended to any of my colleagues who wish to come to see a good community. All my constituents there are concerned about their embankment, which is further down, beyond what is known as the Coles hill roundabout. Going up Collector road, leaving behind Fort Dunlop, one passes the Coles hill roundabout and comes to the next roundabout. There is a charming group of dwellings at Bacons End, at Clopton crescent. Again, there is wildlife on the embankment and amenities for the residents. They have said to me:
  "It has become a natural habitat for a variety of animals within an otherwise urban area and is used for dog walking, bike riding, exercising children, flying kites and is visually attractive."
  On the many occasions that I have passed it, I have seen young people, parents and dogs on it. The presence of the metro would remove the opportunity for such exercise, and substantially reduce the amenity value.
  My constituents are most concerned about the value of their homes. In their petition, which they may or may not, due to locus standi, be allowed to have heard, they say that they understand that there is no provision in the Bill for
  660
  there to be adequate fencing. They have pointed out to me that one of the purposes of the metro is to persuade people to take public transport as an alternative to private motor cars. Consequently, there is likely to be a drop in the usage of the road in the route along the metro. Therefore, why not position it on the carriageway of the road? As my constituent said, "I can't wait to use the metro." Once people leap on the metro and leave their cars at home, there will not be the traffic problem that we do not have on the Collector road anyway.
  For both the Auckland drive and the Bacons End parts of the road, it is important to consider the routeing. The plans as presently lodged permit Centro to construct the metro on any part of the grass embankment as the whole area is within the line of deviation, within the permitted variations. Why cannot that be more limited? How can my constituents feel any confidence in the consultation process when there are no limits, and they do not know exactly where it will be?
  Schedule 4 shows the proposed route, including a tunnel that emerges between Collector road and Chester road, which is used by many local children as a play area. That would be impractical if the metro were positioned on that route. If the alternatives to Collector road were considered, that problem would be resolved.
  There is more concern about consultation, but I must come to my third subject, which is the alternative. If any right hon. or hon. Member wishes to see it, I have here a map showing that the route leaves the island, cuts down through Berwick's lane and Helmswood drive and then comes back up again and cuts round the national exhibition centre. There is much enthusiasm in the area for the metro, provided that it goes straight along the dual carriageway known as the Chester road. That alternative has been suggested, pressed for and fought for by my constituents all along.
  I was in my constituency on Saturday, and I am there most Saturdays. Let us visualise how close the metro will be, particularly to Helmswood drive. We must ask where people will park their cars. What provision has been made for that? There is no point in talking about landscaping there, because there is no room for it. The metro will be almost as close as my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley is to me in the Chamber.
  Mr. Bevan: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned Helmswood drive and on-street parking. Bays will be provided all along the street in that area, after consultation with residents. Therefore, his point is accepted.
  As for the pedestrian subways that will be closed on Moorend avenue and Helmswood drive, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be pleased about that, because local residents have already campaigned for it.
  My hon. Friend said that the route goes too close to houses on Helmswood drive and Berwick's lane, but that route was approved by Solihull council. It is important for the route to go close to the population; otherwise there is little point in having a metro. Line 2 was designed so that no residential properties would be demolished and no gardens would be taken up, and I am advised that very few properties are less than 30 m from the track. In Grenoble, the vehicles go within a few metres of dwellings and shops in the city centre and there are no objections whatever.
  Mr. Mills: I thank my hon. Friend for his usual gracious way of blaming Solihull council for not objecting

  661
  to the scheme. The local residents' group and residents in Moorend avenue, Berwick's lane, Helmswood drive, Chelmsley road and Coleshill Heath road believe that the present route will be severely detrimental to residents in the area. I accept that there are parking problems now, but those are, by and large, resolvable. Other anxieties have been expressed to me. One charming lady who recently lost her husband asked whether a hearse would be able to gain access, and there is also the question of ambulances and fire engines. Perhaps my hon. Friend can reassure me about that.
  The whole point of the residents' argument is that the layout of the area is predominantly residential. It is owner-occupied and tenanted, and is not a rich area but mixed. The people there work in Birmingham and would welcome access to Birmingham by the metro. It is the proximity of the proposed route to homes in the area that is the problem. Therefore, they have proposed an alternative, and if they could petition the Committee about that, I should be most grateful.
  The houses in the area were originally built on green belt land and it is a pleasant environment in which to live. The introduction of the metro through the area would fundamentally affect its nature. The grass verges, trees and shrubbery are not good now, but they would be non-existent, and there is no possibility of landscaping, in view of the layout of the area—I do not see how it can be done.
  My hon. Friend said that there would be consultations about parking, but how can I agree to a Second Reading of a Bill that gives Centro the power to introduce the metro without my constituents having the opportunity to discuss where the parking bays will be?
  Mr. Bevan: The bays will be provided after consultation with local residents.
  Mr. Mills: I accept that from my hon. Friend, but surely, before we proceed and give Centro the power to introduce the metro, we should have resolved the problems of stops, stays, stations, lines, parking and landscaping. It should all be laid out, so that people can say, "Here it is and we shall tell our Member of Parliament that we accept it."
  Mr. Snape rose——
  Mr. Mills: The hon. Gentleman is sniggering, but as a rail man I suppose that he is not too worried about parking.
  Mr. Snape: I was not sniggering. I was somewhat surprised at what the hon. Gentleman was saying. Is he seriously asking the House to believe that every dot and comma should be drawn up before we agree to the scheme, or that parking and the whole line of the route should be arranged? If that was the case, would not he and his constituents shout that it was fixed, because everything had been done beforehand? One cannot draw up a scheme with every dot and comma and also claim that there should be consultation afterwards.
  Mr. Mills: Life is difficult.
  Mr. Snape: So was my question.
  Mr. Mills: No, I am coming to that. In most instances, when a complex change affects people's lives, such as a planning decision, they know what is going to happen. For example, they know that 20 houses will be built and they can object or not object, or they know that there will be a change of use of a house to a shop or a garage, and they know the details.
  We are talking about stops, stays, and barriers, of the imposition of double yellow lines along a stretch of Helmswood drive and of parking.
  I know that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is a modest man. He probably has a small house and does not have parking provided, so he parks in front of the house in the street. If he were told that the parking bay was going to be 20 yd up the road, he would probably feel a bit fractious himself, and he might wish to have some of the i's dotted and t's crossed before procedures went ahead.
  Mr. Snape: I do not mind being insulted by the hon. Gentleman at any time, but I should be glad if he withdrew the description "modest".
  Mr. Mills: Of course. I fully understand—the hon. Gentleman lives in Chateau Snape, in some suitable part of his constituency.
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I feel that my hon. Friend should know that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is one of my constituents.
  Mr. Mills: In which case, the hon. Gentleman's credentials could not be higher.
  My final technical point about Moor end avenue is that it will be reduced from a dual carriageway to a single carriageway.
  There will be health problems and loss of privacy, which will affect constituents' lives, and they should be balanced against the economic regeneration. If we could find a solution to those problems and make relatively minor changes to the route in two cases, and a major change of route in the case of Chester road, the proposition would be welcomed. It would serve the NEC and my constituents and it would be popular with them, popular with me, much loved and much cherished.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: I think that all hon. Members would agree with the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) that life is difficult. I wish to apologise to the House for having a sore throat.
  I have no quarrel with the way in which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) presented the case today. I disagree with some aspects of it and I shall refer briefly to the reasons why, but he promoted the Bill in a moderate and reasoned speech, and it is helpful to the House that it was done in such a way.
  I support the metro scheme, as I have stated from the start. In my view, all the arguments and reasons given by the hon. Member for Yardley and other hon. Members this evening for the scheme and for extra forms of public transport in the black country and the west midlands are perfectly valid.
  Some object to the Bill on the grounds that further public transport is not needed, but that is certainly not my view. It is important to point out that a substantial number

  663
  of people in the west midlands—certainly in my constituency—rely on public transport. We should get rid of the notion that everyone or nearly everyone either owns a car or has access to a motor vehicle, as that is certainly not the case.
  I must also declare an interest—although not a commercial one—as we are rightly so sensitive about declaring interests these days. I am a regular user of the public transport in my area. I need to use public transport at every opportunity. Since the Government changed the regulations a few years ago, it is not pleasant, particularly on a cold windy evening, to have to wait as I have waited—and, more important, as my constituents have to wait—quite a while before the bus arrives. I do not blame the transport authority: we on this side anticipated the problem, and warned people at the time.
  I am not too happy about the way in which the transport authority dealt with two of my constituents. Following some negotiation over their property, they concluded that their right to express their objection to the metro was being taken away. As soon as I learned about the matter, I wrote to the authority. The director general replied:
  "Naturally, one aspect of reaching an agreement with such property owners, is for them to undertake not to object to the proposal whilst we, for our part, undertake to do or not do whatever it is that we have agreed through the negotiations. Clearly, if this was not so, there would be no basis for any agreement between us."
  It is nonsense to put a couple in a small house on the same level as the transport authority. Of course people will take measures to protect their houses; why should they not do so?
  I was not pleased with the director general's reply, I am a democrat—although some hon. Members may question that from time to time—and I believe that people have a basic right to put their point of view at every opportunity. I therefore wrote back to the transport authority expressing my concern. The reply—dated 1 March; my letter was sent on 15 February—states:
  "we had no intention of infringing their rights as citizens to engage in free speech or other activity."
  Of course I am pleased about that. The letter goes on to say that the authority would not regard the couple
  "as being in breach of the undertaking by attending meetings opposed to Metro or expressing views"
  hostile to it. I am pleased about that as well, but the letter continues:
  "However"—
  for there is a "however"—
  "as you will I am sure appreciate, a different view would be taken if a formal Petition against the Bill was deposited by them.
  I hope that this clarifies the matter."
  If the transport authority wants to take public opinion with it, such a restriction, however it is argued, is unacceptable—not only to me as the local Member of Parliament, but I hope, to the House of Commons and to individual Members on both sides of it.
  Mr. Bevan: The object of the letter of 1 March—of which I have a copy—was to emphasise the democratic rights of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. As I said at the outset, however, the constitutional processes applying to private Bills are spelt out very strictly: that is the reason for the differentiation concerning the petition.
  Mr. Winnick: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I praised him earlier, and I do not want to fall out
  664
  with him now, but I do not accept the need to place any restriction on my constituents, and I imagine that the House as a whole agrees with me.
  A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak. I was pleased to give way to the hon. Member for Yardley—who, I am sure, has a list of matters that he wishes to raise—to refute the points I am making. I do not criticise him, for he has a job to do and he is doing it competently, but it would serve no useful purpose for me to give way to him every time I criticise aspects of the proposed route. Moreover, I shall deal with some of the issues at the end of my speech, as the hon. Member for Meriden did.
  The proposed metro route through parts of Willenhall, which is in my constituency, has prompted harsh criticism from residents who consider that they will be adversely affected. The hon. Member for Yardley rightly said that we were a Parliament, and explained the origins of the word "Parliament". The fact that I happen to be in favour of the Bill, like my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), does not alter my belief that one of the purposes of the House of Commons—long may it remain so—is to allow people who feel strongly to ensure that their view is expressed in the Chamber or in Committee, even if it is wrong or misguided. Although the hon. Gentleman's speech took up more time than I intend mine to take, I have no criticism of that aspect, or of the way in which he outlined his constituents' objections to the Bill.
  Some of my constituents oppose the Bill for wider reasons than worry about their properties. They are not exactly delighted, however, at the thought of passengers being able to look through the windows—perhaps even upstairs windows—of their houses, which may be overlooked by the metro, and their anxieties have been expressed repeatedly in both meetings and correspondence. I do not think that we should dismiss such genuine concern out of hand, even if the promoters consider it misguided.
  There are, however, broader environmental worries. I remind hon. Members, if they need to be reminded, that my borough is urban and built up, although there are some delightful green open spaces only about some two miles away. The proposed metro route would destroy the grassy areas and places of safety for young children around Stroud avenue in Willenhall, and would also do away with the existing walkways. An old railway line now serves as a pleasant public footpath, and no doubt that would go as well.
  Concern has repeatedly been expressed about the memorial park in Willenhall, which is its only park and originates from Willenhall's wish after the first world war to commemorate those who died by providing open space within a park. The proposed route would take up part of the park. It is only a small part, I accept, but it should be remembered theat the old railway line has been part of the memorial park for a very long time.
  It was put to me—I wrote accordingly to the transport authority—that the metro could go underground through parts of Willenhall. I realise that there may be technical problems, but the reply that I received did not deal with those to any great extent, although it made some reference to possible dangers. It should be said that the route will go underground through parts of Birmingham, and if there are no dangers to Birmingham, there should presumably be none for Willenhall. The reply stated that an

  665
  underground route through Willenhall would significantly increase costs and make the prospect less viable, but I am not altogether impressed by that argument: I should have thought that more valid reasons should be given if there are real objections by the authority.
  I promised my constituents that I would raise their objections on the Floor of the House. As I said, I am in favour of the metro. Anything that can be done to improve transport in the west midlands is to be welcomed. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred to an integrated transport system. No Opposition Members would object to such a system for the west midlands. However, according to their statement—which I saw only today, although it was possibly issued last week, but I make no criticism of that—
  "The Promoters respectfully request that the Bill should be given a Second Reading so that they should be allowed to put forward to the Committee"
  all the reasons why the Bill should be passed and their case for the clauses in the Bill. That is understandable; that is why the promoters want the Bill to be given a Second Reading, so that, when it reaches the Select Committee, it will be scrutinised—or at least, I hope it will be.
  If it is right for the promoters to argue their case in Committee, if the Bill receives a Second Reading, why are the objectors not allowed to argue their case in Committee? I understand that the passenger transport authority objects to the people in my constituency who are opposed to the proposed metro route arguing their case in Committee. If the metro system is to be constructed in time, the maximum good will needs to be created. Can it be argued that the best way to create good will is to state, with all the powers that such bodies have, that it is unnecessary for the objectors to be heard?
  If the Bill receives a Second Reading, on Thursday next the Court of Referees—a body of 11 senior Members of Parliament—will decide whether that objection should be upheld. I understand that it would not be in order this evening to make further reference to the Court of Referees, so I shall not do so. Nevertheless, having said that I am in favour of the measure, I should be much happier if there were no bureaucratic objection to the case for these people being heard. If the objectors' arguments did not stand the test of examination, the Select Committee would reach that conclusion.
  Why, therefore, should we go to these lengths and say that the objectors ought not to be heard? If the Bill is given a Second Reading, I hope that, even at this late stage, further consideration will be given to that matter. The passenger transport authority needs the good will of the local public. I hope that it does not intend to undermine it by going about matters in a way that will undoubtedly antagonise many people.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I begin by declaring an interest, since the matter—as some hon. Members have already remarked—is sensitive. I was a consultant to the bank that gave advice on the feasibility study when the metro concept was originally considered.
  I sympathise with the metro concept and with everything that it could do for public transport in the west midlands, and around Birmingham in particular. However, I am still doubtful whether a light railway
  666
  system—or what used to be known as a tramway system, to call it by its proper name—is really the best answer for this conurbation.
  I have visited many capital cities and other cities throughout Europe. I have been to Grenoble and Lyons. I have also visited Stockholm, Vienna, Munich and a dozen other cities where they are hurrying and scurrying to remove trams and light railways and to place their transport systems underground, with occasional aboveground exits. I am therefore concerned that the passenger transport authority is running into what appear to be serious objections from local residents about the route. That ought to be unnecessary, particularly in an area where there is so much disused and under-utilised railway track.
  I should stress to the promoters of the Bill that, when future routes are planned, maximum use should be made of existing rail networks. If those networks are under-utilised and perhaps a light rail system would attract more passengers because the stops can be made more frequent, negotiations should begin with British Rail immediately or as soon as practical to usurp those rails and put them to better use.
  I recognise the significant advantages that the system would provide for our conurbation in alleviating congestion. I am relieved that the latest proposal for lines adds a viability to the concept which was not present in the original proposals. It was made very clear to the promoters of the Bill at an early stage that some commercial viability had to be established, particularly if some private funding, and ultimately EC funding, was to be introduced into the scheme. The lines under consideration would help to ensure that viability. I feel that further routes under the city of Birmingham would further enhance that and enhance the attraction to residents along the route and around the black country.
  Mr. Rooker: It so happens that the hon. Gentleman's point about the city of Birmingham was the only point on which I offered any specific comment in consultation. The result is the exact opposite of what I suggested, but I make no complaint about that. Does the hon. Gentleman take the view that routes under the city centre of Birmingham will require people to go underground, as they have been forced to do in the past few years, whereas the advantage of routes on the surface through most of the city centre would have brought about a spin-off in environmental improvements?
  That point does not seem to have been taken on board, despite the planned £130 million-worth of tunnelling. When the hon. Gentleman offered his views on the Bill, as we both represent Birmingham constituencies, what was his view? Did he agree with tunnels or overground, environmental improvements or sticking people into subways? People do not like going into subways. They understand the old Victorian tube network in London, but frankly I do not think that they will accept that a 21st-century railway network needs to push people underground.
  Mr. Hargreaves: I hear with interest what the hon. Gentleman says, but in my experience, having travelled through major cities in Europe similar to ours, people do not like large, heavy railed vehicles trundling down busy streets in major city centres. I do not consider that Birmingham would necessarily be enhanced by large or

  667
  light rail transit down the centre of our streets. Perhaps those streets would be enhanced by pedestrianisation. I agree that people would prefer streets without vehicles and that the environment would be enhanced by having fewer cars in those streets, but I do not think that the answer is to stick light rails down the centre of Birmingham. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he accepts that I have thought about the matter with some care.
  I visited Stockholm, which is quite an attractive city, rather smaller than Birmingham but of interest as they have torn up their trams and introduced a system which runs underground in the city centre but is similar to light rail transit as it approaches the suburbs. In those tunnels, which are not as deep and cavernous as our Underground in London, they have introduced a most charming shopping arena and other facilities which are safe and clean and a pleasant environment for people to work in. I believe that we should follow that system in Birmingham city centre. I put that forward for the hon. Gentleman's consideration and interest should he have time to visit that city.
  Finally, I turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment. It is important that such a transport network wins the hearts and minds of the people who will use it. There has already been one storm, which may have resulted perhaps from a lack of consultation or from a lack of public relations.
  Opposition Members criticised the promoters' use of public relations. It seems that they are experiencing difficulty both ways. They tried public relations, but fell at the second fence. Having attracted people to the concept of the metro, which is indisputable, they slammed the door in the face of those who disagreed about its route or about other aspects. If we are to benefit from a metro network around Birmingham, and through the black country to the NEC and surrounding areas, it is important that people are enthusiastic about it, or they will not use it.
  As a slight tease to my constituent, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), I should like to put down a marker. I support the Bill, but I should be horrified if it were proposed to run the metro down the centre of the Stratford road.
  Mr. Rooker: Why?
  Mr. Hargreaves: Because light railways do not run well on through roads.
  Mr. Snape: The House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interesting speech, and perhaps to The Independent for so rapidly provoking it. If the metro were to run down the middle of the Stratford road, presumably steps would be taken to prevent parking on both sides of it and the loading and unloading of light and heavy commercial vehicles, which occurs all day every day and is a prime cause of the congestion about which the hon. Gentleman, and I as one of his constituents, frequently complain.
  Mr. Hargreaves: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for his kindly interpretation of my speech. I am putting down a marker on behalf of the hon. Gentleman and myself. If it were proposed that the metro should travel down the middle of the Stratford road, I should object, because light rail systems do not work
  668
  happily in shopping areas or on through routes such as the Stratford road, which will become increasingly busy because of the M40–M42 link.
  I shall support the motion, but I shall have doubts about the Bill unless changes are made to its presentation and to its consultation procedures.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Terry Davis: I oppose the Bill because I object to what is described as the Birmingham to Solihull route from Five Ways and the convention centre to the national exhibition centre and Birmingham airport. I object specifically to the proposed section running through the Bromford estate and Firs estate in my constituency.
  Anyone who has driven on the M6 knows that part of my constituency. Fort Dunlop is a well-known landmark to the north of the motorway and the Bromford and Firs estates are on the other side of it. The area consists of houses, low-rise flats and tower blocks, with a narrow ribbon of land between the houses and motorway. The West Midlands passenger transport executive wants to run the midland metro along that ribbon.
  The Firs estate was built after the second world war, and the Bromford estate was built in the 1960s. The houses facing the motorway were built in the style of that time, with big picture windows. The motorway was constructed a few years later on stilts. It is one of the longest stretches of motorway viaduct in western Europe. Over the years, trees have gradually been planted and a narrow green ribbon developed for recreational use.
  My constituents have now been told that all their efforts to improve their local environment have been in vain. The midland metro will bulldoze its way along the line between the houses and the motorway. The trees that have been planted by local schoolchildren will be uprooted, the cycle track will be realigned, the football pitch removed and the children's play area relocated. In introducing the Bill, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) claimed that the environment would be enhanced wherever the metro ran. That is a travesty in terms of the Bromford estate.
  Much worse than the loss of these amenities is the fact that the people who live along the route will have the metro running as close as 40 yd to their houses and it will be even closer—not even the PTA can tell us how close, but perhaps a matter of a few feet—to one block of flats.
  What will they see from their picture windows? No one knows, not even the PTA. No one can tell us what the overhead wires and their supports will look like. No one can tell us how obtrusive they will be. No one can even tell us where the supports—pylons, gantries, or whatever they are called—will be located. All that they can tell us is that my constituents will have vehicles travelling at speeds up to 50 mph passing in front of their picture windows every five minutes. One of my constituents was even told that the PTA did not want to screen the metro route in any way because it was relying on local residents to keep an eye on it to prevent vandalism.
  That brings me to the other objection to this section of the metro route—noise. My constituents know a lot about the effect of noise on the quality of life. I have explained that the M6 runs alongside and above the Bromford estate. In the early 1970s, the estate's residents got together with residents of other areas along the route of the motorway

  669
  and campaigned for noise insulation. Eventually, a scheme was introduced and a large number of flats and houses were insulated. Unfortunately, many were ruled to be ineligible and they are precisely the houses that are nearest to the proposed route for the midland metro. It does not stop there.
  At that point, the motorway runs above the railway line from Birmingham to Derby. It does not cross the railway. In effect, the railway goes through a tunnel with open sides. Not surprisingly, the noise of the trains echoes and reverberates and the result is disturbing, to put it mildly.
  That is not all. One of the biggest problems in my constituency is the noise from aircraft using Birmingham airport. I calculate that at least half my constituents suffer from noise so great that they cannot watch television or conduct a conversation by telephone or face to face whenever a plane goes overhead. The air traffic controllers at Birmingham airport told me that it was not surprising that there was a major problem with aircraft noise in my constituency. The pilots are supposed to take their planes to a height of 1,000 ft before turning towards open countryside and the most commonly used planes at Birmingham airport reach a height of 1,000 ft when they get above the Bromford estate.
  What do the Bill's sponsors have to say about noise? All hon. Members will have received today a statement by Sherwood and Company, the parliamentary agents for the PTA, which said:
  "The high capacity lightweight rail vehicles intended for operation on the Metro will result in lower noise levels than those experienced from buses and trains."
  That statement is grossly misleading. We are talking not about replacing buses and trains in front of my constituents' homes but about additional noise for those residents. Birmingham city council's environmental health department has told local councillors and me that 118 houses and flats could be so badly affected by the noise of the metro that they should be provided with noise insulation if the route went ahead.
  Of course, as anyone with experience of noise from aircraft or from motorways will agree, no provision for noise insulation is good enough. There are two important reasons for that. In the first place, what matters is the total amount of noise—not the noise from several single sources, but the total amount.
  The noise from the metro may not be significant in itself for a particular house, but when it is added to the noise from the M6, from the railway that runs underneath the motorway, and from planes taking off from Birmingham airport—none of which the powers-that-be regard as significant—the total amount of noise could become intolerable for the ordinary family living in an ordinary house. But the Department of Transport, British Rail, Birmingham airport officials and the passenger transport authority can all shrug their shoulders and, with a clear conscience, claim that their noise is "lower than that experienced from buses and trains."
  The second problem about noise insulation is that, obviously, as soon as windows are opened, it ceases to work. That is why the problem is always worse in summer. There is nothing that the passenger transport authority, or this House, or anybody else, can do about that nuisance.
  Hon. Members may wonder why there is no problem in any constituency except mine and that of the hon. Member
  670
  for Meriden (Mr. Mills). Why is not the House full of people making similar points on behalf of their constituents? The answer lies in the route itself. Although this metro route begins at Five Ways and runs through the city centre, it is underground until it gets to the wasteland of the heartlands—a derelict industrial area. It runs through that area until it reaches Bromford Bridge and enters my constituency. Only at that point does it begin to affect anyone's home.
  At that point, against the background of the problems that I have described, one would have expected the West Midlands passenger transport authority to be particularly careful about consulting the people who live in the Bromford estate. Tragically, the arrangements for consultation were grossly inadequate. They were regarded as inadequate by myself, by local councillors and by the residents. A summary of our opinion is that the arrangements for consultation were a farce. The members and officers of the West Midlands passenger transport authority are totally incapable of understanding the difference between informing people and consulting people. The information that people were given was sparse, and the consultation was virtually nil.
  The hon. Member for Yardley said that there had been a tremendous amount of consultation. I listened very carefully to his remarks. He listed leaflets. But leaflets are not consultation; leaflets are information. He listed exhibitions. But exhibitions are not consultation, unless one invites people's views and then pays attention to those views. Otherwise, exhibitions are only information. The hon. Gentleman mentioned meetings.
  I asked the passenger transport authority what it regarded as the consultation arrangements for my constituents. It gave me a list of meetings that had taken place—meetings with Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament and Councillors.
  The first meeting, on 25 April 1989, was with T. Davis, MP. That so-called meeting consisted of my giving coffee to the director general and the head of communications of the passenger transport authority in the Strangers' Cafeteria, where they told me that they could not discuss the route through my constituency because it was a matter for the city council. That meeting is described as consultation.
  Then there was a meeting with John Tomlinson, MEP. I do not know what took place at that meeting; Mr. Tomlinson is not the MEP for the area in which my constituency is located.
  Next on the list is a presentation to city council members. Let that be noted: "presentation". But that is not consultation.
  The next item on this list of so-called consultations is a presentation on 10 May 1989 to west midlands Members of Parliament at the House of Commons by Birmingham city council. Once again I say, "presentation" is not consultation.
  The next on the list is a briefing of Councillor R. Spector. I do not know which ward Councillor Spector represents, but it is not in my constituency.
  Then there is a meeting with T. Davis, MP, and Councillors Turner and Jones at Birmingham city council offices. That meeting certainly took place. We asked a lot of detailed questions that could not be answered.
  Then—still on consultation—is listed a meeting with R. Corbett, MP. I do not know what the result of that meeting was, but my hon. Friend the Member for

  671
  Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) subsequently announced that he agreed with me about wanting to have the metro rerouted.
  Next on the list is a meeting with the sole surviving Conservative councillor in my constituency, who subsequently announced that he agreed with the Labour party on this issue.
  Then we have a meeting with C. Crawley, MEP, who is the MEP for my constituency. After the meeting, she announced that she opposed the route through my constituency.
  Next comes a meeting with T. Davis, MP, dated 20 October. That was the occasion on which I went to the city engineers' department and the city engineers agreed that I was right and that it was physically possible to reroute the metro on the other side of the motorway.
  Then there came another meeting with R. Corbett, MP. I am not sure what happened, but my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington has not told me that he changed his mind as a result.
  Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is not in the Chamber but, as my Member of Parliament, he confirmed to me today that he still believes that the route should go the other side of the M6—in other words, into his constituency.
  Mr. Davis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  There followed five meetings with residents' groups and other associations—two with the Bromford community centre committee, which is opposed to the route, one with Kevin Hawkins and Forse, the group that has tried to petition against the route, one with the Bromford Conservative group, which I believe to be opposed to the route, and one with the Birmingham branch of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, of whose views I am not certain.
  Under the heading
  "Activities following the submission of the Bill"—
  this is still supposed to be consultation—I read that, on 30 November 1989, a reception at the House of Commons was attended by the hon. Members for Yardley, for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and for Northfield.
  Then we have a meeting on 22 January with T. Davis, MP at Summer lane. That meeting was arranged by the hon. Member for Yardley and I shall come to it in a moment. But that is not consultation; that was never consultation; it was information.
  My constituents, the local councillors in my constituency and myself suggested in June 1989, after the route was made public, that it would be a good idea if we had real consultation. We suggested that the way to do that was to set up a working party with representatives of the city council, the passenger transport authority and local residents to discuss the route as it would affect our part of Birmingham.
  That request was made in June 1989, and nothing was done about it until the hon. Member for Yardley arranged a meeting for me with the passenger transport authority in January, which I shall come to in a moment. Tonight, however, the hon. Gentleman told the House that there were changes in the original route through the Bromford estate as a result of what he described as consultation.
  Mr. Bevan: Will my hon. Friend allow me?
  Mr. Davis: I am not the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, but I shall certainly give way.
  Mr. Bevan: As a matter of fact, I regard the hon. Gentleman as my hon. Friend even though he sits on the Opposition Benches, and I am not frightened of saying so.
  I think that I was wrong in what I said. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether there had been any changes in the route, and I thought that he meant the whole route. When I said that it had been moved, I had in mind the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). I want to put that right straight away.
  If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall take this opportunity while I am on my feet to deal with another matter. Although the hon. Member for Hodge Hill does not construe any of the meetings that he has mentioned so far as consultation, he did not mention—on top of all the leaflets and officers' meetings at the Bromford neighbourhood office—the sports centre meeting, which I should have thought was consultation.
  It must be noted that, in all those consultations, Centro received very few letters or telephone calls from Bromford residents. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would concede that every attempt had been made to consult all along—and that includes the meeting that I subsequently arranged for him because he told me then that no meetings had been held.
  Hon. Members have referred to the option of taking the route the other side of the M6 and said that that would be more sensible. That option was looked at, but it would have cost another £16·6 million and would have reduced the potential number of travellers by two thirds.
  Mr. Davis: If I may intervene in the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I will come to those points in due course if I am allowed to make my speech.
  The hon. Gentleman is right. A public meeting was held. It was requested by the councillors in my constituency and by me, and that meeting was very well attended. I do not have a record of the number of phone calls made by my constituents, nor do I have a record of the number of letters that they sent. If the hon. Member for Yardley is concerned about the number of phone calls, it would be easy to get my constituents to telephone the PTA. However, my constituents thought that they should be consulted face to face. Consultation does not take place on the telephone. Telephone calls may be all right for protests, but they are no good for consultation.
  My constituents wanted consultation. What we requested and what all the councillors in my constituency supported——
  Mr. Bevan indicated dissent.
  Mr. Davis: The hon. Member for Yardley may shake his head, but even the Conservative councillors supported our request. We wanted a working party to discuss the route as it affected that part of Birmingham.
  The hon. Member for Yardley referred to the public meeting at which we made clear our views about the two proposed routes. Earlier, the hon. Member for Yardley said that the chosen route was, as he described it, on the periphery of the Bromford estate instead of along what he called a spine road—he means Bromford drive. To suggest that the change was the result of consultation is a travesty of what really happened.

  673
  The PTA thought that it had been clever. It told the people on the Bromford estate that there were two alternative routes through the estate, both of which were bad, but that one was worse than the other because it affected more homes. The PTA asked the people on the Bromford estate to choose between the alternatives.
  The PTA was trying to set one set of residents against the other. It wanted to set them arguing among themselves about whose homes should be affected. That was the old tactic of divide and rule.
  The residents, local councillors and I refused to be taken in by the clever people in the PTA. We refused to choose whose home should be sacrificed. Instead, we came up with a third option which would not affect any homes.
  The hon. Member for Yardley referred to a referendum. He said that the clear majority of people affected by the route are in favour of it. He referred to a figure of 62 per cent. in favour. That statistic conceals the truth.
  Mr. Bevan indicated dissent.
  Mr. Davis: The hon. Member for Yardley may disagree with me, but I found the figures in the PTA's documents. The PTA admits that, in the Bromford estate, only 10 per cent. of people were in favour of either of the metro routes. Ninety per cent. voted against the proposal. The hon. Member for Yardley has done less than his duty to the House by not stressing that point.
  The hon. Member for Yardley said that there had been a previous scheme. That is true. Five or six years ago, a scheme was abandoned because, according to the hon. Member for Yardley, it was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am not sure what he means by the wrong time, but it was certainly in the wrong place. But the officers and some members of the PTA do not agree with the hon. Member for Yardley. They have said openly and publicly that they still believe that the original route, demolishing one side of Coleshill road, was the best possible option.
  The hon. Member for Yardley also said that the new route would help to regenerate the industrial wastelands of Birmingham. That is an interesting comment and it is precisely what my constituents, the councillors in my constituency and I have suggested.
  We suggested that the metro route should run on the other side of the motorway where no one lives. We suggested that it should run through the Fort Dunlop site, which is ripe for redevelopment. That site has been included in the heartlands area to which I referred earlier and which the hon. Member for Yardley described as an industrial area scheduled for redevelopment. The metro is intended to serve that heartlands area elsewhere along its route.
  If the metro ran through the Fort Dunlop site to the north of the motorway, instead of through the Bromford estate to the south, no one's home would be affected. A spokesman for the West Midlands passenger transport authority, Mr. Michael Parker, has said publicly that the residents objecting to this Bill are trying to move the metro from their backyard to someone else's backyard. As for my constituents, that is a completely unjustified slur on a
  674
  group of very reasonable and very responsible people. We have suggested a different route which goes through Fort Dunlop and affects nobody's backyard.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) referred to legitimate objections to development near someone's home, the need to strike a balance and consider where legitimate objections shade into unreasonable objections, and the need to put the development near people instead of on derelict land. In Birmingham, for most of the route, the development runs through derelict land. It does not go near anyone's home until it reaches the Bromford estate.
  Not only residents of the Bromford estate have suggested the alternative route. It is supported by all the councillors in the ward, by all the councillors in my constituency, by myself as local Member of Parliament, by our Member of the European Parliament, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington, whose views are particularly important because the Fort Dunlop site is in his constituency.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South explained that it was sometimes difficult to choose between sectarian interests and the broader public interest. But this is not a case of being opposed to the metro system; it is a case of being opposed to the route as it will affect the Bromford estate. It is not only a small group of residents, but the overwhelming majority of people in that estate, all their councillors, their Member of Parliament and their Member of the European Parliament. We asked for a working party to consider our objections and our alternative route, and our request was rejected. I inform my hon. Friends from Walsall that my consultation experience has been very different from theirs.
  The response to the alternative by the West Midlands passenger transport authority has been as inadequate as the original arrangements for consultation. Basically, it told us that there are three reasons for rejecting it, and two of those reasons were reflected by the hon. Member for Yardley. First, it told us that it was not physically possible, because a new road called a spine road—that is where the term comes from—is planned for the northern side of the motorway to assist redevelopment of the heartlands, and it was physically impossible to find room for a spine road and the metro.
  That is a serious objection, so I went to see the chairman of Birmingham Heartlands, a former conservative Member of this House, Sir Reginald Eyre, and I went to the city engineers' department. I was told that in fact it was physically possible to find room for both the road and the metro. So we knocked that objection on the head. The PTA then fell back on its second objection, which was, "Ah, we don't really mean that it is physically impossible; we mean that it is too expensive." We asked how expensive, and it said, "An extra £12 million." It was not £16 million. The hon. Member for Yardley used a bogus figure, which I will explain to him afterwards in detail if he wishes. The extra cost is £12 million. That is the figure that we got. We were told that it will cost that much because a tunnel would have to be built to get the metro to the other side of the motorway.
  That sounded like a lot of money, so we asked how that sum compared with the total cost of the scheme. We were told that the total cost of the route from Five Ways to Birmingham airport would be £224 million. We said, "That sounds an even bigger amount of money." We were

  675
  told, "Yes, it is expensive because we need to build a tunnel through the city centre." We said, "Oh yes, how much will that tunnel cost?"
  We were then told that the authority was planning to provide not one but five separate tunnels, at a cost of £100 million, to ensure that the metro is environmentally acceptable in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), plus £7·5 million to get the metro from my constituency into the neighbouring constituency of Meriden, plus another £12·5 million for tunnels in Solihull. The authority is willing to spend £120 million for five tunnels elsewhere, but it will not spend £12 million—one tenth of the total—for a tunnel to ensure that the route is environmentally acceptable to the people who live on the Bromford estate.
  When the PTA was faced with that comparison, it fell back on its third objection. It said, "In any case, we cannot put the metro on the other side of the motorway because it would have an adverse effect of ridership. We want the people of the Bromford estate to use it. We do not think that the people of Bromford estate will go to the other side of the motorway to use it. We want to put the metro as near as possible to the homes of people living in the Bromford estate so that they can pop on to the metro and go to Five Ways, the convention centre, the national exhibition centre and Birmingham airport whenever they like."
  The residents and I asked the authority to tell us what the effects on ridership would be. It told us that if the metro ran to the north of the motorway, the number of people using it would be reduced by two thirds. That is the figure that the hon. Member for Yardley used. When we asked what that meant in terms of passenger journeys, we were told that the number of trips—that is what the authority calls it—would be reduced from between 1,900 and 2,200 trips a day to between 500 and 800 trips a day. When we expressed some incredulity about those figures, we were told that they came out of the computer of the passenger transport authority. We all know about computers. My constituents and I wanted to know why the computer said that there would be a reduction of two thirds, or 66 per cent., rather than some other percentage.
  We asked the passenger transport authority what assumptions it had put into the computer to produce the figures. We were told, "You will have to come back because we do not have time to do it today and the man who is responsible for it has to catch a train to Derby." That is what they call consultation.
  As the House will have gathered, my constituents are not easily fooled. By now they have come to distrust any figures given to them by the passenger transport authority. They have looked at the report given to the city council in January about the effect on ridership figures of moving the metro route.
  The residents of Bromford estate have drawn my attention to the one thing that we have been told about ridership figures. The figures assume that, if the metro ran to the north of the motorway, it would not be possible to provide a station at Bromford Bridge. At the same time, one of the few facts that we have elicited about the calculation of the extra cost—which produced a figure of £12 million for a tunnel—is that it includes £7·5 million for the cost of providing an underground station at Bromford Bridge.
  The passenger transport authority and the hon. Member for Yardley claim at one and the same time that,
  676
  if the metro ran to the north of the motorway, the ridership figures would be reduced by two thirds because there would not be a station at Bromford Bridge, and that it would be prohibitively expensive for the metro to go north of the motorway because it would mean building an underground station at Bromford Bridge. They cannot have it both ways.
  The House will understand why my constituents, the local councillors and I are beginning to suspect that the West Midlands passenger transport authority has made up its mind that the metro will run through the Bromford estate and is trying to cook the figures to justify its choice. My constituents have suggested a constructive alternative, but the only response of the passenger transport authority has been to oppose it with arguments that are incorrect, incredible and inconsistent.
  I now come to what I regard as the worst aspect of the affair. Hon. Members who have just come into the Chamber are probably saying to themselves that a case has been made for a careful and independent examination in Committee of the details of the route as it will affect the Bromford and Firs estates. Supporters of the Bill may argue, "The objections are merely details; let us vote for the Bill tonight. Let us vote for it in principle and leave the details of the route to the Committee. After all, the residents of the Bromford and Firs estates have petitioned against the Bill and their case can be examined in Committee." I regret to tell the House, as other hon. Members have, that the determination of the West Midlands passenger transport authority to bulldoze the Bill and the route on to the statute book knows no hounds of decency or democracy.
  As soon as my constituents lodged their petition against the Bill, the passenger transport authority lodged an objection to their right to be heard by a Committee of the House, on the grounds that the authority did not intend compulsorily to purchase my constituents' homes but only to impose unacceptable noise levels and take away their view. This is a matter to be settled by the Court of Referees, and I ask the House to take note of the attitude of the West Midlands passenger transport authority.
  Altogether, 34 organisations have petitioned against the Bill, including banks, property developers, businesses, educational institutions, statutory undertakings and British Rail. They include organisations as diverse as the Post Office and the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, and five residents' groups in Walsall, Solihull and my constituency.
  The Minister suggested that the Bill should be given its Second Reading so that it can be examined in detail in Committee. The hon. Member for Yardley suggested much the same in introducing the Bill. However, unlike the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was kind enough to express his concern on this point. My constituents are much heartened by my hon. Friend's letter on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, which told them in September:
  "During the last metro controversy in the area, I did make the point to Councillor Bateman that it was impossible to implement a new transport system without the active support of the residents. I will liaise with Terry Davis over this matter once Parliament has resumed to ensure that no development takes place without the consultation and consent of local residents."
  There is no doubt that the project does not have the consent of the residents in my constituency. The passenger

  677
  transport authority is trying to stop residents putting their views to a Committee of this House. It has objected to all the resident groups' rights to be heard.
  Those residents are ordinary people—people whose only investments are in their homes—yet the passenger transport authority wants to prevent them from having the opportunity to explain their fears and objections to Members of Parliament.
  Throughout the build-up to the Bill, the attitude of the passenger transport authority has been, "Don't question us. We know what is good for you." That is not democracy, it is dictatorship, and that in itself is a good enough reason for opposing the Bill.
  9.46 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I have spent six hours in the Chamber, but it has been worth it because I have been able to listen to the debate and to hon. Members who actually represent their constituencies. As transport spokesman for my party, I have received representations from Walsall members of my party which I should like to put on the record tonight. I also represent people who have written to me out of the blue because I am my party's transport spokesman. I have received many letters, although perhaps not quite as many as those received by some Conservative Members.
  Mr. Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has also received letters of support for the metro from Liberals in Wolverhampton?
  Mr. Fearn: I have had a letter from one councillor who, I believe, is not standing at the next election. However, I have received many other letters. Liberal Democrats in Walsall have been working hard on this issue.
  Liberal Democrats are not opposed to light railway systems and I would support them wherever they may be proposed, although I shall speak out if they affect people's homes, as has been suggested tonight. Nor are Walsall Liberal Democrats opposed to a light railway. They support the Walsall-Wednesbury link, although they are opposed to the Walsall-Wolverhampton link, firstly on environmental grounds in certain areas. The planned route will decimate the Greenway between the M6 and St. Annes road. The elevated section between Granbourn road and Clarke's lane would apparently be lost altogether and the Willenhall memorial park, which has been mentioned, will be intruded upon. The park is a memorial to the dead of the first world war.
  I also know that the rail will run just feet from the back doors of residents in Belinda close and that 2,000 signatures in opposition to the route have been presented. I know that the Bill's promoter said that 15 per cent. object to the Bill, but what I do not know is, 15 per cent. of what figure? The involvement of 2,000 residents sounds a great number to me, and they should be listened to.
  There is already a confused road network in the area, and I believe that the chosen route will create chaos in that network with its eight level crossings.
  For the metro to be successful, it should be street-running for the majority of its length. Perhaps comment will be made on that aspect of light rail—should it or should it not be street-running? The Liberal Democrat Chief Whip and four other persons walked the
  678
  route, and I can tell the House that the majority of it has little to do with street running. It is a quiet walk and there are few houses.
  Have options been considered closely? What are the objections to re-establishing the heavy rail link between Walsall and Wolverhampton by extending the Shrewsbury sprinter service through to Walsall? it is obvious that wide-ranging consultation has not taken place, despite what has been said. More information must be made available, and the residents who will be affected by the route are calling for more consultation. The environment and the people will suffer unless firm alterations to the routes are agreed with all those concerned.
  Although in principle I agree with the light railway, I cannot support the Bill——
  Mr. George: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fearn: —unless alterations are made in the planning stage. I tell those who sought to intervene that I have finished.
  9.51 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I refrained from seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, until those hon. Members who have a direct constituency interest had made their "constituency" speeches. In principle—like every other hon. Member, I believe—I am in favour of a more modern transport system for the urban areas. Whatever our political differences across the Floor of the House or within our parties, I do not believe that anyone can be satisfied with the present situation or with the present plans for solving the problems that face us. The Government's solution is to build more roads for more cars. It is barmy. There is no long-term future in such a proposal. The world will run out of rubber before we arrive at a solution.
  It is clear from the proposals that have been produced by the transport authority that another route into Birmingham from Sutton Coldfield, which can only pass through my constituency, is a prime candidate when it comes to improving the transport system. It would be a money spinner: there is no question about that. The route from another area of Sutton Coldfield will be electrified through to Erdington. The other route from Sutton Coldfield will have to come through my constituency and through the Kingstanding area. I do not have any details, and I am not arguing for one proposal or another. I have an interest, however, and so do my constituents, in the conduct of organising Bills and in the routes that are set out in legislation. What I have heard so far about the route proposed in the Bill I do not like.
  Like many other hon. Members, especially those who represent Birmingham constituencies, I have been on the receiving end over the past six months or more of many letters and petitions from people who are not my constituents. In the normal course of events, one passes this correspondence to the local Member, and in all cases I have passed it to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). Many of the letters were personal, not photocopied.
  Many people made a plea—I considered it to be a reasonable one—that I should go to the Bromford estate. I was asked to listen to the residents about the future of the estate. When I was no more than seven or eight years old,

  679
  I remember being taken to the area for a day out when it was the Birmingham race course. I do not think that I have been on the land since those days.
  It was suggested that it was no good going to the Bromford estate on a Sunday afternoon. Accordingly, I visited it at 7.30 am on Friday. I met representatives of the residents' association, having first consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill because the estate is in his constituency. I use the motorway every week. I also use Collector road. That is because using the two routes varies my drive out of Birmingham to the M I. I am aware of Collector road. I have travelled the M6 ever since it has opened and used the Bromford viaduct. However, I have never before been to the Bromford estate underneath it.
  I was appalled. There is an elevated section of the motorway and there is the railay line. The quietest thing there is the canal—another method of transport—underneath the motorway. There are aircraft flying overhead. Nobody thought to bury the power lines. Subject to weather conditions, these make no noise, but they are an eyesore. The visual amenity for the residents of the estate is zero. As well as the pylons, the railway and the motorway, there are the factory sites for Dunlop and its associated factories, which can be seen through the pillars holding up the motorway.
  Nobody offered to screen the motorway. Trees have been planted, but they are not mature. The green lung—this is a misuse of the phrase—running along the motorway is the only bit of green on that part of the Bromford estate. It is used not just for football pitches, walking the dogs and so on, but for having parties and picnics in the summer. The idea of picnicking under a pylon near the M6 with a railway running alongside beggars belief, but that is the only bit of green for the residents. Someone has decided that this bit of green is the ideal route for the metro line. I have walked from one end of the estate to the other.
  Mr. Turner: If all these serious environmental matters are of such relevance, why is it that Birmingham city council, at an earlier stage, did not take these points on board? The route has been set by a Labour-controlled city council.
  Mr. Rooker: For the same reason why, in the past, various public authorities erected power lines and the motorways while ignoring the needs of local people. It is as simple as that. The decision has been taken, but the residents do not agree with it. I have heard from both sides of the House the argument that this is a point of detail, a Committee point, to be dealt with upstairs. That is the answer to most issues when one is discussing the principle, but I have also heard that the right of people to be heard upstairs will be taken away because they are opposed by the very people who are promoting the Bill.
  Mr. Terry Davis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole issue has blown by the intervention from the hon. Member for——
  Mr. Bevan rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 28.
  680

  Division No. 102]

  [9.58 pm

  AYES

  Allason, Rupert

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Knowles, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Knox, David

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Lamond, James

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Lilley, Peter

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McFall, John

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Maxton, John

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Meale, Alan

  Boyes, Roland

  Michael, Alun

  Bright, Graham

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Mudd, David

  Canavan, Dennis

  Neubert, Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Chapman, Sydney

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Norris, Steve

  Clelland, David

  Page, Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Pawsey, James

  Corbett, Robin

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Redwood, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Riddick, Graham

  Durant, Tony

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Dykes, Hugh

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Eadie, Alexander

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Fallon, Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Fearn, Ronald

  Speller, Tony

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Stern, Michael

  Flynn, Paul

  Stevens, Lewis

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Freeman, Roger

  Summerson, Hugo

  Fry, Peter

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  George, Bruce

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Thorne, Neil

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Thurnham, Peter

  Graham, Thomas

  Trippier, David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Turner, Dennis

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Hague, William

  Waller, Gary

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Wareing, Robert N.

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

  Warren, Kenneth

  Harris, David

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Watts, John

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Winnick, David

  Haynes, Frank

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Wood, Timothy

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Jack, Michael

  Mr. Roger King and Mrs. Maureen Hicks.

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  NOES

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Lewis, Terry

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Buchan, Norman

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Callaghan, Jim

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Clay, Bob

  Mills, Iain

  Cousins, Jim

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Cox, Tom

  Nellist, Dave

  Cryer, Bob

  Patchett, Terry

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

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Dixon, Don

  Rooker, Jeff

  Eastham, Ken

  Short, Clare

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  681

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Mr. Martin Redmond and Mr. George J. Buckley.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 17.

  Division No. 103]

  [10.10 pm

  AYES

  Allason, Rupert

  Fallon, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Flynn, Paul

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Freeman, Roger

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fry, Peter

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bermingham, Gerald

  George, Bruce

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boyes, Roland

  Graham, Thomas

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hague, William

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Canavan, Dennis

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

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Harris, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Clelland, David

  Haynes, Frank

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Corbert, Robin

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cox, Tom

  Jack, Michael

  Dixon, Don

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Knowles, Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Knox, David

  Eadie, Alexander

  Lamond, James

  682

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Snape, Peter

  Lilley, Peter

  Speller, Tony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stern, Michael

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Stevens, Lewis

  McFall, John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Summerson, Hugo

  Maxton, John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Meale, Alan

  Thorne, Neil

  Michael, Alun

  Thurnham, Peter

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Trippier, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Turner, Dennis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Waller, Gary

  Neubert, Michael

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Warren, Kenneth

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Norris, Steve

  Watts, John

  Page, Richard

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Pawsey, James

  Winnick, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Redwood, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Riddick, Graham

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Mr. Roger King and Mrs. Maureen Hicks.

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  NOES

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Lewis, Terry

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Mills, Iain

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Nellist, Dave

  Clay, Bob

  Patchett, Terry

  Cousins, Jim

  Short, Clare

  Cryer, Bob

  Skinner, Dennis

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

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Fearn, Ronald

  Hood, Jimmy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Mr. George J. Buckley and Mr. Martin Redmond.

  Janner, Greville

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

  Pneumoconiosis (Compensation)
  10.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I beg to move,
  That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations t990, which were laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.
  The regulations will be made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. Their purpose is to increase by 8 per cent. the compensation paid under the Act to those who satisfy all the eligibility conditions on or after 1 April 1990.
  The 1979 Act provides for lump-sum payments to sufferers, or to their dependants, if the sufferer has died of dust-related diseases but no former employer remains in business against whom a claim for damages might be made.
  The reason why compensation is provided in that way is because of the length of time that it takes for the disease to develop and for its symptoms to become apparent. Many years later, the sufferer may discover that he or she has the disease, often long after leaving the employment that caused or contributed to the development of the disease, by which time the employer may have gone out of business.
  The Act did not provide for amounts of payment or for automatic uprating, but the Government have undertaken to Parliament to review the amounts payable each year.
  The original payment regulations in 1980 set out a scale of payments related to age and degree of disability, as assessed by medical experts. Since 1980, several increases have been made, always with the aim of keeping the payments in line with the value of money. Last year, Parliament approved an increase of 8 per cent. from April. The proposed increase this year again is 8 per cent. to take account of inflation since then.
  The Government do all they can to administer the Act sympathetically. We recognise that each case is an individual tragedy and we are as generous as we feel we can be. It has never been the Act's purpose, however, to provide an alternative to taking action in the courts against an employer, and my officials must be satisfied that there is no employer against whom a claim for damages could be made.
  Since the Act came into force in 1980, almost 5,000 people have made successful claims. Eighty-two per cent. of all claims to date were made in the first year of the scheme, but it is a sad fact that claims are still being received by the Department. The total cost to date has been £28·6 million. So far in the current financial year, 103 payments have been made, amounting to £694,000.
  Most of those payments have been to sufferers, or to their dependants, in industries or occupations that involved contact with asbestos. They reflect the poor conditions in some workplaces a generation or more ago. The dangers of asbestos are now well recognised, and extensive legislation prevents much exposure today.
  It is clearly right to maintain the value of compensation paid to those disabled by those diseases. I therefore commend the regulations to the House.
  10.23 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: As the Under-Secretary said, the regulations will be made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979—one of the last Acts passed by the last Labour Government, in which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, played a large part. The Labour party is entitled to be proud of that Act.
  The regulations provide compensation for an illness that is horrendous not only for sufferers but for their families. A number of my hon. Friends who are involved in the mining industry are in the Chamber. British Coal has a separate scheme, but my hon. Friends can bear witness to the cruel way in which pneumoconiosis and similar conditions affect sufferers.
  The original legislation was forced through by the Labour Government but, to be fair, it was also introduced at the behest of a number of Members from north Wales who were worried about the damage done to people working in slate quarries. In recent years, the regulations have been especially important to those involved in the asbestos industry.
  The Minister said that conditions were unacceptable a generation ago. For a short time, I worked for an asbestos company in Manchester in the late 1960s. I am not sure whether that is a generation ago. I had my 40th birthday a little over a week ago, and people like me will be the potential victims of asbestosis and cancers for the rest of our lives—I include people younger than me, who continued to work in the industry until the plant closed. The conditions then and for some years later were atrocious. In the asbestos industry, as in other industries such as mining and quarrying, the management were fully aware of the dangers to the work force but oblivious to them in that they were prepared to allow people to continue to work.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: That was known as the permissive '60s.
  Mr. Lloyd: Indeed. They were permissive for management but intolerable for workers.
  Because I worked in the industry, I can say with certainty that most of the people who worked for an employer such as Turner Brothers in Manchester were unaware of the dangers. I even remember when a room the size of this Chamber was full of clouds of asbestos dust when the extractor fans failed to function. That was not one off; it was a regular part of working practice in such factories only a little over 20 years ago.
  The Minister said that the numbers were decreasing, and every hon. Member will welcome that. It would be wrong—no one would impute these words to the Minister—to say that somehow this phenomenon will disappear.
  The Opposition welcome the fact that this year's uprating is marginally ahead of inflation.
  Mr. Skinner: A teeny-weeny bit.
  Mr. Lloyd: As my hon. Friend said, it is a teeny-weeny bit.
  I hope that the Minister will agree with us. He said that 103 awards were made last year and that the total value was less than £650,000. One needs only simple mathematics to work out that the regulations, which provide a top award of a little under £42,000 for a person under 38 with 100 per cent. disability, do not provide for

  685
  the reality of these conditions. For most people, symptoms appear slowly and progressively after many years of exposure to dust. The typical award of £7,000 is available to people who are well into their 50s or 60s, or are sometimes even older. The idea that this is a particularly generous compensation system does not accord with the facts.
  The Minister said that the scheme was not designed to replace a civil claim against a previous employer. If an employer were found to be negligent in respect of a former employee or an existing employee who had become a victim of one of these dust-related diseases, the award would inevitably be higher than the amounts set out under these regulations.
  It must be pointed out that the levels of compensation simply do not equate with the human suffering of the victims of these conditions. The £41,000 maximum is not typical. The typical award is not even the £18,996 that goes to a dependant of someone who has died. The typical award is the £7,000, or thereabouts.
  One part of these regulations says that the level of compensation relates to the degree of disability assessed within 12 months of the disability being discovered. By its very nature, this is a progressive condition, and most people are assessed at a level well below that of which they will eventually become victims. Someone whose disability is assessed at 10 per cent. or less within 12 months of the condition being discovered will have his compensation based on that figure, even though he may eventually suffer disability of 100 per cent.
  I should like the Minister to look at, and perhaps later comment on, the scheme run by the National Union of Mineworkers, which was negotiated with British Coal. We should do well if the people who will figure under the regulations that we are debating could benefit from two of the features of that miners' scheme. Those in the coal industry are entitled to the same type of lump sum, but there are two other features.
  First, there is a reduced earnings allowance whereby someone forced to accept a job at a lower rate of pay is compensated for the difference. But perhaps the most important aspect of the British Coal scheme is that it recognises that these are progressive conditions, that, with continued exposure, the victims of dust-related diseases will suffer progressively. Even if an initial compensation assessment is low, a later assessment may be much higher. It is important that compensation be related not to the initial but to the final level of disability. I hope that the Minister will take those points on board and comment on the possibility of extending those two very sensible practices to people claiming these awards.
  There is another point that I hope the hon. Gentleman will pick up. It concerns people in coal mining as well as people who might benefit from extension of the reduced-earnings allowances principle to this compensation system. There is concern among miners in particular that, under social security legislation, the reduced earnings allowance will be phased out for new claimants.
  Anybody faced with that situation would have an economic motive not to claim compensation under any scheme but to stay at a higher-paid job even if, by so doing, he would almost certainly guarantee that his condition would become not just progressively worse—that would
  686
  be happening anyway—but progressively worse at an increasing rate. Sadly, we are building into schemes provisions that give people a financial incentive to do further damage to themselves.
  It would be unreasonable to do anything but welcome this uprating at the rate of inflation, or thereabouts. However, there are serious doubts as to whether the scheme provides for the levels of compensation that we should like. It is not a costly scheme. Relatively few people benefit from it. We have heard that last year it cost a little over £600,000, and that in the previous year the cost was a little less than £500,000. Those sums are relatively modest compared with the suffering of those involved.
  I urge the Minister carefully to consider the points that I have raised about progression and the operation of a system of reduced earnings allowances. If we can hope for such a system and for compensation that is slightly more realistic in terms of what a civil court might decide, we can say that we have begun to stablish a framework for a compensation scheme that recognises the suffering that people have undergone. We must remember that they have suffered because the type of work in which they were involved guaranteed—although they did not know it at the time—that in later years they would become the victims of crippling and cruel conditions such as pneumoconiosis.
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's announcement of the uprating and intervene briefly to ask for clarification of the working of the regulations in the light of the changes in the companies legislation that took effect at the end of last year.
  Will my hon. Friend confirm that receipt of money under the scheme does not prevent the claimant from seeking compensation from a former employer who may have gone into liquidation? I understand that the changes in the companies legislation have allowed claims to be made in respect of a period of 20 years, rather than just two years, prior to the date of liquidation of the company.
  My hon. Friend may be aware of the case of my constituent, Mrs. Doris Bradley, of Breightmet in Bolton, who pursued the Eagle Star insurance company through the courts to the House of Lords, albeit unsuccessfully. She had contracted byssinosis from employment in Dart mill in Bolton. Her employment ceased in 1970. In 1980, she received compensation under the scheme. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the payment that she received then should not prevent her, or others in her position, from seeking compensation from either the insurance company or the employers, even though those firms may have gone into liquidation?
  10.36 pm
  Mr. James Lamond: I, too, welcome the uprating of the lump sum compensation and the opportunity to debate the regulations on the Floor of the House.
  I should like to pursue one or two questions concerning the effect of the regulations on those who suffer from byssinosis. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and certainly my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker), who has just vacated the Chair, will know—that the "etc." in the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 covered byssinosis as

  687
  well as a number of other industrial diseases. It was particularly welcome in my constituency of Oldham, East, where there were many textile workers who had worked in the spinning section of the textile industry, in premises that were filled with cotton dust. Most of those workers were women, and quite a number received lump sum compensation following the passing of the Act.
  I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), that we should remember that that Act was the final Act of the Labour Government, although the regulations were brought in later by the Conservative Government, and I must say that they were very welcome. Almost 2,000 people in the Oldham area received an average of about £7,000.
  The provision that caused considerable problems to my constituents stated that they should not receive compensation if any employer for whom they had worked was still in business. By the nature of the problem in Oldham—the disease was in the spinning industry and it was mostly women who were affected—most of the sufferers had worked for several employers in their working lives. They would leave one mill to have a child; they would be off work for perhaps two or three years and then they would start work again—very likely in another mill. I have met many constituents who have worked for six, seven or even more employers during their working lives. If any of those employers are still in business, those workers are debarred from claiming lump sum compensation.
  I know that the Minister has applied the regulations as generously as he felt he could without going against the previous regulations that were passed by the House. Short periods of employment with employers who are still in business have been disregarded for the purposes of claiming compensation. However, nearly 300 women and some men in my constituency still cannot receive lump sum compensation.
  I know that those people can take their former employers to court to try to obtain compensation. However, the women to whom I am referring are retired and some of them are quite elderly. It costs money to institute proceedings. They must put down some money to begin with, as no lawyer will take on a case without a down
  688
  payment to cover his services. Money will also be required for a counsel's opinion and for medical examinations. Many of those elderly women cannot face the ordeal of going to court, so they do not pursue their cases.
  Curious though it may seem in this day and age, many of those women have some attachment to the family firm for which they once worked. We must remember that in Oldham and the surrounding area there were about 350 mills operated by some 250 companies. In other words, most of the companies had only one mill and were family firms. That is still the case, to a certain extent, in what remains of the textile industry.
  When I advised women of their rights to go to court, they told me that they did not want to take the firm to court because they did not want the firm's owners, who in many cases they knew by name, to think, after all the work that they had done for them, that they blamed them and. expected to get money from them. That is not a logical attitude, but I have come across it several times in my constituency. Will the Minister consider that, think the matter over and reconsider the regulations to see whether. he can apply them more generously or find a way of amending them?
  I am not making a new plea. I have often made it before. I made it when the original 1979 legislation was passing through the House and I made it again when the regulations were before the House. I made it when the statutory instrument was debated, not on the Floor of the House but in Committee. I usually received a sympathetic hearing and a recognition of the practical difficulties facing the elderly people who are still waiting for compensation.
  Those women may have spent three or four years with one firm, and that firm, of five or six, may have remained in business. They cannot understand why that short period should debar them from compensation, while that firm may quite reasonably deny that it is likely that that person contracted byssinosis only during the short period that she worked at the company, at the end of her working life.
  Will the Minister contemplate amending the regulations to assist those who worked in the textile industry, who I believe have a particular reason to look for sympathy?
  10.43 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am glad of the opportunity to take part in this short debate. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I were involved in the parentage of the legislation back in the 1970s. I wish only that we had not needed the legislation then and, to the extent that there was a need, that the legislation had not been on the statute book years earlier because many people suffered from its absence.
  I refer immediately to a point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond).
  There have been problems of people working for short times in the slate quarries particularly in towns such as Blaenau Ffestiniog—where there are several, some of them small—some of which are still in existence, but most of which are now defunct. In a number of cases the Department has taken a reasonably elastic view. Perhaps the Minister should look for some guideline—if that entails amending the legislation so be it—to accept that if anyone worked for a company still in existence for less than a quarter or a fifth of his working life, the time working for that company should be disregarded and the person should not be debarred from compensation by virtue of the fact that, perhaps for four years out of 20, he or she worked for a company that still exists.
  I am not sure of the experience in the cotton industry, but certainly in the slate quarrying industry the Transport and General Workers Union has done tremendous work representing people who have suffered pneumoconiosis and whose employers still exist. That union's legal department has done very well in bringing cases forward and in reaching settlements out of court to avoid the trauma and worry that some people suffer.
  Mr. James Lamond: The Powerloom Carpet Weavers and Textile Weavers Union and the General Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union have also played their part in obtaining compensation in the courts for my constituents.
  Mr. Wigley: That work is valued. Unions look after people who have long since ceased to work because of their health conditions.
  The other possibility that is well worth looking at—I am sure that the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton will also consider it—is to advise constituents that there should be no odium in bringing a case against a small company. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about attachment to small companies, but in most circumstances the insurance company will have to pay. Therefore, it is often possible to come to some agreement without polarisation and the hostility that might otherwise be implicit.
  Obviously, we welcome any uprating, and 8 per cent. is certainly to be welcomed as far as it goes. In 1979, the original figure at the bottom of the scale was £700. It has doubled since then, but it is fair also to say that the costs of disability have increased tremendously. The information that has been presented to the House in Office of Population Censuses and Surveys studies and from other sources has highlighted the much greater cost of disability to a person and his or her family than was recognised 10 years ago. We must look at a more generous scale of compensation, particularly for younger people who suffer
  690
  a large degree of disability early in life and may have to live with the cost implications of disability for many years. The Government might want to consider that matter.
  I note the point about the need for a mid-term review for people who have been acknowledged as suffering from pneumoconiosis, almost inevitably at a low percentage. How many people in different industries have been acknowledged initially at 10 per cent. but have seen their disability rapidly escalate to 100 per cent.? Compensation is based on the 10 per cent. figure. Perhaps there could be a structure whereby a person is reviewed every five years. If the percentage disability increases during those five years, it would put him or her on a substantially higher level of compensation than would have been the case five years earlier. The amount of compensation payable could be uprated.
  I realise that the Government would not want to do that annually, but for those who have suffered disability young in life and have to live with it, that may be a way of recognising, as the Labour Government at the time said and as the Conservative Government accepted when they introduced the regulations, that the scales represent a degree of rough justice. Perhaps such a review would overcome that rough justice.
  Another point made by hon. Members in the past, which needs to be repeated, is the definition of the diseases included as industrial diseases for these purposes. We all know of cases of people whose doctors have stated that they are suffering from chronic bronchitis or emphysema and not from diseases that are accepted for the purposes of the legislation. I have dealt with such a case in the past few weeks that of Mr. Evie Davis from Rhostryfan, the village next to mine. Year after year he has gone back to the board to have his case reviewed. The board has stated that he has a little dust which does not amount to pneumoconiosis. His specialist is convinced that he is suffering pneumoconiosis. No doubt next year he will have to go back again and it will be that much more of a struggle to go, as his health suffers. We know of hundreds of such cases.
  There must be a review of the definition. There should be greater flexibility to include people who have worked in industries that are identified as creating the dust and who have conditions such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema, which are associated with the listed diseases.
  Another reason why there may be room to be a little more generous to people affected by the legislation is that, during the past year, the widow's industrial death pension has been ended. I realise that it was only 55p a week on top of the original pension, but it is yet another small element of benefit that has been taken away. Perhaps through the scheme additional compensation could be made for a widow's loss.
  Many people who have suffered a loss of health have received probably the largest sum of money that they have ever had or are likely to have. If they have looked after that money, they may be in danger of losing out on some other benefits. If people received a sum of perhaps £10,000 or £12,000 and have looked after it, they may still have over £8,000. They stand in danger of losing community charge or poll tax rebates or housing benefit that they might otherwise have had. That is regrettable because many such people, who face years of disability, look after their capital and we should encourage them to do that.
  We must also consider the community care legislation that is soon to be introduced. If there is a move towards

  691
  privatisation of services and payment for services, will people who have received a lump sum have to pay for services that they previously had and which are certainly necessary if they are to remain living in the community?
  Safety standards in places of work must remain high. I have an asbestos factory as well as old slate quarries in my constituency, and I am very much aware of the need for safety at work. The company in my constituency does its best to maintain standards. It is something that all Governments must be aware of. There should be no skimping on inspection or cutting of corners to save costs at the expense of health standards. We must make sure that industries employing people now will not cause the suffering that we have seen in other industries, the consequences of which we are debating tonight.
  In welcoming the order to uprate, I hope that there may be room for more flexibility in the directions that I mentioned and that more benefit can be given to people who have suffered so much because of their work.
  10.52 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I join my hon. Friends and Conservative Members in welcoming the orders. I also join them in their expressions of doubt about the efficacy of the working of the scheme.
  I remember when I was a relatively small boy or young man, about 30 or 40 years ago, I read a novel, I think by A. J. Cronin, about the adventures of a doctor who came up from south Wales to do some research into pneumoconiosis in the coal mining industry. The scandals of the matters that prevented him from bringing into law the scientific discoveries that he made in an institute in London aroused my ire. I was surprised, and I am still surprised and disturbed, by the extent to which scientific analysis and evidence is being ignored. That does not redound to the credit of any Government of any party, and certainly not to an Administration in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I view with reserve the Minister's statement that the Government regard the working of these schemes with some sympathy.
  I wish to raise one or two matters relating to the operation of the scheme where improvements can be made. I hope that, when the regulations next come before the House, their scope will be wider than those that we are considering. These matters have been brought to my attention by that excellent organisation, the Society for the Prevention of Asbestosis and Industrial Diseases, and by the redoubtable lady who runs it, Mrs. Nancy Tait.
  Why, in this day and age, is the ex-civil servant widow of a General Post Office engineer to the forefront on these matters? I had hoped that, along with the unions, other agencies in our democracy would have fulfilled that function. However, I am pleased to present some of the features to which that lady and her colleagues in that excellent organisation have drawn my attention.
  The first is the applicability of the scheme. I believe that the case of a widow whose husband was employed in Northern Ireland has been drawn to the Minister's attention, probably by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). I understand that the scope of the provisions may not be as wide in that part of the United Kingdom as in the rest. I may be mistaken in that respect, but I think that that is so. Perhaps the Minister will comment on what may be an anomaly.
  692
  The asbestosis scourge is at its greatest in east London, around the Thames. I refer to men who, in the past, worked as laggers, boilermakers or boiler workers in power stations and ships, and in insulation work, which still goes on. East London is now suffering a time lag of 50 years or less in these matters.
  As I understand it, the scheme does not extend to those who have not been directly employed in the area:3 concerned. It relates only to those who have been employed—in firms that have now gone out of existence—but does not extend to their families. I understand that Leeds city council has done a study into this and that there is now plenty of proof that some families of persons so employed are suffering the effects of asbestos fibres and should therefore be eligible for some compensation.
  Even if the Minister cannot give us an assurance on that tonight, I hope that he will at least say that he will have a look at the anomaly. I hope that the number of cases in that classification is relatively low, but surely that makes the moral responsibility all the greater. Where proof can be found, surely there should be compensation.
  I understand that out-of-court settlements have been made, but only because of recourse to the threat to go to court. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) asked whether such threats to go to court should have to be used at all. I understand that: the National Dock Labour Board and one or two firms have come to arrangements with employees' families. I hope that that will not be necessary in future and that they can be brought into the scheme.
  I understand that, when such cases occur and there are coroner's inquests, the coroner sometimes finds that the cause of death was natural causes. I question whether that is right. If there is scientific evidence that workers' families have died through ingesting such fibres in their lungs, can the cause of death be natural? Asbestos does not appear naturally in the atmosphere, especially if it is brought in on other people's clothes. Perhaps the Minister will consider that point in relation to the scope of the regulations.
  I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) about the questionable way in which some of the panels operate. About 12 years ago, I had the pleasure of introducing a private Member's Bill, which happily later became an Act—the Industrial Diseases (Notification) Act 1981. It was the Archie Morton memorial Bill. Archie came to my surgery about 12 years ago. He told me that he was dying, that he had obtained some compensation from an out-of-court settlement with the assistance of the General and Municipal Workers Union, and that he would devote that money and the rest of his life to fighting for people who were not so fortunate as he. When he died, a post mortem showed that he was justified in going to the panel, which turned him down time after time.
  Last Saturday, a Mr. Smith—that is not his real name—came to see me, by chance before this debate. I do not know whether it is a record—case brought up on Saturday, raised in the House on Monday. It was a coincidence that he saw me so shortly before the debate. There are many men in Mr. Smith's position in east London. He said, "Mr Spearing, I have been coughing blood since January and my GP says that I must go to the panel." He named a firm that is well known in the area, for which he had worked at one time and which no longer exists.
  I have talked about the past and the scandals that took place when I was a boy, which I hoped then would never

  693
  recur. With that in mind, I am not too happy about the way in which the panels operate. As I understand it, the balance of probability is against the applicant. I shall read to the House some of the conclusions reached by the organisation to which I referred earlier, the Society for the Prevention of Asbestosis and Industrial Diseases. I shall start where the society quotes a quote:
  "'Asbestos bodies are only formed from asbestos fibres over 12 micron, but shorter fibres may cause fibrosis, so fibrosis caused by these shorter fibres is unrecognisable histologically as asbestosis'. (Whitwell: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 71, Dec: 1978, p. 919–922).
  However, DHSS Special Medical Boards ignore these opinions. SPAID's case work suggests that it is now more difficult to obtain DHSS industrial disablement benefit for lung cancer affecting someone who has worked with asbestos, since it was prescribed for benefit as PD D8.
  Before 1985, the connection was often accepted by DHSS provided there were even a few asbestos bodies and their pathologists would search for minimal fibrosis.
  Now, DHSS Special Medical Boards give 'scanty asbestos bodies and minimal fibrosis' as grounds for concluding that a lung cancer is not connected with exposure to asbestos. Not only do they refuse to award DHSS industrial benefit, they also frequently advise Coroners that a death should not be recorded as an Industrial Disease. They are required by DHSS regulations to decide applications 'on the balance of probabilities'. They rarely do so. Instead they often offer very flimsy evidence when asked to justify their decision to refuse a claim.
  We find that, when the evidence is argued in either a Civil or a Coroner's Court, the view that lung cancer must be accompanied by asbestosis or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening is recognised as being out of date and not in line with modern thinking.
  Unfortunately, the DHSS opinion is accepted all to often, without question and, as a result, many are quite unjustly, denied benefits or an opportunity of even claiming compensation."
  I have a shorter quotation from a registered medical practitioner, whom I had better not name. Here is the opinion of a person well experienced in these matters:
  "In 1986, after a considerable amount of evidence had been produced by research workers, the DHSS agreed to accept bilateral diffuse pleural thickening as a compensatible disease. However, the interpretation of the criteria has been so stringent that even in many obviously disabled men no compensation has been offered.
  There is growing concern and frustration among chest physicians, particularly in those areas where a great deal of a asbestos-related disease occurs, that the DHSS Medical Boards are ignoring much of the evidence produced by medical workers in the field of asbestos-related disease. Even when there is irrefutable evidence of disease they are suppressing facts in individual cases to the extent that the men referred are losing confidence in their referring physicians."
  They say, "The doctor says I've got it, the specialist says I've got it, the London hospital says I've got it, but the panel says I haven't." That is the sort of message that I get at my advice surgery. The practitioner continues:
  "The members of the Boards insist that their criteria must be met exactly in every case and they have no recourse to the legal 'balance of probability' which is more often than not the fairest way to deal with these problems. I understand that it is likely that the death benefit for the industrial disease of asbestosis is likely to be discontinued next year and if this is so there is even more likelihood that sufferers and their dependents will be deprived of benefit as fewer will be referred to the Coroner for Inquest."
  I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to reply in detail to these opinions and serious prima facie allegations. I would not expect him to do so, but I would expect him seriously to take them up. When Mr. Smith
  694
  comes to see me next, after he has been before the panel, I do not want him to say, "Mr. Spearing, having worked for that firm 15 years ago, I'm spitting blood, but the panel has turned me down." If he does, and those accusations are still on the table, we shall be doing a grave injustice to some of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends and of hon. Members all over this United Kingdom.
  11.6 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On Friday, we were trying to reach a Bill that would have assisted victims of another condition. It would be wrong not to mention the fact that nuclear test victims, and the widows of those who have died were not allowed that assistance on Friday. They could have been here listening to this debate in the knowledge that the Bill to provide them with compensation and relief was on the way into Committee. This may not concern the Minister's Department, but I hope that he passes on to his colleagues in the Government the message that we believe that the Bill which was blocked last Friday by Tory Back Benchers should be given another chance and swiftly passed.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: The hon. Gentleman has blocked Bills.
  Mr. Skinner: I have taken part in such matters only to stop queue jumping, and that is completely different. I have never been in on a Friday to do anything other than that.
  Mr. Fallon: The hon. Gentleman has blocked Bills.
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is applauding the way that Tory Members stopped the Bill to help nuclear test veterans. Now we know. He is a Government Whip, justifying the tactics used by his hon. Friends to stop the Bill going through. These people fought for their country and suffered out in the Pacific, but he is applauding the actions of those Tory Members who stopped the Bill. Although the uprating is to be supported, such provisions should be extended to other victims.
  Is the Minister satisfied that all the asbestos has been removed from the Houses of Parliament? There have been reports that it is still being removed, and I should like him to check that. Thousands of people work here—not just Members of Parliament. I am not worried about them. We cannot call that work. We are talking about real workers, the people who have to clock on and clock off.
  I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) who said that £41,000 is not really a lot of money, and I fully agree with him. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said the same. We can get carried away with figures if we are not careful. Compare that £41,000 with the amount of money that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer has just got for working for a bank for two days—£200,000. The Government talk as though a £41,000 lump sum is a lot of money. There is no doubt that when that sum is taken into account the miners will have to pay the full poll tax, and all the other so-called "means-tested" benefits will also be affected.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford mentioned the reduced earnings allowance, and I think that it is important that we take that on board—not that the reduced earnings allowance is as good as a special hardship allowance. Many of our friends in the mining industry have suffered because of the change from the

  695
  special hardship to the reduced earnings allowance, and I want the Minister to give an assurance that he will consider bringing those benefits into the same category.
  The case of people who fall below the 10 per cent. limit should also be considered. The hon. Member for Caernarfon spoke about the 10 per cent. minimum; it is one of the problems we have come up against with pneumoconiosis. Although this is a separate measure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford said, to a large extent it was built upon the pneumoconiosis settlement made earlier under a Labour Government. A hell of a lot of people are excluded because the pneumoconiosis medical panel says that they fall below 10 per cent. and cannot get anything, and for years they do not get anything. I would like that 10 per cent. limit to be reduced.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) also referred to the problem, and mentioned the case of Arthur Morton and all the rest. It is easy for a doctor who is far away from the subject, and a member of a panel—he is paid a tidy sum to sit on that panel—to say, "Sorry—9 per cent.," or 8 per cent. or whatever. He may say, "We agree that you have dust, but you do not have enough." It is high time that we went below 10 per cent.—it has been around for too long. We should recommend that payments are made for people who have a level below that figure and that the panel's recommendations are seriously reviewed.
  Hon. Members have referred to emphysema and other causes of chest complaints—I think that the hon. Member for Caernarfon mentioned it; he played a significant part in getting the Act passed. Had the then Government extended the Act to somewhere in Northern Ireland, we might still be in office. Who knows?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford mentioned a doctor's report from south Wales. That doctor was writing—a few years ago—about coal dust, and the research that was done on opencast mining. No Government have accepted that someone can get payments for working in opencast coal mines. People who have worked in slate quarries can get payments, but there has been no case in which an opencast coal worker has come under the legislation. Why? I suppose they argue that, by and large, opencast mines are worked for only a few months or a couple of years, although there are cases where they have lasted longer.
  I want an investigation into opencast workings, with a view to workers affected in that industry being brought under the legislation because we now have hundreds, possibly thousands, of opencast sites in Britain. My guess is that there have been very few cases—if any—of opencast workers claiming benefit under this order, or the other one, but my guess is that a hell of a lot of cases could come under it.
  I should like the Minister to consider the evidence on opencast mining. I am trying to think of the name of the doctor in south Wales who produced it; we have used it in opencast inquiries. I also think that he should consider reducing the 10 per cent. criterion to 5 per cent., so that more people are included. That is no big deal when the top whack is £41,000. Finally, I ask him to check on this building to see whether there is still an asbestos problem.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Frank Haynes: Tonight the Minister is hearing the voices of experience. He should not look at me in that way; the voices of experience are crossing the Chamber to make him understand exactly how we feel.
  Nevertheless, we welcome what the Minister has said. The increase is a step in the right direction, and I hope that it will be made annually in future. Inflation is rocketing under the present Government, and is likely to continue to do so. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the young Whip— the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon)—to gawp from his seat; this is experience talking. Conservative Members talk about Arthur Scargill, but if they had worked in the pits years ago they would not have a smile on their face. Arthur Scargill did a first-class job as a full-time official in Yorkshire, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) when he was president of the Derbyshire branch of the NUM.
  Mr. Fallon: Speak up for Libya.
  Mr. Haynes: I do not know why Conservative Members keep on talking about Libya and Gaddafi and Scargill; we are talking about pneumoconiosis tonight. I am a bit surprised at their behaviour. That little lad, the hon. Member for Darlington, ought to be sent for by her at No. 10 and given a ticking off: Whips and Parliamentary Private Secretaries are supposed to keep their mouths shut in the Chamber.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover knows what he is talking about: he did a first-class job as president of the Derbyshire miners. He was a working president. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on the case that he put. We have yet to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) has to say, but no doubt we shall find it an education. My hon. Friend has worked both as a miner and on the management side, so he really knows the subject from A to Z—as does my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), who has been chairing the Employment Bill Committee, and who has also worked on both sides of the industry. The same applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond).
  The National Union of Hosiery and Knitwear Workers has done a first-class job in representing its members. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has had to speak on something new to him, as it came up only in his Saturday surgery. Nor do I wish to leave out my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). He has learnt a lot since he became a Member of Parliament. That was obvious when he presented his case at the Dispatch Box. He will do the same tomorrow in the Standing Committee on the Employment Bill.
  My hon. Friend referred to the doctor, the consultant and the panel. I am sick to death of the general practitioner telling the patient that because he has pneumoconiosis he will send him to a consultant at the district general hospital. The consultant agrees with the doctor, so the patient goes before the panel. Its members get a nice old rake-off for doing the job. They decide that the extent of the disease is below 10 per cent. That must be looked into, because after that patient's case has been turned down he may die within six months. That has happened many times. The post mortem examination then reveals that the extent of the disease can be as high as 50 or 60 per cent.

  697
  The so-called specialists on the panel are not doing their job properly. They want their backsides kicking. I am waiting for the Minister to get up and say that he will do the kicking. Some of these people are not getting a fair deal. I accept that some of them are, but the others are not getting what they are entitled to. They have to die before people find out that they were entitled to what they had asked for.
  Mr. James Lamond: My hon. Friend's point is also correct in the case of byssinosis victims. A general practitioner diagnoses byssinosis; the consultant does the same; the panel turns down the victim; he dies; the post mortem is byssinosis. I wonder whether the panel believes that it must turn down a certain percentage of cases, just to show that it is doing its job. However, it ought to remember that before men and women come before it, they have had to persuade at least two medical practitioners—the consultant and their own doctor—that they are suffering from byssinosis. People are not coming in off the street, hoping to be diagnosed as having byssinosis. They have to go through certain procedures before they come before the panel. Almost 100 per cent. of the people who go before the panel must have the disease that they claim to suffer from.
  Mr. Haynes: I agree with all that my hon. Friend says. There is a flipping scandal here and it has got to be looked into. People are not being treated properly. All that is related to what I keep telling the Minister about pit inspectors. There are not enough of them to see that the job is being done properly underground.The example I give is that of working in a heading where there is a fan. As the heading advances, they use air bagging to keep up the work at the front. When the fan breaks down, or if it does not work properly, the miners gobble dust into their insides.
  That is why they get pneumoconiosis. Inspectors are not on the job to see that it is being carried out properly. Those men should be withdrawn. As a works pit inspector, I should withdraw them. I made that clear to the Minister, and I am proud of it. A trade union official must look after the individuals he represents, otherwise he is not doing his job properly. I want the Minister to grab hold of that fact and to remember it when we are in Committee tomorrow.
  I have made my points. I hope that the Minister will respond properly.
  11.24 pm
  Mr. Allen McKay: I shall start where my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) left off, on opencasting. There is a report about a Dr. Thomas who has a practice in Glenheath. Dr. Thomas has been involved in an investigation of the high incidence of dust-related diseases, particularly among women and children. The investigation into Dr. Thomas's practice seems rather strange, particularly as it was instigated by the Secretary of State for Wales, when it was discovered that the practice was spending far too much according to the guidelines and compared with other practices in the area. That brings us back to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, which does not take such matters into consideration.
  698
  The Ministry carried out an investigation of why the male population did not suffer from the dust-related diseases which affected the women and children in the area. It came across the startling fact that the men no longer worked in the area, so they spent between eight and 12 hours elsewhere, while the women and children spent the whole day in the area. The investigation concluded that they were being affected by airborne dust from opencast mining, and much investigation is still to be done.
  The 8 per cent. uprating is in line with inflation this month, although that may not be the case next month, and it would be churlish of us not to welcome it. However, I wish to raise one or two points which may have been mentioned before.
  The amount of compensation reduces according to the age of the claimant. The logic of that is that a younger person has longer to live and will experience more difficulties as he gets older. At the same time, the older the sufferer, the more looking after he needs. The person looking after him bears the brunt of it. I know that from first-hand experience, because my father died of pneumoconiosis. I saw him struggle from the time he was assessed—he ended up with 100 per cent. pneumoconiosis—and I saw my mother looking after him. That trumatic experience affected the entire family.
  It is necessary to look at the lower end of the scale. The older a person gets, the more looking after he needs and the more strain that puts on the carer, so more compensation should be paid. Although I see the logic in it, it is wrong to reduce compensation to such an extent lower down the scale. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, at the top of the scale a person aged 37 with 100 per cent. pneumoconiosis would receive £41,000 and that is peanuts. Therefore, it is necessary to look again at the scale and the amount of compensation awarded.
  The Government are wrong to phase out the reduced earnings allowance. Many Opposition Members have had experience of men struggling to do a job that they were clearly incapable of doing, purely and simply because of their economic situation. They knew full well that, if they left the job, they would lose a lot of money. The reduced earnings allowance or the hardship allowance cushioned that effect, so that people could be encouraged to leave the work that they should not be doing and move into different work.
  I looked at one of the old forms the other day; it referred to compensation for life. It said nothing about compensation being reduced when the claimant reached the age of 65 or being phased out. It was compensation for life. It was compensation while sufferers were working to make up their reduced earnings, and it was also compensation when they had finished working to make up the amount of money that they should have saved but could not save because they had to leave the job early. The Government are wrong to remove the reduced earnings allowance.
  A valid argument against the 10 per cent. rule has been made. Sufferers who are diagnosed as having 8 per cent. pneumoconiosis and 20 per cent. emphysema are not paid compensation. Only after they have died and their lungs have been examined are the effects of emphysema seen. Compensation should be paid for emphysema and related diseases. Despite scientific studies, emphysema is not regarded as an industrial disease. The clear evidence is that it is an industrial disease. It should be recognised as such, and proper compensation should be paid.

  699
  Many miners suffering from pneumoconiosis have had to leave work. They cannot burn solid fuel in their homes. British Coal recognised that by paying them cash in lieu for alternative fuels. The Government take into account the money that a miner, his widow or his family receives and reduce his housing and welfare benefit accordingly. A test case was taken to a tribunal, which ruled against the Government. It said that the Government are wrong to take cash in lieu into account. The Government are likely to appeal. They should not be appealing; they should be considering how much money they owe those people. That money should be paid immediately, and retrospective payments should be considered.
  11.31 pm
  Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to hon. Members for acknowledging that benefits have been uprated in line with inflation, as they have been almost every year since the Pneumoconiosis etc, (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 came into force.
  I join the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker). who was responsible for bringing that Act to a successful conclusion. As I recall, he did so against the findings of the Pearson commission. One can speculate on the efforts that the right hon. Gentleman must have made in achieving that success, bearing in mind the commission's recommendation. That Act is operated in precisely the same way as under the last Labour Government. We argue across the Dispatch Box about other upratings, but we have no argument about this one.
  The hon. Member for Stretford mentioned asbestos. He said that he and I are old enough to consider the working lives of a generation. We have learnt much about asbestos over the past 20 or 30 years. It was always realised that it was dangerous, but we continue to find out just how dangerous it was. There is a strict regime under the asbestos regulations of 1983 and 1985 and the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987. Without being complacent, there is every reason to believe that we have achieved the right control.
  Hon. Members referred to the amount of compensation that is payable. Uniquely, the compensation scheme does not depend on having to prove negligence. That is a useful aspect of the scheme. In introducing that legislation, the then Minister of State, Department of Employment acknowledged that it was very much in a class of its own. Negligence does not have to be proved. That is a significant advantage, which means that one is not subjected to the vagaries of litigation and having to prove a case. I make no criticism in saying that it is easy to relate cases in which massive amounts of compensation have been awarded, but there is a danger of trying to relate the sums awarded under this scheme to what might be awarded in litigation.
  I accept that the sums involved are not massive. The point has been made in this debate and last year that mere money cannot begin to compensate for the misery, tragedy and horrific times that families face when a loved one dies. I am sure that the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) agrees that this matter goes far beyond the issue of money. Having said that, I accept that ultimately we are simply talking about money, and it is right that we should consider the sums that can be awarded.
  700
  I was asked about the average compensation. It has been about £8,000 in the current year. The maximum could be as much as £41,849; the maximum for dependants would be rather lower, at £18,996. The sums are not derisory, although they are not massive. We are dealing with something that is much more basic than mere money, as hon. Members on both sides of the House accept.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) asked whether it would be possible, having obtained an amount under the Act, to proceed against a company that had been restored to life, albeit briefly, under the Companies Act 1989. According to my reading of the Act, there would be nothing to stop a claim being made against a company in that way, even if a sum had been obtained under the legislation. It is right to point out, however, that the converse is not true. If a judgment against a company has been obtained or a compromise has been reached in some way, that would preclude a claim under the Act. In a sense, that is a point of detail which is well known by those who understand the structure of the legislation.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned the possibility of a periodic review. Like the hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Lamond), he said that, because disability can increase as one gets older, it should be taken into account in considering the low amounts that are now given to those at the lower end of the scale. I understand why the case was put in that way. However, if after the adjudication there were a periodic review, dependent on the person's health at any given time, the scheme would come to a complete stop. In civil litigation, it is a well-established principle. for obvious reasons, that, once a claim is settled, it stands, except in rare circumstances.
  I accept the concern of the hon. Member for Caernarfon. When the scheme was devised, the intention was to weight the lower levels of disability to reflect that fact. The hon. Gentleman may say that that is an imprecise measure. I accept that it must be. The structure of the Act ensures that the lower ratings are weighted to take account of that.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) clearly has a personal acquaintance with a constituent who has experienced a number of these problems. I want to deal as explicitly as I can with the hon. Gentleman's comments. I am sure that he recognises a phrase used when civil servants brief Ministers on these occasions and which seems to satisfy them sometimes—"It is not my responsibility", but the responsibility of just about anyone else. The work of the boards on respiratory diseases is not the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. However, the whole House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman understands to be the findings of that research. I accept that he feels very strongly about the matter.
  I give the hon. Gentleman, as well as other hon. Members, an undertaking that I shall write to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and draw his attention to this debate and, specifically, to the concern of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), at what—to put it at its lowest—they regard as the unsatisfactory circumstances in which a GP and a consultant make one diagnosis but the man on the board comes to a different view. As I do not want to mislead hon. Members, I have to say that I can pass no judgment on whether, in a particular case, the diagnosis of

  701
  the consultant and the GP should be weighed in the balance against the decision of the board and found wanting. None the less, if such information came to the notice of myself as a constituency Member of Parliament it would concern me. However, as I have said, I shall write to my right hon. and learned Friend to draw to his attention the comments that have been made.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for his encouraging words. The nub of the problem is that the boards are not always willing to publicise the scientific criteria that they use in evaluating any case, to ensure that it is seen as being in line with demonstrable scientific advance and discovery. Unless there is congruity in that respect, there will be cause for concern. Perhaps the Minister will point that fact out to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
  Mr. Nicholls: Clearly, boards should be up to date, but I cannot pass judgment on particular cases. However, I accept at once that that is what the hon. Gentleman's research has led him to conclude. I well understand his concern, and I shall certainly draw it—not just formally but quite specifically—to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
  I should like to make two points that may come as some reassurance to Opposition Members. Members have commented across the Floor on the working of the reduced earnings allowance. That is certainly the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. However, I am advised that it has no bearing whatsoever on the working of this Act, although I accept that these occasions can be useful for bringing in tangential matters. A number of hon. Members referred to the position when someone's disability is assessed at less than 10 per cent. or, for that matter, 14 per cent. The guidance issued by the Department on the working of the 1979 Act puts the question:
  "What do you do about claims to the DHSS?"
  The answer is:
  "We need to confirm that: your husband or wife got disablement benefit or disablement allowance because of the disease or that the only reason he or she did not is that the level of disability was below 14 per cent."
  Again I am advised that, in relation to this Act, the mere fact that the level of disability was found to be lower than 10 per cent. does not preclude the making of a payment.
  Mr. Wigley: Surely the Minister will accept that, in case after case, boards, having found a little dust, will not make a 10 per cent. finding if there is no pneumoconiosis. Such experience is very widespread.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman made that point in his speech. As I said, I shall draw his comments in their entirety to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
  Having said what I am not responsible for, and passed it to others, I refer to a point that the hon. Member for Caernarfon made about a person who has had a number of employers, the proposition being that all of them would have to have gone out of business before a claim was made. I am advised that there is no hard-and-fast rule to that effect, but obviously the hon. Member has experience of this matter. The working of that part of the assessment is
  702
  the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and it is a matter that we shall certainly look at.
  The hon. Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone and for Caernarfon asked whether emphysema—and, for that matter, bronchitis—should be classified in the same way. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which advises the Secretary of State in these matters, reported in February 1988 that the link had not been made out conclusively enough for the diseases to be included in this category of disablement. The matter is kept under review, and this takes us back to the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, South about the need to ensure that boards are as fully up to date as they should be. I cannot tell the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone that the change that he seeks is around the corner, but the matter is certainly kept closely under review.
  I hope that in this relatively short but comprehensive debate I have been able to satisfy the House about the motives underlying the uprating of 8 per cent. while also undertaking to ensure that specific matters are drawn to the attention of those responsible.
  Mr. James Lamond: I am especially anxious about the case of someone who has one former employer still in business. Is the Minister saying that there is nothing hard and fast in the regulations and that he can re-examine the matter, perhaps with a view to disregarding short periods of employment with one employer who is still in existence or to ensuring that if a period of employment represents only a small proportion of a person's working life, it can be disregarded? Is he saying that he will consider that point?
  Mr. Nicholls: What I am saying to the hon. Gentleman is that, as I understand it, there is no scheme or tariff which says that, if not all the employers have gone out of business, one simply cannot claim under the Act. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that somewhere along the line a judgment of Solomon will have to be made about how many employers can be in existence and for how long.
  I cannot pass any judgment about the matter this evening, but I am concerned at the hon. Gentleman's view—even allowing for what I have just said—that the regulations are being interpreted far too strictly or stringently. I do not have to draw that to the attention of anybody, other than my Department. Without passing judgment on it now, I shall certainly look into the matter and come back to the hon. Gentleman.
  This has been a short but useful debate, and I hope that I have been able to offer hon. Members some reassurance.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.

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

  Town and Country Planning Scotland
  That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  Question agreed to.

  Town and Country Planning Scotland
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community Documents).

  Health Rules (Products of Animal Origin)
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9934/89 relating to health rules for products of animal origin; and supports the Government's aim of ensuring that any Council regulation resulting from this proposal contributes to effective and efficient hygiene controls throughout the Community.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  Question agreed to.

  Radio 2 (Broadcasting Frequencies)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  11.47 pm
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Once upon a time, the BBC broadcast the Home Service, the Light Programme and the Third Programme. I wish to raise the subsequent fate of the Light Programme, which used to be broadcast on long wave, 1500 m and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has kindly come to the House tonight to answer this debate is, either too young to remember it, or—being a man of superior intellect—never chose to listen to it.
  The BBC made some major changes when establishing Radios 1, 2, 3 and 4, and Radio 2 finished up on two medium wavebands while Radio 4 was allocated the long waveband. In addition, all four channels broadcast on FM frequencies.
  That is the situation that still prevails, but as the House will know, all is to be altered in the near future. This follows the Home Secretary's decision, announced on 19 January 1988, that two medium-wave frequencies should be reassigned from the BBC. The BBC's response is to confine its broadcasting, other than on FM, to 198 kHz for Radio 4 or its equivalent, and the existing medium-wave frequencies used by Radio 2 for a channel that will broadcast a new sport and educational programme. In addition, the present channels 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be allocated FM frequencies.
  It is not the purpose of this debate to argue against the Government's handling of frequencies, since those decisions have now been made. However, I must observe that the Home Office department that deals with radio frequencies does not enjoy a high reputation with those who are knowledgeable in such highly technical matters. is generally recognised that this country came out very badly in the previous international conference dealing with the allocation of frequencies. I remember the grief of the Overseas Service of the BBC when 1300 m was up for grabs and it ended up in the hands of the Irish, who at the time had no great direct use for it. The second long-wave frequency that has been allocated to the United Kingdom is unusable for far too much of the day to be of practical use. However, once again, it is no use raking over the past.
  My purpose tonight is to enter a special plea for those of us who, when getting up in the morning, driving into work, doing the household chores or as a background to routine jobs, like jolly music with cheerful presenters to accompany the task in hand.
  About 15 million people listen to Radio 2 every week. More than 1 million of them do not have wireless sets that can receive FM. Either they will be deprived of their favourite programmes or they will be involved in considerable expense, through no fault of their own, when the BBC makes that ill-advised change.
  I must acknowledge that, at just over 50 years old, I think that I am about the average age for a Radio 2 listener—although, when it has so many listeners, that must be a fairly wide spectrum. I did not have the privilege of catching Mr. Speaker's eye when the White Paper on broadcasting was debated, but I have heard few voices raised in this place on behalf of that massive audience.
  I admire the "Today" programme on Radio 4, but of necessity it is dominated by politics and journalism. In the

  705
  wonderful days when Terry Wogan hosted the morning programme on Radio 2, I had a firm preference for coming to work without the background knowledge of the day's events but with a smile on my face and a song in my heart as a result of that first-class show. When he moved to the paradise of television, the excellent Ken Bruce was brought in to succeed him, but he has now been moved to a later spot, and I mostly miss his witty and pleasing programme.
  I am well aware that criticising Derek Jameson will probably cost me my seat, but he epitomises all that is wrong in the management of Radio 2. Employed on the strength of his accent and his previous experience as a newspaper editor, his sheer banality jars this sensitive listener back to the "Today" programme with alacrity. There at least they take the trouble to pronounce place names correctly and do not indulge in instant judgments based on brief newspaper reports. Lord Reith must spin in his grave from 7.30 am to 9.30 am, except when the charming Vivienne Stewart succeeds in making the weather report sound interesting. Jimmy Young's potted politics, David Jacobs's smooth and professional lunch-time programme and Gloria Hunniford's chirpy interviews with interesting personalities speed us through the day.
  Tempted as I am, there is not time to comment individually on every one of the items in the daily routine. However, I must just say that, although Brian Matthews is an excellent interviewer, his "Round Midnight" programme is inappropriate for the hour. When I complained, I was told that it was very popular with the literary and theatrical world, which is hardly surprising since they are the only people who are interviewed. Suitably relaxing music is what is required, and I hope that is what we shall shortly be getting.
  I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister has no direct responsibility for this matter, but corresponding with the BBC has become increasingly fruitless. I once complained to the controller of BBC 2 about the nature of the religious programme on Sunday mornings. I received the riposte that clearly the only time that satisfied me was Saturday mornings. But they have ruined even that now. The only positive response came from Roger Royle, who, concerned at my suggestion that the list of interviewees for his programme showed political bias, discussed the matter with me. I was grateful to him for his trouble and for his satisfactory explanation.
  The Minister may ask why, if I am so critical of Radio 2, I listen to that channel. That point goes to the very nub of my being in the Chamber tonight. The problem is that there is no alternative for those of us who like that type of programme. Although those who live in London have the chance of listening to Capital Gold, if our musical tastes happen to lie between Radios 1 and 3, there really is no alternative.
  The hierarchy of the BBC, although admitting to the size of the audience and recognising the requirements to provide a musical-cum-news-cum-documentary programme, has now driven the final nail into the coffin of Radio 2 by condemning it to VHF only. The broadcasting research section of the House of Commons Library published a most perceptive analysis of aspects of this matter, including the reaction of those who would be
  706
  willing to listen to FM. It is significant that, of all those whose favourite station is Radio 2, half were reluctant to do so.
  Although coverage of the country by VHF transmitters will be better by the end of the year, large numbers of people will be unable to receive light music programmes, and that matter should concern the Government. Although many car radios have the ability to receive FM transmissions, because they are largely receivable only on "line of sight" it is likely that, on any long-distance journeys, constant retuning is necessary. That is not only tedious but dangerous, although, in this context, I must say that there are gaps in existing transmissions, and I find it necessary to have both Radio 2 frequencies preset on my radio and to choose between them according to location.
  I also make a plea for those who do not receive FM radio at all. This morning, one of my hon. Friends from a Yorkshire constituency mentioned a large group of people who, shrouded by the hills, still do not receive FM transmissions for any of the available programmes.
  The relatively tiny audience for Radio 3 is extremely articulate and knows very well how to express its views to the BBC, which obliges with a ration of classical music, much of which is so modern as to be intolerable, but the BBC will never face the intellectual barrage that would shoot at it if it were to decline to provide the current fare. The Radio 2 audience does not seem to get the same consideration, in spite of its numbers. Perhaps I should add that, even now, Radio 2 carries a considerable amount of light classical music, which is much appreciated, and the concept that it is nothing but extracts from "The Sound of Music" or pop songs from the 1950s is totally untrue.
  The amount of current pop music that is available on radio is quite out of proportion to the needs of the population. My constituency can receive no fewer than three independent radio stations, plus BBC Radio Bristol and Radio 1, all of which seem to offer a similar fare, although I must confess that I find the music so awful and so loud that I am no great expert at the better bits that I am sure those radio stations serve up. Why the BBC should continue to insist on the national broadcasting of that music on Radio 1 while at the same time maintaining its local stations when there is a substantial local commercial alternative remains beyond me and, I should think, most of those who pay for licences.
  The new channel that is proposed to take the existing Radio 2 frequencies is to broadcast a mixture of education and sport. That sounds a fairly self-constraining recipe, particularly as schools have recently been encouraged to buy FM radios. What could be more suitable for sport than the use of VHF frequencies in different locations, enabling local interests to be catered for, as well as national occasions?
  I repeat that 15 million people listen to Radio 2 every week, many of whom are not only worried by the deterioration of standards and the general entertainment level of Radio 2 but find the latest technical change to move the station from medium wave the last straw.
  I hope that, while washing his hands of responsibility, my hon. Friend the Minister will take my criticisms to heart and encourage the BBC, even at this eleventh hour, to review that decision. When the BBC learns the true depth of feeling about the decision, it will simply blame the Government's decision about wavelengths. We have enough burdens to carry at present.
  12 midnight
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) for bringing this subject to the attention of the House. As well as focusing on the particular issues that he raised, the debate provides a useful opportunity to take stock of general developments in radio that are relevant to his theme.
  The Broadcasting Bill, which is currently in Committee, where the radio provisions were debated last week, is particularly apposite. Even though the Bill is directly concerned largely with independent television and radio, the changes that it introduces form an important part of the background to what is happening in BBC radio. The Bill provides for a new Radio Authority, which will be empowered to offer licences for three new national independent radio services, and, if the demand is there, up to several hundred independent local radio stations. They will vary from the scale of the city and countywide stations that already exist, to community of interest stations, for example, catering to particular musical tastes, and smaller stations covering towns, possibly country areas and parts of cities, for example where the ethnic minorities live.
  Our aim is to remove as many obstacles as we can to new services being offered to the listener. The Government set up the new Radio Authority in January in shadow form. We expect the new radio stations to come on air over the next few years. Each will be required to offer a distinctive service not already provided by existing independent radio services. In that way we hope not just to increase the number of services, but to ensure that real choice is provided for the listener.
  The shadow Radio Authority placed advertisements in the national press—The Guardian and the Daily Telegraph—this morning, and similar advertisements are appearing elsewhere. The authority is inviting people to submit letters of intent declaring an interest in applying for a radio licence together with some background information and other details. That will give the authority a good idea of the nature, scale and location of demand to run services. It can then start drawing up plans for advertising specific licences around the country, for services that people want.
  The new services will need to be introduced progressively over several years, bearing in mind both the administrative work involved and the spectrum available—a point that I shall return to. Some progress is already being made under existing legislation, through the Independent Broadcasting Authority's incremental radio scheme. Twenty-three contracts have been advertised for stations of a new and distinctive character. Some cater for ethnic minorities; some for more general communities of interest.
  In London, for example, a jazz station started yesterday and Melody Radio, a light music station, is on the way. In the west country, a new station is planned for this year in Bristol, called FTP—"For The People". That is just the first of many that will come on air.
  I refer more specifically to the BBC and the points that my hon. Friend made. The new services should provide it with more competition and widen choice for the listener. But the new services need the spectrum on which to broadcast; and the BBC has always had a dominant share
  708
  of the frequencies. That was only proper when it was providing most of the services; but new providers will be entering the field.
  So, at the Government's request, the BBC has agreed to end the present practice of "simulcasting"—broadcasting the same service on more than one frequency at the same time. It has chosen to do that—and we have agreed—by concentrating Radios 1 to 4 on the FM bands. That is because of the generally higher quality of the signal, and its capacity for stereo and for RDS—radio data systems, which aid tuning and which should help my hon. Friend with his car radio problem and ensure that he does not have to keep tuning the knobs as he travels along.
  As part of the change, from August this year Radio 2 will no longer be transmitted on both FM and AM—the medium wave. The BBC has asked to retain one national AM frequency—currently used for Radio 2—and use it to provide a new, fifth national network—Radio 5, which will focus on sport and education.
  Radio 2 attracts a large proportion of older listeners, as well as my hon. Friend, and many of them currently listen to it on the medium wave. The BBC recognises that and has accordingly launched an FM listening campaign. That includes encouragement to people over the air to retune to FM, and supplementary leaflets and other activities. It is also rapidly building FM transmitters to bring FM services to those areas that have none at present. I hope that that gives some reassurance to my hon. Friend, who was rightly concerned about the present gaps in coverage.
  As my hon. Friend said, some Radio 2 listeners do nol yet have radio sets capable of receiving FM. They are a minority—but I agree that they are an important one. Although sets capable of receiving FM can be purchased from around £10, I know that some will find even that difficult to manage. The BBC has sought to take a constructive approach to that. It is, for example, encouraging people to buy their elderly relatives FM radios as presents.
  Although change brings inconvenience, the Independent Broadcasting Authority did some research last year, which showed that already over 90 per cent. of listeners had access to at least one FM radio. That figure will have grown over the past 12 months, following the recent introduction of Radio 1 on FM. That change, incidentally, has benefited Radio 2 listeners because they no longer have to share their FM frequency except for the "Top 40" on Sunday afternoons. From the beginning of April, the BBC expects Radio 2 to be on FM for 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
  My hon. Friend rightly said that the quality of Radio 2 is a BBC rather than a Government responsibility. However, I am sure that the BBC will note and ponder carefully both my hon. Friend's praise and his criticism of its output. I am certain that it will take encouragement from the fact that he is a frequent interested and discriminating listener, if occasionally—as we all are—an exasperated one.
  I conclude with two general points. The Government's policy is to introduce more competition into broadcasting, in the interest of the viewer and the listener. I believe that that will not only offer more services to listen to, but will provide a healthy stimulus for the BBC itself. But I should like also to pay tribute to the immense service that the BBC generally—and BBC radio in particular—has already

  709
  performed for this country—and, indeed, in times of trouble, for other countries, too. They and we have much to be proud of.
  Finally, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these important issues, illustrating them colourfully from
  710
  his own listening, and for enabling me to set out the expanded and more varied radio service that our reforms will bring to him and to other listeners.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Women Teachers
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many applications from women teachers who elect to cover pre 6 April 1988 service for family benefits purposes are outstanding;

  (2) how many applications have been made by women teachers since the Government announced that women teachers could elect to cover, for family benefits purposes, their services prior to 6 April 1988;

  (3) what is the average length of time taken to process applications made by women teachers who elect to cover pre 6 April 1988 service for family benefits purposes.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  About 13,000 women teachers have elected for their service before 6 April 1988 to count for family benefit purposes. Only 500 elections remain to be processed and these are mainly cases where either the teacher or employer has incorrectly completed the election

  Number of boys and girls in single sex and religious schools—January 1989 Maintained primary, middle and secondary

  Boys schools

  Girls schools

  Mixed schools

  Boys

  Girls

  Boys

  Girls

  Boys

  Girls

  Church of England

  5,456

  9

  16

  7,340

  406,484

  392,757

  Roman Catholic

  25,250

  207

  14

  31,822

  304,142

  302,121

  Methodist schools

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2,453

  2,273

  Jewish schools

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4,198

  4,110

  Other denominational schools

  30,114

  137

  6

  12,020

  47,363

  45,371

  Non-denominational schools

  98,854

  126

  78

  136,818

  2,562,061

  2,428,600

  TOTAL ENGLAND

  159,674

  479

  114

  188,000

  3,326,701

  3,175,232

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many and what percentage of women sit on boards awarding research grants.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend sponsors the five research councils—the agricultural and food research council; the economic and special research council; the medical research council; the natural environment research council and the science and engineering research council, all of which award grants for scientific research. At present, total membership of the councils is 102 and the number of women is 7, or 6·9 per cent.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many(a) women lecturers and (b) men lecturers there are in (i) polytechnics and (ii) universities; and whether he will provide a break down of these by grade.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information for academic staff in universities is shown in the table.
  394
  form or has provided insufficient information. Information on the average length of time taken to process the cases is not available.

  University of Wales
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what, over the last five years for which figures are available, have been the proportions of University Grants Committee/Universities Funding Council grants to universities in the United Kingdom allocated to the university of Wales.

  Mr. Jackson
  Recurrent grants to the university of Wales as announced in the University Grants Committee's allocation letters were as follows.

  Academic Year

  Wales £ million

  All Great Britain £ million

  Wales as per cent. of total

  1985–86

  70·55

  1,184·7

  6·0

  1986–87

  71·84

  1,220·9

  5·9

  1987–88

  74·56

  1,282·4

  5·8

  1988–89

  75·39

  1,332·0

  5·7

  1989–90

  78·13

  1,392·4

  5·6

  Single Sex and Religious Schools
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many(a) boys and (b) girls there are in single sex and religious schools.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The number of boys and girls in maintained single sex and religious schools in England is as follows:

  Great Britain: Full-lime university academic staff 1988–89

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Professors

  4,252

  137

  4,389

  Readers/Senior lecturers

  8,357

  765

  9,122

  Lecturers

  21,792

  5,768

  27,560

  Other grades

  3,089

  2,122

  5,211

  Total

  37,490

  8,792

  46,282

  Source: USR staff record.

  Information on the gender of polytechnic lecturers is not available centrally.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many of his Department's management training courses include sessions on equal opportunities for women; and what proportion of managers at grade six level and above working outside headquarters has received training on equal opportunities for women.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Sessions on equal opportunities are included in all the Department's management training
  395
  courses. There are two managers at grade six or above outside headquarters: both have received some equal opportunities training.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many research grants were given to(a) women and (b) men in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not available. Most Department of Education and Science research grants are placed with research institutes rather than individuals. The research councils are responsible for the allocation of research grants within their areas.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what child-care provision his Department provides for pre-school children of the employees; what child-care provision for school holidays and after school care is provided for employees' children aged five years and over; what plans he has to improve provision in the next five years; and how these will be funded.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department has not yet provided child-care facilities for either the pre-school or school aged children of its employees; it has however contributed to the Westminster holiday play scheme. Currently consideration is being given to the provision of creche facilities and a holiday play scheme at the Darlington office. In London the Department is participating in an interdepartmental study of the scope for providing creches centrally and in commuting areas. Provided that the schemes can be justified as good value for money the Department could contribute to both the capital and running costs.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what grade is his Department's equal opportunities officer.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Senior executive officer.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to increase the number of women in senior academic positions.

  Mr. Jackson
  The recruitment and promotion of staff is a matter for individual institutions.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of civil servants in his Department are women at each of the grades(a) seven, (b) six, (c) five, (d) four, (e) three, (f) two and (g) one.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The percentage of women in each grade requested is as follows:

  Grade

  Per cent.

  7

  25

  6

  23

  5

  21

  4

  25

  1–3

  0

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has plans to ensure that 396
  local education authorities' development programmes for further education provision will provide child-care facilities which allow (a) parents and (b) mothers to attend colleges, further education institutes, polytechnics and universities.

  Mr. Jackson
  No. Under the arrangements for local management of colleges provision of child-care facilities will normally be a matter for the governing bodies of institutions to determine.

  Disabled People (Training Courses)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many training courses are funded by his Department for the disabled.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department does not directly fund courses of training or education: this is for the local education authorities. The training needs of the Department's disabled staff are provided for as they arise.

  Sexual Harassment
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This Department's policy is that sexual harassment is a form of misconduct which is unacceptable and where substantiated, will be dealt with as a disciplinary matter. Guidance about sexual harassment, reporting complaints and disciplinary procedures was issued to each member of staff last year. Over the last five years three cases have been reported each of which was investigated. In one case a formal warning was issued.

  Pin-ups
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department's policy is to encourage staff to respect the feelings of others. It has issued guidance to all staff about sexual harassment which could include offensive pin-ups. It is not considered necessary to issue specific instructions about offensive pin-ups.

  Exam Results
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will provide a breakdown of GCSE and A-level results by gender and subject.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The figures in the table relate to school leavers of all ages in England in 1987–88, including their achievements at O-level and CSE gained in earlier years.
  397

  School leavers: examination attainments by selected subject

  England

  Leavers with graded results in the GCSE (1): as percentage all leavers

  Leavers with A-level passes: as percentage all 17 year olds

  Grades A-C2

  Grades D-G3

  All grades4

  Grades A-E

  Boys

  Any subject

  53·3

  35·0

  88·4

  17·4

  English

  35·1

  46·3

  81·4

  2·9

  Mathematics

  35·8

  40·9

  76·7

  7·6

  Physics

  21·8

  24·4

  46·2

  5·6

  Chemistry

  16·5

  13·9

  30·4

  4·4

  Biological sciences

  12·8

  12·8

  25·7

  2·5

  Craft, design, technology and other science

  19·1

  33·5

  52·6

  1·3

  French

  12·0

  14·8

  26·8

  1·0

  History

  14·0

  16·9

  30·9

  2·9

  Geography

  18·6

  25·3

  43·8

  3·5

  Creative arts

  10·6

  18·0

  28·6

  1·6

  Commercial and domestic studies

  5·1

  12·1

  17·2

  0·6

  Girls

  Any subject

  61·4

  30·1

  91·5

  16·9

  English

  48·3

  39·4

  87·7

  6·7

  Mathematics

  30·5

  46·4

  76·8

  3·9

  Physics

  9·8

  9·7

  19·5

  1·7

  Chemistry

  12·0

  12·7

  24·7

  2·8

  Biological sciences

  19·7

  28·3

  48·0

  3·6

  Craft, design, technology and other science

  5·9

  16·5

  22·4

  0·3

  French

  20·4

  21·9

  42·3

  2·7

  History

  16·0

  17·5

  33·4

  3·3

  Geography

  15·3

  18·0

  33·3

  2·4

  Creative arts

  17·9

  18·2

  36·1

  2·7

  Commercial and domestic studies

  22·2

  31·6

  53·9

  1·3

  1 Including attainments at O-level and CSE.

  2 GCSE and O-level grades A-C; CSE grade 1.

  3 GCSE grades D-G, O-level grades D-E; CSE grades 2–5.

  4 Percentages have been calculated independently and may not equal the sum of the constituent parts owing to rounding.

  Child Minders
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many training courses for child minders are funded by his Department.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  None.

  Nursery Education
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total public expenditure on nursery schools and classes in each year from 1975–76; and what was the total public expenditure on these services as a percentage of the gross domestic product for England and Wales for each of these years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Figures for expenditure on nursery schools and classes alone are not available. Figures for current expenditure on all pupils aged under 5 in England are given in the table.

  Current Spending Under-5s

  Money GDP

  Spending as per cent, of GDP

  Year

  £ million

  £ billion

  1975–76

  108

  111

  0·10

  1976–77

  127

  130

  0·10

  1977–78

  128

  151

  0·08

  1978–79

  146

  173

  0·08

  1979–80

  177

  208

  0·09

  1980–81

  222

  237

  0·09

  1981–82

  241

  260

  0·09

  1982–83

  274

  285

  0·10

  398

  Current Spending Under-Ss

  Money GDP

  Spending as per cent, of GDP

  Year

  £ million

  £ billion

  1983–84

  296

  309

  0·10

  1984–85

  331

  331

  0·10

  1985–86

  350

  362

  0·10

  1986–87

  397

  388

  0·10

  1987–88

  447

  430

  0·10

  1988–89

  510

  476

  0·11

  1989–90

  561

  517

  0·1l

  Notes to table:

  1. Under-5s include those in nursery schools, nursery classes in primary schools, and other classes in primary schools.

  2. The current spending figures are taken from successive DES Chapters of the Public Expenditure White Paper. The figure for 1975–76 is an estimate derived by applying to the White Paper figure given at 1980 survey prices a conversion factor calculated from local authority returns of price changes. The figures for 1988–89 and 1989–90 are provisional.

  3. The money Gross Domestic Product figures are taken from Table 21·2·1 of Chapter 21 of the 1990 Public Expenditure White Paper (Cm 1021). The GDP covers the whole of the United Kingdom; a GDP for England and Wales is not available.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish(a) the target intake figures for each polytechnic or college education department of faculty for 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990, and (b) the actual intake in each case for 1987, 1988 and 1989.
  399
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Initial teacher training target and intake figures for public sector institutions are as follows:

  Target

  Intake

  Institution

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Polytechnics

  Birmingham

  237

  237

  247

  298

  268

  287

  313

  Brighton

  337

  352

  377

  370

  341

  339

  408

  Bristol

  302

  337

  378

  423

  365

  359

  406

  Hatfield

  185

  162

  212

  243

  96

  178

  218

  Huddersfield1

  30

  30

  35

  40

  20

  J

  J

  Kingston

  190

  188

  207

  218

  181

  176

  203

  Leeds

  334

  356

  342

  346

  320

  343

  333

  Leicester

  50

  50

  50

  52

  51

  46

  54

  Liverpool

  269

  284

  279

  251

  274

  233

  264

  Manchester

  526

  526

  536

  598

  519

  577

  577

  Middlesex

  248

  248

  228

  304

  231

  188

  225

  Newcastle

  216

  243

  220

  273

  217

  228

  225

  Oxford

  156

  166

  186

  217

  167

  206

  186

  North London

  120

  175

  157

  186

  101

  198

  179

  Sheffield

  404

  431

  443

  506

  407

  450

  423

  South Bank

  188

  168

  158

  159

  132

  133

  105

  Sunderland

  218

  250

  248

  268

  193

  212

  272

  Thames

  402

  442

  482

  504

  435

  373

  420

  Trent

  321

  341

  346

  367

  269

  258

  371

  Wolverhampton

  361

  366

  391

  432

  344

  358

  438

  Colleges and institutes

  Bath

  247

  262

  237

  258

  242

  260

  278

  Bradford

  222

  223

  242

  236

  207

  243

  254

  Bradford and Ilkley

  172

  158

  172

  188

  127

  172

  168

  Bretton Hall

  205

  215

  225

  250

  222

  276

  158

  Bulmershe2

  217

  236

  —

  —

  215

  195

  —

  Charlotte Mason

  175

  185

  185

  201

  183

  201

  199

  Crewe and Alsager

  337

  347

  367

  394

  344

  354

  354

  Derbyshire

  167

  173

  187

  203

  166

  147

  211

  Edge hill

  281

  291

  301

  319

  287

  303

  334

  Essex

  142

  147

  147

  189

  143

  151

  162

  Nene

  161

  166

  179

  195

  164

  188

  215

  North Riding

  135

  180

  200

  216

  161

  149

  243

  Rolle3

  170

  205

  220

  236

  206

  207

  235

  West London

  212

  217

  227

  231

  213

  210

  214

  Worcester

  252

  280

  281

  287

  221

  245

  268

  Bishop Grosseteste

  150

  175

  200

  220

  135

  210

  232

  Chester

  142

  153

  163

  182

  171

  173

  237

  Christ Church

  256

  297

  300

  338

  292

  321

  328

  Homerton

  266

  300

  292

  325

  285

  283

  319

  King Alfred's

  226

  242

  252

  286

  237

  277

  308

  La Sainte Union

  201

  219

  229

  233

  182

  234

  287

  Liverpool

  334

  351

  356

  393

  349

  394

  407

  Newham and Westhill

  240

  236

  228

  247

  260

  238

  272

  Ripon and York

  262

  257

  272

  295

  231

  261

  273

  Roehampton

  526

  501

  533

  544

  434

  460

  582

  St. Mark and St. John

  167

  209

  235

  256

  173

  251

  237

  St. Martin's

  297

  316

  307

  344

  327

  312

  315

  St. Mary's

  208

  227

  229

  259

  220

  200

  250

  St. Paul and St. Mary's

  217

  227

  242

  259

  228

  237

  261

  Trinity and All Saints

  254

  260

  284

  306

  229

  267

  263

  West Sussex

  242

  267

  276

  292

  256

  258

  281

  Westminster

  195

  210

  230

  264

  194

  231

  261

  Welsh institutions

  Bangor (Normal)

  135

  135

  135

  144

  119

  135

  177

  Gwent

  135

  135

  135

  175

  154

  128

  154

  North East Wales

  95

  95

  95

  94

  115

  104

  111

  South Glamorgan

  250

  250

  250

  262

  272

  268

  272

  West Glamorgan

  95

  95

  95

  105

  82

  107

  136

  Trinity

  155

  155

  155

  171

  134

  174

  175

  1 Data on intakes to courses with January start dates are not collected centrally (indicated within tables by notation 'J').

  2 Bulmershe College target and intake figures are included with Reading University figures from 1989.

  3 Rolle College is now the Polytechnic of the South West.

  Replan
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce his decision about the future of Replan.
  400
  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend will announce his decision on the future of the Replan programme when he has considered the issues fully.
  401
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish the evaluation undertaken by his Department of the Replan project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Replan programme was introduced in 1984 with the aim of creating better opportunities for unemployed adults. It was initially funded to run up to 1987, but was subsequently extended on four occasions and will continue in its present form up to October 1991. The Government are currently undertaking a policy review of the programme, and have commissioned the preparation of an evaluation study as part of that review. The final report of the study is expected shortly. My right hon. Friend will consider whether the findings of the evaluation study should be more widely available when the policy review is completed.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, further to his reply on 26 February,Official Report, column 3, whether he will carry out a survey of the current availability of land for use as school playing fields; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans to do so. The provision of school playing fields is a matter for LEAs and others responsible for the schools.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will seek a report from the London borough of Enfield about the position of school playing fields for the proposed Southgate school consolidation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department has received a submission from Enfield LEA seeking formal approval to a building project associated with the proposed consolidation of Southgate school. The submission includes a certificate confirming that the proposals will comply with the statutory standards. These include playing field requirements. The proposal will be considered by the Department in accordance with normal procedures.

  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will ask the medical research council to undertake research concerning the relationship between the development of chronic bronchitis or emphysema and exposure to substances associated with the processing, smelting, working or production of steel.

  Mr. Jackson
  No; it is for the council to determine its own priorities for funding from its grant in aid.

  Human Infertility
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will list the research the Government are currently funding into the causes of human infertility; and what is the cost to the Government of this research.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 402
  30 October 1989, Official Report, columns 11–13. The cost of research into the causes of human infertility has not been separated out from the overall cost of research into human infertility.

PRIME MINISTER

  Security Services
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will give the terms of reference of the Sir Anthony Duff inquiry of 1987 into the security services.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to my statement in the House of 6 May 1987.

  Sea Dumping
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to transfer responsibility for regulating sea dumping from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Department of the Environment.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Deforestation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 28 February, what she is doing to implement Dr. Holdgate's suggestion that the priority for western Governments is to steer deforestation practices in the direction of sustainable cropping systems.

  The Prime Minister
  Helping developing countries with sustainable forest management is the key objective of the British aid programme's increasing support for tropical forestry activities.

  National Health Service Reform
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her oral reply to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on Tuesday 27 February, what sums have been expended by Her Majesty's Government in preparation or advocacy of self-governing status of hospitals within the National Health Service.

  The Prime Minister
  Over £80 million has been made available this year for preparation for the implementation of the National Health Service review proposals as a whole. Resources have not been specifically allocated from within this sum for the preparation of National Health Service trusts.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to her reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow,Official Report, 26 February, column 8, she will set out the policy considerations involved in her decision not to place in the Library the letter to Mr. Colin Wallace to which the hon. Member made reference.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not my practice to do so.

  Press Briefings
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will give details of the contents of the press briefings by her press secretary in relation to the Leader of the Opposition in the week beginning 12 February.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not the practice to give details of press briefings.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Private Notice Questions
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many private notice questions were answered(a) from Back Bench Members and (b) from Opposition Front Bench Members in the sessions of 1977–78, 1978–79 and 1988–89.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  For sessions 1977–78 and 1978–79 it is not possible accurately to identify whether private notice questions were asked by Back Bench Members or Opposition Front-Bench Members. However, of the 20 questions asked in Session 1977–78 my best assessment is that six were asked by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and for Session 1978–79 the numbers were 29 and 13 respectively. In Session 1988–89, a total of 35 private notice questions were asked; of these, 21 were asked by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Baltic Gold
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Baltic gold; and what is its current value.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  When the Baltic states were incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1940, the property of a number of British nationals was seized without compensation. The Soviet authorities also did not accept responsibility for the external debts of the Baltic states, including three external loans which had been placed in London. To safeguard British interests, the British Government responded by freezing the gold reserves of the three Baltic central banks which were deposited in London, and which were claimed by the Soviet authorities.

  Negotiations between the British and Soviet Governments culminated in an agreement which was signed on 5 January 1968. This provided that the British and Soviet Governments would not pursue their respective claims. It thus enabled the British Government to use most of the money realised from the sale in 1967 of the Baltic gold reserves (in addition to certain other assets of the Baltic States and ceded territories) to meet in part the claims of British creditors who had lost assets in the former Baltic states and in certain other territories incorporated into the Soviet Union. The judicial determination of these claims was carried out by the Foreign Compensation Commission in accordance with the Foreign Compensation (Union of Soviet Socialists Republics) Order 1969; claimants eventually receiving 42·6 per cent. of the assessed value of their claims.

  The Baltic gold (weighing 460,220 fine ounces) realised £5·8 million when sold in 1967. Its value would be approximately £112·17 million at current prices.

  East European Foreign Ministers
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his Polish, Hungarian and Czechoslovakian counterparts; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met his Polish and Czechoslovak counterparts at the open skies conference in Ottawa on 12 to 14 February. They discussed various issues of bilateral relations, internal developments in Poland and Czechoslovakia, and German reunification. My right hon. Friend met the Hungarian Foreign Minister, Dr. Horn, on 28 February. They discussed a number of bilateral issues including the know-how fund for Hungary, and other questions relating to the future of Europe.

  Vietnamese Boat People
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong detention camps have injured themselves in protest at the British Government's screening policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Since 16 June, 12 people have injured themselves in Hong Kong detention centres.

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

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on this question on 14 February at column 235.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to improve trade and consular facilities in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Increased resources are being directed to United Kingdom official representation, including trade and consular facilities, in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union to enable our diplomatic missions there to meet new demands arising from the dramatic changes in these countries. Staffing has already been strengthened at several posts to deal with increased visa demand and with work connected with the know-how funds. Further reinforcement to meet these and other tasks will be made in the next few months.

  Tunisia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring of the monument at Tabrouna, Tunisia, has been undertaken by Her Majesty's embassy in Tunis, in order to ensure its protection and preservation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The embassy is continuing to monitor the condition of the monument at Takrouna. A member of the embassy visited the site on 21 February.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit to Vietnam by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude).

  Mr. Maude
  I visited the Socialist Republic of Vietnam from 18 to 21 February for talks with the Vietnamese Government. There were wide-ranging and useful discussions. I signed an agreement to speed up the voluntary return of boat people from Hong Kong, in which connection the Vietnamese Government will, with British financial assistance, construct a new transit centre so that by 1 May 1990 around 1,000 returnees a month can return. I explained that the continued failure of the Vietnamese Government to accept their international obligations notably towards their own citizens could not avoid being an obstacle to the development of bilateral relationships. The Vietnamese assured me of their concern to settle the boat people issue. Her Majesty's ambassador in Hanoi is continuing the discussions.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with Senor Diego Cordouey, Foreign Minister of Ecuador, on rain forest problems during his recent visit to London.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have discussed this matter with the Government of Ecuador on a number of occasions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I discussed a wide range of other issues with Dr. Cordovez during his recent visit to London.

  Coto Donana National Park
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Spain about the conservation of the Coto Donana national park.

  Mr. Maude
  We recognise the international importance of the Coto Donana national park, and the concern shown by conservation bodies within Spain and more widely about its future. The European Commission is aware of possible breaches of the wild birds directive, and has begun infraction proceedings against Spain.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives Her Majesty's Government intend to put forward at the third preparatory committee meeting in Geneva on 24 April to 4 May, for the fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; and whether any financial support has been made available to non-governmental organisations to attend this final preparatory meeting.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The third preparatory committee will be devoted largely to administrative aspects of the review conference. As convenor of the western group of non-proliferation treaty parties in Geneva, the United Kingdom has been active in the preparations. No financial support has been made available to non-governmental organisations to attend the meeting.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a breakdown of the current ivory stocks in Hong Kong according to weight and origin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 15 February 1990]: The Hong Kong Government's records do not provide a breakdown of the current ivory stocks according to weight and country of origin. However, CITES certificates show that stocks originated from the following countries:

  Botswana, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

  The total weight of these stocks is 254 tonnes of raw ivory and 104 tonnes of worked ivory.

WALES

  Housing Grants
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to revise the administrative structure of the housing grant system due to be introduced in Wales in April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The day-to-day administration of the new home renovation grant system will be the responsibility of local housing authorities. My hon. Friend., the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, announced on 22 February that implementation of the major provisions of part VIII of the 1989 Act in England and Wales will be deferred to 1 July 1990. This will allow local authorities to prepare for a smooth transition to the new system and maintain the momentum on renovation activity.

  Toxic Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what volumes of toxic wastes and contaminated landfill rubble has been deposited in the Cwmrhydyceirw quarry in Morriston (West Glamorgan); and whether this site is licensed for receipt of polychlorinated biphenyl contaminated waste materials.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on deposits at licensed disposal sites is not held centrally; it is for the licensing authority to specify the types and quantities of waste which may be deposited. I understand that the Cwmrhydyceirw quarry site is not specifically licensed by Swansea city council to accept PCB contaminated waste.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Allan Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what water supply tests for bacterial and other infections have been carried out in Mid Glamorgan health district buildings in the past two years.

  Mr. Grist
  Mid Glamorgan health authority has a policy for the regular testing of water. Sampling is undertaken every three months at every hospital with testing undertaken at the University hospital of Wales.

  M4, Earlswood-Lôn Las
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has made plans relating to the first stage of construction for the M4 missing link between Earlswood and Lôn Las to ensure that additional traffic lanes can be constructed with ease if traffic flows exceed predicted forecasts.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The design of this section of the M4 would permit an additional lane to be added in each direction with minimal disruption should future traffic levels justify it.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he has implemented to ensure that recruitment and promotion policy in his Department does not directly or indirectly discriminate against applicants who were mature students or women returning to work following a career break due to child care.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) in July 1988.

  In addition, my Department has recently introduced a holiday play scheme for the children of members of staff. The provision of nursery facilities is being considered.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of his Department's management training courses include sessions on equal opportunities for women; and what proportion of managers at grade six level and above working outside headquarters has received training on equal opportunities for women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Welsh Office runs three mandatory management courses which include sessions on equal opportunities for women. In addition, and as part of its equal opportunities policy, my Department provides four women-only management courses.

  Only two officers at grade six and above are employed outside Cardiff; as yet, neither has attended a training course with equal opportunities content.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what action he has taken, and what action he intends taking, to implement the recommendations within his area of responsibility of the European Commission's child care network report "Caring for Children—Services and Policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom".

  Mr. Grist
  The report was prepared for the European Commission which has not yet developed any proposals. The Government believe that policy on child care is a matter of member states. The United Kingdom's policy is that it is for families themselves to determine how their children are to be brought up and how parents who wish to do so, can best combine paid work and family responsibilities. The Government, through the Department of Health, the Welsh Office and the ministerial group on women's issues, on which the Department is represented, has encouraged the development of a range of high quality child care options for both employers and parents.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what child care provision his Department provides for 408
  pre-school age children of employees; what child care provision for school holidays or after-school care is provided for employees' children aged five years or over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department ran a holiday play scheme for school-age children of staff in Cardiff last summer and plans to do so again for the Easter and summer school holidays this year. The scheme is substantially self-financing, but it receives some financial support from the Welsh Office and the other Government Departments that make use of it.

  The Welsh Office is looking into the possibility of providing nursery facilities for its Cardiff staff in conjunction with other Government Departments.

  The Department does not arrange after-school care for the children of staff and has no immediate plans to do so.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what grade is his Department's equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department's equal opportunities officer is a senior executive officer.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of civil servants in his Department are women at each of the grades(a) seven, (b) six, (c) five, (d) four, (e) three, (f) two and (g) one.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is as follows:

  Grade

  Percentage of Women

  1

  —

  2

  —

  3

  —

  4

  33

  5

  15

  6

  24

  7

  12

  1. As at 1 January 1990

  2. The grade categories shown include equivalent professional grades.

  Sexual Harassment
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department's policy on sexual harassment is that it will not be tolerated and may lead to disciplinary proceedings. Written guidance on the complaints procedure to follow in cases of sexual harassment has been made available to all staff. Two complaints have been reported in the last five years, both of which were settled to the satisfaction of the individuals concerned without the need for disciplinary action.

  Pin-ups
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  A new equal opportunities policy statement is planned to issue to all staff this year to
  409
  encourage further good equal opportunity practice within the Department. It will remind staff that they should not display posters or pictures which might cause offence to others.

  Cancer
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will provide figures for the incidence of(a) leukaemia, (b) lung cancer, (c) colon cancer and (d) stomach cancer in each district in Wales for each of the last 10 years;

  (2) if he will publish up-to-date figures on the incidence of leukaemia in each district of Wales, together with the figures for each of the previous 10 years.

  Mr. Grist
  Data for recent years are not yet available, and earlier years' figures are not readily available in the form requested. I therefore refer the hon. Gentleman to the figures given in the Welsh Office publication "Cancer Registration in Wales 1974–1984".

  Llanelli General Hospital
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new junior doctors are intended to be recruited for the new Llanelli general hospital.

  Mr. Grist
  The staffing levels of the new Llanelli general hospital are primarily a matter for the health authority to decide within the resources available to it, subject to the normal arrangements for the appointment of junior staff within the framework of the "Achieving A Balance" agreement between the Health Departments, the professional and the NHS for the reform of the hospital medical staffing structure.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of all junior hospital doctors in the National Health Service in the whole of Wales work within the South Glamorgan health authority area.

  Mr. Grist
  As at 30 September 1988, a total of 30 per cent. of junior hospital doctors (whole-time equivalents) in post in the NHS in Wales were employed by South Glamorgan health authority. Junior hospital doctors includes the grades of house officer, senior house officer, registrar, senior registrar, associate specialist and senior hospital medical officer.

  Bryntirion Hospital, Llanelli
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the soil sample collection procedures used in the recent tests of PCB levels carried out by the pollution inspectorate in an area adjacent to Bryntirion hospital, Llanelli, were identical to the procedures used by the university of East Anglia while carrying out the original tests in the same area, as reported in the HMSO publication ISBN 0 11 7522686.

  Mr. Grist
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution took the samples on both occasions and the procedures were identical.

  Old People's Homes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local authority old people's homes there were in Wales in(a) 1979 and (b) 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of local authority old people's homes in Wales at 31 March 1979 was 200 and at 31 March 1989 it was 192.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many privately owned old people's homes there were in Wales in(a) 1979 and (b) 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of privately owned old people's homes in Wales at 31 March 1979 is not separately identifiable from available sources. However, the number of private and voluntary homes combined was 80. As at 31 March 1989 there were 461 private homes and 23 voluntary homes for elderly people.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to enable elderly people in Wales to meet the fees of privately owned homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  At present public support for elderly people in independent sector residential care and nursing homes is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The proposals for the new arrangements for 1 April 1991 are set out in chapter 3 (paragraphs 3.7.6. and 3.8.2) and chapter 9 of the "Caring for People" White Paper (Cm 849).

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy to encourage local authorities to open more publicly funded elderly people's homes in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The "Caring for People" White Paper (Cm 849) makes it clear that local authorities will need to review the level of provision in their own homes in the light of the new community care proposals.

  Tyre Dump Fire (Powys)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the environmental impact of the recent three-month long fire at a tyre dump in Powys.

  Mr. Grist
  The company is seeking to bring the fire under control and the position is being monitored by Radnor district council which is under a duty to supervise the waste disposal sites it licenses under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  When Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution last visited the site there was no emission of smoke and only a slight localised odour problem. Subject to a satisfactory surface seal being maintained, the situation will be contained.

  I am advised that monitoring at the public water supply intake 85 km downstream by the National Rivers Authority has shown that phenol concentrations are within drinking water standards. Although there is some pollution of streams in the immediate vicinity of the fire, action on site has prevented the spread of pollution downstream.

  Litter
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the maximum fine for improperly disposing of litter in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Littering as an offence under the Litter Act 1983 attracts a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, currently £400. There are proposals in the Environmental Protection Bill to increase this to level 4 on the standard scale, currently £1,000.

  Planning Aid Wales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has proposals to renew funding for Planning Aid Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Planning Aid Wales has submitted an application for funding under the Department's 1990–91 special grants—Environmental—programme. This is currently being considered together with other applications for funding from the limited resources available through this programme. Planning Aid Wales has already benefited from this programme, receiving over £53,000 since 1985.

  Toolsheds
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether rates are charged in Wales for toolsheds used only to store tools for growing vegetables on allotments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The decision whether any particular property is non-domestic, and therefore rateable after April 1990, is a matter for the valuation officer. In reaching decisions on rateability with respect to toolsheds, the valuation officer will have regard to section 66(1)(d) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which provides that property is domestic—and so not rateable—if it is private storage premises used wholly or mainly for the storage of articles of domestic use.

  Imported Waste
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received with regard to the importation of contaminated rubble from West Germany via Max Recovery's transfer station in Swansea to direct landfill in Cwmrhydceirw quarry.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from an hon. Member on behalf of constituents expressing concern about the proposed importation. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has received a letter from Swansea city council seeking advice.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he intends to publish amended versions of Department of the Environment pamphlets on community charge reductions and the uniform business rate in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. Welsh Office leaflets on community charge benefit were distributed to all households in Wales late in 1989. There is no need to produce a separate publicity leaflet on community charge 412
  transitional relief, because the Welsh scheme does not require applications to be made in order that relief can be awarded. On business rates, I have made available since March 1989 a pamphlet, "The New Business Rating System in Wales". This has been regularly updated. The latest revision, dated January 1990, is in the Library. Copies have been made available through Welsh business organisations, district valuation offices and from the Welsh Office in response to enquiries.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) part-time and (b) full-time staff have been brought in to each district, borough and city council in Wales to deal specifically with the community charge or poll tax.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much extra expenditure has been incurred by each district, borough and city council in Wales on(a) the adaptation of current information systems and (b) purchasing of new technology, as a direct result of implementing the poll tax.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The current and capital expenditure incurred by each district council in Wales on the implementation costs of the community charge in 1989–90 are shown in the table:

  Community charge preparation costs 1989–90

  Local authority

  Current budget £000

  Capital forecast £000

  Alyn and Deeside

  328

  173

  Colwyn

  124

  149

  Delyn

  203

  0

  Glyndwr

  168

  0

  Rhuddlan

  207

  274

  Wrexham Maelor

  377

  724

  Carmarthen

  184

  0

  Ceredigion

  307

  112

  Dinefwr

  182

  188

  Llanelli

  176

  0

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  317

  193

  South Pembrokeshire

  138

  76

  Blaenau Gwent

  305

  100

  Islwyn

  213

  169

  Monmouth

  167

  166

  Newport

  355

  425

  Torfaen

  290

  198

  Aberconwy

  193

  215

  Arfon

  310

  0

  Dwyfor

  194

  142

  Meirionnydd

  282

  670

  Ynys Môn

  176

  274

  Cynon Valley

  103

  928

  Merthyr Tydfil

  256

  844

  Ogwr

  642

  0

  Rhondda

  196

  30

  Rhymney Valley

  381

  580

  Taff Ely

  433

  414

  Brecknock

  173

  0

  Montgomeryshire

  237

  63

  Radnorshire

  95

  40

  Cardiff

  1,090

  953

  Vale of Glamorgan

  392

  150

  Port Talbot

  189

  50

  Lliw Valley

  239

  0

  Neath

  218

  142

  Swansea

  934

  630

  Total Wales

  10,774

  9,072

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the new general managers of family practitioner committees in Wales have had previous careers in the armed forces.

  Mr. Grist
  Fifty per cent.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were(a) the target totals and (b) actual expenditure for each district, borough and city council in Wales for expenditure on the implementation and administration of competitive tendering exercises during 1989.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not held centrally. Quantification of these items in budgets and accounts is a matter for individual local authorities.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Auditing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has taken any steps to prevent individuals from the auditing firms criticised by his inspectors for audits of investment companies from participating in development of auditing policy in relation to investment business.

  Mr. Redwood
  If, by referring to audit policy, the hon. Member has in mind the work of the Auditing Practices Committee then I have taken no steps to influence which individuals are appointed to that committee by the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies.

  Company Audits
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek to legislate to require auditors of companies actively to evaluate and seek evidence relating to the post balance sheet events occurring between the date of the audit report and the following annual general meeting.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will seek to legislate to require company auditors to alert the users of financial statements of the likelihood of financial insolvency;

  (2) whether he will seek to legislate to require auditors to report on the financial soundness of companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The auditors' duty is to report to members of the company. There is a presumption under the accounting principles set out in the Companies Act 1985 that the company is carrying on a business as going concern. Auditing standards already prescribe that where there are doubts about the company's ability to continue as a going concern auditors should qualify their report appropriately.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to amend schedule 12 to the Companies Act 1989 so as to discourage organisations seeking recognition as qualifying bodies from using objective tests to further theoretical knowledge.
  414
  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to amend the Companies Act 1989 so as to require the supervisory bodies to provide tangible proof to any member of the public showing that they have taken active steps to monitor compliance with the rules on auditor independence.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to legislate to require auditors of all large companies to report on the effectiveness with which a company utilises its assets.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. It is the auditors' function to report on the company's annual accounts. It is for others to judge from those statements the performance of the company.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State For Trade and Industry whether he will seek to legislate to require company auditors to report all departures from the Companies Acts.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. It is already a requirement of the Companies Act 1985 that the auditors' report shall state whether in the auditor's opinion the annual accounts have been properly prepared in accordance with the Act. There is professional guidance on how the auditor should report departures from statutory requirements.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide a list of the organisations which have written to him either supporting or opposing the implementation of section 15 of the Companies Act 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  A number of detailed comments were received in response to my Department's recent consultative document on a draft of the regulations to implement section 15 of the Companies Act 1989. None, however, raised the question whether or not the provision should be implemented.

  GEC
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to meet the chairman of GEC-Alsthom-General Electric European Gas Turbine Company to discuss investment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Not at present. The company will, I have no doubt, keep us advised of its plans for any new investment in the United Kingdom as its predecessor did.

  Global Warming
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to put forward proposals at the next Council of Industry Ministers to initiate industrial developments and changes in industrial design and practice to reduce discharges of gases presently causing global warming.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The agenda for Council of Ministers meetings is determined by the presidency, which is currently held by the Republic of Ireland. Environmental issues such as those cited by the hon.
  415
  Gentleman have important implications for business and may well be considered by the Industry Council in due course. However, there are no present plans for such discussion. In the meantime, the Department of Trade and Industry environmental programme already contains a range of measures designed to help and encourage firms to respond positively to the challenges and opportunities presented by environmental issues such as global warming.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, at the last meeting of the European Ministers Research Council, held in Brussels on 26 February, he put forward any proposals for(a) European Community collaboration on research to combat the greenhouse effect and global warming climate change and (b) intergovernmental and inter-institutional collaboration on environmental improvement research.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I attended the Research Council on 26 February. This included an exchange with a delegation of Members of the European Parliament on the overall 1990–94 EC R and D framework programme.

  The 1990–94 framework programme includes a programme of environmental research (414 mecu or £298 million) which is 59 per cent. larger than the previous EC programme and includes research on the subjects raised by the hon. Member.

  An agricultural research programme and a cooperation agreement with EFTA countries on the medical and health research programme were also adopted.

  Investment (North-west)
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to improve investment in the north-west.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All Department of Trade and Industry policies are aimed at encouraging investment in the north-west and throughout the United Kingdom.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how much money is available to the United Kingdom through the RECHAR scheme for the schemes he recently submitted for each of the years 1990 to 1994;

  (2) what criteria qualified wards in Nottingham, North constituency for submission for RECHAR assistance; and which bodies were consulted before the decision was made;

  (3) whether Nottinghamshire county council and Nottingham city council were consulted before he submitted the RECHAR list to the European Commission.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department drew the attention of county, city and district authorities to the notice published by the European Commission about the RECHAR initiative and invited representations. Representations were received from Nottinghamshire county council, among others. Among other bodies consulted was the Coalfield Communities Campaign.

  Wards were considered for inclusion in the list of Government's proposals for RECHAR where they were part of a coal-mining area that had suffered sufficient coal-mining job losses to meet the criteria of the Commission's notice.
  416
  It is not yet known how much money will be available to the United Kingdom from RECHAR. I hope that the Commission's decision will be reached before the end of this year.

  Investors (Protection)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to introduce an order under section 203(3) of the Companies Act 1989, standard of protection for investors, specifying when the transitional period is to end.

  Mr. Redwood
  As soon as it becomes clear that the transitional provisions are no longer necessary.

  Takeovers
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of European Economic Community takeovers of companies occurred in each member state over the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 26 February 1990]: Figures are not compiled within the Government of all takeovers of companies in each country throughout the European Economic Community. Information is cornpiledd for United Kingdom takeover activity and published quarterly by the Central Statistical Office in Business Bulletin "Cross Border Acquisitions and Mergers". The latest publication includes information to the third quarter of 1989 and is available in the Library.

  The report on barriers to takeovers in the European Community prepared for the Department of Trade and Industry and published recently indicates that in 1988 73 per cent. of acquisitions in the European Community took place in the United Kingdom.

  North-East Shipbuilders Ltd.
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) of 20 February,Official Report, column 780, he will list any changes in the proposals for the acquisition of NESL facilities by the Anglo-Greek consortium which were not made as a result of guidance from either his Department or the Tyne and Wear development corporation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: Following the rejection of the shipbuilding bids for the NESL yards in July 1989 for reasons explained by my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), the Anglo-Greek consortium made an informal proposal which simply foresaw a return to new shipbuilding at North Sands in the longer term, depending on market conditions. A formal proposal on 30 October 1989 was more specific, and explicitly made reference to the development of a modern shipbuilding facility.

  The business plan dated 21 December 1989 made it apparent that the scale of investment was based on future shipbuilding requirements. An additional, parallel idea to use the Southwick site for steel work was raised in January 1990. None of these changes was made at the suggestion of my Department, which has always made it clear that any proposals would need to be assessed against any

  417
  alternative plans for the sites in question, and would need formal clearance by the Commission of the European Communities.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on which dates his Department became aware that the following definitions of a permanent and irreversible closure in the European Commission sixth directive on shipbuilding of(a) a withdrawal of intervention fund by the relevant member state for a period of five years, (b) the cessation of vessel construction for a period of five years and (c) plans predicted on a resumption of vessel construction after a period of five years were not shared by the European Commission.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: Sir Leon Brittan's letter of 12 July 1989 to my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) made clear that the Commission required yards which have been closed as counterpart for aid to remain closed to the building of ships for five years, irrespective of the provision or otherwise of intervention fund grant subsidy. Sir Leon's letter to me of 15 February 1990 made it plain that he would not approve now a notification where the proposal was predicated on a return to shipbuilding after the expiry of the five-year period.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) of 20 February,Official Report, column 783, if he will list how many jobs he expects will have been created in the Southwick area of the proposed Sunderland enterprise zone by (a) 31 December 1990, (b) 30 June 1991, (c) 31 December 1991, (d) 30 June 1992, (e) 31 December 1992, (f) 30 June 1993 and (g) 31 December 1993.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: It is not practicable to give a detailed breakdown of the timing of the jobs expected to be created within the Sunderland enterprise zone. This will depend on, among other things, the timetable on progress on the clearance, reclamation, and development of the sites concerned and on the plans and decisions of individual firms setting up within the zone.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice was given by officials of his Department to directors of NESL who wished to know, in May 1988, whether his Department might be sympathetic to a management buy-out of NESL.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: As a general principle, the Government would certainly not have been averse to any proposals for a management buy-out of North-East Shipbuilders Ltd. A number of other British Shipbuilders' facilities have indeed been sold on this basis. I am, however, not aware that any formal proposals were actually made by the management of NESL for such a buy-out in respect of that company.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions his Department held with Mr. John Parker following the receipt of information that Mr. Parker was interested in assisting North South Bridge Consortium's proposals to acquire NESL in November 1988.
  418
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: None.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has as to whether the letter of advice sent by the previous chairman to the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) on 3 July 1989 was read and agreed by the other executive board members of British Shipbuilders.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: That is a matter for British Shipbuilders.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether all relevant and significant matters discussed between officials of his Department and officials of the European Commission concerning the future of NESL between the statement to the House by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) on 7 December and the right hon. Member for Braintree's meeting with Sir Leon Brittan on 27 June 1989 were drawn to the attention of Ministers of his Department;

  (2) whether all relevant and significant matters discussed between officials of his Department and officials of the European Commission prior to the December 1988 agreement to close North East Shipbuilders Ltd were drawn to the attention of ministers of his Department prior to the finalisation of that agreement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: Yes.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek an assurance from Sir Leon Brittan that the interpretation which Sir Leon places on a declaration to the minutes of the Industry Council referred to in Sir Leon Brittan's letter to the hon. Member far Grantham (Mr. Hogg) of 15 February 1990 will be applied to any other member state of the European Community who contemplate the reopening of shipbuilding facilities.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: The EC's sixth directive on aid to shipbuilding is designed to ensure fair and equitable treatment throughout the Community in all aspects of shipbuilding support. I am sure, therefore, that the Commission will seek uniformity of treatment in respect of closed shipbuilding facilities within EC member states. We will certainly encourage it to do so.

  Space
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the expenditure, actual and planned, on civil space related activities paid for from public funds in each of the years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90; and for each of the years to give a breakdown as between expenditure on European Space Agency programmes and expenditure on domestic United Kingdom programmes.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 2 March 1990]: The figures are as follows:

  £ million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  European Space Agency programmes

  80·8

  90·2

  87·2

  National programmes

  42·8

  48·1

  51·1

  Total

  123·6

  138·3

  138·3

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General how many of his Department's management training courses include sessions on equal opportunities for women; and what proportion of managers at grade six level and above working outside headquarters has received training on equal opportunities for women.

  The Attorney-General
  Neither the legal secretariat to the Law Officers nor the Treasury Solicitor's Department undertakes its own management training. In the Treasury Solicitor's Department, staff at grade six level and above who are working outside headquarters receive management training at the Civil Service College. In the Crown prosecution service training on equal opportunities for women is integrated into management training and is not dealt with as a separate issue. In the period from September 1988 to January 1989 a series of industrial relations courses, which included a specific session on equal opportunities, was run for grade six officers and above. In the Serious Fraud Office, departmental training courses do not include sessions on equal opportunities for women, but members of staff may attend courses at the Civil Service College, where such sessions are a feature of the course work.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what action he has taken, and what action he intends taking, to implement the recommendations within his area of responsibility of the European Commission's childcare network report "Caring for Children—Services and Policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom".

  The Attorney-General
  The report was prepared for the European Commission which has not yet developed any proposals. The Government believe that policy on child care is a matter for member states. The United Kingdom's policy is that it is for families themselves to determine how their children are to be brought up and how parents, who wish to do so, can best combine paid work and family responsibilities. The Government, through the Department of Health and the ministerial group on women's issues, has encouraged the development of a range of high quality child care options for both parents and employers.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what childcare provision his Department provides for preschool age children of employees: what childcare provision for school holidays or after-school care is provided for employees' children aged five years or over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  The Attorney-General
  There is no provision of child care for pre-school age children of employees in any of the Departments for which I am responsible. No child care provision is provided in the legal secretariat to the Law Officers, Crown prosecution service or the Serious Fraud Office for employees' children aged five years or over, but for the Treasury Solicitor's Department there is a holiday play scheme for 32 children which is run during half-term holidays and between terms by the Cabinet Office in 420
  conjunction with the Westminster Play Association, but there is no provision for after-school care. The holiday play scheme will continue while there is space available.

  There are no plans to increase provision in the next five years in the legal secretariat to the Law Officers or the Serious Fraud Office. In the Treasury Solicitor's Department it is proposed to introduce a pre-school age nursery subject to there being space available. No decision has been made on how the nursery is to be funded. The Crown prosecution service has agreed to participate in and make a financial contribution towards a study of the feasibility of establishing a number of interdepartmental nurseries in and around central London. As part of this study, the Crown prosecution service has distributed questionnaires to all staff in the London area to find the numbers of employees who would wish to use child care facilities in the future. The service will consider shared funding of child care facilities in those areas where its provision is feasible.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what grade is his Department's equal opportunities officer.

  The Attorney-General
  The equal opportunities officer in the legal secretariat to the Law Officers is a grade four, in the Treasury Solicitor's Department a grade six, in the Crown prosecution service a grade seven and in the Serious Fraud Office a higher executive officer.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what measures he has implemented to ensure that recruitment and promotion policy in his Department does not directly or indirectly discriminate against applicants who were mature students or women returning to work following a career-break due to child care.

  The Attorney-General
  In the legal secretariat to the Law Officers and the Treasury Solicitor's Department the recruitment of all staff above the grade of executive officer is undertaken by the Civil Service Commission. Officers appointed to recruitment boards for administrative officer and below and promotion boards are reminded of the policy of equal opportunities in the department. In the Crown prosecution service a departmental career break scheme is being developed to ensure that those members of staff who have a break in their career for domestic reasons have the opportunity to maintain their career momentum via a departmental "keeping in touch" scheme.

  The Crown prosecution service has also targeted recruitment publications aimed at mature students and women returning to work following a career break. It has provided working arrangements to suit staff with domestic commitments and has introduced flexible working terms, part-time working, and enhanced arrangements for sabattical leave. All established staff compete equally for promotion opportunities in the service.

  The Serious Fraud Office has recently launched an advertising campaign to attract part-time staff with family commitments. A person would not be subject to discrimination in either recruitment to the Serious Fraud Office or promotion therein on account of their age, providing they are below the normal Civil Service retiring age.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what proportion of civil servants in his Department are women at each of the grades(a) seven, (b) six, (c) five, (d) four, (e) three, (f) two and (g) one.
  421
  The Attorney-General
  proportions in each of the Departments for which I am responsible are as follows:

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Serious Fraud Ofice

  A. Grade 7

  0/0

  11/49

  164/603

  0/4

  B. Grade 6

  0/3

  14/58

  16/152

  3/14

  C. Grade 5

  2/4

  4/39

  2/54

  2/10

  D. Grade 4

  0/2

  0/0

  0/9

  0/0

  E. Grade 3

  1/1

  0/10

  0/4

  0/2

  F. Grade 2

  0/0

  0/0

  0/1

  0/1

  G. Grade 1

  0/0

  0/1

  0/1

  0/0

  Divorce Notifications (Newspapers)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General if he intends to take any action to prevent divorce notifications in newspapers containing the reasons for a divorce; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  There is no present intention to change the law relating to the content of divorce notifications in newspapers, but the matter has been referred to the Law Commission who are considering it along with the law of divorce on which they are expected to report later this year. Under the present divorce law, to provide protection against divorces being granted where the facts required do not exist, Parliament provided in section 9 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 that any person may show cause why a decree nisi of divorce should not be made absolute. The decree nisi is therefore declared in open court and any member of the public may examine the certificate of the decree and the filed evidence for this purpose. The Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926 aligns with this policy by allowing the press to report, amongst other things, the names and addresses of the parties to a divorce, together with the statutory facts on which the petition relies. Any further restriction would conflict with the present policy of section 9.

  Sexual Harassment
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  The Attorney-General
  The policy in each of the Departments for which I am responsible is that sexual harassment at work would not be tolerated and, if appropriate, would be dealt with as a disciplinary matter.

  No specific guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to staff in the legal secretariat to the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor's Department or in the Serious Fraud Office. In the Crown prosecution service, the issue of sexual harassment at work is addressed directly in the CPS equal opportunities policy statement which is held by every local office for consultation by any member of staff.

  No complaints have been reported in the legal secretariat to the Law Officers or the Serious Fraud Office. In the Treasury Solicitor's Department one complaint has been made in the last five years but has subsequently been
  422
  withdrawn. In the Crown prosecution service one complaint has been reported and disciplinary action is under consideration.

  Crown Court Hearings
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the average period between a committal and full hearing for(a) all crimes and (b) rape.

  The Attorney-General
  The average period between a committal and start of hearing for all defendants whose cases were completed in the Crown Court in 1989 was 12·5 weeks. This compares with 14·3 weeks in 1984 and 17·6 weeks in 1979. Information is not available for individual offences.

  Pin-ups
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  The Attorney-General
  Any complaint about material of this sort in any of the Departments for which I am responsible would be considered and appropriate instructions would be given.

  Leasehold Reform
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Government have any plans to introduce leasehold reform—commonhold—legislation.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor announced in June 1988 that the Government had arranged for draft legislation to be prepared at the Law Commission to give effect to the proposals contained in the report of the working group on commonhold (Cm 179) under the chairmanship of Mr. T. M. Aldridge. That work is still in progress. No final decision has yet been taken about the implementation of the report, nor can I give any indication of when legislation on commonhold may be introduced.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Strip Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many women have been strip searched in each of the last 10 years in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cope
  The strip-searching procedures for female prisoners were introduced at Armagh prison in November
  423
  1982. Yearly figures for the number of women strip searched are only available from 1985 onwards. The details for 1985 to 1989 are as follows:

  No.

  1985

  144

  1986

  162

  1987

  149

  1988

  145

  1989

  145

  Police Accommodation
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he is giving to the Northern Ireland police federation's representations concerning(a) the introduction of a provided accommodation allowance and (b) updating of the force rent allowance; and when he expects to lay regulations giving effect to any changes which may take effect from 1 April.

  Mr. Cope
  The Police Federation for Northern Ireland has not made representations to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland concerning the introduction of a provided accommodation allowance for the RUC. Provided accommodation will continue to be free of rent and rates. The rent allowance for the RUC, which would have been due for updating at 1 April 1990, will not now be updated due to its replacement by the new housing allowance. The RUC (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1990 which will give effect to the change from rent allowance to housing allowance, will be laid before Parliament not later than 9 March 1990.

  Railways
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the loss of revenue to Northern Ireland railways as a result of terrorist activity in each of the last five calendar or financial years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: Northern Ireland Railways Co. Ltd. has informed me that because of the infrequency of incidents before 1989–90 no figures are available. The loss of revenue for 1989–90 is £581,000 to date. In addition to the security implications, there is a significant environmental impact, especially as the relative advantage of the rail service is reduced and more people switch to the road.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to extend youth training programme allowances to all those participating in 16 to 19 education.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 18 February 1990]: No.

HEALTH

  Hospital Laundering
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those health authorities which awarded laundry contracts inhouse and externally during 1987 and 1988.
  424
  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested, based on reports received from regional health authorities, is shown in the tables.

  LAUNDRY CONTRACTS AWARDED DURING 1987

  Health Authority and Hospital/Unit

  Northern Region

  Northumberland, Prudhoe, In-house

  South Tees, District, In-house

  South West Durham, Sedgefield, In-house

  Sunderland, DGH, In-house

  West Cumbria, District, In-house

  Yorkshire Region

  Bradford, District, External

  Harrogate, District, In-house

  East Anglia Region

  Cambridge, District, In-house

  Peterborough, District, In-house

  South East Thames Region

  Dartford, District, In-house

  Hastings, St. Helens, In-house

  Medway, District, In-house

  South West Thames Region

  Merton and Sutton, District, External

  Richmond, Queen Mary's/Putney, External

  Worthing, Southlands, In-house

  Wessex Region

  Salisbury, District, In-house

  Southampton, SGH, In-house

  West Dorset, Herrison, In-house

  Oxford Region

  West Berkshire, Fairmile, In-house

  South Western Region

  Cornwall, West Cornwall, In-house

  Frenchay, Glenside, In-house

  West Midlands Region

  Coventry, Whitley, In-house

  Dudley, District, In-house

  Hereford, St. Mary's, In-house

  Mid-Staffordshire, District, In-house

  North Birmingham, Highcroft, In-house

  Rugby, District, In-house

  Sandwell, District, In-house

  South East Staffordshire, St. Matthews, In-house

  Wolverhampton, District, In-house

  North Western region

  Blackburn, Queens Park, In-house

  Bolton, District, In-house

  Burnley, District, In-house

  Lancaster, District, In-house

  North Manchester, District, In-house

  Oldham, District, In-house

  Preston, Whittingham, In-house

  Rochdale, District, In-house

  Tameside, District, In-house

  Wigan, District, External

  Special Health Authorities

  Eastman Dental Hospital, In-house

  Laundry contracts awarded during 1988 Health Authority and hospital/unit

  Northern region

  South Cumbria, District, External

  Yorkshire region

  Airedale, District, In-house

  Calderdale, District, External

  Northallerton, District, In-house

  Pontefract, Southmoor, In-house

  Scarborough, St. Mary's, In-house

  Wakefield, District, External

  425

  Trent region

  Nottingham, District, In-house

  North West Thames region

  North Bedfordshire, District, In-house

  North East Thames region

  Hampstead, Friern, In-house

  South East Thames region

  Camberwell, In-house

  Lewisham, District, In-house

  Maidstone, External

  South East Kent, District, In-house

  West Lambeth, District, In-house

  South West Thames region

  East Surrey, District, In-house

  Mid-Surrey, District, In-house

  West Midlands region

  Shropshire, District, In-house

  North Staffordshire, RI/St. Edwards, In-house

  North Western region

  Bury, District, External

  South Manchester, District, In-house

  Table 1: Hospital medical and dental consultants1 3: analysis by region at 30 September each year

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  England2

  12,361

  12,609

  12,882

  13,089

  13,376

  13,688

  13,969

  14,296

  14,514

  14,950

  Northern

  835

  844

  867

  886

  908

  922

  954

  973

  1,000

  1,003

  Yorkshire

  846

  852

  898

  909

  926

  911

  952

  979

  1,003

  1,037

  Trent

  981

  1,017

  1,047

  1,078

  1,096

  1,128

  1,154

  1,212

  1,269

  1,318

  East Anglian

  469

  484

  498

  508

  515

  538

  554

  563

  575

  608

  North West Thames

  1,288

  1,284

  1,287

  1,119

  1,154

  1,159

  1,156

  1,151

  1,158

  1,187

  North East Thames

  1,293

  1,305

  1,320

  1,511

  1,546

  1,535

  1,584

  1,547

  1,478

  1,486

  South East Thames

  1,145

  1,147

  1,154

  1,170

  1,193

  1,242

  1,220

  1,247

  1,258

  1,271

  South West Thames

  881

  898

  929

  897

  904

  920

  920

  933

  939

  942

  Wessex

  685

  701

  689

  699

  728

  741

  760

  768

  831

  846

  Oxford

  545

  568

  585

  610

  620

  653

  686

  706

  722

  741

  South Western

  745

  769

  781

  802

  808

  826

  846

  874

  888

  904

  West Midlands

  1,184

  1,201

  1,226

  1,250

  1,276

  1,321

  1,364

  1,421

  1,451

  1,480

  Mersey

  644

  652

  649

  656

  666

  683

  701

  721

  722

  737

  North Western

  1,078

  1,095

  1,130

  1,173

  1,207

  1,226

  1,294

  1,284

  1,284

  1,284

  SHAs

  631

  631

  634

  607

  624

  655

  654

  653

  596

  617

  1 Figures include permanent paid and honorary staff.

  2 Staff holding two or more appointments whether with the same or different regions are counted only once. Differences in the sum of numbers of staff for all regions are due to the duplication of staff holding appointments in more than one region. Such staff are included separately in each region.

  3 Prior to 1987 figures include staff in the grade of senior hospital medical-dental officer with allowance.

  Table 2: In-patient cases treated, NHS hospitals by region1, 1979–1988/892

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  England

  5,400·1

  5,670·0

  5,759·9

  5,719·6

  6,018·6

  6,177·5

  6,353·8

  6,413·8

  6,619·4

  6,586·0

  Northern

  368·6

  393·8

  395·7

  376·1

  409·1

  420·1

  433·1

  441·1

  462·8

  461·0

  Yorkshire

  433·8

  456·9

  465·5

  454·0

  490·6

  499·9

  517·5

  525·3

  549·8

  551·5

  Trent

  464·9

  497·3

  511·9

  505·2

  543·2

  557·9

  578·4

  592·4

  612·9

  626·1

  East Anglian

  201·9

  216·9

  219·6

  213·3

  229·6

  238·3

  250·3

  253·5

  264·1

  269·6

  North West Thames

  403·3

  412·7

  418·1

  394·4

  408·5

  415·6

  418·8

  419·0

  421·6

  416·2

  North East Thames

  455·9

  473·5

  474·8

  512·7

  526·4

  534·8

  541·1

  530·4

  527·6

  521·3

  South East Thames

  438·9

  453·1

  462·2

  461·4

  477·3

  487·8

  501·6

  495·2

  504·7

  487·8

  South West Thames

  312·3

  320·1

  324·7

  315·2

  329·3

  338·6

  344·4

  347·1

  351·9

  344·3

  Wessex

  302·8

  318·5

  322·0

  320·9

  332·4

  345·5

  357·3

  366·4

  389·5

  391·4

  Oxford

  251·9

  265·0

  269·7

  266·3

  276·5

  284·6

  297·5

  299·3

  300·4

  296·4

  South Western

  338·9

  358·0

  365·8

  370·3

  385·3

  399·0

  408·0

  417·4

  443·2

  451·6

  West Midlands

  547·8

  575·1

  582·9

  591·1

  619·7

  644·2

  666·2

  673·4

  708·2

  689·5

  Mersey

  282·6

  297·5

  299·3

  293·9

  312·6

  322·1

  331·0

  336·9

  345·7

  347·9

  North Western

  509·0

  541·8

  555·0

  553·7

  585·7

  597·8

  617·6

  624·7

  644·5

  640·5

  SHAs

  87·7

  89·8

  92·6

  91·0

  92·3

  91·4

  90·9

  91·7

  92·5

  90·9

  1 Due to NHS restructuring in 1982, figures for the four Thames regions and SHAs are not strictly comparable over the whole period.

  2 The data for in-patient cases were collected at the end of each calendar year up to 1986; from 1987–88 the data are collected at the end of each financial year.

  426

  Special Health Authorities

  Hospital for Sick Children, In-house

  National Hospitals for Nervous Diseases, In-house

  Consultant-Patient Ratios
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing the number of consultants,(b) National Health Service patients and(c) patients per consultant in each year since 1979 (i) nationally and (ii) for each National Health Service region.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information for(a) and (b) is given in the tables.

  The information requested in (c) cannot be given in the form requested, because: (i) manpower figures represent a "snapshot" of staff in post on a particular day. Patient figures are aggregates over a calendar-financial year; (ii) the patient figures do not take account of the contribution given by other medical staff who may be engaged in providing treatment to in-patients, out-patients or accident and emergency patients.

  National Health Service Wales
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what, over the last five years for which figures are available, have been the proportions of United Kingdom National Health Service expenditure spent on the National Health Service in Wales.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage of United Kingdom gross National Health Service expenditure spent on health services in Wales

  per cent.

  1985–86

  5·2

  1986–87

  5·2

  1987–88

  5·2

  1988–89

  5·2

  11989–90

  5·3

  1 Estimate.

  Cash savings from competitive tendering: East Anglian region

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Cash Savings £000s

  Cash Savings Per Head of Population £

  Cash Savings £000s

  Cash Savings Per Head of Population £

  Cash Savings £000s

  Cash Savings Per Head of Population £

  Cambridge

  0·00

  0·00

  0·0

  0·00

  105·0

  0·38

  East Suffolk

  332·10

  1·04

  27·6

  0·88

  0·0

  0·00

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  77·90

  0·40

  46·4

  0·24

  29·0

  0·14

  Huntingdon

  7·20

  0·06

  0·0

  0·00

  0·0

  0·00

  Norwich

  648·60

  1·39

  369·1

  0·80

  51·0

  0·11

  Peterborough

  21·60

  0·11

  29·8

  0·14

  96·0

  0·46

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  328·50

  1·78

  0·0

  0·00

  0·0

  0·00

  West Suffolk

  224·20

  1·00

  242·0

  1·08

  0·0

  0·00

  England

  134·60

  0·65

  104·7

  0·47

  35·3

  0·14

  Note:

  All savings are expressed at 1989 pay and prices levels.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) private, (b) employer, (c) local authority and (d) other means-funded child care places there are in each travel-to-work area for each of the past 10 years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally in the form requested. The information collected centrally about day care places in England is published in "Children's Day Care Facilities at 31 March" and is available in the Library.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken, and what action he intends taking, to implement the recommendations within his area of responsibility of the European Commission's childcare network report: "Caring for Children—Services and Policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom."

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is one of several recent reports that have informed our current thinking. We are considering the child care aspects as part of our integrated policy for the implementation of the Children Act in 1991.
  428
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out a table showing from 1979 to the latest available year (i) each district health authority in East Anglia regional health authority and (ii) average of all English district health authorities(a) what services have been put out to competitive tender, (b) what savings have been made thereby in real terms and (c) what estimated real cost terms per head of population column (b) represents.

  Mr. Freeman
  Comprehensive information on all services put out to tender is not held centrally in the form requested. Since 1983, health authorities have been required to tender domestic, catering and laundry services and apart from some catering services at East and West Suffolk, all of these services in the region have now been subjected to this process.

  Information on savings arising from the tendering of these services in the financial years 1986–87 is set out in the table in the form requested. Information on the remaining years requested is not held centrally.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of employees; what child care provision for school holidays or after-school care is provided for employees' children aged five years or over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department runs holidy play schemes for employees' children aged between five and 11 years and plans to continue doing so. No nursery facilities or after-school care are at present provided for parents employed in the Department. However, we are undertaking a feasibility study into the provision of nursery facilities and we are contributing to a study into interdepartmental provision being co-ordinated by the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service. The holiday play schemes are financed by parental and departmental contributions, and it is likely that any other child care provision would be financed in a similar way.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what grade is his Department's equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Freeman
  The equal opportunities officer for the Department of Health is a grade five.
  429
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he has implemented to ensure that recruitment and promotion policy in his Department does not directly or indirectly discriminate against applicants who were mature students or women returning to work following a career break due to child care.

  Mr. Freeman
  This Department is an equal opportunities employer and its equal opportunities policy forbids discrimination on the grounds of sex or ethnic origin. Members of recruitment and promotion boards have this policy brought to their attention on each occasion that they undertake these duties. Wherever possible recruitment and promotion boards have female members.

  The Department has, as an aid to recruitment and retention, introduced a number of flexible working patterns. These include part-time working, job sharing, flexible working hours and career breaks together with a scheme for keeping in touch with existing employees away from the Department. More flexibilities are under active consideration.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of civil servants in his Department are women at each of grades seven, six, five, four, three, two and one.

  Mr. Freeman
  In the Department of Health as at February 1990, 11·1 per cent. of civil servants at grade two, 16·7 per cent. at grade three, 31·5 per cent. at grade four, 29·9 per cent. at grade five, 24·1 per cent. at grade six, and 25·1 per cent. at grade seven are women. There are no female officers at grade one level.

  Under-fives Provision
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total public expenditure on local authority day nurseries, local authority playgroups and grants to the voluntary sector for provision for under-fives for each year from 1975–76; and what was the total public expenditure on these services as a percentage of gross domestic product for each of these years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Total local authority social service departments' net current expenditure on day nurseries and playgroups plus Departmental grants to the voluntary sector for provision for the under fives for the years 1975–76 to 1987–88 are set out in cash terms. This includes expenditure on day nurseries and playgroups supported by, but not directly run by, the authorities. Final expenditure data for local authorities in 1988–89 is not yet available:

  Net current expenditure

  £ thousand

  Year

  Local authority day nurseries

  Local authority playgroups

  Grants to voluntary sector

  Total

  1975–76

  24,352

  1,909

  147

  26,408

  1976–77

  30,136

  2,389

  230

  32,755

  1977–78

  33,495

  2,663

  268

  36,426

  1978–79

  37,654

  2,965

  359

  40,978

  1979–80

  44,153

  3,888

  374

  48,415

  1980–81

  58,099

  4,543

  478

  63,120

  1981–82

  66,227

  5,378

  564

  72,169

  1982–83

  73,084

  5,789

  671

  79,544

  1983–84

  79,449

  5,947

  1,397

  86,793

  430

  Year

  Local authority day nurseries

  Local authority playgroups

  Grants to voluntary sector

  Total

  1984–85

  84,743

  6,299

  2,763

  93,805

  1985–86

  86,094

  6,841

  2,739

  95,674

  1986–87

  97,751

  8,974

  2,802

  109,527

  1987–88

  104,934

  10,913

  1,814

  117,661

  The voluntary sector expenditure quoted relates to grants made by the Department to voluntary organisations for provision for children under five. It does not include any grants made by health authorities or local authorities for which no information is available centrally. Expenditure in the period 1984–85 to 1986–87 includes grants totalling over £5·5 million paid under the Department's first under-fives initiative.

  The total figures quoted represent the following percentages of the gross domestic product for each of the years in question:

  Year

  Percentage of GDP

  1975–76

  0·024

  1976–77

  0·025

  1977–78

  0·024

  1978–79

  0·024

  1979–80

  0·023

  1980–81

  0·027

  1981–82

  0·028

  1982–83

  0·028

  1983–84

  0·028

  1984–85

  0·028

  1985–86

  0·026

  1986–87

  0·028

  1987–88

  0·027

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why the figure of 30 was chosen as the cut-off point on the Jarman index for general practitioners to receive deprivation payments.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A cut-off point of 30 on the Jarman index was chosen to target the deprivation payments on those practices that serve areas of highest deprivation. A figure of 30 means that some 9 per cent. of the population in England will attract a payment for then-general practitioner in some 5 per cent. of the wards.

  Private Dentists
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the average charge made by private dentists in England and Wales for the initial 15-minute consultation;

  (2) what percentage of dentists practising in England and Wales in each year since 1980 have not treated any patients under the National Health Service;

  (3) what percentage of dentists who previously provided dental care under the National Health Service have opted instead to provide private treatment only, in the last 10 years, listed by year;

  (4) what percentage of those treated have received dental care from the private sector in the last 10 years, listed by year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department does not keep records of the extent or cost of private treatment or of the number of dentists practising privately.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the progress of work towards the audit of energy efficiency within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  The audit of energy efficiency is being conducted jointly by the audit branch of the Department of Health and the Audit Commission. It is intended that the Audit Commission will assume full responsibility for the audit of the NHS in October 1990 as announced in the National Health Service White Paper. The energy audit is being conducted at the majority of health authorities in England and it is expected that the final report will be published towards the end of 1990. The audit has been extended to Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and France based on the approach pioneered in England. The audit methodology is based upon research carried out by Audit Commission, the Department's audit branch, and guidance on energy efficiency promulgated in Encode.

  Westminster and Chelsea Hospital Scheme
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give increased funding to the North-West Thames regional health authority to reflect the increased cost of the Westminster and Chelsea hospital scheme;

  (2) what are the reasons for the increased capital costs of the Westminster and Chelsea hospital scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The total construction cost of the Chelsea and Westminster hospital is projected to be £177 million when completed. North West Thames regional health authority reviewed its capital programme in January as a result of these and other increasing costs, which are due to the high and increasing cost of building in London, and the fall in residential property values. A number of schemes have been deferred for 18 months to two years. North West Thames regional health authority, however, expect that proceeds from land sales will more than cover the cost of the Chelsea and Westminister hospital.

  National Health Service Reforms
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of each of the consultancy contracts entered into by his Department in connection with the National Health Service reforms.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The information requested is as follows:

  Purpose of contract

  Anticipated total cost £

  Launch to the Staff of the National Health Service of the White Paper

  1,168,000

  Launch to the Staff of the National Health Service of the Self Governing Hospitals Initiative

  838,000

  Development of the National Health Service Communications Programme to improve communications between National Health Service Management and Staff

  994,000

  Report on contracting arrangements for patient services

  6,325

  432

  Purpose of contract

  Anticipated total cost £

  Working on costing for patient services contracts

  70,000

  Work on costing for patient services contracts within Wirral Health Authority

  Analysis of the informal cost sharing arrangements between Medical Schools and Teaching Hospitals in Southampton Health Authority

  64,350

  Production of a booklet on the outpatient environment

  17,000

  Development of training material for Capital Charges

  128,000

  Production of General Practitioner's Funding Programme

  109,126

  Leaflet for General Practitioner's on prescribing budgets

  Artwork/layout of a second Working Paper on prescribing budgets

  Work on Indicative Prescribing Budgets

  Investigation of District Information Systems

  60,800

  Co-ordination of my Department's Information projects

  71,600

  New arrangements for approval and monitoring of strategic Information Technology projects

  12,000

  Investigation of the Information Technology requirements for providers of patient services

  14,300

  Investigation of the Information Technology implications of proposed changes to Minimum Data sets

  14,300

  Investigation of the requirements for patient identification on existing computer systems

  14,300

  Investigation of the impact of the White Paper recommendations on existing computer based outpatient systems

  14,300

  Development of an Information Technology strategy for the National Health Service

  525,000

  Development of National Health Service Trusts. Financial Management simulation exercise

  72,600

  National Health Service Trusts leadership and management skills study

  19,000

  Recommendations on support for potential National Health Service Trusts

  15,000

  Development of Learning Sets for potential community care National Health Service Trusts

  75,000

  Preparation of proposals for guidance and training for top Management in the National Health Service, to support introduction of local pay flexibility

  57,000

  To investigation of the costing methods in the National Health Service and determination of the most appropriate for application in support of contract price setting

  40,000

  433
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of his Department's contracts with outside consultants on the National Health Service hospital service reforms deals with the quality of services provided under National Health Service contracts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No contracts with outside consultants have concerned quality of services to be provided under National Health Service hospital service contracts but health authorities have developed quality specification for the specimen contracts published in "Contracts for Health Services: Operating Contracts".

  Ambulance Staff
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total cost of the ambulance staff pay award in each of its two years for(a) the United Kingdom as a whole and (b) England only.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Estimated increases over 1988–89 costs of the revised pay offer, excluding local flexibility payments from 1 October 1990, are in the table:

  Increase in employers' pay costs for ambulance staff

  United Kingdom £ million

  England £ million

  1989–90

  23·1

  18·8

  1990–91

  37·2

  30·3

  Pregnant Women (Tests)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which district health authorities the AFP test is routinely offered to pregnant women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally. However, a departmental survey conducted last year showed that the test was offered in about 60 per cent. of districts and was increasingly becoming available.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which district health authorities the ante-natal maternal serum screening test for Down's syndrome is routinely offered to pregnant women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The use of maternal serum screening for Down's syndrome is a procedure under research at the medical college of St. Bartholomew's Hospital. I understand that the procedure offers early identification of about half the women with a Down's syndrome foetus who can then be offered amniocentesis for definitive diagnosis test. The test is not yet provided as part of routine antenatal care outside the City and Hackney health district, but some districts are referring women known to be at risk to St. Bartholomew's and a few other centres are starting trials of the procedure.

  Physiotherapy, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the district physiotherapy service in Liverpool.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The planning and development of the physiotherapy service in Liverpool is a matter 434
  for the Liverpool district health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the authority, Mr. J. B. Fitzpatrick.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will require the document "Application for National Health Service Trust Status" to be given by Mersey regional health authority to its employees for the purposes of consultation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  When, subject to the passage of the necessary legislation, applications for National Health Service trust status are submitted, we will look to regional health authorities to make whatever arrangements they consider necessary to ensure that those with an interest, including staff, are consulted about the proposals.

  EC Intervention Butter
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether National Health Service hospitals are permitted to sell European Community intervention butter on their premises at a profit.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The butter that health authorities receive via the intervention board is for the use of patients and staff only, and we have no knowledge of any such butter being sold at a profit.

  In-patients
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average length of in-patient stay on(a) 30 September 1979 and (b) 30 September 1988.

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

  Average length of stay in days of patients treated in National Health Service hospitals in England (by sector of treatment)

  1979

  1988

  Acute medical

  11·2

  8·2

  Acute surgical

  8·1

  7·2

  Geriatrics

  77·5

  41·4

  Maternity

  6·0

  4·0

  Sources:

  1979—Hospital in-patient inquiry.

  1988—Hospital episode system.

  This information is drawn from Department of Health statistical bulletin 2/1/90 published in January 1990. Copies of the bulletin have been placed in the Library.

  Cardiac Patients, Yorkshire
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had concerning the number of beds for cardiac patients in the Leeds Western health authority area; if he will review the provision of beds for cardiac patients within the Yorkshire regional health authority area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a number of letters about cardiac services in Yorkshire RHA. The local provision of services is the responsibility of the health authority concerned; the hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Bryan Askew, chairman of Yorkshire regional
  435
  health authority for further information. The hon. Member will know that Yorkshire regional health authority is currently reviewing its provision of cardiothoracic services.

  Carers
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what illnesses and accidents have been identified as particularly associated with carers; and what plans he has to help reduce this incidence.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no specific information about carer-related illness and accidents. The provision of practical support for carers is the second of the key objectives identified in the White Paper "Caring for People". The White Paper emphasises that assessments should take account of the carer's wishes, and of his or her ability to continue to provide care. Social services authorities should seek to provide practical support and respite care where necessary.

  Sexual Harassment
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Civil Service policy on sexual harassment is set out in the programme of action to achieve equal opportunities for women in the Civil Service which was published by Cabinet Office in 1984. Sexual harassment at work is not tolerated and is dealt with as a disciplinary matter through the normal complaints procedures.

  The Department of Health has brought this policy, together with guidance on complaints procedures, to the attention of all staff in a departmental circular. Records are not kept of any complaints which are dealt with by immediate line management but serious complaints are referred to the Department's personnel division for

  National Health Service region

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Northern

  2

  —

  4

  —

  1

  3

  5

  —

  2

  1

  1

  Yorkshire

  3

  —

  1

  3

  3

  1

  4

  3

  4

  2

  10

  Trent

  3

  2

  4

  4

  6

  2

  4

  6

  3

  —

  2

  East Anglia

  3

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  3

  —

  2

  3

  1

  North West Thames

  —

  —

  2

  3

  5

  3

  —

  2

  3

  1

  1

  North East Thames

  2

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  South East Thames

  3

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  4

  2

  1

  3

  1

  South West Thames

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wessex

  4

  —

  5

  2

  3

  5

  7

  5

  5

  2

  7

  Oxford

  3

  1

  3

  —

  5

  1

  4

  1

  4

  2

  5

  South Western

  4

  2

  2

  —

  19

  10

  18

  14

  12

  9

  11

  West Midlands

  —

  1

  1

  4

  5

  4

  7

  3

  6

  9

  4

  Mersey

  5

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  2

  1

  5

  1

  2

  North Western

  2

  3

  —

  4

  8

  5

  —

  2

  7

  7

  2

  Wales

  1

  2

  1

  4

  2

  5

  4

  —

  3

  3

  TOTAL

  35

  11

  25

  27

  68

  41

  65

  45

  56

  46

  53

  436
  appropriate action. Since Department of Health records began in April 1989, following the separation of the Department of Health and Social Security, there have been no such referrals.

  Well Women Clinics
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of well women clinics in each regional health authority in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Child Care
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to monitor child care provision offered by local authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Local authorities regularly provide the Department with statistics about the provision for pre-school children in their locality including the services they provide themselves. This is published annually in "Children's Day Care Facilities at 31 March" and is available in the Library.

  Weil's Disease
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of cases of Weil's disease in each health authority area in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 15 February 1990]: Laboratory reports of leptospirosis to the communicable disease surveillance centre provided by health authorities for England and Wales are given in the following table. The figures include Weil's disease. There are a number of different serogroups of leptospira causing a range of clinical infections. Leptospira icterohaemorrhagiae is the serogroup which may give rise in this country to the clinical presentation of Weil's disease. For the period 1979–89, leptospira icterohaemorrhagiae accounted for roughly one third of the laboratory reports of leptospirosis.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will express Ealing's rates as a community charge for(a) 1985–86, (b) 1986–87, (c) 1987–88 and (d) 1989–90; what a community charge of (i) £450 and (ii) £494 in Ealing would be expressed as a rate poundage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  It would not be meaningful to convert rate poundages into community charges in the way requested. It is our intention when community charges are finally set to say what the increase would have been in domestic rates had that taken the place of the community charge.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to include in his orders for community charge capping a requirement for affected councils to notify all charge payers of the new rate of charge; if he will estimate the cost of this measure; and what is his policy as to whether that cost will be born by the council as part of its level of spending that central government will have approved.

  Mr. Chope
  If any authority were to be capped, it would be necessary for the charging authority or authorities for the area concerned to inform chargepayers of the new level of community charges which would result. As my right hon. Friend has made clear, it would not be right for him to speculate on the operation of any capping scheme which might need to be introduced for 1990–91.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out in the Official Report the calculations showing how the London borough of Newham contributes £3·06 million to the safety net arrangements for each of the elements described in the annex to the Revenue Support Grant Transition Report HC50 of January.

  Mr. Chope
  The adjustment to Newham's revenue support grant entitlement for 1990–91 of —£3,057,835 set out in the revenue support grant transitional report (England) was calculated as 53·624562 per cent. of the difference between the figure arrived at under paragraph 3 of the annex to that report (the amount to be raised from the domestic sector in 1990–91: £49,014,662) and the figure arrived at under paragraph 2 of that annex (the amount raised from the domestic sector in 1989–90: £54,716,964). 53·624562 is the percentage referred to in paragraph 4 of the annex.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average community charge to be levied in each of the district council areas of Shropshire and Powys.

  Mr. Chope
  No returns providing information on average charges have been received by the Department or by the Welsh Office for the districts concerned.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 27 February,Official Report, columns 173–74, to the hon. Member for Conventry, South-East, and his reply to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) of 21 February, Official Report, column 741, he will give any information he has about the level of personal community charges.
  438
  Mr. Chope
  No. At the moment I have information for only a small miniority of authorities.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many exemptions have been given to disabled people eligible to pay the community charge; and if he will list the categories of people who have(a) been exempted from the community charge and (b) sought such exemptions but have been rejected.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the position of disabled people and their requirement to meet payments in connection with the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  We continue to receive representation on all aspects of the community charge. Generous help is available to disabled people with low incomes who are subject to a personal community charge. The community charge benefit scheme includes a disability premium which means that disabled people may qualify for rebates at higher levels of income than other claimants. Disabled people who have not previously paid rates may be eligible for extra help under the community charge transitional relief scheme.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his reply of 14 February,Official Report, column 222, concerning the amount of poll tax payable in 1990–91 per adult, whether the proposed reduction of 28 per cent. in the local payers' contribution to local expenditure in Bedfordshire assumes an increase in the per adult contribution made by central Government; and whether he will publish the per adult figures for the central Government contribution in each case together with figures showing that contribution as a percentage of the local payers' contribution.

  Mr. Christopher Chope
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: The Government have not proposed a specific increase in local contribution to expenditure in Bedfordshire. I refer the hon. Member to the answer to him on 27 February, Official Report column 179. Equivalent figures for Bedfordshire are as follows:

  External support for Bedfordshire

  External support per adult

  External support as percentage of rate/ chargepayer contribution

  Underlying 1990–91 assumed community charge with safety net

  478

  162·1

  Underlying 1989–90 average rate bill per adult

  412

  126·9

  Underlying assumed long run community charge

  528

  216·0

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his reply 14 February,Official Report, column 222, concerning the amount of poll tax payable in 1990–91 per adult, whether the proposed reduction of 34 per cent. in the local payer's contribution

  439
  to local expenditure in Berkshire assumes an increase in the per adult contribution made by central Government; and whether he will publish the per adult figures for the central Government contribution in each case together with figures showing that contribution as a percentage of the local payer's contribution.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: The Government have not proposed a specific increase in local contribution to expenditure in Berkshire. I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him on 27 February, Official Report, column 179. Equivalent figures for Berkshire are as follows:

  External support for Berkshire

  External support per adult £

  External support as percentage of rate/ chargepayer contribution

  Underlying 1990–91 assumed community charge with safety net

  448

  172·5

  Underlying 1989–90 average rate bill per adult

  363

  121·2

  Underlying assumed long run community charge

  502

  244·2

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment up to what expenditure figure per head of population Tonbridge and Mailing borough council will be able to spend in 1990–91 to enable its comunity charge payers to pay no more than £3 a week over their 1989–90 rates under the transitional relief scheme for individuals he announced in October 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 2 March 1990]: There will be no increase greater than the maximum allowed by the transitional relief scheme provided the community charge set by Tonbridge and Mailing is no more than £227·69. It is not possible to estimate the level of spending by Tonbridge and Mailing borough council which would give rise to a change at this level since the charge depends largely on spending by Kent county council and the use both authorities make of reserves.

  Local Authorities (Reserves and Balances)
  Mr. Austin Michell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the reductions in local authority reserves and balances for 1989–90 and those assumed for 1990–91.

  £ million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  New build

  71

  53

  64

  89

  88

  85

  Maintenance

  73

  101

  99

  108

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the net income levels planned for Property Services Agency services for each of the next three years from 1 April.

  Mr. Chope
  The net income of PSA Services in the years 1990–91 to 1992–93 will depend on the volume of business won in competition. For planning purposes it is currently
  440
  Mr. Chope
  Local authorities have planned to use £625 million of rate fund revenue account balances and £162 million of housing revenue account balances in 1989–90. Information on planned use of balances in 1989–90 on other accounts is not available.

  In 1990–91 it has been assumed for the purpose of calculating the community charge for standard spending that authorities do not make any use of rate fund revenue account balances. No assumptions have been made about the use of housing revenue account balances in 1990–91.

  Environmental Protection
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans to hold any consultation with the countryside interpretation unit, based at the Open university in Milton Keynes, following his announcement to the Countryside Commission on 13 December, of new planning arrangements for environmental protection of the countryside.

  Mr. Moynihan
  On 13 December my right hon. Friend announced publication of draft planning guidance on "The Countryside and the Rural Economy", on which comments were invited by 19 February. The 310 or so responses so far received do not include one from the countryside interpretation unit, but it will be possible to consider any comments the unit wishes to make if these are submitted soon.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the expected values of building contracts for(a) new build and (b) repair and maintenance, managed by Property Holdings after 1 April, for each of the next three years on the common user estate; and what were the equivalent figures for each of the previous three years under the old Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Chope
  The table lists the expenditure on, or for future years provision for, design and construction costs on new builds for the six years requested. For maintenance, the figures sought are not available for 1991–92 and 1992–93, as there is to be a further reallocation of responsibilities between Property Holdings and Departments which will take effect from 1 April 1991.

  assumed that the operating surplus, after any eligible charges for depreciation and interest on capital, and before extraordinary items, will be as follows:

  441

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Nil

  7

  28

  These figures are, however, subject to review in the light of the proposed privatisation of PSA Services.

  Dr. Martin Holdgate
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to obtain a transcript of the lecture by Dr. Martin Holdgate on the environment given at the Royal Society on 26 February for his Department's Library.

  Mr. Trippier
  A transcript of Dr. Holdgate's David Davies Memorial Institute of International Studies lecture has been obtained and lodged in the Department of the Environment library and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes dated 8 December (reference HU/PSO/40389/89).

  Mr. Chope
  I have written to my hon. Friend today.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes dated 8 September (reference HU/PSO/30545/89).

  Mr. Chope
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 27 February.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new subsidised houses for rent housing associations have built in each year since 1970; and how many they plan to build in the next five years.

  Mr. Chope
  Numbers of housebuilding completions for rent and of renovations for rent by housing associations in England are as follows:

  Completions1

  Renovations2

  1970

  8,200

  2,700

  1971

  10,200

  5,000

  1972

  6,900

  4,200

  1973

  8,300

  3,200

  1974

  9,300

  4,000

  1975

  13,700

  4,600

  1976

  14,400

  13,400

  1977

  24,200

  18,800

  1978

  20,600

  13,100

  1979

  16,300

  17,200

  1980

  19,300

  14,700

  1981

  16,800

  11,200

  1982

  11,100

  17,400

  1983

  14,200

  14,500

  1984

  13,700

  18,500

  1985

  11,200

  11,400

  1986

  10,000

  12,700

  1987

  9,600

  11,100

  1988

  9,100

  11,500

  19893

  8,700

  49,500

  P = provisional

  1 Before 1980 completions data includes built for sale
  442
  (co-ownership).

  2 Before 1978 refers to work approved, thereafter to work completed. Before 1985 includes hostel bedspaces (some 2,000 1984). From 1981 includes improvement for sale (11,800 sales up to 30 September 1989).

  3 Provisional.

  4 January to September.

  The Department does not make forecasts of housebuilding completions; the Housing Corporation publishes details of its approved development programme for registered housing associations—a copy is in the Library—and these reflect the substantial increase in resources for housing associations in the current public expenditure plans.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the transfer of local government housing departments to housing associations.

  Mr. Chope
  Our criteria are set out in the guidelines, "Large Scale Voluntary Transfers of Local Authority Housing to Private Bodies", a copy of which is in the Library.

  PCBs and Ugilec
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will conduct a study on the comparative environmental risks of polychlorinated biphenyls and ugilec.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Commission of the European Communities has recently made a proposal to the Council of Ministers for a directive to prohibit the marketing and use of ugilec 141 and ugilec 121 in the Community. I understand that neither of these substances has been used to a significant extent in this country. However, the Government will be pressing for a full assessment, at the Community level, of the risks posed by these substances compared with the risks of PCBs which they are intended to replace.

  British Sport Exhibition
  Mr. Denis Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to British sport to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 5 March to 9 March.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implementing of competitive tendering of refuse contracts by local authorities in East Anglia.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Local authorities in England that do not qualify for exemption on de minimis grounds are required to put certain of their services, including refuse collection, out to tender in accordance with a timetable prescribed in the Local Government 1988 (Defined Activities) (Competition) (England) Regulations 1988, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
  443
  Different authorities are required to have completed the tendering process for different services by varying dates between 1 August 1989 and 1 January 1992. This timetable was designed not only to phase the tendering process for authorities but also to assist contracts by ensuring that not all services were being put out to tender at the same time.

  No comprehensive information is available as yet about the implementation of the legislation in relation to particular authorities or services, and it would only be possible to compile such information at disproportionate cost.

  An in-depth research project is currently being carried out on behalf of the Department to assess the impact of the legislation on a representative sample of authorities drawn from the country as a whole. This will examine costs incurred and savings made. We expect the first phase to be completed early in the summer. Local authorities have also been asked to complete a questionnaire providing information on the number of contracts awarded to DSOs and private contractors and the responses to that questionnaire are now being processed.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will set out a table showing from 1979 to the latest available year (i) each district council in Suffolk, (ii) each district council in Norfolk and (iii) average of all English district councils:(a) what services have been put out to competitive tender, (b) what savings have been made thereby in real terms and (c) what estimated real terms cost per head of population over 18 years column (b) represents;

  (2) if he will set out a table showing from 1979 to the latest available year (i) Suffolk county council, (ii) Norfolk county council and (iii) average of all shire counties: (a) what services have been put out to competitive tender, (b) what savings have been made thereby in real terms and (c) what estimated real terms cost per head of population over 18 years column (b) represents.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him today on the subject of competitive tendering. Information about services put out to tender on a voluntary basis before the Local Government Act 1988 came into force is not available centrally.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to bring forward further measures to oblige local authorities to put out more services to competitive tender.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are no immediate plans to extend the number of services which authorities are required to put out to tender under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which services have been put out to competitive tender by London boroughs, indicating in each case whether they have gone to in-house staff or out to private contractors.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out a table showing from 1983 to the last available year, for Chelmsford borough council and Essex county council(a) what services have been put out to competitive tender, (b) what savings have been made in cash and real terms and (c) what estimated savings per head of population aged 18 years and over have been made in (b).
  444
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer my hon. Friends to the replies that I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter).

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of his Department's management training courses include sessions on equal opportunities for women; and what proportion of managers, at grade six level and above, working outside headquarters has received training on equal opportunities for women.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  All the management training courses used by the Department have an equal opportunities content, and in the case of the Department's own courses this is currently being reviewed and strengthened. Courses specifically aimed at women in middle management are also available. Figures on the proportion of senior managers outside headquarters who have received training on equal opportunities for women are not available.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a breakdown of the number of local authority employees by sex.

  Mr. Chope
  In mid–1989 local authorities in the United Kingdom employed 1,165,000 male staff and 1,768,000 female staff. These and further details are published by the Central Statistical Office in an article "Employment in the public and private sectors" in the December 1989 issue of Economic Trends.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken, and what action he intends taking, to implement the recommendations within his area of responsibility for the European Commission's child care network report "Caring for Children—Services and Policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom".

  Mr. Patten
  This report was prepared for the European Commission which has not yet developed any proposals. The Government believe that policy on child care is a matter for member states. The United Kingdom's policy is that it is for families themselves to determine how their children are to be brought up, and how parents who wish to do so can best combine paid work and family responsibilities. The Government, through the Department of Health and the ministerial group on women's issues, has encouraged the development of a range of high-quality child care options for both parents and employers.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of the employees; what child care provision for school holidays or after-school care is provided for employees' children aged five years or over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Patten
  My Department supports an interdepartmental holiday play scheme in central London and, with the trades union side, has provided a play scheme to support residential training courses. The Property Services Agency, in co-operation with the Home Office, is arranging a play scheme in Croydon in the spring.
  445
  In central London we have undertaken a feasibility study for a nursery; studies are also in hand for a play scheme-nursery at the Building Research Establishment and we are looking at the possibility of co-operating with other employers in providing child care at our regional offices and outside London in the south-east. These studies include an analysis of the funding options.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grade is his Department's equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Grade5—assistant secretary.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he has implemented to ensure that recruitment and promotion policy in his Department does not directly or indirectly discriminate against applicants who were mature students or women returning to work following a career break due to child care.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My Department has a policy of fair and open competition in recruitment. The criterion for age is that new entrants must be able to give effective service before retirement; for example the upper age limits for clerical recruitment is 60. Promotion is wholly on merit. We offer staff career breaks of up to five years, based on special leave. We encourage staff to return by running a keeping in touch scheme and we will shortly be running training for staff returning to work. We offer part-time working, job sharing and flexible working hours.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of civil servants in his Department are women at each of grades seven, six, five, four, three, two and one.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The number of women employed at grades 7–1 in DOE (Central) at 1 March 1990 was as follows:

  Grade

  Women

  Per cent.

  7

  98

  16

  6

  4

  4

  5

  18

  14

  4

  1

  14

  3

  4

  12

  At present no women are employed in grades two and one.

  Rehousing
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities that accept domestic violence as a criterion for rehousing.

  Mr. Chope
  This information is not available centrally. It is for each local authority to decide its own policy on allocating its own housing, and it is not required to inform my Department.

  Sexual Harassment
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken;
  446
  (2) whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Sexual harassment at work is not tolerated and is dealt with as a disciplinary matter. Guidance on this policy has been issued to all staff making clear that, among other things, the display of such items a s sexually explicit calendars is unacceptable. No central record of complaints was kept until mid-1986. Since then there have been five complaints wyhich have been fully investigated. It is not the Department's practice to publish the disciplinary action taken in individual cases.

  Tyres
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce regulations to control the dumping and recycling of tyres and the processes connected therewith; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The introduction of regulations would not be appropriate. The treatment and disposal of waste tyres is already subject to licensing controls by waste disposal authorities under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. These controls are being strengthened in the Environmental Protection Bill and proposals for a duty of care will also require producers and handlers to avoid risks of pollution or harm to human health in their treatment, keeping and disposal of all wastes, including tyres.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the moneys allocated for public relations and advertising by Leeds development corporation in 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Leeds development corporation's budget for promotion and publicity, which includes the corporation's activities in marketing its area is £320,000 in 1989–90 and £480,000 in 1990–91.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sum Leeds development corporation has spent on advertising and display signs.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The amount spent by Leeds Development Corporation since designation in June 1988 on promotion and publicity is £488,000 of which £26,500 has been spent on display signs.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the compulsory purchase powers of Leeds development corporation outside the designated Leeds development corporation area; and what guidelines are issued by his Department in relation to the use of such powers.

  Mr. Moynihan
  An urban development corporation is empowered by section 142 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to acquire compulsorily land outside its area which is adjacent to its designated area and required for purposes connected with the regeneration of its area; or required for the provision of services, whether or not the land is adjacent to its area. The Department has drawn UDC's attention to these statutory provisions and their interpretation.

  Council House Sales
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide the latest available figures for the number of houses or flats sold to tenants under section 164 of the Local Government and Housing Act for every local authority.

  Mr. Chope
  Section 164 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 brings within the right to buy housing, other than sheltered housing, which is particularly suitable for elderly people and was first let on or after 1 January 1990. The change in the law applies only where the tenant claimed the right to buy on or after 1 March, so sales are unlikely to be completed for some time. An existing non-sheltered property, first let before 1 January, may still be excluded from the right to buy, but only if the Secretary of State determines on the application of the landlord that it is particularly suitable for elderly people and was let for occupation by a person of pensionable age. No application for a determination has yet been received.

  Waste Imports
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what regulations are currently in force to control and prevent the importation of waste for direct landfill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The import of hazardous waste for any kind of disposal is controlled through the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988. Under these regulations, shipments of hazardous waste must be pre-notified to the disposal authority who have certain powers of objection. But, the import of waste for direct landfill cannot be prevented where the waste presents no danger to animal or plant health.

  However, the Government have made clear their view that the transfrontier shipment of waste for direct landfill is generally not justified. We are seeking powers in the Environmental Protection Bill which would allow the prohibition of imported wastes where this is necessary either to prevent risk of pollution or harm to human health, or in order to conserve facilities or resources for dealing with waste.

  Palace of Westminster Rifle Range
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 28 February, whether any work other than safety work has been carried out on the Palace of Westminster rifle range; and what is the annual cost of providing this facility for hon. Members and others.

  Mr. Chope
  Safety work, and the consequent making good, was carried out to allow the range to continue to be used for rifle shooting and to extend its use to pistol shooting. Apart from heating and lighting, which is not separately monitored, the only other costs borne on the parliamentary works subhead (class XX, vote 18) is for occasional minor maintenance.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the reply made in Standing Committee H considering the Environmental Protection 448
  Bill, by the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, 22 February, Official Report, column 688, which organisations and institutions will be consulted on the regulations governing the criteria to be adopted for accrediting potential persons fit and proper to manage wastes.

  Mr. Trippier
  As is customary, a wide range of organisations representing local authorities, industry—including the waste management industry—and environmental interests will be consulted on both the draft regulations and on the guidance to local authorities. Together these will set the framework for the authorities to determine whether persons are fit and proper to hold waste management licences.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effects of part VI of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 on levels of homelessness.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Part VI of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 will encourage greater efficiency in the management and utilisation of council housing, and should therefore make a positive contribution to reducing levels of homelessness.

  Council House Rents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations were received on the possible effect of part VI of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 on council house rents during its passage through the House.

  Mr. Chope
  Various representations were received, principally that council rents should be set at levels which the tenants can afford and should not be subject to unreasonable sudden increases. Both these objectives will be met if councils follow the guidelines set for them within the new system. The level of council rents remains a matter for individual councils.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of financial assistance offered to local authorities along the north Devon coast in respect of capital costs incurred in relation to recent storm damage.

  Mr. Chope
  We wrote to local authorities on 6 February indicating that the Department would be prepared to consider issuing in appropriate circumstances additional capital allocations or borrowing approvals in respect of expenditure in 1989–90 and supplementary credit approvals in respect of expenditure in 1990–91 incurred as a result of the storms of 16 and 17 December or 25 January of floods in the Severn valley following 29 January. Applications should be submitted by 30 June 1990. None have yet been received from authorities in Devon.

  Water Privatisation
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what customer service committees covering which geographical areas in England had been brought into being under the Water Act 1989 by 31 January.
  449
  Mr. Trippier
  It is for the Director General of Water Services to establish customer service committees under the Water Act 1989. He announced on 27 February the appointment of a chairman for each of the 10 committees which between them will cover the whole of England and Wales.

  Water Charges
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he made appropriate adjustments as described in the final sentence of the then Minister responsible for water's reply to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) on 14 March 1989,Official Report, column 213, before he announced his proposals for the K factor of the West Kent water company on 7 February.

  Mr. Trippier
  Yes.

  Garden Festival Site, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been spent to date on the reclamation of land at the international garden festival site, Liverpool; what is the annual maintenance cost; and what consideration he has given to the designation of the site as a royal park.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The garden festival site was reclaimed as part of a wider land reclamation scheme in the Liverpool south docks area, the total cost of which was £10·6 million. The current annual maintenance cost of the festival park is £200,000. Royal parks are of special origin and significance and there is no intention to add to their number.

  Local Authorities (Economic Development)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet prepared the regulations under section 33 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Department has now sent copies of draft regulations to the local authority associations and others for comment. I have arranged for a copy of the draft to be placed in the library of the House.

  The regulations cover those restrictions which will apply to the use of the new power for local authorities to promote economic development. They follow the proposals contained in the Government's consultation paper of August 1989, with some changes.

  The requirement for non-local education authorities to agree individual education and training proposals with their education authority, is replaced by a requirement for agreement to a broad programme of activities. There will be a period during which such programmes can be agreed.

  The requirement to get agreement of the authority in whose area another local authority may be planning an activity is replaced by a requirement to consult.

  Instead of prohibition on "soft loans", their true cost is to be identified in a special memorandum account.

  The cities of Exeter, Hereford, Worcester and York and the London borough of Ealing are to be added to the list of authorities allowed to give financial assistance above the value of £10,000 to businesses conducted with a view to a profit.
  450
  Annual average levels of unemployment have been used instead of a single month's figures as one of the qualifications for designating authorities as able to give such assistance.

  Procedures for the notification of local authority aid to the European Commission will be contained in further regulations, which will not come into effect before 1 July 1990.

  The draft regulations provide for the restrictions to apply from 1 April 1990 to the new power. They will extend from 1 July 1990 to activities for the promotion of economic development carried on under any other enactment.

  Waste Water Treatment
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the study into the environment and financial implications of the draft directive on municipal waste water treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have now received the report commissioned from Consultants in Environmental Sciences Limited which assesses the environmental effects and the costs of treating all sewage before discharge to estuaries and coastal waters. On the environmental side the report does not identify any firm evidence that present policies have a detrimental effect on the marine environment but it nonetheless identifies environmental benefits that should accrue if sewage discharges were treated. On costs the report shows a wide range depending on the degree of treatment provided. The central option of secondary treatment for discharges to estuarial waters, and primary treatment for discharges to coastal waters has associated capital costs estimated at around £1·5 billion, and an associated increase in running costs of around £45 million per annum.

  A key recommendation in the report is that a decision on future policy should be taken as soon as possible in order to maximise the return on the £1·4 billion investments already planned over the next 10 years to improve the quality of bathing waters.

  The Government have considered the results of this study, and the views of other interested parties as summarised in the CES report. We have concluded that on the evidence provided a case can be made out for treating all substantial discharges of sewage. We have accordingly decided that in general municipal sewage should receive secondary treatment, but that primary treatment would be more appropriate for discharges to coastal waters, where it can be shown that this does not adversely affect the environment. The estimated cost of introducing this level of treatment is around 1·5 billion.

  We intend that this new investment programme should be fully integrated with the programme to improve bathing waters and that it should be completed as soon as practicable. Discussions will be held with the National Rivers Authority, the Office of Water Services, and the sewerage undertakers to work out the detailed arrangements for implementing this policy.

  Copies of the CES report are being placed in the Library.

  Duchy of Lancaster
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost of providing a secure car service for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 22 February 1990]The cost of providing a secure car service for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the past 12 months was £34,404.

  Waste Recycling
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to provide additional resources to assist local authorities to carry out waste paper collection and recycling.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 22 February 1990]: No, it would be wrong to subsidise the collection and recycling of waste in this way. The collection and recycling of waste paper is a part of a comprehensive approach to recycling which local authorities are being encouraged to adopt under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Bill, currently before Parliament.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department now collects information on the number of local authorities which separate their domestic waste into different categories for recycling purposes.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 22 February 1990]: I announced on 20 February during Standing Committee H consideration of clause 40 of the Environmental Protection Bill that my Department is sending out to local authorities a comprehensive questionnaire on recycling which will seek, among other things, information about the number of authorities which separate their domestic waste into different categories for recycling purposes.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the annual management and maintenance costs of empty residential properties belonging to his Department by region of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]The costs of annual management and maintenance of empty residential properties are not separately identified and could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Shire Counties (Grants)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total Government grant per head of population for each shire county for 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: Revenue support grant will not be paid directly to shire counties in 1990–91. The table shows the average revenue support grant after transitional adjustments plus special grant for low rateable value areas, per adult, to be paid to district councils in the area of each shire county.

  Each area will receive £292·51 per adult in business rate income. The Government will also pay specific grants to authorities in the area of each shire county, but I have no estimates of the amounts.
  452

  Shire counties

  (£/adult)

  Avon

  163

  Bedfordshire

  185

  Berkshire

  156

  Buckinghamshire

  143

  Cambridgeshire

  156

  Cheshire

  164

  Cleveland

  381

  Cornwall

  191

  Cumbria

  236

  Derbyshire

  186

  Devon

  167

  Dorset

  75

  Durham

  261

  East Sussex

  97

  Essex

  124

  Gloucestershire

  135

  Hampshire

  130

  Hereford and Worcester

  117

  Hertfordshire

  126

  Humberside

  302

  Isle of Wight

  151

  Kent

  177

  Lancashire

  273

  Leicestershire

  235

  Lincolnshire

  176

  Norfolk

  129

  Northamptonshire

  213

  Northumberland

  240

  North Yorkshire

  166

  Nottinghamshire

  212

  Oxfordshire

  86

  Shropshire

  204

  Somerset

  149

  Staffordshire

  151

  Suffolk

  137

  Surrey

  60

  Warwickshire

  108

  West Sussex

  72

  Wiltshire

  151

  Housing Allocations (Marriage Breakdowns)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of local authority-owned flats and houses during each of the last five years have been allocated to those whose marriages have broken down.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 2 March 1990]: My Department has no information year by year on the proportion of new lettings by local authorities that are to people whose marriages have broken down. Survey evidence suggests that in the mid-1980s the number of new lettings by local authorities to successor households formed through divorce was about 40,000 a year in England, compared with about 240,000 new lettings a year in total.

  Housing Scheme (Liverpool)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the bond made between the Merseyside development corporation and the developers of the housing schemes at Riverside drive, Liverpool, and the reasons for the non-completion of building work.
  453
  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 2 March 1990]: No bond was made between the Merseyside development corporation and the housing developers. All the houses have been completed but I understand that certain additional works to the estate have not been finished because the developers are now in voluntary liquidation.

  House of Commons (Repairs)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cash-limited amount for minor repairs at the House of Commons in 1989–90.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 2 March 1990]: Minor maintenance work is charged to class XX, vote 18, subhead G (Maintenance and other operating costs) for which the provision in 1989–90, following the supplementary estimate, is £6,003,000.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Deportation Orders
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been served with the notice of the intention to make deportation orders against them in the past 12 months; and how many of these were of Irish origin.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  During 1989, 3,196 notices of intention to deport were issued, of which four were to citizens of the Republic of Ireland.

  Passports
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department following the review of the telephone systems within the passport department, what percentage of responses to callers are made within two minutes of connection.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are currently undertaking a survey of telephone traffic into all passport offices, in consultation with British Telecom. An analysis of the results of the survey will be made later this year.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for(a) new passports, and (b) amendments to passports were received each month in 1989.

  London

  Liverpool

  Peterborough

  Newport

  Glasgow

  Belfast

  Total

  1989

  January

  49·5

  40

  63

  35

  5

  1

  193·5

  February

  54

  72

  84

  65

  22

  2

  299

  March

  48

  82

  79

  70

  38

  6

  323

  April

  50·5

  95

  91

  70

  50

  4

  360·5

  May

  66

  103

  90

  86

  52

  7

  404

  June

  60·5

  91

  82

  73

  54

  14

  374·5

  July

  59

  75

  75

  75

  50

  16

  350

  August

  59·9

  53

  61

  52

  42

  8

  275·5

  September

  23·5

  50

  46

  33

  8

  4

  164·5

  October

  13

  3

  17

  3

  7

  1

  44

  November

  —

  2

  16

  2

  7

  1

  28

  December

  —

  1

  4

  2

  7

  1

  15

  Salary cost of casual staff in 1989: £1,605,933.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff not employed as permanent members of staff have worked for a continuous period of(a) three months, (b) six months and (c) nine months or more in 1989, showing the information for each passport office.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows the number of casual staff employed continuously at each regional passport office during 1989 for(a) three months or more, (b) six months or more and (c) nine months or more.

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  London

  20

  28

  16

  Liverpool

  42

  45

  2

  Peterborough

  32

  31

  33

  Newport

  43

  28

  10

  Glasgow

  13

  35

  4

  Belfast

  20

  2

  Nil

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many telephone lines are available
  456
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information, which relates to passports issued rather than to applications received, is shown in the table.

  Monthly totals of (a) new passports issued and (b) endorsements and amendments to existing passports each month in 1989.

  (a)

  (b)

  January

  164,820

  25,213

  February

  243,344

  33,286

  March

  247,260

  36,248

  April

  234,833

  35,559

  May

  235,177

  40,011

  June

  198,793

  37,299

  July

  243,356

  44,473

  August

  233,547

  44,245

  September

  170,547

  28,821

  October

  150,805

  28,684

  November

  163,591

  26,140

  December

  106,189

  14,724

  Total for year

  2,392,262

  394,703

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were employed on a casual basis, that is, not on the permanent staff, at each passport office in each month of 1989; and what was the cost of such staff.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows the number of casual staff in post at each regional office on the last day of each month in 1989, and the annual cost of such staff.

  for calls from the public at each passport office in 1990; how many were available in 1989; how many staff are currently allocated to answer such calls; and how many were available to do so during June to October 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows the number of telephone lines available for incoming calls from the public at each passport office in(a) January 1989 and (b) January 1990.

  (a)

  (b)

  London

  28

  28

  Liverpool

  24

  62

  Peterborough

  24

  37

  Newport

  40

  40

  Glasgow

  12

  30

  Belfast

  3

  8

  Automatic answering facilities which connect callers initially to recorded information of general interest to passport applicants have been extended to all passport offices. Staff are allocated to telephone inquiry duties

  457
  according to the overall operational needs of each office, taking into account other demands, in particular that of passport issuing. No precise information is available as to the number of staff available to answer incoming calls during a particular period.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visitors' passports were issued in 1988 and 1989; and how many extensions to passports were issued in 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 2,134,209 British visitor's passports were issued in 1988. Final figures for 1989 issues are not yet available.

  During 1989, a total of 39,218 passports submitted for replacement were extended for two years free of charge, under special arrangements introduced to reduce delays.

  Information for 1988 is available only in respect of the London passport office, where 18,511 such extensions were issued.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to increase the number of regional passport offices, and the size of the present regional offices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Belfast passport office is being further expanded to take on additional work from other

  Date of Receipt

  London

  Liverpool

  Peterborough

  Newport

  Glasgow

  Belfast

  1989

  January

  7 December 1988

  15 December 1988

  16 December 1988

  21 December 1988

  1

  30 December 1988

  February

  19 January

  18 January

  23 January

  18 January

  19 January

  3 February

  March

  8 February

  26 January

  8 February

  2 February

  1

  3 March

  April

  13 March

  8 February

  27 February

  20 February

  20 February

  31 March

  May

  11 April

  10 February

  22 March

  10 March

  2 March

  5 May

  June

  21 April

  13 February

  6 April

  29 March

  23 March

  31 May

  July

  10 May

  18 February

  13 April

  25 April

  6 April

  30 June

  August

  21 June

  1 March

  21 April

  5 June

  11 May

  3 August

  September

  10 August

  2 May

  20 July

  3 August

  26 June

  1 September

  October

  8 September

  6 September

  15 September

  25 September

  18 August

  29 September

  November

  16 October

  17 October

  18 October

  31 October

  20 October

  3 November

  December

  23 November

  28 November

  22 November

  29 November

  17 November

  1 December

  1 Information not available.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what costs were incurred in refunding applicants who obtained visitors' passports due to the delay in obtaining a 10-year passport; and what percentage of these refunds had been paid to applicants who had acknowledgement that they would receiving same.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Refunds totalling £160,716 were authorised during 1989. An acknowledgement would normally be sent before payment.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made for the likely staff costs for the passport department in the financial years(a) 1990–91 and (b) 1991–92; and what proportion of each of these budgets will be allocated for (i) permanent staff, (ii) casual staff and (iii) overtime;

  (2) what was the total budget for salaries and overtime in passport offices in 1989–90; what is the estimated expenditure; and what is the estimated expenditure for 1990–91.
  458
  offices. The optimum size, number and location of passport offices in the United Kingdom are kept under regular review.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider a further national public compaign run over several months to encourage people to apply for new passports in the months from January to June and November and December to level out demand.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The peak period of demand for passports runs from February to August, and it would not be appropriate to encourage further applications during this period. The Passport Department's publicity, which included the distribution last autumn of 1 million leaflets through the travel trade, is directed towards encouraging applicants to apply during the months of November and December, when demand is at its lightest. We shall be considering a further publicity drive later in the year.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate the date of receipt of applications for new passports being dealt with on the first day in each month in 1989 at each passport office.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows the available information as to the date of receipt of applications for new passports being dealt with by each regional passport office at the first weekend of each month in 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The salaries and overtime element of the Passport Department's budget for running costs in 1989–90 amounted to £10·12 million. This is likely to be considerably exceeded due to the heavy demand for passport services during the year, but it is not yet possible to say precisely what the outturn expenditure will be. Budget estimates for 1990–91 and 1991–92 have yet to be finally determined.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated amount of overtime expected to be worked in each passport office in 1990; and what is the estimated cost.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The requirements for overtime working are determined by operational needs, which are in turn determined by the level and pattern of demand for passport services. Budget estimates for 1990–91 have yet to be finally determined.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated time expected to
  459
  be taken between receipt by application and issue of (a) new passports, (b) renewals and (c) amendments to passports at each office in 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The passport department will be aiming in 1990 to process straightforward, non-urgent passport applications of all types within a maximum of 30 working days during the period between January and June, and within 20 working days at other times. Urgent cases will receive priority and should not normally be subject to delay.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken so far to meet projected rises in demand for passports during 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  An additional 220 permanent staff have been recruited to meet the expected increase in demand for passports this year. Twenty-two of these additional staff are being employed in Belfast and it is planned that a further increase in the Belfast staff should be made when additional accommodation becomes available in April or May. Improvements have been made in the telephone systems to enable a better service to be given to customers making inquiries by telephone. Greater

  London

  Liverpool

  Peterborough

  Newport

  Glasgow

  Belfast

  January

  19

  9

  11

  5

  1

  2

  February

  13

  21

  13

  17

  14

  3

  March

  20

  28

  21

  23·5

  1

  4

  April

  18

  40

  24

  28

  28

  4

  May

  20

  59

  33

  40

  47

  4

  June

  30

  77

  42

  46

  52

  7

  July

  37

  97

  56

  48

  59

  3

  August

  36

  110

  76

  45·5

  61

  3

  September

  16

  88

  35

  21·5

  48

  3

  October

  15

  19

  12

  7

  30

  3

  November

  15

  15

  14

  4·5

  11

  3

  December

  9

  7

  10

  3·5

  11

  3

  1 Information Not Available

  Note: Figures are those at the first weekend of each month in 1989

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of staff(a) in post and (b) actually on duty on the first day of each month in 1989.

  London

  Liverpool

  Peterborough

  Newport

  Glasgow

  Belfast

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  January

  278·5

  271·5

  198·5

  140·5

  184

  139

  201

  161

  135·5

  102·5

  12

  9

  February

  282

  268

  228·5

  196·5

  224·5

  194·5

  232

  212

  154·5

  137

  13

  9

  March

  275

  260

  263·5

  222

  246·5

  200·5

  235·5

  199·5

  177·5

  155

  17

  16

  April

  278

  260

  273

  206

  240·5

  217

  235·5

  187·5

  192·5

  163·5

  21

  17

  May

  284·5

  268·5

  284

  225·5

  258·5

  228·5

  251

  218

  208·5

  172

  19

  15

  June

  278·5

  270

  293

  158·5

  254·5

  210

  235

  199

  216·5

  185

  21·5

  21·5

  July

  276

  269

  290

  235

  247·5

  187

  237

  194

  216·5

  171·5

  29·5

  26·5

  August

  276·5

  261·5

  278

  215·5

  240

  195·5

  219

  170

  211·5

  161·5

  31 5

  22·5

  September

  239·5

  228·5

  271

  203·5

  222·5

  170·5

  210

  165

  212·5

  152

  30

  23

  October

  226

  221

  265·5

  197·5

  231·5

  199·5

  201

  178

  202·5

  169

  27

  26

  November

  208

  192

  251·5

  171·5

  217·5

  194·5

  205

  172

  210

  175

  40

  38

  December

  204

  192

  253·5

  171·5

  216·5

  181·5

  207

  181

  210

  140

  44·5

  39·5

  Column (a) numbers of staff in post.

  Column (b) number of staff on duty.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate(a) the number of hours' overtime, (b) the average number of hours' overtime, and (c) the cost of such overtime to each passport office in each month in 1989.
  460
  use is being made of arrangements to transfer applications between offices, to balance workloads and to improve average processing times. The computer systems in the Glasgow and Liverpool offices have been enhanced to cater for the increases in staff numbers and pilot schemes have been established at both offices to test alternative working methods recommended following a review by consultants. Computerisation of the offices in Belfast, London, Newport and Peterborough has been deferred pending evaluation of the results of these pilot schemes.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average time taken to process applications for new passports at each office from time of receipt to date of issue as at the first day of each month in 1989; and what was the average time taken to process applications for(a) renewal and (b) amendments to passports at each office from time of receipt to date of issue on the first day of each month in 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information is not available in precisely the form requested. The processing times in working days for straightforward non-urgent applications of all types are shown in the table and relate to applications completed on the dates shown.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows(a) the number of staff in post and (b) on duty at each regional passport office on the first working day of each month on 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows the monthly number of hours overtime worked at each regional passport office and the estimated cost of such overtime in 1989.
  461

  London

  Liverpool

  Peterborough

  Newport

  Glasgow

  Belfast

  January

  Hours

  3,877

  4,383

  4,251

  4,387

  1,935

  —

  £

  35,035

  39,607

  38,414

  39,643

  17,486

  —

  February

  Hours

  4,212

  9,354

  4,036

  5,180

  4,302

  —

  £

  38,062

  84,528

  36,472

  46,809

  38,875

  —

  March

  Hours

  5,779

  14,591

  7,455

  6,415

  4,369

  —

  £

  52,222

  131872

  67,368

  57,970

  39,481

  —

  April

  Hours

  4,654

  7,821

  5,617

  5,334

  6,296

  378

  £

  42,056

  70,657

  50,758

  48,201

  56,894

  3,416

  May

  Hours

  4,692

  8,209

  8,321

  3,778

  4,720

  971

  £

  42,400

  74,181

  75,193

  34,140

  42,653

  8,774

  June

  Hours

  2,806

  5,223

  4,019

  3,019

  4,841

  822

  £

  25,357

  47,198

  36,318

  27,281

  43,746

  7,428

  July

  Hours

  4,747

  6,330

  4,205

  4,292

  5,969

  1,373

  £

  42,897

  57,201

  37,999

  38,785

  53,939

  12,407

  August

  Hours

  4,886

  6,297

  4,173

  4,013

  3,140

  528

  £

  44,153

  56,903

  37,710

  36,264

  28,375

  4,771

  September

  Hours

  3,125

  2,555

  3,550

  3,212

  2,991

  856

  £

  28,239

  23,088

  32,080

  29,025

  27,028

  7,735

  October

  Hours

  —

  3,048

  256

  —

  2,825

  753

  £

  —

  27,543

  2,313

  —

  25,528

  6,805

  November

  Hours

  692

  433

  434

  —

  805

  443

  £

  6,253

  3,913

  3,922

  —

  7,274

  4,003

  December

  Hours

  504

  —

  82

  —

  75

  —

  £

  4,554

  —

  741

  —

  678

  —

  Rape
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many men received sentences for rape of five years and over in each of the last 15 years; how many received sentences of under five years; and how many received non-custodial sentences in the same period;

  (2) how many rapes were reported in each of the last 15 years; and how many resulted in (a) a charge, (b) a prosecution and (c) a conviction;

  (3) what was the average sentence for rape in each of the past 15 years.

  Mr. John Patten
  Data for 1989 will not be available until autumn 1990. Information for 1984 to 1988 is given in the table. To produce further information for each year from 1974 would involve disproportionate cost.

  Table 1—Males sentenced for rape offences 1984 to 1988

  England and Wales

  Immediate custody

  Year

  Total sentenced

  Non-custodial

  Under 5 years

  Over 5 years

  Life

  Average sentence length years

  1984

  257

  10

  170

  70

  7

  3·7

  1985

  339

  10

  192

  128

  9

  4·5

  1986

  329

  7

  123

  187

  12

  5·5

  1987

  349

  5

  73

  259

  12

  6·2

  1988

  413

  22

  176

  205

  10

  6·2

  Table 2—Notifiable offences 1 of rape and persons proceeded against and found guilty of rape 1984 to 1988

  England and Wales

  Year

  Notifiable offences1

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty

  1984

  1,433

  568

  258

  1985

  1,842

  728

  342

  1986

  2,288

  794

  330

  1987

  2,471

  902

  349

  1988

  2,855

  1,103

  420

  1 Includes attempts and 'other' rape offences.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken on the Women's National Commission's 1985 recommendation 462
  that the question of consent should be reconsidered with the aim of reforming the law on rape to make it clear that the alleged rapist's assumptions about the complainant's consent should be reasonable.

  Mr. John Patten
  Section 1(2) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 provides that any jury considering a defence based on the accused's belief that the woman was consenting to intercourse should have regard to the presence of absence or reasonable grounds for such a belief. In addition, the courts have held that a man who was reckless as to whether the woman consented should also be held guilty.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what circulars he has issued on what dates, to police forces concerning the special needs of victims in relation to rape trauma syndrome.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Home Office circular 69/1986, issued on 1 October 1986, set out the special needs of rape victims, and emphasised the need for police to understand the different ways in which victims may react. This circular was issued in response to recommendations made by the National Women's Commission on rape trauma syndrome and other matters.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has issued any circulars on the under-reporting of rape and sexual assault to police forces in England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. However, guidance to the police seeks to encourage increased reporting by stress the need to provide improved facilities for the reception and examination of victims of rape and sexual assault and to deal with them in a sympathetic and understanding manner.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of his Department's management training courses include sessions on equal opportunities for women; and what proportion of
  463
  managers at grade six level and above working outside headquarters has received training on equal opportunities for women.

  Mr. Waddington
  All the Department's centrally run management courses include sessions on equal opportunities; detailed information on management training provided locally is not held centrally. The other information requested is not available.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to implement the recommendations within his area of responsibility of the European Commission's childcare network report: "Caring for Children—Services and Policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom."

  Mr. John Patten
  The report was prepared for the European Commission which has not developed any proposals. The Government believe that policy on child care is a matter for member states. The United Kingdom's policy is that it is for families themselves to determine how their children are to be brought up and how parents who wish to do so can best combine paid work and family responsibilities. The issue is kept under review by the ministerial group on women's issues.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what child care provision for pre-school age children is provided for employees of his Department; what child care provision for school holidays or after-school care is provided for employees' children aged five years or over, what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Waddington
  The Home Office plans to provide nursery places for pre-school age children of its staff in Croydon and Bootle shortly and is considering the possibility of making similar provision in London; holiday play-scheme places have already been made available for the children of staff in Croydon, Bootle and Westminster. Management have contributed funds and staff to these initiatives, but there will also be a charge for places.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what grade is his Department's equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Waddington
  My Department has two equal opportunities officers: one for staff in the prison service who is a grade 6, and one for all other staff who is a grade 5.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has implemented to ensure that recruitment and promotion policy in his Department does not directly or indirectly discriminate against applicants who were mature students or women returning to work following a career break due to child care.

  Mr. Waddington
  Recruitment advertising has been amended to carry a positive equal opportunities message and a recently issued booklet promoting managerial careers in the Department specifically addresses those returning to work after a break of any kind.

  Arrangements have recently been made to ensure that staff on special leave, including those who are taking a
  464
  career break, as well as those on maternity leave are eligible for consideration by promotion boards. Seniority requirements for eligibility for promotion have also been reduced and opportunities for part-time working, in management grades as well as at junior levels, are being significantly increased.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of civil servants in his Department are women at each of the grades(a) seven, (b) six, (c) five, (d) four, (e) three, (f) two and (g) one.

  Mr. Waddington
  The proportion of female civil servants in the Home Office in the grades for which information is requested is as follows:

  Grade

  Per cent.

  7

  16

  6

  6

  5

  18

  4

  25

  3

  9

  2

  0

  1

  0

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police units are trained especially for domestic violence in each police force in England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on such units is not collected centrally. We understand that there are 33 units in the Metropolitan police specifically dedicated to dealing with domestic violence, eight in the West Yorkshire police and one in the Northumbria police. Officers in these units have received basic training, which provides some guidance on dealing with domestic violence, and there are also opportunities for officers to attend specialist courses or seminars.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reports were made to police in each force area of England and Wales of domestic violence in each of the past 15 years; and how many resulted in(a) a charge, (b) a prosecution and (c) a conviction.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on notifiable offences of violence against the person is published annually in table 2.8 of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales". Regular information on domestic violence is not reported separately to this Department by police forces in England and Wales. However, detailed information on homicide is presented in chapter 4 of the above publication. Some incomplete information was published in "Criminal Statistics" in 1979 and 1980. In addition, results obtained from a special survey of violent crime recorded by the police and from the 1988 British crime survey were published in Home Office research bulletin No. 27. There is also some information in chapter 7 of "Domestic Violence" Home Office research study 107. Copies of all these publications are available in the Library. Information on prosecutions and convictions is not collected in sufficient detail to distinguish domestic violence.
  465
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what improvements have been made since 1985 in data collection on domestic violence.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Data on domestic violence are not collated centrally. We are considering recommending to chief officers that where they do not already collect data on the incidence of domestic violence in their area, they should do so.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken in the last 12 months, following the Women's National Commission's 1985 recommendation that a circular be issued by his Department to give guidance and encouragement to chief constables to review training and procedures on the handling of cases of domestic violence.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A circular was issued in October 1986 in response to the Women's National Commission's recommendations. During the past 12 months we have reviewed police procedures in relation to domestic violence, and we expect to issue a revised circular within the next few months.

  Attacks on Women
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reports of physical attacks on women there have been in each of the last 25 years in England and Wales; and how many resulted in(a) a charge, (b) a prosecution and (c) a conviction.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on notifiable offences of violence against the person is published annually in table 2.8 of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales". Regular information on the sex of victims of such offences is not reported separately to this Department by police forces in England and Wales. However, detailed information on homicide is presented in chapter 4 of that publication. In addition, results obtained from a special survey of violent crime recorded by the police and from the 1988 British crime survey were published in Home Office research bulletin No. 27. Information on prosecutions and convictions is not collected in sufficient detail to identify the sex of victims.

  Women in Custody
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women are in custody for conviction of(a) non-violent crime and (b) violent crime; and what was the comparable figure in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The readily available information relates to sentenced prisoners and is published annually in "Prison Statistics England and Wales", table 1.8 of the latest volume for 1988, Cm. 825, a copy of which is in the Library. Provisional information for 1989 is given in the table.

  Population1 in prison service establishments of females under sentence on 30 June 1989: by offence group

  Offence group

  Number2

  Violence against the person

  220

  Sexual offences3

  20

  Robbery

  80

  Other offences4

  860

  466

  Offence group

  Number2

  Not recorded

  80

  Fine defaulters

  20

  All offences

  1,280

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Rounded estimates.

  3 Including rape.

  4 Burglary, theft, handling, fraud, forgery, drugs and other offences.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women, by nationality, are in custody awaiting deportation; and what was the comparable information in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 31 January 1990 nine women were detained under the Immigration Act 1971 pending removal under the deportation powers. On these, four were Nigerian, one Ghanaian, one Jamaican, one Moroccan, one Colombian and one French. Details for the corresponding date in the previous five years are:

  1989–6 (one Filipino, four Nigerians and one Indian)

  1988–5 (two Ghanaians, one Ugandan, one Nigerian, one citizen of Sierra Leone)

  1987–3 (one Jamaican, one Ghanaian, one nationality doubtful)

  1986–1 (Ghanaian)

  1985–0.

  These figures do not include women serving custodial sentences who are also the subject of deportation proceedings.

  Sexual Harassment
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mr. Waddington
  Sexual harassment is under all circumstances unacceptable to the Department. All staff have been advised of the appropriate avenues for complaints of such behaviour and where complaints are substantiated disciplinary procedures apply. Eleven complaints have been reported to personnel management divisions in the last five years. The action taken has included warnings and reprimands and, in one case, a ban on promotion for one year. There is no central record of complaints dealt with locally.

  Sentencing Guidelines
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sentencing guidelines exist for women with dependent children; and when these were last revised.

  Mr. John Patten
  Sentencing is a matter for the courts. The Court of Appeal has made it clear that custody should be used only when a court considers it absolutely necessary. We are revising the handbook "The Sentence of the Court" and the new edition will refer specifically to women offenders with family responsibilities. The national standards for community service orders, which came into effect on 1 April 1989, asked probation areas to ensure that community service placements are available for women offenders, including those who are pregnant, and offenders with young children.

  Women Police Officers
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has issued any circular to police forces in England and Wales on the role of women police officers in relation to crime involving women and children.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No circular has been issued relating specifically to that subject. However, circular 69/1986, issued in October 1986, sets out the response agreed between the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers to the recommendation made by the Women's National Commission on the role of women police officers.

  Pin-ups
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all photographs of females in various stages of undress from all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Waddington
  All managers have been advised, and are reminded from time to time, to ensure that no material which is likely to be found sexually offensive is displayed in the workplace; and to deal promptly with any complaints.

  Prisons
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons have specialist mother and baby units.

  Mr. Mellor
  Three prison establishments—Her Majesty's prison Holloway, Her Majesty's prison Askham Grange, and Her Majesty's prison and young offender institution, Styal—have mother and baby units. It is planned to build a further unit at Her Majesty's prison and young offender institution, New Hall in 1991–92.

  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the 40 sites considered in the north-west for prison sites are(a) adjacent to a hospital, (b) within two to three miles of an existing prison, (c) built-up areas, (d) opposed by the local authorities and (e) acceptable to the local authorities; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Mellor
  Most of the information is not readily available on an accurate basis as preliminary consideration indicated that the site was not suitable for our purpose and a detailed investigation was not made. Planning consents were refused by the local authority in respect of sites at Kirkham, Orrell Lane (Bootle) and Rochdale.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents in each of the past 10 years have been reported of physical or sexual abuse of a child by the child's blood father out of the total number of such incidents.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Estimates of the numbers of children who were victims of certain violent or sexual offences in 1984 were published in table 2 of the Home Office 468
  statistical bulletin 29/86. Some results from an ad hoc survey of violent crime recorded by the police in 1985–87 and from the 1988 British crime survey were published in Home Office research bulletin No. 27. Information on criminal proceedings for offences involving violence against children in May 1988 was published in Home Office statistical bulletin 42/89. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Prostitution
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek to abolish the term common prostitute; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. We believe that the present arrangements—that the police make a record when they caution a woman for soliciting, and that convictions under the Street Offences Act 1959 depend upon the woman having been cautioned on an earlier occasion—are satisfactory.

  Litter
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report the number and amount of each fine levied for offences involving litter in Wales since 1 January 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is given in the table. Data for 1989 will not be available until autumn 1990.

  Number of persons fined in Wales under section 1(3) of the Litter Act 1983

  Amount of fine

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Under £20 including

  42

  63

  56

  23

  £20 and under £50

  63

  89

  93

  93

  £50 and under £100

  18

  19

  19

  21

  Over £1001

  6

  1

  5

  3

  Total

  129

  172

  173

  140

  1 Maximum fine was £150 (in 1985 and 1987).

  Direct Broadcasting by Satellite
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue guidelines on the portrayal of women in respect of direct broadcasting by satellite.

  Mr. Waddington
  The regulation of television services, including satellite services, is a matter for the regulatory bodies established for this purpose by Parliament, not for the Government.

  The service to be provided by British Satellite Broadcasting will be regulated by the IBA under the Broadcasting Act 1981. Other satellite services currently available direct to home are regulated by the Cable Authority under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, by virtue of the fact that they are also relayed by cable. Under clauses 38 to 40 of the Broadcasting Bill all satellite services originating in the United Kingdom will be licensed by the new Independent Television Commission.

  Police Custody (Deaths)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of deaths in police custody in London for each year since 1980, the coroners' verdict on the cause of death and the result, if any, of police investigations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of deaths which occurred in police custody, or otherwise with the police, in London, and the associated inquest verdicts, are contained in the annual reports of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. An investigation is carried out by the Metropolitan police into all such deaths. However, I am advised that the results of those investigations are not recorded centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

ENERGY

  British Coal
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the British Coal pits that have had their output target figures adjusted; and if he will show in each case(a) the original tonnage figure and (b) the revised figure.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation.

  Compact Fluorescent Bulbs
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the potential for energy saving from the use of compact fluorescent bulbs.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Compared to normal tungsten bulbs compact flourescent lamps use only 20 to 25 per cent. as much electricity.

  Gas Levy Act
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the working of the Gas Levy Act.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Gas Levy Act 1981 was amended in 1986 when British Gas plc succeeded the British Gas Corporation. It has recently come to light that these amendments, contained in the Gas Act 1986, did not achieve the precise results intended at the time the legislation was taken. The intention was to ensure that British Gas were treated for gas levy purposes as if they were the same person as the gas corporation. However, the detailed amendments in schedule 6 to the 1986 Act brought into account a number of categories of gas which were not previously subject to the levy because they had never been included in the gas corporation's contracts. The Government will take the opportunity of the 1990 Finance Bill to rectify the situation. In the meantime my Department will continue to collect the levy in line with the intentions of the 1986 amendments.

  Offshore Installations (Women Employed)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the employment of women on offshore oil and gas installations.
  470
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Skills shortages are being experienced in the offshore oil and gas sector, and, although women are employed on offshore oil and gas installations, I believe that there is scope for employing more. In consultation with the industry, I already have plans to build on their existing initiatives to promote this objective.

  The Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay (Offshore Employment) Order 1987 applies the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what action he has taken, and what action he intends taking, to implement the recommendations within his area of responsibility of the European Commission's childcare network report: "Caring for Children—Services and Policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom".

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department is aware of the recommendations made in the child care network report prepared for the Commission of the European Communities. It is participating in interdepartmental studies into the feasibility of providing child care facilities in London and the surrounding areas.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many of his Department's management training courses include sessions on equal opportunities for women; and what proportion of managers at grade six level and above working outside headquarters has received training on equal opportunities for women.

  Mr. Wakeham
  All the Department's staff management courses include training on equal opportunities for women. A total of 33 per cent. of staff at grade six level or above outside headquarters have received equal opportunities training.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of employees; what child care provision for school holidays or after-school ca re is provided for employees' children aged five years or over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department does not provide child care facilities, and has no current plans to do so.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what grade is his Department's equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Grade five.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what measures he has implemented to ensure that recruitment and promotion policy in his Department does not directly or indirectly discriminate against applicants who were mature students or women returning to work following a career break due to child care.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Department's selection criteria for recruitment and promotion are designed not to discriminate against mature students or women returning to work. Advertisements do not contain upper age limits, and do mention returning to work and the Department's
  471
  flexible approach to working hours, part-time working and special leave for career break purposes. Promotion board procedures include monitoring decisions at each stage for compliance with equal opportunities policies.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of civil servants in his Department are women at each of the grades(a) seven, (b) six, (c) five,(d) four, (e) three, (f) two and (g) one.

  Mr. Wakeham
  There are no women in grades one to four; at grade five, 14 per cent. are women, at grade six, 4 per cent. and at grade seven, 11 per cent.

  Disconnections
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any information on how many one-parent families have had their electricity or gas supplies cut off for not paying their bills.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have no information on the numbers of one-parent families that have had their gas or electricity supplies disconnected. However, the numbers of gas and electricity disconnections are now at the lowest levels since records were first kept.

  Sexual Harassment
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken;

  (2) whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Department's policy is that sexual harassment at work is unacceptable, and is a disciplinary matter. The definition of sexual harassment includes the display of sexually offensive material in the office. Reminders about the Department's policy are circulated from time to time, and explain the procedure for complaints. There has been one formal complaint in the last five years, which resulted in a formal warning as to future conduct.

  Domestic Appliances
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on his Department's policy on energy ratings on domestic appliances.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  With encouragement from my Energy Efficiency Office, all major appliance manufacturers provide, on a voluntary basis, energy consumption data for major energy using appliances in their sales literature.

  Women Mineworkers
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many women have applied to work underground in a mine under the provisions of the Employment Act 1989; and how many have been accepted.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation.

  Montrose Platform
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what electrical works were carried out in module 9 and its associated switch room prior to the resumption of production on the Montrose platform on 14 February; whether that work was complete prior to production commencing; whether transit blanks were fitted in the tracks of the electrical cables; and whether the cable tracks in module 9 had been closed;

  (2) what work permits were issued on 14 February in respect of electrical work in module 9 and switchroom of the Montrose platform; and what procedures were in force for co-ordinating all work permits;

  (3) whether the differential pressure switch was commissioned in the module 9 switchroom at the time of a reported gas leak on the Montrose production platform, on 14 February;

  (4) whether the differential pressure switch was overridden at any time on 14 February in the switchroom associated with module 9 on the Montrose production platform.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Module 9 was surveyed by the certifying authority some three weeks before 14 February. Following this survey power supplies to the heater were changed, work was undertaken on the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system, and instrument cables were installed. This work was completed prior to 14 February. Transit blocks were fitted in the tracks of the electrical cables and were closed at the time of the survey. The certifying authority's survey found that the differential pressure switch required to be replaced. This had not been done by 14 February. The pressurised system for module 9 had however been commissioned. The differential pressure switch was not overridden at any time on 14 February.

  No work permits were issued on Montrose on 14 February. All existing construction and hot work permits were withdrawn at 3.20 am on 14 February.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what requirements his Department or the appropriate certifying authority has made in respect of differential pressures in the switching rooms associated with the Montrose production platform.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The fourth edition of my Department's guidance notes on the design, construction and certification of offshore installations, to be published shortly, states that a minimum positive pressure differential of 50 pascals should be maintained in safe working areas adjacent to hazardous areas on offshore installations. The certifying authority for the Montrose platform has confirmed that the pressure differential in switching rooms adjacent to hazardous areas on the platform meets this requirement.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what standards of fireproofing apply in the case of the accommodation module on the Montrose production platform; and how these differ from his most recently issued guidance notes and existing regulations.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Offshore Installations (Construction and Survey) Regulations 1974 require that every part of an installation shall be composed of materials which, so far as is consistent with its function, shall be
  473
  incombustible. The accommodation module on the Montrose Alpha installation includes materials which are not incombustible and the external boundaries of the module will not meet the hydrocarbon class of fire resistance recommended in the fourth edition of my Department's guidance notes on the design, construction and certification of offshore installations, to be published shortly. Arrangements are in hand for the accommodation module to be replaced by a new module which will meet these requirements. Pending completion of this work, my Department has required that additional safety measures are put in place.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he will take to ensure that working and operational practices on the Montrose platform are safe before he allows oil and gas production to be recommenced on the Montrose field and to start up on the Arbroath field.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My safety directorate will take whatever steps are necessary to satisfy itself that the required safety standards are achieved. In particular my inspectors have required the operator to institute an immediate programme of instructing all platform personnel on work permit procedures. As soon as this has been completed, an audit will be carried out to confirm that the procedures are being adhered to.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any plans to launch a nationwide campaign encouraging energy conservation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Yes. My Department is running a two-week campaign, starting on 12 March, targeted at decision takers in industry, commerce and the public sector. It will be comprised of a series of advertisements in national newspapers on the important role of energy efficiency and how it can save money as well as help to reduce the risk of climate change.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give details of all imports of coal by British Coal or any of its subsidiaries in the last three years.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation.

  Contract Management Arrangements
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many contract energy management arrangements in the public sector known to the Energy Efficiency Office commenced(a) before and (b) after the 1987 relaxation of the Treasury ruling on such arrangements.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The report of the National Audit Office on energy efficiency published last summer (House of Commons paper No. 547) noted that three of the 10 contract energy management arrangements in the public sector known to the EEO commenced after the issue of new guidelines in 1987. The EEO is currently engaged in an exercise to review progress.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what action has been taken in response to the energy technology support unit's assessment in January 1987 that research and development spending of £6·65 million over 10 years on new technology could ultimately produce energy savings of £350 million.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Expenditure on research and development forms only a small part of the total expenditure needed to produce energy savings from new technology. In April 1989 my Energy Efficiency Office replaced its research and development and demonstration programmes by the best practice programme of research, development, demonstration and dissemination. This aims to stimulate energy savings worth £500 million per year by the year 2000.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what arrangements have been established for the central reporting and monitoring of energy efficiency improvements for the public sector as a whole.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 20 July 1989 at column 249.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the annual value of energy savings, in absolute and percentage terms, achieved over the last five years by(a) the National Health Service, (b) local authorities and (c) each Government Department.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the estimated 1989–90 spending by the Energy Efficiency Office on research and development projects under the best practice programme; and what is the estimated number of projects which will have been assisted by the year end.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The estimated total spend in 1989–90 by my Energy Efficiency Office on research, development, demonstration and dissemination, including the new best practice programme, is some £9·5 million. The R and D element of the best practice programme is only just commencing; eight projects have been recommended for support so far. The bulk of the expenditure has been on technology transfer.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made by the Energy Efficiency Office in 1989–90 towards promoting energy efficiency in(a) Government estate, (b) the National Health Service and (c) the rest of the public sector.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Details of a campaign to promote energy efficiency within Government Departments were announced on 20 July 1989, and Ministers with special responsibility for departmental energy use have since met twice to take forward work towards the Government's aim of achieving savings rising to £45 million per annum (15 per cent. of the current total bill) over five years. My Energy Efficiency Office co-operates with the Audit Commission and Department of Health on work to promote energy efficiency in the NHS and local authority sectors.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest figures he has on the number of major energy-consuming sites and the percentage of total energy consumption by manufacturing industry for which these sites are responsible.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information comes from the five-yearly purchase inquiries conducted with a sample of 10,000 United Kingdom manufacturing sites and establishments by the Business Statistics Office. Latest figures are from the 1984 survey. Data from the 1989 survey is not yet available. The 1984 sample was based on 7 per cent. of the total 136,000 estimated manufacturing establishments, but accounts for an estimated 81 per cent. of the total energy consumed in manufacturing industry. The survey indicated that there were 328 establishments with energy consumption in excess of 5 million therms per annum, representing 51 per cent. of the total energy purchased by manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the Energy Efficiency Office's current target number of major energy-consuming sites with monitoring and targeting systems.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The EEO's target is for monitoring and targeting systems to be implemented at 1,000 major energy-consumer sites by the end of the financial year 1990–91.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest figure for the number of major energy-consuming sites implementing monitoring and targeting systems under the Energy Efficiency Office's monitoring and targeting scheme.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The latest estimate is that 800 major energy-consuming sites are implementing monitoring and targeting systems.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will instruct the Energy Efficiency Office to develop a fully comprehensive and detailed database on major energy users in the industry and commerce sector.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Energy Efficiency Office is at the moment considering establishing a comprehensive database of major energy users in industry, commerce and local government. Our regional energy efficiency officers already have a considerable amount of such data, as has our energy technology support unit.

  Energy Managers
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the total energy spend for each energy manager appointed in each Government Department.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The precise information is at present being collected as part of the Government's initiative to improve energy efficiency in the Government estate.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy which Government Departments have appointed full-time energy managers.

  Mr. Wakeham
  All major Departments have now appointed departmental energy managers.

  National Grid Interconnector
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the estimated cost of uprating the national grid interconnector with Scotland.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This is a commercial matter for the companies concerned.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the name of the company which did not take up the invitation to tender for the job of his special public relations and marketing adviser on electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Valin Pollen International was invited to tender for the position of special marketing and public relations adviser to my Department, but declined to participate.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the name of the company which did not take up the invitation to tender for the job of public relations and marketing adviser on electricity privatisation to his Department and the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Wakenham
  Valin Pollen International was invited to tender for the position of joint marketing and public relations adviser to my Department and the elecricity supply industry, but declined to participate.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the conventions set out in the Central Office of Information publication of 1981 on the role of Government information officers will apply to Lowe Bell and Dewe Rogerson in their respective roles as special public relations and marketing advisers to him and public relations and marketing advisers on electricity privatisation to his Department and the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Government Departments commissioning public relations and marketing advisers comply with the conventions set out in the Cabinet paper entitled "Central Government Conventions on Publicity and Advertising" which is in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Hinkley Point C Inquiry
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has yet received the report of the inspector of the Hinkley Point C inquiry; and when he intends to publish it.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have yet to receive the inspector's report, the timing of which is a matter for him. I will wish to see and consider the report before deciding when to publish it.

  Sizewell
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the sea defence provision protecting Sizewell power stations in Suffolk.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for Nuclear Electric.

CIVIL SERVICE

  First Division Association
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met the representatives of the First Division Association to discuss obligations to the Crown in Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  This was one of the subjects discussed when the head of the Home Civil Service met the Civil Service unions on 7 February.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received concerning the progress of the Civil Service's equal opportunities employment programme.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received some representations. The Civil Service has a range of policies to encourage equal opportunities in all areas.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what grade his office recommends as being appropriate for departmental equal opportunities officers.

  Mr. Luce
  Guidance on the appointment of departmental equal opportunity officers is set out in the programme of action to achieve equality of opportunity for women in the Civil Service, which was published by my Department in 1984. This guidance recommends that in larger Departments, the equal opportunity officer should be appointed at grade 5 or grade 6 level. In smaller Departments, the guidance recommends that the officer should not usually be more than two grades below that of the principal establishment officer and should not, normally, be below grade 7 level.

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

  Mr. Luce
  I met members of the National Union of Civil and Public Servants on 29 January to discuss physical security of Government establishments.

THE ARTS

  Business Sponsorship
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how much business sponsorship is attracted outside London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Under the business sponsorship incentive scheme, 70 per cent. of awards have gone to arts groups based outside London.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what business sponsorship has been attracted for innovative works in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Luce
  Under my business sponsorship incentive scheme awards have gone to a very wide range of art forms. Examples include Allied Lyons' sponsorship of the 478
  Grand Union Music Theatre for its series of educational and community workshops involving commissions from Third world black writers and CNC Systems' support of the Mikron Theatre Company's south Pennine tour of areas not within easy reach of theatre centres, including performances in clubs, pubs and museums.

  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Minister for the Arts to what extent business sponsorship funds have been used to provide for the refurbishment of national museums and galleries.

  Mr. Luce
  National museums and galleries which I sponsor have benefited substantially from the generosity of business and private sponsors. In an increasing number of cases this has been linked to incentive funding from the Government. Recent examples of sponsored refurbishment include the gallery of Chinese art sponsored by Mr. Tsui at the Victoria and Albert museum, the "Food for Thought" gallery sponsored by the Sainsbury Family Trust and other generous donors at the science museum and the rehang at the Tate gallery to which BP plc made a very substantial donation.

  National Arts Companies
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the accumulated deficits of the national companies.

  Mr. Luce
  I am advised that the four national companies are projecting a combined deficit of around £8 million by the end of March. Next year they are each to receive an increase of 11 per cent. in their grant from the Arts Council.

  Overseas Earnings
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what estimate he has made of the overseas earnings of the arts in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Luce
  Although figures for such earnings are not held centrally, the PSI has attempted to quantify the overseas earnings of the arts, broadly defined, at £4 billion in 1984.

  Arts (North-west)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on participation in the arts in the north-west.

  Mr. Luce
  I understand that in 1988–89 audience figures in the north-west Arts region (population 4·8 million) at arts venues—including theatres, galleries, concert halls, and small touring and community venues—were in the region of 4 million.

  Touring
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how he intends to encourage further touring both inside and outside the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Luce
  Many performing companies already tour extensively throughout Britain, quite apart from the touring provided for by the Arts Council's annual touring budget, which will be £8·2 million in 1990–91. In addition
  479
  to this, I have given the Arts Council an extra £5·5 million over the three-year period from 1988–89 to 1990–91 to provide approximately 60 weeks extra touring in each year. Overseas touring is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, through the British Council.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the total of expenditure per capita on public libraries in England and Wales.

  Mr. Luce
  Expenditure per capita on public libraries in England, for which I am responsible, was £9·87 in 1988–89. Libraries in Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  West Midlands Arts
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he intends to meet the chairman of West Midlands Arts to discuss the Wilding report.

  Mr. Luce
  I discussed Mr. Wilding's report with the chairman of West Midlands Arts on 19 December 1989.

  Wilding Report
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he intends to respond to the Wilding report.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when it is his intention to respond to the Wilding report.

  Mr. Luce
  I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Arts Council and Crafts Council
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last discussed with the chairman of the Arts Council and the Crafts Council the question of the merger of those two organisations.

  Mr. Luce
  I regularly meet the chairmen of the Arts Council and Crafts Council to discuss current issues.

  East Midlands Arts
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he intends to meet the chairman of East Midlands Arts to discuss the level of financial support for photography in the east midlands.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no plans to do so. East Midlands Arts' direct support for photography this year was £53,000. In 1990–91 this will rise to £74,000.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Arts Council; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Luce
  I last met the chairman on 19 February 1990. A variety of matters of mutual interest were discussed.

  Northern Arts
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next intends to meet the chairman of Northern Arts to discuss the Wilding report.
  480
  Mr. Luce
  I have already discussed Mr. Wilding's report with the chairman of Northern Arts on 19 December 1989.

  Opera
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received concerning the funding of opera in England.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received a number of such representations. It is however a matter for the Arts Council to determine how much of its grant is spent on opera. In 1990–91 I am advised that this will be over £22 million, including touring.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many of his Department's management training courses include sessions on equal opportunities for women; and what proportion of managers at grade six level and above working outside headquarters has received training on equal opportunities for women.

  Mr. Luce
  Specific training sessions about equality of opportunity for women, ethnic minorities and the disabled are included in all the internal residential management training courses undertaken by managers in my Department. Emphasis is also given to equality of opportunity when training managers to carry out staff appraisal, selection and promotion interviewing. The one female member of staff at grade 6 outside headquarters has not yet attended a course as specified.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of employees; what child care provision for school holidays or after school care is provided for employees' children aged five years or over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Luce
  My Department does not yet provide nursery facilities for the use of its staff, but they have access to a local holiday play scheme financed by parental and departmental contributions.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what grade is his Department's equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Luce
  My Department is served by the Cabinet Office equal opportunities officer who is a grade seven.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what measures he has implemented to ensure that recruitment and promotion policy in his Department does not directly or indirectly discriminate against applicants who were mature students or women returning to work following a career-break due to child care.

  Mr. Luce
  In my Department there are no age limits on recruitment although we expect recruits to give a reasonable period of service before retirement. Candidates without the usual academic qualifications may take a short answer test. Promotion is solely on the basis of merit. We have lowered our seniority requirements to bring them into line with the national standard and previous service counts for seniority purposes after a career break.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what proportion of civil servants in his Department are women at each of grades seven, six, five, four, three, two and one, respectively.
  481
  Mr. Luce
  In my Department the proportion of civil servants in each grade who are women, is as follows:

  Grade 1—Not applicable

  2—Nil

  3—Not applicable

  4—Not applicable

  5–25 per cent.

  6–100 per cent.

  7–27 per cent.

  Pin-ups
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups on all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Luce
  My Department has no plans to issue specific guidance on this subject. However, it has issued a policy statement about sexual harassment; offensive pin-ups would be dealt with in this context.

  Merseyside Arts
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of Merseyside Arts to discuss the Wilding report.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 12 February at column 52.

  Access for the Disabled
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on progress made in achieving easier access for the disabled in arts venues and libraries.

  Mr. Luce
  In December 1988 I gave £150,000 to the ADAPT fund, set up by the Carnegie Trust to improve the accessibility of arts venues, including libraries, for disabled people. I am pleased to say that the fund has to date made 23 awards provisionally worth £167,250.

SCOTLAND

  BR Sleeper Services
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to BR about the London-Stanraer overnight sleeper service.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend was informed by British Rail of its plans to withdraw the Stranraer-London sleeper service from 14 May and to provide a connecting service between Stranraer and the Glasgow-London sleeper trains. While it is regrettable that British Rail has found it necessary to follow this course, the decision is a commercial matter for British Rail.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of his Department's management training courses include sessions on equal opportunities for women; and what proportion of managers at grade six level and above working outside headquarters has received training on equal opportunities for women.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Four management training courses and eight non-management courses run by my Department's482
  training unit include sessions on equal opportunities. Staff also attend management courses run by the Civil Service College which have equal opportunities input. Training opportunities are available to all my Department's staff irrespective of location. Detailed figures are not available for the limited number of staff at grade six level and above who do not work in headquarters offices.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of employees; what child care provision for school holidays or after-school care is provided for employees' children aged five years or over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department does not directly make child care provision. Staff of my Department do, however, make use during school holidays of the facilities provided for school age children of civil servants by the central Edinburgh holiday play scheme. The possibility of providing child care facilities in the Scottish Office in future is currently the subject of a cost-benefit study. The study will cover how any such facilities, if justified, might be funded.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what grade is his Department's equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Grade 5.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of civil servants in his Department are women at each of the grades(a) seven, (b) six, (c) five, (d) four, (e) three, (f) two and (g) one, respectively.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The percentage of women officers in grades one to seven in the Scottish Office and associated departments is shown in the table.

  Grade

  Number

  One

  0

  Two

  0

  Three

  4·3

  Four

  0

  Five

  7·1

  Six

  15·3

  Seven

  12·3

  Sexual Harassment
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department's policy statement makes it clear that sexual harassment constitutes unacceptable behaviour which will not be tolerated. The policy statement, and guidance on reporting complaints, was brought to the attention of all staff by an office notice and is separately covered in the staff handbook. A leaflet to be issued to all new entrants is in course of preparation. Four formal complaints about sexual harassment have been made during the last five years. Disciplinary action was taken in three cases.

  Well Women Clinics
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of well women clinics in each health board area in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he takes account of the Forestry Commission's duty under section 11 of the Countryside Act to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside in considering the degree of expertise in nature conservation possessed by potential appointees to the Commission.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  When selecting staff for employment, the Forestry Commission takes into account all qualifications and experience which are relevant to the job concerned. A degree of expertise in nature conservation would be relevant in employing field officers, many of whom have qualifications and experience in this area. In addition, the commission employs specialist staff on environmental duties, and retains consultants on nature conservation, landscape architecture and archaeology.

  Rates Arrears
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the percentage of ratepayers in arrears, for each quarter of each of the last five years, to the end of March 1989, for each regional council area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Ravenscraig
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan of 28 February,Official Report, column 271, whether he discussed with the chairman of British Steel on 26 October 1989 the decision to impose a production pause on Ravenscraig over the Christmas and new year holiday period.

  Mr. Lang
  The detailed matters discussed at my right hon. and learned Friend's meeting with the chairman of British Steel on 26 October 1989 are commercially confidential.

  Schools (Opting Out)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on funding from his Department's funds for organisations which seek to persuade schools to opt out of the local authority education system.

  Mr. Lang
  No public funds will be available to an organisation to persuade schools to seek self-governing status.

  Training Agency
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why all men and women, whether married or unmarried, are required to be entered as married on Training Agency forms ET4, ET6, ET69 and ET67.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: Applicants for Employment Training are no longer required to provide the Training Agency with information about marital status. However, forms ET4, ET6, ET67 and ET69 are used to enter information on the Training Agency's computer which will accept the input only if all entries on the forms, including the redundant "marital status" entry, have been completed. To overcome this, a blanket entry of "married" on all these forms was agreed to be preferable to a costly interim software amendment to the computer system. The computer system is to be revised in April 1990 and charges will be introduced at that time to resolve this problem.

  Lothian Health Board
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration is being given to the loss of bed spaces or the closure of wards or hospitals as a consequence of the deficit currently incurred by Lothian health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 28 February 1990]: My right hon. and learned Friend made clear that there will be no crisis closures. We are awaiting Lothian health board's proposals for considered adjustments to achieve more efficient arrangements for service delivery. Any adjustments will be within the framework of the board's strategic plans and made in the normal way so that the interests of patients remain paramount.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of his Department's management training courses include sessions on equal opportunities for women; and what proportion of managers at grade six level and above working outside headquarters has received training on equal opportunities for women.

  Mr. Ryder
  All management training courses run by my Department include sessions on equal opportunities and it is Treasury policy that staff with management responsibilities, including those outside headquarters, receive appropriate training.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of employees; what child care provision for school holidays or after-school care is provided for employees' children aged five years or over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Ryder
  Children of staff in Her Majesty's Treasury between the ages of five and 12 have access to a holiday play scheme that is organised by the Westminster Play Association. The scheme is run in the Treasury building and is available to a number of Whitehall Departments.
  485
  Consideration is being given to other child care schemes for which funding arrangements would need to be contained within overall running cost provision.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what grade is his Department's equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Ryder
  Grade seven.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he has implemented to ensure that recruitment and promotion policy in his Department does not directly or indirectly discriminate against applicants who were mature students or women returning to work following a career-break due to child care.

  Mr. Ryder
  As an equal opportunities employer, mature students and women who return to work are treated in exactly the same way as anyone else within the Treasury's recruitment and promotion policy.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of civil servants in his Department are women at each of the grades(a) seven, (b) six, (c) five, (d) four, (e) three, (f) two and (g) one.

  Mr. Ryder
  For Her Majesty's Treasury the information is as follows:

  (a) 17·4 per cent.;

  (b) 5·9 per cent.;

  (c) 12·8 per cent.;

  (d) none;

  (e) 18·5 per cent.;

  (f) none;

  (g) none.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken, and what action he intends taking, to implement the recommendations within his area of responsibility of the European Commission's childcare network report "Caring for Children—Services and Policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom".

  Mr. Ryder
  The report was prepared for the European Commission, which has not yet developed any proposals. The Government believe that policy on child care is a matter for member states. The United Kingdom's policy is that it is for families themselves to determine how their children are to be brought up and how parents, who wish to do so, can best combine paid work and family responsibilities. The Government, through the Department of Health and the ministerial group on women's issues, have encouraged the development of a range of high quality child care options for both parents and employers.

  Sexual Harassment
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Civil Service policy on sexual harassment is set out in the programme for action to achieve equal opportunities for women in the Civil Service, which was published by the Cabinet Office (management 486
  and personnel office) in 1984. Sexual harassment at work is not tolerated and is dealt with, if appropriate, as a disciplinary matter through the usual Civil Service complaints procedure. Specific guidance on reporting alleged sexual harassment is included in "Women in the Treasury: a Guide to Personnel Management policies", which has been issued to all Treasury staff. Existing guidance in Her Majesty' Treasury on sexual harassment is being reviewed with a view to incorporating it in a new booklet on equal opportunity policies. There have been five complaints reported in the past five to six years: in the three proven cases, formal written warnings were issued.

  Taxation
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of women he expects the proposed married person's tax allowance will be given to.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is estimated that in 1990–91 approximately 400,000 married women, just under 10 per cent. of all married women with income greater than the personal allowance, will receive part or all of the married couple's allowance. The estimate is based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and is provisional.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the financial position of farmers' wives in relation to taxation, social security benefits and pensions.

  Mr. Lilley
  I am not aware of any particular points affecting the financial position of farmers' wives. M any of them will be among the 2¾ million wives who will gain when the new system of independent taxation comes into effect on 5 April this year.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will seek to zero-rate sanitary products for value added tax purposes; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I cannot anticipate my right hon Friend's Budget statement.

  Pin-ups
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Ryder
  Sexual harassment at work, of which the display of sexually offensive material is a form, is not tolerated and is dealt with, if appropriate, as a disciplinary matter through the usual Civil Service complaints procedures. Existing guidance in Her Majesty's Treasury on sexual harassment is being reviewed with a view to incorporating it in a new booklet on equal opportunities.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether payments other than those paid to persons who have been randomly selected by the electronic random number indicator equipment situated at Lytham St. Annes have been made by ERNIE in any year since 1979.
  487
  Mr. Ryder
  No.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sewage Sludge
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about the dumping of sewage sludge at sea.

  Mr. Gummer
  The arrangements reached at the 1987 North sea ministerial conference included an undertaking in principle not to dump materials in the North sea unless there are no practical disposal alternatives on land. In the case of sewage sludge more than 70 per cent. of the United Kingdom's production of this material is now disposed of on land. The Government have continued to encourage sewerage undertakers to develop the use of practical land-based disposal methods for the remainder. In particular, we have identified significant advances in incineration techniques both as regard their efficiency and environmental impact.

  In view of this encouraging progress in the development of alternative methods, we have now decided to terminate the sea disposal of sewage sludge. This will mean a substantial programme of work to be undertaken in order to implement alternative disposal methods. A major capital investment will be required. Planning permission where necessary must also be obtained. We shall proceed as rapidly as possible. But some dumping will need to continue until new facilities are ready. We intend to have finished all dumping by the end of 1998.

  Chemical Wastes
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the incineration of chemical wastes at sea.

  Mr. Gummer
  At the 1987 North sea ministerial conference it was agreed that marine incineration should be phased out by 31 December 1994 as alternative means of dealing with the wastes concerned were becoming available. Land-based incineration facilities capable of dealing with the United Kingdom wastes which are currently burnt at sea are now being developed. I have therefore decided that no more United Kingdom waste will be licensed for marine incineration after the end of this year.

  Industrial Waste
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to reduce to zero by the year 2000 inputs of toxic discharges into the North sea.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is the Government's policy to prevent or (where prevention is not possible) minimise releases of toxic substances to the aquatic environment. Our current target reductions are of the order of 50 per cent. by 1995. They were agreed at the London North sea conference in 1987. The United Kingdom national action plan published on 5 March shows the good progress we have made to date. The progress made by each North sea state will be reviewed at the Hague North sea conference this week.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of Agricultural Development Advisory Service staff are women.

  Mr. Curry
  The proportion of women in the Ministry's Agricultural Development Advisory Service is currently 31 per cent.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to encourage women to use his Department's sponsored training courses.

  Mr. Curry
  All courses provided by my Department are fully publicised to women staff; we also run specific courses for women managers to help them develop their personal effectiveness. Additionally, to encourage women with young families, any extra child care expenses incurred as a result of attending a training course, may be reclaimed.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of his Department's management training courses include sessions on equal opportunities for women; and what proportion of managers at grade six level and above working outside headquarters has received training on equal opportunities for women.

  Mr. Curry
  All initial and middle management training courses run by my Department include sessions on equal opportunities for women. Training for staff at grade six level and above is more individually structured and staff are encouraged to undertake training in a range of competencies, including equal opportunities for women, but separate statistics are not available.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of employees; what childcare provision for school holidays or after-school care is provided for employees' children aged five years or over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 31 January (Official Report, column 236). Once the results of the studies mentioned are available, consideration will be given to the matter of funding. School holiday play schemes for children aged over five years have been operating at Guildford since 1988 and at Leeds since last year, the latter scheme being run in partnership with the DSS and PSA. A further scheme will be introduced at the central veterinary laboratory, Weybridge, this summer. Discussions are currently in progress on the possibility of introducing a play scheme at Tolworth, in co-operation with other Government Departments in the area. Pump-priming funds have been available and continue to be available for such schemes.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what grade is his Department's equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Curry
  Grade five.
  489
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of civil servants in his Department are women at each of the grades(a) seven, (b) six, (c) five, (d) four, (e) three, (f) two and (g) one.

  Mr. Curry
  The percentage of women in the following grades and grade equivalents as at 28 February 1990 is as follows:

  Women as percentage of total staff in grade

  Grade

  Per cent.

  7

  12

  6

  9

  5

  8

  4

  —

  3

  8

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken, and what action he intends taking, to implement the recommendations within his area of responsibility of the European Commission's childcare network report "Caring for Children—Services and Policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom".

  Mr. Curry
  The report was prepared for the European Commission, which has not yet developed any proposals. The Government believe that policy on child care is a matter for member states. The United Kingdom's policy is that it is for families themselves to determine how their children are to be brought up and how parents, who wish to do so, can best combine paid work and family responsibilities. The Government, through the Department of Health and the ministerial group on women's issues, have encouraged the development of a range of high quality child care options for both parents and employers.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he has implemented to ensure that recruitment and promotion policy in his Department does not directly or indirectly discriminate against applicants who were mature students or women returning to work following a career-break due to child care.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department is directly responsible for the recruitment of staff up to and including administrative officer and equivalent grades and the departmental grade of fishery officer. Selection panels are instructed on the need to guard against any form of discrimination. Selection criteria based, for example, on sex, are strictly forbidden as are criteria which might discriminate on age grounds against mature students or women returning to work after a career break. Age limits and qualification requirements for departmental grades which are recruited by the Civil Service Commission on our behalf are currently under review with the aim of ensuring that no unnecessary restrictions are placed on eligibility to apply to work in the Department.

  A domestic absence reinstatement scheme, designed to give staff who resign for domestic reasons preferential consideration for reinstatement and encouragement to rejoin my Department when they are ready to return to work, was introduced in October 1988. Formal arrangements governing part-time working and job
  490
  sharing were introduced in December 1989. These are intended to promote and expand the opportunities available in the Department for those who wish to work reduced hours.

  Those responsible for assessing staff for promotion are regularly reminded of the need to assess staff who work reduced hours on exactly the same basis as all other staff, without regard to their status as part-timers or job-sharers. Officers recommended for promotion, who take maternity leave before they are posted to a higher grade, may have the validity of their promotion recommendations extended, normally for up to one year, to cover their period of absence.

  Proposed new arrangements for promotion are currently under discussion with the Department's trade union side. These will remove seniority, which may indirectly discriminate against those who take career breaks, from promotion procedures. They will also ensure that staff approaching retiring age remain eligible for consideration for promotion until they reach the normal retiring age of the higher grade. I hope these new arrangements will be in place by 1 January 1991.

  The Department also monitors recruitment competitions, promotions and allocations to duties with the aim of ensuring that there is no discrimination against women.

  Sexual Harassment
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's policy of sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mr. Curry
  The Civil Service policy on sexual harassment is set out in the programme of action to achieve equal opportunities for women in the Civil Service, which was published by the Cabinet Office (management and personnel office) in 1984. Sexual harassment at work is not tolerated and is dealt with as a disciplinary matter through the usual Civil Service complaints procedures. In my Department a network of sexual harassment contact officers has been set up and guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff.

  Three formal complaints have been reported centrally to personnel division in the past five years; all were investigated and disciplinary action was taken as appropriate.

  Pin-ups
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Curry
  Guidance has already been issued in my Department which makes it clear that sexual harassment at work is not tolerated and in particular requires managers to ensure that potentially offensive material is not displayed in the workplace.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the new way in which grant aid for coastal protection will be calculated, and indicate the rate at which such grants will be paid.

  Mr. Curry
  It is our intention that the revised method of calculating grant rates for coast protection schemes will parallel the existing one as far as possible. The rates at which grant may be paid will be the same as those that obtain at present (that is, up to a maximum of 70 per cent.). Details of the new method of calculation will be circulated to the coast protection authorities as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in the light of rising sea levels, he will review the provisions and working of the Coast Protection Act 1949; and if he will make a statement.

  National programme of R and D on coastal defence and protection currently funded by MAFF

  Research objective

  (a) Location

  (b) Amount of MAFF funding in 1989–90 £'000

  (c) MAFF funding as percentage of total cost

  1. To ensure that the Storm Tide Warning Service Operational Model is properly maintained, performance monitored, shortcomings identified and rectified and developed in line with modern technology

  NERC's Institute of Oceanographic Services (IOS) at Merseyside or Wormley Laboratory

  95

  100

  2. To develop numerical surge forecasting models for the south and west coasts of Britain for future extension of the Storm Tide Warning Service

  IOS, Merseyside or Wormley

  88

  100

  3. To develop a single numerical modelling system embracing tides, surges and waves for predicting extreme sea states and for use as a forecasting tool

  IOS, Merseyside or Wormley

  120

  100

  4. To improve tidal predictions and develop methods for predicting sea state extremes

  IOS, Merseyside or Wormley

  154

  100

  5. To maintain and improve the quality, reliability and availability of sea level data obtained from the national tide gauge network

  IOS, Merseyside or Wormley

  67

  100

  6. To assemble, analyse and maintain a bank of well documented and verified observations from the principal tide gauges round Great Britain

  IOS, Merseyside or Wormley

  90

  100

  7. Studies of wave set-up and comparison with wave models

  IOS, Merseyside or Wormley

  37

  100

  8. Parameterization of air/sea interaction processes

  IOS, Merseyside or Wormley

  25

  100

  9. Effects on waves of climatic variations

  IOS, Merseyside or Wormley

  25

  100

  10. To carry out model tests on structures in order to assist in design and construction of effective and economical coastal defences

  Hydraulics Research Laboratory (HRL), Wallingford

  65

  100

  11. To develop models to provide engineering tools for predicting waves at or near the coastline

  Hydraulics Research Laboratory (HRL), Wallingford

  65

  100

  12. Sea wall design

  Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), London

  7

  100

  492
  Mr. Curry
  The Coast Protection Act 1949 allows maritime district councils to carry out such work as is necessary. The requirement for work will vary from location to location and will depend on local as well as global factors. A rise in mean sea level will have no direct implication for the workings of the Act. Nevertheless, the latest developments on climate change are closely monitored and careful consideration is given to the likely consequences for both coast protection and sea defence.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research projects on coastal protection and sea defences are being funded by his Ministry; and at what percentage rate.

  Mr. Curry
  the Department is spending £1·4 million in 1989–90 on a national programme of research on coastal protection and sea defence and a list of the projects being funded is given in the table. The Department discusses its national research programme with the National Rivers Authority and other relevant bodies.
  493

  Research objective

  (a) Location

  (b) Amount of MAFF funding in 1989–90 £'000

  (c) MAFF funding as percentage of total cost

  13. Assessment and integrated management of coastal cliff systems

  University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

  12

  100

  14. Further macro review of the coast of England and Wales

  HRL, Wallingford

  4

  100

  15. Rehabilitation and maintenance of old waterfront walls

  CIRIA, London

  15

  30

  16. Modelling sediment transport in combined wave current flow

  University College of North Wales, Bangor

  29

  100

  17. Sediment transport by combined waves and currents (phase II)

  HRL, Wallingford

  83

  100

  18. Shingle Beach Dynamics 3D aspects

  HRL, Wallingford

  63

  100

  19. Mathematical model of groynes on shingle beaches

  HRL, Wallingford

  32

  100

  20. Performance of permable revetments

  HRL, Wallingford

  61

  100

  21. Design of quarried rock slope protection against wave attack

  CIRIA, London

  15

  20

  22. Process of sand transport by tidal currents and waves

  NERC's Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Birkenhead

  9

  100

  23. Climatic change—United Kingdom sea level trends

  NERC's Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Birkenhead

  40

  100

  24. A review and collation of beach data within the United Kingdom

  HRL, Wallingford

  7

  100

  25. Mathematical modelling of wave climate near offshore breakwaters

  HRL, Wallingford

  10

  100

  26. Development of environmental assessment manual: a pilot study

  University of East Anglia, Norwich

  14

  100

  29. Agricultural benefits of coast protection and sea defence

  Middlesex Polytechnic Flood Hazard Research Centre, Enfield

  50

  100

  30. Post project appraisal of urban flood protection

  Middlesex Polytechnic Flood Hazard Research Centre, Enfield

  25

  100

  Total

  1,400

  Veal Crates
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to seek to persuade the Council of Ministers to ban the use of veal crates in the European Community.

  Mr. Maclean
  This is already the policy which we are pursuing in discussions on Commission proposals for minimum standards for the welfare of intensively kept calves.

  Global Warming
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to put forward proposals at the next European Council of Agriculture Ministers, on 5 and 6 March in Brussels, on initiatives that may be taken in the agriculture sector to mitigate the global warming greenhouse effect.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Agriculture Council on 5–6 March will concentrate on the Commission's farm price 494
  proposals. I shall ensure that the issue of global warming is taken into account in the United Kingdom's position in so far as it relates to matters on the Council agenda.

  Live Animal Stock (Exports)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what investigations are carried out by his Department to ensure that live animal stock exported from the United Kingdom receive the correct exercise and food while in transit in the United Kingdom and abroad.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department administers arrangements for resting, feeding and watering and inspecting farm animals prior to export from Great Britain for fattening or immediate slaughter. We seek assurances about the onward journey from exporters and their importers although other member states are responsible for applying EC measures on their territories. Enforcement of statutory controls covering welfare during journeys in this country is a matter for local authorities.
  495
  In addition, we have launched an initiative in the EC on animal welfare in which we have underlined the need for proper standards during transport.

  Flood Damage
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what help he will give to restore the damaged sea wall and to prevent further flood damage(a) along the north Devon coast and (b) to the towns of Ilfracombe and Lynmouth.

  Mr. Curry
  Apart from Ilfracombe and Lynmouth, we are aware of only minor damage to sea defence along the north Devon coast.

  At Lynmouth the county council, as highway authority, is taking responsibility for the damage to the works protecting the coastal road. At Ilfracombe temporary works to repair the damage to a section of the sea wall are already in place, and the National Rivers Authority south-west region is designing a scheme to provide a permanent defence. We understand that the North Devon district council is currently dealing with another flooding problem in the town. Grant is available (at rates up to 70 per cent.) on works which are economically, technically and environmentally acceptable.

  National Rivers Authority and local authority programmes of flood defence works may change as a result of recent storm events, so we have asked authorities for an early indication of these changes in order to assess the future work and funding implications. It is our intention to ensure that Government funding is sufficient to support a programme which takes full account of these needs.

  Aphids
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the proposals put to his Department by the Agriculture and Food Research Council Institute at Rorthamsted on aphid research and aphid surveys.

  Mr. Curry
  A number of proposals have been put to my Department on aphid research and surveys. The importance of aphids as crop pests is fully appreciated but all research proposals have to be judged not only on their individual merits but according to the priority of Ministry requirements. The chief scientist has now given approval in principle for the funding of one proposal on aphid surveys linked to studies of climate change.

  Cricket Bat Willows
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance his Department issues on pollarding or copsing cricket bat willows.

  Mr. Curry
  Guidance on growing cricket bat willows is given in Forestry Commission bulletin 17, "The Cultivation of the Cricket Bat Willow". This bulletin is out of print, but I am arranging for a photocopy to be placed in the Library of the House. Photocopies can also be bought from the Forestry Commission's library at Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham, Surrey, GU 10 4LH.

  Inshore Fishing
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the question of the United Kingdom inshore fishing fleet.

  Mr. Curry
  The Minister and I are in regular contact with fisheries organisations about a wide range of issues affecting the inshore fleet.

  EC Agriculture Ministers
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent meetings he has had with other European Economic Community Agriculture Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Minister and I meet other European Community Agriculture Ministers frequently, both at meetings of the Council of Ministers and elsewhere.

  EC Food Exports
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the amount of food exported by the European Economic Community to the Soviet Union and eastern Europe; and what was the cost of the export rebates involved over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Curry
  For the main agricultural commodities, the table shows the most recent data available on the volume of exports. The cost of the export refunds involved could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Volume of EC Exports, January—August 1989 (000 tonnes)

  To USSR

  To Eastern Europe1

  Wheat

  2,980

  1,085

  Barley

  1,997

  1,096

  Wheat flour

  2—

  5

  Rice

  2—

  2

  Malt

  61

  1

  Whole milk powder

  31

  1

  Skimmed milk powder

  2—

  2—

  Condensed milk

  0

  2—

  Butter (incl. butter oil)

  118

  14

  Beef and veal

  72

  105

  Pigmeat

  2—

  2—

  Poultrymeat

  2—

  2—

  Sugar total (white equivalent)

  91

  213

  (of which refined sugar)

  (91)

  (213)

  Olive Oil

  2

  2—

  Notes:1 German Democratic Republic, Poland, Czechoslavakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania.

  2 denotes trade under 500 tonnes.

  Poultry
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the percentage value of the poultry siezed for slaughter under the Zoonoses Order 1989, paid as compensation to the poultry's owner.

  Mr. Maclean
  When a poultry flock in which the presence of salmonella has been confirmed is compulsorily slaughtered, compensation is paid in accordance with the requirements of the Animal Health Act 1981. The amount paid is based on the scale of values depending on the age of the birds and represents 60 per cent. of the value of a healthy flock.

  Fisheries Research
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show (a) vessels based in Great Britain which are engaged in fisheries research, (b) the draught and tonnage of the vessels, (c) the type of fish covered by the research, (d) the number of full-time crew employed on each vessel, (e) the number of scientists employed in each vessel, (f) the number of other staff employed on the vessel, (g) the number of staff employed at the shore establishment and which directly support each vessel, (h) the port at which the vessel is based, (i) the sea area which is normally covered by each vessel and its extent in square miles, (j) the number of days spent at sea in each of the last three years and (k) the costs attributed to the work of each vessel in those three years or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 27 February 1990]: Two vessels, R V Cirolana and RV Corystes, are operated by my Department for fisheries research. RV Corystes entered service in April 1988.

  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Natural Environment Research Council also operate fisheries reseach vessels.

  Information about the vessels operated by the Ministry is as follows:

  Draught and tonnage

  (i) Cirolana

  Draft

  15·11m

  Net registered tonnage

  440·81

  Gross registered tonnage

  1,731·48

  (ii) Corystes

  Draft

  14·30m

  Net registered tonnage

  384·00

  Gross registered tonnage

  1,280·00

  1 Mean.

  Type of fish covered by the research

  All fish and shellfish in principle, but particularly the 40 or so species of interest to the United Kingdom's commercial fishermen and subject to EC common fishery policy regulations on total allowable catches. A total of 50 per cent. of the vessels' time is engaged in marine environmental protection-related work.

  Full-time crew employed

  Number

  (i) Cirolana

  29

  (ii) Corystes

  19

  (iii) Relief

  6

  Scientific staff

  Those staff are shore-based. The number of scientists normally carried per cruise is:

  Number

  (i) Cirolana

  10

  (ii) Corystes

  6

  Other staff employed on the vessels

  Nil.

  Shore based support staff

  Five and half.

  Base port

  Lowestoft.

  Operational sea area

  (i) Cirolana

  Worldwide capability but operated mainly in the North
  498
  Atlantic from the Azores to the polar ice shelf and Europe/Scandinavia to Canada. Approximate area 4·4 million square miles.

  (ii) Corystes

  North-west European shelf sea contiguous with the British Isles, although capable of working anywhere in the Atlantic in reasonable weather conditions. Approximate area 1 million square miles.

  Number of days spent at sea

  1987

  1988

  1989

  (i) Cirolana

  256

  243

  254

  (ii) Corystes

  —

  183

  249

  (k) Operational cost of vessels (to nearest £ thousand)

  1987–88 (£)

  1988–89 (£)

  1989–901 (£)

  (i) Cirolana

  921,000

  986,000

  1,039,000

  (ii) Corystes

  —

  586,000

  705,000

  1 Forecast.

EMPLOYMENT

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now increase the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals, so as to enable them to deal with claims for breaches of contracts of employment following dismissal.

  Mr. Nicholls
  We consulted widely on this issue last year. This showed overwhelming support for implementation. I have therefore decided that the necessary statutory instrument should be made as soon as practicable. This will mean that an employee making a complaint of unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal will also be able to ask the tribunal to recover, for example, arrears of pay lost because he was dismissed without notice. At present separate proceedings have to be initiated in the civil courts to recover such damages.

  I have also decided that both the conditions set out in section 131(3) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 should be required to be satisfied before an industrial tribunal can consider a claim. I am sure that the fact that it will be possible to settle simultaneously those contractual disputes between an employer and employee arising from dismissal will be welcomed by both sides.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will bring forward legislation to extend the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals to enable them to determine claims for breach of contract arising from dismissals from employment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  We consulted widely on this issue last year. This showed overwhelming support for implementation. I have, therefore, decided that the necessary statutory instrument should be made as soon as practicable. This means that an employee making a complaint of unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal will also be able to ask the tribunal to recover, for example, arrears of pay lost because he was dismissed without notice. At present separate proceedings have to be initiated in civil courts to recover such damages.

  I have also decided that both the conditions set out in section 131(3) of the Employment Protection

  499
  (Consolidation) Act 1978 should be required to be satisfied before an industrial tribunal can consider a claim. I am sure that the fact that it will be possible to settle simultaneously those contractual disputes between an employer and employee arising from dismissal will be welcomed by both sides.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what account he is taking in his plans for training and enterprise councils of arrangements for training at residential and other specialist colleges for people with disabilities which are currently centrally funded by the Training Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The TECs will need to take full account of the need for residential and other specialist training provision for people with disabilities. It is important that TECs should have the responsibility for planning, delivering and accounting for all training for people under Training Agency programmes, including people with disabilities, through the full range of help available. They should be developing ways of delivering those pro grammes so that even people with quite severe disabilities can be trained for local jobs in an integrated setting. The TECs should be taking decisions on the funding and delivery of training with a clear appreciation of, and responsibility for, the cost effectiveness of different means at their disposal.

  During 1990–91 and 1991–92 my Department will continue to fund centrally residential training for people with disabilities. Officials will work closely with the providers of training and TECs during that time to pilot possible ways in which TECs might become directly involved in decisions about the referral of suitable trainees and the funding of residential places. A decision on whether to devolve responsibility for referral and funding arrangements wholly to TECs would have to take full account of the need for continuity of provision in this important area, and of the particular circumstances of the providers and their client groups. No such decision will be taken until the pilot arrangements have been thoroughly evaluated.

  Skill Centres
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, following the recent announcement on the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency, he will make a statement on the future of those employment rehabilitation centres that are located on the same sites as skill centres.

  Industry training organisation

  Staff

  Percentage of sector covered

  1 Management and training

  Total

  Employees in sector

  Firms

  Employees

  British Agriculture and Garden Machinery Association

  1·20

  1·50

  20,000

  77

  90

  Agricultural Co-operatives Training Council

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association

  0·50

  1·25

  60,000

  65

  83

  Foreign Airlines Training Council

  0·20

  0·25

  9,000

  73

  78

  AFA Technology (Atomic Energy)

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Aviation Training Association

  4·00

  6·00

  150,000

  16

  48

  Federation of Bakers

  0·15

  0·25

  50,000

  100

  100

  National Association of Master Bakers, Confectioners and Caterers

  0·50

  0·60

  2—

  83

  2—

  500
  Mr. Eggar
  Arrangements will be made to ensure the continuation of employment rehabilitation services in localities currently served by employment rehabilitation centres. In most cases they will remain on existing sites for up to three years but in some areas it may be necessary to find alternative premises. The future role of the employment rehabilitation service is being considered in the context of the review of the Department's services for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he plans to continue monitoring the number of trainees with disabilities receiving training at skill centres, following the Skills Training Agency's privatisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  I do not anticipate that the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency will have any immediate effect on the existing monitoring arrangements.

  Industrial Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many employees there are in each industry or industrial sector which is represented by a non-statutory industrial training organisation;

  (2) if he will list the number of people employed by each of the non-statutory industrial training organisations for which he has figures available;

  (3) if he will publish a list of the existing non-statutory industrial training organisations;

  (4) what information he has on (a) the number of training professionals employed by each non-statutory industrial training organisation as a ratio of the total number of employees in the industry or industrial sector which it covers and (b) how many full-time and part-time training professionals are employed by the Meat Industries Training Organisation;

  (5) what information he has on how many non-statutory industrial training organisations represent (a) more than 50 per cent. of firms in their sector and (b) more than 50 per cent. of the employees in their sector; and which are the organisations concerned;

  (6) what information he has on how many non-statutory industrial training organisations represent (a) more than 75 per cent. of firms in their sector and (b) more than 75 per cent. of the employees in their sector; and which are the organisations concerned.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table lists all the organisations regarded as independent industry training organisations, together with the latest information available which is from the Institute of Manpower Studies report, "The Full Fact Finding Study of the NSTO System", produced in December 1987 for the former Manpower Services Commission.
  501

  Industry training organisation

  Staff

  Percentage of sector covered

  1Management and training

  Total

  Employees in sector

  Firms

  Employees

  Scottish Association of Master Bakers

  1·10

  1·20

  2—

  80

  2—

  Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance

  2·00

  5·00

  100,000

  89

  90

  Bookhouse Training Centre

  2·00

  5·00

  20,000

  100

  100

  British Brush Manufacturers

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Builders Merchants' Federation

  14·00

  18·50

  62,000

  79

  97

  Bus and Coach Training

  2·00

  3·00

  174,300

  45

  99

  Caravan, Camping and Related Self Catering ITO (formerly National Caravan Council Limited)

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Carpet Industry Training Council

  1·20

  1·50

  18,000

  60

  78

  British Cement Association

  2—

  2—

  9,000

  100

  100

  Ceramics Industry Training Organisation

  7·00

  10·00

  35,000

  14

  93

  Chemical Industries Association

  3·50

  5·50

  200,000

  2—

  90

  China and Ball Clay Industries Training Board

  2—

  2—

  7,015

  100

  100

  British Coal

  3·60

  5·00

  140,000

  100

  100

  Computing Services Industry Training Council

  2·00

  5·00

  44,000

  11

  75

  Precast Concrete Industry Training Association

  3·00

  4·00

  16,000

  21

  75

  Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Products Association

  2—

  2—

  2,044

  100

  100

  Cosmetics, Toiletry and Perfumery Association

  0·30

  0·80

  30,000

  2—

  95

  Cotton and Allied Textile ITO

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Dairy Trade Federation

  1·20

  2·20

  93,500

  59

  97

  Scottish Distributive Industries Training Council

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  National Association of Industrial Distributors

  1·00

  4·00

  20,000

  53

  60

  Drinks Industries Training Association

  2·50

  4·20

  90,000

  100

  100

  Electricity Industry Training Committee

  7·00

  7·00

  147,795

  100

  100

  Envelope Makers & Manufacturing Stationers Association

  0·30

  0·30

  5,000

  100

  100

  British Fibreboard Packaging Employers Association (formerly BFPA)

  2·00

  2·75

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Fibre Cement Manufacturers Association

  1·00

  1·00

  2,098

  100

  100

  Food Manufacturers Council for Industrial Training

  1·00

  2·00

  2—

  2—

  2—

  British Footwear Manufacturers Federation

  0·08

  0·10

  48,000

  36

  83

  Forestry Training Council

  1·00

  2·00

  2—

  2—

  2—

  National Institute of Fresh Produce

  5·00

  6·00

  65,000

  2—

  2—

  UK Association of Frozen Food Producers

  0·08

  0·10

  2—

  2—

  2—

  British Furniture Manufacturers Federation

  0·20

  0·40

  78,000

  2—

  71

  British Gas plc

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Glass Training Ltd.

  5·50

  6·50

  39,000

  100

  100

  Hairdressing Training Board

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Joint National Horse Education and Training Council

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Insurance Industry Training Council

  1·00

  2·00

  243,000

  100

  91

  National Supervisory Council for Intruder Alarms

  1·00

  1·20

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Knitting & Lace Industries Training Resources Agency

  3·00

  3·50

  90,000

  22

  80

  British Leather Confederation

  1·00

  1·30

  8,000

  88

  91

  Leather Goods (Walsall CCI)

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Local Government Training Board

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Man-Made Fibres Industry Training Advisory Board

  2·50

  4·10

  15,000

  82

  97

  Marine Training Association

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  British Marine Industries Federation

  2·00

  3·00

  14,500

  2

  86

  Meat Industry Training Organisation

  2—

  2—

  150,000

  2—

  80

  Scottish Federation of Meat Traders Association

  5·50

  5·50

  1,500

  2—

  60

  Merchant Navy Training Board

  2·00

  2·50

  30,000

  100

  100

  Incorporated National Association of British & Irish Millers

  4·00

  6·00

  6,000

  96

  100

  British Narrow Fabrics Association

  0·15

  0·20

  5,500

  80

  86

  Newspaper Publishers Association

  1·00

  2·00

  20,000

  100

  100

  Newspaper Society

  2·00

  4·00

  2—

  2—

  2—

  British Nuclear Fuels plc

  6·70

  7·70

  16,900

  2—

  2—

  Flexible Packaging Association

  0·60

  0·60

  7,500

  90

  87

  National Packaging Confederation

  2—

  2—

  25,000

  25

  30

  Paintmakers Association of GB

  2·00

  2·00

  20,000

  33

  85

  British Paper & Board Industry Education & Training Council

  4·00

  6·00

  34,000

  91

  94

  National Association of Paper Merchants

  0·07

  0·10

  20,000

  2—

  75

  Periodicals Training Council

  3·00

  4·50

  20,000

  49

  80

  Petroleum Training Federation

  7·50

  11·00

  60,000

  82

  92

  Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry

  1·00

  2·00

  84,000

  2—

  71

  British Ports Federation

  1·00

  2·00

  41,208

  100

  100

  Post Office

  5·00

  5·00

  191,434

  100

  100

  Society of Master Printers of Scotland

  1·70

  2·20

  2—

  71

  2—

  British Printing Industries

  7·00

  21·00

  140,000

  51

  70

  Quarry Products Training Council

  2·00

  2·60

  32,500

  56

  97

  British Railways Board

  11·00

  12·00

  139,000

  100

  100

  London Regional Transport (Rail Operations)

  2—

  2—

  21,000

  100

  100

  Refractories, Clay Pipes and Allied Industries Training Council

  2·00

  2·50

  11,000

  82

  86

  National Retail Training Council

  4·50

  5·50

  2,400,000

  86

  83

  British Rubber Industry Training Organisation

  7·00

  10·00

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Seafish Industry Authority

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  502 503

  Industry training organisation

  Staff

  Percentage of sector covered

  1Management and training

  Total

  Employees in sector

  Firms

  Employees

  British Security Industry Association

  1·50

  2·00

  2—

  2—

  2—

  National Association of Multiple Shoe Repairers

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Society Master Shoe Repairers

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Silica and Moulding Sands Association

  0·50

  0·70

  1,820

  78

  99

  Small Ships Training Group Association

  1·30

  1·30

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Soap and Detergent Industry Association

  1·00

  2·00

  13,500

  2—

  96

  British Soft Drinks Association

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  British Sports and Allied Industries Federation

  0·01

  0·01

  2—

  2—

  2—

  British Steel Corporation

  8·00

  16·00

  51,000

  100

  100

  Midland Independent Steel Training Association

  2·50

  3·50

  72,000

  2—

  11

  Northern Independent Steel Training Association

  5·00

  7·00

  6,500

  82

  93

  United Kingdom Sugar Industry Association

  3·00

  3·00

  10,500

  100

  100

  British Telecom

  2—

  2—

  223,084

  100

  100

  British Timber Merchants Association (England and Wales)

  0·07

  0·10

  12,300

  21

  28

  Timber Trade Training Association

  4·40

  5·20

  38,000

  2—

  71

  Tobacco Industry Training Organisation

  1·50

  2·00

  19,368

  100

  100

  Association of British Travel Agents

  51·50

  64·00

  100,000

  2—

  90

  United Kingdom Softwood Sawmillers Association (formerly Home Timber Merchants Association of Scotland)

  0·10

  0·15

  2,000

  82

  90

  Wallcovering Manufacturers Association of Great Britain

  2—

  2—

  4,101

  90

  2—

  National Association of Warehouse Keepers

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Water Authorities Association

  1·00

  1·50

  50,000

  100

  100

  British Waterways Board

  2—

  2—

  3,000

  100

  100

  Wire and Wire Rope Employers Association

  1·00

  1·50

  6,750

  68

  89

  Scottish Woolen Industries

  1·00

  1·20

  5,000

  96

  80

  Confederation of British Wool Textiles

  3·00

  4·50

  40,000

  83

  86

  1 Includes directly employed operational staff-management, training etc. plus staff employed for YTS.

  2 ITO not included in research or information not available.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of people employed by each of the statutory industry training boards.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is as follows:

  Industry training board

  Number of employers

  Clothing and allied products

  126

  Construction

  1,311

  Engineering

  602

  Hotel and catering

  446

  Offshore petroleum

  65

  Plastics processing

  75

  Road transport

  470

  The source of the information is the 1988–89 annual reports of the industry training boards except for the offshore petroleum figure which relates to the annual report for the year ending 31 December 1988.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what will happen to the premises and other assets currently held on behalf of their industries by statutory industry training boards when non-statutory bodies assume responsibility for training in the sectors concerned.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Provisions in the Employment Act 1989 enable a statutory industry training board to transfer all or any of its assets to a successor organisation on trust to be used for charitable purposes which are related to training for employment.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which sectors of industry, previously covered by a statutory industrial training board, are no longer represented by non-statutory industrial training organisations.
  504
  Mr. Nicholls
  All significant sectors formerly in scope to industry training boards have either their own independent industry training organisation or access to such an organisation.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what circumstances the DE Training Agency will take steps to recover payments of ET training allowances paid to people no longer entitled to them; in how many cases the DETA has taken such steps; how much has been recovered; whether there have been any prosecutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is the normal practice to seek recovery in all cases where it is clear that a person has received a training allowance to which they are not entitled. Prosecution would be considered only where there was evidence of fraudulent intent and no prosecutions have taken place in cases of the kind referred to in the question. Information on numbers of cases in which recovery has been sought and the amounts involved is not held centrally.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) women and (b) men on employment training are married parents; and how many of these have (i) claimed and (ii) been granted child care payments.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Financial help with child care is available only to lone parents on employment training. At the end of December 1989 about 3 per cent. of all those on the programme were receiving child care payments. It is not known how many claims for child care allowances were made or met or how many trainees making these claims were either men or women or whether or not they were married.
  505
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) women and (b) men on employment training are single parents; and how many of these have (i) claimed and (ii) been granted child care payments.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At the end of December 1989 about 3 per cent. of all those on employment training were receiving child care payments. It is not known how many claims for child care allowances were made or met or how many trainees making these claims were either men or women. All trainees receiving child care payments are single parents.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he proposes to improve employment training in the light of the establishment of training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) will have the flexibility to make Employment Training even more responsive to the training needs of both individuals and employers within local labour markets. I am arranging for the TECs to enjoy:

  the freedom to decide arrangements for assessment and guidance leading to an agreed individual training programme for all entrants to ET;

  the freedom to decide how training should be designed; the freedom to determine how training providers are funded;

  the freedom to determine many of the terms and conditions for trainees;

  more freedom in the provision of ET to people unemployed for less than 6 months;

  the freedom to enable individuals to train for longer than the existing limit of 12 months (within an agreed budget).

  The funding for TECs will reflect success in helping people into jobs, self-employment, further education or other full-time training. At least 10 per cent. of ET funding will be for such positive outcomes achieved by their trainees.

  The arrangements for payment of training allowances will remain unchanged. These new flexibilities will enable TECs to he creative in designing attractive and effective training options, while building on the excellent experience of employment training to date.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the total numbers of special group entrants to employment training without being unemployed for six months for the categories(a) people with disabilities, (b) ex-offenders, (c) those seeking high technology shortage skills, (d) on enterprise training, (e) women returners, (f) ex-regulars, (g) inner-city residents in certain pilot areas and (h) lone parents between September 1988 and December 1989 for Great Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: Information on ex-offenders, high technology shortage skills entrants and inner city residents in pilot areas in the special eligibility category could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Information for the other groups is given in the table.
  506

  Employment training special eligibility group entrants as a proportion of all entrants September 1988 to December 1989 (Estimated)

  Group

  Estimated proportion of all entrants Per cent.

  Enterprise trainees

  4·0

  People with disabilities

  3·0

  Ex-regulars

  10·5

  Women returners

  3·0

  Lone parents

  2·0

  1 Less than.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to improve the effectiveness of ihe Health and Safety Executive's work.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The main responsibility for ensuring effectiveness lies with the Health and Safety Commission. In approving the commission's annual plan of work ministers have regard to effectiveness both of programmes and management systems.

  Recent and current initiatives to improve effectiveness include:

  (a) since 1982, all new regulations have been subject to cost-benefit analysis;

  (b) a 1985 Report "Measuring the Effectiveness of HSE's Field Activities" brought together findings on various regulatory and enforcement activities. Since then a number of further studies have been conducted, and action to improve effectiveness taken.

  (c) improving effectiveness is a primary objective of HSE's reorganisation, on a more integrated basis, of its field divisions from this April.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will ensure that copies of the operating and business plans for training and enterprise councils are placed in the Library as soon as they are published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training and enterprise councils will be required to publish a summary of their corporate and business plans. I shall arrange for these summaries to be placed in the Library as they become available.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the public funding in cash terms and real terms available for each training and enterprise council operative as from 1 April for the terminal year 1990–91, together with the public funding currently available to the Training Agency for 1989–90 for the area covered by each training and enterprise council.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government's plans for expenditure on training and enterprise are set out in chapter 6 of the public expenditure White Paper (CM 1006). Budgets for individual TECs will be determined after the TEC's corporate and business plan has been approved and a contract signed. The great majority of TECs (and local enterprise companies in Scotland) are not planning to start operations until later in the financial year.
  507
  It is not generally possible to compare directly TEC budgets with those of Training Agency Offices. Over 100 TECs are being established, which compares with 57 area offices.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of his Department's management training courses include sessions on equal opportunities for women; and what proportion of managers at grade six level and above working outside headquarters has received training on equal opportunities for women.

  Mr. Nicholls
  All general management courses provided by the Employment Department group include sessions on equal opportunities for women and people from ethnic minority groups and with disabilities. While no detailed figures are available I understand therefore that the great majority of senior regional and operational managers will have received training on equal opportunities issues.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of employees; what child care provision for school holidays or after-school care is provided for employees' children aged five years or over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Employment Department group operates two care-parent schemes for pre-school age children at Bootle and Sheffield. We run holiday play schemes for children aged five years and over at Runcorn, Sheffield, London (two) and Coventry; with other Government Departments we run play schemes at Bootle, Edinburgh and London and we have places in other Government Department schemes at Glasgow and Liverpool. We hope to open four day nurseries this year at Bootle, Runcorn, Sheffield and Swindon. All parts of the group are actively pursuing initiatives to increase child care provision. The group provides support for this where it can he justified in value for money terms. Staff who wish to take advantage of play schemes and nurseries are required to contribute towards the running costs.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what grade is his Department's equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department's equal opportunities officer is a grade 6.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he has implemented to ensure that recruitment and promotiion policy in his Department does not directly or indirectly discriminate against applicants who were mature students or women returning to work following a career break due to child care.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Employment Department group is committed to a policy of equal opportunity in recruitment and promotion. A statement to this effect is included in all recruitment advertising and in all circulars notifying staff of promotion panels and inviting applications.
  508
  There are clear guidelines on the advertising of recruitment opportunities to ensure that they can be seen by all eligible job seekers from all parts of the community and to ensure that the advertisements do not impose potentially discriminatory criteria such as unnecessary age restrictions. In order to meet the needs of women returners, recruitment opportunities are, whenever practicable, advertised as suitable for part time workers. Staff involved in recruitment are trained in selection procedures to avoid unfair discrimination.

  For promotion, all staff are considered on their merits as individuals regardless of sex, racial origin, disability and age. Where a minimum period of service is required this applies to all staff. For staff who have returned to work after a period of absence, service before and after the break may be aggregated.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of civil servants in his Department are women at each of the grades(a) seven, (b) six, (c) five, (d) four, (e) three, (f) two and (g) one.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the Employment Department group at 1 January 1990 women comprised 12 per cent. of staff at both grade seven and grade six level, 14 per cent. at grade five and 11 per cent. at grade three. There were no women at grades one, two and four.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he has taken, and what action he intends taking, to implement the recommendations within his area of responsibility of the European Commission's childcare network report: "Caring for Children—Services and Policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom."

  Mr. Nicholls
  The report was prepared for the European Commission which has not yet developed any proposals. The Government believe that policy on child care is a matter for member states. The United Kingdom's policy is that it is for families themselves to determine how their children are to be brought up and how parents, where they wish to do so, can best combine paid work and family responsibilities. The Government, through the Department of Health and the ministerial group on women's issues, have encouraged the development of a range of high-quality child care options for both parents and employers.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many women and men of the employed labour force have a length of service in employment of(a) less than two years and (b) less than five years; and what number and proportion of those employed for less than five years are part-time workers working (i) less than eight hours, (ii) less than 12 hours, (iii) less than 16 hours and (iv) less than 20 hours a week, giving the most recently available figures.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Estimates from the 1988 labour force survey, as requested, are shown in the table.
  509

  Employees and self-employed, by length of time continuously employed by current employer or continuously self-employed by basic usual hours2 worked per week, by sex—Great Britain, Spring 1988

  Thousands and per cent.

  Employees

  Self-employed

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Length of employment/hours worked per week

  000's

  Per cent.

  000's

  Per cent.

  000's

  Per cent.

  000's

  Per cent.

  Less than 2 years

  3,261

  —

  3,641

  —

  574

  —

  259

  —

  At least 2 but less than 5 years

  2,167

  —

  2,182

  —

  472

  —

  177

  —

  Total less than 5 years of which

  5,428

  100

  5,823

  100

  1,046

  100

  436

  100

  Work less than 8 hours

  117

  2·2

  395

  6·8

  12

  1·2

  58

  13·4

  At least 8 but less than 12 hours

  99

  1·8

  461

  7·9

  1

  1

  33

  7·5

  At least 12 but less than 16 hours

  79

  1·5

  564

  9·7

  10

  0·9

  34

  7·9

  At least 16 but less than 20 hours

  44

  0·8

  365

  6·3

  1

  1

  19

  4·3

  1 Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  2 Paid hours usually worked each week, excluding paid and unpaid overtime and meal-breaks.

  Source: 1988 Labour Force Survey.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the rate of unemployment in each member state of the European Community at the latest available date.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 2 March 1990]: The information requested is available from the Library in the following publications: "Main Economic Indicators", published by OECD; and "Unemployment in the Community", published by Eurostat.

  Equal Pay
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to seek to amend the equal pay for work of equal value legislation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to amend the equal pay legislation. The Equal Opportunities Commission, which has a statutory duty to review the legislation, is currently doing so and any proposals for change which may emerge from the commission's review will be carefully considered, as will proposals put forward by any other interested bodies including those already made by the Confederation of British Industry.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will list for each of the past 25 years the average pay for a woman as a proportion of that for a man.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Women's hourly earnings as a proportion of men's are shown in the table. Comparable data are not available before 1970 or in the period 1971 to 1973.

  per cent.

  1970

  63·1

  1974

  67·4

  1975

  72·1

  1976

  75·1

  1977

  75·5

  1978

  73·9

  1979

  73·0

  1980

  73·5

  1981

  74·8

  1982

  73·9

  1983

  74·2

  1984

  73·5

  1985

  74·1

  1986

  74·3

  1987

  73·6

  1988

  75·1

  1989

  76·4

  510
  Note: Based on average gross hourly earnings, excluding overtime, of full-time employees aged 18 and over, whose pay was not affected by absence, as at April of each year.

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Domestic Servants
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to how many domestic servants are(a) men and (b) women.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is estimated from the 1988 labour force survey that in spring 1988 there were 20,000 men and 171,000 women in employment in domestic services in Great Britain.

  Sexual Harassment
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department's policy is that sexual harassment at work is not tolerated and is treated as a disciplinary offence. Guidance on our policy and on the reporting and handling of complaints is included in our personnel handbook which is available to all staff.

  We have monitored this policy since 1 July 1985 and in the period from then to 31 December 1989 (the last date for which figures are available) 88 cases have been reported.

  Appropriate action has been taken in all cases. Disciplinary penalties imposed have ranged from warnings to being employed in a lower grade.

  Pin-ups
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department's policy is that sexual harassment at work is not tolerated and is treated as a disciplinary offence. The guidance issued to staff gives examples of what might constitute sexual harassment. These include"displays or circulation of sexually offensive material, for example pin-ups".

  My right hon. and learned Friend does not therefore consider that any further instructions are needed.

  Action for Jobs
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much of the expenditure on action for jobs television advertising in 1988–89 was spent through the Central Office of Information.

  Mr. Eggar
  All of the expenditure on action for jobs television advertising in 1988–89 was spent through the Central Office of Information.

  Radiation (Code of Practice)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many copies have been published of the draft approved code of practice, "Part 4 Dose Limitation—Restriction of Exposure: Additional Guidance on Regulation 6 of the Ionising Radiation Regulations," produced by the Health and Safety Commission; to whom this document has been distributed; by what date any comments should be sent to the Health and Safety Commission; and what response his Department is planning to make to the consultative document.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A total of 7,000 copies were printed of the consultative document, published on 5 February 1990, containing the draft approved code of practice on restriction of exposure to ionising radiations. Copies were distributed to international organisations, professional bodies, government departments, employers' associations, representatives of workers, and local authorities. Copies were also placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Comments should be sent to the Health and Safety Commission by 30 April 1990.

  My right hon. and learned Friend will await the advice of the Health and Safety Commission in the light of comments received on the consultative document.

  Training
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to set up by no later than 31 December 1992 a comprehensive and effective framework of sector training organisations.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government welcome the continuing support by employers throughout most of industry and commerce for employer-led industry training organisations (ITOs). These bodies have the lead role in establishing occupational standards and monitoring key skill requirements in their sectors. There are currently some 117 industry training organisations, estimated to cover over 80 per cent. of the civilian working population. Employers in a number of other sectors are in the process of establishing their own arrangements. In recent years most ITOs have received financial support to help them develop their effectiveness, particularly in the areas of standard setting and future skill requirements.

  The Government have welcomed the establishment of the voluntary National Council of Industry Training Organisations (NCITO) which includes in its aims the bringing of all such organisations up to the standard set by the best. The Training Agency continues to provide initial financial assistance to NCITO to develop a code of practice for ITOs and to draw up a database about their activities and services.

  Homeworkers
  Mr Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the statutory provisions that apply to the employment of homeworkers; and whether he has any plans to amend existing legislation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The following legislation applies to homeworkers who are employees, in the same way as it does to other employees. There are no plans to amend it.

  Equal Pay Act 1970

  Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974

  Sex Discrimination Act 1975

  Employment Protection Act 1975

  Race Relations Act 1976

  Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 Employment Acts 1980, 1982 and 1988

  Trade Union Act 1984

  Wages Act 19861

  All Health and Safety legislation1

  1Part II of the Wages Act 1986 and all Health and Safety legislation applies to homeworkers, irrespective of their employment status.

  Working Mothers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to encourage women to work after they have given birth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Except where health and safety provisions set minimum time limits it must be a matter of personal choice for the woman concerned when and whether she goes to work or stays at home to look after her children.

TRANSPORT

  Road Lighting
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether he has undertaken any studies in the United Kingdom on the implementation of transitional lighting and the effect of it on accident rates at night;

  (2) what research he is undertaking to assess the safety implications for a transitional lighting system to allow drivers to adjust from lit motorways to darkness.

  Mr. Atkins
  Studies in many countries, including the United Kingdom, have shown that the transition from bright sunlight conditions to those lighting conditions in a road tunnel is a problem because of the reduction in road surface luminance of about 50,000 candelas per square metre. On average, this transition lasts several seconds. Transitional lighting is therefore justified and provided.

  The equivalent transition from lit to unlit motorway at night represents a reduction in luminance of just 2 candelas per square metre and is completed in about one second. The potential in these circumstances for any effect on accident rates is negligible. No research is therefore being undertaken into this aspect.

  If my hon. Friend has specific evidence that he feels merits looking into, I will consider it.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the standard intensity of lighting on lit motorways, rural and urban roads.

  Mr. Atkins
  The standard average luminance of lighting on lit trunk roads in England is as follows:
  513

  Candelas per square metre

  Motorways

  2·0

  Dual carriageways and high speed roads

  1·5

  Other trunk roads

  1·0

  These standards are in accordance with the recommendations of the appropriate national and international standards bodies.

  The standard of lighting installed on other roads is a matter for the highway authority concerned.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what technology is available to light sections of roads and motorways at different levels to allow people to adjust to lighting changes.

  Mr. Atkins
  Lighting technology is available, or can be readily adapted, to provide a range of road lighting levels. This can be achieved by altering the type of lamp, the electrical control system, the column height and the column spacing, or by a combination of these means.

  Road Humps
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many local authorities are known to have installed speed restricting measures, such as road humps, in residential areas; and when his Department will have completed the revision of regulations aimed at the wider installation of road humps.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will lay before Parliament the revised road hump regulations.

  Mr. Atkins
  Road humps and other speed restricting measures are installed by local authorities at their own discretion. Consequently, no central records are kept. The appropriate use of road humps should make a significant contribution to the safety of local roads and we aim to bring the new regulations into force before Easter.

  London Transport
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many(a) men and (b) women, have retrained as bus drivers since London Regional Transport has adopted its one-person operated buses policy;

  (2) how many London Underground station staff have been employed by London Transport or London Regional Transport for each of the last 25 years;

  (3) if he will list the number of guards employed by London Transport or London Regional Transport for each of the last 25 years;

  (4) if he will list the numbers of (a) men and (b) women employed by London Transport/London Regional Transport as bus drivers for each of the last 25 years;

  (5) if he will list the numbers of conductors employed by London Transport or London Regional Transport on buses for each of the last 25 years; and how many of these were women.

  Mr. Portillo
  These are matters which fall within the day-to-day management responsibility of London Regional Tranport and its operating subsidiaries, London Underground Limited and London Buses Limited.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of employees; what child care provision for school holidays or after-school care is provided for employees' children aged five years or over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.

  Mr. Atkins
  The department is currently conducting a comprehensive survey of child care needs in London. The possibilities for providing child care facilities outside London are also being investigated. Pre-school child care facilities are planned for the driver and vehicle licensing centre in Swansea. Holiday playschools are also made available to the Department's staff in both Swansea and London. The Department provides accommodation for all these schemes. Future plans will be considered in the light of current surveys.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken, and what action he intends taking, to implement the recommendations within his area of responsibility of the European Commission's childcare network report "Caring for Children—Services and Policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom."

  Mr. Atkins
  The report was prepared for the European Commission which has not yet developed any proposals. The Government believe that policy on child care is a matter for member states. The Government, through the Department of Health and the ministerial group on women's issues has encouraged the development of a range of high-quality child care options for both parents and employers.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of his Department's management training courses include sessions on equal opportunities for women; and what proportion of managers at grade six level and above working outside headquarters has received training on equal opportunities for women.

  Mr. Atkins
  Most general management courses include coverage of issues involving equal opportunities for women as part of general sessions on equal opportunities and one course, "Women in Management", includes a specific session on equal opportunities for women. There is no record of the number of grade 6, and above, officers who have recieved training on equal opportunities for women.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what grade is his Department's equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Atkins
  Grade five.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he has implemented to ensure that recruitment and promotion policy in his Department does not directly or indirectly discriminate against applicants who were mature students or women returning to work following a career-break due to child care.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has a policy of fair and open competition in recruitment and promotion. Women
  515
  are encouraged to return to work by arrangements for reinstatement and by the availability of part-time working and job sharing. There are few upper age limits for recruitment. The criterion is that new entrants must be able to give effective service before retirement.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of civil servants in his Department are women at each of the grades(a) seven, (b) six, (c) five, (d) four, (e) three, (f) two and (g) one.

  Mr. Atkins
  The proportions are as follows:

  Per cent.

  Grade 7

  6

  Grade 6

  2

  Grade 5

  9

  Grade 4

  None

  Grade 3

  5

  Grades 1 and 2

  None

  Sexual Harassment
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Civil Service policy on sexual harassment is set out in the programme of action to achieve equal opportunities for women in the Civil Service which was published by the Cabinet Office management and personnel office in 1984. The Department has made it clear to all staff that sexual harassment at work will not be tolerated and will be dealt with as a disciplinary measure through the Department's complaints procedures. Guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff. Complaints have been recorded since mid-1986. Since then there have been seven formal complaints. It is not the Department's practice to publish disciplinary action taken in individual cases.

  Pin-ups
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all of his Departmental premises.

  Mr. Atkins
  Instructions have been issued not to display such material if it offends.

  A4, West London
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the best estimates of current westbound peak pm flows on the A4 before and after the Hogarth roundabout at Chiswick; and what projections have been taken into account in the appraisal of option 12 of the west London assessment study.

  Mr. Atkins
  A count of westbound traffic on the A4 east and west of Hogarth roundabout was taken by consultants in May 1989. This revealed flows of approximately 5,000 and 4,500 respectively in the afternoon peak hour.

  Option 12 of the west London assessment study has been assessed using data from the London transportation
  516
  studies model which only provides information for the morning peak. Traffic is expected to increase as a result of economic growth, population changes, etc. The combined effect of these changes and option 12 is forecast to be a reduction of 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. respectively.

  M4/A4 Corridor
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the M4/A4 corridor study was initiated; what are the terms of reference; which consultants are involved; when the report is expected; and if it will be published.

  Mr. Atkins
  The study was initiated in June 1988. It is being carried out on the Department's behalf by Howarth Humphreys and Partners Ltd. They have been asked to develop a consistent strategy for management of the motorway and trunk road network with the objective of improving the reliability of journey times between central London and Heathrow. The consultants have made some initial proposals which are being considered by the Department. Local highway authorities and the BAA are being consulted. The final report is expected later this year and will be published.

  Buses (Access)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the new buses which meet the specifications of floor level and related matters for people with disabilities and elderly people; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  A comprehensive list is not available.

  The majority of new buses now produced in the United Kingdom are fitted, at the request of operators or local authorities, with some or all of the features recommended by the Disabled Persons Transort Advisory Committee (DPTAC) in their "Recommended Specification for Vehicles Used To Operate Local Services".

  Work is now in hand to develop European standards for low floor buses which will be accessible to wheelchair users.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of coal imported through the port of Sunderland for each year since 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  HM Customs and Excise figures for imports of coal, coke and briquettes at Sunderland, which include imports at Seaham, are given in the table.

  Year

  Tonnes

  1979

  22,254

  1980

  12,605

  1981

  6,245

  1982

  43,773

  1983

  101,544

  1984

  23,111

  1985

  4,870

  1986

  245,904

  1987

  216,901

  1988

  436,659

  19891

  310,514

  1Provisional.

  Anti-lock Braking
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for the introduction of regulations governing the fitting of anti-lock braking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Draft regulations published today introduce the anti-lock braking requirements set by European Community directive 88/194 for certain types of heavy goods vehicles, including trailers, and motorway and inter-urban coaches. The Community proposals are for mandatory anti-lock on new vehicles in the following categories:

  (a) towing vehicles over 16 tonnes and trailers over 10 tonnes gross weight; and

  (b) touring coaches and intercity buses over 12 tonnes gross weight.

  The draft regulations apply to new trailers manufactured on or after 1 October 1991 and new motor vehicles first used on or after 1 April 1992.

  Anti-lock increases braking stability and reduces jack-knifing in slippery road conditions.

  A590
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the A590 trunk road between Levens Bridge and Lindale has recently been coned off for a length of about four miles, preventing any overtaking.

  Mr. Atkins
  For safety reasons. Although the first phase of resurfacing is limited to the dual carriageway sections, we need to prevent overtaking and excessive speeds on the intervening single carriageway. This reduces the risk of accidents at and approaching the working areas. The resurfacing will shortly transfer to the single carriageway. We shall then start central reserve safety fencing installation on the dual carriageways.

  Milford Haven
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received the report of the inspector appointed to examine the application by Cmaine and other fishing vessel companies operating from Milford Haven for registration; and when he expects to reach a decision on their applications.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have not yet received the inspector's report. I shall reach a decision on the applications for registration as soon as possible after I have received the report.

  Rail Subsidies (West Germany)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Christchurch of 12 February,Official Report, column 9, if he will place in the Library any documentation he has relating to the West German Government's belief that their subsidies to their railway system are outrageous.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 28 February 1990]: I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's previous answer.

  Commuter Trains
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last travelled officially on a rush hour commuter train; and what assessment he made of the level of service offered and the conditions provided for commuters.
  518
  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 28 February 1990]: The last such journey undertaken by my right hon. Friend was on the Central line on 18 January. The service was quick and on time, but the train was very crowded. London Underground's £720 million programme of investment will increase the peak capacity of this line by 16 per cent., to the considerable benefit of those who use it regularly.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  State Benefits
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people depend entirely on state benefits for their income.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on the number of people depending entirely on state benefits is not available. In 1987, the latest year for which an estimate is available, social security contributed either in whole or in part to the incomes or family incomes of around 38 million people.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review his decision not to uprate child benefit by the change in the retail prices index in April 1990.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review his decision not to uprate child benefit by the retail prices index change in April.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review his decision not to uprate child benefit by the change in the retail prices index in April.

  Mr. Newton
  No.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to means-test child benefit.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to means-test child benefit.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to means-test child benefit.

  Mr. Newton
  No.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost in the current financial year of increasing child benefit to the same level in real terms as prevailed in 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  About £540 million net.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future uprating of child benefit.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future uprating of child benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  As the law requires, the rate of child benefit will continue to be reviewed each year as part
  519
  of the annual review of social security benefit rates, and decisions will be made in the light of circumstances at the time.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the take-up rate for child benefit.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the take-up rate for child benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Around 98 per cent.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of uprating child benefit to bring it to the same level in real terms as it stood at in 1984.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of uprating child benefit to bring it to the same level in real terms as it stood at in 1984.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) earlier today.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the present arrangements for paying child benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Child benefit is normally paid to mothers every four weeks through their bank or building society account or four-weekly or weekly by order book.

  Benefit Deductions
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of claimants have deductions from their benefit at source.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of claimants have deductions from their benefit at source.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of claimants have deductions from their benefit at source.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Just under 10 per cent. of income support recipients have one or more deductions from their benefit. Information on deductions from other social security benefits is not held centrally.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to extend self-administration of pension schemes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I presume my hon. Friend is referring to our announcement of the exemption of certain small self-administered schemes from our proposals to restrict pension schemes from engaging in employer-related investments. I announced during the Committee stage of the Social Security Bill last week that, in view of recent evidence of an increase in the practice, the Government have decided to commission a report before deciding what precise restrictions shall be introduced in regulations.

  Community Charge Rebates
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the rebate system for the community charge; and how many people he expects to take advantage of it.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The community charge benefit scheme to be introduced in April this year is significantly more generous than the old rate rebates system. We estimate that 9·75 million chargepayers will be helped in 1990–91, at a cost of £1·75 billion.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the cost of advertising and explaining the community charge rebate.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Community charge benefit is being advertised by the Department of Social Security, the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office and Scottish Office and by local authorities. The Department of Social Security will shortly publish an information leaflet and the Department of the Environment has also published a series of leaflets on rebates and reductions. The total cost of these leaflets will be over £300,000. The Department of the Environment's advertising campaign covering newspapers, magazines, television and radio ran from January to February at a cost of £4 million. Local authorities are responsible for the day-to-day administration of community charge benefit, and may advertise community charge benefit in ways that they consider to be suitable. It is not possible to estimate their costs.

  Low-income Families
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much will be spent on benefits for children in low-income families, excluding child benefit, in the next financial year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Our planned expenditure on provision for families in 1990–91, excluding child benefit, is nearly £5·4 billion. With the addition of child benefit expenditure of £4·6 billion, this makes a total provision for the family of nearly £10 billion.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much will be spent on benefits for children in low-income families in the next financial year, excluding child benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Planned expenditure on provision for families in 1990–91, excluding child benefit, is £5,359 million. This includes the extra help to low income families with children which since April 1988 has amounted to £350 million in real terms. The benefits included in this total are one-parent benefit, family credit, maternity benefit and statutory maternity pay, and income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit paid to lone parents and to people looking after elderly parents.

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will revise directive 29 to allow claimants for community care grants to be eligible for funds to pay deposits for rented housing; and if he will make a statement.
  521
  Mr. Scott
  We have no current plans to do so, but we will continue to monitor the situation carefully.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many community care grants applications by month since January 1989 have been(a) met in full, (h) met in part, (c) dealt with by a combination of grant and loan, (d) met with a loan only and (e) refused.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 19 January at column 487.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to review social fund appeals.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to review social fund appeals.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to review the operation of social fund appeals.

  Mr. Scott
  No. We are satisfied that the appeals system for the regulated part of the social fund, that is, funeral, maternity and cold weather payments, is working well.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many, and what percentage, of social fund loans have gone to pensioners.

  Mr. Scott
  People aged 60 and over received 21,000 budgeting loans and 3,600 crisis loans in the period April 1989 to January 1990. This represents 4·5 and 0·1 per cent. respectively of loans awarded. In addition, community care grants were awarded in 8,300 cases where a loan had been applied for.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the social fund refusal rate for the latest available month.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the social fund refusal rate for the latest available month.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the social fund refusal rate for the latest available month.

  Mr. Scott
  Details of the individual refusal rates for the three types of payment are in the Library. The overall refusal rate can be derived from the numbers of applications decided and awards made which are also available in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to improve the access of people on invalidity benefit to social fund community care grants.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to improve the access of people on invalidity benefit to social fund community care grants.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to improve the access of people on invalidity benefit to social fund community care grants.
  522
  Mr. Scott
  No. Like single payments, where help could only be given to people entitled to supplementary benefit, social fund community care grants are intended for those in receipt of income support.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to review local social fund budgets.

  Mr. Scott
  As a result of our close monitoring of the social fund, I recently announced that an extra £3 million had been made available this year for 106 offices coming under pressure from an increase in demand. We are currently considering social fund allocations to individual offices for 1990–91 and will make an announcement in due course.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to increase the payment from the social fund in the event of severe weather.

  Mr. Scott
  No. We believe that £5 is a reasonable amount to pay towards the extra expenses for heating incurred in each week of very cold weather, given that ordinary heating costs are an element in regular weekly benefit.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to ensure that the social fund loans budget become self-financing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 29 January at column 35.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West of 26 February,(Official Report, column 589, on the High Court judgment on the social fund, if he will send a copy of the revised guidance to the honourable Member for Oldham, West at the same time as it is placed in the Library.

  Mr. Scott
  Yes.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will publish the monthly anticipated expenditure profile for the social fund for the year 1990–91;

  (2) when he expects to announce the local office allocations for the social fund for the year 1990–91;

  (3) when he will announce the formula on which local office allocations for the social fund for 1990–91 will be based.

  Mr. Scott
  An announcement will be made in due course.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will be revising the cash limits for he social fund announced for 1990–91.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 22 February 1990 at column 894.

  Departmental Service
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps have been taken to improve his Department's service to the public.
  523
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Since the Government reforms were introduced in 1988, the social security system has become simpler for claimants to understand and easier for staff to operate. As a result there have been very real all-round improvements in standards of service to the public. In particular the average 1989–90 times taken to clear income support claims and callers have both improved by 24 per cent. when compared with pre-reforms' performance.

  I am aware, however, that there is still room for further improvement, particularly in certain inner cities. We are tackling this by relocating some work, which requies no face-to-face contact, away from London to areas where we have fewer problems over staff recruitment and retention. In addition, between now and 1991, we expect our programme to computerise social security operations in all local offices to make a major impact on the speed and accuracy of the service they provide.

  Pensioners (Income)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the most recent figure for pensioners whose incomes fall in the lowest quintile of national income distribution.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest available figures on the proportion of pensioners whose incomes fall in the lowest fifth of national income distribution.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available figures show that in 1979, a total of 38 per cent. of pensioners were in the bottom quintile of national income distribution, and in 1987 the proportion had improved to 24 per cent.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the increase in pensioners' average net incomes since 1979.

  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the increase in pensioners' average net incomes since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the most recent figures he has for the change in pensioners' incomes from savings since 1979.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the most recent figures he has for the increases in pensioners' average net incomes since 1979.

  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much pensioners' average net incomes have increased since 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available figures show that between 1979 and 1987 average pensioners' total net income increased by over 31 per cent. in real terms. The figures also show that, over the same period, income pensioners receive from their savings more than doubled in real terms.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on his proposals to extend help with the extra costs of disability to less severely disabled people of working age and below.
  524
  Mr. Scott
  "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" (Cm. 917) which we laid before Parliament on 10 January includes a proposal to introduce a new disability allowance in April 1992 for people of working age and below. The new benefit will incorporate the existing payments made through attendance allowance and mobility allowance within a common structure for administration and adjudication and introduce new lower rate payments for people with moderate-to-severe disabilities who have care and mobility needs. The disability allowance will have two separate components: a care component paid at three different levels, and a mobility component paid at two levels. We estimate that about 850,000 people will receive the mobility component of the disability allowance, including 150,000 who do not qualify for help through mobility allowance. We estimate some 540,000 will receive the care component, including 140,000 who do not qualify for attendance allowance.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his policy towards the HELIOS programme of the European Community for disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on the steps the Government are taking to ensure that the United Kingdom plays a full and active role in the HELIOS programme was given in my reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 20 December 1989 at Column 302. I opened the conference, which was well attended, to publicise the HELIOS programme on 9 February.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent estimate he has made of how many people will gain from the disability package set out in "The Way Ahead".

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he estimates will benefit from the proposals set out in "The Way Ahead".

  Mr. Scott
  We estimate that some 850,000 disabled people and carers will gain from the proposals set out in "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People".

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on his plans for help to those who are less severely disabled and of working age and below.

  Mr. Scott
  The proposals set out in "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" (Cm. 917) include a number of measures to help those who are less severely disabled and of working age and below. In particular, the new disability allowance for people of working age and below will extend help with the extra costs of being disabled; the new disability employment credit will make it easier for disabled people to take up jobs; and there will be an increase of up to £10 a week in severe disablement allowance for those disabled early in life. These proposals are in addition to the package of 10 measures announced last October. These include improving the help provided by income support and housing benefit for the least well off who are disabled by increasing the disability premium for adults by £1·70 for a single person and £2·60 for a couple; helping families with disabled children by raising the disabled child's premium from £6·50 to £15·40; and
  525
  helping carers by introducing a carer's premium for those receiving invalid care allowance. In addition, mobility allowance will be extended to people who are both deaf and blind; attendance allowance will be extended to children under two; and the six-month waiting period for attendance allowance will be abolished for terminally ill people. We are also improving incentives to rehabilitation for employment by increasing by £6·50 the therapeutic earnings limit in invalidity benefit (IVB) and severe disablement allowance (SDA), and enabling people receiving IVB and SDA to keep their benefit when they go on an employment rehabilitation course.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people will benefit from new measures to help disabled people who do not qualify for attendance allowance or mobility allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) on 5 February at column 519.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he plans to increase housing benefit in real terms in the next financial year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The uprating of housing benefit and community charge benefit personal allowances and premiums takes effect in April 1990. Certain premiums are being increased above the amount required to maintain their value in real terms: these are the family premium, the disabled child premium and the lone parent premium. In October the lone parent's earnings disregard is to increase from £15 to £25, and a carer's premium is being introduced.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish for each local authority area in Northamptonshire, the number of people presently receiving housing benefit and income support together with housing benefit; and what are the costs involved.

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

  Housing Benefit: Estimated recipients and benefit expenditure

  Local authority

  Housing benefit only Numbers

  Housing benefit and Income support Numbers

  Local authority estimated cost £ million

  Corby

  1,834

  2,500

  4·5

  Daventry

  1,804

  1,539

  2·8

  East Northampton

  1,981

  2,128

  2·9

  Kettering

  2,989

  2,904

  4·6

  Northampton

  6,668

  7,978

  15·4

  South Northants

  1,896

  1,392

  2·3

  Wellingborough

  2,295

  3,172

  4·7

  Note: Expenditure information is not available by recipient group.

  Source: Local authority caseload returns November 1988-August 1989 and 1989–90 expenditure estimates.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of households and persons in the London borough of Lambeth claiming housing benefit and rate relief in 1988 and in 1989.
  526
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information about the number of households or persons claiming housing benefit is not available. However, the estimated number of households receiving housing benefit is in the table.

  1988

  1989

  Assistance with rent only

  1,538

  1,492

  Assistance with rates only

  1,363

  1,852

  Assistance with both rent and rates

  26,836

  26,275

  All housing benefit

  29,737

  29,619

  Source: Local authority complete caseload return November 1988; partial return May 1989 supplemented by estimates.

  Glasgow Office
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the working of the Glasgow social security centre; and what further plans he has to extend benefit-processing work away from south-east England.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The income support work of Ealing, Southall and Acton offices is being processed at the Glasgow social security centre. Notting Hill began transfer of work on 12 February. Monitoring and evaluation of performance at Glasgow indicates that claims are being processed faster and more accurately.

  There are currently no plans to extend further benefit processing work away from south-east England beyond the 21 London offices already identified for relocation.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from disablement organisations about disability benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received comments on the OPC'S surveys of disability and our proposals in "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" (Cm. 917) from 70 organisations of and for disabled people and from a large number of individual people with disabilities. The Social Security Advisory Committee have also written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State welcoming our proposals as a significant improvement to the system of benefits for disabled people. We shall continue to take into account the views of interested organisations and individuals in the course of further work on our proposals for change, in particular in our detailed work on the new disability allowance and the disability employment credit.

  Community Care
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what views he sought from individuals and organisations involved in caring for mentally ill, disabled or elderly relatives at home as part of the review of benefits being undertaken by his Department.

  Mr. Scott
  The Government encouraged comments on the findings of the major surveys of disability carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys between 1985 and 1988: and our proposals for improving social security help for disabled people and carers have been made in the light of the views and comments of interested organisations. I have sent a copy of "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" (Cm. 917) to a number of
  527
  organisations, including the National Council for Carers, inviting their comments, and on 27 February my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of "Caring Costs", a coalition of over 20 voluntary organisations representing carers. We shall continue to take into account the views of interested organisations and individuals in the course of our detailed work on the proposals.

  Income Support
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent discussions he has had on the level of income support payable to residents of private and voluntary residential and nursing homes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have had meetings with a variety of interested organisations and individuals.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has received any recent representations that able-bodied unemployed young people under 18 years refusing to take training should be paid income support.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have received no such representations. There is no reason why able-bodied 16 or 17-year-olds should not find work or a YTS place if they do not wish to continue their studies. If these young people refuse to take advantage of the opportunities available to them there is no justification for them to have recourse to the social security system.

  However able-bodied young people who can go onto YTS but cannot live at home, for example because they have no home, would be at risk of physical or sexual abuse or are estranged from their families, can claim income support during the same period as the child benefit extension period, provided they are seeking a job or YTS place.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent contact social security Ministers have had with representatives of war pensions interest groups.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My noble Friend Lord Henley, who has special responsibility for war pensions, regularly meets representatives of war pensioners and war widows to discuss matters of concern.

  In the last six months he has chaired the central advisory committee on war pensions and met representatives of war pensions committes in three regions. He also opened the war pensioners' annual national homecraft and art exhibition. He has received deputations from the Royal British Legion and the War Widows Association of Great Britain. He attended remembrance day ceremonies at the Cenotaph and the Not Forgotten Association's Christmas party for war disabled pensioners. In addition he has visited the headquarters of the Royal British Legion and its village at Maidstone and answered letters on a variety of topics.

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children live in families on, or within 40 per cent. above, the appropriate benefit level for their circumstances.
  528
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children live in families with income on, or within 40 per cent. above, the appropriate benefit level for their circumstances.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) earlier today.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people live in families with incomes which are on, or within 40 per cent. above, the appropriate benefit level for their circumstances.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people live in families with incomes which are on, or within 40 per cent. above, the appropriate benefit level for their circumstances.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North West (Mr. Banks) earlier today.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of claimants entitled to family credit took up their entitlement in the last quarter of 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  During the last quarter of 1989 almost 244,000 claims for family credit were received, and in the same period 150,000 awards were made. Information about the caseload during that period is not yet complete, and estimates of the total number of families eligible for family credit at that time will be possible only when information becomes available from the 1989 family expenditure survey.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham on 17 January,Official Report, columns 284–86, what is the Government's policy on the relativity between family credit ceilings and (a) inflation and (b) average earnings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Social security benefits, generally, are increased by reference to the movement in prices rather than earnings. The family credit ceilings derive from the level of the family credit rates, and those rates are reviewed each year in the light of the movement in retail prices excluding housing costs. In fact most of the increases in the family credit rates at the 1989 uprating and again at the 1990 uprating next month represent significantly more than that, as shown in the table.

  1989 Uprating per cent.

  1990 Uprating per cent.

  Increase in RPI (excluding housing costs)

  4·7

  5·2

  Actual Increase in Family Credit rates

  Adult Credit

  4·7

  8·2

  Child Credits

  aged under 11

  21·7

  13·0

  age 11–15

  13·2

  9·7

  age 16–17

  11·2

  8·7

  age 18

  9·1

  7·7

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received regarding the take-up of family credit.
  529
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The take-up of family credit has been mentioned, in both Houses, during exchanges on the forthcoming increases in social security benefits, but otherwise few representations have been received recently.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are in receipt of the invalid care allowance in the area covered by the Dod street Department of Social Security office in Tower Hamlets.

  Mr. Scott
  At 5 February 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of people in receipt of invalid care allowance in the area covered by the Department's office in Dod street was 146.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women and men earned below the national insurance threshold in each of the last 15 years; and how many earned over it.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The table gives the numbers who paid employees' class 1 national insurance contributions at some time during the years from April 1975, when earnings related contributions with a lower earnings limit were first introduced, until 1986–87 which is the latest year for which final figures are available. The fact that some class 1 contributions were paid means that the person concerned must have had earnings which reached the lower earnings limit on at least one occasion during the year.

  Year

  Weekly lower earnings limit

  Number who paid Class I national insurance contributions (thousands)

  £

  Women

  Men

  1975–76

  11·00

  9,176

  14,534

  1976–77

  13·00

  9,325

  14,808

  1977–78

  15·00

  9,412

  14,793

  1978–79

  17·50

  9,412

  14,729

  1979–80

  19·50

  9,646

  14,777

  1980–81

  23·00

  9,267

  14,259

  1981–82

  27·00

  8,935

  13,649

  1982–83

  29·50

  8,793

  13,288

  1983–84

  32·50

  8,744

  13,102

  1984–85

  34·00

  8,885

  12,968

  1985–86

  35·50

  9,156

  13,016

  1986–87

  38·00

  9,316

  12,987

  The figures are for contributions paid in the United Kingdom except for 1975–76 which refer to Great Britain only.

  ¼

  ½

  1

  1½

  2

  40 per cent. rate applies

  5

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Primary (employee's) class 1 contributions not contracted-out rates

  April to September weekly rates

  3·37

  12·13

  24·25

  29·25

  29·25

  29·25

  29·25

  October to March weekly rates

  3·05

  9·12

  21·24

  26·24

  26·24

  26·24

  26·24

  Total for the year

  166·92

  552·50

  1,182·74

  1,442·74

  1,442·74

  1,442·74

  1,442·74

  Primary (employee's) class 1 contributions contracted-out rates

  April to September weekly rates

  2·88

  10·29

  19·72

  23·61

  23·61

  23·61

  23·61

  October to March weekly rates

  2·57

  7·28

  16·71

  20·60

  20·60

  20·60

  20·60

  Total for the year

  141·70

  456·82

  947·18

  1,149·46

  1,149·46

  1,149·46

  1,149·46

  Class 2 (self-employed) contributions

  Weekly rate

  4·25

  4·25

  4·25

  4·25

  4·25

  4·25

  4·25

  Total for the year

  221·00

  221·00

  221·00

  221·00

  221·00

  221·00

  221·00

  530
  I regret that detailed information on the numbers of employees earning less than the various lower earnings limits over the above period is not available. However, for the years 1984–85 onwards it is estimated that in any week about 2·75 million people earned below the lower earnings limit of which about a quarter were men. Up to 0·5 million of these people would be only temporarily below the lower earnings limit by virtue of a reduction in their normal earnings—for example due to sickness.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham on 12 December 1989,Official Report, column 584, what is the reason for the 0·48 fall in the real weekly value of national insurance child dependency addition plus child benefit for widowed mothers between 1979 and 1989.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Child benefit legislation specifically provides for the rate of child benefit to be taken into account when determining the levels of child dependency increase payable with national insurance benefits. The method of doing this is to calculate what the child dependency increase would be if the general uprating percentage were applied, and then to deduct any cash increase in child benefit. It applies to all child dependency increases not only those payable with widowed mothers allowance.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out in a table the national insurance contribution liability of(a) contracted-in employees through class 1, (b) contracted-out employees through class 1, (c) self-employed people through class 2 contributions, (d) self-employed people through class 4 contributions, showing separately the total effects at tax relief available on class 4, the amount due in the year, and the weekly equivalent for the latest available year for a single person earning, and assuming their income remains constant throughout the year, (i) quarter average male earnings, (ii) half average male earnings, (iii) average male earnings, (iv) one and a half average male earnings, (v) two times average male earnings, (vi) five times average male earnings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The table shows class 1, 2 and 4 liability for 1989–90 under the headings requested With the exception of the position when earnings attract tax at the 40 per cent. rate, the contributions shown have been calculated by reference to the average earnings of all male employees as at April 1989 as given in "Social Security Statistics 1989". The same average has been used for both class 1 and class 2–4 calculations.
  531

  ¼

  ½

  1

  1½

  2

  40 per cent. rate applies

  5

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Class 4 contributions

  Total liability on profits

  For the year

  Nil

  123·29

  564·73

  746·55

  746·55

  746·55

  746·55

  Weekly equivalent

  n/a

  2·37

  10·86

  14·36

  14·36

  14·36

  14·36

  Liability allowing for tax relief

  For the year

  n/a

  107·88

  494·14

  653·23

  597·24

  653·08

  597·24

  Weekly equivalent

  n/a

  2·07

  9·50

  12·56

  11·48

  12·55

  11·48

  Widowers
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the support his Department offers to widowers of working age with young families in the immediate bereavement period and later.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are a wide range of social security benefits available to widowers of working age with young families. In addition to child benefit and one-parent benefit many widowers continue in employment in the period after bereavement and depending on their level of income can receive family credit and housing benefit. Widowers who are not employed can, depending on their circumstances, receive income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit.

  Sick Pay
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what considerations underlie the decision not to pay statutory sick pay and sickness benefit for the first three days of any absence from work due to illness.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No payment for the first three days of absence from work due to illness has been made since 1971. We consider that a person's own resources should normally be sufficient to cover the first three days of illness. But where this is not so, income support is available as appropriate. If a period of entitlement to sickness benefit or statutory sick pay occurs not more than eight weeks after a previous such period has ended and the earlier spell lasted for at least four days, then payment is made from the first day of incapacity of the second or subsequent spell.

  Vibration White Finger
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will extend the date at which changed arrangements were introduced in regard to the compensation of claimants suffering from the vibration white finger condition.

  Mr. Scott
  No.

  Mr. Charles Haggarty
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, if he will take steps to provide Mr. Charles Haggarty of Marloch avenue, Port Glasgow, with an ex-gratia payment pending the revision of guidance to adjudication officers following the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of McKiernon v. Secretary of State for Social Services.
  532
  Mr. Scott
  No. We are still considering the full implications of the judgment in the case of McKiernon. The chief adjudication officer has still to issue guidance on cases which have been disallowed under regulation 25 of the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations since the date of that judgment.

  Travelling Expenses
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for travelling expenses to enable claimants to visit relatives in hospital were granted and how many refused between May 1989 and November 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 29 January at column 34.

  Area Computer Centres
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date and where, the invitations to tender to run the area computer centres at(a) Norcross, Lancashire and (b) Livingston were published.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is not the practice to publish invitations to tender for service contracts such as those for the area computer centres at(a) Norcross, Lancashire and (b) Livingston.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has as to the additional amounts families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are paying from their weekly benefit to pay for heating, hot water, breakfasts and other charges.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are able to claim housing benefit to help towards accommodation charges and income support to help towards other expenses. Charges for accommodation and other services will vary in individual cases.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will reply to a letter from Field Lane homeless families centre of 22 September 1989 on behalf of organisations working with homeless families in London concerning families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and changes in benefit.

  Mr. Newton
  I have replied today.

  Blind People
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met representatives of the Royal National Institute for the Blind and other blind people's organisations; and whether he discussed the White Paper "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People".

  Mr. Scott
  On 13 December 1989 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met representatives of the Disability Benefits Consortium which includes the Royal National Institute for the Blind and which represents other blind people's organisations. We shall soon be meeting the Disability Benefits Consortium again to listen to its views on the Command Paper "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People". I will also separately be meeting representatives of the National Federation of the Blind and Disabled of the United Kingdom.

  Students (Benefits)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of claims paid, the average length and total cost of income support paid to students in each region and in Great Britain during the summer vacation of 1989.

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

  Region

  Number of claims

  Average length weeks

  Benefit cost £

  North East

  25,656

  6·15

  4,701,900

  London North

  12,503

  4·97

  2,125,366

  Wales and South West

  17,927

  6·09

  3,431,654

  Midlands

  21,593

  5·91

  3,729,968

  North West

  22,754

  6·69

  4,370,808

  Scotland

  26,560

  7·34

  4,824,092

  London South

  10,170

  5·71

  1,955,010

  Totals

  135,163

  6 weeks

  25,138,798

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of claims paid, the average length, and total cost of housing benefit paid to students in each region and in Great Britain during the summer vacation of 1989.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information is not available in the form requested. However, management information returns for May 1988 show that there were 78,000 housing benefit claims from students current at that time. The average amount of housing benefit in payment was £7·80.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of claims paid, the average length, and total cost of unemployment benefit paid to students in each region and in Great Britain during the summer vacation of 1989.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that this information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on the level of charges in private residential homes.
  534
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the level of benefits paid to people in residential nursing homes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) earlier today.

DEFENCE

  Army Housing (New Forest)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will review his policy on selling Army housing in the New Forest district council area.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. Surplus Army quarters suitable for sale will be disposed of as expeditiously as possible by the most appropriate method.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if contractorisation at AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield will apply to Trident warhead component production and assembly.

  Mr. Neubert
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House on 5 December 1989, Vol. 163, column 165, the Government plan to introduce full contractorisation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment in its entirety, including warhead component production and assembly.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes in working practices are being considered at AWE Aldermaston, in the light of the Gardener report; and whether they will have an effect on the production schedule of the Trident missile warhead.

  Mr. Neubert
  Within AWE, radiation exposures continue to be authorised only on the basis that they are justified, comply with statutory limits and are as low as reasonably practicable. In 1988, the average whole body occupational exposure for radiation workers at AWE was 0·7 milliSieverts. The general public in the United Kingdom receives typically 2 mSv per year from natural and background sources. Trident warhead production remains on schedule to meet the in-service date of the mid-1990s.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the level of staff turnover, as a percentage, at AWE Aldermaston in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Neubert
  Intake and outflow of staff at the Atomic Weapons Establishment have been approximately equal at about 800 over the 12-month period to 1 February 1990. To express this as a percentage would reveal total AWE staff numbers, which would be undesirable on security grounds.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the effect on the cost of the Trident production programme of contractorisation at AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield.
  535
  Mr. Neubert
  The cost of introducing full contractor operation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment will be determined by competition. In the longer term, this cost should be offset by increased efficiency and improved utilisation of resources. It is too early to say how any net changes in costs would be attributed to individual programmes.

  "Programme for Promoting Nuclear Non Proliferation"
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his departmental library receives the newsbrief from the "Programme For Promoting Nuclear Non Proliferation".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  Chemical Weapons
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he chemical warfare defence establishment at Porton Down has offered any technological or scientific assistance to the United States Department of Defence to destroy the United States stockpile of chemical weapon agents and nerve gases.

  Mr. Neubert
  As we have made abundantly clear, the United Kingdom does not possess, produce or seek to acquire any chemical or biological weapons; we abandoned our possession and production of such weapons in the late 1950s. The work carried out at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, is totally oriented towards protective measures; there is absolutely no offensive intent.

  The United Kingdom, through the chemical defence establishment, has collaborated over many years with the United States and our other NATO allies on approaches to the safe destruction of chemical agents and weapons, and we fully expect this collaboration and sharing of techniques to continue, as an agreement on a global ban on chemical weapons is one of NATO's arms control priorities.

  Princess Mary's RAF Hospital
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of Princess Mary's Royal Air Force hospital, Buckinghamshire.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence is currently undertaking a study into the number and location of service hospitals required in the United Kingdom. The outcome of this review will be known later this year.

  RAF Pilots (Health)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the frequency of tests for heart conditions for Royal Air Force pilots.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All RAF aircrew are given an electrocardiogram test (ECG) on entry and thereafter, as a routine matter, an annual medical examination. Aircrew aged between 25 and 30 years old are given an ECG every five years; those aged over 30 every two years and those aged over 40 annually. Additionally, aircrew are given a chest X-ray on entry, which is repeated when they are 50 years of age. There are also annual blood tests.
  536
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the number of Royal Air Force aircraft crashes which were attributed to pilot illness during the last 20 years.

  Mr. Neubert
  Since 1 January 1970 there have been three RAF aircraft accidents in which the aircraft crashed and which could be attributed to pilot illness.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's management training courses include sessions on equal opportunities for women; and what proportion of managers at grade six level and above working outside headquarters has received training on equal opportunities for women.

  Mr. Neubert
  Equal opportunities is featured on seven management training courses covering issues such as recruitment, personnel management, staff appraisal and selection interviewing. To establish what proportion of managers at grade six level and above working outside headquarters have received such training would involve a disproportionate amount of time and effort.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken, and what action he intends taking, to implement the recommendations within his area of responsibility of the European Commission's childcare network report "Caring for Children—Services and Policies for Childcare and Equal Opportunities in the United Kingdom".

  Mr. Neubert
  The report was prepared for the European Commission which has not yet developed any proposals. The Government believe that policy on child care is a matter for member states. The United Kingdom's policy is that it is for families themselves to determine how their children are to be brought up and how parents, who wish to do so, can best combine paid work and family responsibilities. The Government, through the Department of Health and the ministerial group on women's issues, have encouraged the development of a range of high-quality child care options for both parents and employers.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made in the roles played by women in each of the armed forces in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  During the last decade the role of women in all three services has expanded considerably. Members of the WRNS, WRAC and WRAF can now be armed, for defensive purposes.

  I recently announced the introduction of sea service for members of the WRNS. We have also widened the opportunities for employment of members of the WRAC to include all posts except those which would deploy into forward areas in war, and women are now more closely integrated into the corps and regiments that employ them. In the RAF, women may now serve as aircrew in all capacities except those which have a direct combat role.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what child care provision his Department provides for pre-school age children of employees; what child-care provision for school holidays or after-school care is provided for employees' children aged five years or over; what plans there are for increasing provision in the next five years; and how these are to be funded.
  537
  Mr. Neubert
  We are planning to open nurseries for the children of MOD civil servants in central London and at the Royal Aerospace Establishment, Farnborough.

  Consideration is being given to running holiday play schemes in other parts of the country and the MOD has participated in the Westminster holiday play scheme.

  MOD units outside London are being encouraged to consider provision of suitable child-care for their area and we are currently surveying staff to determine demand for a ring of Civil Service nurseries around London for the children of civil servants who work on the periphery of or commute into London.

  Costs will be met by combination of departmental subsidy and charges to parents, the levels of which are yet to be determined.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what duties, in each of the armed forces, women are currently prohibited from carrying out.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Decisions taken over the last year will lead to a considerable expansion in the types of employment open to women in all three services. However, there will remain a number of areas of employment from which it is at present intended that women will continue to be excluded. The principal exceptions are that women in the Army and the RAF will not be employed in direct combat duties and that women in the Royal Navy will not be employed in the submarine service, in the Royal Marines or as aircrew. We are, however, considering whether it is possible to reduce further the areas of work from which women are excluded.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what grade is his Department's equal opportunities officer.

  Mr. Neubert
  Grade 5.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has implemented to ensure that recruitment and promotion policy in his Department does not directly or indirectly discriminate against applicants who were mature students or women returning to work following a career break due to child care.

  Mr. Neubert
  All applicants to join the Ministry of Defence and all members of staff are treated equally for employment and advancement on the basis of their ability, qualifications and suitability for work. Particular measures taken to promote equality of opportunity include flexible upper age limits for recruitment and promotion, the introduction of five-year career breaks for people with domestic responsibilities, child care provision, use of special leave during school holidays, a trial working from home scheme, reinstatement and flexible working patterns including part-time posts and job-sharing, and women-only management development training courses.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of civil servants in his Department are women at each of the grades(a) seven, (b) six, (c) five, (d) four, (e) three, (f) two and (g) one.

  Mr. Neubert
  The figures are as follows

  Grade

  Per cent.

  Seven

  4·1

  Six

  1·4

  Five

  3·5

  538

  Grade

  Per cent.

  Four

  0·0

  Three

  1·6

  Two

  0·0

  One

  0·0

  Greenham Common (Arrests)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women have been arrested under the RAF Greenham Common byelaws since they were introduced; how many women were charged; and how many were convicted.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since the byelaws came into operation on 1 April 1985 2,448 arrests have been made, and in 1,503 of these cases the person arrested has been charged. There have been 812 convictions.

  Sexual Harassment
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy on sexual harassment at work; whether guidance on reporting complaints has been issued to all staff; how many complaints have been reported in the past five years; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

  Mr. Neubert
  Sexual harassment is not tolerated in the Ministry of Defence. Instructions have been issued to line managers and staff setting out the Departments policy and guidelines for dealing with cases of sexual harassment. Complaints are recorded centrally only if they result in a disciplinary penalty. In the past five years there have been 12 such cases and the penalties have ranged from dismissal to reprimands.

  Pin-ups
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Neubert
  An instruction was issued in May 1988 requiring the removal from Civil Service premises of any material of a sexual nature which might cause offence.

  Radiation
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average radiation dose, whole body(a) received by nuclear submarine personnel, (b) reported by the Central Electricity Generating Board nationally and (c) reported by the Central Electricity Generating Board at the Sellafield nuclear power plant, for each of the last 20 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  For figures relating to nuclear submarine personnel for the years 1978 to 1988 I refer the hon. Member to my written answers to him of 2 May 1989,Official Report, column 62, and 20 March 1989, Official Report, column 478. The average individual radiation dose in 1989 was 1·69 milliSieverts.

  I will ask my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) to write to Nuclear Electric Ltd. and British Nuclear Fuels plc, the operators of Sellafield, to obtain the information requested in parts (b) and (c) of the question.
  539
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum radiation dose, rounded to the nearest milliSievert, received by any nuclear submariner in one year during the last decade.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The maximum recorded individual radiation dose to a Royal Navy submariner in any one year during the last 10 years as 50·96 milliSieverts, in 1980.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum total radiation dose received by any nuclear submariner over any period, or number of periods, spent as a classified radiation worker working for the Royal Navy aboard British nuclear submarines; and whether or not such an individual or individuals are still working as classified radiation workers within Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Data are readily available only for personnel who have ceased radiation work since 1979.

  The maximum total radiation dose recorded for any member of the Royal Navy who ceased radiation work since 1979 is 201·98 milliSieverts. This cumulative radiation dose was accrued over the period September 1969 to October 1987, and is the only example shown on available records of a total cumulative dose in excess of 200 milliSieverts. A further 39 Royal Navy personnel are recorded as having cumulative doses in excess of 100 milliSieverts.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the radiation exposure limit for classified persons set by the Ionising Radiations Regulations for maximum annual dose, cumulative year-on-year dose and total dose over a lifetime.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 state the following. The dose limit for the whole body resulting from exposure to the whole or part of the body, being the sum of the following dose quantities resulting from exposure to ionising radiation, namely the effective dose equivalent from external radiation and the committed effective dose equivalent from that year's intake of radionuclides, shall in any calendar year be:

  (a) for employees aged 18 years or over,

  50mSV

  (b) for trainees aged under 18 years,

  15mSV

  (c) for any other person.

  5mSV

  There are no limits on cumulative or total lifetime dose other than those implicit in the annual dose limits.

  The regulations also include dose limits for individual organs and tissues, the lens of the eye, the abdomen of a woman of reproductive capacity and the abdomen of a pregnant woman. For details of these I refer the hon. Member to schedule 1, parts II, III, IV and V on pages 35 and 36 of IRR85, issued by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and available in the House of Commons Library.

  Forest Moor Base
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the function of the Forest Moor royal naval base.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is a naval communications establishment.

  Running Costs
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the current average annual running cost of an operational(a) type 23 frigate, (b) type 22 frigate, (c) type 21 frigate, (d) Leander class frigate, (e) type 42 destroyer, (f) type 82 destroyer, (g) anti-submarine warfare carrier, (h) assault ship, (i) type 2400 submarine, (j) Oberon class submarine, (k) Fleet class submarine, (l) Ton class minesweeper, (m) Ton class minehunter and (n) Hunt class minehunter;

  (2) what is the current average annual running cost of a squadron of (a) Sea Harrier aircraft, (b) Sea King HAS 5 anti-submarine helicopters, (c) Lynx HAS 2/3 anti-submarine helicopters, (d) Sea King AEW 2 helicopters and (e) Sea King HC 4 commando assault helicopters.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 February 1990]: The current average annual running costs (at financial year 1988–89 prices) of the following Royal Navy vessels are:

  £ million

  (a) Type 23 frigate

  5·3

  (b) Type 22 frigate

  5·6

  (c) Type 21 frigate

  3·9

  (d) Leander class frigate

  4·2

  (e) Type 42 destroyer

  6·0

  (f) Type 82 destroyer

  6·5

  (g) Anti-submarine warfare carrier

  21·4

  (h) Assault ship

  9·0

  (i) Type 2400 submarine

  3·4

  (j) Oberon class submarine

  2·4

  (k) Fleet submarine

  4·4

  (l) Ton class minesweeper

  1·0

  (m) Ton class minehunter

  0·5

  (n) Hunt class minehunter

  0·9

  The current average annual running costs (at financial year 1988–89 prices) of a squadron of the following Royal Navy aircraft are:

  £ million

  (a) Sea Harrier

  0·8

  (b) Sea King HAS 5/6 anti-submarine helicopter

  1·6

  (c) Lynx (including all operational Lynx helicopters)

  0·5

  (d) Sea King AEW2

  0·6

  (e) Sea King HC4 commando assault helicopter

  0·9

  These costs include personnel, fuel, spares and so on, and administrative support services, but exclude new construction, capital equipment and refit-repair costs.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Naval Frigate Order: Swan Hunter
Lord Rodney Lord Rodney asked Mer Majesty's Government:
How many jobs will be secured by the order for three Type 23 anti-submarine frigates recently placed with Swan Hunter Shipbuilders on Tyneside.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, we have calculated that this order will sustain up to 10,000 jobs in the defence industry over the next four or five years.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that encouraging Answer. Can he assure the House that, in spite of the current détente, Her Majesty's Government will continue to maintain a viable naval force?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the Government are fully committed to the strong defence of the United Kingdom and to meeting NATO and out-of-area obligations. That therefore necessitates an effective and professional Royal Navy.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, can the Minister say how many Type 23 anti-submarine frigates have been ordered for the coming year? Bearing in mind the swiftly changing nature of the political scene throughout the world, not least in Eastern Europe, can he tell the House whether the Government have any plans to review their defence commitments? As one hopes that there is less need for defence jobs, can he confirm that the Government are considering alternative employment in those areas where defence jobs will be reduced?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, to take first the noble Lord's second question, as I have frequently made clear in your Lordships' House, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has always said that he will continue to examine the options for change. With regard to the number of Type 23 frigates now on order, I can tell the noble Lord that a total of nine are on order, five from Yarrow Shipbuilders and four from Swan Hunter Shipbuilders. Those are being built to a phased build programme, with the next two due for delivery in 1991 and the others following at approximately six-monthly intervals.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, can my noble friend give us an idea as to cost? Are those Type 23 frigates to cost more or less than the preceding Type 22 frigates?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as regards costs they are always treated as commercially in confidence.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, the award of the contract for three frigates to Swan Hunter is one thing, but can my noble friend say when the keel laying will start as that will produce the increase in employment at the yard?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not totally clear as to the point that my noble friend is trying to make.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, are we to understand that it is the Government's policy not only to increase defence expenditure but to increase manpower in the defence industries? Should not the Government have extensive contingency plans for a substantial cut in manpower in those industries?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, again I shall do my best to make clear to the House that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has always said, and continues to say, that as regards the future of the defence industry and the future of resources he is continuing to examine all options for change.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we welcome that slight move in the direction of the advice tendered to the Government from these Benches. But may I ask again whether the Government have contingency plans for a substantial drop in employment in the defence industries? They certainly should have.
The Earl of Arran: No, my Lords, that is not the case.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is yet evidence of any decrease in the production of submarines from Soviet yards?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Soviet threat is not expected to diminish despite the Soviet Union's announced intentions to cut defence expenditure. The likely naval cuts are probably to be in the form of scrapping obsolete and aged combatants, with small net reductions in numbers, but there will be an improvement in capability due to their replacement by modern and better equipped units.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the noble Earl must be unique and alone in thinking that the Soviet threat has in no way diminished since last year. But does he agree that the negotiations for naval disarmament have not gone ahead because the United States has refused to engage in them?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the reason why they have not gone ahead was that it was agreed before the CFE talks by the two superpowers that talks concerning the possibility of naval reductions would not be among the CFE negotiations.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, has my noble friend noted that the Question on the Order Paper relates to a single type of frigate in a single shipyard? Does he agree that this is hardly the occasion to embark upon a general discussion?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend, but at the same time I am trying to be helpful to your Lordships, even though we may have strayed slightly off the Question.

Commonwealth Day: Celebrations
2.42 p.m.
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have in mind to celebrate Commonwealth Day on 12th March.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, Ministers will attend the observance in Westminster Abbey and the Commonwealth Secretary-General's reception, both in the presence of Her Majesty The Queen. Many of our diplomatic missions around the world will be involved in events to mark the occasion. The principal focus will, however, be on children, in schools and at a major event in the Commonwealth Institute.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful and informative Answer. Is he aware that I am the vice-president of New Zealand in Britain 1990? That committee includes at least a dozen very distinguished Members of your Lordships' House, including, I believe, at least two former Prime Ministers. Arising from that, is my noble friend aware that the Commonwealth Games in a city not unknown to me were a great success? Following the celebrations of 12th March, can my noble friend say what plans there are to increase trade with the Commonwealth, particularly in agricultural products? While the European Community is very vital, does he agree that the Commonwealth also has a very important part to play in the future?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend's last remarks about the importance of the Commonwealth. I was aware of my noble friend's involvement in New Zealand in Britain 1990, having seen him at various events in connection with it. I also endorse that the Commonwealth Games were a great success in the city of Auckland.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in another place an Early Day Motion has been moved to celebrate Commonwealth Day? Can your Lordships' House be associated with those sentiments?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure about having an Early Day Motion in your Lordships' House. We do not have such procedure. However, I am sure that the remarks made during Questions in this House today will endorse your Lordships' support for the Commonwealth.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is particular reason for celebrating Commonwealth Day because of the
966
return of Pakistan to the Commonwealth, which is most welcome?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I endorse that remark. It will be the first Commonwealth Day that has occurred since Pakistan rejoined the Commonwealth, I think last October.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as the Minister and Members of the House know, the Commonwealth Institutes in London and Edinburgh have done excellent work. Can the Minister say what plans are afoot to establish a Commonwealth Institute in Cardiff? Will he be good enough to consult on that matter with Mr. Peter Walker without delay?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition on once again bringing Wales to the forefront of our attention and also the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I am sure that due consideration will be given to what the noble Lord said. I shall pass his remarks on to the present Secretary of State.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on Commonwealth Day, 12th March, I shall be addressing a seminar of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on the subject of the role of a Second Chamber? Does he consider that useful?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was not aware that my noble friend was giving such an address. However, I am sure that it will be most useful to all those who are able to listen to it.

Veterinary Schools: Resources
2.46 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures will be taken, and when, following the Page Report, by the Universities Funding Council on resources for veterinary colleges.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Dr. Page's committee was commissioned by the Government to assess the future need for veterinarians and the implications for the intake of veterinary schools. We have accepted all the main recommendations of the Page Report by removing the ceiling on the intake to veterinary schools and discontinuing associated manpower reviews.
The report has been passed to the Universitites Funding Council for its attention. The UFC has already set aside the previous recommendations concerning the Glasgow and Cambridge veterinary schools. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is considering the recommendations directed to his ministry.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her detailed reply. Is she aware that the veterinary profession realises that the Page Report on

967
veterinary education removes the threat of further closures of veterinary colleges and veterinary schools for which the profession is very grateful? However, can the Universities Funding Council remove the threat of lack of sufficient funding? The recommendations of the Page Report can be a huge success provided that the funds are available.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his first comment. It is appropriate to thank all noble Lords in this House who assisted in that process, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Molloy.
The recommendations of the Page Report advocate moving from 335 to 370 places by using the flexibility of staff/student ratios and then increasing the number of places to 400 by extending UFC funding. It recommends that there should then be added flexibility through the universities themselves considering top-up fees to students.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the difficulties in the agricultural industry at the moment caused by various diseases, in particular mad cow disease? Any cutting of veterinary services would be a major mistake in view of such difficulties.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the case for extension of places in the schools has been well made. The flexibility of the recommendations of the Page Report will make it possible for the schools themselves to respond to the need for an increased number of vets in that area.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I also welcome the decision not to close the schools in Glasgow and Cambridge and to retain the six existing university schools. Was not one of the findings of the Page Committee that there will be a serious shortfall of vets over the next decade? Can the noble Baroness say what steps are to be taken by her department in concert with the Ministry of Agriculture to ensure that there will be no shortage? Or are the Government relying on the immigration of vets from overseas?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very important point that was established by the Page Committee. In addition to overseas vets coming into the country and the speeding up of the processing of those applicants, measures that may help in the short term are flexibility in encouraging part-time workers, the encouragement of people to work beyond the age of retirement, and a possibly increased role for the veterinary nurse. The extension of places will help in the longer term.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the British Veterinary Association and the Royal College hope that there will be no discrimination in fees? Will the Government also note that the threatened closure of the Glasgow and Cambridge schools caused a blight on the veterinary profession resulting in great anxiety and that it is hoped that that situation will never occur again?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are pleased that the threat which hung over the two schools has been lifted. There is no intention to discriminate as regards fees. However, if the intention is to introduce top-up fees, that will be across the board, with mechanisms to meet the particular hardships of individual students.
Lord Annan: My Lords, was not one of the reasons for the shortage of veterinary students the fact that the University of Cambridge was unable to fill the places in its veterinary school because the colleges did not admit a sufficient number of students to fill that school?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important question about the flexibility of access to our institutions which was fully discussed last week. Perhaps that point will also be taken on board.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that the matter to which she has just referred will be strongly challenged and denied by the British Veterinary Association and the Royal College?
Noble Lords: Order, order!

"St. Columba": Fire on Board
2.51 p.m.
Lord Blyth Lord Blyth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have determined what caused the fire which left the British Ferries-Sealink vessel "St. Columba" adrift without power in the Irish Sea on Wednesday, 31st January.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the fire on the "St. Columba" occurred when fuel oil escaped from a pipe and sprayed on to a hot exhaust manifold causing the oil to ignite.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Can he say what fire precautions are taken, and are regular fire drills carried out? Furthermore, are the Government satisfied with the situation?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, yes, the Government are satisfied with the situation. This type of vessel is required to carry out a fire drill once a week. That involves only the crew and not the passengers. However, on every voyage there is an announcement to passengers before they set off relaying instructions about what to do in case of emergency or fire.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I take this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to Captain Bakewell and the crew of the "St. Columba" in Holyhead for the prompt and skilful way in which they dealt with the unfortunate accident? Their actions ensured that the passengers were not placed at risk. Is it the case that the marine accident investigation branch is looking at the matter carefully? Can the Minister say whether its findings

969
have been sent to his department and, if so, what are the results?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and praise the captain and his crew. I also wish to inform your Lordships that the co-ordination of the rescue services, including preparation for a fullscale evacuation, was carried out by coastguards and that great efficiency was shown by all the organisations involved. The principal inspector has submitted his report to the department, and there was good co-operation between the inspector and Sealink. I understand that Sealink has already responded to the inspector's preliminary recommendations.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, without detracting from my noble friend's question and the Minister's reply, does not the incident justify the concern expressed by the officers' organisation, NUMAST, about proposals to reduce various manning levels? Is it not the case that last year Sealink proposed abolishing the rank of fourth engineer, whose responsibility is the maintenance and checking of engines? Is it also not the case that ferry operators have suggested applying to the Department of Transport for exemption from the necessity of carrying a radio operator on their ferries? If that is so, will the Minister do his utmost to ensure that those two changes do not occur?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Department of Transport is not aware of any suggestions to dispose of either an engineer or a radio operator. There is a minimum requirement as to the number of crew on board which each owner must obey. It is for the owner to decide whether to employ more than that requirement.

British Railways Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Coal Industry Bill
2.55 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 3 [Repayment of loans to British Coal Corporation]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert ("and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the words "but any other sums received by him in respect of a sum lent by virtue of this section may be applied by him under subsection (1) above as money provided by Parliament."").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as I explained on Second Reading, Clause 3 of the Bill is a technical provision which ensures that temporary deposits from British Coal will not have to be paid into the Consolidated Fund but can instead be re-advanced as required. Since the Coal Industry Bill was
970
published, further consideration has been given in the context of the Government Trading Bill, introduced to your Lordships' House on 22nd February, to ways in which loans advanced by Ministers of the Crown may be repaid and subsequently re-advanced.
Clause 3 as presently drafted will enable the corporation to place surplus funds on deposit with the Secretary of State for Energy provided that ownership of such funds remains with the corporation. But some uncertainty remains over whether, if these sums were regarded as loan repayments rather than deposits, they might be classified as non-statutory receipts of the Crown and have to be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund. The proposed amendment addresses this uncertainty and ensures that the corporation is able to use any funds it may have available, even on an overnight basis, to reduce its outstanding voted loans. It enables these loans to be re-advanced if the corporation's borrowing requirements subsequently rise.
The proposed amendment will, therefore, enable the Secretary of State to offer what will effectively be a commercial overdraft facility, as well as term loans, and will allow the corporation to minimise its outstanding borrowings at any point in time. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for advising me of the amendment and sending me a background briefing. We have no objection to the procedures. I am hopeful that even at this later stage the Government will have an open mind as regards ways in which the Bill can be improved. I shall later move amendments tabled in my name on the Marshalled List and I hope that, now that the noble Viscount has thought fit to move his amendment, they will have a better prospect of being accepted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Licensing: conservation requirements]:
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 5 and insert the following new clause:
("Opencast coal working: conservation requirements
For section 3 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958 (preservation of amenity) there shall be substituted—
Preservation of amenity.
3. In formulating any proposals as to the working of coal by opencast operations or the carrying out of operations incidental to such working or the restoration of land affected by such working or by such incidental operations, the British Coal Corporation (in this Act referred to as "the Corporation") or any person who holds or is applying for a licence under section 36(2) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946—

(a) shall have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest; and

(b) shall so far as possible ensure that the proposals include measures to mitigate any adverse effect which the proposed activities may have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 standing in my name on the Marshalled List. Last week the Committee accepted Amendment No. 2 after a Division. It has now been redrafted with the help of the Government and I am therefore confident that it will be approved today. It will require a consequential amendment to the Long Title and that is tabled as Amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 2 refines and improves on the new clause which I moved last week and which the Committee accepted. It fulfils the major purpose of my previous amendment in extending to the private sector the environmental duty of the British Coal Corporation in respect of its coal operations. However, it does so more neatly and effectively than my previous amendment because it replaces and updates the previous duty of the BCC, bringing the two together in one piece of legislation. I am sure that that is helpful because it emphasises that both the BCC and the private sector must fulfil the environmental duty in all their operations and from the earliest stages in any proposal.
The amendment also ensures, so far as is possible, that measures will be taken by both the BCC and the private sector to mitigate adverse impacts of their operations. I understand from the parliamentary draftsman that the words "so far as possible" are necessary to make the new duty enforceable. I hope and trust that that will not be used as an escape route by operators anxious to skimp on this important new duty.
Your Lordships will see from the drafting that one feature of my previous amendment is not included; that is, the extension of the duty to cover deep mines. True to my word and following a very valuable meeting with my noble friend, I have thought carefully about that question and I have been persuaded that it is perhaps premature to press that point at this stage. However, I hope that there will be an opportunity to address that the next time that legislation affecting deep mines is proposed.
I have been very heartened by the Government's positive response to this amendment following your Lordships' decision last week to include it in the Bill. That must reflect the concern shown from all sides of this House for improved environmental duties in the Bill. I am sure that as a result the Coal Industry Bill will leave this House a better and greener Bill than when it entered. The amendment to the Bill's Long Title is an important signal to that effect. It seems to me that the success of this amendment is also a clear sign that when good environmental sense prevails, everyone benefits. I beg to move.
3 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Norrie deserves congratulation on his initiative in moving the amendment in Committee which was supported by a substantial majority, in spite of the advice then given by my noble friend Lord Ullswater on the Front Bench. He was afraid—and his reasoning was understandable—that as there were already planning and licensing procedures for
972
opencast mining, to put in something along the lines of the amendment might cause confusion.
However, my noble friend Lord Ullswater is to be congratulated on applying his mind further to this matter and reaching an agreement with my noble friend Lord Norrie. I hope that he and your Lordships will feel that as a result both the licensing and planning procedures will be strengthened by what your Lordships are now being invited to write into the Bill. I am sure that that is right and is an excellent solution to what appeared to be quite a problem.
Baroness David: My Lords, I add my pleasure to the fact that the Government have decided to accept the decision of the Committee last week that the substance of the amendment, which was passed by, as the noble Lord said, a considerable majority, should be accepted and the worth of it understood. I am grateful—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, will be—for the opportunity to meet the Minister so that the matter could be thrashed out.
I believe that we shall have to return to the question of deep mines. In the Minister's speech last week I noticed that he said:
"I accept that deep mining can be just as much an eyesore as opencast operations, not least because of the much greater life of deep-mined operations". [Official Report,26/2/90; col 562.]
I hope he will agree that in a future Bill we can perhaps return to that matter. In the meantime, I express my great pleasure that this amendment is tabled today.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Viscount for the courtesy which he showed us when we met him the other day and for his willingness to consider the reframing of this amendment. I am sure that the amendment which we now have is acceptable to all sides of the House.
I also hope that the negotiations which are taking place at present with the National Coal Board on the question of royalties for opencast mining will perhaps mean that there will be some relaxation in the size of the royalties which private operators must pay in order that they may have an incentive to go even further with the "greening" over of the sites. In the meantime, I associate myself with all the remarks about the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and with the way in which it has been received by the Minister.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, a week is certainly a long time in politics because only last Monday the Minister was strenuously but politely and firmly telling us that there was no need for the amendment which is substantially the amendment before us today. Of course, it is remarkably chastening for there to be a vote against the Government. That indicates that the Committee and those Members of the Committee who listened to the arguments and followed the matter closely wanted to lay an obligation of some sort on the Government, the coal board or the opencast operators. It was felt that something had to be done.

973
I associate myself with all the kind words said to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, who persisted in this matter. He could easily have accepted assurances but he wanted to see something written on the face of the Bill. I say, "so far, so good". However, can the Minister tell us exactly what the words on the face of the Bill mean in respect of obligations? What will now have to happen physically when the Bill, as amended, becomes an Act compared to the situation prevailing before last Monday? What have the Government now accepted which is additional to that which they resisted before? Can the Minister tell us what has now been laid as a physical or financial duty upon the opencast coal operators which was not a duty before last Monday?
I noted the noises which were made about "so far so good". We do need to come back and look at the detrimental environmental impact on areas not only around opencast mines but also around deep mining. Therefore, my comments are as generous and as warm as those of other noble Lords but I am practical. I do not wish us to be approached in three years' time by those interested in this matter saying that the words on the face of the Bill do not mean anything. I would like the Minister to tell us what he and his colleagues accept as the physical and financial consequences of the amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate my noble friends Lord Norrie and Lord Renton and the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Stedman, on the persuasiveness and sincerity with which they successfully proposed their amendment in Committee last week. I also wish to thank them for the revised amendment which has now been tabled and which fully takes into account all difficulties which I mentioned last week.
As I said in Committee, there is no real difference between the Government's aims and those of the movers of the amendment. All opencast operators should have full regard to the environment whether they are in the public or private sector. The difference was simply in the way in which that aim could best be achieved.
As my noble friend Lord Norrie said, the revised amendment extends to licensed opencast operators a statutory amenity duty imposed on British Coal by Section 3 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958, as substituted by Schedule 8 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986. It does that by restating the duty in the form of a completely new clause and by extending the duty so that it applies in the same terms to both British Coal and licensed operators. That meets our criteria of fairness as between British Coal and private sector operators.
The duty itself has been expressed in very much the terms of my noble friend's successful amendment. It includes a reference to the need to have regard to archaeological sites which is not at present part of the amenity duty imposed on British Coal. It requires that British Coal and licensed operators shall, so far as possible, ensure that the proposals include measures to mitigate. That is more positive than the formulation, "shall take into account any effect", which features in the 1986 Act.
974
My noble friend Lord Renton made the powerful point in Committee that the amenity duty on licensees needs to bite at an early stage in the planning process. I should here like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, what the new amendment would do. It imposes an amenity duty on the licensed operator from the time he is preparing his licence application. All that represents a useful strengthening of the amenity duty set out in the 1986 Act and the Government welcome this.
The revised amendment does not impose upon British Coal as licensor the duty to vet the environmental aspects of the licensee's proposals, which was the major difficulty for us in the amendment passed last week. That does not, however, mean that British Coal has no licensing responsibilities in this area. The corporation has given a firm assurance that it will not issue a licence unless planning permission has been given. And we have been considering whether there are other aspects in its licensing function which could be more conducive to improving environmental standards. One of the excuses that operators use for shortfalls in environmental performance is that the royalties charged by British Coal mean that they cannot afford high standards of working and restoration. Certainly British Coal's royalties are very high, and the Government will ask British Coal to ensure that royalties are set at a level which will allow licensed operators to meet the cost of rising environmental standards.
I hope that those words will be of some comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. The Government fully support this amendment. It sends a strong signal to the licensed opencast sector on the importance of high environmental standards, and the signal is all the stronger because it is fully supported by the Government and, I hope, by all sides of your Lordships' House.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may put it to him that he has not quite answered the question of my noble friend Lord Graham, and I certainly think that there is a point which needs to be cleared up.
It seems to me that there are two crucial phrases. The first, "shall have regard to", is in Section 3(a) and the second, "shall so far as possible", is in Section 3(d). I think the Minister will probably agree that in these days, when there is so much concern—and rightly so—about what happens to the countryside generally, the green issues and so on, local authorities keep a close eye on those matters but so also do what might be called citizens' groups; people who also have concern about these matters.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister, therefore, what will happen if, at the end of the day, what is proposed does not meet the criteria I mentioned, that is to say that they:
"have regard to the desirability",
and,
"so far as possible ensure".
If those criteria are not met either by local authorities or interested people, what happens then? I hope he

975
will agree that there is a wide field where there can be disagreement about whether flora and fauna are affected and whether buildings are sufficiently historic. We read every day in the newspapers of disagreement as to whether something ought to be protected or whether that which is done protects it.
I hope I am making myself clear, but it is a real concern and I hope the Minister can offer some explanation.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that I think the noble Lord is concerned about the restoration of the sites that are worked by opencast, because that is really what the amendment refers to.
We are talking about tackling such things as ponds and buildings, which are existing objects; if they have to be removed during the course of operations, which naturally may happen, it may not be possible to recreate them exactly. The recreation has to go as far as possible; buildings may have to be made of different materials, they cannot be replaced stone by stone. Those words are therefore required in the Bill to ensure that restoration creates as near as possible what was originally there.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:—
("Definition of accumulated group deficit
.For the purpose of this Act the "accumulated group deficit" shall include—

(i) sums owed by the Corporation to the Treasury or the Bank of England;

(ii) sums owed by the Corporation to banks and other financial institutions;

(iii) sufficient sums to cover all outstanding claims on the Corporation for compensation for coal mining subsidence damage; and

(iv) such additional sums as the Corporation would have been liable for if the recommendations contained in the Report of the Subsidence Compensation Review Committee on the Report and Compensation System for Coal Mining Subsidence Damage had been enacted before 30th March 1990.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3, standing in my name. The Minister will understand that we on this side of the House are returning to a matter with which my noble friend Lord Williams was not fully satisfied when the Minister answered a week ago today. The prime element in Amendment No. 3 to which I should like the Minister to address his mind is subparagraph (iii), which reads:
"sufficient sums to cover all outstanding claims on the Corporation for compensation for coal mining subsidence damage".
The Minister will be aware that there has been considerable movement—that is not a play upon the word "subsidence"—in regard to that matter in recent months. He will also be aware that the Secretary of State, Mr. John Wakeham, made an announcement in January, six weeks ago, as to what the Government intend to do pending legislation.
I think there is common agreement in the House. I do not have a copy of the Official Report before me, but the noble Viscount said that it was the wish of the Government, as soon as parliamentary time can be found, to bring forward legislation. I should really like the Minister to address himself to the kind of legislation we can expect when it appears and to tell us what, in the meantime, the Minister and the ministry are doing.
The press release given by the department on 16th January does not say a great deal. We know the nature of the problem; we know the effect that it has on landowners large and small, farmers large and small, and particularly householders large and small. We are looking at the impact perhaps on their business, which is very important, but also on their lives.
The Minister told us, quite fairly, that the problem was not so great as it had been and that settlements had been made, but what he actually said was happening "pending legislation" was:
"Announcing the new measures Mr. Wakeham said the department was preparing an advisory leaflet prescribing new procedures dealing with claims. A report was expected shortly on the department's attitude survey, to assess public satisfaction with British Coal's notification procedures, and a review of the disputes procedure was under way. We will shortly be consulting widely".
We therefore have an advisory leaflet, a report that is expected shortly, an attitude survey and wider consultation. That might be summed up as meaning a great deal, but it does not sound much to me. It looks as though the department and the Minister want to be seen to be doing a lot, but I do not think they are doing very much.
I should like the Minister to tell us—not just myself, though I am deeply interested—when he believes it is likely that legislation will come forward. He will understand that we do not expect him to say that it will be in the next Queen's Speech—nobody can say that—but we should like some element of urgency injected into it. We should also like the Minister to tell us, when the legislation appears—not if, but when, it appears—what he and his colleagues have in mind should be or could be included in that legislation. For example, we certainly expect the legislation to contain provisions for local arbitration. I refer to individuals who have suffered a subsidence and disputes concerning private dwellings or involving damage of up to £50,000. I am quoting from a body which I do not normally quote in aid—the Country Landowners' Association.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, we know that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my colleagues sitting behind me are all fully paid up members because they have been landed in it more often than I have.
To be fair, the Country Landowners' Association—to which I am grateful—has been assiduous in pursuing this matter. I know from conversations with its officials that the association has in hand the interests of small as well as large landowners.

977
First, therefore, I should like the Minister to tell the House and people outside whether he believes that local arbitration is likely to be part of the legislation. I should like the Minister to tell the House what he can about standards of repair. We have dealt with the very important aspect of how opencast coal mine owners will be obliged to reinstate land that they have opened up, exploited and from which they have extracted coal. They will have an obligation. Can the Minister tell the House whether the legislation is likely to include a requirement to restore damaged property to its original condition as far as is reasonably practical?
That aspect is crucial. If it becomes legislatively obligatory to return land to its original state, that will minimise enormously the element of compensation. It may not be possible to compensate for the time lost in enjoying your land but if it is properly restored that would be a considerable advantage.
Will the legislation include provision for using one's own contractors? It must be clear that the sufferer of the hurt—the owner of the land—should, under the compensatory legislation, be able to employ a contractor to reinstate his land other than the contractor who may well be provided by the state, the government or the coal board. There are such costs as technical or professional assistance. That would be to the benefit of everyone, not just the landowner. We are not simply talking about reinstatement of the landowner's piece of land. There is the goodwill of the community which is at stake and also that of the national interest. In that respect I refer to areas of special beauty. That aspect, too, needs to be kept in mind.
Can the Minister also tell the House whether the onus of proof element will be dealt with? Legislation must not allow British Coal to continue to insist on individual sufferers first having to provide proof that any damage has been caused by subsidence. It is ironic that before a mining operation takes place everything is hunky-dory but when there is subsidence of some kind the landowner has to prove that the subsidence was caused by the mining operation—in fact, the only geological change in the land over a period of time is that mining has taken place in the area.
I should be grateful if the Minister would therefore use this amendment to tell the House what he and his colleagues have in mind. The Minister will not need me to remind him that my comments stem primarily from the main elements taken from the Waddilove Report, which has been before us for the past eight or nine years. That report has generally been received as a sound basis for changing legislation. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I explained in Committee, I am confident that the current definition of deficiency grant will make sufficient grant available to achieve its objective of enabling the Secretary of State properly to continue to advance loans. Perhaps I should initially deal briefly with the first two paragraphs of the amendment so
978
that noble Lords will be aware of the Government's response.
Let me explain how the deficiency grant will impact upon the corporation's level of debt. We hope to pay a substantial amount of deficiency grant this month in advance of the accounts being finalised. It cannot be more than the £3·45 billion which was sought in the Spring Supplementary Estimates. It is likely to be rather smaller than this because the Secretary of State will wish to ensure that the advance payment of deficiency grant in respect of the diminution in the value of the corporation's assets does not exceed the provision for this; that is actually reflected in the accounts when they are finalised around August.
Nevertheless, we expect that there will be a substantial payment of deficiency grant this month. This will allow British Coal to repay an equivalent amount of their borrowings. Further deficiency grant will be repaid once the accounts are finalised. This too will lead to the repayment of an equivalent amount of borrowings. Our expectation is that at that point British Coal's debt will be broadly in line with the written down value of its colliery assets.
On subsidence, I think I am able to satisfy the noble Lord that the proposed amendments to the Bill—specifically, paragraph (iii)—are not required. The corporation has for some time followed an accounting policy of providing in its accounts not only for actual claims received for subsidence damage but also for the latent claims that are expected to arise in future years as a result of past and current mining operations. The creation of this provision results in a charge to the corporation's profit and loss account each year. The provision included in the corporation's 1990 accounts will therefore be reflected in the corporation's accumulated group deficit and will be covered by deficiency grant as presently defined.
As regards changes in this liability due to the implementation of the Waddilove Report, the adequacy of the sums provided will automatically be reviewed by the corporation's auditors in the light of information obtained up to the date on which the corporation's accounts are signed as part of their work on those accounts. But it is not possible to make a complete assessment of any increase in the corporation's liability for subsidence damage that may result from further legislation until that legislation is finalised. However, the Secretary of State for Energy stated during Report stage on the Coal Industry Bill in another place that he did not expect this extra liability to be significant.
I now specifically refer to subsidence and the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy spelt out in some detail the Government's position on subsidence. Perhaps it would help noble Lords if I reiterated some of the key points. First, the position on the ground is quite encouraging. The number of new claims continues to fall. In 1988–89 British Coal received 9,600 new claims, some 2,300 fewer than the previous year. During this year British Coal settled about 10,000 claims at a cost of over £40 million. A further 4,600

979
claims were rejected with the result that the total number of cases outstanding fell by almost 5,000, compared with the previous year, to a little over 26,000. This compares with a backlog of 37,000 in 1986–87 and 52,000 in 1983–84, so there has been some considerable improvement.
It may be helpful to the House if I run through what has happened in this area since the Waddilove Committee on subsidence reported in 1984 and the Government's White Paper response was issued in 1987. The Waddilove Report on repair and compensation for coal mining damage made 65 recommendations, not all of which required legislation to be implemented. It is worth recalling that the report did not call for a radical overhaul of the existing system. In fact, it concluded that the thrust of the existing legislation was broadly right but needed strengthening in a number of areas.
Between the publication of the Waddilove Report and the Government's White Paper response, British Coal introduced a number of improvements to its management procedures. The result was that by the time our White Paper was published over half Waddilove's recommendations had been implemented wholly or in part. Most recently the Law Society and British Coal have agreed a new mining search form.
For example, British Coal is now acting in accordance with Waddilove's recommendation that the priority should be the repair of damage, and payments in lieu should only be made in exceptional circumstances. It also repairs all property to a good standard even though the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 only requires British Coal to make the property "reasonably fitted" for use. British Coal does not strictly apply the time limit in the 1957 Act which requires a claim to be made within two months of the damage becoming apparent and will generally accept any claims up to six years afterwards. I recognise that this has caused problems. That is why we propose a change in new legislation to make the position abundantly clear.
I am advised that claims will be allowed up to six years from when the claimant first had reasonable grounds to believe that damage had occurred. In other words, the time limit will run not from the date of mining, not necessarily from the date of damage occurring, but from the date when the damage should become apparent.
The noble Lord has suggested that more should be done in advance of legislation. We agree and we are actively looking to move things forward. That is why the Department of Energy is preparing a new version of its advisory leaflet often referred to in the industry as the Green Book. This will describe new procedures agreed between the department and British Coal for dealing with subsidence claims. These new procedures will as far as possible incorporate the best aspects of both the existing Acts and anticipate our proposals for legislation. I hope that this will be a helpful advance for claimants between now and the time that legislation is enacted.
The House may recall from the White Paper that we said that we would conduct an attitude survey to
980
assess public satisfaction with British Coal's notification procedures. If the existing arrangements are found to be unsatisfactory, British Coal will be required to notify individual households. The field-work for this survey is now complete. The department is considering the results and a report is expected shortly.
Because of the prospect of early legislation the Department of Energy has also brought forward the review of disputes procedures which Waddilove recommended should take place in 1990. This review is now under way and will look at a range of options. I hope that the outcome will be a simpler, quicker and cheaper way for claimants to resolve disputes with British Coal.
The options we are looking at include a better defined and more widely available form of independent adjudication, a lower-tier to the Lands Tribunal roughly similar to a small claims court, an ombudsman, a legal advice centre and a disputes procedure based on the rules of the Institute of Arbitrators. At this stage it is not possible to anticipate the outcome of this review or when and how its findings will be implemented. But it may be possible for a new system to be agreed and established without legislation.
I now wish to deal with one or two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. One was that a claimant should be entitled wherever possible to employ a contractor of his own choice to make good the damage. Under the present arrangements it is open to a claimant to use his own contractor at the discretion of British Coal. Under the legislation we have in mind that will become a statutory right.
The noble Lord also referred to the onus of proof. The fact sheet that he quoted from recommends that in all disputes as to whether damage is due to subsidence the onus should be on British Coal to demonstrate that it is not subsidence damage. We accept that the onus of proof should rest with British Coal to demonstate that the damage was not caused by mining subsidence. That is currently the position under the 1957 Act and that will be preserved in the new legislation.
The Government remain committed to introducing a Bill on subsidence at the earliest opportunity, but subsidence is a complex area. The new subsidence legislation will be comprehensive, allowing the repeal of existing legislation and replacement with an Act which will cover all aspects of subsidence, including the proposals made by the Waddilove Committee, as modified in the subsequent consultative process.
There are two Acts which the noble Lord understands currently apply. We are not only introducing positive improvements; we are also consolidating those two Acts into one Bill. Some of the provisions of these Acts, while desirable, are not always as clear as they could be. Your Lordships will be aware of the uncertainties surrounding interpretation of the six-year rule to which I have drawn the attention of the House today. Unravelling these Acts and replacing them with a lucid and comprehensive new Bill will involve a great deal of

981
"lawyers' law" which will require careful drafting and careful scrutiny by both Houses and in Committee. Moreover, a great deal of work and further consultation are still going on and we will want the legislation to reflect the outcome of that.
I believe that for these reasons it would be neither practical nor desirable to tack subsidence provisions onto the present short, primarily financial Bill which is urgently required by the end of the financial year. I cannot predict when the legislation will be introduced. That is a matter for decision elsewhere; but I am sure that the Government in reaching their decision on the timing of a Bill will wish to take full account of the views expressed today, and I hope that on this basis the noble Lord will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for many people outside this House as well as those in it when I express my gratitude to the Minister and his advisers for taking this opportunity to speak so fully and helpfully to those concerned with this matter. I understand from him that we can look forward to early legislation though he cannot quantify it or say precisely when it will take place. I suppose that it will be as soon as possible and we shall have to settle for that.
Everything that the noble Viscount said is extremely helpful. I understand that the Government want to make all these matters abundantly clear in legislation. He also alluded very strongly to the fact that the main points I raised were likely to be dealt with in legislation or that they are already in train and will be taken account of before legislation is introduced. Therefore, I am certainly not going to press the amendment.
The Minister said that the number of outstanding claims had been reduced year after year. I think he said that the number had been reduced by 5,000 to a total of 26,000. If the rate is to continue at only 5,000 a year, some of the claims will take another five years to be dealt with. I blanch at the agony of the people who have been in dispute trying to get matters resolved. Some of them must have been waiting for three or four years. A number of people must have been in the process of having claims dealt with for a long period of time. But the noble Viscount is entitled to take credit for the fact that the backlog has come down from nearly 50,000 to 26,000. Quite clearly the movement is in the right direction.
I note from the tenor of the noble Viscount's remarks that my points will be incorporated into legislation and may be pre-empted by actions of the Government, the coal board and others. I believe that those outside the House have been done a service by this short debate today and I thank the noble Viscount for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Licensing of opencast operations: Compliance with air quality directive
No licences for opencast operations shall be awarded under section 4 of this Act unless—

(a)the licensing authority is satisfied that the proposed operations will comply with the European Community Directive 80/779/EEC on air quality; and

(b) such compliance is a condition of the licence.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we seek to secure a better understanding of the Government's reluctance to give full effect to European Community Directive 80/779/EEC on air quality, but more importantly we seek to ensure that it is acted upon by those who can do something about it.
Paragraph (a) seeks to ensure that when British Coal gives licences for opencast operations it must be satisfied that the operator will comply with the directive. The problem is that, if opencast operators make a mess, any action has to be taken against the licensing authority, which is British Coal. Paragraph (b) is needed to put the compliance conditions in the licence so that the onus will be firmly on the operator's contract. Although the directive is dated 1980, the Government gave effect to it in legislation only in 1989, in the air quality standards regulations. The Minister will know that there are 22 derogations—areas where the Government have special dispensation and under which they do not have to meet the level set in the directive until 1993. The noble Viscount will have to make a stout defence against the charge of being dilatory and also against the charge of being less than wholehearted in bringing this about.
I have the benefit of some evidence brought by a group of doctors in Wales to a public inquiry at Neath on opencast mining. At that stage they asked British Coal representatives whether they intended to comply with the directive. I am advised in my brief that British Coal was apparently unaware of the directive and asked the Secretary of State for Wales, who at this moment, though not for long, is Peter Walker, whether the directive applied to opencast operations. The Secretary of State assured British Coal that it did not and said that it applied only to smoke particles and so on. The evidence brought to the inquiry by Dr. Watkins, Dr. Thomas, Dr. Temple and Dr. Rees less than two years ago on the impact on the health of the people in their area is quite horrifying.
In mid-1986 British Coal indicated its intention to carry out opencast mining close to Glyn-neath. I am told by the doctors that the health implications of permitting such mining are horrific. The Glyn-neath medical practice felt obliged to write to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs of another place to inform it of some of the implications of opencast mining.
The doctors have set out the problems connected with air quality. Accepted medical authorities hold that airborne particulate pollution is associated with increased rates of lung disease, upper respiratory

983
tract disease, arthritis and cancer. The incidence of these pathologies in South Wales is notoriously high and is connected in this instance with the local industry. But more importantly, general psychological factors such as landscape and stress—for example, caused by unemployment—are important in the prevention of serious disease and affect the rate of recovery from illness. Those are important matters too. The doctors told the inquiry that their research confirmed an excess of disease known to be caused by airborne particulate pollution—dust—and further that their figures suggested a close link with opencast mining activity, from which dust pollution extends far more widely than has hitherto been realised.
I am concerned that the air pollution directive should be taken seriously by the coal industry. The Minister will do a service to communities in South Wales and in all coalfield areas if he accepts the amendment or sets their minds at rest by telling us why it is not needed. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am associated with a responsible opencast operator. I can assure noble Lords that it is much concerned that the amenity aspects of its operations are strictly observed.
I should like to ask the Minister about the status of the directive at the moment. Would its insertion into the Bill require its insertion into other Bills affecting mineral extraction? For example, is it applicable in other areas of mining or mineral extraction? Would the insertion of the amendment into the Bill mean another aspect of applying for licences in so far as it might be argued by some people that, as the local authority had agreed it and as the coal board had agreed it, they might have to take it to the European Court to find if decisions were consistent with the European directive? What is the status of this directive in relation to other industries as well as in relation to this industry?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this amendment requires British Coal to satisfy itself as licensor that licensed opencast mining operations comply with air quality limits on sulphur dioxide and suspended particulates. I shall deal with the question of dust in a moment. Our basic objection to the amendment is, as elsewhere, that it puts the obligation on British Coal as licensor to satisfy itself whether the licensee has had adequate regard to the environmental implications of his operation, a point brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. In the Government's view that is a matter for the planning system, not for the licensee. I shall refer to that in more detail in a moment.
I referred at Second Reading to the strengthening of the environmental guidelines on all opencast mining, whether by British Coal or licensees, that took place in 1988 and was published as Mineral Planning Guidance note 3 (MPG3). MPG3 specifically addressed the question of dust and the ways in which the effects of dust from blasting can be minimised: careful planning operations, including the siting of boundaries and baffle banks, and by moving work away from residential areas quickly.
984
I know that your Lordships' House will be interested in the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the planning conditions set. Under the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act it is the employer's responsibility to ensure the health and safety of the employees. Also, under Section 3 of the Act employers are responsible for people other than employees. Responsibility for monitoring lies with the local mineral planning authority and also with the Mines and Quarries Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive which has powers to set up its own gauges and to see that conditions are met. In the case of the larger sites operated under contract for British Coal, British Coal sets up its own gauges and monitors the situations closely through the local liaison committee: it is usual for an environmental health officer to participate on this liaison committee. As far as licensed sites are concerned, the Mines and Quarries Inspectorate treats them the same as British Coal contract sites: they are not monitored on a regular basis but when complaints arise they will be investigated and levels checked by an inspector.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, also asked about the application of the directive. It applies to industry generally. It lays down limits on the concentrations of sulphur dioxide and suspended particles which may exist in the atmosphere. I have sought to deal with the ways in which it affects opencast coal mining.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, I should say that I am aware of the concerns that were expressed last year about coal dust from a particular site at Derlwyn in South Wales. At that time local doctors produced a report, to which the noble Lord referred, on the effect of dust emissions from opencast operations in the area. Because of those concerns the Welsh Office commissioned a doctor from the Medical Research Council's epidemiology unit at Cardiff to make an independent examination of the report's conclusions. They also led the Secretary of State to defer his decision on the inspector's report until the outcome of a re-opened inquiry which was held in June 1989 was known. The independent examination found that the original report contained unsubstantiated conclusions based on information which had not been confirmed.
After the re-opened inquiry, the Secretary of State for Wales decided that the Derlwyn site could go ahead. The Opencast Executive has received tenders from contractors and is about to let the contract. The matter should be decided by the end of the month. I think that I have dealt with all the points that were raised and I hope therefore that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we take on board what the Minister said and have noted the concerns he expressed. However, Article 15 of the EC directive dated 15th July 1980 reads:
"Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive within 24 months of its notification and shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof'.

985
It was not 24 months after the 15th July 1980; it was nine years before the Government took action. The Government pick and choose the aspects of EC legislation which they want to operate, to bring into force, to comply with and to pray in aid. I can assure the Minister that we are not concerned with the interests of opencast coal operators, of British Coal or of the Government. We are concerned with ordinary men and women, especially those who innocently work in the area and who find that, as a result of a dereliction of duty by the Government, the Coal Board, the opencast coal operator and even the local authority, they are suffering from the kind of diseases which the doctors at Glyn-neath drew to the inquiry's attention.
The Minister is correct to point out the history of the inquiry. But the EC directive is quite clear on the matter. It is also quite clear that the Minister, if I may use a polite term, has been dilatory in carrying out his responsibilities. Further, it gives an indication of the Government's reluctance in the matter. There are various reasons for that reluctance. The Minister said that it was up to the local mining planning authority to monitor such aspects. However, he surely knows that in health and safety, in environmental safety and in health generally there has been a chronic shortage for many years of men and women trained to carry out such duties.
The Minister said that such people will take action when complaints are made. Here again he knows that acting in response to complaints is no substitute for proper monitoring of the situation. I do not wish to be alarmist; I simply point out that the EC in 1980 would not have brought forward this substantial directive if it was not necessary. Article 1 says,
"The purpose of this Directive is to fix limit values … and guide values … for sulphur dioxide and suspended particles in the atmosphere and the conditions for their application in order to improve:

—the protection of human health,

—the protection of the environment".

I believe that this is a very reasonable amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, made a fair point on the subject. He argued that if this is spatchcocked into the legislation, would there not be implications in other legislation that opencast coal operators would have to take into account? That is not only a valid point; it is one that I accept.
This has been an opportunity for the Government and for the Minister to show sympathy for the fact that air pollution from dust from opencast operations poses a very serious threat to the health and happiness of thousands, if not millions, of people. The Government could have been a little more sympathetic. However, they have not been and I am most disappointed. I also believe that those outside the House who take a keen interest in such matters will feel as much disappointment as I do when they realise that the Minister and the Government are not prepared to do any more than they have done up until now. I see that the Minister wishes to intervene and I shall gladly allow him to do so.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am, most grateful. I think that I should point out that the COSHH (control of substances hazardous to health) regulations came into force last year. They place a further duty on employers to regulate their own areas. If there is a complaint from an employee the Health and Safety Executive and an inspector will investigate the matter and levels will be monitored by a medical division. In general cases if dust levels are found to be too high the cause will be stopped until remedied. In extreme cases the operations will be stopped on site. Levels are kept down by the seeding of topsoil, baffle banks and the use of road sprays.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is aware of such measures. However, I should like the House to be aware of the actions which are taken when such situations arise.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In the Title:
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 5:
Line 5, at end insert ("and the preservation of amenity in connection with opencast coal working").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. However, I should point out that the amendment was consequential upon my earlier amendment being accepted. It simply ensures that the title accurately reflects the contents of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill
4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Today we are to debate a Bill to allow the privatisation of two parts of the Civil Service, the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers. However, before I introduce the Bill itself to the House I think it would be helpful if I set the scene by describing how it is that these privatisation proposals have come to the fore at this time.
The debate in another place revealed a good deal of misunderstanding of the existing policies and practices of government in the fields of work covered by these two bodies and unless the background is clear it is naturally more difficult for the House to form a view on the proposals which we are today to consider.
Let me describe first the major functions of the two agencies. The Property Services Agency was created in the early 1960s with the task of managing the government estate and of managing or undertaking directly the building construction and maintenance work which is required by central government. Although the PSA itself has evolved

987
over the years, in essence it has always combined two main functions: the role of a major property company, acting as a landlord to other government departments, and the role of a major professional and technical consultancy in the field of building and estate management.
As a consultancy it employs a large staff drawn from all the building and engineering professions, such as architects, civil and mechanical and electrical engineers, quantity surveyors and so on. In recent years the PSA has managed government building work amounting in expenditure terms to about £3.5 billion a year. The great bulk of the actual building work is undertaken by contractors employed by the PSA, although the PSA does have a direct labour force of its own which deals predominantly with maintenance and minor works projects. The PSA also employs external professional consultants extensively. About 70 per cent. of its design and project management work has been placed with the private sector in this way in recent years.
Although the PSA has undertaken the building work for the majority of government departments, some departments have had specialised teams of their own. For example the PSA does not undertake the hospital building programme for the Department of Health, or the building of embassies for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or work for the Department of Transport on road building. The Crown Suppliers is part of the PSA for management purposes but operates as an independent business with its own trading fund. It supplies a wide range of furniture, furnishings, floorcoverings, domestic appliances, and other products and equipment, to the public sector. It also operates a vehicle hire and document delivery service.
Early in the 1980s the Government decided that the method of working under which major central agencies like the PSA and the Crown Suppliers provided their services on an allied basis to other departments at no cost to departmental votes, needed to be radically rethought. In 1981 the Government had introduced a new principle into the management of government spending—the financial management initiative. In essence this involved placing responsibility for ensuring value for money with the end-user, not with some central watchdog department like the Treasury or the PSA.
Applying these principles to the fields of activity of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers implied that there had to be a clear separation of roles—a separation between the role of customer and the role of supplier. Under the new regime the customer departments would be given the budget for building works, just as they had a budget for staff costs or other purchases. When they needed some building works, they would, after commissioning appropriate professional advice, decide like any other client what they could afford and commission the supplier to provide it. Because the customer would now be the person responsible for ensuring value for money, he would need the freedom to shop around to obtain the best price. No shopper could guarantee that he had spent wisely if he was forced always to use the same store.
988
To provide this element of choice, the Government decided that departments must be given the freedom to choose whether or not to use the Crown Suppliers and the PSA. In the jargon of government, departments would be "untied". Thus although the PSA and the Crown Suppliers would be starting from a position in which they had a virtual monopoly of large areas of government work they would quickly face competition and would in future only retain work to the extent that their services were competitive with those offered by other companies or consultants.
These changes have been progressively introduced over the last two to three years, and will be completely in place by 1st April 1990. At that same date the PSA's main governmental functions will be separated out and put into a new command within the Department of the Environment to be called Property Holdings. This will be responsible primarily for the role of landlord for the Government's civil estate, but it will also provide a centre of expertise within the Government which will offer advice and assistance to other departments as they pick up their new responsibilities for becoming competent and intelligent customers for works services.
Once Property Holdings is removed, the remaining functions of the PSA—all things which are not inherently governmental in nature—will be provided on a competitive commercial service to clients. These commercial activities comprise the large majority of the existing activities of the PSA. It is these and these alone which will eventually be privatised. We are not privatising a "function of government", as some have tried to maintain.
With that brief background, I would first like to emphasise to the House what this Bill is not about. It is not about the process, or consequences, of untying. Those policies have been in train for several years and are now reaching fruition. It is not about the landlord function of government, or the management of the Government's large holdings of land. Those functions belong to the various departments of government, and particularly to Property Holdings for a large part of the civil estate and to the Ministry of Defence. It is not about arrangements for security of government establishments, or government employees, because those responsibilities lie now, and will lie in the future, with the respective departments of government. The role of the PSA—or of any other consultant that they choose to employ in place of the PSA—is to provide security systems that comply with what the customer departments decide they themselves need.
What then is the purpose of the Bill? It is simply to convert two public organisations which have been given purely commercial roles into organisations within the private sector. That is the place for commercial organisations.
As I have explained, the process of untying means that both the Crown Suppliers and the PSA already face increasing competition within their traditional market areas of providing services to government departments. If they were limited for the long term

989
to that market place, their organisations would inevitably decline. To avoid that, the Government have already agreed that as a prelude to privatisation they should be allowed to compete on fair and equal terms within wider markets outside government. But even that will not be sufficient to ensure their continuing health, because operating within the public sector inevitably imposes extra restraints on an organisation. They will only truly begin to have the freedom to compete on fair and equal terms when they are truly on the same commercial footing as their competitors.
The Crown Suppliers has been a highly successful public sector organisation, running as a trading fund since 1976. It has changed its structure over the last year to reflect and facilitate the coming privatisation and has begun to market its services to the private sector. The organisation has been largely untied since 1987 and so has extensive experience of competing for its business. It has become more marketing-led to respond to that challenge.
The Government intend to privatise the Crown Suppliers within the coming months, and the sale process is well under way. Potential bidders have been subject to a pre-qualifying review. Bids have now been received and are being considered against the Government's objectives for the sale. These objectives are threefold: to obtain a fair return to the taxpayer; to protect the interests of the staff; and to sell to purchasers who have the intention and the ability to develop the business to provide a continuing source of competitive supplies for the public sector.
The PSA cannot be privatised until it has been restructured from a government department into a commercial entity, with all the accounting and management information systems that that implies. The earliest practicable date for privatisation of the PSA is therefore the latter part of 1992. But in the case of both organizations—the PSA and the Crown Suppliers—the Government believe that the freedoms of the private sector should be made available just as soon as that is practicable for the business concerned.
I turn now to the provisions of the Bill. It is a short Bill, and the various provisions have been precedented in earlier privatisations. The first clause allows assets and liabilities to be transferred by means of a scheme, or schemes, from the Secretary of State to wholly-owned government companies. The process of privatisation will then involve the sale of the shares in these companies. A flotation on the Stock Market is not envisaged in either case, and the Government will seek tender bids from trade buyers, or possibly there may be bids from a management buy-out, or a management buy-out combined with employee participation.
Clause 2 is necessary to deal with an unusual feature of the Civil Service pension scheme. It will ensure that when staff are transferred with the company to the private sector and therefore leave the Civil Service pension scheme they are not thereby deemed to have been made redundant. That would clearly be nonsensical, since they will during the
990
transfer retain their jobs and terms and conditions of employment. Of course the clause does not remove any pension rights to which the staff are reasonably entitled. I shall return to that in a moment. Clause 3 deals with various financial provisions concerned with the government-owned companies that are to form the medium of the privatisation. The remaining clauses are fairly self-explanatory.
I should like to say something about the effects on staff. The consequences of the privatisations will be to transfer 20,000 or more people from the Civil Service to private sector employment, and the Government, as a good employer, and the employees themselves, are naturally very concerned to ensure that the various rights of the staff are preserved during and after the change. However, in practice, the staff rights are protected by both UK and European Community law. This is achieved in the United Kingdom through the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—the so-called "TUPE regulations". These require that all terms and conditions of employment, including severance entitlements, will be transferred as identically as is possible from the Government as employer to the new companies.
The TUPE regulations do not apply to pensions, for the very good reason that there are many different ways in which suitable pension entitlements can be provided. But the pensions are also protected by employment law, since unless the employee receives broadly comparable pension terms he could claim that he had been "constructively dismissed" by his employer. In practice the Government will deal with transferring pension entitlements by discussing with the buyers the pension arrangements that they propose to provide. The Government will have these examined by the Government actuary. If the pension terms are not broadly comparable, the Government will negotiate with the buyer to achieve an improvement, either in the pension itself, or in other terms and conditions of service. Finally, if all those avenues fail to achieve a satisfactory result, the Government would compensate the staff for any disadvantage.
It is not possible to be more precise about these arrangements at this stage. But that is only because they depend on having detailed proposals to look at from a buyer before they can be finalised. When the time comes there will be consultations with the trades unions about what is proposed. I can tell the House that staff have been given very firm assurances by Ministers in another place that the staff of PSA and the Crown Suppliers will not be disadvantaged as a result of privatisation.
In conclusion I have explained how, as a result of past government policies, the PSA and the Crown Suppliers now find themselves as commercial organisations operating within the confines of the public sector. The success of the Government's previous privatisations shows how companies can leap ahead when the burdens of public sector operation are removed. The PSA and the Crown Suppliers need, and deserve, these freedoms to compete on level terms with other consultancies

991
and companies. The Government are confident that, with their enormous range of skills and experience, both the PSA and the Crown Suppliers will be a powerful force to be reckoned with, and that they will flourish in the new world. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hesketh.)
4.13 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, while the House can be grateful to the Minister for the care and clarity with which he has introduced the Bill, I believe that the measure is a good example of the saying, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try and try again". It is also, sadly, an example of a Government hell-bent on privatising a publicly-owned service for purely doctrinal purposes. To that end the Government have twisted and fiddled the facts, have kicked their public servants in a sensitive place and have ignored the security of the realm—all to achieve two shabby aims. First, they wish to be seen to reduce the number of civil servants, even if they are only moved sideways on to someone else's payroll or the dole. Secondly, they wish to place the business now undertaken by the Crown Suppliers into the hands of those who will be anxious to assist the Tory Party in return for help from the Tory Government.
This is as squalid an example of flogging off a public asset for political purposes as we shall see in many a long day. I intend to demonstrate why I hold that view. Without both of those government imperatives, it is certain that it is neither necessary nor desirable to transfer either of these successful public services to the private sector. It is claptrap for the Minister to tell the House that this so-called untying is all to do with freedom, decentralisation or giving state employees a share of the action. That is rich coming from a Government who have gathered powers from all round the life of the nation. The Government have grabbed and pinched those powers. They have bludgeoned and frightened opponents, bullied them and very often stamped them into the ground. It is a sham, a charade and a deceit to cloak their real intention, which is to give away a part of the public realm, with the laudable aim of assisting the nation towards a democratic solution.
There is a history to these matters. As I would have expected, the Minister has given a partial view. He has left out a number of matters. However, certain parts and periods of history deserve to have the spotlight shined upon them. Let us start with the reticence on the part of the Government to reveal details of land and buildings which can form part of a parcel sold to the highest bidder. Will the Minister explain what his ministerial colleague meant when he said in Standing Committee D at column 324 that he would not,
"wish to include in the Bill any measure that would be an unnecessary encumbrance upon a major purchaser, as it might have the effect of depressing the price and value of the assets"?
Will the Minister tell the House what his colleague meant by that remark? Will it, for instance, affect such matters as management agreements and SSSIs? There is not only the matter of failing to estimate
992
or make provision for unexploited potential. The Minister will know that I live in Enfield. The scandal of selling off land cheaply—for instance that attached to the small arms factory at Enfield—is very fresh in my mind. That land was sold off for pennies; it turned out to be worth millions of pounds. The Minister may well say that such matters do not concern us in this Bill. However, I believe that the taxpayer and the general public are now sensitive to the cavalier way in which this Government are hell-bent upon diminishing the public realm, even though it may mean that at the end of the day someone will become very rich.
There is now a history to show how the Government persuade the public that it is in their interests to buy something which they already own. The Minister has been coy about the precise manner in which this part of the public estate will be got rid of. However, if we look at the costs that have been garnered by the City, by public relations companies and by many others when other privatisations have taken place, we are entitled to be concerned. When British Telecom was privatised £263 million was spent by the Government. When British Gas was privatised £360 million was spent. In the case of British Airways £42 million was spent; on the Rolls Royce privatisation £29 million was spent. When the water industry was privatised £370 million was spent. Those are not the costs of the assets but the costs of selling the assets to the public. This may be a mini or minor privatisation: nevertheless, we are entitled to ask the Minister what provisions are made in the accounts or in the books as regards how much the public will pay to sell off their assets.
The Minister may hope that the public will believe that this is an exercise in creating many more small investors and that the taxpayer will be relieved. The Minister should tell us who will benefit. We know from previous privatisations that the people who have benefited most are stockbrokers, merchant banks, public relations companies, advertising and financial consultants and other such people. We want to know who the Minister expects to climb aboard this particular gravy train.
The Minister has told us that there is a road to privatisation. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that on 27th March 1985 when Mr. Patrick Jenkin, now the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, announced a review, he said:
"The decision about the future of the organisation will take account of the views of the staff and their union representatives who will be fully consulted during the course of the review".—[Official Report, Commons. 27/3/85; col. 240.]
The Minister should know that not one trade union or staff association is happy with either the method or the outcome of the consultation. On 25th July 1986 the then Minister, Sir George Young, announced that the review team had concluded,
"On the information available to them that whilst privatisation would be possible, it would not in their view be in the public interest".
The Minister has told us nothing about that matter.
In December 1986 it was announced that the PSA had appointed a consortium comprising Coopers & Lybrand and Samuel Montagu to carry out a

993
feasibility study. In this House the noble Lord, Lord Belstead said:
"I agree with the noble Lord that the Crown Suppliers has met its financial targets and has generally performed satisfactorily'.—[Official Report, 7/12/87; col. 3.]
It is very sad that two attempts have failed to come up with what the Minister and his colleagues wanted.
What did they do? They simply announced that they would bring about the privatisation and seek somebody who was willing not to say whether or not it was desirable, but to indicate how it was to be done. That is a very shabby state of affairs.
The Government have made out a case but they have not convinced the employees. Once again taxpayers are to be invited to buy their own assets while employees will be affected adversely.
The PSA cannot be sold until the Government are able to assess the sale price accurately and so ensure good value for taxpayers' money. The Government will not be able to make an accurate assessment until the PSA has one full year's audited commercial accounts. The PSA cannot introduce a system of commercial accounts until 1st April 1991. Thus the PSA cannot be sold until mid-1992 at the earliest. In effect the Minister gave that timescale in his speech.
I should like to remind the Minister of what the National Union of Civil and Public Servants has called the "human factor". Many of the staff who are affected, particularly the 5,000 PSA staff in the executive, administrative and support grades, were recruited with the promise of a career in the Civil Service. They are in the PSA at this time purely as a matter of career progression. Many arrived from other parts of government and until recently all expected to continue their careers in another part of the Civil Service.
However, both the PSA Minister, Mr. Christopher Chope, and his newly appointed chief executive, Mr. Patrick Brown, have said that they will not allow all executive members of staff who wish to remain in the Civil Service to leave PSA before privatisation. In other words, many such staff will be forced into the private sector against their will and in flagrant disregard of the promise of a Civil Service career. Will the Minister answer that point in the course of his reply to the debate?
The union to which I referred says that the Minister has gone back on his word. Both he and Mr. Brown wish to enact one of the provisions of the Bill sooner rather than later. They wish to set PSA up as a government-owned company on 1st April next year. On that day, therefore, all PSA staff will cease to be civil servants and will become company employees. There will not be time over the next 12 months to relocate all of those who wish to leave the PSA for other Civil Service work. Even if there were, the PSA could not relocate them all and still manage its business.
Why do the Minister and Mr. Brown suddenly wish to rush through the formation of the Government-owned company and thus remove the PSA's workforce from the Civil Service? It is not for the purpose of introducing new pay, promotion and
994
other arrangements which are more suited to a building firm than a Civil Service agency. Mr. Brown—and I am told that he wishes to buy the PSA—will introduce new arrangements before the company is formed so that a transfer can take place under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—TUPE. This is a question of,
"To be, or not to be: that is the question".
That is the best that I can do on a Monday afternoon. The Minister ought to be very concerned about the matter.
I do not deny that the Government and the Minister believe that they are doing the right thing in applying the regulations. However, what steps will the Minister and his advisers take to ensure that the interests of the employees are protected? What steps can he take to ensure that the sensitivities and anxieties of good state civil servants are taken into account once the transfer has taken place?
The Minister wants neither to make surplus PSA staff redundant within the Civil Service nor to cause the Civil Service the administrative burden of relocating surplus staff. Mr. Brown—who, I repeat, wishes to lead a management buy out—does not want, as the eventual new owner, to be landed with a large redundancy bill. Thus the majority of the redundancies will be made in the period of the government-owned company. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to write off all debts and liabilities, including redundancy costs, before the sale. That is why a Member in another place, Mr. Tam Dalyell, was moved to refer to those intentions as "callous and barbarian". The Minister is called upon to justify to 20,000 civil servants why they are being very badly treated in this matter.
I turn now to the question of national security. Nothing that has been said by the Minister today or by his colleagues elsewhere properly addresses that question. The Minister knows that the PSA has been responsible for giving guidance and advice to a range of government departments. It is all very well for the Minister to say that that responsibility will continue to be within the purview of the separate departments. The Minister needs to justify his confidence that the work of the PSA over the years in ensuring that its design and architectural work was satisfactory from a security point of view and the vetting of all of its employees will be dealt with satisfactorily in future. The Minister needs to say a great deal more about the security aspect.
I am also an Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland and on defence. I was proud to serve in the Royal Marines during the war. Therefore, what happened at the Deal barracks less than a year ago is very much in my mind. The Minister must understand that when we talk of security we are not talking simply of somebody else doing the job and being able to board this particular gravy train. We are concerned about blood and flesh.
Can the Minister explain the reason for excluding all ministerial cars and private residences from the security arrangements? Apparently, security arrangements will be passed to the private realm, except in the case of ministerial cars and residences. We need to hear from the Minister the justification

995
for that proposal. We shall return to the security aspect in Committee.
The Bill is a further example of the triumph of ideology over plain common sense. The services have been scrutinised, not once but twice, by independent scrutineers neither of whom recommended the action proposed in the Bill. The Bill is the product of a further set of consultants who did not recommend the action taken in the Bill but who were asked to deliver a scheme of what, when and how but not why. That question was pre-empted by the Government who merely asked for a scheme which would fit in with their ideology.
People outside the House will agree with me that it is a mad, bad and sad Bill. It will bring trouble to many quarters, not least to fine public servants, and worries in respect of our national security. However the Minister rests content on the fact that it will bring cash to Tory supporters and the Tory Party, which is why we condemn it and will seek to improve it when we have the chance to do so in Committee. I feel better now!
4.31 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the House or the Minister that we on these Benches do not feel as vehemently about the Bill's basic proposals as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton; nevertheless, we have some misgivings about parts of the Bill. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reactions to those misgivings.
The Government propose that some of the business of the Crown Suppliers and the Property Services Agency shall be transferred to a division of the Department of the Environment called Property Holdings, and remain in the public sector. The remainder will be formed into private sector companies whose shares will be subsequently available on the market.
The source of our misgivings lies primarily with which business is to move into the private sector and which is to be retained. We need to be clear about which criteria will be considered when that decision is made. The Government, perhaps carried away by their enthusiasm to privatise, have put too much weight on one of those criteria and neglected others. I do not doubt the benefits of giving the financial responsiblity to the user departments, but there are other criteria by which to judge the potential benefits of privatisation which do not throw such a rosy light on the Government's proposals.
Today I should like to concentrate on the two most important criteria. We are told that one of the aims of privatisation is to reduce costs to the taxpayer. However, may it not have the opposite effect? Once the PSA and the Crown Suppliers are privatised their duty will be to do the best for their shareholders, whereas their duty now is to do their best for the taxpayer. User departments will therefore be unable to rely on them acting in their best interests and will have to establish within their departments what were described in another place as mini PSAs. They will evaluate and supervise services being offered by the new privatised PSA
996
and its competitors and carry out some of the work currently done by the PSA.
The Ministry of Defence alone is said to be taking on a further 700 to 800 staff. Other Government departments will no doubt find that they will have to take on extra accountants, consultants, engineers, architects, supervisory staff and so forth. We are concerned that those areas of the PSA's work which are more efficiently run as a central public service to departments should remain in the public sector. It is easy to imagine that with procurement, for example, one body buying for all Government departments could arrange a better deal with a supplier because of the advantage of bulk buying and because otherwise there may be an unnecessary duplication of work in finding the best supplier and arranging the ultimate deal. Privatisation to the extent proposed will not necessarily lead to the most efficient use of taxpayers' money. We shall be interested to hear the Minister's views on that point.
Secondly—and this is the area touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Graham—there is the security criterion. The majority of the PSA's work is security sensitive. The Minister assured members of my party in another place that privatisation would not affect security and yet failed to provide a sufficient answer as to why, if that is the case, security work on Minister's homes and cars is not to be privatised for security reasons while work on military and married quarters will be privatised.
Many of us in your Lordships' House have an interest in servicemen and their families through sons or other relatives who are in Her Majesty's Services. There is no doubt that they will be targets for terrorist attack if security is not strong. They deserve to have their security regarded as highly as that of Ministers. That is a part of the Bill upon which we would welcome the Minister's reassurance. Either privatisation jeopardises security, in which case no security work should be privatised, or it does not, in which case why are not the Government privatising it all?
As the Bill passes through your Lordships' House we must carefully consider the security implications, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham said. Where prudence dictates that we amend the Bill we must do so to restrict the privatisation of security-related services.
Finally, although it is not a point which is basically against privatisation but rather deals with how it is carried out, we must ensure that the current staff of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers are treated fairly. That point was dealt with at some length by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. We agree with the thrust of his arguments, although our fears may not be as great as those that he expressed. It seems proper that if the staff are to retain their jobs they should not receive redundancy pay just because the department moves from the public to the private sector. However, we must ensure that once they are in the private sector their current redundancy entitlements and pensions are guaranteed against any detrimental change by the new owner.
Perhaps the Treasury could underwrite the terms, as it did with the privatisation of the Royal Ordnance

997
factories and the dockyards. That matter is important because we have no doubt that many employees will lose their jobs. Whether that is the result of privatisation or untying is not the point. The point is that many employees may lose their jobs once they are in the private sector. They should not be treated worse than if they had lost them before the company was privatised.
It was not good enough for the Minister in another place to say that this case is different from that of the docks because he expected the PSA and the Crown Suppliers to succeed commercially. What if they do not succeed? There is no law written from on high which says that they will succeed. We hope that they will. What harm can there be in providing a safety net for the staff in case of failure? Those are the issues which concern us. If they are resolved satisfactorily, we would have no qualms in supporting the Bill.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, I welcome the Bill as part of the steady progress which the Government have achieved over the years in moving activities from the public to the private sector. We now have great experience of the practical results of that movement. There is no doubt on the evidence that that move has been greatly to the public benefit. I shall quote only—I could quote many examples—by way of example the extraordinary change in Cable and Wireless, whose profit earning has multiplied by five since it moved from the public to the private sector, although it is excelled in that respect by the National Freight Corporation, whose profit earning has multiplied six times during that process. Therefore it is not enough for the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to say that a proposal for a further step in that direction can be dismissed as doctrinaire. Of course what he means by "doctrinaire" is a policy with which he happens to disagree. As a good and loyal member of the Labour Party he believes in public ownership. That is an exercise of faith which one cannot but admire. Noble Lords will know that faith has been defined as believing in what you know is not true.
Every possible factual demonstration over the years has shown that public ownership is much less efficient, gives less good service and costs more than operation in the private sector. The reasons are perfectly obvious. In the public sector competition is barred. There is no stimulus to efficiency, to delivering the goods and to keeping costs to the level of competition in the knowledge that if you do not compete you will lose the work and you and your staff will lose their jobs. That is the enormously effective stimulus of competition in the private sector.
There is also the fact that in the public sector for any investment that you wish to make you have to join the queue with other government departments in respect of rights to that public investment. I know a little about this matter because, as noble Lords may recall. I had two stints at the Treasury and had to deal with identical matters. It is undoubtedly the
998
case that in the public sector an enterprise has not only to judge whether it wants to make an investment—whether that investment will be profitable and produce returns—but also to judge how it will stand in the public queue.
Once it is in private hands, the enterprise makes its own judgment as to the sense or otherwise of an investment and then seeks the judgment of the market as to whether and on what terms it can raise the funds. There is an enormous advantage—we have seen this in other directions, such as the British Airports Authority—in leaving decisions as to investment to the body itself rather than tying it down to the queue for investment in the public sector.
Therefore I reject all the adjectives which the noble Lord used, and which I jotted down as quickly as I could, such as "squalid". "hell bent", "pinched", "bludgeoned", "given away" and even that wonderful phrase "the spotlight to be shone on them". The only light that he shone on them, if I may say so, was a red light. Of course it is quite clear that with the noble Lord what we are up against is not a quiet consideration of the merits of these proposals but—I throw the phrase back at him—a doctrinaire belief in public ownership whatever the circumstances and whatever the experience.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I followed closely what the Minister—the noble Lord—said. Will he not take on board that, after two independent inquiries into viability, profitability and performance, they were given a clean bill of health not only by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, but also by Ministers in another place? Is that not an indication that, when there has been a cool, hard look at the performance of these bodies, they have passed the test with flying colours?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has misled himself but he must not mislead the House. As I understand it, those reports related only to Crown Suppliers and not to the major activity of the PSA. Therefore it is quite wrong to say, as he has been saying to the House, that the PSA was given such a clean bill of health as he ventured to suggest. That is really not the case. That relates simply to the Crown Suppliers.
It darkens counsel to indulge in such extremes of emotion and excitement as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was very happy to wallow in during the course of his speech. I often wonder whether he has in fact had to deal with the PSA. I have had to deal with it over the years in a variety of jobs. Indeed, I have had a very recent experience of it. The presence of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, reminds me that the refreshment sub-committee of this House has had the problem of dealing with it. Discretion prevents me from going into any detail of that, but, if the noble Lord would like a private conversation on the subject, he will discover that I have a supply of adjectives which are nearly as comprehensive and almost as violent as his own.
The fact is—I make no reflection on the people who now run the PSA—that a publicly-owned body such as the PSA, sheltered over the years from

999
competition, simply does not give the service, have the competitive edge, keep prices down and, above all, give the speed of action and delivery which one receives in the private sector.
Lord Somers: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will enable me to interrupt him for one moment. He mentioned the element of competition in privatisation. When I first heard of the idea of privatising, I must say that it appealed to me very much. But why have the Government privatised all those industries in which there can be no competition—industries such as gas, electricity, water and various others? In those industries there cannot possibly be any competition. They will all be simple private monopolies instead of public ones. I wonder when they will privatise the Cabinet.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if I were to enter into debate with the noble Lord on the gas and electricity Bills, among other things, I should detain your Lordships until a rather late hour this evening. In point of fact if he looks at those Bills and reads the speeches made about them, the noble Lord will see that very considerable efforts have been made in respect of both those activities to introduce elements of competition. He will find that the Government share his concern to see an element of competition there.
I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to come back to the Bill that we are discussing at present. Here it is proposed that each government department which has work to do instead of being tied to the PSA—tied to the PSA's timetable and its prices—will be able to go out and look at various bids and offers from the building and construction industry generally. Faced with that stimulus, it may be that the PSA in its new form will be able to compete effectively. I do not dismiss that possibility for a moment. However, if it does do that work for any of the departments, it will be subject to the wholesome element of competition. Equally those departments will be able to go out and select whichever contractor, builder or operator they think appropriate to their needs and whichever provides the most economical, sensible and practical offer.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will again give way. Does he believe that instead of having one central organisation—the PSA—to have, for instance, 12 mini-PSAs within each department is the best use of resources and is likely to be in the best interests of the taxpayer at the end of the day? Is he really saying that?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am so glad that the noble Lord keeps re-promoting me to Minister. I am not sure whether or not from him that is intended as a compliment but it is a little distracting. Of course his question is utterly irrelevant. No one is proposing to have 12 mini-PSAs in every department. Each department will have its own section which goes out to contract. There will be one section in each department and not 12 sections.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: No, my Lords, twelve departments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord is now putting forward a totally different point. It is very difficult to pin him down because his mental and physical agility are such that when he has made a thoroughly bad point he leaps away in order to make another, from a different angle. He in fact said that each department would have 12 mini-PSAs. Now that I have drawn his attention to that blatant error, he tries to ride off in some other direction.
I come back to the point that I was making. I do not think that the noble Lord has had any experience of dealing with the PSA. If he had, his unqualified enthusiasm for it might not be so manifest.
I have only one other point. The noble Lord made a great issue about security. Everybody shares his concern about security in this day and age. However, his was an extraordinary reference to the tragedy at Deal. That had nothing to do with this issue and happened during the operation of the present system. Sadly enough, the present system did not prevent it. Is the noble Lord rising again?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the ex-Minister agree with me that the relevance of Deal was that a private security firm was being used? The Government are keen on putting out contracts to the private sector. In my view what happened at Deal arose in part through a dereliction by the private sector.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that has nothing whatever to do with the Bill. The Bill has nothing to do with the operation of the private sector except in the building and construction area of the PSA. That is what we are concerned with here. That is the only matter on which noble Lords will be deciding. To speak of other issues—with which one could deal if time permitted—is to distract the House from the main point. The noble Lord has now admitted that in the context of the PSA's work and the putting out of that work to contract the events at Deal are wholly irrelevant.
I welcome the Bill. I welcome the fact that many members of the staff, for whom the noble Lord expressed concern, will have the opportunity of becoming shareholders in the new company. That is a thoroughly wholesome development. Your Lordships know that companies or activities in which the workers have the opportunity to be and are shareholders have generally a spirit, morale and keenness that is perhaps less noticeable elsewhere. This Bill gives such an opportunity. It is perhaps worth remembering that one of the results of the Government's privatisation policy has been to increase enormously the number of shareholders. Indeed, since 1979—not solely, but in part as a result of that policy—the number of shareholders in this country has trebled from 3 million to 9 million. That is one of the most wholesome economic and social developments of our time. The Bill will make its own further contribution in that direction. I hope that noble Lords will give it not only a Second Reading but also enthusiastic support through all its stages.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, follow that! I think that the present Government must have a death wish. Just at the present time they are suffering from severe economic and political problems. The Government have the political problem of dealing with the public outcry against the poll tax. Interest rates are at a record level. Mortgage rates are at a record level. The balance of payments problem is the worst ever on record and running at £20 billion; and over the weekend Mr. Peter Walker resigned. Amid all that, the Government bring forward in this Chamber this silly, unnecessary Bill. Bearing in mind the real problems that the Government face, one would have thought that they would have wanted to clear the decks of the nonsense of these silly privatisations and to have dealt with the real problems that face the nation at the present time. We can only conclude that, like Nero who is reputed to have fiddled while Rome burned, the Government are fiddling while the economy and the political life of the country collapses.
In a very structured speech of his usual high quality, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, sought to show that it would be a very good thing if these organisations were privatised because all the privatisations so far had been successful. But let us consider the basis on which they were successful. Let us consider the electricity industry, for example, at the present time. I worked for it for 19 years. It has been under public ownership for a very long period of time. During that period it provided security of supply to electricity consumers up and down the country, having extended electricity supplies to the rural areas as well as the urban areas, and consistently having turned out high profits since it was nationalised in 1951.
It is an industry that has been highly successful under public ownership. But the noble Lord says that because there should be competition it is to be privatised. How on earth we shall have real competition in the electricity supply industry I do not know, neither does the noble Lord, and neither do the Government. It seems to me that as in the case of these two organisations, the Government are privatising simply and solely because they dogmatically believe that the industry should be privatised.
The electricity supply industry will make higher profits under private ownership because the Government have decreed that it shall make higher profits under private ownership. They have decreed that because, first, prices were increased by 15 per cent., and it is intended to increase them further this year in line with the cost of living. What is more, as in the case of other organisations, in particular the water industry, huge amounts of capital will be written off so that the new, privatised companies will not have to bear the same burden of debt that the publicly-owned organisations had to bear. Again in the case of the electricity supply industry, the part of the industry which cannot make a profit—the nuclear side—has been taken out of the privatised business and will remain in the public sector. I do not know how the noble Lord can justify his faith in
1002
privitisation when the Government are not providing a proper and even playing field.
We all accept the fact that competition is a guide, and we know that it enables the market to be tested. However, I suggest that, if the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, imagines that all private industries are efficient while all public industries are inefficient, he does not live in the real world. Anyone who has recently tried to deal with a private builder knows perfectly well how efficient that section of private industry is. One can go through a long list of privately-owned industries and organisations which are highly costly and inefficient. Therefore, I hope that we shall hear no more nonsense about industries being inefficient solely and simply because they are in the public sector.
My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made the case for the retention of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers organisation within the public sector. I wonder whether ICI has an organisation similar to the PSA. It would be odd if it did not because that is the case in the CEGB and other industries. It would be odd if a company as large as ICI did not have an organisation such as the PSA to undertake major construction and maintenance works. It would also be most odd if ICI allowed every department to tender for the purchase of all its commodities. That certainly did not happen within the CEGB where I worked. It would be madness in a company with the buying power of ICI or in a government organisation. Therefore, there is a good case for maintaining organisations such as the PSA and the Crown Agents within the public sector. Even at this late stage, and bearing in mind the problems that they face, I hope that the Government will have second thoughts.
The reason that I wished to speak in the debate was to draw attention to the staff and the safeguard of their interests. I am a member of the EETPU; that is the electricians' and plumbers' trade union. It is held in high regard by Her Majesty's Government; so much so that the Prime Minister recommended the elevation of its general secretary to this House and the Queen agreed. However, I assure the noble Lord that the EETPU does not agree with the privatisation.
It is most concerned about the interests of its members and about their jobs and conditions of service. It does not appear to the union, nor to me, that they will be properly safeguarded. I understand that at the Teddington National Physical Laboratory, where 1,000 electricians and plumbers are employed, 50 jobs have already been lost due to maintenance work being transferred from the PSA to the private sector. Therefore, jobs are already being lost as a result of the Bill.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was right in saying that when people join the Civil Service they expect to remain in the Civil Service. Perhaps at a difficult time in their lives they do not expect to be transferred to the private sector. They are entitled to expect that their conditions of service will be maintained. They are also entitled to expect that those conditions will be no worse after transfer. Yet there are no real guarantees what the pension scheme

1003
in the private organisation will be, and that it will remain as good as that in the Civil Service.
The noble Lord will know that trade unions, including mine, are concerned about the redundancy payment scheme which at present is included in the pension scheme. There is no doubt that it must have been included in the scheme for good reasons; probably because it will assist redundancy arrangements for the staff and the employers. It will assist the better administration of the scheme and provide a better deal for employees who may be made redundant.
The position of people within the service should be safeguarded to a better extent than is provided for in the Bill. I hope that before the Bill reaches the statute book the Government will have further discussions with the trade unions in order to ascertain whether proper agreements can be reached. However, as I have already said, it would be far better if the Government dropped the Bill and carried on with the real business of governing the country properly.
5.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I have listened carefully to the speeches which your Lordships have made during this wide-ranging and interesting debate. As I explained at the start of these proceedings, the Bill now before your Lordships' House is short and its provisions have been precedented in earlier privatisations. Nevertheless, despite its brevity, it is an important Bill, forming a logical extension to the Government's privatisation policy.
The activities of the PSA and Crown Suppliers are essentially of a commercial nature and we believe that they can be carried out more efficiently in the private sector. Departments are already exercising freedoms to test the market and the effects of untying will be felt as the process is extended during 1990 and beyond. In order to compensate for any loss of government business, both organisations must have the freedom to compete in wider markets. It is wrong to imply, as the trade unions have done, that the new arrangements of devolved responsibility will be more costly for the taxpayer and less effective. Substantial advantages will flow from pinning increased financial responsibility upon the clients and placing competitive pressure on the service providers. We believe that the existing successes of PSA and the Crown Suppliers can improve only when they are free from the confines of the public sector.
I should like to take this opportunity to reiterate statements made in another place about the effects of these privatisations on security arrangments. They were raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and I shall return to the specific points. The Government have stated categorically that nothing will be done under the Bill against security advice and that privatisation will not put security at risk.
The level and nature of security risks faced by client departments is for them to assess, as are the requirements that flow from their assessments.
1004
However, I hope that your Lordships will accept that the public sector has no monopoly of people who can be relied upon to protect national security or the security of particular locations. The private sector already handles a greater proportion of sensitive work than the proportion which is carried out in-house by government.
I should also like to clarify the position on staffing issues; in particular, a misunderstanding appears to have arisen among the staff about the purpose of Clause 2 of the Bill. Clause 2 contains standard provisions which have appeared in all recent legislation dealing with the privatisation of undertakings whose employees were members of the principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. The Government do not believe that it would be justifiable to pay redundancy compensation to staff who will be transferred with their jobs to the private sector. I shall refer to the matter specifically later and I am certain that we shall return to it at some length in Committee.
Staff and their trade unions have referred to severance entitlements and to guarantees from public funds. On the terms themselves the staff of TCS have been given assurances that the purchasers will be required to provide redundancy terms which are, as far as possible, identical to those they have at present. Representation from trade unions about guarantees are of course being considered. However, we believe that fears about the security of redundancy entitlements are greatly exaggerated. During the sale competition we shall be giving preference to potential purchasers who demonstrate a willingness and ability to run the businesses as going concerns and who also have the necessary financial robustness to do so. One of the criteria for selecting the purchaser will be an assessment of his ability to finance any redundancies which become necessary after privatisation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I appreciate that the Government will negotiate with these firms and I understand the desirability of doing so. But what happens if the firms go bankrupt? All the assurances in the world will not then protect the former civil servants from the results of the bankruptcy of their firm.
Lord Hesketh: I was going to come to that specifically when dealing with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. However, the essential reason why we are taking so much trouble at the start is to choose the right firms because at the end of the day there is always a remote possibility that there could be a financial failure. The reason we are going to such enormous trouble at the start is to select a firm or firms where that possibility is reduced to an absolute minimum. However, I shall return to that later.
On pensions, there have already been made in another place during the passage of the Bill statements designed to give staff as much reassurance as possible at this stage of the privatisation. We hope that as the sale proceeds we shall be able to give firmer assurances.

1005
In the case of TCS, those who have been invited to bid are aware that we shall expect them to offer pension terms comparable to the Civil Service scheme. The Government Actuary will be analysing the terms offered and if necessary we shall seek negotiations with prospective purchasers to improve the pension terms or other terms and conditions of employment. A payment to the staff to compensate them for any remaining disadvantage will be seen very much as a last resort.
Your Lordships will appreciate that the sale of the PSA is still some way off. However, it is quite likely that the PSA will be established as a wholly-owned government company which will trade for a period before privatisation.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I take on board the noble Lord's point that he will deal with specific matters later. Does the Minister not understand that he and his colleagues may take every precaution and be satisfied that the new employer intends to do all sorts of things? However, after day one of the TUPE arrangements the employees are wholly at the mercy of the new employers. If those new employers decide to change their methods and tactics, what recourse is there after the employee has ceased to be protected by the state? What protection does he have from a new employer who decides to change his conditions?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall come to that later. I have received the message loud and clear from both noble Lords.
If what I described earlier happens, the new pension scheme will have to be provided anyway when the PSA begins to trade as a government-owned company. Thus, the issue of comparability will be settled at that stage rather than at the privatisation itself.
I turn now to individual points made by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, initially referred to environmental matters. There was some uncertainty at an earlier stage about the amount of land involved. That issue has now been resolved. The land included in the privatisations will be the land occupied by the PSA services and TCS for operational reasons. There are four freehold buildings in the sole occupation of TCS and, for the PSA, the exact operational accommodation requirements will not be entirely settled until nearer the point of sale. There are 17 freehold properties which are in the sole occupation of the PSA, amounting in total to a building area of some 30,000 square metres and a total site area of less than 12 hectares. Only three sites exceed one hectare individually. I have inquired whether any of the sites might have unusual environmental significance but none is thought to do so because most of the sites are in built-up areas.
Security was mentioned by many noble Lords. The Government have stated categorically that under this Bill nothing will be done which will in any way compromise security. However, it is important to remember that already a great deal of security is carried out privately and, more important than that, that the departments are responsible for
1006
setting the standards of security that they require. That is the important feature. It is not the PSA but the departments which are responsible as clients for stipulating the level of security required for a specific site or for a specific group of individuals.
The matter of the government car service was drawn to your Lordships' attention by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. Of course, most of the armed forces are resident on military installations. To date most government ministers are not required to be accommodated in barrack-like accommodation and live in perfectly ordinary houses and flats distributed throughout the capital. Because of those security considerations, it was thought appropriate to keep the government car service intact as it is at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred to the clean bill of health. The question of whether or not to privatise the Crown Suppliers service is a complex one which we considered very carefully, taking full account not only of what the two reports said but also of the likely impact of untying on government departments' own procurement practices and on TCS's business. Transferring out the TCS activities which are not suitable for privatisation and restructuring the remainder, we believe will leave us with a commercial organisation which will be able to operate more efficiently in the private sector. Privatisation will secure on a continuing basis competitive supplies for the public sector and the best prospects for the majority of TC'S staff.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, was concerned about inadequate consultations with the trade unions. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be under an obligation arising from Regulation 10 of TUPE to consult the unions about the proposed privatisation. I assure your Lordships that that obligation is taken very seriously by the Government and that sufficient time will be allowed for proper consultation. It is difficult to know at this stage how long will be required as that will depend upon the nature and complexity of the issues being discussed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in the case to which I have returned more than once—that is, the behaviour of a new employer after TUPE becomes operable—will the Government not concede that no change should be made in the terms under which an employee is transferred out of the public sector into the private sector without proper consultation and agreement with the trade unions?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is what I have just said. We shall consult very fully with the trade unions on this. I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will never feel that consultations which the Government believe to be fair and reasonable are, from his point of view, fair and reasonable. It is fair to say that we shall disagree on that throughout this Bill whether we like it or not.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and other noble Lords referred to the possibility of creating mini-PSAs as a result of privatising the major PSA. Departments will be closely aware that they must

1007
achieve value for money and will not expect to find Secretaries of State creating mini-PSAs. I am sure that the National Audit Office and, even more importantly, the Select Committee in another place will be keeping a very close eye on that possibility.
The matter of compulsory transfer was raised. I am sure that your Lordships will be aware that the PSA will be inquiring of all its employees whether they wish to make a transfer and, where it is possible to do that, that will take place. However, it is also important that the PSA shall be a sustainable organisation as it becomes a new entity. Obviously every effort will be made, to provide, if it is possible, for the avoidance of compulsory transfer for those who do not wish to go across.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, gave a very interesting and comprehensive rendition of his feelings with regard to privatisation generally. I am sure, however, that your Lordships would not require, request, expect or in any way desire me to reply to the very broad and great issues to which he referred; for I fear that if I did so many noble Lords who feel they have important matters to come after this Bill would be extremely upset. However, as always, I listened with great interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, was concerned about the selling of the business on the cheap. In a way I think there is a slight dichotomy here, because he is caught between accusing the Government of selling on the cheap and at the same time saying that the Government could consider accepting a lower offer to provide better protection for the employees.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I certainly did not pose that one way in which one could adequately protect the interests of employees is for the Government to accept a lower offer, unless the Minister is saying that by that device it would be possible for the new employer to accept conditions and liabilities that are acceptable to employees. That would be right. However, the Minister has failed to answer the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that, when the dockyards and ordnance factories were privatised, the Government, with Treasury approval, guaranteed comparable pensions, whereas they have not only failed but have refused to give comparable guarantees in this instance. Why?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, every privatisation is different. I always feel that there is a slight misunderstanding on the Benches opposite—a belief that privatisation is either a fixed plan or some form of ideology. It is not. It is a developing process and that is why each privatisation is slightly different.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, along with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised a point with regard to the terms and conditions of an ex-civil servant in his new position. In fact the trade unions have suggested that an employer can impose any new terms and conditions on his employees with impunity. They are particularly concerned that that could be done in respect of redundancy terms. However, an employer could not do that. The general principle of law is that fundamental terms and
1008
conditions, which include rights to severance payments, cannot be altered without the agreement of the employee.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, and others drew attention to the publicity relating to the sale of these two organisations. First, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, reeled off a considerable number of facts and figures with regard to the publicity costs of previous privatisations. The important point to remember is that we are not talking of a stock market listing; we are talking of a private sale. We are not talking about the public needing to be informed on a wide and great scale about the potential privatisation that lies ahead. We are talking of very simple arrangements that do not require tremendous organisations of disposal to be erected. That matter therefore does not arise.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to stockbrokers as being the only beneficiaries of privatisation. There are many shareholders who are beneficiaries. I referred in my opening remarks to the possibility of management buy-outs, in which case the beneficiaries would be those civil servants who were moving into a new world, the result of the privatisation that this new Bill introduces. Those who will benefit in that case will be the employees themselves. I need only draw your Lordships' attention to the extraordinary success of the National Freight Consortium since its privatisation to show where employees have benefited on an enormous scale as a result of being given rein to show what they can do.
Finally, I should like to repeat to your Lordships' House the assurances which were given in another place to the staff of the PSA and TCS with regard to conditions of service—assurances that staff will not be disadvantaged as a result of the privatisation. I look forward strongly but at the same time with a certain sensitivity to a lively Committee stage with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, putting his case volubly, and I strongly commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 1990
5.25 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships may wish to note that these regulations supersede the draft laid on 14th February and take into account two minor technical changes which in no way affect the substance of the draft regulations.
The regulations are made under the provisions of Section 87 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. They amend and consolidate the existing scheme of fees for planning applications introduced in April 1981.
Before I describe the changes to the fees scheme to be made by the regulations which we have under consideration today, your Lordships may find it helpful to be given a brief outline of the purpose of the scheme and the way in which it works. Under the scheme, any applicant who seeks planning permission must pay a fee to the planning authority, usually the district council. That reflects our policy that local authority expenditure should, in appropriate cases, be offset by reasonable fees for the services provided. The fee must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the regulations and it cannot be waived, although the regulations make provision for circumstances in which no fee or a reduced fee is payable. Otherwise, applications attract a fee determined in accordance with the type of development proposed and its size, where that is relevant.
The scheme is designed to ensure that there is a broadly uniform scale of fees throughout Scotland, England and Wales; that there is a fair balance between the categories of development; that fees do not discourage serious planning applications; that the scheme is easily understood and that its operation does not impose any excessive administrative burden on developers or on planning authorities.
The Government's policy is that fees should be set at a level which enables planning authorities to recover half the costs of operating the development control system. The intention behind this is that the cost of operating the development control system should be shared in broadly equal proportions between developers and the community at large. At present fees recover only around 40 per cent. of authorities' costs. If we were to proceed to 50 per cent. recovery in one step, a very substantial increase in the level of fees would be required. We have concluded that a staged approach should be adopted, the proposed increase now put forward being restricted to the increase required to cover the effects of inflation since the current scales were introduced on 22nd August 1985.
The new regulations therefore provide for an increase of approximately 20 per cent. in the level of fees across the board. That will result in the two basic fee units rising from £53 to £64, and from £27 to £32. Thus, an application for planning permission for the erection of houses will, for example, be charged at £64 per house in the case of a full application, and £64 per 0·1 hectare of site area in the case of an outline application.
Apart from the increase in the level of fees, the new consolidated regulations provide for a number of other changes which generally mirror those made in the Department of the Environment regulations since the last Scottish regulations in 1985. There are two main changes. First, we have made provision for a special category of fee for oil and gas exploration applications. At present these applications are charged at the rate of £27 for each 0·1 hectgare of site area, subject to a maximum charge of £270. The new charge will be £64 for each 0·1 hectare of the site area, subject to a maximum fee of £4,800. A similar change has been made in England and Wales.
Secondly, we intend to make provision for an exemption from a fee for applications to consolidate existing minerals working permissions. Again, that was introduced in England and Wales as a result of representations from English local authority associations. The remaining proposals in the new regulations make provision for changes of a minor and technical nature. Overall, the changes proposed in the new regulations bring a uniformity of approach to the question of development control cost recovery on both sides of the Border. I commend the consolidated regulations to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the House is grateful for the clarity with which the Minister outlined the purpose of this instrument. The Minister stressed more than once that we are bringing Scotland into line with England and Wales. One of his last remarks was that it ensures uniformity of approach. If they are all of a piece, can the Minister tell the House why there needs to be two separate sets of regulations—one set for England and Wales and another for Scotland? We are not arguing on the principle of charges but on the means of giving effect to the principle. Perhaps the Minister can give a reason for having two sets of regulations.
I was involved in another place when the principle was established. It was a matter of some heat. The Minister will acknowledge that it was simply one way of reducing the costs of local authorities and thereby reducing the need for rate support grant from the centre. Can the Minister tell the House how much is raised at present by the current level of charges, and how much is expected to be raised by the increase?
I take the point fairly made by the Minister that it is almost five years since the last review. I believe the Minister said that this means an increase of 20 per cent., or thereabouts, across the board to bring the position up to date. Can the Minister say how much, globally, this will mean? For example, he referred to a figure of £52 increasing to £64, and I know that that is an increase of £9. However, there must be some evidence in the department to show the likely yield to local authorities of such an increase.
Similarly, in the other categories there is an increase of £27 to £32—an uplift of £5. Again, can the Minister tell the House what that means globally? It is the global impact on, not the rate support grant but the subvention, which will assist the community charge payer that is of concern to us.
The Minister said that the Government believed that the charges should be set at a level which broadly reflects 50 per cent. of the administrative cost to local authorities. The Minister should know that planning departments in local authorities are likely to be under the most pressure these days—not least because there is a shortage of qualified planners and because there seems to be a plethora of applications which call for development control officers to consider them. Can the Minister say what is the

1011
nature of the consultations that have taken place with the local authority associations to ascertain whether they agree with the Minister that these increases are required? I know that the Minister and his colleagues will have access to the relevant intelligence. They may of course have arrived at precisely the right level. However, can the Minister tell the House whether there has been any pressure one way or the other from the local authority associations that they wanted a higher or lower uplift than the increase from £57 to £64?
It is all very well the Government saying to the House and to local authorities, "We believe that it is in your interests to have the increase" but do the local authorities feel that this is right and proper? Has any consultation taken place with officers of the local authorities who are affected in this matter? Democratically-elected lay members are represented by COSLA, in this instance, but the AMA, the ADC, the ACC and the ALA in the rest of Britain are also interested.
The Minister has decided to make the changes in Scotland, leaving England and Wales separate. He also states that the Government are seeking uniformity of approach. However, is there a common consensus among local authority associations for Scotland as well as in England and Wales? I make no comment whatever on the desirability of the charges. It is a device dreamt up by the Government some years ago to reduce the need for rate support grant, and in effect they are making sure yet again that the consumer pays. I would be interested to hear of any statistics relating to individual developers. I am not referring to individuals but developers of a major kind where an increase from £53 to £64 for a new house is acceptable.
Does the Minister understand that there is grave concern about refusal of appeal and costs of appeal? There is a growing awareness that the whole nexus of the cost of the development control system needs to be examined. I can give the Minister illustrations from my own borough of Enfield. Residents who strongly object to a development are prevailed upon to reconsider by councillors in control of the authority. Although the councillors agree that planning permission should not be given, the protestors are told to bear in mind that if the planning application is refused and an appeal is successful there could well be costs visited upon the authority which, in effect, would not be in the interests of the local residents.
I hope the Minister can be of assistance. I have no objection to the order, but we have too few opportunities to discuss the nitty-gritty of planning matters. In my view, the matters that I have raised are entitled to have some observations made on them at this time.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, we have had a useful short debate on the relatively minor changes to the fees scheme made by these regulations. I am glad to note that the principle of sharing the cost of the development control system between developers and the community at large has become more widely accepted since the fees scheme
1012
was introduced in 1981. The arrangements for charging fees have been shown to be working well and it is clear that the scheme has not caused the damage to the relationship between developers and planning authorities which its opponents anticipated when it was introduced. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that the fees scheme has acted as a deterrent to development proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised a number of points. I shall endeavour to answer two of them but I will write to the noble Lord in regard to his questions on statistics. The noble Lord first asked about the differences between Scottish and English regulations. There is only one substantive difference between the two sets of regulations. The regulations for England and Wales provide that where a fee for a deemed application is to be paid to the Secretary of State, that fee shall be paid when the applicant or appellant concerned is asked to do so by the Secretary of State instead of at the time the relevant appeal is made or the relevant application is referred to the Secretary of State. This provision is required principally as a matter of administrative convenience. The arrangements in Scotland for the payment of fees for deemed applications to the Secretary of State are different and no comparable provision is required in the Scottish regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also asked about the 50 per cent. recovery target. The operation of the planning system represents a substantial cost to the taxpayer and the Government's belief remains that it is a sound principle that those who use and potentially benefit from specific administrative processes should meet the cost of providing that service. Last year we issued a consultation document to some 300 bodies and organisations with an interest in the development control system which asked for their views on, among other things, a proposal to increase planning fees so that 100 per cent. of the planning authorities' costs in the processing of applications could be recovered. There was a range of responses to the consultation and these are still under consideration.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord touched very fairly on the raison d'être for the charges and says that the costs should be borne by those who benefit from them. Does not the Minister understand that the greatest beneficiary from a i properly controlled development control system is the community itself? The reason for planning legislation is not to give the individual a benefit but for the avoidance of detriment to the community by careless, haphazard development. Our case has always been, though it may have been superseded by time, that the reason that the community should bear the cost of applying a proper development control system is that it is the community itself which is the greatest beneficiary from the system.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, given that the income from fees has proved to be considerably less relative to overall development control cost than was originally anticipated, as I have explained, we believe that an increase of this order is necessary. Our current aim of a 50 per cent.

1013
recovery of development control costs is fair in our view and is unlikely to impose any hardship. To put the matter in perspective, your Lordships might consider the case of a person who wishes to build himself a new house and who requires first to obtain outline planning permission and subsequently is required to make a separate application for the approval of the details. The total which he will pay in fees for the two applications will be £128. Such a charge can hardly be regarded as being excessive when compared to the eventual value of the asset in question which will certainly run into tens of thousands of pounds.
I hope I have covered most of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and I shall write to him on the ones that I have not dealt with.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1990
5.41 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if the two orders are taken together. I therefore move that the first order be approved and I shall speak at the same time to the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1990.
The debate today takes place because any industrial training levy order which involves a levy exceeding 1 per cent. of an employer's payroll must receive parliamentary approval under the Industrial Training Act 1982.
In the case of the Engineering Board, one part of the levy proposals—that covering site employees in the engineering construction sector—establishes a levy rate of 1.5 per cent. Similarly, the Construction Board proposals covering labour only subcontractors establish a levy rate of 2 per cent.
Your Lordships will not need reminding that both of these sectors are vital to the country's economy. The engineering industry employs nearly 2 million people in 21,600 firms. Its activities are wide ranging, including mechanical engineering, electrical and electronic engineering, vehicle and aircraft manufacture and engineering construction.
The construction industry is almost as large and employs around 1·8 million people, covering activities such as building, civil engineering, electrical contracting, heating and ventilating and plumbing. The engineering levy proposals are in two parts, the first applying to engineering manufacture, which comprises the vast majority of the industry and the second to the engineering construction industry, which employs approximately 40,000 workers.
I shall briefly outline the proposals in both sectors. For engineering manufacturing establishments the board proposes a total levy of 1 per cent. of an
1014
employer's payroll: 0·07 per cent. of that levy will be non-exemptible. These rates are the same as last year. The bulk of the levy is therefore exemptible; that is, employers who train satisfactorily will be given credit for this and will not be required to pay the maximum levy to the board. In addition, firms employing 40 workers or less will be excluded totally from paying levy. Almost 70 per cent. of firms will be excluded from levy because of their size.
In the engineering construction sector, for off-site employees, establishments with up to 30 employees will be excluded from the levy. This would mean that again almost 70 per cent. of establishments will not pay levy. Establishments with more than 30 employees will be levied at 1 per cent. of payroll. The non-exemptible element of this levy will be 0·15 per cent. These rates are also the same as those approved last year.
For site employees the levy has been increased by 0·38 per cent. to 1·5 per cent. of payroll in response to growing skill shortages in this part of the sector. No levy is payable on the first £50,000 of payroll which will exclude about 14 per cent. of establishments. The raising of a non-exemptible levy in excess of 0·2 per cent. in the non-site sector means that under the Industrial Training Act the board must demonstrate that there is consensus in the industry for the proposals.
Employer organisations representing 60 per cent. of leviable establishments and about 86 per cent. of the workforce have confirmed their agreement to the proposals, thus satisfying the conditions of the Act. The Engineering Industry Training Board anticipates that the levy proposals I have described will raise some £22 million. The levy will apply to those firms who fall within the scope of the board between the date the order comes into force and 31st August
I now turn to the construction levy proposals which are in the same form and at the same rates as approved by the House last year. The board estimates that the levy will raise £66 4 million and is proposed in three parts.
First there will be a per capita levy on directly employed construction workers in the main industry. The rates vary according to the type of person being trained and reflect the training costs for each occupation. The rates are subject to an overall limit of 1 per cent. of payroll.
Secondly, the board proposes to retain the 2 per cent. levy on payments made to labour only subcontractors. This rate has not changed since 1981 and reflects the board's judgment that sub contractors undertake too little training, relying instead on obtaining skilled manpower trained by other employers.
Companies covered by these two parts of the levy with payrolls of £15,000 or less are excluded from the payment of levy. Approximately 29 per cent. of firms are excluded by this provision. Thirdly, there is the levy for the brick manufacturing industry. The board proposes a rate of 0·05 per cent. of payroll with firms having a payroll of £100,000 or less being excluded.
As with engineering, the construction board is also required to demonstate that there is consensus within the industry for the proposals because the levy exceeds 0.2 per cent. of payroll without an exemption scheme. Support has been gained from employers' organisations representing 60 per cent. of employers liable to pay the levy and from 82 per cent. of employers who pay more than half of the total levy.
Turning to the future, in line with recommendations in the White Paper Employment for the 1990s, the EITB has put forward proposals for an independent training organisation representing engineering manufacture and the retention of statutory arrangements for engineering construction. These proposals were approved in November 1989.
Currently the board is working on the development of a plan and timetable for the management of this transition and it is anticipated that an independent engineering training authority covering engineering manufacturing will be fully operational by July 1991. This means that the levy proposed for collection in 1990–91 will be the last to be raised by the engineering manufacturing sector.
For engineering construction it is anticipated that its levy and grant arrangements will secure an adequate supply of skilled workers by rewarding those employers who train. It is expected that the exemption arrangements for this sector's off-site establishments will be replaced by a voluntary code of practice. In the construction industry the Government accept that because of the particular employment patterns—a highly mobile workforce and heavy reliance on labour only subcontracting—statutory arrangements will need to continue, with a thorough review in 1992.
In the meantime a number of sectors in the construction ITB, principally electrical contracting, plumbing, heating and ventilating, are developing independent arrangements. The proposals before the House tonight have received unanimous approval from the respective boards and will assist in sustaining their worthwhile activities within their industries. I commend the orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee]—(The Earl of Stathmore and Kinghorne.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, this side of the House does not oppose these two orders, and I would like to thank the Minister for the clarity with which he has presented them. However, as he said, these are very important industries and I wish to take a little time to make a few points about them.
I am glad that the Construction Industry Training Board, which has a very good record in an extremely difficult industry, is to be allowed to continue for at least three years. However, I believe it is unfortunate that a three-year term has been imposed. It is bound to lead to a sense of insecurity among committed and trained staff who do not know what the eventual outcome will be. Needless to say, training in the construction industry is of the utmost importance. Whatever precautions are taken, and however highly
1016
trained are the people working in it, the industry is an inherently dangerous one. I regret to note that the latest figures appear to indicate that it is becoming more rather than less dangerous. It has more accidents, some of them fatal, than any other industry. Clearly, training may help to minimise these risks.
Moreover, it is an industry in which there are many small operators. In view of this I wonder whether it is altogether wise to exempt from the system the very small firms. I understand that about 29 per cent. of firms come into this category. They quite obviously benefit from training paid for by the larger firms. But representatives of the larger firms will invariably say that it is in the smaller firms, the cowboys in the industry, that safety standards are at their lowest. I wonder whether the arrangements for labour only subcontractors cope with this situation adquately.
The staff of the Construction Industry Training Board still do not know what the Government have in mind in relation to the restructuring of the board now taking place and how it will affect them. I wonder whether the Minister is yet in a position to let us know the score in that regard. At least the Government have recognised that this industry, with its many small firms and highly mobile workforce, needs to have a board and an organisation such as that provided by the CITB. A sense of stability is vital, but that seems to be lacking at the moment because of the policies that the Government have been following in the training arena.
With regard to the Engineering Industry Training Board, the Minister will not be surprised to know that I regret that this is apparently the last time a levy will be raised by the engineering manufacturing sector. I still believe that the EITB performed a very useful service in difficult circumstances, particularly during the manufacturing industry decline in the early years of the 1980s, when people simply did not see the manufacturing sector as providing any kind of job or career prospects. Now of course we need the skilled people we might have trained then. I do not believe that the voluntary system will work in this sector. I regret very much that the Government have chosen that path, in particular as I am concerned about the fate of special projects initiated by the EITB; for example, the special project for women. I do not see this being taken up on an industry-wide basis under the present arrangements.
Moreover, there is also the question of the money from the European Social Fund. I am informed by the EITB that it was managing to increase this year by year, with figures for 1989 of around £12 million. It is doubtful whether we shall be able to secure sums of this order, or indeed of any order at all, under the voluntary system. I understand that in order to qualify there has to be some input from public funds. I can only hope that the newly constituted independent Engineering Training Authority, to which the Minister made reference when introducing the order, will continue with the good work of the EITB and build upon it, not only for the benefit of women but for the benefit of the disadvantaged generally—for the disabled and for ethnic minority groups. I repeat that we on this side of the House do

1017
not oppose the orders, which we understand have the unanimous support of the members of both boards.
5.55 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, these industries need sound training arrangements. As I mentioned in my opening address, an independent engineering training authority covering engineering manufacturing has already been established and has secured an excellent level and balance of representation, with all of its employer members being chairmen, managing directors or directors of their respective companies.
The authority has already met twice. I understand that, at its second meeting held last week, the authority agreed that its major focus would be on setting standards across the whole engineering industry and identifying and reviewing the industry's skill requirements. The authority is also preparing a timetable for the transfer of other key functions to ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements.
I am pleased that the new authority has started work so swiftly and the enthusiasm shown clearly demonstrates that, if offered responsibility, employers will not only take it but discharge it well. This is also evidenced by the new training and enterprise councils. In this respect, 62 groups of local employers have already been awarded development funding. The first TECs will become fully operational in the spring.
Since the White Paper Employment for the 1990s was published at the end of 1988, we have had many discussions with the construction industry, and in particular with its leading employer organisations. As a result we announced last November that the board would continue as a levy raising body. There was a unanimous view amongst employers that we should do that; and we agreed. There was also a clear view that the board needed to be a good deal smaller and that two-thirds of the membership of the new board should be chief executives and chairmen from the industry. We asked for nominations from the employer organisations and we now have them before us.
We have also consulted about the chairmanship of the board. The present chairman, Derek Gaulter, has given, and continues to give, loyal and committed service to the sector. I want here to place on record the Government's recognition of that and our gratitude to Mr. Gaulter for all that he has done, and continues to do, for the industry and for the board. We have agreed with Mr. Gaulter that the new board—the new start—will mean that, at the appropriate moment, a new chairman should take over. How soon that moment will come depends on the willingness of a leading individual from the industry to take up the responsibility and the date from which the individual is willing to do so. We hope to be making an early announcement about the chairmanship and the membership of CITB.
The noble Baroness referred to fatal accidents in the construction industry. In 1986–87 there were 139 fatal accidents; and in 1987–88 there were 158. Those are the only statistcs that I have at the moment.
1018
For both boards the time had come for change; the time had come to tackle new priorities in new ways with the wholehearted commitment of employers. It is now up to employers in both industries to deliver what they say they seek. In the meantime, the proposals before us tonight will allow the work of the boards to progress. I commend them to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1990
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February by approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mr. Salman Rushdie: Death Threats
5.57 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a further statement on the reasons for the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute those who have threatened the life of Mr. Salman Rushdie.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am raising tonight the question of the threats directed at the life of Mr. Salman Rushdie, a British subject resident in the United Kingdom, and the rather surprising decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute those who within the jurisdiction of the British courts have called for him to be murdered.
The House will recall that this matter was initially raised on 19th February when a number of noble Lords joined me in expressing puzzlement at the director's decision. On 20th February it was raised again by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, when disquiet was again expressed by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. I think it would be right to remind the House of the sequence of events in this case. On 26th September 1988 Penguin Viking published The Satanic Verses in London. Within weeks the book had been banned in many Moslem countries and in some countries where there were significant Moslem minorities. On 8th November 1988 The Satanic Verses won the Whitbread Prize for novels. Nine weeks later a group of Moslems in Bradford ritually burned a copy of the book. Then, on 14th February last year, the Ayatollah Khomeini pronounced his sentence of death on Mr. Rushdie. He said this:
"I inform the proud Moslem people of the world that the author of The Satanic Verses book which is against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran, and all those involved in its publication who were aware of its content, are sentenced to death. I ask all the Moslems to execute them wherever they find them".
Within 24 hours Mr. Rushdie was removed to a safe house. Since then he has been under the protection of armed officers of the Metropolitan Police. On the same day as the Ayatollah's statement in Teheran, the first direct threat on the life of Mr. Rushdie was made in Britain. Sayed Abdul Quddus, the then secretary of the Bradford Council of Mosques, said that Mr. Rushdie had "tortured Islam" and deserved to pay the penalty by "hanging". He added:
"Muslims here would kill him and I would willingly sacrifice my own life and that of my children to carry out the Ayatollah's wishes should the opportunity arise. And if this man thinks bodyguards will be able to protect him, he is living in a fool's paradise".
That statement was reported in a number of newspapers, including The Times of 15th February last year. It was also mentioned on television and on the radio. On the same day, the vice-chairman of the Islamic Mission in Rochdale said that retribution was justified not only against the author but also against everyone involved in the publication of the book. Again, that statement was widely reported.
Since that time we have had repeated statements from a minority of Moslem leaders—and it is right to emphasise that it is a minority of Moslem leaders—in the United Kingdom calling for Mr. Rushdie's execution, not least by Dr. Kalim Siddiqui, the director of the Moslem Institute whose words have also been widely reported in the press, on television and on the radio. On the basis of that I wrote to the Attorney-General asking what action the director intended to take on yet another case of a threat on the life of Mr. Rushdie.
Since that time we have witnessed crowds carrying banners in public demonstrations which carry the words, "Kill Rushdie". Moreover, we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on 19th February of a newspaper report which stated that,
"… youngsters at the meeting—some under 10-years-old—gave their support to the death sentence". [Official Report, 19.2.90; col. 10.]
In the light of that clear evidence—that is, clear unambiguous evidence—of repeated threats to the life of Mr. Rushdie, what has been the response of the Director of Public Prosecutions? On 19th February (at col. 9 of Hansard) the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us that the director had,
"concluded in the light of all the evidence available to him … that it was not appropriate to institute criminal proceedings".
The noble and learned Lord later said:
"The director regards as a matter of extreme gravity any conduct on the part of any person within this jurisdiction which amounts to the offence of incitement to murder".
It would be truly remarkable if the director did not regard incitement to murder as a matter of extreme gravity. However, what puzzles many of us is why, despite the advice which we are told he has received from leading counsel, not a single prosecution has been brought against those in this country who have called for the murder of a British subject.
The offence of incitement to murder is, fortunately, relatively unusual in this country. I do not propose, for reasons to which I shall refer in a
1020
moment, to deal at any length with the law so far as concerns this offence. However, I should like to mention one authority to which my attention was drawn by my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I refer to the case of Regina v. Most in 1881 7QBD 244 reported in the 12th edition of Russell on Crime. It says:
"The alleged encouragement and endeavour to persuade to murder was the publication and circulation by him"—
that is, Mr. Most—
"of an article written in German in a newspaper published in London exalting in the recent murder of the Emperor of Russia and commending it as an example. The jury were directed that if they thought he intended to, and did, encourage any person to murder any other person, whether a subject of Her Majesty or not, and whether within her dominions or not, and that such encouragement was the natural effect of the article, they should find him guilty. It was held that such direction was correct, although the encouragement was not addressed to any person in particular".
Those who have directed their threats against Mr. Rushdie have not done so in the German language; their threats have been unambiguous and no one can have any doubt whatever as to what they intended. But, as I indicated a moment ago, the Government have not suggested for a moment that the director's decision is based upon any inadequacies in the present law on incitement to murder. When I put that precise point to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on 19th February (at col. 11 of Hansard) he said:
"The law in relation to incitement to murder is the law set out in Section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. I know of no proposal to change that section".
Therefore, the position is this: the Government are satisfied with the present state of criminal law. That being so, I think that we should ask ourselves a rather different question.
Let us assume a situation where other groups in our society were calling for the murder of other citizens. Let us suppose that we had large public meetings at which calls were made for the murder of people who were prominent in the public life of this country; for example, a prime minister, a High Court judge, a bishop, or a chief Rabbi. As a result of those threats such persons were advised by the police that the threats were of such a grave character that they should not fulfil any public engagements. That is precisely the advice given by the police to Mr. Rushdie on a recent occasion. Let us say that some of them—and I do not give Ministers as an example because they have a high level of personal protection—were told that they had to live at a secret address and be protected by armed police.
Further, let us assume that calls for the death of those people were accompanied by banner-waving crowds calling for their murder and that 10 year-olds were being encouraged to support those demands. Finally, let us assume that the Director of Public Prosecutions came to exactly the same decision as he did in the case of Mr. Rushdie; namely, that he would not prosecute. I think that we all know perfectly well what would happen in such a situation. There would be public uproar. There would certainly be demands that, because of presumed inadequacies in the law, the Government should be introducing legislation at once to strengthen the existing law. However, that is on the assumption that the present

1021
law is inadequate. I do not believe that it is and I know of no one in this House who believes that the present law is inadequate. We have here an altogether different situation—an entirely satisfactory law but an inexplicable decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions not to use it.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who will reply to the debate that I believe that the answers given by his colleague the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on 19th February convinced remarkably few people in this Chamber. At the end of it all we wondered precisely what the director was prepared to do concerning the continuing threats to the life of Mr. Rushdie. Will there simply be more sad shaking of the head and a repetition of the statement that there is unfortunately not enough evidence to justify a prosecution; or does the director intend to obtain that evidence?
Perhaps I may give an example. Some years ago we were confronted in this country with the activities of a group of extremists calling themselves the Animal Liberation Front. They operated in the areas of different police forces and it was judged necessary to create a single desk which would co-ordinate the information and intelligence concerning their activities. As a result of that action a number of these people were arrested and brought before the courts.
My question to the noble Lord is this: is the director asking the special branches of the police forces concerned—and as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will know from his experience in the Home Office such branches exist in every police force in the country—to take co-ordinated action to secure evidence if there is an inadequacy regarding evidence on the matter?
I hope that the noble Lord will not rely on the argument that this is a matter for each chief officer who is operationally independent. We all know perfectly well that those officers are operationally independent. I am asking a different question: whether the director himself, on his own initiative, is endeavouring to ensure that he obtains adequate evidence to allow him to bring criminal proceedings against people who are constantly making these threats.
I shall only say in conclusion that I believe that the disinclination of the director to bring such proceedings is beginning to cause significant public disquiet. This gives rise to the belief—however unjust that belief may be—that if other British citizens behaved as a minority of Moslem extremists have behaved, they would be prosecuted. Nothing could do more damage to community relations in our country than for such a belief to persist, however unwarranted it may be. Good community relations can only be established if there is an overwhelming belief that there is in this country full equality before the law for all our citizens; laws which we all have to obey, whatever our religion may be, whether we were born in this country or are immigrants to it. We cannot allow anyone to believe the contrary. It is plainly unacceptable.
Tonight we are discussing the case of a British citizen who is a hunted man in his own country; a
1022
man unable to live at his secret address without the presence of armed police officers. He has committed no offence known to our law. All he has done is to exercise his right to free speech in a democracy. I believe that what has happened to Mr. Rushdie is a public outrage. It is time to let those who threaten his life know that they will face the full rigours of our law if they persist. Last March, just after the Ayatollah Khomeini's sentence of death on Mr. Rushdie, the French Prime Minister M. Rocard said:
"Any further calls for violence or murder will lead to immediate criminal prosecution".
I believe that it is about time that we heard those sentiments expressed in this country.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I think that we should be grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter. It is appropriate that it should come before your Lordships' House because it concerns the liberty of the subject. It raises important legal and constitutional aspects of our life and I am sure that we are all deeply concerned about it.
What worries me deeply day after clay is what will happen if Rushdie is executed in Britain. Shall we see wildly jubilant demonstrations, glorifying the act of the person who did it? What is to be our reaction to an event of that kind? Are we prepared for it? Have the Government any plans to deal with it? Is it conceivable that, contrary to all the restraints put upon public demonstrations, crowds assemble to cheer the execution and death of this "dreadful man"? It is a deeply worrying possibility.
I take the threat of execution very seriously indeed. I do not know whether people think this is just wild talk, and that they do not mean it, it will not happen. I think that they do mean it and that it can happen. It is a year since this began. When it first happened one was sceptical of some of the statements that were made by opponents of Rushdie that, "This man will never go free again. He will live in constant and perpetual hiding". If he emerges and is seen by a faithful member of the Moslem fraternity he could be shot on sight and the man who did it be glorified among his own people. That is a sombre thought. We cannot have it far from our minds in dealing with the subject.
A case has been heard in the courts during the last two or three days which possibly has some bearing on aspects of the development of our law in this connection. I make no comment on it; I see that the judges have reserved judgment on the action against Penguin books for circulating something which might give rise to a breach of the peace and disorder.
However, I wish to deal particularly with this question: what do the Moslems want? One of the remarks we have heard frequently is that they want to be covered by the blasphemy law. The suggestion is that the law should be extended to cover other religions and that they should then enjoy the same safeguards against offensive statements of a blasphemous nature as the Christian Church in Britain. There is lurking not far away from this position a review of the charity law. Unless we are

1023
careful we may become involved in a controversial and complicated debate as regards what constitutes religion. What are the conditions that have to be satisfied by a body for it to be called a religion? That matter certainly arises in connection with charity law because there is a feeling abroad that some cults or quasi-religious sects are covered by the charity law which should not be and they are indulging in practices which are inconsistent with our concept of a religious body and which should somehow or other be removed from the facilities, the protection and the benefits of charity registration. This is a difficult matter.
When charities are mentioned the subject of the Moonies particularly crops up, as does mention of other bodies of that kind. We have heard the subject of the Moonies discussed in your Lordships' House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on more than one occasion. However, that has a bearing on the extension of the blasphemy law. Should we be specific or should we be general in our description of what we regard as a religion for the purpose of the law in question?
I am bound to say that this matter encompasses some difficult questions. If there is anything approaching a definition of the charity law, it would leave some bodies outside the protection of the blasphemy law. I shall not pursue the matter further, but it is more than a simple question of extending the law of blasphemy to cover other religions. They must either be specified or they must be defined in such terms that the law can state which of them constitute religions. The ultimate purpose of the charity law must be for the advancement of religion. A religion requires the existence of a supernatural force of overriding authority and control. Unless therefore a body has a personal God whose purposes are to be advanced by religious activity, that particular body is not considered to be religious. One can think of a number of estimable bodies in society which would not qualify as religious bodies and yet at the same time have noble purposes and ideals which are every bit as notable and desirable as those of recognised religious bodies.
I have another point to make in connection with blasphemy. An article in The Times of 9th February written by Professor Raymond Plant stated that:
"Jesus … died convicted of blasphemy, a charge made by a religious élite claiming to speak for the whole of the community which had supposedly been offended by the blasphemy".
That is one aspect of the matter which we are bound to think about.
All in all, I do not think there is any easy solution to the problems of the Moslem community and its difficulties with our concept of freedom of speech as regards extending the law of blasphemy to cover the Moslem religion and other religions. I think that as a matter of principle some of us would have to object to the extension of the protection given to religious activities, thought and teaching if that is given without regard to the interests of other bodies of a more secular nature. I happen to be a humanist. I believe that the ideals of a humanist society are every bit as noble and as lofty as those of the Christian religion. What we lack is a belief in a
1024
personal God. That absence disqualifies us from being treated as if we were a religious body.
A humanist society has a claim upon the attention and the understanding of the community. There are other bodies too which in their own ways perform an important duty in society in trying to establish a basis for human relationships, human compassion and social responsibility. So what else is left now? I regret to say that I feel that this situation has been played down through fear of upsetting the Moslem community. I do not say that that is reprehensible as I think this situation has to be handled with great care and understanding. However, at the same time, I think it requires firmness. We should be in no doubt at all that there are some things that we cannot stand for. We are a tolerant people. We accept a good deal of behaviour that we disagree with without becoming unduly roused and entering into conflict, but some things will go beyond a point of public endurance. If that happens, it will be a serious matter.
What are the Government doing to try to contain this situation? How can we get this threat removed? As long as the threat exists, a citizen in this country lives in fear of death. He has to remain in hiding at great expense to the community in order to protect him from harm. Are we willing to see that situation go on and on? Is it something that will hang over him and us indefinitely? What will be the end of it? Unless we can see an end to it, it will be extremely difficult to feel settled in our minds about our relationship with an important and growing part of our society.
There are other aspects of the Moslem community which I shall not deal with tonight but which affect our attitude towards other cultures and other people who come to settle here who may press their own desires to have their own way of life, to make their own laws, and to have our laws adjusted to their wishes. This matter requires compromise and tolerance on both sides. But how long will we be tolerant in the face of extremists? That is the point.
This is the time for this House to express itself clearly on the matter. We are free of the pressures of constituencies and we are free of the pressure of lobbies. We are able to look at the matter dispassionately, as wise and experienced members of society can do. I sincerely hope that we shall obtain a better and firmer response which comes closer to the problem from the Government this evening.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich has displayed courage and responsibility in putting down this Question for debate. His case, as he made it, seemed to me to be overwhelming. It is no surprise that such a Question should emanate from these Benches. The plight of Mr. Rushdie, as has already been said, raises questions that extend beyond the pages of the Satanic Verses. They are questions which go directly to the maintenance of our democratic way of life.
I have no personal knowledge of the author or of the book. Its merits are not an issue tonight. However, I know that he is a citizen of this country.

1025
He has broken no law of this country. Yet he is currently undergoing a custodial sentence of mind and body of an indeterminate length. He was condemned and sentenced without trial by a júdge who has no jurisdiction within these shores. That sentence is maintained by threats issued by persons here and abroad so serious that the police must provide him with permanent protection.
How can such a situation be tolerated in this country of ours? Today all over the world there are people who look to us in recognition of our long struggle for human rights and civil liberties. We proclaim proudly to such people that here every citizen has the right to live in freedom under the law. We point to Article 5 of the European convention which guarantees the liberty and security of the person. We say, "We shall help you to create a society which will do the same for you".
When those people look at the reality here—as they now can with the communications revolution—they see suppression of freedom of expression. They see the victimisation of one man because he dared to express through the mouth of a character in a book an idea which deeply offends another section of the society in which he lives. How strong, how all-pervasive, remains the written word.
It is but the case of one man, yet the plight of one can epitomise the struggle of millions. We need look no further than South Africa to see that.
Mr. Rushdie's predicament publicly records each day a defeat for the Government, a defeat for the law and a defeat for our way of life. The irony of the situation is that it is freedom of speech, of thought and of expression which are the guarantee of the freedom of religion.
Are we to sit back, wring our hands and concede that we are powerless, impotent to deal with this form of terrorism? Are we yet again to practise the so-called wisdom and restraint of appeasement? Those of us who were young in the 1930s are only too familiar with that alibi. Of course there is a case for letting Mr. Rushdie rot. His accusers can be said to seek martyrdom. A failed prosecution would be worse than no prosecution at all. Behind the scenes we can apply pressure to achieve conciliation and withdrawal of the death threat. It is said that we must do nothing that could make the freeing of hostages more difficult. Surely we know now that weakness ultimately achieves nothing on any front.
When the threats were first issued, as my noble friend has already said, in France and in the United States official reaction was immediate and clear at a high level of government. The Moslem communities in both countries dissociated themselves from the message from Iran. It was not so in this country.
One is bound to ask how much this Government care. Their record on human rights and civil liberties has often been high on rhetoric but consistently low in fact. One could cite the Official Secrets Act, GCHQ, Clause 28, the illegal immigration procedures, the Security Service Bill, the Henry VIII clauses, the Public Order Act, the abolition of challenge, the long trail to the Court of Human Rights. The list goes on.
1026
As we have heard, on 14th February last year the fatwa was issued. Those words, which were read out by my noble friend Lord Harris, seem to be political rather than theological in content. On 1st April Dr. Siddiqui delivered a lecture, to which my noble friend did not refer. Among other things he said:
"Everywhere Muslim masses have endorsed the Imam's fatwa on Rushdie. The fatwa did not stop at the death sentence. It gave the reason so that no one ever again will dare insult the sanctity of the Muslims. It is the deterrent value of the fatwa that has sent the West into such a frenzy of anger".
In October the television showed us all that gentleman calling for the death sentence. He said:
"The author and his book have got to go".
On 23rd October a Mr. Quddus, president of another Islamic group, was reported as saying,
"I support Dr. Siddiqui with my sincerest heart. According to Islam Rushdie must be punished. I put Islamic law first, British law second".
How does the noble Lord the Leader of the House react to that statement? Then there were the marches and the banners—"Kill Rushdie"—and the shouting of all those we saw on our screens.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, as head of the Crown Prosecution Service, acts under the superintendence of the Attorney-General. Only last Thursday we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, speaking as a former law officer, that when matters of public policy arise—as they do in this case—it is inevitable that the Attorney-General should consult with the Cabinet. Will the Government stand up and be counted in this case?
We are told that there is insufficient evidence and that it is a matter of evidence and not public policy that has prevented prosecution. As my noble friend has already asked, will the Attorney-General advise the DPP to tell Special Branch to go out and monitor meetings and publications and collect the necessary evidence to found successful prosecutions? Incitement is a very broad element in a criminal offence. There is no need to specify a particular person as being the victim or potential victim. There is no need even for such a person to reside in this country. Threatening behaviour to put people in fear is enough under the Public Order Act. Anyone carrying a banner or shouting "Kill Rushdie" in the streets of this country can be brought before the court and, whether convicted or not, can be bound over to keep the peace for a lengthy period of time subject to recall in breach of his undertaking.
The Government acted with alacrity when it was a question of prosecuting pickets during the miners' strike. The Government pursued relentlessly another aspect of the written word, Spycatcher, through the courts at huge expense. The case of Salrnan Rushdie far exceeds Spycatcher in importance for the ordinary citizen. Each day he remains a prisoner is an affront to all of us. Each day the evil of racism and of censorship persists and grows as a direct result.
The Government should surely keep the case permanently before the world. They should seek international agreement to condemn that death threat. They should apply continuing pressure on
Q1

1027
the Moslem community here, the vast majority of whose members I am sure are law abiding, to disassociate itself from that threat. I fear that this Administration have neither the guts nor the inclination to do all that. I sincerely hope that the reply of the noble Lord the Leader of the House will prove me wrong.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, we are all very much in the debt of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, not just for introducing this subject and for the nobility of his speech, but for giving us the full, factual background. Your Lordships have since heard two other notable speeches. I want to deal with certain constitutional aspects of the matter; but before I do so perhaps I may say that those threats are obviously to be taken seriously. The police take them seriously because they have provided an armed guard for the person who is the object of the threats. There again, we must bear in mind that Islam is a fighting creed. The Jihad (the Holy War) lies at the very heart of it. Every pious Moslem who dies in the course of the Jihad is a martyr who will go straight to paradise. It is in that context that we must judge the reality of the threats.
The other preliminary thing that I wanted to say—as did the noble Lord, Lord Harris—is that it has been emphasised that this was the decision of the DPP alone. The director is of course responsible to the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General is responsible for the director, but it is inconceivable to my mind that on a matter such as this the director should not have consulted the Attorney. There are many matters upon which he does not, and rightly does not; but on a matter of grave public importance such as this he would be gravely culpable unless he consulted the Attorney and, apart from anything else, he would be extremely unfair to the Attorney if he did not do so.
I should like to refer to two matters that arose out of the replies of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on 19th February. The first is that he emphasised that proceedings were not being brought because of the lack of sufficient evidence. He said that again and again. He was given the opportunity to broaden the matter by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, who asked if that were the sole reason. My noble and learned friend indicated that it was the sole reason. One heard, even in that debate, the testimony of the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and Lord Harris of Greenwich, and we have heard it again today from the latter noble Lord. It seems incontrovertible that there is evidence here. It puts the matter on a completely wrong footing to proceed on the basis that the decision is based solely on lack of evidence.
There are many cases where the director or the attorney can decline to prosecute, or continue a prosecution, if there is ample evidence. He may decide for one of many reasons that a prosecution would do more harm than good. It is strongly arguable in this case that it might well be concluded that a prosecution would do more harm than good. Some
1028
of the perpetrators who have been the subject of a complaint seem to be courting martyrdom. Again, I put that in the context of the general Islamic cult of martyrdom in the course of a holy war. They may well conclude that it would do good for them to be prosecuted and to pose as martyrs and if necessary go to prison, thus emphasising their faith and posing further as martyrs. It is that that causes me to doubt a suggestion that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, which I confess had occurred to me: why are people not brought before the court and bound over to keep the peace? That seems to me to be an obvious first step. Then one might think: what if they refuse to be bound over? They then go to prison or at any rate have to be prosecuted. They pose again as martyrs. That is not necessarily a conclusive argument.
The second matter to which I wish to refer is the basis of my noble and learned friend's reply that he was answering solely for the Attorney in a personal capacity; in other words, not as a member of the Government. He made that clear when he disclaimed any need to consider the fact that the Home Office and the police had considered protection to be necessary. He emphasised that he was speaking solely for the Attorney-General in his personal capacity. In many prosecutions, we leave it to the attorney to decide.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, was good enough to quote me from the other night; but I do not believe that I said that the Attorney would consult the Cabinet. What he ought to do, and what he would be culpable in failing to do, would be to consult key members of the Cabinet, especially the Home Secretary and possibly the Prime Minister. However, on that basis the decision is not a Cabinet decision. I was arguing that in some cases it should be a Cabinet decision. I posed the question that was put by Lord Asquith of Bishopstone, then Cyril Asquith, at the time of the Campbell case when the 1924 Labour Government was being greatly criticised for having intervened to secure the withdrawal of a prosecution against the Communist temporary editor of the Daily Worker. Lord Asquith asked whether it was conceivable that the Cabinet in 1914 would not have been entitled to have some say in the prosecution of the Ulster leaders upon which the civil war in Ulster and the whole future of Ulster might depend.
I have never heard that question answered. It seems to me unquestionable that in that case the Cabinet would be entitled to decide on whether a prosecution is to be brought and would be entitled to take into its own hands the decision, making it clear that it is a Cabinet decision and not merely one of the Attorney's. That is quite apart from the collective responsibility of Ministers, which we do not ride too hard and which is quite impossible to reconcile with the idea that the decision is in every case that of the Attorney's and the Attorney's alone without consultation with others.
In this case the relevance is that this seems essentially to be the sort of case which has wide public interest and repercussions and where the Cabinet is under a duty itself to assume the

1029
responsibility of whether there shall be a prosecution.
The only other matter with which I want to deal arises out of the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby; namely, about blasphemy. I do not think that it helps to invoke the law of charities. That has been investigated on a number of occasions. The advancement of religion is only one of the heads of charity. On the whole the law has managed fairly well going from case to case. But blasphemy is a much more wide and difficult question. However, it has been investigated by the Law Commission which recommended unanimously that the present law of blasphemy, including the common law—and almost all of it is common law—should be abrogated.
But two members out of the five thought that there should be a statutory substitute, which would be to extend the protection of the blasphemy laws to religions other than Christianity and perhaps Judaism. As I said, that was only a minority, although it did include the chairman of the Law Commission and another very distinguished lawyer.
My own view is that the majority was correct and that all kinds of difficulties, which were examined by the Law Commission, arise if one tries to extend the law of blasphemy to cover other religions. Some were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—for example, some of the more exotic cults and whether they are to be protected.
Having said that, I end as I started by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for having raised this matter. It is erroneous and misleading to say that this is solely a matter of whether there is evidence of prosecution and that this is essentially a case in which the Cabinet and the Government as a whole should assume responsibility.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for bringing and having the courage to bring this matter on to our agenda tonight. I should like also to congratulate him on the manner in which he introduced this Question and for taking us through the sequence of events which have led to what I consider to be a considerable crisis within this country.
The original death threat was made by an aged ayatollah. It is quite true that he was on the point of death and it may very well be that people might think that his judgment was impaired at that stage and could have forgiven that particular threat. But since then the threat has been renewed, not by ageing ayatollahs but presumably by what is the responsible Government of Iran. So it is a very real and continuing threat that has to be dealt with.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is absolutely correct when he says that there is a growing impression in this country that there is one law for one section of the community and another for the rest of us. One has only to have a normal conversation in one's sitting room, in a club, a saloon or public bar to know that this is a topic of conversation. It is not something which is under the carpet. It is something
1030
which is being actively discussed. That is why the Government should take due heed of the very responsible speeches that have been made tonight and the responsible warnings that have been given to the effect that the Government will fail to deal with this matter at their peril.
There is no doubt in my mind and in the minds of many other people that if another group in our society were to go around calling for the murder of an individual or waving flags which call for the murder of another individual those people would very quickly be brought before the courts and perhaps put in prison as well. I have to say that I am rather amazed at the muted nature of the protests from quarters from which one might have expected an explosion of protest. It is odd that in this country we can have a man imprisoned—because that is what it amounts to—without trial arid because of threat. It is amazing that there has not been an explosion of protest.
One must bear in mind that Mr. Rushdie is just as much a prisoner as was Mr. Mandela, although there are some differences. At least Nelson Mandela was accorded some kind of trial. Mr. Rushdie was condemned to death in absentia, not being heard. He is now condemned apparently to perpetual imprisonment unless the ayatollahs in Iran have second thoughts
I know that these are harsh words but they need to be spoken. The fact is that bigots are bigots whatever their colour or creed. We should remember that. It is not only Mr. Rushdie who has been affected. It is not only he who is condemned; it is his family as well. His wife dare not go to see him lest she put his life in peril. So the whole business goes rather wider than Mr.Rushdie himself.
These fanatics—they are a minority within the Moslem religion and let us make that point absolutely clear—must be told firmly and clearly by the Government that in this country we do not intend to give up freedom of speech, which has been fought for over the centuries by men of courage who were prepared to endure martyrdom for the right of free men to speak their minds without fear or favour. We have cause to remember in this country—and indeed in Europe and throughout the world—that book burning is usually followed by people burning. Do not forget that it was the book burners in Nazi Germany who were the predecessors of the horror camps of Auschwitz and Belsen. We should remember that when we appear to take a lenient view of what is happening at the present time.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, raised the question of the law of blasphemy. I shall not go into the issue in great detail but I agree that if there is any attempt to exend it there will be very grave difficulties indeed. Lawsuit after lawsuit will follow the refusal of the extension of the blasphemy law to one religious sect or another.
It is my opinion, and only my personal opinion, that there is only one answer to the law of blasphemy. It should be repealed forthwith. I hope that following the debate the Government will heed the call of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, to deal with the matter quickly. The Moslem community, and indeed every

1031
other person and every other sect in this country, must be made aware that it is not and never will be the law in Britain to allow any individual or any group to call for the death of another person. If we once lose hold of that, we are well on the road to perdition.
7.2 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. We all agree that it is an immensely serious matter. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for introducing the debate. We look forward with great interest to the Minister's reply.
I was faced with a most embarrassing situation on a Saturday afternoon last year. I had been invited by the chairman of the Manchester Council of Mosques to give greetings on the Prophet's birthday on behalf of the Christian Churches to those who were assembled in Manchester City Hall. When I arrived at the town hall I discovered that Dr. Siddiqui was on the platform. When he spoke I had no doubt whatever of the nature of what was being said and the response that he was trying to elicit from some 300 Moslems who were present, virtually all men, and including a number of youngsters, whose banners were around the walls.
I was then faced with the decision of whether to walk out at that moment. I decided not to do so for two reasons. First, I had been invited to give greetings to the Moslem community of Manchester. I was anxious to do so because I believe passionately, as do all of us here, in good relationships between Moslems and others in our communities in Britain today. Those about whom we are speaking are British citizens and I wished to say something to them on that occasion. Secondly, I knew that I would have the opportunity of showing my disgust at what had been said from the platform and the way in which the audience was being manipulated. I was able to do that and I hope that the point was taken by those who were present.
I do not believe that anybody in the United Kingdom should be able to make such threats with inpugnity to a British citizen or anyone living in this country. That should be clearly understood in the future. It may be that what we are primarily concerned with now is the future rather than the past. It is the duty of government and the legal system, however it is done, to make it absolutely clear that such conduct is intolerable.
I should like to say a few words about the role of the Churches in the very difficult situation that has arisen since the publication of The Satanic Verses. With other leaders of the Churches, I have had meetings in my own diocese with Moslem leaders. I believe that they are representative of many in their communities. It is good that the point has been made by a number of noble Lords that the death threats that have been uttered have not been representative of the views of the majority in the Moslem community. That is important to understand because those who make the most noise do not necessarily represent the majority. We also need
1032
to understand that it demands very considerable courage for those in positions of leadership in the Moslem communities to stand up and be counted in going against the death threats. We know perfectly well of a Moslem leader in Belgium, I believe it was, who lost his life on that very issue. It is important for us to put ourselves in the shoes of those who are called upon to lead their communities when passions are running high and to realise what courage it takes.
What leaders of the Moslem communities want us to appreciate is the depth of offence that has been caused by the publication of The Satanic Verses. I have read the book with some care. It is not an easy book to read. Although I greatly admire Salman Rushdie as a writer and a master of the English language, I can understand something of the depth of offence that has been caused, although only those who speak from within that religious tradition would appreciate it. It is a pity that many other issues in the book have not been noticed. The hardest things that were said by Salman Rushdie have been directed at Britain and racism in British society. Things that are said about many of us do not bear repeating in this House. However, that is what free speech is all about.
The Moslem leaders have been asking for more support from the Christian community and I wish with all my heart that we had been able to give them that support. I took their request to the Northern Church Leaders Conference last year. We devoted three-quarters of an hour to discussion of what we were being asked to do—backing the campaign to withdraw the book from library shelves and from public display in book shops and stopping the printing of a paperback edition. I am afraid that there was no real support from the leaders of the Christian communities and I had to take that message to them. I believe that they were very disappointed.
It is important to appreciate why there was so little support from the Churches for these demands. Part of the reason is that we are all penitent in the Churches, or we should be. We know perfectly well that if one goes back in history we have burnt books and their authors. We have been on the side of repression and intolerance again and again. It is well catalogued. It is no good the Churches saying that other people have also done so. Even liberal humanists may perhaps have had their lapses. That is not good enough. We should be penitent about what has been experienced by the Church.
However, we may believe that God has been teaching us a better way in the sense of tolerance and of accepting a great deal of criticism and abuse and of not reacting by trying to persecute authors in that way. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to a letter in The Times which I have not seen. A clergyman in my diocese has pointed to the obvious truth: that Jesus Christ was executed on a charge of blasphemy. It is good to remember that.
On the law of blasphemy, one of the demands of the Moslem leaders was that we should press for an extension of the blasphemy law to cover Islam among other religions. Many of us have felt unable to go down that road and have supported the majority recommendation of the Law Commission, although

1033
the Churches are divided about retention of the present blasphemy law. With other noble Lords, I hold the view strongly that it ought to be repealed.
In my understanding, God does not need that kind of protection. Perhaps if the Government were courageous enough to repeal the law—I do not believe that it would take much courage, but only the time to do so—it would be necessary to have a strengthening of community relations and public order legislation in order to provide protection.
We must all appreciate the fact that there is a difference between being shocked, offended and disgusted by writings which are published, perhaps against the founder of a religion, and actually taking action against such offence in legal terms. That is part of what toleration is about. We can say to our Moslem friends that we appreciate the depth of offence that has been caused to them.
I believe that many of us should give a little more of our time to studying why that depth of offence has been caused. For example, I recommend the book written by Dr. Shabir Akhtar entitled Be Careful with Mohammad. Dr. Akhtar is a lecturer at Bradford University and one of the leaders of the Moslem community. He has set out some of the grounds for the offence which has been caused. We need to hear those Moslem voices speaking to us about the issue.
The Rushdie controversy does not come from nowhere; it comes partly from Moslem experience in Britain. In many senses that has not been happy. How many times do we hear noble Lords in this House proclaim what a tolerant society Britain is? Yes and no; the experience of many people in the Moslem communities is not of tolerance but of gross intolerance. It takes the form of racial attacks and immigration laws which they believe discriminate against them. We need to hear those voices speaking to us.
It is sad that the Rushdie controversy has made matters worse. When one hears of gangs of white youths shouting the praises of Salman Rushdie in the streets and then attacking Asians, or when one hears that mosques are being daubed with pro-Rushdie slogans, one appreciates how much damage is being caused.
In addition to a proper care and concern for the man at the centre of the great row—the man who is suffering so much as a result—we must also have a care and concern for members of ethnic minorities in the Moslem communities in this country. We must try to ensure that the tragic episode does not damage further community relations. I stress the need for understanding and consultation.
When one looks around the Benches in this House one appreciates that there is not a single noble Lord of the Moslem faith; that is, not so far as I am aware, unless there has been a last-minute conversion of which I have not heard. The same comment applies to the other place; there are very few Moslems there. If this House were properly reformed, it may be possible to secure the representation of people who do not come through the normal electoral system. But perhaps I am straying too far from the subject.
1034
I regard the matter as being immensely serious. Somehow the threats must be checked and stopped in any possible way. However, at the same time we must stretch out our hands in understanding and listen to what is being said to us by members and leaders of the Moslem communities.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for enabling us to have a short debate upon a matter which has caused acute public concern in this country for well over 12 months. The noble Lord and others have covered the ground thoroughly and perhaps I may be allowed to summarise the matter briefly.
On 14th February 1989 the late Ayatollah Khomeini said:
"The author of The Satanic Verses book, which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Koran, and all those involved in its publication who were aware of its contents, are sentenced to death".
All Moslems were urged to execute Mr. Rushdie and his publishers "wherever they find them".
Mr. Rushdie denied the blasphemy charge, but later on 18th February 1990 he made a statement expressing "profound regret" that the book had distressed Moslems. The apology was not accepted in Iran. Since then there have been acts of violence in many countries and a large number of people have been killed and injured.
In this country there have been strident public protests by the Moslem community and the call for Mr. Rushdie's death has been repeated here. It is fair to say that protests in this country have, on the whole, been peaceful although some leaders have repeated the call for execution. As the noble Lord reminded us, on 14th February 1989 The Times reported that Mr. Sayad Abdul Quddus, the Secretary of the Bradford Council of Mosques, said that Mr. Rushdie deserved to pay the penalty by "hanging".
Those and similar exhortations have been profoundly disturbing and disappointing because, subject to some resevations expressed by the right reverend Prelate, it had seemed to most of us that the Moslem community had settled down in this country and were accepting our laws. We recognise that they have their own religious observances, their own traditions and their own culture which we must respect. But I think they know that these must be practised within the laws of this country.
There is no alternative to that, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said, those who break the law must take the consequences. We are fortunate to live in a free society, and we do not forget that it has taken centuries to achieve and develop such a society. Countless numbers have sacrificed and died to secure and preserve freedom of speech, freedom of worship and freedom under the law. People have come to this country over the years not for the sake of the weather but to enjoy the freedoms which have cost the British so dear. We rejoice to see the peoples of eastern Europe severing their bonds. It is a great yearning for freedom which inspires them.

1035
But we have been taught that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Those of our Moslem friends who take the command of religious leaders seriously must pause to consider the implications of carrying it out.
Mr. Rushdie, a British citizen, has been deprived of his freedom for over 12 months because his life is under threat. This is something new in our experience, and we do not like it. Personally, I am not attracted to Mr. Rushdie's book; I found The Satanic Verses turgid and hard going although the style may be good. It is not a bedside book. Regretfully he has also said some less than pleasant things about this country in his writings. But that does not begin to justify the arrogant, indefensible and wicked sentence of death pronounced on him in Iran.
Books which defame the Christian faith and its founder have been published in this country, and films which are offensive to many of us have been shown in cinemas. But there has been no violent public reaction here. Some may say that this is because we are no longer a Christian country and that people are indifferent. I do not share that view.
I believe that even if church attendance has declined there is a strong underlying respect for Christianity in this country, and also a deepseated belief in freedom of speech. It would be a profound mistake for anyone to underestimate the latent strength of that feeling in Britain.
My noble friend Lord Houghton has made some important points about the blasphemy law. It is argued that the blasphemy law protects the Christian religion and that it should be extended to other religions. It has certainly not been invoked extensively in recent times, apart from the Gay News trial in 1979. But the books that I have mentioned which are offensive to Christians of all denominations have been published here without legal action being taken under the blasphemy law. The case brought by the British Moslem Action Front, which seeks to have Mr. Rushdie and his publishers tried under our blasphemy laws, is now before the court and we must await the result of that application.
However, we need to think very carefully about our blasphemy laws. Like my noble friend Lord Stoddart and the right reverend Prelate, my personal reaction at this stage is that it would be preferable to repeal the blasphemy laws as they stand rather than to extend them to include other faiths. There are other laws to deal with violence and incitement to violence and relevant offences and, as the right reverend Prelate rightly said, we would need to consider new laws to deal with a new situation.
What is depressing and unacceptable is that the death threat has been reaffirmed by the spiritual leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini, on 9th February. He said that the fatwa or religious decree:
"remains in force and must be implemented".
Following that, the director of the Moslem Institute, upon his return from a visit to Iran to discuss the Rushdie affair, said:
"He is up for the high jump. We are a very, very angry people".
1036
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in reply to a Question on 19th February said that the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions had considered very carefully all the evidence relating to death threats, had taken the opinion of senior counsel and had come to the conclusion that it did not justify prosecution.
We take that very seriously coming as it does from the noble and learned Lord whom we all respect. However, a number of Moslem leaders have come very close to the brink with some very inflammatory speeches. In my view two at least have gone over the brink. I have already referred to Mr. Sayad Quddus of Bradford and to the director of the Moslem Institute. On 10th February, The Times reported Dr. Kalim Siddiqui, an articulate speaker who understands the meaning of words, saying of the latest fatwa:
"This is not a death threat, it is a death sentence and will be carried out by the political and judicial authority of Islam, not by private citizens".
Those are, to say the least, provocative words. I realise that there are sensitive political considerations in this case but care must always be taken not to put the law at risk for political reasons.
The death threats have been repeated in protests and demonstrations in various parts of the country. Young Moslems are especially susceptible to the words of their leaders. As the noble Lord said, it seems that there is significant evidence available, but I must repeat that there are moderate Moslem leaders who advocate respect for British law. On 20th February I suggested that they might be asked by one of Her Majesty's Ministers from the Home Office to join in a plea for moderation to the minority of Moslems in this country who have taken the death threat seriously.
As the right reverend Prelate said, there is a welcome in this country for the Moslem community and it has an important contribution to make to our economic and cultural life. However, I must say this—and I believe that I am speaking for every Member of this House, of all parties and of none—that there is no room in this country for extreme fundamentalism and all it implies. All political parties in this country have rightly condemned the death threats without reservation. They also uphold Mr. Rushdie's right to publish his book. Furthermore, we believe that Moslems who feel deeply about the book have the right to demonstrate peacefully about it. Finally, all of us support Mr. Rushdie's right to receive protection.
There remains the question: for how long must the protection continue? The answer must be that it must continue for as long as his life appears to be in danger; that is, until the death threats are withdrawn. Perhaps the noble Lord will say whether he agrees with that conclusion. Mr. Rafsanjani and his colleagues in Iran have their difficulties, as we know. However, he will wish to consider those matters very carefully. We in this country are not concerned to interfere with the internal affairs of Iran. However, let it be made plain that the people of this country, of all parties and of none, will not tolerate interference in our affairs. That must be understood in Iran and elsewhere. Nevertheless, our aim is to

1037
promote greater understanding between cultures in this country and to improve relations between Iran and ourselves. That is very much in the interests of both countries. Our partners in the Community and our allies share that objective and I hope that the Government will do all they can to press that home upon the Iranian Government.
They must also be left under no illusion that in this country British law comes first, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said. No one is above the law in this country. This crisis—and that was a word used by my noble friend Lord Stoddart—will only be resolved if that is clearly understood both here and in Iran.
7.25 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has asked your Lordships this evening is one of considerable gravity and importance. First, in replying to this short debate I should like to return to the terms of the noble Lord's Question for the Question seeks a further statement as to the reasons for the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute those who allegedly have threatened the life of Mr. Salman Rushdie.
It must, I know, be common ground that any conduct on the part of any person within this jurisdiction which amounts to the offence of incitement to murder must be regarded as a matter of extreme gravity. Perhaps I may say how very much I agreed with the words of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition when he referred to the view which we must all take of disgust at the threat which comes from over the seas from Iran.
The fact that the offence of incitement to murder is of extreme gravity is, I assure your Lordships, the publicly declared view of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and it will remain his policy, with the full support of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General, to deal accordingly with evidence establishing such conduct which may be placed before the director; the same would certainly apply to threats to kill.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to some other incidents, his own speech and this debate has really been concerned mainly with statements made by Dr. Kalim Siddiqui. Quite obviously many of your Lordships will have seen extracts on the television news from the speech made by Dr. Siddiqui at Manchester City Hall on 21st October 1989. Indeed this evening we have had the advantage of hearing the views of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester who was present on that occasion.
The Director of Public Prosecutions and leading counsel who advised him have had the benefit of viewing a video of the entire speech, a copy having been obtained from the BBC by court order. His judgment was that the evidence was not sufficient to justify the institution of criminal proceedings.
Perhaps I may say that the Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent public official, a
1038
lawyer of great distinction and experience and before he became director, he was the first senior Treasury counsel in criminal matters at the Old Bailey.
I go further. His decision that there was not sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution in this case was supported by the views of leading counsel and indeed all the other lawyers who considered the matter. That said, having listened to this evening's debate there is no denying the sense of outrage which has been caused by the remarks as they were presented on the television news. However, it is important that the process of arriving at a decision as to whether or not to bring a prosecution should be no different than in any other case.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, quite understandably spoke of the need for full equality before the law. Every citizen is entitled to expect consistency from the prosecuting authorities. The criteria to be applied when considering institution or continuation of criminal proceedings are set out in the code for Crown prosecutors which was issued pursuant to Section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
The very first question to be determined—and I emphasise the importance of the sequence—is the sufficiency of the evidence. The code says that a prosecution should not be started or continued unless a crown prosecutor is satisfied that there is admissible, substantial and reliable evidence that a criminal offence known to the law has been committed by an identifiable person. The Crown Prosecution Service does not, and I venture to suggest should not, institute proceedings on the basis that a bare prima facie case is enough. Rather it will apply the test of whether there is a realistic prospect of a conviction. Where such a test is satisfied, the Crown Prosecution Service will then go on to consider whether the public interest, about which so many of your Lordships have spoken with great feeling, requires a prosecution.
The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedures, which led to the establishment of the Crown Prosecution Service, considered in some detail the criteria which should be applied before a prosecution was begun. The commission reached this conclusion:
"Someone should not be put on trial if it can be predicted, with some confidence, that he is more likely than not to be acquitted, since it is both unfair to the accused and a waste of the restricted resources of the criminal justice system".
As your Lordships who are learned in the law know much better than I, the proper way to approach any criminal case is to begin by considering whether there is sufficient evidence to meet that test, and only if there is such evidence then to look to the public interest. If in any instance, through loud public clamour for a prosecution, however understandable, a prosecuting authority were to set aside that first requirement to identify sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction, then surely it would be betraying a most important principle of justice. That road could ultimately lead to political prosecutions.
The report also had this to say:
"a person should not be accused of an offence and brought before a court simply to allay public disquiet or to satisfy public demand or prejudice".

1039
I know that none of your Lordships will dissent from that statement of principle.
Inevitably, however, cases of great notoriety will from time to time arise—and no doubt this is one—where the degree of public distaste and even revulsion for what has been said or done is very great. Such cases place great demands on the integrity and courage of the prosecution authorities. It may well, therefore, be worth repeating that the director regards as a matter of extreme gravity any conduct on the part of any person within this jurisdiction which amounts to the offence of incitement to murder or to a threat to kill someone. He will deal accordingly with evidence establishing such conduct as may be placed before him. Having seen the whole of the video of the entire speech on 21st October it was plain to all who viewed it that there was insufficient evidence to show that Dr. Siddiqui was soliciting or proposing the murder of Mr. Rushdie.
I have concentrated on the decision not to prosecute Dr. Siddiqui because this has attracted the most interest and because it is an instance in which a police report has been received. There have been two other instances in which a police report has been received concerning death threats, neither of which produced sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution. The Crown Prosecution Service's function is to consider such evidence as is brought to it, save that it may sometimes suggest a further line of inquiry.
I should add that although no prosecutions have been brought for incitement to murder Mr. Rushdie of for threats to kill, there have been a number of instances in which prosecutions for public order offences have followed scenes of public disorder that have arisen from demonstrations against Mr. Rushdie or Penguin Books. The evidence in those cases was sufficient to meet the proper test. There is accordingly no room at all for any suggestion that there is one set of standards applied to one group in this country and another to the majority of the population. But that charge might indeed be soundly based if for some invalid reason the normal and proper test for a prosecting decision were to be set aside in any particular type of case.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked whether the Director of Public Prosecutions had asked special branches of the police to take co-ordinated action in order to produce evidence. As he knows, the Director of Public Prosecutions does not have the power to control police investigations, but on 6th March 1989 all chief Crown prosecutors were instructed to forward to the Crown Prosecution Service headquarters any papers concerning allegations of incitement to murder or threats to kill Mr. Salman Rushdie and were told that matters previously dealt with should also be submitted. The Crown Prosecution Service instruction of that date was intended to ensure, first, that decision-making would be at an appropriately senior level. Your Lordships would be concerned if the decision now being debated had not been taken by the director personally. Secondly, the Crown Prosecution Service instruction of 6th March was also made to try to ensure consistency of decision-making.
1040
That said, it is of course for the police to take notice of and respond to local incidents arising out of The Satanic Verses controversy. As I said, the director himself does not and cannot investigate. However, perhaps I may say that the recent decision of the director does not preclude consideration of any further references alleged to constitute an incitement. Indeed, I should like to assure your Lordships that any material suggesting active steps to carry out the death threat would be investigated by the police, who are vigilant in their steps to protect Mr. Rushdie.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one question. He has referred to a communication from the Director of Public Prosecutions to chief Crown prosecutors. Perhaps I could ask whether they were requested to draw this matter to the attention of each chief constable in the force areas concerned.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I confess that I do not know the answer to that question. But I must reiterate that as I understand it there is no power under the statute for the Director of Public Prosecutions in any way to direct police forces as to how they should investigate. Although in his speech the noble Lord said he felt that this was something I would say, nevertheless I have to say it because it is the case. If I may I will certainly write to the noble Lord in answer to the specific question.
Perhaps I may quickly turn to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who made a very interesting intervention about the constitutional aspects of this matter. First—I realise I am repeating this but I think it is wise to do so—there was unanimity of view by the Crown Prosecution Service lawyers, the Director of Public Prosecutions and independent counsel that the evidence was insufficient in the case of Dr. Siddiqui's speech of 21st October.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will deal with the point of whether the matter was brought to the attention of the Attorney-General personally, because that affects relations with his fellow Minister at the Home Office.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall answer the noble and learned Lord's question in a moment, if I may. Perhaps I may say, with respect, that remarks about bringing prosecutions on public interest grounds give the Government a little cause for anxiety. The converse should not and does not occur. In other words, prosecutions on public interest grounds, even though the evidence is insufficient, might occur.
It is one of the hallmarks of our system that prosecuting decisions are taken wholly independently of government and free from party political considerations. That said, the noble and learned Lord went on to talk about consultation by the Attorney-General with ministerial colleagues. Of course, Cabinet involvement in prosecution decision-making brought down the government in the case to which the noble and learned Lord referred in his speech; namely, the Campbell case. The

1041
Attorney-General may certainly consult colleagues about public interest issues—for example, the impact of a prosecution on relationships with a foreign country—and colleagues may inform the Attorney-General of matters of which he should be aware but may not tell him what, in their view, the decision should be.
The noble and learned Lord asked an absolutely direct question. Perhaps I may say that the Director of Public Prosecutions consulted my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General who concurred in the Director of Public Prosecution's decisions.
That brings me finally in answering questions to the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Stoddart, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. All three said that the blasphemy laws should go. I simply remind your Lordships that the Law Commission, in its 1985 report on offences against religion and public worship, considered this question and recommended by a majority that the offence of blasphemy should be abolished. However, a minority took the view that the existing common law offence should be repealed and replaced with a criminal offence which would apply to all religions.
That illustrates the fact that there was no agreement on the best way forward. The Government are keeping the matter under review but at present there are no plans to change the law. That said, perhaps I may tell the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that Ministers have made clear on many occasions that while the Government understand the distress which Mr. Rushdie's book has caused to Moslems, death threats and threats of violence
1042
generally are wholly unacceptable. As I said, that has been made clear on many occasions.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester very well captured in his speech the dilemma which those concerned with a decision on this case must have faced. The right reverend Prelate felt affronted by the manner in which his presence at the meeting had been abused. We all share the right reverend Prelate's disgust at the bigoted and terrifying tactics of the Iranian leaders responsible for the issue of the fatwa but we must direct our wrath to such action as is open to Her Majesty's Government against those primarily responsible for the present circumstances. We cannot punish sincere and responsible Moslems for the extremes of their religious leaders in Iran. They wish to live in peace in this country and enjoy the freedoms that we cherish, including freedom of speech and a right to practise one's chosen religion free from fear.
Dr. Siddiqui's words offended our sense of freedom, justice and liberty. However, incitement to murder is a serious charge which can be preferred only when justified by objective assessment of the evidence. The fact is that each instance relating to this debate that has been presented to the Crown Prosecution Service has been examined at high level—in the case of Dr. Siddiqui by the Director of Public Prosecutions himself. In each instance there has been insufficient evidence to justify a prosecution. For that reason alone the conclusion has been reached that a prosecution should not be commenced.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  "PROTEN" MEAT TENDERIZING TREATMENT
  "PROTEN" MEAT TENDERIZING TREATMENT
  SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPING AT SEA
  SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPING AT SEA
  CHEMICAL WASTE INCINERATION AT SEA
  CHEMICAL WASTE INCINERATION AT SEA
  STUDENT SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS: WITHDRAWAL
  STUDENT SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS: WITHDRAWAL
  MANCHESTER AIRPORT: SECOND OIL PIPELINE
  MANCHESTER AIRPORT: SECOND OIL PIPELINE