Sitting of 2 May 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  NEW WRIT
  For Bootle, in the room of Allan Roberts Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Foster.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Students
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effects of the poll tax and the top-up loans scheme on Scottish students, especially nurse students, of low-income families on university courses.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Most Scottish students in higher education will benefit from the additional resources to be provided by student loans. Loans will also reduce dependence on parents—a particular benefit for low-income families. Full-time higher education students, including those seeking academic qualifications in nursing, are required to pay only 20 per cent. of the personal community charge.
    Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that there has been a drastic fall in the number of entrants to higher education, especially in the fifth and sixth year? Does he also agree that student nurses and pupil nurses have not only been subjected to the full poll tax but cannot get a job when their training is finished? Will the Minister approach the new supremo—the Minister of State, Department of Employment, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar)—and ask him to abolish all poll tax for students?
    Mr. Lang: No, I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There has been a massive increase in entry to higher education, which is up by about a fifth since the last Labour Government were in power. Student nurses are now paid about £6,660 compared with £2,660 when the last Government were in power and are therefore much better off. Student nurses, like other nurses and members of the public, are assessed for community charge on the basis of their income.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Why has there been an increase in the number of Scottish students applying to come to the two universities in Northern Ireland this year? Is it because of the higher level of education in Northern Ireland, or is it because there will be no poll tax for Scottish students in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Lang: It certainly would not be the latter since about 25 per cent. of students in Scottish universities have come from outside Scotland. The massive expansion of higher education in Scotland is such that many students are probably beginning to look elsewhere as well.
    Mr. Pawsey: Can my hon. Friend confirm that student support next year will increase by a massive 25 per cent., probably the largest ever single increase? Can he confirm that that includes an element of £420 interest-free student loan? Will he also confirm that such loans are not repayable until the student is earning 85 per cent of the national average wage? Will he further confirm—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has asked three questions and that is enough.
    Mr. Lang: We have budgeted for substantial expansion in higher education next year. Student loans are a valuable top-up to student income and will be of great advantage to those on low incomes and, indeed, on other levels of income.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister accept that many students find it difficult to manage financially and could be left facing debts and the threat of warrant sales as a result of the poll tax and the falling value of student grants? Does he accept that since the introduction of the poll tax not one warrant sale for poll tax arrears has been authorised by a Labour council? The Labour-controlled Strathclyde council has not held a domestic warrant sale in 12 years, while in the 18 months during which the SNP was part of the administration in Grampian its finance convenor authorised 41 warrant sales. Would not it be sensible to consider whether we really need a method of debt collection that is expensive to operate and deeply resented?
    Mr. Lang: Students are liable for only 20 per cent. of the community charge, which takes a proper account of the local services from which they benefit. Under the old rating system, students were not entitled to any kind of special relief. The hon. Gentleman should tell us whether students would be liable to pay 20 per cent. or the full amount of the Labour party's roof tax.

    Rail Electrification
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met ScotRail to discuss rail electrification in Scotland.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): My hon. Friend and I discussed electrification and various other topics relating to rail transport when we met the former general manager of ScotRail, Mr. Ellis, arid the former chairman of British Rail, Sir Robert Reid, on 31 October last year.
    Mr. Strang: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, whatever claims are made for the new class 158 trains which are coming into service on the Edinburgh-Glasgow line, there is no escaping the fact that electrification is needed if we are to have the most modern inter-city service in Scotland? Is he aware that the position is becoming urgent because the electrification programme on the Carstairs line comes to an end later this year, so the Government must intervene to ensure that a start is made

    1015
    on the Edinburgh-Glasgow and Edinburgh-Aberdeen electrification programmes before that scheme is disbanded?
    Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, electrification is essentially a matter for British Rail to ecide. He will share my pleasure that the east coast line is nearing completion and that British Rail has various other forms of major investment in the Edinburgh-Glasgow route, which will no doubt be of great value to his constituents as well as mine who use those commuter services. British Rail is in the best position to judge whether it should be express units or electrification, and whether the necessary investment would be appropriate.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that British Rail is proposing to withdraw one of the two Aberdeen to London sleeper services? That decision has been taken without proper consultation, and the timing of it has been for convenience of handling at Euston and not for the needs of passengers in Aberdeen. That leads many of us to worry about British Rail's commitment to the east coast line, particularly when it is so reluctant to consider the electrification programme seriously.
    Mr. Rifkind: I am naturally concerned at what my right hon. Friend has said. I understand that British Rail may be proposing to combine two overnight trains, putting sleeping and sitting passengers together on the one train. I know that my right hon. Friend will be pursuing this matter to protect the interests of his constituents. We shall ascertain from British Rail what it is proposing to do and why it feels that it is appropriate.
    Mr. Rifkind: I am naturally concerned at what my right hon. Friend has said. I understand that British Rail may be proposing to combine two overnight trains, putting sleeping and sitting passengers together on the one train. I know that my right hon. Friend will be pursuing this matter to protect the interests of his constituents. We shall ascertain from British Rail what it is proposing to do and why it feels that it is appropriate.
    Mr. Wilson: We understand from ScotRail that it is prepared to consider electrification of the Glasgow-Edinburgh line. Will the Scottish Office for once enter with some constructive spirit into the subject of rail services in Scotland, and particularly electrification? Will the Secretary of State use whatever diminished influence he has to get rid of the absurd 8 per cent. per annum investment criteria which deter ScotRail from undertaking schemes which have a social and environmental justification even if they do not have that excessive financial justification? What is the Scottish Office doing about the advent of the channel tunnel and the now imminent prospect of Scotland being further isolated and disadvantaged because electrification and top-level high speed rail services will not extend into Scotland? Is there any Scottish Office strategy on the channel tunnel?
    Mr. Rifkind: I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for rail travel, and I am looking forward next Wednesday to declaring open the new bridge over the River Ness, which shows British Rail's continuing commitment to the north of Scotland and to the real requirements of those who live there. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of ensuring that British Rail carries out the necessary investment to ensure that Scotland gets the full benefit of the channel tunnel. Not only the Scottish Office but the Government as a whole are anxious to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom north of London share in the benefits that the channel tunnel will provide.

    Green Belt
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many acres of green belt exist at present; how many there were 11 years ago; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): There are 502,225 acres of green belt in Scotland at present, and in 1979 there were 539,621. The reduction from 1979 is due almost solely to the abolition of the Dundee green belt in 1982.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend say what he is doing to defend the green belt against Scottish Labour local authorities which cannot be trusted with it if they attack it as their English counterparts do? What is the position with playing fields, which are most important recreation facilities?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about playing fields. It may be that some unused playing fields can sensibly be released without detriment to the local authority, but each case must be considered on its merits. We must remain strongly committed to green belts and our policy remains that developments in green belts will be strictly controlled. The Labour-controlled Dundee district agreed with both Tayside regional council and the Angus district council that abandonment of the green belt would not result in any material change in attitude to development in the rural hinterland of Dundee. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I were not involved in that decision, but it was not contentious at the time.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister reflect on the way in which certain distinguished multinational companies have held a proverbial pistol at our head, saying that if they do not get a green belt site they will not come to Scotland at all? Will the Minister call in papers from the West Lothian district council and the Lothian region about the history of the welcome Digital factory at Queensferry?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With regard to the green belt, that strong presumption will remain and we shall not be pressured into abandoning it. We shall look carefully at the considerations that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned for incoming jobs for Scotland, and I will examine the case that he has mentioned.

    Teaching Unions
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met teaching unions in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: Since last July, I have had useful meetings with representatives of all the teacher unions in Scotland.
    Mr. Ross: Is not it about time the Minister met the unions to advise them that he intends to withdraw the inane scheme to allow schools to opt out? As no school has put itself forward as a candidate to opt out, is it not about time that he consigned the scheme, along with all the other nonsense relating to schools, to the bin?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's presumption is incorrect. The Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Act 1989 enables schools to opt out if they wish to do so. That

    1017
    is a right to which parents are entitled, and I have no doubt that it is a right which school boards and parents will be considering in increasing numbers. It is a welcome option.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is sweetly ironic that the Labour-controlled Strathclyde regional council is campaigning for re-election on the Government's school boards policy when the Scottish Labour party opposes them? Does my hon. Friend agree that opportunists are at work?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition said that school boards were not wanted and not needed, but 80 per cent. of all schools in Scotland have boards, including 90 per cent. of all secondary schools. It is plain that the boards are widely welcomed by parents and that they have an important role to play in improving the quality of Scottish education.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Minister have any intention of meeting the Educational Institute of Scotland to discuss, especially, class sizes in primary schools?
    Mr. Lang: I have no plans at present to do so. I am happy to reassure the hon. Lady that class sizes have been falling steadily in recent years. Pupil-teacher ratios have also been improving steadily in recent years, and I hope that that will continue.
    Mr. Worthington: Pupil-teacher ratios and class sizes have been improving because Labour local authorities have defied the Government's wishes. In 1989–90, regional councils spent £120 million more than they were told to spend by the Government. Will the Government tell local authorities what they should have cut? Should it have been nursery schools, one in nine teachers, further education, or making building standards even worse? Will the Minister be explicit about what Labour local authorities were overspending on?
    Mr. Lang: The reason why class sizes and pupil-teacher ratios have improved in recent years is the substantially increased funding per pupil as a result of the Government's management of the economy and funding of local authorities. As for local authorities defying the Government, the hon. Gentleman and his party should ask themselves how much longer Strathclyde regional council intends to defy the Labour party.

    Single European Market
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies have been commissioned by his Department into the economic consequences for Scotland of the introduction of single European market; and what action has been taken as a result of these findings.
    Mr. Lang: The single market committee of the Scottish Economic Council, which I chair, has commissioned and published three booklets this year on aspects of the single European market as it affects Scotland. Further work is currently in hand.
    Mr. McFall: Is the Minister aware of the potentially grave consequences of the single European market for Scotland, and not least for the Scotch whisky industry? Is he further aware that unless there is Community agreement on full fiscal harmonisation for alcoholic drinks, and unless intra-EEC duty trade-for-trade is
    1018
    safeguarded, the Scotch whisky industry will have far more to lose than to gain? Is this another example of the Secretary of State's interest being for the Prime Minister in Scotland rather than for the 16,000 whisky workers?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman should be aware of the substantial improvements in the whisky industry in recent years, which are to some extent the result of the 30 per cent. real terms reduction in duty payable by that industry. That is reflected in the fact that the industry now has exports of £1·5 billion a year, which is a dramatic improvement. Clearly, the industry is doing well.
    Sir David Steel: Does the Minister accept that before the creation of a single market in 1992 it is absolutely essential that he reconsiders his refusal to create in Scotland rural development areas on a par with the rural development facilities in Wales and the facilities enjoyed by the development commission in northern England? If he does not do that will not Britain lose out on European funding as well as Government funding after 1992?
    Mr. Lang: The right hon. Gentleman is aware of our substantial success in obtaining development funding from the European Community—some £800 million in the past decade. In addition, we have made bids under RENAVAL and RECHAR to enable certain parts of Scotland to be eligible for further funding. We are certainly representing the interests of all the relevant parts of Scotland.
    Dr. Reid: Is the Minister aware that the Scottish steel industry will be even more vulnerable after 1992 unless it obtains the desperately needed investment in its plants? Is he further aware of the information from the steel union conference in Aberdeen this week that imported steel is already replacing what ought to be produced from Scottish plants? Why has the Minister or the Secretary of State still not met the chairman of British Steel? Why are they idle spectators when decisions are being made which will affect the long-term future of the industry?
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will shortly be meeting the chairman of British Steel. We are all very keen to ensure that the Scottish steel industry continues to prosper. However, investment decisions must be a commercial matter for British Steel. They will be taken on the best competitive advice and information available to British Steel.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware of the deep concern in the supply side of the Scottish offshore industry—contractors and others—about the procure-ment directives of the European Commission? What is he doing to ensure that the interests of that very important section of Scottish industry are properly represented?
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. Friend knows that we resisted the implementation of that directive, but it was decided by majority rule. We are keeping in close touch with developments. I well understand my right hon. Friend's concern.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions his Department is having with regard to the implementation of alterations in procedures relating to the poll tax in Scotland.
    Mr. Rifkind: I keep all aspects of the community charge arrangements under review and I would be prepared to make changes if they were required.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State have a little pity for the two dunderheads on the Opposition Benches who cannot give answers about the roof tax—[Interruption.] Let no Labour Member—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be addressed through me.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State tell us what role he is playing in the Cabinet committee? If he is not playing any role, will he get into the ministerial limousine, shut his colleagues in it, and go and tell the grocer's daughter that the tills are empty, the books are not balancing and the poll tax should be scrapped?
    Mr. Rifkind: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's repugnance at the proposal of his former colleagues in the Labour party for a roof tax because the hon. Gentleman's views appear to be shared by 85 per cent. of Labour voters in Scotland who, according to the recent opinion poll in The Scotsman, reject the roof tax as a means of raising local government finance. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members should reflect on the fact that the debate in Scotland over the past few weeks has shown that while no system of local government taxation is popular, the roof tax proposed by the Labour party is the most unpopular system yet put forward by any party.
    Sir Hector Monro: If my right hon. and learned Friend were contemplating any alteration, surely he would not change the position whereby a widow living in her own home pays only one community charge in contrast with Labour's roof tax, under which she might well be paying double. Would not that be intolerable and unfair on elderly folk, particularly pensioners?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right. As under the old rating system, so under Labour's roof tax, if an elderly pensioner is unfortunate enough to be bereaved the tax is not changed by one penny, whereas one of the advantages of the community charge or the poll tax is that a widow or widower immediately sees the tax burden reduced by half. How can the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) claim that his roof tax is a fair system of taxation when it penalises pensioners in that way?
    Mr. McAllion: At the last Scottish Question Time, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), told us that he believed that the poll tax was working well in Scotland, so why is it necessary for the Secretary of State to join a Cabinet committee set up to change the poll tax? Does more than a year of poll tax agony in Scotland count for so much less with the Government than under a month of poll tax agony in England and Wales?
    Mr. Rifkind: On the contrary, our experience in Scotland has shown that local authorities are becoming increasingly accountable to their electorate. When I made that point at the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities conference I was interested to hear a senior Labour councillor inform me that community charge increases this year were only at the rate of inflation in Scotland because there were local elections this year—it had nothing to do
    1020
    with accountability. That is exactly the point, and that is why the community charge is fairer and more acceptable than the old rating system or the Labour party's roof tax.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that under present procedures Conservative-controlled Eastwood district council has reduced its poll tax by 30 per cent? He may also be aware that a recent opinion poll in Eastwood showed that more than 90 per cent. of Eastwood residents supported the Keep Eastwood out of Glasgow campaign, to which I am parliamentary adviser. Will he urgently consider a change of procedure in relation to those Scottish National party councillors who refuse to pay the poll tax but put in expenses claims? Is not it hypocrisy and an outrage that councillor Gordon Murray of Cumbernauld district council has put in an expenses claim for £20,000—a huge burden on poll tax payers—but refuses to pay his own poll tax?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is typical of nationalist councillors to encourage the rest of the population to disobey the law while claiming expenses which have to be met by those paying the community charge.
    Mr. Maxton: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is interested in opinion polls in Eastwood, will he confirm that a recent opinion poll in Eastwood district showed that whereas last year 70 per cent. of the electorate there were in favour of the poll tax, now only 50 per cent. are in favour of it, and they are those who benefit mostly from the tax? Will the Secretary of State speak for the people of Scotland for a change and make it clear to the special committee that after one year's experience in Scotland it is clear that no tinkering with the poll tax will get rid of its basic unfairness or end the administrative nightmare and that only abolition will do? If he is so concerned about pensioners in Scotland, why does he not use any money that he gets from the committee to get rid of the minimum 20 per cent. payment which hits the poorest in our society, including many pensioners?
    Mr. Rifkind: I, and I think most people, would be more impressed by the 50 per cent. of the people of Eastwood who support the poll tax than by the 10 per cent. of people in Scotland who support Labour's roof tax, which was rejected by the other 90 per cent. With regard to the position of pensioners, at least the Government, unlike the Labour party, do not put forward a system of taxation that we know to be so unfair that the Labour party has to say in advance that pensioners could defer the payment of their roof tax until they died. What better indictment could there be from Labour's own mouth of the iniquities of its proposals and their damaging effect on the elderly in Scotland?

    Nuclear Waste Disposal, Dounreay
    Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received concerning the investigation of the suitability of an underground repository for nuclear waste at Dounreay; and if he will make a statement.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has lodged an appeal against

    1021
    Highland regional council's decision to refuse planning permission for the drilling of two test boreholes at Dounreay nuclear power development establishment.
    Mr. Maclennan: I recognise that any seismic or geological examination of the proposed site will add considerably to our scientific knowledge, but will the Under-Secretary give a categorical undertaking on behalf of the Government that no such proposal will find favour with the Government without the most searching public inquiry, at which any objectors may be properly and fully publicly financed, so that the case can be considered in depth?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: What the hon. Gentleman has said will be taken into account. The Secretary of State expects to announce his decision shortly. All appeal cases of this nature receive extremely careful consideration and the period taken to consider the appeal is no longer than in other comparable cases. My right hon. and learned Friend expects to announce his decision shortly and will take into account what the hon. Gentleman says.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to bring forward any changes to the poll tax legislation in the present Session.
    Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to bring forward any changes to the poll tax legislation in the present Session.
    Mr. Rifkind: I refer to the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas).
    Mr. Salmond: As a non-payer of the poll tax and one who is proud to he part of the campaign that will sink it, I want the Secretary of State for Scotland to answer the following question clearly and unambiguously: will the coming changes to the legislation be backdated to cover the full year in which the people of Scotland had to face the full brunt of the unamended poll tax, or will the Secretary of State make a mess of it once again and fail to defend Scotland's interests as he did during the Budget fiasco?
    Mr. Rifkind: If there were to be any changes to the community charge, of course we would ensure that they were applied in a way that was fair to Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman continues in his attempt to brand himself as a lawbreaker, he should contemplate the effect that the local income tax, which he supports, would have on his constituents. Does he realise that if a local income tax were introduced for the people of Peterhead and Fraserburgh in his constituency, a husband and wife on average earnings would have to pay £764 and a married couple on average earnings would have to pay more than £1,400? Does he think that his constituents welcome his belief in the local income tax when it would be so damaging to the economy of Fraserburgh, Peterhead and the rest of Banff and Buchan?
    Mr. Sillars: Is the Secretary of State aware that he continues to give the impression that he has not yet grasped the fundamental objectionable aspect of the poll tax which is that it bears no relation to ability to pay? When he goes to the Cabinet committee that is reviewing the poll tax, will he explain to the woman in Downing
    1022
    street that ability to pay is based upon capacity to earn, that mentally and physically handicapped people, the unemployed, those on income support and single parents have no capacity to earn and that we shall judge his review on the basis of whether those people get the 100 per cent. rebate to which they are entitled under a just system?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that ability to pay is an important consideration for those on low incomes. He knows very well that one in three people in Scotland, or indeed in Britain as a whole, do not pay the full community charge because of the rebate system. He knows that people on income support received an increase equivalent to their community charge contribution. The community charge with rebates is therefore a progressive taxation system for all those on low incomes. Any system of rebates that benefits one third of the population can be described in that way.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that local income tax is not a part of the changes that he is contemplating? That would come as a relief o the provost of Perth and Kinross, who believes that a local income tax is not a part of the Scottish national party's policy and who is advising people to pay the community charge. The other SNP provost in Angus is not paying his community charge and is drawing his expenses as a councillor. Does not that clearly show that the SNP, even in a constituency such as mine, cannot speak with one voice? The SNP has different voices when speaking to different people in different places.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. Not only are members of the SNP speaking with different voices, but they have not done their homework. As we pointed out yesterday, a single nursing sister could pay more than £1,100 in local income tax, a junior doctor well over £1,000, a school principal over £1,600 and a social worker over £1,100. It is inevitable that any system of local government finance that excludes almost half the population from an obligation to pay puts a heavy burden on those who have to pay. That is why many people on average or modest earnings would find a local income tax crippling to their standard of living.
    Mr. Robertson: What is the Tory alternative to the poll tax? When will the Government be able to give us the figures showing what people will have to pay under the new system?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am hugely amused by the hon. Gentleman. We all know what the community charge costs and we have explained what local income taxes cost, but the Labour party has remained remarkably coy about what its proposals would cost. Why is the Labour party so reluctant to tell us? Why, in particular, will not the Labour party give the people of Scotland an assurance that, if the Leader of the Opposition would not touch the idea of a roof tax in England with a barge pole, it will not be introduced in Scotland either?
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is something fundamentally undemocratic about well-heeled, freeloading scroungers who are elected to public office in this House and elsewhere seeking to get support for a change in the law and not obeying the law—
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must withdraw the comment about freeloading scroungers in this House.
    Mr. Bennett: May I replace it with the word "spongers", Mr. Speaker? Can you advise me what word I should use?
    Mr. Speaker: I am asking the hon. Member to withdraw the phrase "freeloading scroungers".
    Mr. Bennett: I withdraw the words "freeloading scroungers" and replace them by referring to those who do not pay their dues to society and who expect others to pay their dues for them.
    Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Rifkind: There is something disreputable about freeloading hon. Members who expect their constituents to pay their lawful taxes but who themselves refuse to do so, thereby imposing an even heavier burden on the rest of the community.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State accept that he does not strengthen his case by descending to appalling misrepresentation?
    Mr. Douglas: Oh, my God. The Labour party—
    Mr. Dewar: As this famous committee has been set up to take the Government out of their present confusion over the poll tax, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that there will be relief for Scottish poll tax payers by this summer? Can he guarantee that, as Scotland was first—
    Mr. Douglas: Dunderheids.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must contain himself.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, as Scotland was first burdened by the poll tax, he has the ability to initiate reforms rather than follow lamely behind others, as has happened so far? Given the Prime Minister's admissions about the fatal flaws in the poll tax, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman hold to his unlikely boast earlier this month that this is a tax which works and is here to stay? Before the Secretary of State gets too carried away with the opinion poll to which he has referred several times, will he confirm that 50 per cent. of the sample made it clear that people rejected the poll tax and wanted a property-based assessment, which is the area in which the Labour party is operating? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that if he continues to argue the popularity of the poll tax, he will look more and more like a latter-day King Canute?
    Mr. Rifkind: The community charge is here to stay. If there are any improvements to the charge, of course they will apply throughout the United Kingdom. It does not surprise me that 30 to 40 per cent. would like to see the rates back. That is exactly the proportion who did not pay a penny of tax under the old rating system. Given his total refusal to give us any details of what the roof tax would cost, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to describe me as a latter-day King Canute, I have to describe him as a latter-day fiddler on the roof.

    Roads
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to meet roads authorities involved in the areas covered by the routes south of Edinburgh road study to discuss the Government's recent announcement on the study's conclusions.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes. Scottish Development Department officials will meet the local roads authorities to be involved in the A1 steering group and each relevant authority in respect of the route action plans for the A1 and the A7 south of Hawick, and for various accident remedial programmes.
    Mr. Kirkwood: In meetings held in future to discuss routes south of Edinburgh, will the Government bear in mind the anger and frustration felt in the Borders about the inadequacy of the Government's plans for routes south of the Borders? In relation to the A7 south of Hawick, will the Minister confirm that the only schemes now in prospect are all cash limited to a cost of less than £1 million? If that is all that is in prospect, does the Minister accept that the road will never be brought up to a tolerable standard? Will he give an undertaking that there will be a single dual carriageway built to highway-link design standards along the entire length of the A7 between Hawick and Carlisle within the foreseeable future?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should not go as far as the hon. Gentleman in regard to a dual carriageway, because that depends on the amount of traffic usage. In the light of the importance of the A7 to the local economy south of Hawick, we intend to commission the regional councils to develop a programme of improvement. The hon. Gentleman's points will be examined. A bypass for Langholm is already in the trunk road programme. The necessary preparatory work and statutory procedures are planned to be complete by the mid-1990s. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumries (Sir H. Monro) supports that. I should also mention that improvements to the A7 south of Hawick will continue to be made to achieve specific local objectives. They will include accident remedial programmes and smaller improvement schemes where appropriate. So action will be taken.
    Mr. Ron Brown: If all roads lead to Westminster, is not it clear that along those routes, regarding the poll tax, we shall see slogans such as "don't pay, don't collect"? It is not the official leadership who turned the "stop it" campaign into a "pay it" campaign who matter; it is the anti-poll tax movement, Committee 100 and others, who rightly said that this is a civil law which should he resisted as a matter of right. Obviously—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's question is a bit wide of roads.
    Mr. Brown: So people power is important; again it has forced the Prime Minister to think again on her hated tax.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I always knew that the hon. Gentleman had remarkable ingenuity, but I did not think that he would wish the road tax to be increased to pay the community charge.
    Sir Hector Monro: May I thank my hon. Friend for his announcement about the road south of Hawick? May I impress upon him the fact that because of the amount of traffic, both from the Borders woollen trade into the north of England and from the tourist industry in the south of Scotland, it is very important that the road is upgraded and particularly that the accident black spots are removed as soon as possible?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We shall certainly keep those points very much in mind, which is why we are commissioning the regional councils to develop a programme of improvements. I hope that that will help.

    Medical Laboratory Services (Glasgow)
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect on patient care of the proposals by Greater Glasgow health board for the reorganisation of its laboratory services with a view to their privatisation.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): There are no plans to privatise laboratory services in Glasgow.
    Mr. Watson: I noticed that the Minister avoided the part of the question relating to patient care, but is he aware that 23 midwives who will graduate from Glasgow's Eastern college of nursing next month have been told by Greater Glasgow health board that, despite demand for their skills, there is no money to employ them, so they face the dole? What advice can the Minister give to those midwives and to the women of Glasgow who want their services?
    Mr. Forsyth: We have enormously expanded the number of places for midwives and nurses in the Health Service. As the training provided by health boards does not guarantee a job with that particular board, my advice to those midwives is to apply for the jobs that are advertised throughout the Health Service. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating health boards on having increased the number of midwives and nurses in our Health Service to record levels and on paying them more in real terms than they have ever been paid in the history of the Health Service.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on wearing the blue rose of Eastwood following his highly successful visit to my constituency? On the point about laboratory services at the Victoria infirmary, can my hon. Friend comment on my alternative proposals, which involve retaining the laboratory services at the Victoria, concentrating National Health Service geriatric provision in the core of the hospital at Mearnskirk and involving the private sector in extending the facilities at Mearnskirk? Is my hon. Friend aware that so far those proposals have received what I would describe as a reasonably fair wind from many people involved?
    Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seem to recollect your telling the House that it would be most welcome if questions were brief and if answers from Ministers were brief, too. You do not seem to be holding to that directive today, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I am keeping a careful watch on it, but interventions such as that do not help us to get on.
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has made a constructive suggestion about Greater Glasgow health board's proposals for change to improve patient care within its area—that the Mearnskirk site should be used to improve geriatric provision in the city of Glasgow. That is a constructive proposal and I have asked the health board to consider it seriously. I know that its initial reaction is that it would like to study that proposal closely. I am sure that it will be taken into account along with all the other representations that have followed as part of the consultation process.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Sam Galbraith.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Galbraith: Is the Minister aware that the Leukaemia Research Fund had intended to site a new research unit at Glasgow royal infirmary but that, as a result of the proposed reorganisation of the laboratories in Glasgow, it is no longer planning to do so? Will the Minister therefore please look into the matter to ensure that that world-leading unit comes to Glasgow and to Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman back to the House. I was not aware of the proposal that he mentioned, about having a leukaemia unit at that hospital. I should be very surprised if, as a result of the proposals for the reorganisation of the laboratory services, it were not possible to develop services for patients in Glasgow, because those proposals will save more than £3 million, which will be available for additional patient care, including helping patients who are suffering from leukaemia. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he seeks and shall look into that matter and write to him, stating the position.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to assess the popularity or otherwise of the poll tax.
    Mr. Rifkind: Public opinion appears to be divided over support for the various forms of local taxation.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Secretary of State the only person in Scotland who fails to realise that the poll tax is as popular as the bubonic plague and that it is adding insult to injury for the Prime Minister and her lackeys to imply that the Scots are a nation of scroungers because—in, I believe, the right hon. Lady's own words—Scottish poll tax payers are being subsidised by the "marvellously tolerant English"? Now that even the Prime Minister is having second thoughts about the poll tax, will the Government accept the voters' verdict in tomorrow's elections, when the people of Scotland will have a wonderful opportunity to hammer another nail into the poll tax coffin?
    Mr. Rifkind: I should be fascinated to know what the hon. Gentleman thinks of his own party's proposals, if he thinks that the poll tax is unpopular. He knows perfectly well that the roof tax commands less support in Scotland than any other system of local taxation. On the level of support for Scottish community charge payers, the hon. Gentleman knows that what my right hon. Friend the

    1027
    Prime Minister said is factually correct, that Scottish local authorities raise on average 20 per cent. of the revenue that they require from Scottish community charge payers, whereas English local authorities raise an average of 30 per cent., which is one reason why English community charges are significantly higher than those in Scotland. I should have expected the hon. Gentleman to welcome that on behalf of his constituents who are having to pay that charge, which the hon. Gentleman is trying to avoid.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will not the Secretary of State acknowlege that Scotland is witnessing the unedifying spectacle of the Government and the Labour party together offering the two most unpopular methods of raising taxation for local government? They are making up Mickey Mouse figures to try to discredit local income tax, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows to be fair. Its administrative costs are half those of collecting the poll tax, and it will release funds to be invested in local services. If income tax is a fine method of financing central Government, why not extend it to provide the same buoyancy and accountability in local councils?
    Mr. Rifkind: On the central principle, government is financed by both income tax and value added tax, which ensures that all adults pay towards the costs of government. One of the fundamental deficiencies of local income tax is that almost half the electorate would not pay a penny towards the cost of local government. As part of his support for local income tax, has the hon. Gentleman pointed out to his constituents in Gordon that a person on only average earnings would pay a local income tax of £732, so a husband and wife on average earnings in his constituency would pay over £1,400? I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not draw attention to those figures when campaigning for a local income tax in the Grampian region.
    Mr. Gow: In the light of the popularity, real or imagined, of the community charge in Scotland, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the community charge will be introduced shortly into Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Rifkind: That will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that I have fought the case of Northern Ireland students and the community charge for some time. May I assure the Secretary of State that, despite the news that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has brought from east Belfast, that the poll tax would be popular, it is not popular among the parents of students studying in Scotland who, under the seamless robe of government, are paying the full taxation in Northern Ireland for local government? Will he bear that in mind as he examines changes?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is worth remembering that under the old rating system or under the Labour party's roof tax, a student renting a flat would pay the full rates and would not have any automatic deduction. Under the community charge, for the first time, all students have an automatic deduction of 80 per cent. from their bills. That is very much to the advantage of students as a whole.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for which hospitals he has had expressions of interest regarding self-governing trusts; and from whom the request has come in each case.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Expressions of interest have been obtained from four hospitals in Ayr, Forfar and Aberdeen.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister confirm that, in spite of the fact that Ayrshire consultants have voted 9:1 against opting out, the minority could still put forward a scheme, his placemen on the health board could agree to that scheme and then, on their advice, he could transfer the ownership of the new south Ayrshire hospital, built at public expense, to a small clique of his own supporters in Ayrshire, against the wishes of the majority of the medical and other staff and against the wishes of the majority of the Ayrshire people? Is not that the biggest steal since the great train robbery?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman's description of self-governing status is a travesty. If the proposals for the hospitals in Ayr are taken forward, they will give consultants and staff an opportunity to take part in making decisions at local level. The most important point is that self-governing hospitals will remain part of the National Health Service. They will not be transferred out of it. The hon. Gentleman may believe that decisions are best taken above the heads of people in the Health Service. He is entitled to his opinion, but many people in the Health Service will not take that view when they consider the opportunity.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend realise that those of us who are not hung up on the doctrine that we are given by the Opposition welcome the fact that at long last there is an interest in developing properly Health Service and hospital facilities in Forfar? Is he aware that general practitioners in Forfar are fully behind the programme?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. The proposals for Forfar have come from not the health board or management but local doctors and general practitioners who see the opportunities that self-governing status will provide.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: How many?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman asks how many. All the GPs in Forfar who are involved have put forward those proposals because they see the opportunity for improving patient care. Opposition Members who care more about dogma than about patient interests may care to reflect on that.
    Mr. McKelvey: Does the Minister accept that I am more concerned with the dogma of democracy? Will he give an undertaking to the House, as he seemed to on the previous occasion when he was questioned on the matter, that many more people will be consulted about opting out than he first thought? If that consultation is widespread, will he stand by the majority verdict of consultants and others working in the Health Service who believe that health services should stay within the NHS and want nothing to do with opting out? Will he stick by the majority verdict?
    Mr. Forsyth: The only advice that I can give to the hon. Gentleman is that he read the proposals. He uses the term opting out. No hospital will opt out of the NHS. If the hon. Gentleman reads our well-documented proposals on consultation, he will see that there are two stages. The first is expression of interest—the stage that has been reached in Ayr. After that there is the development of proposals or a business plan, if that term is preferred. At that stage there will be full consultation. The procedures that will be followed will ensure that everyone can take account of the proposals and form a judgment on the interests of patient care. That is the way in which the Health Service should be run. It is the appropriate way and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would endorse it.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of local government expenditure will be raised from the community charge payer, the uniform business rate payer, and Government grant; and what were the Government's original estimates if councils had kept to Government spending guidelines.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: On the basis of local authorities' budget estimates, 22 per cent. of their expenditure in 1990–91 will be met by community charge payers compared to a Government assumption of 20 per cent., 23·4 per cent. by business rate payers compared to 24 per cent. and 54·6 per cent. from Government grant compared to 56 per cent. Local authority community charge payers should have to contribute on average only 20 per cent. They are contributing 22 per cent. on account of extra local authority spending.
    Mr. Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the first year of the community charge in Scotland many local authorities made greater provision for bad debts and many other expenses that might have been incurred and increased the community charge accordingly? Is he aware that in the second year they have brought down their expenditure more in line with Government guidelines? Does he further agree that the non-payment campaign in Scotland is the one thing that ensures that community charge payers will have too pay to much this year?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Obviously someone will have to pay the community charge eventually. The effect of non-payment campaigns will be almost certainly to increase the community charge substantially for other
    1030
    charge payers. My hon. Friend is correct that this year there has been considerably more economy. Some 21 local authorities have either reduced their charges or held them at the same level while another 13 have kept their increases below the rate of inflation. Accordingly, there is increasing evidence that in the second year of the new system in Scotland local accountability is taking effect. In contrast to that, the proportion of the budget of Edinburgh district council that is raised from the community charge is over 40 per cent.—probably the highest in Scotland.

    Self-governing Schools
    Mr. Harry Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schools in Scotland have taken steps towards opting out of local authority control.
    Mr. Lang: Parents at one school have presented a formal written request calling for a ballot to be held on self-governing status.
    Mr. Ewing: After all the parliamentary time spent on the opting-out legislation, all the civil servants' time spent on it and all the people's money spent on it, how does the Minister have the nerve to get up to say that one single school has asked to opt out of the system? Is not that ample evidence of an unrepresentative Government imposing unwanted legislation on an unwilling population? Why does not the Minister take his courage in his hands by joining the rest of the people in Scotland tomorrow and, through the ballot box, telling the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Stirling (M r. Forsyth), to get lost and to take his dangerous and daft opting-out legislation with him?
    Mr. Lang: The longest journey begins with a single step and I have no doubt that many other schools will be interested in following the example of the one school that has so far applied to be considered. South of the border, where the opting-out provisions have been in place longer, some 36 applications have now been approved and the number of applications for admission to those schools has risen in many cases by as much as 50 per cent.
    Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of questions.
    Mr. Speaker: It does not necessarily have to arise out of questions and I shall take it after the applications under Standing Order No. 20.

Export (Iraq)
3.30 pm
Sir John Stokes: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the action taken by officials of the Customs and Excise department against employees of Walter Somers Ltd., a firm in my constituency, over the export of steel pipes to Iraq."
The matter is specific, because three senior managers and seven employees have been interviewed despite the fact that the Government knew of the export order. I gather from the news tapes that three people have been arrested, but not charged.
The matter is urgent, because grave disquiet has been caused to the employees and their families. Great anxiety is also felt in the firm and throughout Halesowen.
The matter is important, because arbitrary action of this nature by a Government Department is unusual to say the least when the Government knew all along what was happening. Therefore, I hope that honourable and patriotic men are not pilloried to save the Government's face. For those reasons, I request, Mr. Speaker, that the matter be urgently debated.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the action taken by Customs and Excise against employes of Walter Somers Limited in his constituency over the alleged Iraqi gun affair."
The hon. Gentleman knows that the decision I must take with regard to Standing Order No. 20 applications is whether to give them precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I have listened with care to what he had to say, but I regret that the matter he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order; I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on that subject.
Mr. Speaker: No, I am just taking another application under Standing Order No. 20.

Carstairs Hospital
3.32 pm
Mr. Jimmy Hood: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the situation that exists within Carstairs state hospital in my constituency."
The matter is urgent because the breakdown in relations between the management and the staff at that hospital has resulted, following a ballot, in the staff giving seven days' notice of their intention to take strike action from Monday next week.
There are 250 or so seriously ill patients in Carstairs state hospital and more than half of them are there under the direction of the Secretary of State for Scotland. If those patients are allowed to go unsupervised and uncared for for any period as a result of strike action, the consequences could be catastrophic; they would make Manchester Strangeways look like a kindergarten.
Therefore, I ask for permission to discuss the matter in the House because the Secretary of State has repeatedly refused to intervene, I am assured. I wrote to him on Monday and have had no response to my request. If the Secretary of State does not intervene before Monday, there will be a serious and catastrophic situation in my constituency and in Scotland. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree to my application.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the threatened strike at Carstairs state hospital."
Again, I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I have to give him the same reply as I gave to the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes). I regret that his application does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.35 pm
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take the point of order from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) first.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order arising from the Minister's reply to Question 13. I think that the House may have been misled on an important matter. The Minister decided not to use notes when answering the question and said that four expressions of interest in self-governing status hospitals had been received, but then named only three. He may have omitted to mention the Royal Scottish National hospital in my constituency, which caters for about 700 mentally handicapped patients. As I have previously said, 96 per cent. of the staff are against the management's proposals to opt out of existing arrangements in the National Health Service. It may be that the expression of interest has been withdrawn. If so, may I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the Minister can be brought back to explain the position?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot bring the Minister back to do that. If the hon. Gentleman tables an emergency written question, he will get an answer tomorrow morning.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to raise this point of order in the presence of the hon. Members for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) and for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes). I believe that this is a House of Commons point and a genuine point of order. In written questions of 1 May, I asked the Chancellor
"what discussions the Customs and Excise has had with the Belgian police about the activities of the late Dr. Bull."
The reply is immaterial to the point of order other than that it ends:
"it would be inappropriate to give any further information on these matters."—[Official Report, 1 May 1990; Vol. 171, c. 479.]
Should not the House of Commons be given some kind of time scale if the Treasury cannot give the information right away? A blanket statement of that sort raises questions for Parliament, and I wonder if you, Mr. Speaker, will consider the issues involved.
Mr. David Winnick: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is for the Government to answer such matters. I cannot find the Hansard reference given by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
Mr. Dalyell: It is a written question, column 479. Perhaps the Leader of the House, who is a QC, could look at the issues.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard on the Front Bench.
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I said last night, there is widespread concern in the west midlands about matters rightly raised by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes). There is deep concern at the way in which those involved in the firm in Halesowen are being treated.
1034
Hon. Members—a number of whom have the honour and privilege of representing constituencies in the west midlands—have sought to find out from the Department of Trade and Industry the exact dates when the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) inquired of the Department involved about the export order to Iraq. If the information were supplied, there would be no need for applications such as that made today or points of order.
People in the west midlands understandably ask the following question: if Parliament is a place in which to ventilate grievances and seek information, how is it that we are being refused the information that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove raised on the Floor of the House? All we want from the Secretary of State are the facts. When did the hon. Member for Bromsgrove seek information? If he did make the point perfectly clear on behalf of the firm, why are those people involved in the firm being treated as they are now?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer that because it is a matter for ministerial discretion. [Interruption.] Well, I cannot involve myself in the answers to questions at Question Time.
Mr. Alistair Darling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not one readily to raise points of order, but a problem has arisen in Scottish Question Time over the past few months. As you know, the Scottish Office covers practically every major Department of State, which means that Scottish Members have one opportunity every five weeks to raise matters.
You have made it clear, Mr. Speaker, that you have to call Members on both sides of the House—I understand that—but the problem has arisen because of the lack of Conservative Members, who sometimes get called two or three times in any one Question Time, while other Members do not get in for months on end.
Today I have discovered that the Lothian health board has deliberately decided to postpone the announcement of a major cuts package until after the local elections tomorrow, to save the skin of the Conservative party. I wanted to raise this matter in Question Time, rather than using a point of order, but because of the problem that I have described, these matters cannot properly be raised as they should be during Question Time, with the result that information is being deliberately withheld from my constituents, and Ministers cannot be held to account for that.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It does not help if other hon. Members rise before I have answered the question.
It is peculiar to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that they have their own Question Time. I always call a predominant number of members of the majority party in Scotland, which happens at the moment to be the Opposition, but equally I must have regard to balancing the other side of the argument.
As far as Scottish questions are concerned, Members who are not called one month always receive some priority in the following month—
Mr. Darling: No, they do not.
Mr. Speaker: They are carefully listed on my Order Paper. What is more, the hon. Member for Edinburgh,

1035
Central (Mr. Darling) has the great privilege of being a Front-Bench spokesman, so he has other opportunities as well.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We should remember that this is the unitary Parliament of the whole of the United Kingdom, and that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is a Front-Bench spokesman on Home Office matters to do with England and Wales.
Mr. Speaker: I have just said that.
Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that those of us who attend questions regularly realise the difficult position in which you regularly find yourself because you cannot possibly call everyone who is standing.
Let me make it clear that I speak as a Scot who regularly attends but is frequently not called. I understand why that is, and I make no objection to it, yet Scottish Opposition Members are regularly called more than once—sometimes as often as three times—[interruption.] I can name the Members concerned, if necessary—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain whether this is helping the hon. Gentleman: he is one of those who was called twice today. I try to ensure that, except in exceptional cases such as Scottish Question Time, Members are not called more than once. I endeavour to be as even handed as I possibly can be.
Mr. Walker rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am not certain that this will be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, who is not exactly a deprived citizen.
Mr. Bill Walker: The point that I am trying to get over—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the point of order?"] My point of order is that hon. Members who have objected—this is not the first time that we have heard such objections about Scottish questions—find that in other situations, because of the massive Conservative majority, Conservative Members often do not get called. I have studied questions over a long period, Mr. Speaker, and I think that you do a remarkable job.
Mr. Speaker: I am absolutely lost for words.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Despite the fact that three Conservative Members were called twice today, and that I was not called at all, that is not my complaint. You were decent enough to call me twice at the last Scottish Question Time, but may I ask you to tell the House once more that Back Benchers and those who leap up to the Back Benches should ask brief and concise questions? Ministers, especially at Scottish Question Time, which goes out live on both BBC and STV, should offer concise answers.
Mr. Speaker: Let us finish on this note. I readily agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am constantly saying that Members should ask not only brief but single questions, and that Ministers should give brief answers. I remind the House what the Leader of the Opposition said on the day in 1987 when I was re-elected to the Chair. He said that, sadly, no Member of the House can expect to be called on the day he wants at the time he wants and on the subject that he wants.
Mr. Tony Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that I am not at all deprived. I regularly attend for Scottish questions. I was not called today, but when I am called occasionally I deem it a privilege. I noted that today four hon. Members who were called were undemocratic enough to say that they would not pay the community charge. Two of them were from the Labour party and the other two were from the Scottish National party. Is there power to dock the parliamentary pay of those hon. Members? Is your consent required for that and, if so, will you give it?
Mr. Speaker: That has absolutely nothing to do with me. Every hon. Member must take responsibility for his own words and actions outside the House.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember that yesterday I raised a point of order about an answer to a parliamentary question that was submitted on 30 March to the Department of the Environment. The answer to the question has been on the desk of the Secretary of State for the Environment since the 19th of last month. However, it is still not available, because it is politically embarrassing for the Government to produce it before election day. The question seeks to find out the proportion of poll tax money, business grant and Government grants relative to local government expenditure. When I asked you, Mr. Speaker, how I could get the answer to that question, you said that by raising it, I had achieved what I wanted. I have not achieved that. Yesterday has gone and there is no sign from the Department of the Environment that an answer will be made available today.
Mr. Speaker: The day is early, and I hope than an answer is on the way.

Points of Order

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 18 MAY
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Mr. Gerald Bowden

  Mr. Graham Allen

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (London Borough of Southwark) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments,&c.—[Mr. Fallon"]

London Government
3.47 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the people of London the legal right and duty to elect a London Council and Mayor so that the needs of London may be met and its administration secured on a basis that is fully accountable to the people through the ballot box; and for purposes connected therewith.
The Bill would restore to the people of London the legal right and duty to elect a Londonwide council and for the first time directly to elect someone to the office of mayor of London.
Tomorrow, the people of London will vote for their new borough councils and, of course, the Labour party confidently expects to do well. All the poll tax fiddling in the world to try to keep Wandsworth and Westminster in Tory clutches will not prevent the Labour party from making sweeping gains throughout the capital. Hon. Members and people outside know that the main reason for Tory defeats will undoubtedly be the poll tax. I remember when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) described the Labour party's 1983 general election manifesto as the longest suicide note in history. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) will disagree with that, as I did.
All of us think it accurate to describe the poll tax as the political equivalent of the cyanide capsule. After all, why be annihilated on a shopping list of policies when one will do the trick? The poll tax will undoubtedly be the Tory killer in the local government elections. However, in London, a climate of general dissatisfaction about the state of our city will also be in the minds of numerous voters when they cast their votes.
London is the only capital city in the world that does not have citywide local government. Deep in her bunker, behind those preposterous iron gates at the end of Downing street, the Prime Minister might be able to deceive herself that the abolition of the GLC was a good idea, but to the rest of us, who do not have the benefit of travelling around London in an armoured police convoy, reality tells a different story. From the near-chaos on our congested, rubble-strewn, crime-ravaged streets, to the overcrowded, overpriced and inefficient transport system, London shows all the signs of a city that is unplanned, unco-ordinated and unpleasant.
The abolition of the GLC in 1986 was an act of political vandalism by the Prime Minister. The folly of that politically malevolent decision becomes more evident by the day. In an editorial last month, the Financial Times spoke of the degeneration of many London streets and the absence of a strategic plan for Britain's capital city. It said that such factors were
"surely not unconnected with the disappearance of the GLC."
Similarly, in a recent report, the Henley centre for forecasting warned about London's "dirty and dangerous" reputation.
What the Financial Times and the forecasters observe, so do Members of Parliament, commuters, visitors, residents and anyone who knows and cares about London. No Londonwide service previously run by the GLC is now more efficiently organised. The consequences of the transfer of former GLC services to quangos and
1038
Government Departments have been inefficiency, expense and remoteness. Nowhere is that more disastrously evident than in strategic planning, or in the absence of strategic planning. Put starkly, strategic planning for London has ceased to exist. In its place, we now have the Department of the Environment's so-called strategic guidance for London. I should love to know what Ministers intend to do about it, because it is nothing more than a string of clichés joined together with wishful thinking.
Draft guidance is predicated on the fallacy that fewer and less effective planned controls and the free operation of the market will lead to greater prosperity, a better environment, and easier movement, and will correct the imbalances in labour supply and availability of housing in London. As the man said, only an idiot in a hurry would believe such absurdities to be an adequate replacement for the Greater London council's strategic plan for London. Unfortunately, there seems to be no shortage of idiots in a hurry, and many of them end up as Ministers in the Department of the Environment.
My Bill would reintroduce citywide local government for London for those services where the strategic overview is essential, such as land use planning and transport, and for those services where economies of scale can be achieved, such as waste disposal, sewerage and emergency services. For those who wish to know the Labour party's official line, the document "London Pride"—printed in sparkling Kinnock colour—launched by my right hon. Friend last month, spells out the Labour Government's intentions for the capital city.
Although I fully expect Labour policies eventually to catch up, my Bill goes a step further than "London Pride". I envisage that the new London council will be run from county hall, which will be taken back into public ownership by compulsory purchase. I should not expect compensation terms to be generous. No one—I direct this at my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench—involved in the outrageous and insulting proposal to turn county hall into a hotel should be under any illusions concerning the utter determination of myself and my London Labour colleagues—I have the honour to be the chair of the group—to recapture county hall for the people of London. The developers and their backers have been warned. They will have only themselves to blame if they choose to disregard these warnings.
My Bill proposes the introduction of a directly elected mayor of London.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: My hon. Friend?
Mr. Banks: I would be honoured to serve in that capacity—it would be dishonest of me to pretend otherwise—but that is not the purpose of my Bill. When London votes for the new London council based on single-member constituencies, it will be able to vote also on the basis of proportional representation, with a run-off ballot if necessary, for a new mayor to speak on behalf of all London. That person will have wide-ranging executive powers and authority, and will become the London equivalent of Jacques Chirac of Paris or Mayor Dinkins of New York. I envisage the London mayor residing in the Mansion house and maintaining the lord mayor's show. The existing City corporation would, of course. be abolished.

1039
London needs a powerful voice, and one that can speak on behalf of London. Perhaps my voice would be powerful enough, but I would not have the temerity to put myself forward for such early candidature before knowing whether any hon. Member will vote against the Bill. As I have said, we need a powerful voice. We need someone who is able to speak on behalf of the capital and all Londoners. Only the ballot box can provide that level of authority and accountability.
I reject the idea of a Minister for London, as such a person would owe his or her loyalty to the Prime Minister, who appoints, or to collective responsibility in the Cabinet. We want someone whose first loyalty would be to London and its citizens, someone who can stand up to central Government and make the case for the capital. A directly elected mayor would be able to fulfil all such functions. I accept that such an office is new to local government in this country, but it would bring us into line with practice on the continent and in north America. I believe that it is a proposal whose time has come and that it will find great support throughout London.
1040
In common with many Londoners, I have much for which to thank the London county council and the Greater London council. Those of us who love this great city are deeply saddened by its decline in recent years. We are determined, however, to restore London to its pre-eminent position. My Bill would be one step in that renaissance.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Miss Kate Hoey, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms. Diane Abbott, Mr. Brian Sedgemore and Mr. Harry Cohen.

London Government
  LONDON GOVERNMENT
  Mr. Tony Banks accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the people of London the legal right and duty to elect a London Council and Mayor so that the needs of London may be met and its administration secured on a basis that is fully accountable to the people through the ballot box; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 137.]
Orders of the Day
  Environmental Protection Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Environmental Protection Bill
    New Clause 6

      JOINT COMMITTEE ON COUNTRYSIDE FUNCTIONS
      '( )—(1) The Committee established under section 103(2) below shall exercise the functions specified below in liaison with the Councils established under section 98.
      (2) The functions of the Committee shall include—

      (a) the collection of data and information for the purposes of monitoring nature conservation;

      (b) the undertaking of research at a national level relevant to its functions;

      (c) the establishment of common standards and criteria relating to natural and wildlife conservation;

      (d) the establishment of common standards and criteria relating to access to and enjoyment of the countryside.

      (3) For the purposes of the exercise of its functions, the Committee may appoint such staff as it considers appropriate, and may require the councils to carry out decisions on matters falling within its functions.'.—[Mr. Gould.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.58 pm
      Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following:
      New clause 10—Countryside Council in Wales—
      `( ) (1) If the Chairman or any member of the Countryside Council for Wales is found to have a substantial interest in any land in Wales over which a public right of way runs and which is ploughed up and not reinstated contrary to section 134 Highways Act 1980 and section 61 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or is otherwise unlawfully obstructed or unlawfully interfered with, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of inviting him to resign his position on the Council
      (2) In addition to section 106(1) above and to the generality of the contents of schedule 6 and in accordance with section 106(2), the Countryside Council for Wales shall have the following duties, namely—

      (a) to secure and promote public access on foot to the countryside by way of public rights of way and public access to open country;

      (b) to form a specific recreation branch whose primary objective shall be to institute a programme of work to he implemented in conjunction with local authorities with the goal of having all public rights of way in Wales unobstructed and adequately maintained and signposted by the year 2000 and maintained in such a state thereafter;

      (c) to produce an annual report detailing the Council's footpath and access work and progress towards achieving the goal in (b) above;

      (d) to establish and maintain an access advisory committee, consisting of persons who are not members of the council, but who have a particular interest in promoting the recreational use on foot of rights of way and open country and the reopening of unlawfully obstructed rights of way;

      1042

      (e) to consult the advisory committee as to any proposals of the Council relating generally or specifically to rights of way and public access to the countryside;

      (f) to consider any representations made to it by the advisory committee (whether in response to consultation under paragraph (e) above or otherwise) as to the manner in which the Council carries out its functions regarding rights of way and public access to the countryside.

      (3) The Countryside Council for Wales and the Countryside Commission shall be empowered to advise the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of any farmer or landowner who unlawfully obstructs or otherwise unlawfully interferes with any public right of way and the Ministry shall suspend any payments, grants or subsidies to such a farmer or landowner and shall not resume suspended payments until such unlawful obstructions or unlawful interferences have been removed or ceased as the case may be.'.
      New clause 42—New Authorities for England, Scotland and Wales—
      `( ).—(1) There shall be five new statutory Authorities, to be called the Nature Conservancy Council for England, the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, the Nature Conservancy Council for Wales (in this Part referred to as "the Councils"), the Countryside Commission for England and the Countryside Commission for Wales (in this Part referred to as "the Commissions").
      (2) The Authorities shall have the following membership, that is to say:

      (a) the Nature Conservancy Council for England shall have not less than 10 nor more than 14 members;

      (b) the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland shall have not less than 8 nor more than 12 members:

      (c) the Nature Conservancy Council for Wales shall have not less than 8 nor more than 12 members;

      (d) the Countryside Commission for England shall have not less than 10 nor more than 14 members;

      (e) the Countryside Commission for Wales shall have not less than 8 nor more than 12 members;

      and those members shall be appointed by the Secretaty of State.
      (3) The Secretary of State may by order amend paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of subsection (2) above so as to substitute for the number for the time being specified as the maximum membership of an Authority such other number as he thinks appropriate.
      (4) Schedule 5 to this Act shall have effect with respect to the constitution and proceedings of the Authorities and other matters relating to the discharge of their functions.'.
      New clause 43—Grants to Authorities—
      `( ).—(1) The Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury make to the Authorities grants of such amounts as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
      (2) A grant under this section may be made subject to such considerations as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury think fit.'.
      New clause 44—Landscape conservation and informal countryside recreation in England and Wales—
      `( ).—(1) For the purposes of landscape conservation or the promotion of informal countryside recreation, and fostering the understanding thereof, the Commissions shall, in place of the Countryside Commission established under the Countryside Act 1968, have (so far as pertains to the countries to which they relate) the functions conferred by sections ( ), ( ) and ( ) below.
      (2) It shall be the duty of the Commissions in discharging their functions to take appropriate account of actual or possible landscape or recreational changes.

      1043
      (3) The Commissions shall discharge their respective functions under those enactments (as amended by Schedule 5) on and after a day to be appointed by an order made by the Secretary of State.
      (4) The Secretary of State may give the Commissions, or any of them, directions of a general or specific character with regard to the discharge of any of their functions other than those conferred on them by section ( )(a) below.
      (5) In this part the definition "landscape conservation" includes the conservation of flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features.'.
      New clause 45—Further functions of Commissions—
      '( ).—(1) The Commissions shall have the following functions in addition to those specified in section ( ) above, namely:

      (a) such of the functions previously discharged by the Countryside Commission under enactments specified in Schedule 5 to this Act as are assigned to them in accordance with the amendments to those enactments effected by that Schedule.

      (b) the provision of advice for the Secretary of State or any other Minister on the development and implementation of policies for or affecting landscape conservation or informal countryside recreation;

      (c) the provision of advice and the dissemination of knowledge to any other person about landscape conservation or informal countryside recreation in their area or about matters arising from the discharge of their functions under this section or section ( ) below;

      (d) the commissioning or support (whether by financial means or otherwise) of research which in their opinion is relevant to any of their functions under this section or section ( ) below.

      (2) Nothing in this section shall be taken as preventing either of the Commissions, if consulted by the other about a matter relating to the functions of that other Commission, from giving that other Commission any advice or information which they are able to give.'.
      New clause 46—Nature conservation in Great Britain—
      '( ).—(1) For the purposes of nature conservation, and fostering the understanding thereof the Councils shall, in place of the Nature Conservancy Council established under the Nature Conservancy Act 1973, have (so far as pertains to the countries to which they relate) the functions conferred by sections ( ) to ( ) below.
      (2) It shall be the duty of the Councils in discharging their nature conservation functions to take appropriate account of actual or possible ecological changes.
      (3) The Councils shall discharge their nature conservation functions on and after a day to be appointed by an order made by the Secretary of State.
      (4) The Secretary of State may give the Councils, or any of them, directions of a general or specific character with regard to the discharge of any of their nature conservation functions other than those conferred on them by section (109) below.
      (5) In this part "nature conservation" means the conservation of flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features.'.
      New clause 47—Nature Conservancy Councils' functions—
      `( ).—(1) The Councils shall each have the following functions, namely—

      (a) such of the functions previously discharged by the Nature Conservancy under the enactments specified in Schedule 6 to this Act as are assigned to them in accordance with the amendments to those enactments effected by that Schedule;

      1044

      (b) the provision of advice for the Secretary of State or any other Minister on the development and implementation for policies for or affecting nature conservation in their area;

      (c) the provision of advice and the dissemination of knowledge to any other person about nature conservation in their area or about matters arising from the discharge of their functions under this section or section ( ) below;

      (d) the commissioning or support (whether by financial means or otherwise) of research which in their opinion is relevant to any of their functions under this section or section ( ) below.

      (2) The Councils shall each have power—

      (a) to accept any gift or contribution me to them for the purposes of any of the functions conferred on them by subsection (1) above or section ( ) below and, subject to the terms of the gift or contribution, to apply it to those purposes;

      (b) to initiate and carry out such research directly related to those functions as it is appropriate that they should carry out instead of commissioning or supporting other persons under paragraph (d) of that subsection;

      and they may do all such other things as are incidental or conducive to those functions including (without prejudice to the generality of this provision) making charges and holding land or any interest in or right over land.
      (3) Nothing in this section shall be taken as preventing any of the Councils, if consulted by another of the Councils about a matter relating to the functions of that other Council, from giving that other Council any advice or information which they are able to give.'.
      New clause 48—Joint Committee for Great Britain—
      '( ) (1) Subject to subsection (3) below, the Councils shall each have the following functions, in addition to those specified in section 109 above, namely—

      (a) the provision of advice for the Secretary of State or any other Minister on the development and implementation of policies for or affecting nature conservation in Great Britain or elsewhere;

      (b) the provision of advice and the dissemination of knowledge about nature conservation in Great Britain or elsewhere;

      (c) the establishment of common standards for the monitoring of, and research into, nature conservation and for the analysis of the resulting information;

      (d) the commissioning or support (whether by financial means or otherwise) of research which in their opinion is relevant to any matter mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above;

      and section 103(2) and (3) above shall apply to the functions conferred by this subsection as they apply to the functions conferred by subsection (1) of that section.
      (2) Subject to subsection (3) below, and in addition to the functions specified in section ( ) above, the Commissions (including here the Countryside Commission for Scotland) shall have the following functions, namely—

      (a) the provision of advice for the Secretary of State or any other Minister on the development and implementation of policies for or affecting landscape conservation or informal countryside recreation in Great Britain and elsewhere;

      (b) the provision of advice and the dissemination of knowledge about landscape conservation or informal countryside recreation in Great Britain and elsewhere;

      (c) the establishment of common standards for the monitoring of, and research into, landscape conservation or informal countryside recreation, and for the analysis of the resulting information;

      (d) the commissioning or support (whether by financial means or otherwise) of research which in their opinion is relevant to any matter mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above;

      1045
      and subsection 101(2) above shall apply to the functions conferred by this subsection as they apply to the functions conferred by subsection (1) of that section.
      (3) No function falling within subsection (1) or (2) above shall be exercisable except—

      (a) through the discharge of that function by a committee (known as the Joint Committee) of all the Authorities (both the Councils and the Commissions, including the Countryside Commission for Scotland) consisting of the Chairmen of each Authority, and an independent Chairman and three independent members appointed by the Secretary of State; or

      (b) in pursuance of a direction of the Secretary of State given to one of the Authorities requiring that Authority to exercise that function;

      (4) The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Environment Department Countryside and Wildlife Advisory Committee shall be a non-voting member of the Joint Committee.
      (5) The expenses of the Joint Committee shall be defrayed by all the Authorities (including the Countryside Commission for Scotland) in such proportions as the Authorities may agree or in default of agreement in such proportions as the Secretary of State may determine.'.
      New clause 49—Power to make grants or loans—
      `( ).—(1) The Authorities may each, with the consent of or in accordance with a general authorisation given by the Secretary of State, give financial assistance by way of a grant or loan (or partly in one way and partly in the other) to any person in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by him in doing anything which—

      (a) in the opinion of the Councils is conducive to or fosters the understanding of nature conservation;

      (b) in the opinion of the Commissions is conducive to or fosters the understanding of landscape conservation or informal countryside recreation.

      (2) No consent or general authorisation shall be given by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above without the approval of the Treasury.
      (3) On making a grant or loan an Authority may impose such conditions as they think fit, including (in the case of a grant) conditions for repayment in specified circumstances.
      (4) The Authorities shall exercise their powers under subsection (3) above so as to ensure that any person receiving a grant or loan under this section in respect of premises to which the public are to be admitted (on payment or otherwise) shall, in the means of access both to and within the premises, and in the parking facilities and sanitary conveniences to be available (if any), make provision, so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable, for the needs of members of the public visiting the premises who are disabled.'
      New clause 50—Transfer of property, rights and liabilities to new councils—
      `( ).—(1) The Nature Conservancy Council shall make one or more schemes ("transfer schemes") for the division of all their property, rights and liabilities (other than rights and liabilities under contracts of employment for their staff) between the Councils.
      (2) On the date appointed by a transfer scheme, the property, rights and liabilities of the Nature Conservancy Council which are the subject of the scheme shall, by virtue of this subsection, become property, rights and liabilities of the Councils to which they are allocated by the scheme.
      (3) Part I of Schedule 7 to this Act shall have effect in relation to transfer schemes under this section.'.
      New clause 51—Transfer of property, rights and liabilities to new commissions—
      `( ).—(1) The Countryside Commission shall make one or more schemes ("transfer schemes") for the division of all their
      1046
      property, rights and liabilities (other rights and liabilities under the contracts of employment of their staff) between the Commissions (as defined in section 98(1) above.
      (2) On the date appointed by a transfer scheme, the property, rights and liabilities of the Contryside Commission which are the subject of the scheme shall, by virtue of this subsection, become property, rights and liabilities of the Commissions to which they are allocated by the scheme).
      (3) Part II of Schedule 8 to this Act shall have effect in relation to transfer schemes under this section.'.
      New clause 52—Employment by new Authorities of staff of existing bodies—
      `( ).—(1) Any person who immediately before the date appointed under section 108(3) above is employed by the Nature Conservancy Council shall be entitled to receive an offer of employment from one of the Council (to be determined in accordance with proposals made by the Nature Conservancy Council).
      (2) Any person who immediately before the date appointed under section 106(3) above is employed by the Countryside Commission shall be entitled to receive an offer of employment from one of the Commissions (to be determined in accordance with proposals made by the Countryside Commissions).
      (3) Part III of Schedule 7 of this Act shall have effect with respect to the making of offers under subsection (1) and (2) above.'
      New clause 53—Dissolution of Nature Conservancy Council—
      `( ).—(l) On the date appointed under section ( ) above the chairman and other members of the Nature Conservancy Council shall cease to hold office and after that date—

      (a) the Council shall consist only of a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State and such one or more other persons as may be so appointed; and

      (b) the Council shall have only the following functions, namely—

      (i) anything which falls to be done by the Council under any transfer scheme under section ( ) above;

      (ii) the preparation of such accounts and reports as the Secretary of State may direct;
      and such other functions as are necessary for winding their affairs.

      (2) The Secretary of State may by order, after consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council and the Councils, dissolve the Nature Conservancy Council on a day specified in the order as soon as he is satisfied that nothing remains to be done by that Council.
      (3) The Secretary of State may pay to persons who cease to hold office by virtue of subsection (1) above such sums by way of compensation for loss of office, loss or diminution of pension rights, as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine.'
      New clause 54—Dissolution of Countryside Commission—
      '( ).—(1) On the date appointed under section ( ) above the chairman and other members of the Countryside Commission shall cease to hold office and after that date—

      (a) the Commission shall consist only of a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State and such one or more other persons as may be so appointed; and

      (b) the Commission shall have only the following functions, namely—

      (i) anything which falls to be done by the Commission under any transfer scheme under section ( ) above;

      (ii) the preparation of such accounts and reports as the Secretary of State may direct;
      and such other functions as are necessary for winding their affairs.

      1047
      (2) The Secretary of State may by order, after consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council and the Councils, dissolve the Nature Conservancy Council on a day specified in the order as soon as he is satisfied that nothing remains to be done by that Commission.
      (3) The Secretary of State may pay to persons who cease to hold office by virtue of subsection (1) above such sums by way of compensation for loss of office, loss or diminution of pension rights, as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine.'
      Amendment No. 137, in clause 109, page 110, line 32, at end insert
      `and
      (f) the development with relevant local authorities of opportunities for public access to the countryside for the purposes of recreation and education, and of joint cooperation for the conservation and enhancement of the countryside, wildlife, and flora and fauna.'.
      No. 150, in page 111, line 21, after 'of, insert
      `a chairman (not being the chairman or a member of the Councils) appointed by the Secretary of State together with'.
      No. 107, in line 23, after 'non-voting members' insert
      `including two representing nature conservation interests in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 108, in line 26, at end insert—
      '( ) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above the joint committee shall have the following functions, namely-

      (a) the provision of advice for or making of recommendations to the Secretary of State for the purposes of adding any bird to, or removing any bird form, any of or any part of Schedules 1 to 4 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;

      (b) the provision of advice for or making of recommendations to the Secretary of State for the purposes of adding to Schedule 5 or Schedule 8 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 any animal or plant which is in danger of extinction in Great Britain or is likely to become so endangered unless conservation measures are taken, or for the purposes of removing from Schedule 5 and Schedule 8 to the said Act of 1981 any animal or plant which is no longer endangered or likely to become so endangered;

      (c) the provision of advice for the Secretary of State for the purposes of identifying any rare or vulnerable habitats in Great Britain and for indicating gains or losses of any such habitats;

      (d) the provision of advice for or making recommendations to the Secretary of State for the purposes of designating any area of land or sea in order to comply with an international obligation; and

      (e) the making of an annual report to the Secretary of State as soon as possible after 31st March 1992 and every 12 months thereafter on the exercise of the functions contained in this section which shall include any advice so given.'.

      Mr. Gould: In March 1989, the Government exploded a bombshell on the conservation world. It announced that the Nature Conservancy Council was to be dissolved—some would say dismembered—and that its functions would be shared out between a number of new country councils. The announcement was made without consultation and without any visible preparation, although it must be said that preparations had, apparently, been made behind the scenes, given the rather unusual number and nature of appointments to the NCC that preceded the announcement.
      The announcement aroused great anxiety. First, it raised a suspicion about the genesis of the proposal. Many saw it as having emanated from a deal struck between the Scottish Office and the powerful commercial interests that
      1048
      wanted to pursue their forestry proposals, especially in the flow country. Secondly, it aroused great anxiety because there were well-founded fears among the voluntary conservation movement that the consequences of such a dismemberment would be a serious body blow to the conservation movement in Britain. Since then there has been a great deal of discussion and debate; indeed, literally thousands of words have been spoken and written on the subject.
      I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his intervention and influence in these matters. It is only fair to say that, in many respects, he has recognised the weight of the case against the Government's proposals. He did what he could to meet the legitimate demands of the conservation movement. The Carver committee reported on the nature of the joint committee that would be required to preserve the science base that the NCC had so carefully built up. There have been expressions of opinion from virtually every body and every person involved in conservation. What has been remarkable, however, about the whole debate—which has now been taking place for the best part of a year—is how little of the essentials have actually changed. They remain constant, and they are the suspicions and the fears that remain unallayed and the concern for the future of nature conservation in this country which remains at the heart of the anxiety that people continue to feel.
      The Opposition claim no particular originality in their stance on these issues. We have deliberately sought to align ourselves with the overwhelming expression of opinion from the conservation movement. We have consciously embraced its arguments because we believe that they are at the heart of the matter. They are essentially to do with the preservation of the excellent conservation effort that the NCC has laboured so long to produce, and for which it can claim—as I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree—a great deal of the credit.
      The concerns of the NCC, the voluntary conservation movement and the Labour party are about the gap that will be left by the dismemberment of the NCC and about the inadequacy of the Government's proposals to fill that gap. Our concerns are essentially about conservation, and especially the need to preserve the science base; to provide a United Kingdom dimension to the advice tendered to the Government; to establish, maintain and monitor common standards throughout the United Kingdom, irrespective of the artificiality of politically drawn boundaries; to ensure that the representation of the United Kingdom in international bodies should be properly undertaken; and to gain recognition of the growing extent to which environmental issues are recognised as having to be dealt with on a transnational rather than a local, regional or national basis. Those concerns continue to be expressed by the bulk of those who have consistently commented on these issues.
      In case there remained any doubt on the subject, I recounted at some length in Committee—I shall not do so again—the width and extent of opinion expressed by so many bodies in Scotland, England and Wales which had, in varying ways and on varying grounds, expressed their concern and opposition to the Government's proposals. It is no exaggeration to say that the whole of the conservation world has expressed its concern.
      Despite the many hours that we spent on the subject in Committee and the efforts that Ministers have made to allay concerns, it is remarkable that, as far as I am aware,

      1049
      not a single voluntary body has changed its essential opposition to part VII of the Bill. The voluntary conservation movement has listened to what the Government have had to say, it has looked at the arguments and considered the counter proposals, but it remains unshaken in its concern about what is proposed and its view that part VII would be better abandoned altogether.
      As evidence for that continuing view, I cite not a comprehensive list but, for example, the document recently issued by the Royal Society for Nature Conservation which, in its introduction, says
      "The Royal Society for Nature Conservation, in common with the voluntary nature conservation sector, remains convinced that the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of the Nature Conservancy Council are flawed; they will weaken a United Kingdom approach to nature conservation and in particular the arrangements proposed for the co-ordination, development and enforcement of a United Kingdom policy for nature conservation are at best unworkable and at worst non-existent."
      That is pretty strong stuff and it is supported by many comments that I have seen from other voluntary bodies. I cite at random the Council for the Protection of Rural England which has been prominent on the matter. In its recently produced document it highlights what it believes is
      "the illogical and ill-conceived proposals for the reorganisation of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commissions".
      In Committee, the Minister for the Environment and Countryside and I crossed swords on the view of the NCC and, in particular, its chairman, Sir William Wilkinson. It was common ground that the chairman's position in such circumstances is naturally difficult. He must continue to operate his organisation within the framework laid down by the Government and he cannot easily simply contradict what he is told by the Government, but if he is unhappy he must find ways of expressing that.
      Therefore, it is relevant at this stage of our considerations to draw attention to a letter written by Sir William Wilkinson to many Members of both Houses of Parliament dated 27 April which lays to rest any continuing doubt that there may be about Sir William's position and that of his council. I hope that I shall be forgiven for quoting two or three paragraphs from it.
      After an introductory paragraph, Sir William says:
      "My Council welcomed the positive opportunities for conservation which could be afforded by country agencies, but questioned the logic of the proposal. It pointed out that NCC was already moving towards a federal structure, giving greater autonomy to the countries within a GB framework. Since then, NCC has made several representations to the current Secretary of State, and to his Department.
      While recognising the contribution strong Country Councils could make I remain concerned that a new set of conservation bodies answering to different Government Departments might not be able properly to maintain a sufficient 'GB overview' of science and policy issues in Britain so essential to the continued conservation of our natural heritage. It is important too that the UK should put forward a coherent view on international issues affecting nature conservation and the environment.
      The Environmental Protection Bill has now been considered by the House of Commons in Committee. However, many of the concerns about the Bill as it affects NCC, which we set out in our commentary distributed earlier this year, remain unresolved, especially over questions of resources, clarity of legislation, and the work of the proposed Joint Committee."
      That is the testimony of someone who is closely involved in the issue and who has an excellent record of
      1050
      service to the Nature Conservancy Council and the conservation movement. It is also fair to say—I imagine that this will not be contested—that within the Nature Conservancy Council in its various forms a substantial majority of the work force remains hostile to what is proposed and is worried about the implications.
      I was fortunate enough to spend part of yesterday at a nature reserve at Thursley just over the border in Hampshire. I was able to see the excellent work done by nature conservancy staff there and to talk to some of those involved. While they exercised proper constraint and caution about what they said about a highly contentious issue, nevertheless they made it clear that they remain concerned. I did not ask them, but they said, as I expected them to, that they would welcome some decentralisation and devolution in nature conservancy. They were prepared to say that in the past the Nature Conservancy Council was too centralised and that they were prepared for arid wanted the proposed amount of decentralisation. Almost all the people who have commented on the issue have made a similar point.
      Whenever the issue has been debated, we have made it clear that we would welcome decentralisation arid devolution of certain functions, but when people make that concession they also say that it is not necessary to establish more decentralisation and devolution and to do damage and violence to the conservation effort made throughout Great Britain by the Nature Conservancy Council.
      We want a conservation effort that is effective at national, international, local and regional levels. However, nothing that we have heard in the debate leads us to conclude that the Government, having made an unwise arrangement in the first place—on the basis of which this proposal is now brought forward—have yet resolved the problem of how to meet the demands for devolution in Scotland and Wales and preserve a Great Britain dimension to the science base, the setting of standards and the other important matters for which the NCC has been responsible.
      Our concerns about that central issue remain, but we also have other anxieties. One of the remarkable things about the proposal is the extent to which it is now apparent that, on the best evidence that we can find, it will be an expensive exercise to dismember and reallocate those functions. It is remarkable because the Government have made something of a fetish of reining back public spending and yet the best estimate we have, from the NCC, is that the reorganisation could well add £20 million to its current budget. Other estimates show that that is a substantial underestimate of the true cost. For example, the study undertaken by the World Wide Fund for Nature in Scotland, which produced a convincing piece of work, concludes that in Scotland an increase in funds of £19 million—from £9 million to £28 million—will be required, as will an increase in the number of permanent staff from 184 to 557. On the same basis, it concludes that the figure for Great Britain could be around £80 million compared with the current budget of £45 million. Those are substantial amounts and I hope that the Secretary of State will comment on those estimates and tell us how much he thinks that his proposals will cost.
      Another range of anxieties takes us back to the genesis of the issue—the nature of the deal and the motivation of the people who unwisely agreed to this ill-considered measure. We stated in Committee and on other occasions

      1051
      our well-founded suspicion that commercial forestry interests in Scotland were irked by the NCC's intervention which inhibited them from proceeding with forestry projects, especially in the flow country. A leading article published by Forestry and British Timber virtually—to use admittedly colourful language—danced on the grave of conservation and celebrated the victory, as the magazine saw it, of commercial and forestry interests.
      4.15 pm
      In recent weeks, Lord Sanderson addressed the National Farmers Union of Scotland and, perhaps unwisely, gave the game away. Discussing the issue before his audience, he said:
      "You will also know that a Bill is going through Parliament as I've said to give us control, and the Secretary of State control, over conservation matters in Scotland."
      There is little evidence in those comments of any real concern for conservation in Scotland. Lord Sanderson was clearly admitting to an attempt to wrest control over conservation matters from those whose true concern they were in order to place it in the hands of politicians who wished to meet the needs of commercial interests. I should be glad to pass the transcript of Lord Sanderson's remarks to the Secretary of State if he would like to see them. Lord Sanderson has honestly and frankly conceded that that is exactly what he said, although he has, of course, argued the toss about the meaning of "control".
      The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I am a little confused at this point in the hon. Gentleman's otherwise pellucid speech. Is he making the point that nature conservancy, however it is organised, should not be responsible to Secretaries of State in England, Scotland and Wales? I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
      Mr. Gould: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his kind remarks about my speech so far, but he is introducing an unnecessary difficulty. Most people understand perfectly well that there is a great distinction between the current position, where a body such as the Nature Conservancy Council is responsible to a Secretary of State, and a situation where control is to be exercised as the objective of the Bill. In explaining the purpose of part VII, Lord Sanderson made that point explicit. He was not merely continuing the current arrangements whereby the NCC in its new guise was to be responsible to the Secretary of State. He said:
      "You will … know that a Bill is going through Parliament … to give us control".
      That was the change announced by Lord Sanderson and that is why it is so difficult for him to own up to it.
      It is interesting to see that the Secretary of State for Scotland has joined the Secretary of State for the Environment on the Front Bench. I suspect that the Secretary of State for the Environment was nearly as alarmed and unhappy about this deal as many of us and many of those in the conservation world were when we discovered it. I pay the right hon. Gentleman full tribute. He has done his best. I get the feeling that the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of State have well understood the need to move to meet the justified concerns of conservation bodies.
      The Secretary of State for the Environment found himself lumbered with a deal that was unwisely concluded
      1052
      by the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has been unable to shake his right hon. and learned Friend and his Cabinet colleagues and to move from that deal. I regret that the evidence so far—I hope that the Secretary of State can set me right—is that, as on other issues, the Secretary of State appears to have lost out. Well-intentioned though he is, he has not carried the day in political terms. The Government, the country and the conservation movement are therefore lumbered with this deal, and I am sorry that that has happened.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how the Labour party, which claims to believe in home rule for Scotland and the devolution of conservation issues to Scotland, would organise a conservation agency based in Scotland which was not accountable to the Secretary of State for Scotland?
      Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman has been, perhaps uncharacteristically, obtuse. We are not talking about accountability or responsibility. We are not even choosing the language: I am talking about Lord Sanderson's language. It was he who chose to use the word "control". It was he who pushed that to the forefront of his remarks when he tried to explain the central purpose of the Bill. He does not dispute the use of the word. I am surprised to see the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) coming to his aid. In correspondence with the Ramblers Association and others, Lord Sanderson has tried to reinterpret the meaning of what he said. The words are clear. I see that the Secretary of State for Scotland wants to make yet a further attempt to redefine the word "control".
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) about Opposition policy. Is he aware that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the shadow Scottish spokesman, has said that the Labour party is committed, in the context of its support for devolution, to the creation of a Scottish natural heritage agency, including the present functions of the NCC in Scotland, which would be answerable in Scotland and not to the Department of the Environment? If the hon. Gentleman is aware of that how does he reconcile it with his criticism of the proposals before the House?
      Mr. Gould: The Secretary of State did not take the opportunity which I thought he was claiming to comment upon the remarks of his noble Friend, so that issue at least remains firmly established.
      On the second issue, I intend to move immediately to the effect of the proposals, because that issue was unnecessarily left in great doubt for a very long time in Committee. I intend to invite the hon. Member for Gordon, the Liberal Democrats' representative in Committee, to comment on it. We are very clear on the matter. [Laughter.] I can see that it is a relief to right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches to be able to laugh about something; they cannot comment seriously upon it. Let us be clear that no one in the Opposition or in the conservation movement has ever argued against the devolution that would be required to meet Scottish interests. I cannot believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland does not grasp that what is at issue is whether, in providing that greater devolution, it is necessary to

      1053
      dismantle, dismember, dissolve or destroy the Nature Conservancy Council which operates on a Great Britain basis.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend spend a few minutes emphasising the difference between "accountable to" and "control"? The conservation bodies are worried that "accountable to" should be the approach on which the NCC puts forward the best scientific advice on the basis of the scientific evidence. What is worrying about "control" is that the controlling body would selectively put forward the advice which the Secretary of State wants to hear. That is where the difference is between the approaches.
      Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend could hardly have put it better. For the purposes of the debate it is significant that the Secretary of State for Scotland and, perhaps more surprisingly, the hon. Member for Gordon do not want to talk about control; they would much prefer to talk about accountability. Yet, on the admission of Lord Sanderson, control is at the heart of the issue and is put forward by him as the major purpose of the Bill.
      Mr. Keith Mans: Earlier the hon. Gentleman quoted some grossly inflated figures about the cost of the Government's proposals for reorganisation. As he has told the House that he is clear about his party's proposals, perhaps he would also tell the House what those proposals would cost.
      Mr. Gould: I am interested to hear not so much from the hon. Gentleman as from the Secretary of State, because it is his proposals which we are debating. As they are enshrined in legislation which is about to leave the House and go to another place, we are entitled to know what the Government say the proposals will cost and whether the Nature Conservancy Council is right or wrong in its estimate of an additional £20 million.
      The issue of what would take the place of the Nature Conservancy Council and of what would meet its Great Britain-wide functions was clouded by the three or four hours that we were constrained to spend on that matter in Committee because of the obfuscations of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) of which we were the victims. The hon. Gentleman was unable to answer a simple question relating to the replacement of the Nature Conservancy Council and the establishment of the country councils and the joint committee. We asked whose view would prevail in the event of a dispute between the joint committee and the conservancy councils. I do not think that the Minister will dispute the fact that we spent three or four hours constructively trying to get an answer and some elucidation on that point.
      In the end, it became clear why it was so difficult for the Minister to answer that question. It was not because he did not know the answer or was unable to understand it. It was simply because he was unwilling to give that answer because it was embarrassing not only to himself and to the Government's case, but a good deal more embarrassing for the hon. Members for Gordon and for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh).
      The answer that we received was that the joint committee would have no power to resolve such a dispute. In other words, despite all the claims and posturing, there would not be a Great Britain or United Kingdom body
      1054
      that could decide an issue that was of nationwide importance rather than of Scottish, English or Welsh importance. In the event of a difficult dispute that could not be resolved because there is no provision for its resolution, the matter would be resolved by the intervention not, as I understand it, of the Secretary of State for Scotland, but of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Is that right or wrong? Is the resolution of such disputes to rest with the Secretary of State for Scotland or not? [Interruption.] I notice that the Secretary of State for Scotland is intervening from a sedentary position, but he seems unwilling to come to the Dispatch Box to give us the reassurance that we need.
      If this is to be regarded as a genuine issue of devolution, what on earth are the Government doing in setting up a framework that provides that a dispute that might involve Scottish, English and Welsh interests will be resolved by the Secretary of State for the Environment? It was exactly on that point that the hon. Members for Gordon and for Angus, East revealed themselves as having been taken for an embarrassing ride. They supported the provision on the grounds that at least something could be salvaged from the conservation wreckage and that that would be made more acceptable by the fact that they would gain something on devolution grounds. However, we can now see that there is nothing to be gained on either devolution or conservation grounds and that the sole purpose of the provision remains, as Lord Sanderson pointed out, the "control" of conservation in Scotland because the intervention of the Nature Conservancy Council had frustrated commercial interests in Scotland.
      Mr. Chris Patten: I am anxious to assist the hon. Gentleman on this point. One of the main purposes of the structure that we have suggested is to avoid and prevent such disputes. That is why we have made it perfectly clear that the councils will be discharging a number of their functions through the joint committee. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is very much our view that to establish a new quango, which is the hon. Gentleman's position, is more, rather than less, likely to lead to disputes. Although we believe that our proposals would avoid disputes, in the event of a dispute, it would have to be resolved by the Government, which includes both my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself.
      Mr. Gould: I do not mean to be unfair to the Secretary of State and I hope that he will take this comment in the spirit in which it is meant, but he was not present for the bulk of our debates in Committee and perhaps does not fully understand the weight of the argument that caused his hon. Friend the Member for Wells such a great deal of difficulty.
      The Secretary of State has taken a very optimistic view of the way these arrangements might work, but what he has perhaps not fully understood is the very real question, which was raised continuously by my hon. Friends, about what would happen if a country council had decided that a particular research project, let us say, was entirely a matter for it and was one that it did not wish to support, whereas the joint committee, looking at the matter from a United Kingdom or Great Britain viewpoint, had decided that, on the assumption that it covered the whole of the North sea, for example, it was a matter of legitimate nationwide concern and that it wished to pursue that

      1055
      research. That is not a wholly unlikely eventuality, and there is nothing in the arrangements which offers us any clue—certainly nothing in what the Under-Secretary could tell the Committee, so no clue was offered there either—about how that problem will be resolved.
      4.30 pm
      It is not unreasonable to ask why—after months of preparation, we are told, have gone into this—the Government have not foreseen that sort of problem and why they have been unable to solve it. The only answer that they can give is that, for the time being, not only is conservation off the agenda, because no conservation body will be able to take a United Kingdom or Great Britain wide view of the matter, but so is devolution, because, despite the bobbing and weaving of the Secretaries of State, the matter will be resolved by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
      The arrangements so far put forward are rudimentary and fail to answer many of the questions that arise on the staffing, financing and powers of the joint committee. We do not believe that that is a good enough situation for the House to commend and to endorse. That is why we put forward our new clause, not because we think it the last or the best word on the subject but because it gives at least some indication of the minimum requirements necessary for the joint committee to go even part of the way towards fulfilling its true role and filling the gap left by the unnecessary dissolution of the Nature Conservancy Council.
      I hope that during the debate the Secretary of State will be able to tell us a little more about his plans for the joint committee. We were told in Committee that the Government could not enlighten us on these matters because they were busy contemplating the Carver report; we were unhappy about that and hoped that by the time we got to Report the House as a whole would have before it some proper proposals from Government on which we could take a view.
      That, again, is not the case. I think it regrettable. I assume, and I hope that the Secretary of State will assure us, that the other place will be rather better treated and will know more precisely what is in the Government's mind. In the meantime, we regard the current position as wholly unsatisfactory. We doubt whether any proposals made by the Government in line with the disreputable deal that was originally struck could be either acceptable or satisfactory, but in the absence of any detail on the matter we believe that are entitled to make the strongest possible protest, because a destructive act has been undertaken with no attempt to describe what remedial action will be put in its place.
      It is on the ground of our concern for conservation in these British isles, which has always been the central ground, that I commend the new clause to the House.
      Mr. Chris Patten: This is a more decorous occasion than some in which the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and I are obliged to take part. I shall attempt to avoid provoking any great excitement and to avoid traversing some ground with which both the hon. Gentleman and I, and indeed the whole House, are perhaps excessively familiar. I shall not go on a bus tour of a number of controversies, some real, some imaginary,
      1056
      which have provoked so much interest and debate in Committee, on other occasions in the House and outside the House.
      I shall begin by restating the central objectives of part VII of the Bill. As the House will know, they are to achieve a more effective delivery of nature conservation in each country, and in Wales and subsequently Scotland to create integrated agencies, embracing both wildlife and countryside functions. We have made it crystal clear in the past few months that we fully recognise that we shall need special arrangements to deal with nature conservation issues that have a Great Britain, United Kingdom or international dimension. Such issues will include the effects of climate change on wildlife or of acid rain on wildlife. We believe that that should be achieved by appointing a joint committee of the three country agencies under an independent chairman appointed by me.
      As I said on Second Reading, the first chairman will be Professor Holliday, who is respected by hon. Members on both sides of the House for his experience, independence and scientific distinction. He began work in a shadow capacity on the first of last month. He is already playing a vital role in helping to plan the programme, staffing and resources of the joint committee. He is also advising me on the composition of the committee. The Government expect to announce several further appointments this month.
      Work is also proceeding steadily on planning the organisation of each of the new country agencies and announcements will be made next week about the recruitment of their shadow chief executives. The hyperbole of the Opposition cannot disguise—let me be euphemistic; I do not wish to provoke excitement—the fact that they are in some confusion on the issue. The appearance of Lord Carver's report has added somewhat to their discomfort. That report does not find our proposals unworkable as the Opposition had hoped, nor does it seek to transform the joint committee into a fourth quango, as some Opposition Members propose. Instead, it makes a series of helpful recommendations designed to clarify the relationship between the country agencies and the joint committee.
      Mr. Elliot Morley: Will the Secretary of State accept them?
      Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman will not be kept in suspense for more than a moment or two.
      I had orginally hoped that we might be able to respond to the Carver report in detail during this debate. However, I am keen, particularly in view of past criticisms that we have not always consulted or discussed matters sufficiently widely, to ensure that we give some of the more detailed recommendations of the Carver report, including on the composition and staffing of the joint committee, the most extensive consideration possible. Therefore, I cannot set out our definitive position today. However, without reservation I can say that my colleagues and I have been most impressed by the balanced approach taken by the Carver committee and the practical thrust of its recommendations. It is an admirable report, which will be of considerable help to us.
      I assure the House that the Government will respond positively and comprehensively, certainly in time for the Second Reading debate in another place to which the hon. Member for Dagenham referred tangentially in his

      1057
      remarks. I also hope to assure the House that we shall bring forward an amendment in Committee in another place to carry that response into law. Naturally there will be an opportunity for the House to consider the Government's response when the Bill returns here for consideration of any amendments made in another place.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State tell the House the truth? He is praying for a defeat in another place. With that in mind he is trying to do as little preparation as possible, which will be counter productive, so that he can wait until he is defeated in the other place and then sort the whole mess out.
      Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman may have guessed that there are many things for which I pray in life, but among their number I do not include defeats anywhere, including in the other place. It is not one of my ambitions to stimulate constitutional arguments. I believe that our legislative proposals will earn the enthusiastic support of their Lordships, particularly after we have responded in terms to the useful recommendations in the Carver report. In the meantime, before we are able to respond in detail to that admirable report, I do not regard the amendments tabled by the Opposition as acceptable. I do not believe that that will come as an overwhelming surprise to the hon. Member for Dagenham.
      New clause 6 would extend the joint commitee's remit to cover countryside matters. That echoes one of the recommendations of the Carver report, which we are currently considering. Otherwise the new clause largely repeats what is already in clause 109, which gives the joint committee powers to undertake research and establish common standards relating to its nature conservation functions. Much of the data and information that the joint committee will need to carry out its functions will be supplied by the country councils. Some data and information may need to be obtained directly from other bodies, for example, the Natural Environment Research Council. There is no need for the legislation to be specific on that point as the powers in clause 109(1), paragraphs (a) to (d), are sufficient. They echo the country councils' powers for their own areas and those of the existing Nature Conservancy Council. No one has questioned the power of the NCC to assemble the data that it needs to carry out its functions and there is no reason to believe that matters will be any different after the reorganisation.
      I assure the House that the joint committee will be provided with the resources, including manpower, required for its statutory purposes. The hon. Member for Dagenham will be aware that, this year, we have increased conservation spending through the NCC by almost 10 per cent. in real terms, and, in addition, an extra £1·4 million was earmarked for reorganisation costs in the coming year.
      We made it clear in our evidence to Lord Carver's committee that a small secretarial and technical unit would be required to support the joint commitee. In turn, the Select Committee has recommended that the joint committee should have up to 20 professional staff, with some supporting staff. The Select Committee also made it clear that the joint committee should not be an independent quango, but should derive its funds through the country councils. The ability to employ staff directly is one of the hallmarks of full quango status, so we shall not want to do that. We had accepted, however, even before
      1058
      the Carver report, that some clarification should be given in the legislation to cover the country councils' ability to provide staff on secondment to support the joint committee. We intend to provide that clarification through an amendment in the other place.
      Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that issues change from time to time, so it is extremely important that the joint committee should be able to draw on different members of staff of the various country councils rather than have a permanent staff who may be unable to respond to such different issues?
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Patten: That is correct and my hon. Friend has put his finger on the nub of the argument. At the moment Professor Holliday is discussing with those concerned what sort of staff and expertise he will need straight away to discharge the initial responsibilities of the joint committee. My hon. Friend has perceptively pointed out that those needs will change from time to time.
      As I said in my second intervention in the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham, with regard to directions from the joint committee to the country councils, I confess to some puzzlement. The councils each provide members of the joint committee—and, indeed, it is the councils acting collectively through the committee that are charged with carrying out the Great Britain, United Kingdom, international and scientific functions set out in clause 109. The need for "directions" does not, in my view, arise. The committee will provide advice under clause 109(1)(a) and (b) and not the individual councils. The committee and not the individual councils will establish common standards under clause 109(1)(c). The committee and not the individual councils will commission, support or if necessary undertake research under clause 109(1)(d.). The councils would be acting ultra vires if they tried to carry out the functions in clause 109 individually, except in circumstances which would, I guess, be wholly exceptional—where a Minister had invoked the reserve powers in clause 109(2)(b) to require that a clause 109 function be carried out by an individual council. It would therefore undermine the purpose of the Bill to accept the Opposition's new clause. There is the separate issue—to which the new clause may be addressed, although, if so, it does not really fulfil its purpose—of possible overlap between activities undertaken by the individual councils under clause 108. Lord Carver has suggested that we need to take action on that point, and we are considering that question seriously.
      Amendment No. 108 contains further suggestions for expanding the joint committee's remit. One of them, paragraph (e), is that the joint committee should submit its own annual report, which is similar to a recommendation in the Carver report. We shall address that in our response to the report. The other proposal, in paragraph (b), is already accepted in principle by the Government. The Bill already states that the quinquennial review of nationally endangered species, and advice about those species, will be undertaken jointly by the country councils. We intend to bring forward an amendment elsewhere to make it clear that that will be a function to be carried out through the joint committee. In general, however, I must emphasise that it is not our intention that the joint committee should usurp the country agencies' role in designating sites, or in

      1059
      making site-specific recommendations to Ministers. The committee is to have a much broader role than that, and we shall not accept amendments that blur the distinction between its advisory role and the executive responsibilities of the country agencies.
      The Government's proposals have certainly aroused strong emotions—the hon. Member for Dagenham was perfectly reasonable in making that point. However, we do not believe that they have been matched by equally strong arguments for maintaining the status quo. Certainly no one, least of all the Opposition, has been able to convince me that it is inherently wrong to have separate public sector agencies for nature conservation in each country, provided that there are satisfactory arrangements to deal with the wider dimensions of wildlife, as we are providing through the statutory joint committee under Professor Holliday.
      I said at the outset that I was anxious to avoid too much argument, but I believe that there is almost as much confusion about the Opposition's policy on this issue as there is perhaps about their policy on local government finance—that was borne out by some of the interventions on the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham. The Opposition appear to have one policy in Scotland and another in Wales, which has the enthusiastic endorsement of the Leader of the Opposition, whose views on such issues we must presume are of some account. The Opposition have another policy, which, from time to time, is advocated in the House, and which is reflected in much of their dialogue with outside nature conservation bodies. Whatever the Opposition's policy—however, it changes from time to time—I hope that they will come to see the benefits and good sense of our proposals and appreciate the intellectual inadequacy, confusion and lack of logic in their being in favour of a Parliament in Scotland, but against a nature conservancy agency for Scotland. There is a deal of constitutional confusion in their position; perhaps it will be cleared up when the Opposition spokesman replies to the debate on new clause 6.
      A new beginning is needed and that is what the Bill will achieve. The conservation credentials of the new agencies cannot be doubted seriously in view of the appointments of shadow chairmen that my colleagues and I have already announced: Lord Cranbrook, Magnus Magnusson, Michael Griffith, as well as Professor Holliday. Each of those appointees has links with the voluntary movement, and I am sure that they will want to build on them in the coming months as they prepare for the changeover next year.
      Many hon. Members may have seen the article in The Scotsman last month about Magnus Magnusson. I commend it to the House and quote with considerable approval his final words:
      "We are at the start of something hugely exhilarating and constructive."
      I look forward to the new agencies living up to the high hopes and expectations that we all have of them. Whatever debates there may have been in the House over the past few months, I trust that the new agencies can carry with them the good wishes of the House.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I have some sympathy for the Secretary of State for the Environment. He took up his new role and was immediately asked to perform a series of
      1060
      Houdini tricks to escape from all sorts of situations. He has two major shows going on at the same time—the problem of escaping from the poll tax and escaping from the proposals we are talking about today. No doubt, in relation to the poll tax, he is a bit like Captain Webb heading for the top of Niagara falls in a barrel. His only problem is whether he will be in the barrel when it goes over, or whether it will be one of his predecessors or the Prime Minister.
      It is a much simpler task to get out of the straitjacket of this measure. His strategy is quite clearly designed; he will be defeated on the Bill. He cannot be defeated in the Commons, because the Government have too large a payroll. Although he will not admit it, he is looking forward to being defeated in the House of Lords. That is why the Government have done so little work to flesh in the details. They do not want to do work that will be counter-productive. The Secretary of State is looking forward to the Second Reading debate in the House of Lords and the following Committee stage in the hope that they will get him off the hook of the difficulties related to the Nature Conservancy Council.
      There is a further little advantage for the Secretary of State. He is well aware that, from time to time, the House of Lords has turned over various bits of the Government's legislative programme. There is a feeling in the House of Lords that it can upset the Government once, or possibly twice, on a Bill, but it must not cause too much upset. Therefore, the big advantage for the Secretary of State is that, if he is upset over this little bit of the Bill in the House of Lords and it provides a solution that he would privately welcome, it probably means that, in the way in which things work, the House of Lords will spend less time causing the Government difficulty on one or two of the other crucial parts of this large Bill. Therefore, that has attractions for the Government.
      I wish to stress, particularly to those in the House of Lords, that in the amendment that they finally persuade the Government to accept, we must clearly set out the importance of conservation in this country. What is sad and worrying is that, in Scotland, the Nature Conservancy Council started to give awkward advice to the Secretary of State and is now being punished for that.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: It did not know what it was talking about.
      Mr. Bennett: The worrying fact is not that the Government did not accept the advice, but that they blamed the Nature Conservancy Council for bringing the awkward advice. The political role must be examined. I accept that Ministers must take decisions, but the decision should be to listen to the advice. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said that the council did not know what it was talking about. That is a decision for the Minister to make, having weighed the evidence. However, sadly, the Government turned on the messenger and attacked him. The Government now say that, because the Nature Conservancy Council brought advice that Ministers did not like, they want to hamstring and stop the council from bringing forward that advice, which was based on perfectly good scientific evidence.
      I want to stress that it is important that we equip the Nature Conservancy Council with the resources to carry out the scientific examination and bring forward the scientific evidence, and then Ministers must make the

      1061
      political decisions. Sometimes they will come down on the side of conservation, and sometimes on the side of development. They have to carry the responsibility for that political decision. It is wrong to try to influence and bias the evidence put forward to them to make it easy for them to make a soft political decision because they can say that all the evidence points in that direction. It worries me that in future the Natural Conservancy Council will be worried about giving its advice.
      I understand all the arguments about devolution to Scotland and Wales, but we must firmly have in mind on what basis the Nature Conservancy Council should be considered. I am talking in terms not of small bits of the United Kingdom, but of the whole of our planet. Within those terms, we must look at what sort of ecosystem we have in the United Kingdom that unites it. It is largely our maritime climate that gives much of the United Kingdom a unique ecology that is not found in most of western Europe.
      When allocating resources, we must take that into account and look right across the whole of the United Kingdom. The scientific effort—the effort to conserve—should take into account Britain's role in the world in terms of what we are trying to protect and conserve, rather than considering it merely in terms of what is suitable in a small area of the United Kingdom.
      It is important that we get that right. The amendment moves us towards a federal structure, which is clearly the way for the Government to proceed. I hope that that decision will be put forward in the House of Lords.
      When will the Government make their announcement about commons? There have been two parliamentary answers stating that the Government are carefully considering making a statement about their proposals. I hope that we can be told exactly when that statement will come, and hear why, sadly, the Government did not put that into this legislation. I should have thought that we could have sorted out that commons legislation and the access problems. I commend the Minister of State's statements about footpaths and the need for all our public footpaths to be open to access by the year 2000. The Government have not given us much evidence that they will put in the resources.
      I am concerned about, and want some clear statements from the Government on, new clause 10 and the Countryside Council for Wales. I do not want to push new clause 10 to a vote, but I hope that the Government will say exactly what will happen in Wales. Due to the lack of resources proposed in Wales, it was impossible to set up the Nature Conservancy Council committee for Wales as a separate body, and it had to be rolled into the countryside organisation in Wales. Therefore, there is merely the Countryside Council for Wales, one organisation with three separate functions. It is difficult for it to perform those three functions with sufficient balance.
      First, the council has a conservation role, in putting to Ministers and other people in Wales the need for conservation. Secondly, there is the question of use and the difficulty of balancing the different competing elements for the use of the countryside between the farming community, the people who live in the area, those who want industrial development and the jobs that go with it, and those who want to go out and enjoy some of the most beautiful country in the United Kingdom. It will be hard for one organisation to hold the ring and to be seen to hold it fairly between those elements.
      1062
      It was a little unfortunate that the Government announced the appointment of Michael Griffith as the chairman of the new organisation without taking more care to check up on his background. I do not want to criticise Mr. Griffith, but I firmly criticise the Government in Wales. If one is going to appoint someone chairman, it is only reasonable to check on his background. As far as I can tell, all the Government did was to check that he was sympathetic to the Government and was a member of the Conservative party. They did not check how good a landowner he was or whether all the footpaths on his estate were well looked after.
      The Ramblers Association did some checking as soon as the appointment was announced and found that many of the footpaths on Mr. Griflith's property were blocked. To be fair to the man, he has immediately set out to remove the obstructions on his footpaths, but I am worried that it will not be particularly easy for the new body vigorously to pursue prosecutions to do with footpath matters in Wales when everyone in Wales will be able to say that, until he was appointed, Mr. Griffith's own record was not especially good.
      5 pm
      The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman attacking M r. Michael Griffith, because he is a friend of the ramblers. His estate in Wales is more open than any other that I know. I could reel off to the hon. Gentleman the extent to which it is accessible. It is true that one footpath had been blocked by one of his tenants, but he immediately restored it. He has also invited the Ramblers Association to discuss its problems with him with a view to resolving any further difficulties. He has been pressing the local county council to erect signposts where rights of way on his land are joined by a metalled road. His credentials in terms of access are first rate.
      Mr. Bennett: I am glad to hear that, but I am a little surprised. I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister asking for that information, and he told me that he could not give it. I then wrote to the county council, and received a prompt reply telling me that it was making inquiries into the obstructions on the footpaths that I had listed. But I have not had a definitive reply from the county council. It appears that tabling this new clause has suddenly persuaded the Secretary of State to make some inquiries, but we could have avoided this whole procedure if he had answered my orignial question.
      I found it amazing that the Minister said that he did riot have the information I sought. Presumably he made some inquiries to discover whether Michael Griffith had a good record on footpaths, but when we discussed the matter in Committee, and when I tabled parliamentary questions before Easter, the Minister could give us no answer. I am glad that he has started to sort out this problem and that Mr. Griffith is now saying that he will attempt to improve on what was not a very good record—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] It is all very well people telling me to get on with it, but the law of the land says that one should not obstruct footpaths on one's land. The Minister said that Mr. Griffith had committed only one crime—that only one path was obstructed—but when the Ramblers Association went down to the estate to have a look, more than one path

      1063
      was obstructed. Since then, Mr. Griffith has removed the obstructions, but we all have a duty to ensure that footpaths crossing people's land are free from obstruction.
      I find Conservative Members' attitude deplorable. The Minister also found it deplorable, because he has said that it was unsatisfactory that the Countryside Commission's survey found that 75 per cent. of footpaths were obstructed somewhere in a two-mile stretch, and he said that he was determined to have those obstructions cleared by the year 2000.
      Mr. Wyn Roberts: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to do an injustice to Mr. Michael Griffith, who was conscious that some of the footpaths on his land were of little value for recreational walking, so he has established a new footpath that he considers would be of more use to walkers.
      I can let the hon. Gentleman have a complete list of the many bodies that use Mr. Griffith's estate: they include Riding for the Disabled, the Pony Club, Denbigh angling club, Colwyn Bay pigeon club, the British Horse Society, and the North Wales Harness Association; and many charitable events, including the Denbigh and Flint agricultural show, take place there.
      Mr. Bennett: That is all very commendable, but let us take up one of those points. Mr. Griffith decided that one of the footpaths was not much used and that he could provide a more valuable one. I seem to remember that the previous Secretary of State for the Environment took the same view once. There happened to be a little footpath in the Lake district that came down past one of his properties. Perhaps the path took away some of the privacy of the property, and he just assumed that he could get rid of it.
      Certainly it is not very nice if a footpath brings people down past someone's property so that they can look through the window and see what he is having for breakfast, but the footpaths are an historical record of the ways in which people used to move about this country, and we should protect that record, using the procedures laid down for diversion orders. I am fairly certain that Mr. Griffith did not use that procedure on his land.
      I do not want to continue the argument any further; I accept the Minister's promise that Mr. Griffith will campaign in Wales to ensure that footpaths are free from obstructions—that is the important thing. My impression is that large numbers of footpaths in Wales are still difficult to go along because of barbed wire, fallen trees and undergrowth—and the other obstructions found by the Countryside Commission's survey.
      I want a guarantee that the new body in Wales will pursue just as vigorously the aim of ensuring that all footpaths in Wales are clear of obstruction by the year 2000 as we hope the Countryside Commission will in England.
      I also want an assurance from the Minister that more vigour will be deployed in securing access agreements in Wales. The Peak district national park has a good record of granting such agreements and we now have access to most of the high ground in the Peak district, but that is not so in Wales. I do not want to go into all the detail of the evidence that I put forward about the Arans, but there is a sorry history there: for most of this century people had
      1064
      free access to them on what they thought were public footpaths, but a small group of farmers, the Aran society, began to object—I understand why—and there is now a limited number of access routes on to the Arans.
      I hope that the Minister will assure us that that will not happen in other parts of Snowdonia. Sad to say, large numbers of routes over the mountains of Snowdonia are not recorded as public rights of way on the definitive map, but they are such in custom and practice. In recent years, one farmer has started to press to be paid money for an access agreement, and I would not object to that. Many hill farmers should be receiving money from the Department of the Environment for encouraging access, instead of receiving it from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to produce surpluses—
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Or rather, from the Welsh Office.
      Mr. Bennett: I accept that; the money should come from the environmental body in the Welsh Office, not from MAFF.
      I press the Government for a clear statement on what will happen to access in Wales. We must ensure that there is some justice for the different groups of farmers. Some farmers have been able to use their land for caravan and camping sites, thereby earning a good deal of income, but often the next-door farmers suffer the disadvantage of having people spill over on to their land from these sites, without deriving any income from them.
      I hope we can be told that the Government are looking with some enthusiasm at establishing access agreements so that farmers will receive some income in that way. I hope that the Government will urge that agriculture grants should not be paid to people who block footpaths. They should say that a condition of grants is that farmers ensure that all public footpaths are open to the public.
      It is important for farmers and others living in the countryside to see that people are encouraged to go into the countryside, to enjoy it and to appreciate how carefully farmers look after it. They should be willing to support the farmer's efforts. The Government should declare that they have a policy for encouraging access in Wales which will ensure that footpaths are not obstructed. They should look more and more at giving free access to high moorland, especially in Wales, without the necessity to follow footpaths, many of which are not useful to either the farmer or the walker because they suffer from erosion.
      Sir Hector Monro: I should like to redress the balance following the speech by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). He founded his comments on the letter from the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council, Sir William Wilkinson. Sir William has been a fine chairman and we have all appreciated his exceptional work and are pleased that he is to continue for another year. He was writing in his personal capacity because in the extract read by the hon. Gentleman, Sir William said, "I am concerned", and not that the council was concerned. Since July Sir William has taken up his position with some council members who are on his side, but the majority of the members have been in favour of the proposals. The present Scots members on the council are unanimous about that.
      Mr. Morley: Does the hon. Gentleman think that Sir William's view expressed the opinion of the majority of the NCC staff? Has the NCC ever voted on the matter?
      Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman should not jump in so quickly. I have just started my speech and I shall shortly deal with the matter of staff. Of course Sir William is speaking on behalf of the staff.
      Mr. Morley: On whose behalf does the hon. Gentleman speak?
      Sir Hector Monro: I am speaking on behalf of nobody but myself as the longest serving member of the Nature Conservancy Council. I have not been asked to speak on behalf of anybody and am merely stating the facts as I see them. Of course the staff have been concerned from the beginning, as any staff would be when they realise that there may be reallocations of jobs. However, the Minister has said from the start that their jobs are assured.
      Mr. Morley: It is not just jobs that the staff are concerned about. They are concerned about the principle and quality of nature conservancy in Britain.
      5.15 pm
      Sir Hector Monro: I can hardly utter a word without the hon. Gentleman intervening. I am coming to that matter. Some staff may also have the personal problems of moving house. I agree that they are worried about the future attitude of the council towards nature conservation. However, I do not think that all the members of staff are worried about that.
      We work in great harmony in the NCC. We do not operate under contention and in all the years that I have served on the council I do not recall having to vote on any issue. It is plain that the majority of the appointed members of the NCC are in favour of the legislation. It is right that that should be made clear.
      It is important to bring home to the House and especially to the Opposition that all members of the NCC were anxious from the start about the overall scientific view. However, that was in July and subsequent meetings, changes in attitudes and pronouncements from the Government meant that by Second Reading it was clear that the Government had made a firm decision about how the scientific council would operate. Everyone was pleased to see that Professor Fred Holliday, a man of exceptional ability, was prepared to take on the work.
      It is wrong for the hon. Member for Dagenham to try to find difficulties in every solution. Under the legislation, I do not foresee any difficulty about coming to a satisfactory working arrangement between the councils and the scientific council about how advice is to be given to the Government, who may have to take that advice to Europe or to international forums.
      The hon. Member for Dagenham should try to extend his vision and look separately at Scotland, England and Wales. I do not have the slightest doubt that when the natural heritage agency is in place in Scotland its immense power will enable it to look after scenic beauty, nature reserves, sites of special scientific interest, footpaths such as the Border way and other splendid new routes that the Countryside Commission has developed. When all those powers are controlled by one body, we can look forward to seeing conservation and heritage in Scotland in firm hands. That control will he coupled with the effective
      1066
      voluntary bodies such as the National Trust for Scotland, organisations with an interest in flora and fauna, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other distinguished Scottish organisations.
      The hon. Member for Dagenham does not seem to realise that many people in Scotland were worried that when contentious matters were raised they were not raised from our headquarters in Edinburgh or from the Countryside Commission headquarters at Battleby but from Peterborough. There was a feeling that we Scots who are much nearer the ground in Scotland should have an opportunity to look after nature conservation in the highlands and islands and the west and, indeed, all over Scotland. We wanted a stronger regional set-up and a stronger Scottish headquarters which would run its own scientific operation.
      Throughout the discussions since July, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has made it clear that resources would be available. I am confident that that is so and that we will have a strong scientific base in Scotland, which is what we have wanted for many years. The appointment of Magnus Magnusson, then president of the RSPB, as chairman of the Scottish NCC was an exceptional choice. He is a man of immense capability and, as the Secretary of State for the Environment has said, he has great talent and knowledge. He will lead the Scottish NCC with tremendous skill. He would not have taken on the job if he had not been clear in his mind that this was the right way forward.
      The appointment of Lord Cranbrook to look after the NCC in England was an indication by the Government of how strongly they felt about having a man of great experience as chairman of that body. I may be out on a limb, but I would not be in the least surprised if, within a decade, we see the NCC amalgamate with the Countryside Commission, as will happen in Scotland in the coming year.
      The figures for staff given by the hon. Member for Dagenham were inaccurate. It is difficult to imagine that Scotland would need about two thirds of the present staffing complement in England. That is an exaggeration. Of course the staffing levels will be substantially higher than they are now and there will also be scientists. I accept that this will cost money, but it is worth spending money to develop in Scotland nature conservation, the scenic beauty, the heritage and all that that stands for. If that is not worth spending money on, I do not know what is. I am prepared to accept that extra millions will have to be spent to do this.
      The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was wrong to say that all this has taken place because the Government were annoyed by the attitude taken by the NCC to forestry in the flow country. There were discussions, and the NCC was right to put forward its view, but many matters have to be talked about around tables, and compromises have to be made. We were satisfied with the conclusions that were reached about the areas that could and could not be planted in the flow country and the highlands generally.
      We are setting out on a course that offers tremendous possibilities. It has shown that the Government are keen to have the highest possible standards of conservation throughout the United Kingdom and to devolve them into the three countries of Scotland, Wales and England, separately. Each will have councillors who are closely

      1067
      concerned with their country and with conservation in it. That is the best way to keep a close check on what is happening at the ground level.
      I want to see more regional offices, so that the general public can be closer to the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland. At the moment, offices are widely spread. One sees a regional officer from the NCC only rarely, and that is purely for geographical reasons. We want the country more involved in what we have been trying to do for a long time. This is a splendid opportunity to do that and it is wrong for the Opposition to throw cold water on an exciting and exhilarating idea. I hope that the House will reject the new clause.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I do not agree with the new clause, for a number of reasons that are consistent with the position I took in Committee and which my party has supported. My party has a relatively small percentage of the membership of the House, but our Members of Parliament represent large constituencies. We represent about 20 per cent. of the land area of Great Britain, and nearly half the land area of Scotland and Wales. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but we represent areas in which nature conservation is extremely important and we are very aware of the interaction between the local community and conservationists—certainly more so than the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), as he has shown.
      Given the implications of the debate for Scotland, it is interesting that no Labour Member representing a Scottish constituency is present, despite the fact that such Members constitute about 20 per cent. of the Labour party. I do not blame them for being absent, because the new clause is somewhat embarrassing for them. In its enthusiasm for its policy review to seduce and woo the yuppie vote in the south of England, the Labour party has put forward an argument that has betrayed its heartland in Wales and Scotland and the real interest of people there.
      Mr. Gould: Although we had the pleasure of the hon. Gentleman's company in Committee, he was replaced as the environment spokesman for his party. However, his successor is not present. Is that because his successor might be unhappy with the position taken by the Liberal Democrats of backing major land-owning interests in Scotland against nature conservation throughout the country?
      Mr. Bruce: That intervention demonstrates the hon. Gentleman's lack of knowledge.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Cheap.
      Mr. Bruce: It is not just a cheap point but shows a complete lack of understanding of what goes in in rural areas in Scotland and Wales and of the interaction between parts of the community. If the hon. Member were a little more knowledgeable, he would understand why we have taken a vigorous line on this matter and why nature conservation is about the recognition that all land, throughout Great Britain, is managed and has to be conserved. The argument is about how it is managed. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and if he listens, he will hear my case.
      The new clause is an attempt to subvert and frustrate the whole thrust of the Bill, which is to devolve
      1068
      conservation to Scotland and Wales. As I said in an intervention, the Labour party claims to be in favour of a Scottish conservation agency but is opposing a Bill that would provide such a framework.
      Secondly, the new clause would ensure that the joint committee could commission and organise its own research and employ as many people as it wanted. Therefore, it would be a phoenix arising from the ashes of re-establishment of the NCC, but that body has failed to serve the interests of the Scottish people and is being changed. That is why I do not support the new clause.
      Many people involved in conservation activities and research in Scotland are looking forward to the opportunity that the new body will present to enable them to take a larger share of the research programme that will be commissioned in Scotland than they have been able to secure from the English-based NCC. They are people with commitment, knowledge and expertise in Scotland, in our universities and well-established research institutions, who have not been given the opportunities that they deserve. They will play a constructive role in the future when the new agency has been established.
      One or two questions still arise, and I hope that the Government will be able to give us answers to them. One is how the new body will be funded and structured. That will be the critical test of how the new proposals meet the needs of Scotland. As the hon. Member for Dagenham said—most members of the Committee received a report of this—the World Wide Fund for Nature has made its own calculations of what it thinks would be necessary. It suggested that Scotland would need a budget of £28 million and that the total for the United Kingdom would be about £80 million compared to the current £45 million that is spent through the NCC.
      Nobody expects the Minister to agree to those figures or to accept that they are anything other than the judgment of one body. However, before the Bill leaves the House—certainly before it leaves Parliament—we should have some idea of what funding the Government have in mind. The level of funding will be a criterion on which conservationists can judge whether the Government's language about commitment to conservation is based in truth. The sooner that the Government put a figure on funding, the sooner they will be able to demonstrate whether they are serious about the commitment to long-term conservation that they claim lies behind this reorganisation.
      The Labour party says that the change will be a landowners' charter and simply hands control over to them. We have to resist that possibility. I know that Ministers in the Scottish Office are at least mindful of the danger and recognise that Scottish-based conservationists will want to be part of the organisation. It would be difficult even for this Government to set up a body that excluded a representative group of Scottish-based conservationists.
      The Labour party has to explain why it wishes to deny us the chance to have a Scottish-based body with Scottish conservationists determining our main priorities for how conservation in Scotland should be managed. The same applies for Wales. I resent the patronising implication that somehow the people based in England have a greater knowledge and understanding of how conservation in Scotland should be managed. That completely negates the

      1069
      idea of allowing not only devolution of administration but local communities to be involved in the discussions affecting their livelihoods and communities.
      Mr. Morley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link, which represents Scottish nature conservation bodies, is entirely opposed to the Bill in its present form? Is he saying that its position is patronising?
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Bruce: I am aware that it is opposed to the Bill in its present form. I am aware, however, that it will accept at the end of the day—[Interruption.] I ask hon. Members to let me finish my sentence. It will accept that there are gaps in conservation and research within the NCC that will now be able to be put right. We are talking of bodies that have complained about the NCC's insensitivity in areas such as marine research and issues related to the marine environment. They have complained that the NCC has not given the priority that is so important to Scotland in its research commissioning. It is a matter of judgment whether the devolved body will take that into account.
      It seems that it is the united view of conservationists that, because the proposal that we are discussing came from the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), whose motives were suspicious, they are not prepared to support it. When the present Secretary of State spoke after the hon. Member for Dagenham he said that he felt that the argument that had been advanced behind the emotion was unconvincing. I believe that as the debate progresses the argument becomes less and less convincing. As I said in Committee, it will be welcome when the conservation agencies recognise that change will take place and that they should play a constructive role in making the new system work in the best interests of the people of Scotland and Wales.
      Mr. Robert B. Jones: A moment ago the hon. Gentleman was citing some of the conservation bodies that are worried about the level of marine research that is being carried out. Is it not an ideal opportunity, with the university of St. Andrews having one of the finest departments specialising in marine research, to place some research contracts in Scotland that are connected with some of the problems that are of concern to the people of Scotland?
      Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman advances an argument that is relevant to his connection with the university of St. Andrews. The department to which he refers is not the only department in Scotland that could benefit by being more involved in research in conservation throughout Scotland. Indeed, many people who are involved in conservation feel that in the existing regime their expertise has been undervalued or ignored, and not built into the process.
      There is no virtue in rehearsing the arguments that we had in Committee and the examples that were used then. One of the reasons why the change is necessary and generally popular within Scotland—given the Labour party's strength in Scotland, this is compromising and embarrassing for it—is that people in our communities are fed up with being told by people with no knowledge and understanding how their affairs should be managed. I have quoted the examples of the Islay mosses and the flow
      1070
      country, where even now agreements are not being honoured. Also, the NCC agreed areas that could be accepted for forestry and areas that should be conserved, but then lodged objections when proposals were put forward involving areas that it had previously agreed should be planted. That obviously creates a great deal of frustration. People feel that they are not being involved in a proper decision-making process. A great deal of anguish and hardship could have been avoided if there had been more consultation and involvement with the local community.
      It is interesting that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) commented favourably about the way that farmers manage the landscape. Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen seem to imply that farmers are landowners who are the enemies of conservation. By definition, it is farmers who are most involved in the management of the landscape. Farmers need to be involved in the entire process of designating sites of special scientific interest, which affects their day-to-day activity and livelihood. There is no doubt that the NCC has, on occasions, been insensitive about the way that SSSIs have been designated. As I said in Committee, it has taken the Scottish National Farmers Union to take up the argument with the NCC and to persuade farmers of the merits of what the NCC has tried to do. That has been necessary because of the NCC's insensitivity.
      If we have a Scottish agency that involves the Scottish wildlife agencies, conservation agencies, farmers and local communities, we shall have a far better chance of achieving a balanced programme of conservation which meets the needs of conservation generally and proper land management, as well as the needs of local communities, which are often operating in extremely fragile economic circumstances. It is absurd to suggest that the individuals concerned do not appreciate the quality of their environment. The quality of our food products is a major component of their market attraction, and tourism in Scotland is popular because of the scenic beauty of the countryside and the way in which it is managed and conserved.
      The Labour party may have reasonable grounds for criticising certain aspects of what the Government are proposing and for the lack of information about funding and staffing, and the Government should be more forthcoming on those grounds. However, the Labour party is not convincing when it tries to demolish the devolved process and expects to believe that its commitment to devolving nature conservation matters to a Scottish Parliament must be accepted as sincere. After all, the framework that the Government will set up could easily be taken over by a Labour Government. The Labour party is so confident that it will win the next general election; it could ensure that the structure is converted to meet that Labour Government's requirements. There will be a ready-made structure which will be much closer to the needs of the Scottish people than the existing mechanism that the Opposition want to keep. In those circumstances, it seems that the Opposition have taken a cowardly and unambitious position and have failed to recognise what can be achieved.
      Effectively, the new clause is a Trojan horse. It has been designed deliberately to ensure that the devolved country bodies do not have the source of power that is the intention behind the Bill. It is unacceptable that the joint commission should become big brother and tell the

      1071
      national groups what to do. The people of Scotland will not put up with that, and nor will the people of Wales. I do not think the people of England will either.
      Mr. Robert B. Jones: First, I wish to refer briefly to the comments that have been made about the character and references of Mr. Michael Griffith. It is deplorable that, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, there have been constant personal attacks on the chairman designate. This reached an absurd level when it was claimed in Committee that Mr. Griffith's background was in the National Trust. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) had the temerity to say that the National Trust knew virtually nothing of, or had virtually no experience in, landscape.
      That so hurt and upset the National Trust that it had cause to write to every member of the Committee to draw attention to its distinguished record in the preservation of the landscape and natural heritage of the United Kingdom. I hope that we can start to talk about the issues and not ad hominem politics. It was regrettable that ad hominem politics reared its ugly head again during the speech of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), when it was suggested that he was a spokesman for landowning interests because he took a different view of the issue. That was preposterous.
      There are hon. Members on both side of the House who are genuine and sincere in their commitment to conservation. I know of Opposition Members who have that commitment, and there are those on the Government Benches, among whom I count myself, who share it. The debate is not about goodies and baddies—people being for or against conservation—but about how conservation is best delivered. The record of the NCC suggests that it is better to have conservation in the community that goes with the grain rather than to have it imposed from on high.
      Once conservationists have the image of an elite group who force their views on others, the battle is lost. It would not be possible then, no matter how well staffed the NCC or any other body was, to ensure that conservation was carried out in practice. It must be the consideration of each and every person in the country that we must ensure that we preserve our natural environment. That is best done in a devolved framework.
      I confess that when the proposals first surfaced, I was rather worried. Indeed, I went to the trouble of letting my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary know that I was not prepared to support them. But a great deal has changed since then. The three issues about which I was most concerned were, first, the preservation of the science base; secondly, the avoidance of parochialism by the councils; and, thirdly, the prevention of the formation of a bureaucracy that would lead to an inferior delivery of conservation at the grass roots.
      Since that time, a joint committee has been established and three distinguished people have been appointed to head the councils for England, Scotland and Wales. The Opposition are trying to pretend, as they did in Committee, that none of that has happened, and that we are where we were 12 months ago. The truth is that the whole framework has shifted dramatically. I am sure that, under the distinguished leadership of Professor Holliday and others, the science base will be enhanced. As the hon.
      1072
      Member for Gordon rightly said, there are a number of distinguished academics in England, Scotland and Wales who can help in that work.
      Knowing the generosity of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish and Welsh Offices compared with what happens in England, I do not doubt that more money will be spent on conservation and that there will be more staff—
      Sir Hector Monro: That is fully justified.
      Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is right. I no longer have any worry about the science base and I am sure that access to it will be maintained in the Scottish and Welsh councils and that they will supplement it with their own science bases. It flies in the face of all experience to pretend that scientists are best utilised in central headquarters rather than out in the field. What happens at grass-roots level is much more effective than what happens at the centre.
      I was also concerned about the possible emergence of bureaucracy. I make that point in particular because of my interest in the British Trust for Ornithology, which is located in my constituency. Indeed, I raised the matter several times in Committee. I wish to take this opportunity publicly to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for having set in train a solution to the problem that I raised with him, which is quite acceptable to the trust. I have raised one or two additional technical points with him through correspondence, but rather than delay the House today I simply ask him to treat them equally seriously and sympathetically when the Bill is debated in another place.
      It is right and proper to consider the recommendations of the Carver committee. Select Committees, both of this House and of another place, do a great deal of valuable work. They have the time to sift the evidence and to reach practical conclusions. It would be unfair if their serious recommendations were to be accepted or dismissed at the drop of a hat, rather than considered over a reasonable period and subject to consultation. I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said today about responding to the recommendations in another place once there has been time to go through the processes.
      Mr. Gould rose—
      Mr. Jones: I shall certainly give way, which is rather more than the hon. Gentleman did for me in Committee.
      Mr. Gould: I do not think that the record will bear out that uncharitable remark.
      I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Carver committee's report deserves considerable consideration. Does he support the view of so many that the obvious place to give that consideration and to provide the time necessary is in the forthcoming White Paper, rather than in the Bill?
      Mr. Jones: I do not agree. There has already been too much delay in trying to improve conservation. It would be far better to take this opportunity to legislate because there will be further opportunities, both in another place and when the Bill returns to this House, to decide whether the Government have it right in respect of the Carver committee's recommendations.
      One of the difficulties with conservation during the past few years, since environmental issues became so important, has been the tendency to go against the grain

      1073
      and to impose actions on people that they then resent, but which they might have agreed to work with had there been proper consultation. That is true in the farming community and in many other areas. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald)—who, sadly, is not here today—gave a good example of that in Committee, as did the hon. Member for Gordon when he referred to Islay.
      The Bill is a framework. My right hon. Friend has responded sympathetically to the concerns expressed. I do not want the new clause to be carried, and I recommend the House to reject it.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Paul Murphy: The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) expressed his concern about comments made about the chairman designate of the Countryside Council for Wales. I assure him that no personal slight was intended. It is important that he and other hon. Members realise that there is a deep resentment in many parts of the Principality about landowners, usually wealthy landowners, heading non-elected quangos, whether in England, Scotland or Wales.
      I am sure that the Minister of State, Welsh Office is aware of the resentment in the Principality that a number of people hold down one or more jobs—bringing themselves a great deal of money—including the gentleman to whom the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West referred, and who is also the chairman of Clwyd health authority. It is not right that all those jobs should be concentrated in the hands of certain individuals. They should be spread out. However, I do not intend to concentrate on that issue because my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) at least managed to bring the Minister to the Chamber to deal with it. We expressed our concern in Committee, when many Welsh matters were discussed, including the NCC and its break-up.
      I must tell the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that the Opposition do not believe that the break-up of the NCC is necessarily devolution. In any event, it had intended to sort itself out in a federal structure only days before the Government publicly issued their order to break up that organisation. We believe in devolution but not in the break-up of the NCC. Of course, the last people to whom we should look for devolution are the Government. They refused our request to devolve the National Rivers Authority to Wales and create a separate authority.
      I wish to speak to the new clauses that have been tabled in my name, although I do not intend to press any of them to a Division. They are intended to probe. There is considerable concern in the Principality about the lack of consultation in the setting up of the new Countryside Council for Wales. People compare the Welsh position with that of Scotland where, whatever the rights and wrongs, there has been a two-state approach with proper consultation. The Secretary of State for Scotland said:
      "The two-stage approach we have adopted gives us time to collect ideas, consult informed opinion and to develop a practical and effective agency."
      Hon. Members have referred to the Carver committee. Its report said:
      "To move in one step to the appointment of a Countryside Council for Wales is a major change, when Wales has neither an NCC nor a Countryside Commission of its own at present.
      1074
      Great care should be taken to agree the mandate of the new Council in consultation with interested parties, including voluntary bodies."
      There has been no consultation with voluntary bodies in Wales. The Welsh Minister is aware that many of the voluntary bodies concerned with the environment and with conservation are deeply opposed to the proposals. They include the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, the Association of Welsh Wildlife Trusts, the Welsh National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Friends of the Earth (Cymru), the Open Spaces Society, the Welsh Ramblers Association, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (Wales), and many others. They are all deeply concerned about what is happening, yet they have not been consulted.
      I sincerely hope that when the Minister returns to the Welsh Office he will be able to find a means of proper and meaningful consultation before the new organisation is set up. We are to have a White Paper on the environment. If it were left to many hon. Members, we would abandon part VII until we had that White Paper. Since that is unlikely, let there be more consultation. The Government should listen to those who know, not necessarily to those whom they want to hear.
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I find myelf in the remarkable and perhaps unreal position of failing to understand why the Labour party is taking the position that it is on this issue. I was not privileged to be a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, but I have carefully read the debate on Second Reading and the Committee's deliberations on the setting up of the new Countryside Council for Wales, and I still do not understand why the Labour party has adopted its current position.
      I would have been able to take the Labour party's arguments a little more seriously if it had tabled a constructive new clause that sought a better council and better consultation. However, I am not convinced, since all that we have is a wrecking new clause.
      I am worried to find myself agreeing with many of the sentiments expressed by Conservative Members. I have always been led to believe that in Wales the Conservative party was the unionist party and the Labour party was the party of devolution.
      I was persuaded by the convincing arguments of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). He said that the people of Scotland should have the opportunity, through their own body and their own organisations, to make decisions that affect conservation matters in Scotland. That is an argument that I should like to advance on behalf of the people of Wales.
      I accept that there are dangers in the breaking up of any body involved in conservation. Conservation cannot be considered in simple geographical terms because nature conservation transcends boundaries. But nobody here is seriously suggesting that we should have a European conservancy council despite the fact that many of the. problems affecting conservation in England, Scotland and Wales have a European dimension.
      It is necessary to discuss some matters across boundaries because there are common interests in conservation matters but, ultimately, decisions affecting the lives of people within the countryside must be made at the closest possible point to the place where those people live. That is a fundamental principle. I would subscribe to

      1075
      the belief set out in the Bill that decisions affecting conservation matters in Wales should be decided by an all-Wales body.
      I accept that there are difficulties, that we are not entirely satisfied about the structure and whether the body will be properly and decently funded, but those are matters of detail. The real argument of principle is about the setting up of a body that would be responsible for conservation matters in Wales.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Jones: I shall be brief. I understand that other matters have to be discussed.
      I have great respect for the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who argues his points well. He has said that some bodies in Wales are unhappy about the Government's proposals. But at the end of the day what convinces me is that those who will be responsible for conservation in Wales are in favour of the plans. The Welsh committee of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Welsh committee of the Countryside Commission in Wales support the plans wholeheartedly and it is important that that should be placed on the record.
      The Labour party is generally in support of devolution and greater transfer of control to the historic nations of Britain. Therefore, it is with no pleasure that I say that on this occasion it has got it wrong in a massive way. The Labour party has also got it wrong in the drafting of new clause 6. It is a small but revealing point that it refers to
      "the undertaking of research at a national level".
      I assume from the way in which the new clause is drawn that that refers to a British or a United Kingdom level. I hope that, as a result of the debate, the Labour party will acknowledge that there is more than one historic nation in the counties of Britain.
      Mr. William Ross: This is the second time that I have intervened in debates on the Bill which, unfortunately, does not cover the whole of the United Kingdom, only Great Britain. I make a plea that I made only the other evening in the House, not for the first time and this will not be the last time, that the House should do away with limited jurisdiction on matters of national importance and produce Bills which cover the whole of the United Kingdom. The sooner that that is done, the better for us all.
      Amendment No. 107, to which I and the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) have put our names, was debated in Committee on 13 March, when the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) addressed the Committee. It asks for clarification of the representation that is to come from Northern Ireland.
      In Committee, the Minister said that the amendment was unnecessary. That may be so, but I should like him to tell me why. Is it that, whenever the term Secretary of State is mentioned, it includes all Secretaries of State, so that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can appoint Members to the Committee?
      The amendment asks for two representatives of nature conservation interests in Northern Ireland. I believe that I have read somewhere that those peopole would attend as
      1076
      assessors. I would have been much happier if those who advise me had asked for voting Members from Northern Ireland, which does not appear to be the case.
      Northern Ireland has a number of extremely important winter sites for wildfowl. Strangford Lough is internationally famous and important, as is Lough Foyle. There are also a number of other smaller sites of interest. I take but little interest in birds, but I like to see them around and I took pleasure in hearing the first cuckoo for the first time in several years only the other morning. I hope that that is a sign of better things to come. Cuckoos and corncrakes used to be common in my part of the world. I hope that I hear one again before the year is done.
      I hope that the Minister will give us more detail than he did in Committee in March. He said that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would nominate two members to the co-ordinating committee. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House how they will be chosen and what groups of people and bodies in Northern Ireland they will represent. In Committee, he also said:
      "I hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division, because it is completely unnecessary."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 13 March 1990; c. 1190.]
      I hope that he will explain why it is unnecessary, because people in Northern Ireland would like to know.
      I could say much more, but I assume that the legislation will be carried forward to Northern Ireland within the next year or two through the Order-in-Council procedure. I hope that it will be among the last Orders in Council to proceed because it would involve what we in the Unionist party describe as a theft clause, simply asking to extend the Bill to Northern Ireland, and the House could have been spared another late night and perhaps one or two sittings in Committee. Sadly, this is the last time I shall speak on the matter during debates on the Bill.
      6 pm
      Mr. Roberts: I welcome this opportunity to inject a Welsh element into the Government's winding-up speech for this evening's important and interesting debate, particularly as Wales is to be the first country in the United Kingdom to have a unitary body combining the functions of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission. Whatever else may be said about the issue, I can assure the House that the decision had nothing to do with the flow country. I am ashamed to confess that I am still not sure where the flow country is.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, when he announced the proposed changes last July, summed up the significance of the proposed new council for Wales when he said:
      "It also means that decisions affecting Wales will in future be taken in Wales. A single body attuned to the needs of the Principality will be of undoubted benefit to Wales."—[Official Report, 11 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 435.]
      A Welsh body answerable to the Welsh Office must be in the best position to reflect Welsh needs. Judging by the debate this evening, that feeling is reciprocated by Scottish Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). I understand that the Labour Scottish environment spokesman, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), has described it as "a sensible rationalisation" in The Scotsman. Therefore, the stance of the Opposition spokesman is inexplicable.
      Mr. Gould: Since the Minister believes that our policy is inexplicable, perhaps I may make a further attempt to explain it to him. As we have said many times, there is a fundamental distinction between devolution and what is proposed in the Bill—the destruction of a Great Britain or United Kingdom basis for conservation efforts. I agree with the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) on that subject. Why does the former necessarily involve the latter?
      Mr. Roberts: Whenever the hon. Gentleman speaks, he seems to use the word "dismemberment" to describe Government proposals and "devolution" to hint at his own. During the debate it has become absolutely clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House what the Government have in mind and why.
      As the hon. Members for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) implied, there has been much play on the fact that there was no public consultation before the announcement was made. It seems strange that the Government should be criticised for first announcing their decisions to Parliament. Consultation on the broad principles involved was not necessary because the Government already had sufficient information to come to a conclusion about the structural reorganisation proposed.
      The hon. Member for Torfaen repeated the comparison made with the consultations undertaken in Scotland. As I understand it, Scotland has not consulted on the proposals in the Bill any more than England and Wales. It has consulted on a second stage—on whether to amalgamate the present Countryside Commission for Scotland with the new Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, since both bodies are large enough to be separate. In Wales that was not an option, since the Countryside Council employs only some 14 staff in Wales and even allowing for some strengthening on independence it would not be large enough to be a viable proposition. A joint body was desirable and inevitable for Wales.
      Conservation and the wider countryside issues are essentially complementary. The NCC and the Countryside Commission already work very closely together in Wales and did so before the present proposals were ever suggested. As there was no viable alternative to amalgamation in Wales, consultation on the point of principle was unnecessary. Of course, we have invited comments on the implementation of our proposals.
      Last October, I delivered a speech on the occasion of the launch of the annual review of the Countryside Commission's committee for Wales. Representatives of most of the relevant voluntary organisations in Wales were present, and I devoted a substantial part of my speech to the reorganisation and invited comments on the proposals.
      I have also seen every organisation that has asked to see me. Those have included the chairman and chief officers of the national parks, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society, the Sports Council for Wales, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Countryside Commission and the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales. I mention the latter organisation in particular as it has been somewhat vociferous in its comments. In fact, the differences between us are not all that great. As the CPRW has clearly shown, it supports the proposed changes in principle, but is concerned about the timing and method of implementation.
      I accept that, while some of the voluntary bodies are not in favour of the changes, we have had—as has been
      1078
      pointed out—strong support from the chairmen arid members of the committees for Wales of the NCC and the Countryside Commission. All the political parties in Wales have generally welcomed the proposals, not excluding the Leader of the Opposition.
      I am sure that all those who have reservations will see the advantages of the new arrangements once the Countryside Council for Wales is up and running and has had a chance to make its mark on the Welsh scene.
      Mr. Morley: I have two questions for the Minister. First, if we agree with the thrust of his arguments, why did he argue against a Welsh National Rivers Authority being set up for the people of Wales? Secondly, he will recognise that Welsh bodies will have international obligations. As a member of the Government, will he give an assurance to the House that international obligations will be applied consistently throughout the countryside bodies in the three countries?
      Mr. Roberts: The hon. Member for Torfaen, who raised that question in Committee, also answered it. He said that the remit of the National Rivers Authority was different, and, as it is a regulatory body, it is clearly different. I shall not explain what my right hon. Friend has said about the role of the joint committee but it is clear that the Countryside Council for Wales will contribute to any international obligations that we might have.
      The Welsh dimension has clearly been exercising the mind of the hon. Member for Torfaen, who has tabled 13 new clauses—amounting to his version of this part of the Bill. He said that they were probing new clauses, so I assume that this is not really the Opposition's version of our part VII. If it is, the policy seems to be to increase the number of quangos all round, so we would end up with two separate bodies in each country—one for nature conservation and one for landscape and recreation. That is to be preceded by a wholly unnecessary abolition of the existing Countryside Commission, which means of course that there has to be an extra residuary body. On top of that, we would have a much enhanced joint committee. That looks like seven quangos in all, compared with the four proposed by the Government. I need hardly say that I do not think that that proposition is acceptable.
      The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (M r. Bennett) spoke to his new clause 10. The Government and I share his desire that all obstructions should be removed from public rights of way. The Countryside Commission's campaign to clear all rights of way by the year 2000 is, of course, to be applauded. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for walking in the countryside and the ingenious devices that he has suggested in new clause 10 to bring the subject within the ambit of the Bill. However, the Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for tackling what the hon. Gentleman sees as the deficiencies of present legislation. I am confident that the Countryside Council for Wales will give due weight to all access matters without the need for the organisational straitjacket proposed in the new clause.
      The composition of the joint committee is addressed by amendments Nos. 107 and 150. On the latter, the Government have given an assurance that we shall introduce an amendment to achieve this purpose—so that the chairman of the joint committee will be appointed directly by the Secretary of State. The representation of Northern Ireland on the joint committee, to which the

      1079
      hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) referred again, is yet another issue covered by Lord Carver's report. That point is covered by amendment No. 107. I cannot give a formal assurance that we shall amend the Bill as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but we are sympathetic to Lord Carver's views on the subject and I very much hope that there will be a Government amendment in another place to meet that objective.
      Amendment No. 137 would make co-operation and joint working with local authorities a principal function of the new agencies. There is no doubt that that will be highly desirable and, indeed, much is done at present with the local authorities by the NCC and the Countryside Commission, particularly the latter, whose programmes are frequently entirely reliant on the efforts of local councils in the countryside. As there is no difficulty in working in that fashion, I see no need to supplement the law as suggested by the amendment; nor would it be right to make that a principal objective when there are other partnerships—such as those with voluntary bodies, farmers, landowners and industry—which are equally important.
      In Standing Committee, my hon. Friends gave several undertakings to consider items raised by hon. Members, and I should like to deal with them now. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who made an excellent supportive speech today, referred to licences for the ringing and nest recording scheme operated by the British Trust for Ornithology. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) expressed similar concern about possible administrative problems if the licences were to be issued separately by the three new councils.
      This is an important point. The BTO's work provides essential data and, although we are not willing to compromise on the basic principle that territorial matters should fall to the council concerned, we are keen to keep the bureaucracy to a minimum. BTO ringers operate mainly under a general licence, but some individual licences are necessary. At present, applications for both types of licence are made by the BTO and it is difficult to imagine that the new councils will not continue with that arrangement. However, we believe that it would be sensible for them to co-ordinate their action on that work. We are therefore writing to the shadow chairmen asking, first, that they agree to continue using the good offices of the BTO and, secondly, that they nominate one of the councils to act as a co-ordinator for both the general and individual licences. Decisions on the licences would be taken by the appropriate council—that is an important point of principle—but they would liaise closely and applications would have to be made to only one body. We shall also ask that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has a similar arrangement with the NCC to that of the BTO, should also have the benefit of this one-stop shopping facility.
      6.15 pm
      The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish raised a number of points. He suggested that community service orders should be used to enhance and conserve the countryside. I confirm that that matter has been raised with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home
      1080
      Secretary. I confirm that the resource implications of access agreements for national parks will be considered at the appropriate point in their budgetary process.
      The hon. Member for Gordon raised the important matter of marine conservation. I accept that this is a difficult subject, not because, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, there is a hiatus in the legislation but because of the inherent difficulties in protecting marine areas. To cut a long story short, I accept that the designation process is rather laborious, but it reflects not only the voluntary principle enshrined in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 but the different uses of, and rights that are held over, marine areas. One cannot simply put a fence around a marine nature reserve to protect it, so one has to negotiate with users and so on to come to a solution that will be respected by all. That inevitably takes time, but at the end of the day will ensure that the site is properly protected.
      I echo the sentiments expressed earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I ask the House to reject the new clause.
      Mr. Gould: We have had a useful and interesting debate, but I do not think that we can claim to have covered much, if any, new territory. The Opposition had hoped that the presence and interventions of, first, the Secretary of State for the Environment and, then, the Minister of State, Welsh Office and the remarks of other hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee would have carried us a little further forward by disclosing some of the Government's plans for the joint committee. I am afraid that our expectations have been dashed, because we are still very much where we were when the Committee concluded its deliberations. That is unfortunate, and it is a sad way to treat the House of Commons.
      I very much take the point made by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) when he made the case for giving proper consideration to some of these matters, especially to giving proper weight to the Carver committee's recommendations. I have no quarrel with that argument, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that it points firmly in the direction of not rushing forward, as the Government did, to dismember the NCC without consultation.
      I suspect that the Secretary of State would have preferred, in his heart of hearts, to deal with the question of how best to organise nature conservancy throughout the country within the context of the White Paper which he is preparing. The fact that that is not now his preferred option is further evidence of the low expectations of the White Paper.
      The disappointing aspect of the debate was that we did not hear anything more about the joint committee and the response to the Carver committee. We heard no comment about the increased costs that the new arrangements would necessarily produce. We heard no constructive comment on the central question which bedevilled the committee's deliberations—the real question of who would prevail in the event of a dispute. Those who were not members of the committee professed to think that that was of no importance, but I suspect that, if they were to consult the Under-Secretary, he would give them a different answer, with good reason. A lack of understanding of that crucial point marked the contribution of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
      I was astonished at the cavalier way in which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) appeared to dismiss the

      1081
      virtually unanimous view of Scottish voluntary conservation bodies who were worried about what was proposed. He accused some of us of being patronising, but I have not heard anything as patronising as that.
      The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) was equally confused. He raised his long-term assumption, which he felt had somehow been displaced by the debate, that the Conservative party was the party of unionism. He may or may not be right, although I have my own view on it, but he overlooked the fact that the Conservative party is the party of major landowners and commercial interests; certainly it is not the party of nature conservation. The authority we have for that is no less than the Prime Minister herself, who dismissed all the people who were concerned about such issues as airy-fairy environmentalists.
      Mr. Chris Patten: I just want to comment on that not entirely well informed prejudice. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell the House about how the Labour Government expressed their concern for nature conservancy by referring us to the amount of money which they put into nature conservancy and how it compares with the record of this Administration.
      Mr. Gould: I note that the Secretary of State did not dispute the remarks which I attributed to the Prime Minister, nor did he take the opportunity of commenting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—on the far more important point, which is the actual cost of his proposals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] We have yet to hear from him, or from those who are yelling and barracking in their traditional fashion, whether the estimate of a £20 million increase in the budget is accurate. We have heard not a word on that.
      Our purpose is to offer the Secretary of State yet one more chance. We are a forgiving and optimistic party, and we still hope that the Secretary of State will live to fight the battle. We have no great expectation, I am sorry to say, that he will win. I judge by the glimmer of appreciation on his face that he may still harbour some hope. We think tht he is still engaged in the battle. We hope that he is engaged in it on behalf of conservation to ensure that the Carver recommendations are brought forward in legislative form.
      So far, he has lost, because his Cabinet colleagues have insisted that the grubby deal between the Scottish Office and Scottish landowners should be maintained; but, because we hope that he will fight the battle on behalf of nature conservation, we want to give him the chance to bring forward proposals in another place. For that reason alone, I seek the leave of the House to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 9

      INCREASED PROTECTION OF THE NORTH SEA
      '(1) The Secretary of State shall draw up a plan to reduce the entry of harmful substances into the North Sea.
      (2) The plan established under subsection (1) above shall include—

      (a) measures to prohibit the dumping of sewage sludge from January 1st 1993;

      (b) measures to achieve zero discharges of inputs harmful to the marine environment by January 1st 2000;

      1082

      (c) measures to prohibit the dumping of flyash from January 1st 1991;

      (d) measures to prohibit the dumping of industrial wastes from January 1st 1991;

      (e) measures to limit discharges from shipping;

      (f) measures to limit discharges from oil and gas platforms; and

      (g) measures to regulate further the transport of hazardous substances and to introduce a register of accidents at sea which result in the entry of harmful substances into the marine environment.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause17—Marine conservation zones—
      '(1) A Council shall, where it is of the opinion that any area of sea, or land adjacent to such area including land which is continuously or intermittntly covered by water, is in need of protection by reason of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features, prepare and monitor management plans for such area, and such area is to be designated as a Marine Conservation Zone.
      (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a Council shall identify and delineate such a Marine Conservation Zone by reference to a plan and each plan shall have attached a short statement of the reasons why the Council considers the area to be in need of protection.
      (3) The bodies listed in Schedule (Marine Conservation Zones advertising and relevant bodies) to this Act shall provide the relevant Council for their area any details of activities carried on by them or on their behalf as are required by the Council and shall after consultation with the Council agree a management plan.
      (4) Where there is any proposed change in or intensification of such activities the bodies shall inform the Council and agree a new management plan if the Council considers that such a plan is necessary or desirable.
      (5) If any body listed in Schedule (Marine Conservation Zones advertising and relevant bodies) fails to agree a management plan before the designation of a Marine Conservation Zone that body shall comply with an interim management plan drawn up by the Council for the period from the date of the designation until agreement is reached and in the absence of such agreement the interim management plan shall continue to have effect.
      (6) In the event of an interim management plan not being superseded by a management plan within six months of the interim management plan coming into effect the Secretary of State shall, on application by either the Council or the Body to which the interim management plan applies, decide the contents of the management plan and the date from which it is to come into effect.
      (7) Where the areas referred to in subsection (1) above fall within the area of more than one Council the Councils may act jointly in carrying out the duties conferred by this section.
      (8) The provisions of Schedule (Marine Conservation Zones advertising and relevant bodies) shall have effect with regard to the publication of the plan and statement prepared under subsection (2) above.
      (9) For the purposes of this section the areas of each Council shall extend to the territorial waters adjacent to Great Britain and any part of Great Britain which is bounded by territorial waters shall be taken to include the territorial waters adjacent to that part.
      (10) In this section "Council" means the Nature Conservancy Council for England, the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland or the Countryside Council for Wales as the case may be and "Councils" shall be construed accordingly.'.

      1083
      New clause 55—Retrieval of harmful substances from the marine environment—
      '(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that it is necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting the marine environment, the living resources which it supports, or human health or activities, he shall carry out or cause to have carried out operations to retrieve any harmful substances from the sea in United Kingdom controlled waters, or from any land adjoining the sea in United Kingdom controlled waters.
      (2) Where operations are carried out under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State may recover from the owner or master of the ship or ship's boat from which the harmful substances entered the sea any expenses reasonably incurred by him in carrying out such operations.'.
      Amendment No. 105—a new schedule—'Marine Conservation Zones Advertising and Relevant Bodies
      1. On designating a Marine Conservation Zone the Council or Councils if acting jointly shall publish details of the location of the zone by advertising the designation of the zone in the Gazette and also in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area in which the zone is situated, such advertisement to contain a short description of the extent and boundaries of the zone and the address at which a plan of the zone may be inspected and the hours during which it may be inspected.
      2. In this Schedule "the Gazette" means

      (a) If the zone is situated in whole or in part in England and Wales, the London Gazette;

      (b) If the zone is situated in whole or in part in Scotland, the Edinburgh Gazette;

      3. (1) The bodies to which section (Marine Conservation Zones) applies are:
      Crown Estate Commissioners

      Department of Transport

      Department of Trade and Industry

      Department of The Environment

      Department of Energy

      Department of Defence

      Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

      Department of Agriculture and Fisheries of Scotland

      National Rivers Authority

      Water Purification Boards

      Sea Fisheries Committee

      Trinity House

      Local Authorities

      Port and Harbour Authorities

      and any other body which the Secretary of State may from time to time consider appropriate.
      (2) In this Schedule, "Trinity House" means the Trinity House as defined in section 742 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894.'.
      Mr. Hughes: The purpose of new clause 9 is to increase the protection of the North sea—a most important issue. The purpose of new clause 17 is to establish marine conservation. New clause 55 is a linked clause, which would give the Secretary of State power to retrieve harmful substances from the marine environment. Marine conservation, the protection of the marine environment and, in particular, the protection of the North sea are rightly being given an important place in the debate. If we want evidence of how the Government are the environmental back sliders of Europe, we see that what they do does not live up to what they say. The way in which we, as a maritime country surrounded by the sea, protect our marine environment evidences the weakness of the Government's position.
      New clause 9 contains a seven-part plan. If I were back in the law courts, as opposed to this court, I would frame
      1084
      an indictment in which there were seven counts. At the end of the evidence there is no doubt that on a charge of failing to protect the North sea, the Government would be found guilty on each of the seven counts, which are that they have not adequately agreed to prohibit the dumping of sewage sludge, that they are not committed in any way to achieving zero discharge of inputs harmful to the marine environment in any reasonable or immediate period, that they have not committed themselves to ban the dumping of fly ash as they should have done and as it is necessary to do, that they are not committed adequately and urgently to prohibit the dumping of industrial waste in the North sea, that they are not committed to limit discharges from shipping into the North sea, that they are not committed to proper measures to limit discharges from oil and gas platforms into the North sea, and that they are not committed sufficiently to regulate the transport of hazardous substances and to maintain a register of accidents at sea as a result of which harmful substances enter the marine environment.
      One tragedy of Britain is that we regularly put at risk not just the land, which is our responsibility, but the large expanses of water around us over which we have significant influence. Over the years the North sea and the Irish sea—although the debate is not about the Irish sea—have become dumping grounds for much of the country's waste. The worst evidence against us as a nation is that on many of the seven charges in the indictment we are the only country which is committing the offences. Other countries have long since stopped doing so.
      Taking the seven counts in turn, on sewage sludge the new clause has been tabled because we believe that until the Government stop embarrassing the country at international conferences and become committed to urgent deadlines that make it clear that the environment comes first and not second to other interests, it is necessary for us to establish the deadlines. The presumption is that that should be done sooner rather than later. The Government have never adequately rebutted that presumption.
      We are the only country in the world to continue to dump sewage sludge in the North sea. The amount is not small; last year it was 3·5 million tonnes, much of it contaminated by heavy metals. That sewage sludge probably contains viruses because, unlike other countries, we do not pasteurise our sewage. I understand that there is one small pasteurisation plant in north Yorkshire, and only last month in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the Minister said that this country has no plans to require more extensive use of such facilities.
      There is some confusion about the urgency of the problem. On the one hand, Ministers from the Department of the Environment have said in answer to a letter from one of my colleagues:
      "We do not permit the dumping of harmful industrial waste at sea".
      Yet in an answer to me the following month, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made the clear admission that shellfish were being examined for viruses, which have no doubt developed because of the dumping of sludge, not in a single isolated site, but in many sites off our coasts.

      1085
      6.30 pm
      This is a serious problem, of enormous scale. Perhaps the best people to judge its seriousness are the fishermen who fish in the North sea and who have to work in a foul environment. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food accepts that those fishermen have complained regularly that they become ill as a result of fishing near sludge disposal sites. Although the Ministry has taken those complaints seriously, it has not yet done anything about the problem. It is a tragedy that fishing is now dangerous in much of the North sea because of the amount of sludge that we have dumped there, which directly affects the people who use the sea.
      It is no good saying that we are beginning to deal with the problem adequately by sifting out the plastic and sewage sludge because, although it is true that there is some screening, it is not comprehensive. Another recent written answer from MAFF made it clear that there is now screening at one of the treatment plants, but not at the other.
      It is a sordid business and a sordid sea. Fishermen regularly discover that they are fishing through floating layers of unlimited faeces. On 24 February this year, an article described the sea off Tyneside, which is not far from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith):
      "When fishermen's nets are hauled in off the Tyne, they are dense with treated faeces and thousands of condoms and sanitary towels. 'It can turn the stomach of the most experienced seaman', said Ray Morse, skipper of the Conduan, based in North Shields."
      Next comes the important evidence:
      "Thirty years ago, fishermen had bumper catches—but these have all gone. Last week, one trawler netted two boxes in five hours.
      Trawlermen are now considering fishing up to 100 miles out at sea, compared with a few miles five years ago."
      That harms the fishing industry because many vessels are not equipped to travel as far as is now necessary to fish for the catches upon which the fishermen depend for their living.
      The Government have said that it is all right to deal with the problem by 1998, but that is not sufficient. They should show greater seriousness and adopt a much earlier deadline. We have proposed a deadline of the beginning of 1993.
      I hope that the Government realise that this matter is now of significant interest, not only to the fishing and farming industries, but to the whole community. Just before the North sea conference earlier this year, I received not only the clearly prompted, standard-form letters from people who are members of environmental organisations, but letters that had been personally written. I received one such letter from a constituent who I remember as a troublesome youth a few years ago. He is now in prison and wrote to me, having been persuaded of the importance of international environmental issues. This is the first letter that I have received from him since he has been in prison and it is worth noting that, although prisoners write to their Members of Parliament about many things, they do not normally write about international environmental issues. It is interesting that having had a chance to reflect on his life and condition, the way in which we treat our environment was the issue on which that prisoner chose to write to me.
      We should attack the problem urgently. It is no good saying that we can put it off for nearly another decade.
      Mr. Hugo Summerson: We have heard the hon. Gentleman speak at some length about the problems caused by the dumping of sewage sludge in the North sea. The essence of politics is that one not only criticises, but comes up with a solution to the problem. The hon. Gentleman has said that 3·5 million tonnes of sewage sludge are dumped in the North sea—that is an awful lot of sewage sludge—so what would he do about it right now? Would he spread it on the land? Would he build incinerator plants? What would he do about the problem between now and January 1993?
      Mr. Hughes: It is generally accepted that we should dispose of what there is where we can control it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that one criticism of what we are doing to spoil our marine environment is that we have adopted what is basically an "out of sight, out of mind" disposal solution. It is believed that if things are removed from visibility, they do not matter and that the problem flows away when it is invisible.
      Sewage sludge should be treated and screened properly and we should have the necessary processes for that. We should ensure that we have alternative land sites rather than sea sites. That point has been argued consistently. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the problem is not confined to sewage sludge, but relates to everything that we export off the coasts of our country. It is no good simply saying that we should send our waste or burn our toxic materials offshore; that can do just as much, if not more, harm at sea as on the land.
      Since I have been a Member of the House, it has been the general view of the Government—and everybody else—that disposals should take place where one can see what one is doing and where one can control and monitor the effects of the disposal of anything that is toxic or harmful.
      Our second proposal relates to achieving by the end of the decade zero discharges of inputs that are harmful to the marine environment. Although that is not a short time scale, it is important that we have such a target, because at the moment we have only an inadequate list of materials for which we have targets.
      Our third proposal relates to the dumping of fly ash, which causes a particular problem because some people claim—and the Government argue this case—that such dumping does not cause any harm to the marine environment because it is inert. In addition, it is argued that there are no land-based alternatives. However. there is also a serious dispute about whether we are in breach of the international requirements on fly ash. There is no doubt that fly ash will continue to be created, but the problem is what we do with it. Another dispute relates to the implications of such dumping both now and in the future.
      We believe that the commitment that Britain made in the agreement that was signed at the 1987 international conference was to phase out the dumping of industrial waste in the North sea by 31 December 1989. We further believe that fly ash dumping breaks the terms of that agreement because it harms the marine environment by killing the sea bed. Alternative disposal methods are available, such as using landfill sites or using energy conservation measures to reduce the amount that needs to be dumped. Furthermore, such dumping cannot be justified by the arguments that the Prime Minister and other Ministers regularly use, such as the prior justification

      1087
      procedure argument—that there is no practical alternative on the one hand and, on the other hand, that harm is not caused.
      The tragedy is that the north-east coast of Britain is the only place in Europe where fly ash is dumped at sea. Furthermore, the amount that is dumped at sea is small and is therefore capable of elimination. In simple scientific terms, it effectively renders the sea bed inert. It is not as solid as, but it is like putting down, a concrete particle substance, and certainly much life is killed by being smothered with fly ash. There is a great problem in monitoring the effects of what we do and the extent of fly ash dumping. I hope, therefore, that the Government realise that it is not that we pretend that there is no problem—there is an issue, because we create fly ash as a result of burning coal—but there are alternative disposal solutions which we have advocated and which are perfectly feasible and proper.
      We also propose measures to prohibit the dumping of industrial wastes from the beginning of next year. This is where the Government are at their most vulnerable. The Government said that they would phase out the dumping of industrial wastes by the end of 1989, but they have granted licences which take us beyond the end of 1989 to the end of 1992 and potentially into 1993. What they did was made worse by the way in which they argued their case. They said that they were ending dumping—there were great press releases and great declarations of intent—but then they talked about exceptions. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), they admitted the extent of the exceptions. My hon. Friend's question was:
      "To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many licences to dump chemical industrial wastes in the North sea will be terminated by 31 December 1992; and how many will continue to be in force;
      (2) what percentage of chemical industrial wastes dumped in the North sea will be terminated by 31 December 1992; and what percentage will continue."
      The answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), was:
      "It is my intention that all licences to dispose of industrial wastes in the North sea covered by the 1987 North sea declaration will be terminated by 31 December 1992. For two of the wastes, however, involving 77 per cent. of the current total annual licensed tonnage, it might not be technically feasible to meet this deadline. I will extend the licences for these last two wastes into 1993 only if absolutely necessary on technical grounds and for the shortest possible part of that year."—[Official Report, 8 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 853.]
      It is not acceptable for the Government to say that they are willing to sign up to get rid of wastes by 1989 only for us to discover that they have exceptions which not just prove the rule but break it.
      Mr. Summerson: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for giving way to me a second time. One of the exceptions that he talks about is ICI, which employs thousands of people. Under the hon. Gentleman's proposals, ICI would have to close down its works and sack thousands of its employees. What answer would the hon. Gentleman give them?
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) is being very naive. That is the same
      1088
      argument as is used about Sellafield: that closing down Sellafield would cause wholesale unemployment among its large work force in Cumbria. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is quite within the capacity of ICI's research and development to deal with these issues and to solve the problems. If firms such as ICI are required to do so, they have the capacity. ICI is one of the most eminent private sector enterprises in the world and would be able and willing to solve the problems; it is a matter of Government will and requirement. Second, many people currently employed in ICI plants in the north-east could use their skills to bring about more environmentally acceptable processes of chemical production such as we discussed only on Monday of this week.
      This is a very important point to make about environmental issues generally: there need be no unemployment as a result of environmental improvement. One obvious example is that all the energy that we use and waste and all the potential for conservation that we possess could be turned to reducing much harmful energy consumption and employing people to make sure that we conserve energy rather than waste it.
      Mr. Tim Devlin: My constituents will be extremely pleased to hear what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has to say, because it is their jobs that will be at stake. Will the hon. Gentleman address his mind, before making immediate demands for a complete clean-up of chemical and other industries, which are already making a significant effort to this end, to the time scale? He is right to say that research will yield technically feasible options for cleaning up waste streams and so forth; it is a question of how long one has in which to do it. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) is absolutely right: if all these waste streams had to be stopped tomorrow morning, ICI, Monsanto and a number of other companies would be stopped tomorrow morning.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friends and I do not propose that the deadline for implementation of these policies should be today or tomorrow. If hon. Members will look at the list, they will see that there are different deadlines for different requirements. What is more, it is not as if the Government have just come into office—they have been in office for over 10 years—and we do not find it acceptable that late in the day they are prepared to have the latest deadline of any of our European neighbours and then to grant exemptions and assent that that is sufficient. It is no good always postponing making the environment an immediate priority. That is unacceptable. While we must accept what is technically feasible, there are ways, technically and politically, of ensuring that imminent deadlines, as they are set out in our proposals—and we are quite willing to have them debated—are met. But in default of a Government commitment to honour obligations that they have entered into and to uphold deadlines that others find acceptable, we propose these as realistic and technically attainable.
      I would like to deal more briefly with the last three categories, discharges from shipping, from oil and gas platforms and from the transport of hazardous substances. All these are matters which are capable of immediate resolution. Sometimes there is intentional discharge into the North sea. Some vessels deliberately leak fuel. There is

      1089
      a regular practice of throwing rubbish overboard. Such practices are more easily controlled at sea than on land, and people in charge of vessels are far more likely to be able to enforce controls.
      Inasmuch as we use the North sea, as we properly should, for commerce, industry, travel, energy exploration and the rest, we have a responsibility to make sure that we use it properly and wisely. Looking back over the quotations of the Government's good faith and the practical implications of the Government's policy, we have seen a tragedy writ very large indeed over the past 10 years.
      The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, was brazen enough at the end of last year to say that the United Kingdom was fully meeting international agreements reached unanimously by North sea countries. The hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), then the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment and now the Minister for Health, said in the autumn of last year that the United Kingdom
      "places a high priority on implementing the decisions adopted by the two North sea conferences".
      Perhaps the most amazingly brazen statement of all—no prizes for guessing its author—was back in the spring of 1988:
      "The Government has moved more quickly than any other North sea country in following up the declaration"—
      that is the declaration of the North sea conference in 1987—
      "with proposals for action."
      No prizes forguessing that the words were said by the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), then Secretary of State for the Environment.
      We say that the Government have been complacent for long enough and it is about time that the North sea had the benefit of protection from the people who use it most.
      I turn briefly to our proposal for marine conservation zones around our shores. Parliament legislated for marine nature reserves in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It has not been a great success. Only one area has been designated, the island of Lundy. It is very beautiful and it is proper that it should be designated, but this initiative has hardly been followed round our coasts. The reason why we have had only one area designated is that the bureaucracy involved in getting everyone to agree to declare a marine nature reserve has proved in practice to be relatively, if not entirely, unworkable.
      It is possible to declare a site of special scientific interest. Indeed, such sites can be designated to include tidal and coastal areas. However, they do not cover areas below low tide. They extend to different watermarks in Scotland and England. Perhaps most important, they fail to prevent damaging activities in tidal and marine habitats.
      There are many reasons why, above all, we should have a regime that provides protection for the marine habitat and environment which is just as strong as the protection for the shore. Our coastal waters are the resting place and breeding grounds of enormous numbers of species of global significance. Those of us who have been privileged enough to spend holidays in Orkney, in my case, the north-east coast of Scotland or the north-east coast of England are aware that enormous numbers of sea birds use those coastal waters. About 4·25 million sea birds breed around our North sea coasts. It is about 10 per cent. of the
      1090
      world's population of some species and the majority of some wonderful species such as the fulmar, the Arctic skua and the puffin.
      We must make sure that we preserve the marine environment in a way that we are failing to do at present. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and I propose that one of the conservancy councils, the status of which we discussed earlier, should have the power to designate a marine area that is in need of protection by reason of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features a marine conservation zone. I challenge the Government to say that our proposal is not both practical and urgent.
      The last of our new clauses is new clause 55. It is a rescue clause. It is a simple proposal. I hope that the Government will accept it. It says:
      "Where it appears to the Secretary of State that it is necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting the marine environment, the living resources which it supports, or human health or activities, he shall carry out or cause to have carried out operations to retrieve any harmful substances from the sea in United Kingdom controlled waters, or from any land adjoining the sea in United Kingdom controlled waters."
      If those who had caused the pollution were to blame they would be required to pay the price of retrieving any substances from the sea.
      Sadly, for too long Britain has been regarded—I apologise for using a sexist phrase—as the dirty man of Europe. We have turned our attention to making sure that our backyards are environmentally clean but we have not made sure that our national backyard is environmentally clean. The worst evidence of that is the North sea. My hon. Friends and I hope that the House will accept the new clause.
      Mr. Devlin: I have a long-term interest in the North sea as one who comes from the north-east of England and who has taken an active interest in ecology since I was at school, when I established a society called the Survival Society to look after the ecology of the world. We set up our own school paper recycling project, a model which, 10 years later, has been copied all over Britain. At that time I was young and innocent, and I was a member of Friends of the Earth. Just as people say, "If you are not a socialist when you are 20 you do not have a heart, and if you are not a Conservative by the time you are 40 you do not have a head," perhaps if one is not a member of Friends of the Earth at the age of 20 one does not have a heart, and if one has not seen sense by the time one is 30, one certainly does not have a brain.
      I came to represent Stockton, South with great interest, because I thought that it would give me a unique opportunity to get to grips with some of the problems of the North sea. I was worried about what would happen to rubbish dumped in the North sea. Many of my constituents fish in the North sea and they have told me of the disgusting problem, for example, of pulling nets out of deep sludge from sewage outfalls in the North sea. In respect of that part of his speech, I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
      The hon. Member also referred to the problem of ash which comes predominantly from inefficient incineration and to the major problem of sewage sludge. I have maintained some links with organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth and they have sent

      1091
      me their briefs. Last August I had an opportunity to go aboard the Rainbow Warrior when it docked at La Rochelle in France.
      I found it interesting that the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey closely followed the Greenpeace brief called "Reasons why the UK is still the Dirty Man of Europe" issued on 6 March 1990. It sets out seven areas in which the United Kingdom is still the dirty man of Europe. When I received that brief, I was worried about some of the issues that it threw up. I immediately wrote to Paul Horsman, the United Kingdom toxics divisional director of Greenpeace, to ask him some questions about it. I shall deal with some of the points raised.
      Paul Horsman is the Max Headroom of Greenpeace. He does not seem to exist. He is a name on the bottom of notepaper and at the top of various newspapers published by Greenpeace. When one writes to him one eventually receives any number of letters from people who sign "per pro Paul Horsman". If hon. Members are looking for an interesting way to spend their term in Parliament, perhaps they should find someone from Greenpeace to work for them as their secretary. They can then spend their five years in Torremolinos or whatever place takes their fancy.
      On 9 January, I wrote to Mr. Horsman about the pollution of the North sea. I asked whether he would prefer landfill or incineration to the dumping of sewage sludge. On 12 January 1990, he wrote back, not on that subject but enclosing a circular on another matter. On 22 January, I wrote to him asking if he intended to reply to my letter of 9 January. Someone acknowledged my letter saying that he was out of the country.
      I wrote a further reminder. On 6 February I received a further circular addressed "Dear Member of Parliament". On 22 February, I wrote a further reminder. On 26 April, I received a reply. The House may be interested to hear some of the points in reply. I am sure that its position is the same as that of the Liberals, because they follow the Greenpeace brief. It says:
      "Greenpeace is not only opposed to dumping waste at sea (a practice ended by most other European countries), but also to incineration—an acknowledged environmentally damaging waste disposal technology."
      With great respect to that organisation, which commands significant support throughout Britain, it is not true by any means that incineration is acknowledged to be environmentally damaging. It is the only way that we have at present of dealing with PCBs.
      The letter went on to discuss the two incinerators on Teesside and Tyneside which are to burn not only sewage sludge but hazardous waste. On that point Greenpeace is absolutely right. One cannot burn sewage sludge with industrial waste. No one has the technology. Even the chemical industry looks sceptically on whether sewage sludge can be burned with chemical waste. Greenpeace went on to say:
      "Incineration of industrially contaminated sewage sludge or of sewage sludge with hazardous waste can only increase the residue problems."
      The problem with that is that household sewage, that horrible stuff that goes down the drains to our sewage farms, is polluted by many different substances such as heavy metals and many other contaminants. In the past people thought that that was due to the fact that some
      1092
      industry was dumping chemicals down the drain. It now looks as if many of the chemicals that go down the drain are from ordinary household uses.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will recall that, on Monday night, when we were discussing the chemical industry, I pointed out that all sorts of chemicals are used every day in bleach, oven cleaners, and nail varnish. They all go down the drain and find their way out into the North sea through that drainage system. It is not a simple matter to take the industrial waste out of our sewage to produce the so-called "clean" sewage. The solution proposed by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth is to implement such clean technology and production. I am minded to question what they mean by the clean production of sewage, but I shall not go into that now.
      7 pm
      It is worth while considering some of the products that go down the drains and become sewage. There is a certain product whose contents are outrageous and I know that the House will be extremely concerned about it. It contains chemicals such as acetone, acetaldehyde, methyl butrate, ethyl caproaie, hexy acetate, methanol acrolein and even some stuff called crotonaldehyde. How could anyone dose up with a product that contains so many chemicals? One would think that, at the very least, the producers would be forced to print those ingredients on the product.
      That would be rather a problem, however, because the product I have described is a fresh strawberry, naturally grown, with no man-made ingredients. The next time hon. Members see a reasonably ripe strawberry on their plate, they might like to think about what is going on in that little chemical reactor. Strawberries end up in our drains.
      I agree that a waste reduction audit is necessary—I am sure that many hon. Members agree about that. If we can reduce the amount of waste that industry and others create in the environment in the first place, it will help to solve the problem. I saw representatives of the chemical industry today and asked them about the problems associated with clean technology and clean production and whether such production would be possible. One can never say what might be possible as a result of new research, but the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey suggested that all that was needed was for a company the size of ICI to turn its technological effort to waste minimisation and, hey presto, the whole problem would be solved in a matter of moments.
      It is important to inform the House of the environmental objectives of the Chemical Industries Association; every chemical-producing company in the country is a signatory to those objectives. The CIA states:
      "The chemical industry accepts its duty to manage its operations so that they are socially acceptable as well as complying with all relevant statutory provisions.
      It is a primary responsibility of the management of the chemical industry to protect the environment as an integral part of good business practice."
      The problem of waste is being addressed by the chemical industry, and in the past 10 years the clean up of the River Tees has been dramatic. We must now look at further ways in which to clean up the environment.
      If we do not intend to continue to dump sewage and other things into the sea, we must find alternatives. If the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey came up to the north-east he would learn that planning applications have been made for two toxic waste incineraters—one in Tyneside at Howden, the other in Portrack, near to my

      1093
      constituency. The hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), can confirm that there is massive public disapproval of those schemes and great opposition to them.
      We have given a commitment to clean up the North sea, but it appears that we are riot prepared to meet the environmental price for doing so by finding an alternative. There are two alternatives to dumping. One can put waste in landfill sites, but we are desperately short of landfill sites, and problems are also associated with them because of the escape of methane and other gases.
      The only other option currently available is expensive and politically sensitive—incineration. The disposal of waste through incineration is extremely expensive, as is disposal in landfill sites. The chemical industry already has a major incentive to cut down its waste streams wherever possible because of that expense. I recently visited Teesside with the all-party chemical industries group and I know that work to reduce such waste streams is already going on throughout the industry.
      Some might argue that to tackle the problem all one needs to do is disconnect our industries from the sewerage system. If that happened, some of our smaller companies would go out of business immediately. We must address that problem. We do not want such companies to dump chemicals into the drains, but we want them to remain in business so that they can provide us with a vibrant pharmaceutical and chemical industry in the next century.
      If one dumps sewage on landfill sites, there is bound to be some run off. It has been suggested that such sewage could he put on the land, but supply would quickly outstrip demand. Greenpeace has also informed me that it is possible to compost sludge with straw and substitute it for some of the uses of peat in agriculture and horticulture. That may be possible, but I am advised that that practice would deal with only a small amount of sewage.
      It is important to consider waste disposal in its widest perspective. Other European states have demanded that sewage dumping at sea should end by 1995, and I know that the Government want to achieve that. The difficulty arises in finding alternatives to such dumping, especially as they are costly and politically sensitive.
      The recently published "Interim Report on the Quality Status of the North Sea" said that the United Kingdom ranks second to the Netherlands as the largest contributor of the most dangerous heavy metals that go into the North sea. Some might argue that our contribution is more significant than that of the Dutch, as their figure includes products from Switzerland, France, Luxembourg and West Germany. I understand that the report has since cast doubt on the validity of the figures given, and that further studies are planned.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is correct to say that the United Kingdom is now the only country dumping fly ash in the sea. That practice is scheduled to end in 1992. The companies concerned are actively seeking alternatives, but, once again, they face problems in obtaining planning permission and the necessary capital.
      Waste disposal needs a great deal more research. It is simple for the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and others to get up to say what is wrong with current practices in the United Kingdom. The research that backs up the statistical charges of inefficiency by the
      1094
      Government is often poorly founded; we need better facts and figures before we can point to this country as the dirty man of Europe.
      Industry throughout the north-east, where most of the pollution comes from, is making a significant effort to address the problems and it is making inroads. I hope that the House will urge that industry to do as much as it can in the future and will not accept the new clause, which is ill-founded and in need of greater research.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: I support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I accept that industry is making great efforts. It is so far ahead in the technology of waste management that we could, as we did in Victorian times, export our technology and knowledge. In common with energy efficiency, waste technology is a worthwhile area in which our industries should take a lead.
      I represent nearly 50 miles of the North sea coastline, and many of my constituents work on the sea in the fishing industry. Many others who live near the coast feel strongly about the existing level of pollution. The public row to which the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) referred, about the proposed incinerators, is a further aspect of public anxiety about pollution in the north east.
      All those various types of pollution have aroused concern and my constituents have complained about them for many years, but there has been little response. All of a sudden, other people are interested, it is on national television screens and the Greenpeace ship and inflatables are there for all to see, interfering with fly ash dumping and other activities. There are two possible reactions to that. Sometimes, people resent it and say, "We have known about that for a long time," or say, as many do, "Thank goodness that somebody else is at last taking an interest in our problem."
      All the various types of dumping have aroused deep concern. Pharmaceutical wastes, which place into the North sea substances that can reappear in the food chain, particularly through fish, are a source of great anxiety. The dumping of fly ash provides a solid bed in a concentrated area of the North sea in the middle of important fishing grounds. The fishing industry in Northumberland faces difficult times for a series of reasons, and to have the accumulating effect of fly ash dumping in the middle of that adds to the problems.
      The fly ash comes from north-east power stations that use the coal from north-east pits, particularly at Blyth and Stella. Nobody in the north-east wants to see an end to coal-fired electricity generation in the north-east, but that is a problem that can be solved; National Power clearly recognises that it can be, as it must, because the Government have committed it to solving the problem.
      It has been suggested in my constituency that it is absurd that, when lorries are trundling into Blyth day after day with the products of opencast sites, they cannot be filled with fly ash to take back and put in the hole from which the opencast material has come. When so many holes are being dug in the north-east, there is surely some prospect of filling some of them with the very fly ash produced by the coal from the north-east. There is clearly some scope for the intelligent use of opportunities that are already available.
      Sewage sludge and sewage output contribute greatly to the problems faced by fishermen in the north-east, and early action is clearly required. As well as all the factors

      1095
      mentioned in the debate, there are also problems of colliery waste tipping and polluted beaches. Such problems exist at Lynemouth in Northumberland. That is basically the same problem that exists on Durham beaches and is deeply depressing for those who know what those beaches used to look like.
      There is a complex and interlocking chain of problems. The waste is tipped from the Lynemouth-Ellington colliery complex, which is of great employment importance in the region, and supplies an aluminium smelter. Some of the proposed ways of dealing with the complex problem might not solve it, particularly when one takes into account the possible rise in sea levels and the global warming effect. We may lose the whole lot, including the smelter, if there is an incursion from the sea into the area where this is taking place. It requires careful management.
      There has been a limited commitment of Government funds to a possible future scheme to solve the colliery dumping problem at Lynemouth. That is clearly not enough, and the scheme first produced will be inadequate. I hope for continued and more expensive Government involvement in whatever scheme is most likely to end the dumping and secure the future of the Ellington colliery complex and smelter for as long as possible. It is obviously an efficient arrangement to have a colliery and a smelter working side by side, but it will be better if we can control the waste management from it more effectively than has been done so far.
      Much more progress has been made with all these matters since someone started to set timetables. My hon. Friends are keen on the amendments, because they strengthen and tighten those timetables. It is amazing that this was allowed to continue for so long without any significant improvement, until we became involved in international obligations to meet deadlines. That leads me to believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends are right to table amendments seeking an earlier achievement of those targets.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Morley: I shall touch on a few points that have been raised in the debate. The Opposition give their broad support to the principles put forward by the Liberal Democrats. We are concerned about one or two matters, such as the time-scale laid down for the phasing out of sea dumping.
      It is fair to say, as did the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that a time-scale focuses the mind towards working towards the set date. It is also fair to say that the Government have given commitments that they will work to dates, but they have then reneged on them. Those commitments should have been given on the understanding that the Government would honour them, not renege on by them extending the deadlines beyond those previously given at North sea conferences.
      There is no doubt that our record on sea dumping is one of the worst in Europe. There have been 10 years of inaction on dealing with raw sewage going into our seas from pipelines and sewage sludge. I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). One cannot simply switch off industrial effluent tomorrow because of the impact it would have on the industries
      1096
      involved and jobs. However, we should work towards that. ICI has said that if it had been given a tighter programme by the Government, it would have adjusted its capital investment programme to meet the deadlines and that it could have phased out the dumping of industrial effluent earlier if the Government had laid on the line more clearly what was expected. The Department of Trade and Industry seems inactive when it comes to working with industry and trying to assist it in finding alternatives such as recycling effluent and reducing the amount of effluent that goes into our water courses and sea.
      Some of the deadlines in the Liberal Democrat new clause are more easily met than others. There is no doubt that there are quick alternatives to dumping fly ash in the North sea. Apart from the points that have rightly been made about its effect on sterilising the sea bed, it also tends to solidify into large lumps and causes enormous damage to fishermen's gear when they catch their trawls in the lumps of fly ash. They have had no financial compensation from the people dumping fly ash in the sea and damaging their gear, and I believe that the people responsible should be liable for that.
      It is, at the very least, most unpleasant for those catching fish in our seas to trawl up filth from raw sewage because of the sewage dumping that takes place. Fish is one of the few foods that, without doubt, is healthy and good for people. The Government should give greater priority to ensuring that the quality of that product is maintained at its present high standards.
      We support the concept of marine conservation zones. We are sorry that there is only one designated marine nature reserve. The problem seems to be the tortuous consultation procedure that must be carried out. That is why we are not meeting our EC commitments to protect important sea bed sites.
      In Committee I moved an amendment on behalf of the Opposition calling for a national environmental audit to include the whole of the coastline to look at the organic matter that goes into our coast and the parts of our coastline that need particular support and attention because they are under threat. I was sorry that the Liberal Democrat spokesman voted with the Government against that amendment, because I felt that that was a poor position to adopt—
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there has been a change of roles since then, when a colleague of mine took the view that the amendment was a good idea but somewhat impractical. No one wants less knowledge about what we are doing to our marine environment and coastline; it is a matter of how we go about protecting them.
      Mr. Morley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurances and I recognise that there has been a change of responsibilities—that may be for the better. But we believe that we need a national overview of the environment. I do not want to re-run the arguments about that, but we believe that a lack of such an overview of conservation is one of the fundamental weaknesses in part VII of the Bill. I am sure that we shall return to that matter later in the Bill's progress.
      Finally, I pay tribute to the conservation work that fishermen have done. Recently I was in Plymouth talking to members of the south-west region of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, and I was

      1097
      impressed by the steps that local fishermen had taken to protect the sea bed—for instance, a voluntary ban on French dredging for scallops. They, above all people, recognise the need to conserve our sea beds and to control what goes on to them.
      We do not disagree with the idea of polluters paying the recovery costs of harmful substances. In Committee, we moved an amendment calling for a fine and for the confiscation of vessels held responsible for dumping poisonous substances in the sea. deliberately releasing oil into it or washing their tanks at sea. Because of the costs of waste disposal and the transportation, there are enormous profits to be had by people who take the risk of breaking the law by washing tanks at sea, thereby saving turnaround times for oil tankers, or by those who deliberately push toxic substances over the side even though they have been paid to take them to a site at which they can be properly disposed of. I believe that the Government recognise this and I hope that they will consider strengthening the penalties, at least those for clean-up costs. We go one step further and ask the Government also to consider confiscating ships that break the law, because of the serious consequences of their actions.
      We accept the thrust of the arguments on the new clause and the sincerity with which they were expressed, but we believe that some of the deadlines are not very realistic. We should like to hear a little more from the Liberal Democrats about how they would be met before giving our full support to the idea.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I welcome this chance to debate the marine environment, because the Government are committed to protecting it and to reducing still further the discharge of dangerous substances into the North sea and the other seas around our coasts. However, I cannot accept new clause 9, because it will not take us more quickly to that objective.
      The new clause is something of a random mixture of general intentions and arbitrary targets, strung together with no consideration of priorities for action to protect our seas—priorities which have marked the approach of successive North sea conferences, which have rightly focused on the dangerous substances reaching the sea, mainly through rivers, and then agreed the means to reduce them.
      At The Hague conference in March agreement was reached on 36 substances for which reductions of 50 per cent. or more will be sought by a deadline of 1995; for four substances, a more ambitious target of a 70 per cent. reduction was set. The United Kingdom is well on the way to meeting those objectives. These figures, and our achievements to date, are contained in the United Kingdom's national action plan on North sea discharges, which was published on 5 March. So I do not disagree much with new clause 9(1).
      The differences between us arise in subsection (2), which contains an arbitrary revision of the time scales negotiated and agreed upon at The Hague conference after full consideration of the practical realities involved. Sewage sludge dumping, about which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke at some length, accounts for only about 1 per cent. of dangerous substances reaching the North sea. River-borne pollution is by far and away the most potent source of
      1098
      pollution. But we have agreed to phase out sewage sludge dumping by 1998. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey must face up to the practicalities of his time scale, which would seek to phase it out within three years. The engineering and technical complexities of finding alternative means of disposal of 30 per cent. of the sewage sludge arising in the United Kingdom are great.
      The reason why we have so much sludge to get rid of is that we treat more of our household sewage than any other country in Europe does. So we are talking about large volumes of waste, and it must be recognised that it can be disposed of in only three ways: into the earth, on the land or into the sea.
      I should have greater respect for the hon. Gentleman's drastic timetable if I did not know that if someone wanted to construct an incinerator in or near his constituency he would be one of the first to object. We must face the fact that no alternative means of disposal is welcomed by or pleasant for those living nearby. Even when pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey would not admit that these alternatives are politically, socially and technologically difficult.
      I have exactly the same objection to the hon. Gentleman's other time scales—
      Mr. Simon Hughes: As it happens, when there was a proposal to build, on the boundary of my constituency, a combined heat and power plant that would burn waste, I and my colleagues supported it. If the Minister checks the record he will find that whenever we have debated the disposal of waste I and my colleagues have argued that land-based disposal is better, and we have supported the Government when they have followed that line, because such disposal is more easily monitored. It is more important to deal with the toxicity of the waste beforehand so that the potential dangers are lessened. We have consistently refused to take the NIMBY approach, by contrast with some of the Minister's predecessors in the Department.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am delighted—as, I am sure, Thames Water will be—to hear that the hon. Gentleman might not take a negative view if it was proposed to build an incinerator in or near his constituency to deal with the sludge from it which now all flows into the North sea.
      The technical complexities of dealing with industrial waste and fly ash are also great. We are dealing with large quantities of dilute chemicals. When pressed, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said that he did not want to shut down these industries overnight and that his time scales would give some leeway. His new clause would set a time scale of less than eight months, whereas in realistic negotiations with the companies concerned we are setting a time scale that would take us up to 1992, or in two cases a possible continuation into the early months of 1993. That is a demanding time scale and anything else would put jobs and the industries involved at serious risk.
      7.30 pm
      I emphasise that we are not in breach of undertakings given at the second North sea conference. The industrial wastes being deposited in the North sea are not significantly harmful and we have presented evidence to that effect to the Oslo commission. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the part of his new clause that calls for zero discharges of harmful substances by 2000. My hon.

      1099
      Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) rightly said that that was entirely unrealistic because we are dealing with a wide range of wastes—domestic, industrial and agricultural—some of which contain trace elements of contaminating substances, such as lead from pipes or from roadside dust. We also have a legacy from our past activities in mining.
      All that means that whatever we do there will always be small quantities of harmful substances running off land into rivers and, therefore, to the North sea. We cannot simply wave a magic wand to try to get those discharges down to zero. We must patiently negotiate with our partners a realistic series of priorities and time scales to deal with dangerous substances. That is what we signed up to do at The Hague conference and in a few weeks we shall publish a detailed guidance note on how we shall implement The Hague conference declaration.
      New clause 55 seeks to deal with pollution from ships. I sympathise with what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey says, but I assure him that his new clause is not necessary because we already have in place a speedy and effective system for dealing with pollution incidents. Hon. Members may recall the efforts of the French and United Kingdom authorities to recover dangerous substances from the motor vessel Perintis which sank in the western part of the English channel last year. Those efforts showed the effectiveness of the Department of Transport's marine pollution control unit which received advice from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and dealt with the matter. The Royal Navy managed to recover a major part of the shipment of pesticides. That shows that we have in place the means of dealing with such problems and new clause 55 will not add to the powers that are already available under the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 as supplemented by the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) Intervention Order 1980.
      Some hon. Members spoke about the need to protect, and in some cases set up, marine conservation zones. I am sympathetic to that view, but I draw the attention of the House to the procedures that already exist for setting up marine reserves under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is not possible to draw lines on maps and say that the area delineated is a conservation zone. Patient consultation with those involved is required.
      The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) complained about the time that it has taken to set up the Lundy island reserve. I think that he will understand that we must take fully into account those who live and work in such areas. In many cases we are talking about fragile local economies and we must get the wholehearted co-operation of fishermen, those who make their living along the shorelines, and those who live in such areas, even if that takes some time. I remind the House that the means exist for protecting our marine environment. I urge the House to reject the new clause.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not think that there is as much common ground between the Minister and my party on the matter of dealing with harmful discharges as there is between us on the other matters. I hope that he will look again at the matter of marine conservation zones. People are disappointed that only one, Lundy island, has been declared under the 1981 Act. My new clause is a practical way to deal with important sites. I hope that the Government will respond later in another place and will agree with us on that.
      1100
      In speaking about new clause 9, the Minister said that we have mixed general intentions and arbitrary targets. The Government have a policy of general intentions and targets and there are dates to which the Government have subscribed. The difference between us is that we say the Government are going too slowly. We could go more quickly and the environmental targets that we urge are much more justifiable than those that the Government have so far negotiated. The evidence shows that on all the occasions when there has been a negotiated agreement, Britain has argued for a later date while everybody else has argued for an earlier one. If the Minister wants more evidence of the fact that the Government are dragging their feet, he should look at the decisions to which the United Kingdom has been a party.
      For those reasons, I and my hon. Friends ask that new clause 9, which stresses the urgency of measures to protect the North sea, be put to a Division. I ask hon. Members to support us.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 178.

      Division No. 190]

      [7.36 pm

      AYES

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Beith, A. J.

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

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

      Kennedy, Charles

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Meale, Alan

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Cohen, Harry

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Crowther, Stan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cryer, Bob

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Eastham, Ken

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Flynn, Paul

      Hood, Jimmy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Howells, Geraint

      Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      NOES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Amess, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Ashby, David

      Cran, James

      Atkins, Robert

      Critchley, Julian

      Baldry, Tony

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

      Batiste, Spencer

      Day, Stephen

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Devlin, Tim

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Benyon, W.

      Dover, Den

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Dunn, Bob

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Durant, Tony

      Boswell, Tim

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Evennett, David

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Fallon, Michael

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Brazier, Julian

      Forman, Nigel

      Bright, Graham

      Forth, Eric

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

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Freeman, Roger

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      French, Douglas

      Burt, Alistair

      Fry, Peter

      Butcher, John

      Gale, Roger

      Butler, Chris

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gorst, John

      Cash, William

      Gow, Ian

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      1101

      Gregory, Conal

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Ground, Patrick

      Norris, Steve

      Hague, William

      Paice, James

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Harris, David

      Riddick, Graham

      Hayward, Robert

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Hill, James

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hind, Kenneth

      Ryder, Richard

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hunter, Andrew

      Shelton, Sir William

      Irvine, Michael

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Shersby, Michael

      Jack, Michael

      Sims, Roger

      Janman, Tim

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Jessel, Toby

      Speed, Keith

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Speller, Tony

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Key, Robert

      Steen, Anthony

      Kilfedder, James

      Stern, Michael

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Knapman, Roger

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Sumberg, David

      Knowles, Michael

      Summerson, Hugo

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Lightbown, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Lilley, Peter

      Trippier, David

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Trotter, Neville

      Lord, Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      McCrindle, Robert

      Viggers, Peter

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Walden, George

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Waller, Gary

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Watts, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Wells, Bowen

      Mans, Keith

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Maples, John

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Marland, Paul

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Wood, Timothy

      Mates, Michael

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

      Nelson, Anthony

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 16

      DUTY OF ENFORCING AUTHORITY TO CONSULT HARBOUR AUTHORITIES
      '.—(1) Where the carrying on of a prescribed process will involve the release of any substance into a harbour, the enforcing authority shall consult the harbour authority before granting or varying an authorisation.
      (2) In this section—
      "harbour" and "harbour authority" have the same meaning as in the Harbours Act 1964; and
      "vary", in relation to an authorisation, means imposing further conditions or varying or rescinding conditions.'.—[Mr. Knapman.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Roger Knapman: I beg to move, That the clause he read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 37.
      Amendment No. 292, in clause 6, page 8, line 11, at end insert—
      '(5A) where the authorisation is to cover a discharge to water it should contain a specific section notifying the operator of the requirements of the National Rivers Authority in relation to that discharge in relation to both the standards to be met and the monitoring required.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 81 to 87, 62 and 88.
      Mr. Knapman: New clause 16 would require enforcing authorities to consult harbour authorities before authorising the release of substances into the harbour. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that harbour authorities—that is, those within the meaning of the Harbours Act 1964—have powers and duties in regard to the management, maintenance and improvement of their harbours. Nearly all such authorities have a duty to dredge their harbours, primarily for the safety and convenience of navigation. As so graphically described by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), this spoil has to be disposed of. This can be done on land, and I understand that until now a licence has been required under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. I understand that henceforth a licence will be required under part II of the Bill.
      The alternative is to dump at sea, and that, too. would require a licence. Dumping at sea is generally rather more economical than dumping on land, but the granting of a licence for the purpose may depend on the chemical composition of the dredgings. Chemical interaction takes place in the water column when fresh and salt water mix. This frequently results in substances released in harbours accumulating in sediments to levels far higher than those which were initially released.
      It is logical, therefore, that any harbour authority should be concerned about the releases of substances into the water within the harbour, and the new clause recognises that concern. It would require the enforcing authority, before granting authorisation under the new system of control, to consult the harbour authority. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the duty would not impose any serious administrative burden on the enforcing authority. I shall welcome his consideration of the clause. In Committee, he was helpful in accepting amendments when he could, and he put us down gently when he could not.
      Mr. Andrew Hunter: I am flattered that my humble amendment, No. 292, has been grouped with new clause 16. I have hitherto agreed entirely with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) has said in this place.
      I search for a constituency interest. Whatever may happen to the ozone layer or whatever may be the greenhouse effect, I doubt that Basingstoke will have to deal with the problems. I am bewildered that my amendment has been grouped with the new clause, but that having happened I have the opportunity to make what I believe is a valid point. It is one which I made in Committee, and it concerns integrated pollution control—the principle, the system, its application and the abiding concern of industry that this will not, in effect, be the one-stop shop that the Government have hitherto assured us will be the position.

      1103
      I do not wish to be repetitive. Many of those who are now here were members of the Committee and heard me advance the argument that I am presenting to the House. There is concern that any particular industrial process will still be subject to the overriding and overruling command of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, and that the National Rivers Authority, the privatised water utilities, the waste regulatory authorities, the Health and Safety Executive and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will still be involved in the regulatory process. Industry is concerned that bureaucracy is being created. Although the principle is sound, the fear is that the wealth and job-creating processes will suffer accordingly. Therefore, the amendment seeks simplification and a lightening of the burden.
      That is the basis of the argument behind amendment No. 292.
      The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) for the way in which they spoke to new clause 16 and amendment No. 292. I shall reply briefly. I must apologise to my hon. Friends at the outset because I shall not be accepting either the new clause or the amendment. I am genuinely sorry because I know how successful they were in Committee in introducing amendments that proved to be acceptable to the Government. I was happy to accept a number of them in their entirety, without having to say that I would return to them on Report.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud explained why it is necessary that harbour authorities should be consulted when the following of a prescribed process will involve the direct release of a substance into a harbour. I am pleased to say that schedule 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe consultees in regulations. In that sense, the new clause is otiose. If it is right that harbour authorities should be consulted, that will be prescribed in the regulations. The regulations are the right place to define statutory consultees. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the new clause because I am sympathetic to the broad thrust of his argument.
      I think that there is a connection between the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and the new clause introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. Both concern water, the NRA and harbours, possibly, tenuous though that connection might be. Clause 25 meets the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. It establishes that HMIP will be the lead body with which industry must interface. HMIP will consult the NRA, which will then have the power to veto an application if it considers that releases from the process will contribute to a failure to achieve any water quality objective or to require the inclusion of conditions in the authorisation that HMIP grants.
      Mr. Knapman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). I agree that Basingstoke is not likely to have a harbour. That is just about as certain as saying that neither he nor I will make wet Tories. I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Minister for his comments.
      1104
      As the House has placed certain duties upon harbour authorities, I hope that the authorities will be consulted under regulations in due course. In view of my hon. Friend's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 21

      LEVELS OF RADIOACTIVITY
      '( )—(1) The inspector appointed under section 11A(1) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 as amended shall have as one of his functions the undertaking on an annual basis of a review of the levels of radioactivity experienced by persons employed in any establishment maintained for the purpose of reprocessing radioactive material, or for the generation of electricity using any radioactive process, and, where he considers it appropriate, any other establishment in which research or other processes involving radioactive materials are undertaken, other than an establishment to which section 14(2) of that Act as amended applies.
      (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, the inspector shall examine relevant levels of radioactivity at each such establishment on an annual basis.'.—[Ms. Walley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Ms. Walley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider also Government amendments Nos. 1 to 23.
      Ms. Walley: I shall be brief, in the interests of making progress. The Bill has presented us with many opportunities and it is disappointing that the Government have decided not to make some real improvements to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. The way in which that measure has been dealt with is evidence of the Government's piecemeal approach.
      There should be tighter controls for those who are exposed to certain levels of radioactivity, and the new clause is a first step towards introducing those necessary controls. It calls for an inspector to review the levels of radioactivity that are experienced by persons employed in areas where there are radioactive materials, subject to the exceptions which are set out.
      The new clause is a starting point. It does not commit the Government to controls that we would like to see, but it paves the way for lower exposure levels. It is an issue which came to the fore during the consideration of the Bill in Committee. We look to the International Commission on Radiological Protection to recommend lower exposure limits, but there is much that can be done nationally. There is much that industry can do, especially as there is uncertainty about the risks of radiation.
      It is well known that there are genuine fears that the risks of radiation are four to five times higher than those that were previously recognised, and that the United States National Academy of Sciences has suggested that the risks are six to eight times higher than those that were estimated in 1977. All this needs to be reflected in standards that are adopted nationally. We believe that the new clause could go some way towards bringing together environmental concerns about this most important issue.
      It is worth referring to the implications of the Gardner report, which was published during the Committee stage. It identified two groups of workers who faced the highest risk of having a child who developed leukaemia. It is important that the report's recommendations are taken on

      1105
      board, certainly by the Secretary of State for the Environment, but also by other Departments, including those responsible for health and safety in industry. It is important to note that, for the first time, the trade unions involved in the industry have joined with the various environmental groups to force the pace for changes in the limits for exposure levels. The new clause would provide the opportunity to do that.
      8 pm
      I shall deal briefly with the Government amendments. I refer the Under-Secretary to our debates in Committee and the points raised as a result of the experience of officers in the metropolitan borough of Dudley in respect of the Pear Tree site. There appears to be a loophole in existing legislation because local authorities are not, as of right, consulted when Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution authorises the disposal of radioactive substances. Dudley council had to seek a judicial review to get its views represented. I seek an assurance from the Under-Secretary that the promises and undertakings given in Committee have been fulfilled and that it is now possible for me to tell the leader of the Dudley council, with absolute certainty, that section 11 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 has been changed so that local authorities will have an automatic right to a hearing before the Secretary of State takes the specified action under section 11(1). It is an important issue which has arisen out of the practical experiences of local authorities. If the Under-Secretary cannot give the assurance that I seek, I hope that it will be given in another place.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I accept the concern expressed by the hon. Lady, but I assure her that there is no category of substances or waste that receives so much attention and such extensive monitoring as radioactive substances.
      I cannot accept new clause 21, for the good reason that its proposals duplicate existing legislation. The functions proposed by the new clause would be carried out by inspectors appointed under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. However, those functions are already carried out and effectively enforced under the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985, made under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The regulations deal, among other things, with dosages to classified workers and with dosages generally in the workplace. They explicitly cover the substance of the new clause. They are enforced by the inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive, which reports to the Health and Safety Commission, which in turn reports to the Secretary of State for Employment. The new clause would duplicate existing legislation and I urge the House to reject it.
      The Government amendments to part V are all technical and rectify minor omissions revealed in Committee or improve consistency between part V and other parts of the Bill.
      I shall touch on one matter that involves local authorities as that was the substance of the hon. Lady's remarks. Although clause 85 amends the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 to provide that copies of enforcement and prohibition notices shall be sent to the local authorities that received a copy of the section 1 registration and the section 6 authorisation, it does not provide that copies shall go to authorities that receivers section 3 registrations in respect of mobile plant. Similarly, no provision is made for other public authorities that
      1106
      receive copies of notices to be informed of their withdrawal. Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 rectify those omissions. There are other similar amendments, which I do not think will cause any controversy. I urge the House to accept the Government amendments.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) has had to leave the House, so I shall briefly respond to the Minister's remarks. He said that the new clause duplicates existing legislation. The case that my hon. Friend mentioned today, and which she also put before the Committee some weeks ago, highlights the problem—certainly with the working of existing provisions even if they are adequate in themselves.
      I urge the Minister to reconsider the need for local authorities to be consulted and informed about what is happening in their areas. They should have the right to express an opinion and to have it taken into account before any decision is made. I hope that the Minister will take the matter seriously and keep a careful watch on what is happening, because it is causing concern to some local authorities. It is important that they have the right to be involved in such decisions.
      As my hon. Friend is not here, we cannot withdraw the motion. However, we will not press it to a Division.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 23

      TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS OF SECRETARY OF STATE
      '( )—(1) The Secretary of State may by Order transfer such of his functions under this Act as he considers appropriate, including any of the functions specified in subsection (3), below which are vested in him under this Act, to any body established in accordance with subsection (2) below.
      (2) The Secretary of State may by Order within two years of the passing of this Act establish an Environmental Protection Executive with a regional structure corresponding in area to any regional authorities established in England, Scotland and Wales.
      (3) The functions of any body established under this section may by Order made by the Secretary of State include—

      (a) the promotion of preventive measures against pollution, clean technologies and the development of integrated pollution control generally;

      (b) the prescription of processes falling within national control in accordance of Part I of this Act:

      (c) the issuing of advice as to best practice in the management of waste, including hazardous waste, in accordance with the provisions of Part II below;

      (d) the promotion of recycling and the reduction of waste;

      (e) the monitoring of national standards as to pollution, waste management, statutory nuisance, litter and substances and organisms falling within Parts V and VI below;

      (f) the promotion with local authorities of Environmental Impact Analysis in planning matters;

      (g) the undertaking of long-term research on environmental and ecological matters;

      (h) the promotion of public education as to environmental matters, where appropriate in liaison with local education authorities;

      (i) the co-ordination of improvements to the environment in inner city areas, including the reclamation of urban land;

      (j) the exercise on behalf of the Secretary of State of functions under sections 116 or 117 in relation to toxic waste;

      1107

      (k) the monitoring of activities connected with dumping at sea as referred to in section 119 below;

      (l) the provision of advice and recommendations as to financial assistance for environmental purposes in accordance with section 122 below; and

      (m) the promotion of international co-operation on environmental measures and the dissemination of best practice.

      (4) The Executive shall have such a membership as appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of organisations concerned with environmental, scientific and conservation matters, and of local authorities.
      (5) Any order issued under subsection (2) above shall include provision for the incorporation as freestanding specialist persons or bodies within any body established under this section of the chief inspector and his staff, the National Rivers Authority and such other bodies or Departments of State, or parts thereof, as the Secretary of State may determine, and any such body shall have such powers of overall direction and the issuing of guidance, and such duties to promote co-operation and joint working, as the Secretary of State may by order specify.'.—[Mr. Murphy.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Murphy: 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: New clause 24—Functions of local authorities—
      '( )—(1) For the purposes of protecting and enhancing the environment of their areas, the functions of local authorities as specified in this Act shall include—

      (a) the promotion, protection and enhancement of the natural and physical environment in their areas, in liaison with national and regional bodies with environmental regulatory functions;

      (b) the monitoring and auditing of the quality of the local environment in accordance with standards established under this Act; or by the National Executive or the Secretary of State;

      (c) the provision of public information on environmental matters relevant to the local area;

      (d) the co-ordination of other local authority functions for the purpose of enhancing the local environment;

      (e) the local enforcement of requirements in relation to integrated pollution control, waste management, statutory nuisance and such other standards as may be determined under this Act;

      (f) the maintenence of such public registers or authorisations, applications and infringements of standards as may be required under this Act; and

      (g) the undertaking of environmental impact assessments into local processes capable of causing pollution or likely to arise from developmant applications.

      (2) The Secretary of State shall, in respect of any financial year in which the functions specified under this section, or otherwise under this Act, are exercisable by local authorities satisfy himself that the resources available to those authorities are adequate to secure the proper carrying out of those functions.
      (3) The functions of local authorities under this section may be exercised through one or more committees of elected members of the authority.'.
      New clause 25—Protection from hazardous and other wastes—
      '( )—(1) This section shall have effect for the purpose of maintaining and improving the protection of persons and of the environment from hazardous or other waste or injurious substances or articles.
      (2) The Secretary of State shall exercise any powers vested in him under the relevant provisions of Part VIII or under this
      1108
      section for the purposes of securing the objectives specified in subsection (1) above, and in particular he shall, whether by regulations or otherwise—

      (a) prohibit or restrict the exportation from the United Kingdom of any substance or article specified under section 116(1) below;

      (b) prohibit or restrict the exportation from the United Kingdom of substances or articles where he is satisfied that such substances or articles are to be used in connection with any process which presents a risk of causing pollution of the environment and he is not satisfied that the competence of the persons concerned or as the case may be the regulation of such processes in the country concerned is likely to eliminate so far as reasonably practicable such risk;

      (c) prohibit or restrict the importation of waste for direct landfill;

      (d) require any licensing authority to refuse to grant any licence application which conflicts with any relevant Ministerial Declaration of a North Sea Conference extant at the time of the application, or which seeks authorisation for activities giving rise to a risk of pollution of the marine environment or the living resources which it supports;

      (e) review within one year the maximum levels of penalties specified under sections 116(10) and 117(5)(e) below;

      (f) introduce requirements for labelling applicable to identified producers of waste; and

      (g) require to be undertaken, and issue guide-lines in respect of, a national audit of toxic waste.'.

      Mr. Murphy: New clause 23 refers to the setting up of an environmental protection executive with a regional structure. We dealt with that issue on several occasions in Committee. Such a body would deal with preventive measures against pollution, with integrated pollution control in general, with research, and with co-ordinating the various functions affecting pollution. It would be made up of experts, scientists and representatives of local authorities. It would release the Secretary of State from many burdens. It would effectively mean a decentralisation of control over pollution and other matters in the United Kingdom.
      New clause 24 would reflect that proposal at local level. Local authorities would be used as local environmental protection agencies. When local authorities were established 150 years ago, they dealt with sanitation and housing, so they actually set the ball rolling on environmental protection. Over the years they have developed expertise in the collection and disposal of waste; in the cleaning of streets and roads; in the monitoring of pollution of the air and sea; in noise abatement; in transport, planning and housing; and in leisure and tourism. They have a unique experience and expertise in environmental matters. They would be ideally suited to be local environmental protection agencies. Above all, they would be accountable to the electorate.
      New clause 25 would strengthen the Secretary of State's position with regard to hazardous and toxic wastes, especially imports and exports. We spent many an hour in Committee dealing with the problems of imported toxic waste. It is a matter of considerable public concern, which was evidenced by the Karin B and the exports of Canadian PCBs to ReChem in my constituency in south Wales. There is no doubt that on both those occasions there was considerable public dismay at the fact that advanced countries, not Third-world countries, were dumping some of the most poisonous wastes known to man in these islands. There need to be the strongest possible controls on such importations.

      1109
      We are also worried about imports to landfill sites. New clause 25 gives the Secretary of State greater power to ban the importation of toxic waste to such sites. The Select Committee on the Environment proposed a complete ban on such imports. For example, we heard about the 75,000 tonnes of PCB—contaminated waste on its way to the Cwmrhydyceirw quarry site from West Germany via East Germany. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) asked me to mention that case, and I gladly do so. The tremendous upheavals and changes in eastern Europe, which had a much laxer regime for toxic waste, mean that waste that would have been dumped in landfill sites in eastern Europe can no longer be dumped there and could end up in Britain unless we have the strongest possible legislation to ensure that we deal only with the waste that we ourselves generate.
      That is a major issue. I know that the Minister has considerable sympathy with much of what I have said and I look forward to his reply.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: The present structure for the management of aqueous and solid waste and aerial discharges from factories is fragmented. We welcomed the establishment of the National Rivers Authority last year, but air pollution and toxic waste disposal from industry are matters for local authorities and HMIP, and the standards that prevail are variable. It is a matter of regret for many hon. Members that the Government have not adopted in the Bill the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Environment and based the WRAs on regional authorities rather than the county and district councils in Wales.
      But more important is the role of HMIP in the control of air pollution. We are all aware of the shortcomings of HMIP. It is an inadequate and understaffed body where morale is poor. It is overloaded with responsibilities and the Bill gives it massive additional responsibilities.
      New clause 23 outlines the structure and responsibilities of an environmental protection executive. It is a concise formulation, giving wide-ranging responsibilities. It would be an umbrella organisation for the NRA, local authorities and so on. Many European countries have such an agency. The United States established its Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. We are 20 years behind some countries.
      New clause 24 complements new clause 23 and defines the responsibilities of local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) spoke eloquently of the role of local authorities over the centuries in providing water and sanitation services and caring for the local environment generally. New clause 24 underlines their role as local environmental protection agencies.
      8.15 pm
      New clause 25 deals with the management of hazardous waste, a matter which has so far received insufficient attention. We try to manage our rivers reasonably. With tens of thousands of incidents of water pollution every year, I am not happy with our standards, but at least we have an infrastructure for the management of our rivers and, over the decades, our standards have been gradually improving.
      But our philosophy on the disposal of solid waste has always been "Out of sight, out of mind". Once it has been dumped somewhere, we think very little about it. But we are now having cases of contaminated land and of
      1110
      leachates contaminating water courses and possibly even water supplies. We should look much more carefully at the management of hazardous waste. Some of the waste that is dumped is as toxic as nuclear waste, yet we would never consider dumping nuclear waste as landfill. We also need to look carefully at co-disposal in Britain—the practice of disposing of toxic waste alongside domestic refuse. Other countries do not do that. It is banned in the United States and the European Commission may soon issue a directive banning it here, too.
      New clause 25 also seeks to prohibit the importation of waste for direct landfill. It is appalling that waste from countries where its use as landfill is illegal should come here to be disposed of on the cheap. This is a massive growth industry in Britain. Our imports of toxic waste have increased tenfold in the past decade simply because it is cheap to get rid of it here, as our standards are laxer than elsewhere.
      Waste can be treated by various solidification processes. Unfortunately, some are unreliable and need to be carefully supervised and monitored. Treated waste may be more acceptable, but all countries should eventually treat their own waste and develop facilities for its disposal.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen referred to the Cwmrhydyceirw quarry where a lot of waste is presently imported for landfill. It has contracts with Swiss companies to import what in Switzerland is classified as special waste but which here is not classified as hazardous waste. There is a difference in definition. Recently, it was about to sign contracts for the importation of a massive cargo from West Germany which had previously been destined for East Germany. There is a tremendous danger in the next few years of our taking West German exports of toxic waste as it can no longer dump waste cheaply in East Germany and will look for sites elsewhere. Britain could be a prime site as it is so cheap to dispose of waste here.
      In the last sentence of new clause 25 we call for a national audit of toxic and all other waste because if we consider the issue nationally, we shall develop disposal facilities commensurate with the national problem. I am thinking in particular about incinerators. On Monday, the Minister talked about the incineration of sewage sludge and said that finding sites for such incinerators will become a major problem in the next 10 years.
      If we had not had the experience of ReChem in Pontypool things might have been better. That incinerator was built to service industry in south Wales, the south-west and the midlands. It has become an international facility and its main business is the importation and incineration of polychlorinated biphenyls. The plant has gained a bad reputation among everyone who thinks anything of the environment.
      The problem with siting incinerators in the north-east and on the east coast is that the public will fear that they will be used for the incineration of toxic waste.
      New clause 25 does not go quite far enough. The Labour party thinks that we should ban the importation of all toxic waste unless it can be demonstrated to be in the wider international interest to import it.
      I commend the three new clauses to the House. They would set up an environmental protection executive, give a more explicit role to local authorities and improve the management of hazardous waste.
      Mr. Trippier: I have some sympathy with a great deal of what the hon. Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) have said. As hon. Members will recall, we discussed the environmental protection executive, as it is called in new clause 23, at some length on 30 January. I thought that we had a helpful and interesting discussion then. If I recommend to the House that we reject new clauses 23 and 24, it is not because I do not accept the spirit behind them or what has been said in debate; it is simply because such a course would be premature.
      The hon. Member for Torfaen knows that there has been another opportunity to listen to similar suggestions in another place, when my noble Friend the Earl of Cranbrook spoke in an earlier debate. His appointment as chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council has met with wide acclaim and is highly regarded. I found that debate interesting.
      On several occasions in Committee, I gave the commitment that we would consider institutional change in the White Paper that we said should be published in the autumn, and we shall do that.
      The hon. Members for Torfaen and for Carmarthen made some comments about the responsibility of local authorities. I do not demur. They will recall that we have given additional responsibilities to local authorities during the passage of the Bill. The local authority associations seem to have welcomed that, and it has met with universal support in the House, as it did in Committee. I cannot remember a single Division on the issue.
      I have difficulty with the idea of regional responsibility. The hon. Member for Carmarthen said that he wants there to be regional responsibility for waste regulation. He has heard me denounce that idea in the past. I will not repeat what I said in Committee.
      This afternoon, I met a delegation from the metropolitan borough of Wakefield to talk about a tip in that area which is well known in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen will know, Wakefield is a Labour-controlled borough. The all-party delegation and the Labour chairman of the regulatory body in that area made it abundantly clear to me that the last thing that they would want is a regional regulatory body. Perhaps they are at odds with the parliamentary Labour party or the Labour Members on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. They clearly are at odds. If I had that experience with one metropolitan borough, I have no doubt that, if I had the opportunity to meet others, I would experience it again.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Minister agree that, when we consider protection of the environment, the environment is the overriding factor, not falling in line with exactly what local government want to do? We genuinely believe that regional waste regulatory authorities are the direction in which we should be going. We are strong supporters of local government, but this may be an instance when we would take a slightly different approach because it is highly desirable for the environment.
      Mr. Trippier: I respect the hon. Gentleman's views on the matter. I have heard them in the past. I am simply pointing out to him that those were not the views expressed by the leader of Wakefield council—Mr. John Pearman—this afternoon. Clearly, we do not have unanimity on the issue.
      1112
      I must tell the hon. Member for Carmarthen that the Labour councillors also told me at that meeting—without my soliciting the comment—that they thought that the argument produced in The Observer, with help from Friends of the Earth, in which many contaminated land tips were denounced, was the most irresponsible piece of journalism that they have ever come across. I pray that in aid because, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen may remember, I used similar words on several occasions in Committee.
      I feel under an obligation to deal with new clause 25, because I recognise that there is some thrust behind it. It is an old friend and we discussed it in Committee. It is a large handbag containing a number of objects that Opposition Members believe that the Secretary of State might find useful.
      The first two subsections require restriction or prohibition of exports which might endanger the environment overseas. The first applies to the export of substances, the import, use or supply of which the Secretary of State has prohibited or restricted under clause 116. That power is not necessary or appropriate because the United Kingdom already operates regimes under international agreements to implement exports of hazardous substances and wastes.
      The second subsection would require the exercise of what, to my mind, is impossible judgment. The Secretary of State would be obliged to prohibit the export of substances and articles if he thinks that the recipients are not competent to use them safely. We discussed that at some length in Committee. The Government believe that it would be a more constructive and realistic approach—and perhaps less patronising—to help less-developed countries through the active promotion of technology transfer, including the transfer of technical, scientific and professional know-how. There is not just a difference of opinion between the Opposition and the Government on that issue; there is a yawning chasm.
      I appreciate that a debate on the subject would not be complete without someone trying to criticise ReChem. I suppose that we could all have written the script. I was not particularly surprised that the hon. Members who represent the constituency in which ReChem is situated and the neighbouring constituency used this opportunity to have another stab at it. We do not do that.
      If the sophisticated facilities provided by ReChem are properly licensed and monitored—I have said on several occasions in Committee how many times inspectors from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution have visited these sites—we must be satisfied. In the unlikely event of a Labour Government, I wonder whether they would try to close the ReChem plant. I doubt it. I wonder whether they would impose tougher standards or emission targets. This part of the Bill raises standards, as it should. IPC comes under part I. The hon. Members for Torfaen and for Carmarthen have welcomed that.
      I have delayed the House too long on this matter. Paragraphs (f) and (g) of new clause 25 would require unacceptable, burdensome, bureaucratic arrangements to be created for purposes which could not justify them. I therefore urge the Opposition not to press any of the new clauses to a vote.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Murphy: I am grateful for the Minister's comments on new clauses 23 and 24. He said that institutional change will be on the agenda both during the Bill's passage through the other place and when we consider the White Paper on the environment. In that event, I have no hesitation in not pressing the new clause to a Division.
      I smile at the devolution argument which has been turned on its head by the Minister. Only two hours or so ago, the Government were the champions of devolution with regard to the NCC and its break-up, but they now appear to wonder whether regional responsibility for waste disposal is a good thing.
      I am interested in the Minister's comments about the importation of toxic waste. It is the policy of the Opposition and of many others, including some members of the Conservative party, that there should be a full-scale, independent public inquiry into what occurs at ReChem. There has been no indication that a Labour Government would close that plant. As I understand it, a large proportion of the substances in which it deals are, in effect, non-hazardous compared with PCBs. The controversy surrounds PCBs, which are extremely poisonous, and the importation of toxic wastes. I think that we all agree that each advanced country should look after its own toxic wastes. It is not right that advanced countries should send their poisons here to Britain, to Wales and to my constituency to be dealt with.
      Mr. Trippier: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. His last point is perfectly valid. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took the lead in the European Council of Ministers by saying that we should not only persuade the other 11 members of the European Community but take the matter to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. On that matter, we are as one. Developed, industralised countries should be responsible for dealing with their own hazardous waste and should be self-sufficient in that sense. There is no difference between the Government and the Labour party on that. The difficulty, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is with the developing or Third-world countries which do not have the necessary facilities. Our world concern is that, if we are not careful and that waste cannot be dealt with properly, it may be dumped in the sea or in some dark corner of Africa, where it will be a great danger to life and limb.
      Mr. Murphy: We are at one on that point. Much of what has been said in this short debate is a matter of agreement. I shall not press the new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdrawn the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 27

      CODES ON CONTROL OF PESTS
      '—(1) The Ministers shall from time to time after consultation with such persons or bodies as seem to them representative of interests concerned—

      (a) prepare and issue codes containing such recommendations, advice and information they consider proper for the purpose of providing practical guidance on the release of substances for the purpose of securing safe, efficient and humane methods of controlling pests on land used for agriculture or sporting purposes; and

      1114

      (b) revise any such code by revoking, varying, amending or adding to the provisions of the code.

      (2) A code prepared in pursuance of subsection (1) and any alterations proposed to be made on a revision of such a code shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith after being prepared; and the code or revised code, as the case may be, shall not be issued until the code or the proposed alterations have been approved by both Houses.
      (3) Subject to subsection (2), the Ministers shall cause every code prepared or revised in pursuance of subsection (1) to be printed, and shall cause copies of it to be put on sale to the public at such prices as the Ministers may determine.
      (4) In this section "the Ministers" in the application of this section to England, means the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and, in the application of this section to Scotland or Wales, means the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Morley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Morley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second Time.
      The intention behind the new clause is to introduce a code of conduct on the use of pesticides on various forms of estates, both sporting estates and farms. We need a code of conduct in the Bill because, without doubt, there has been widespread abuse of pesticides, rodenticides and insecticides by a minority of people who kill protected species of birds of prey.
      The group involved fall into two categories. The first comprises farmers who deliberately set out to kill pest species, such as corvids, various types of carrion crows and foxes, by illegal means. They do so by putting down eggs that have been injected with poison or by putting poison on various forms of carrion that they know crows and foxes will eat. The trouble is that the poison is eaten not just by crows and foxes but by protected birds. These incidents have occurred in Wales and led to the death of red kites.
      The second category involves a much more sinister misuse, which I should like the code of conduct to cover in particular. It takes place particularly in Scotland. Eighty per cent. of this abuse occurs on sporting estates, and the poisons are used for the control of pests as well, but in this case the other target is deliberate. The poison is used in a calculating way and it is aimed at protected birds of prey, such as merlin, sparrowhawks, hen harriers, golden eagles and buzzards, with those involved knowing full well that the consequences of their action will be the death of these protected species.
      As a sign of the dramatic impact of this abuse, I should like to point out that some species, such as the buzzard, do not exist in England and Scotland in habitats where in normal circumstances one would expect to find them. The red kite is restricted to about 50 pairs, mainly in central Wales. At one time, they occurred throughout this country. Hon. Members who have been on holiday in central France will have found that the red kite is widespread throughout France, as is the black kite. There is no reason why red kites should not be as widespread in this country if they did not suffer from persecution.
      White-tailed eagles were exterminated in this country but have recently been reintroduced in a programme carried out in conjunction with the NCC and RSPB. Some of those birds have been found poisoned. The same is true of the hen harrier, which does not exist in large areas of suitable moorland habitat throughout England and

      1115
      Scotland. Britain contains significant numbers of the EEC's population of species such as the hen harrier, but the numbers are decreasing.
      The main chemicals used are alpha chloros and strychnine. The abuse of these chemicals is illegal under section 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and section 12 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Despite that, over the past nine years the incidence of illegal killings of birds of prey has been as follows: 30 golden eagles, 186 buzzards, 22 red kites, 5 hen harriers and 2 white-tailed eagles. In 1989 alone, 11 red kites out of a population of 50 pairs were found poisoned in Wales. Without doubt, the deaths were caused by hill farmers who were trying to control foxes and crows, but they did not use poison in a way that could be controlled. Its use was, of course, illegal.
      In 1989, the NCC and RSPB released 11 red kites in Scotland and England as part of an experiment to find out whether the populations could be re-established. Within six months of release, two of the birds were found dead, both poisoned. The kites were fitted with radio transmitters so that their bodies could be traced. Autopsies showed beyond doubt that they had been deliberately poisoned.
      In the game-rearing areas, particularly in Scotland, 80 per cent. of all poisoning incidents were on land used for sporting purposes. In the past three years alone, nearly 80 birds have been found poisoned on Scottish estates, including eight golden eagles, 28 buzzards, three peregrine falcons and two of the reintroduced red kites. Few successful prosecutions are made. It is often impossible to identify the offender. According to the latest figures, only 1·4 per cent. of all reported incidents go to court.
      There are legitimate ways of controlling pests and predators—for example, by the use of crow traps and by controlling the breeding populations. I hope that the Government will accept the code and that it will be made widely available to landowners, and to associations and unions representing landowners, to encourage them to cease the destructive and illegal practice and to adopt acceptable and legal methods.
      Mr. Hunter: I intervene to clear the point. I am chairman of the falconry committee of the British Field Sports Society. I seek clarification of the thesis that the hon. Gentleman has just propounded. I ask him to comment on the proposition that it is indeed the practice of field sports with regard to falconry to preserve and increase the number of those species of wild birds which are essential to the environment.
      Mr. Morley: I am sure that those involved in falconry share my concern about protecting the species. I do not think there is any suggestion that people concerned with falconry have been involved in the abuse. Those involved are motivated by greed. People who manage grouse moors in particular want to maximise their revenue from bringing in people to shoot on the moors; so they want to increase the number of grouse. Pressure is put on gamekeepers to exterminate birds of prey which may reduce the number of grouse. That is completely unacceptable.
      I can give a specific example on which I would be grateful for the Minister's comments. I understand that on the Buccleuch estate, which is administered by the Earl of
      1116
      Dalkeith although it is owned by the Duke of Buccleuch, a gamekeeper was sacked. He has given information about what was regarded as a standard practice on that estate of supplying keepers with pesticides and rodenticides, particularly alpha chloros, for use on bait, either laid down to kill birds of prey or used on carrion which was found as the keepers walked round the estate. The gamekeeper, Mr. Rodney Smith, claims that, in one year, over 300 birds of prey, mainly sparrowhawks and owls, were killed on the estate. He claims that a blind eye was turned to the abuse and that pressure is put on gamekeepers to break the law. Although that is strongly denied by the Earl of Dalkeith, I believe that some landowners condone the practice in private, although they condemn it in public. That undermines the credibility of landowners who manage their land responsibly and lawfully and who do their best to encourage nature conservation. However, many landowners, particularly in Scotland, have a deliberate policy of destroying illegally birds of prey.
      The Earl of Dalkeith was put on the ruling council of the Nature Conservancy Council by the former Secretary of State for the Environment. That was a disgrace when the illegal slaughter of birds of prey has been taking place on an estate for which he has been responsible. He should resign, and the Minister should support me in that call.
      Mr. Hunter: I do not quarrel substantially with what the hon. Gentleman says, but I wish him to put firmly on record what I believe he knows to be the case, that the British Field Sports Society has issued clear guidelines to all involved in shooting that they should not follow the practice which he condemns, and which I too condemn. I wish him to acknowledge that respectable authorities agree with him and accept the thesis which he propounds.
      Mr. Morley: In all fairness, I acknowledge that the British Field Sports Society has made that statement publicly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the actions of people who turn a blind eye to deliberate poisoning—or, even worse, encourage it—undermine the credibility of the whole field sports movement and the concept of sporting estates. As long as people do that, the whole sport will be discredited.
      Mr. Hunter: I agree with the hon. Member.
      8.45
      Mr. Morley: I am grateful for that support.
      I support a code of conduct. I appeal to reputable landowners and to those who care about the environment and about conservation to stamp out illegal practices once and for all. There have been plenty of pious comments, but the slaughter still goes on. There are still vast parts of Scotland which do not contain certain species of birds of prey. If the code of conduct is not adequate, I will press for a change in the law to make landowners, as well as the people who put down the bait, responsible for poisoning incidents which take place on their land. Those who employ others to break the law must take their share of the blame. The code of conduct is a modest step in trying to curb odious and unacceptable practices. I hope that the Government will recognise the abuse and support me in my campaign.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) speaks on the subject with considerable knowledge and experience. I agree that there

      1117
      is a problem. I am sure that he recognises that it is entirely legitimate for farmers and landowners to seek to control pests and vermin, but it must be done in a way that does not lead to the poisoning, whether accidental or deliberate, of species that are not vermin.
      I cannot comment knowledgeably or at first hand on the allegations that the hon. Gentleman repeated about the Buccleuch estate or Lord Dalkeith. I understand that the article to which he referred was unbalanced, and exaggerated the position in suggesting that hundreds of rare and protected birds were being shot or poisoned on the estate. The facts do not support that allegation. In any case Lord Dalkeith has, I understand, issued written instructions to his employees that that should not happen and that birds of prey on his land are to be respected.
      It is more important to widen the debate to deal with general matters of policy. I remind the House that under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 it is already an offence to set poison, or poisoned or stupefying substances, with the intention of causing bodily injury to any wild bird. Similarly, under section 11 of the Act, it is an offence to set poison in a way that is calculated to cause injury to any wild animal specified in schedule 6, which includes badgers, bats, wild cats, hedgehogs, pine martens, otters, polecats, shrews and red squirrels. So there is already widespread protection enforced by law under threat of penalty.
      Mr. Hunter: I should like my hon. Friend to acknowledge the responsible attitude of the British Field Sports Society, that conservation and the promotion of bird game are identical. I should like him to note that, without that attitude being adopted by landowners and farmers, conservation would be infinitely the poorer.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, I acknowledge that. Those who engage in field sports have the clearest possible self-interest in maintaining a wide diversity of species, including quarry species. It is interesting that people who are not normally well disposed towards field sports now acknowledge that stag hunting on Exmoor has probably led to the survival of red deer there, almost uniquely in England. Mr. Richard Course, who has been a Labour candidate and who was prominent in the League Against Cruel Sports, recently announced his conversion, acknowledging publicly that he has come round to the view that stag hunting on Exmoor has done much to preserve and protect red deer in that part of the country. That was a remarkable and brave statement—almost an admission—from someone who has spent many years pursuing the opposite point of view, and demonstrates that when the facts are investigated, they are often at variance with prejudice and misunderstanding.
      Mr. Morley: I should not let that statement pass unchallenged. Red deer may well have been introduced to and preserved on Exmoor for the purpose of stag hunting, but that population can now be maintained and controlled without the need for stag hunting, which many people, including myself, find barbaric and odious.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am not attempting to give my views, but simply want to pass on to the House the interesting observation of someone who has studied the matter and, up to now, held a contrary view. Mr. Course was firmly opposed to field sports in all forms, but it is now his opinion that, whereas the red deer have been hunted
      1118
      and shot almost to extinction in most other parts of England, they are thriving on Exmoor. He attributes that at least in part to the fact that those who hunt the red stag have a clear self-interest in ensuring the success arid survival of the species. I put that to the House without further comment.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I intervene only briefly because the League Against Cruel Sports is based in my constituency, and to observe that Mr. Course is no longer a member or employee of the league. The view that the Minister attributed to Mr. Course is not the view of the league, which continues to object to that practice and sport on the grounds that have just been set out by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). Mr. Course is in the small minority of those who have held an anti-bloodsports view and who have changed that view. There are explanations for that, but it would not be proper to go into them in the House.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am not in the least surprised to learn that Mr. Course is no longer a member of the League Against Cruel Sports, but his opinions and observations are no less valid for that.
      The phrasing of new clause 27 closely follows part III of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, either by derivation or accident. That in itself demonstrates that the new clause is unnecessary because its provisions are already covered in separate legislation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe knows this, but I remind other hon. Members that the Advisory Committee on Pesticides reports to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food The origins of that committee date back to 1954, although has changed its name several times. The committee is now supported by four expert technical panels, one of which is the environmental panel. From time to time that panel publishes studies into the suspected poisoning of animals by pesticides.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I have listened to the Minister with great interest because he is repeating what was more or less said to the House when we considered the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. However, the problem is that in the nine years since then, the levels of poisoning appear to have increased rather than decreased. It therefore appears that the present legislation is not working. Surely it is time that we changed the legislation to make it work and to stop those levels of poisoning.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The new clause calls for codes of practice, but they are already provided for in the present legislation. Moreover, the environmental panel of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides has published useful facts and statistics on that matter. The panel supports at least some of the hon. Gentleman's observations. It is true that pesticides are misused—sometimes deliberately. That is highly regrettable and penalties are in place to attempt to deal with that. The Government are not complacent. We do not deny that such incidents occur.
      Nevertheless, I invite the House to reject the new clause simply on the ground that it duplicates powers that are already available under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 which, as I said, provides for codes of practice on the release of substances for controlling pests. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the

      1119
      Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to this debate and doubtless the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will take up the matter with him.
      Mr. Morley: I am grateful to the Minister for his positive response and for his acknowledgement of the problem. I am aware of the code on pesticides that has just been published. It is a good code, but it is designed to deal with the spraying of pesticides more than with anything else. The new clause not only emphasises the relevant Acts, to which the Minister drew attention, but calls for positive codes of practice to assist those farmers who have a genuine pest control problem to deal with that problem in ways that are both acceptable and legal. That is a slightly different interpretation.
      Sir George Young rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to catch my eye?
      Sir George Young indicated dissent.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) seeking to ask leave to withdraw his new clause?
      Mr. Morley: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 59

      SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES
      ' .—(1) No person shall smoke in a public place except in a designated smoking area.
      (2) References in this section to a public place are to an enclosed public place.
      (3) For the purposes of this Section, "public place" includes (but is not limited to) so much of any place within the categories described in Part I of Schedule (Smoking in public places) as is enclosed while the place is open to the public but does not include the categories of places (in this Section called "exempt places") described in Part II of that Schedule.
      (4) An enclosed work place shall be a public place for the purposes of this Section unless it is an exempt place.
      (5) It shall be the duty of the occupier of any public place to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of subsection (1) above.
      (5A) Subject to the requirements of the regulations, the occupier of any public place may designate part (but not the whole) of that place as an area (in this Act called a designated smoking area) where smoking is permitted.
      (6) It is an offence for a person

      (a) to contravene subsection (1) above

      (b) to fail to discharge the duty to which he is subject by virtue of subsection (5)

      (c) to fail to comply with an order made by a court under subsection (10).

      (7) A person guilty of an offence under paragraph (a) of subsection (6) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
      (8) A person guilty of an offence under paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (6) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and on conviction on indictment to a fine.
      (9) Where a person is convicted of an offence under paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (6), then, if the contravention in respect of which he was convicted is continued after conviction he shall (subject to subsection (10)) be guilty of a further offence and liable in respect to a fine not exceeding £200 for each day on which the contravention is so continued.
      (10) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (5) in respect of any matters which appear to the court to be matters which it is in his power to remedy, the court may, in addition to or instead of imposing any punishment, order him, within such time as may be fixed by the order, to take such steps as may be specified in the order for remedying the said matters.
      (11) The time fixed by an order under subsection (10) above may be extended or further extended by order of the court on an application made before the end of that time as originally fixed or as extended under this subsection, as the case may be.
      (12) Nothing in this Section shall

      (a) require the occupier of any public place to designate smoking areas or otherwise prevent him from prohibiting smoking in all parts of a public place.

      (b) require the carrying out of any structural or similar works to any premises for the purposes of defining smoking and non-smoking areas.

      (13) This Section shall bind the Crown.
      (14) For the purposes of this Section, an enclosed place is an area between a floor and a ceiling or roof which is enclosed on all sides by walls or windows (exclusive of door or passage ways) extending from the floor to the ceiling or roof.
      (15) In this Section
      "occupier", in relation to any place, means the person having control or management of the place;
      "public" includes a section of the public;
      "smoking" includes having a lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe or any other smoking equipment and "smoke" shall be construed accordingly.
      (16) This Section shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, and different days may be appointed under this subsection for different purposes.
      (17) This Section shall extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland.'.—[Sir George Young.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Sir George Young: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 327, new schedule—

      SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES
        PART I
          PLACES WHICH ARE PUBLIC PLACES FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION (SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES)
            Business Premises
            1. Premises used for any trade, business or profession to which the public have access.
            Official premises
            2. Premises occupied by any government department, local authority or other public body; to which the public have access.

            Places of public entertainment or resort
            3-(1) Theatres, cinemas and places used for any entertainment, exhibition or sporting event.
            (2) Premises used for any meeting which the public are permitted to attend, whether on payment or otherwise.
            (3) Hotels, inns and similar establishments used for the purposes of accommodation, public conveyances and transport premises.
            4-(1) Railway passenger trains, public service vehicles, tramcars, trolley buses, taxi cabs and any other vehicle used for the transportation of the public.
            (2) Any British registered vessel and any British controlled aircraft used for the public carriage of passengers.
            (3) Enclosed areas of Railway stations, bus terminals and other transport premises.

            Education premises
            5. Class rooms, lecture halls and other areas of educational establishments used by persons attending such establishments.
            Health care premises
            6. Hospitals, clinics and other premises used for medical or dental purposes.
        PART II

          EXEMPT PLACES
          1. Premises in respect of which a justices licence to sell intoxicating liquors by retail for consumption on the premises (other than a Part IV licence within the meaning of the Licensing Act 1964) is in the force.
          2. Shops used wholly or mainly for the sale of tobacco and smokers requisites.
          3. Those parts of hotels, inns and similar establishments, used for the purposes of accommodation, designated as smoking areas.'.
          Sir George Young: I regret that my enthusiasm not to miss catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, led me to lean forward in my seat a moment or two earlier than I should have done.
          New clause 59 seeks to ban smoking in public places.
          The welcome debate on environmental issues which has gathered pace over recent months and much of which is focused on this Bill has had two consequences. First, it has raised public awareness on environmental matters, and, with it, public expectations; secondly, it has shown the breadth of the environmental debate and also the length of the environmental frontier patrolled so ably by my hon. Friend the Minister.
          9 pm
          The new clause is a product of these two factors: growing awareness and rising expectations, on the one hand, and the range of areas where progress can be made, on the other. It seeks to protect the public from one particular type of pollution, tobacco smoke, and to respond to the changing mood on smoking generally. It is, I believe, the first time that passive smoking has been debated as an environmental issue rather than as a health one, and it starts from the principle that non-smoking should be the norm in enclosed areas frequented by the public or employees, with special provision for smokers, rather than vice versa.
          I hope that no one in the debate will claim that tobacco smoke is not a pollutant. It is the major pollutant in indoor air. Given the welcome progress that my hon. Friend had made in removing pollutants from outside air, this needs to be accompanied by progress inside, where, after all, most of us spend most of our time.
          Mr. Hunter: I am not so concerned with pollution as with prejudice. My old grandfather was born and bred in Liverpool a hundred years ago. He did not like Roman Catholics—he was prejudiced—and his great vendetta in life as a Protestant from Liverpool was against Catholics. I am a non-apologising consumer of nicotine and tobacco. I love my pipe. I refuse to be prejudiced in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) continues to propound his thesis.
          Sir George Young: I hope that my hon. Friend will see a distinction between being prejudiced against Catholics, and totally overlooking all the medical and scientific advice which shows that passive smoking is dangerous.
          I quote briefly from the fourth report of the independent scientific committee on smoking and health, which refers to the number of deaths caused by passive smoking:
          "It might however amount to several hundred out of the current annual total of about 40,000 lung cancer deaths in the United Kingdom, a small but not negligible proportion."
          I am sure that my hon. Friend's grandfather never said that the Catholics in Liverpool killed people. We are here talking about something which is different in concept from the prejudices of what I am sure was a very distinguished old man.
          I hope also that no one will claim that this is not a suitable matter for legislation. The Government have already legislated on atmospheric pollution and on public nuisances such as litter, which after all harms no one's health. Tobacco smoke is airborne litter, but bad for one's health as well.
          It is not just the case, in the immortal words of Frank Sinatra, that smoke gets in your eyes. Smoke gets in your hair. Smoke gets in your clothes. My hon. Friend's pipe smoke gets in my mouth. People who suffer from asthma and other bronchial infections have their illnesses aggravated by smoke—either raw smoke from the tips of burning cigarettes or, to use the jargon, recycled smoke exhaled by my hon. Friend and others. Others find that smoke irritates their nose and throat and aggravates coughs. The numbers exposed to this nuisance are huge.
          This debate is about the fairly basic entitlement to breathe air unpolluted by unpleasant fall-out of an activity increasingly realised to be both dangerous and anti-social. Public opinion surveys show that the steps proposed are supported not just by the non-smoking majority, but by the smoking minority. Asked what their reaction was to the proposition that, in general, people who do not smoke should have the right to work in air free of tobacco smoke, 86 per cent. of non-smokers assented, as did 81 per cent. of smokers. Eighty-nine per cent. of smokers agreed that all restaurants should provide no-smoking areas—something which I hope the Services Committee will consider in respect of the restaurants and cafeterias in the House, particularly in respect of Annie's Bar.
          In today's papers I see that just such a measure as I propose was introduced yesterday in the Republic of Ireland; and similar measures already exist in the United States, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Norway and Spain.
          Mr. Stan Crowther: I wonder if the hon. Member would care to propose a no-drinking area in Annie's Bar as well?
          Sir George Young: Since, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you enjoy, I believe, both the activities that have been mentioned, you would rule me out of order if I attempted to extend new clause 59 beyond smoking.
          I mention in passing the example that Ministers can set in their own Departments by making sure, for example, that the atmosphere at 2 Marsham street is pure. I remember, during my tenure at Marsham street, banning smoking in the lifts. All went well until my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) joined the Department, when the "no smoking" signs mysteriously disappeared. I hope that my hon.

          1123
          Friend will tell me that, following my right hon. Friend's departure for the Department of Trade and Industry, those signs have been reinstated and that his Department has an effective policy for its own offices.
          Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend remember that, when we all thought that he was an excellent Minister in the Department of the Environment, he went to Sweden and got carried away—not far enough, as it turned out—and said that he hoped that one day smoking would be only between consenting adults in private as though it were somewhat worse than adultery in public? People like my hon. Friend wish to impose on everyone their wonderful sanctified piety and say that nothing with which they do not agree should be allowed to take place in public. That is not Conservatism but left-wing socialism.
          Sir George Young: What my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) does with his pipe in private is his business.
          Mr. Hunter: Will my hon. Friend give way?
          Sir George Young: May I finish my point? I note that two honourable pipe-smoking Friends are anxious to interrupt.
          What my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak does in public, imposing his foul-smelling pipe on those who happen to walk behind him, is different. I do not mind if he smokes his pipe at home. If he smokes it in a public place he imposes his prejudices on other people. My new clause seeks to insulate people from his anti-social activities.
          Mr. Hunter: Will my hon. Friend give way?
          Sir George Young: I am anxious to make progress, because I suspect that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
          I hope that the Department of the Environment will at least issue guidelines to proprietors of public places on how to deal with the issue, perhaps working through environmental health officers. I accept that progress is being made on a voluntary basis. For example, the Department of Social Security office in my constituency has a smoke-free waiting area and the waiting room at Ealing Broadway station is now a smoke-free zone. Progress is being made in taxis and in some hotels and offices. But it is slow and sporadic.
          One of the roles of the House of Commons is to reflect the shift in public opinion on social issues. There has been a shift in the role of the dog in our society, which we debated on Tuesday and to which the Government have responded. There has been a shift in public opinion on smoking, too. No one is about to ask that smoking be banned. But some of us will ask the Government to protect the most basic liberty to which our constituents are entitled—the right to breathe unpolluted air. We do that in this new clause which, in a nutshell, bans smoking in a public place except in a designated smoking area.
          Mr. Crowther: I do not imagine for a moment that the House will be so foolish as to approve this ill-conceived new clause. Nevertheless, a few words need to be said to
          1124
          tone down the extremism of the anti-smoking campaign which has now reached an almost unbelievable pitch of hysteria.
          I am sure that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) has studied the matter in detail. If so, he must know that there is as much evidence against his arguments about the dangers of so-called passive smoking as there is for it. I do not intend to go through all the evidence, but I have looked into it in some detail and I shall quote some of it.
          The hon. Gentleman quoted in support of his argument the report of the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health. I think that he was referring to the report published in March 1988. Certainly, that is the most widely publicised report on which so many of the anti-tobacco campaigners have depended. They seem to have depended on it without reading it in full or even fully understanding it. The report was not based on any independent research. It merely aggregated several carefully selected previously published studies. The report admitted:
          "None of the studies can be accepted as unequivocal."
          That was said by the very people whom the hon. Gentleman quoted in support of his new clause.
          The committee did not include other studies in its report. It admitted that other studies tended to show that there was no danger or risk whatever to non-smokers from so-called passive smoking. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not mention those matters in that same report when he quoted it in support of his new clause.
          The report, which is now widely believed to be scientific truth, is nothing more than an expression of opinion.
          Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It is twaddle.
          Mr. Crowther: Yes, but it is couched in scientific language.
          A symposium was held in Austria in May 1988 on environmental tobacco smoke, ETS. It was organised by Mr. G. Lehnert and Mr. E. Wynder. I am sure that the hon. Member for Acton is familiar with the symposium's report as he is such an expert in this matter. The statement issued at the end of that symposium said:
          "A causal relationship between ETS and illness cannot be established …
          There is no positive evidence that cancer and other illnesses are caused by passive smoking."
          The professor of medicine at the George Washington university in the United States, Professor Witorsch, wrote in the New Zealand "Medical Journal" of November 1986:
          "A thorough and critical examination of the relevant literature fails to provide compelling evidence that exposure to ambient tobacco smoke produces adverse chronic health effects."
          A group of scientists in New York carried out an interesting study of air samples taken from 26 office buildings and 48 restaurants. The House will be interested to learn that they concluded that a typical New York non-smoker would have to work for 450 uninterrupted hours in an office or dine continuously for 400 hours in order to be exposed to the nicotine equivalent of one cigarette. That is the extent of so-called passive smoking.
          The hon. Member for Acton says that tobacco is the major pollutant, but that is not so. Far more contaminants in the air in most buildings are derived from factors other than tobacco smoke, and the sick building syndrome is extremely serious. Fungal and bacterial spores exist in the

          1125
          air and all kinds of chemical poisons are released from furniture, carpets and goodness knows what else. A lot more study of that syndrome needs to be done.
          The trouble is that smoke is visible and therefore gets the blame, but all the other nasty things are ignored. Those other pollutants affect people's eyes, and a runny nose and a sore throat often have nothing to do with tobacco smoke, but are caused by those other poisonous substances. The trouble is that most of our buildings are not properly air conditioned and my goodness we know that better than anyone.
          Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman does not speak for Labour colleagues alone. Will he accept my invitation to join me after the debate is over for a good pipe and a chat when we can pursue the argument?
          Mr. Crowther: I should be delighted to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation so long as it is over a pint.
          Far more attention needs to be paid to other causes of air pollution and air contamination rather than paying attention to the hysterical attitude that has been adopted in recent times towards tobacco smoke. Because one can see smoke it is assumed that it is the cause of the problem, but, in most cases, the cause is quite different. I hope that the Government will pay attention to this matter in due course.
          Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am happy to say that I speak as a pipe smoker. I know that there are hon. Members like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) who look upon that as something worse than a venal sin. I accept that to some people smoking is irritating. But would some people, who have a pious nonsensical attitude towards smokers, accept that smokers have a right to express the huge irritation they feel when, as soon as they light up in a room, even the size of the Chamber, people immediately go into paroxysms of coughing as though they were being laid open to mustard gas.
          It is true that smoking is not necessarily good for one. I do not think that drinking is, and I am not sure whether sex is. I am certainly not sure whether jogging is. One of the few times I have ever laughed at someone else's misfortune was when the man who wrote the definitive book on jogging was found dead in a ditch after he had jogged.
          9.15 pm
          In a modern society it is fair for restaurants to have non-smoking areas, and I agree that aircraft, buses and trains should have such areas. But what many people who are getting more and more cranky about smoking do not realise is that many of us who smoke are willing to accept that when we go into a non-smoking carriage we should not abuse people. If a smoker accidentally goes into a non-smoking carriage and forgets, and someone tells him that it is a non-smoking carriage, he does not reply in language that we used to be told could not be used in the House, but immediately desists from smoking.
          In a fair and sensible society there must be a basis of give and take. It is sensible not to smoke in a theatre. I like going to theatres, particularly concerts. In a concert hall any smoker realises that it is sensible to have no smoking in the auditorium because there are musicians and singers. Those of us who smoke are not trying to force some change in the law so that we can smoke wherever we want.
          1126
          When we talk about pollution in society, it is often put down to cars or smoking; aircraft, which fly over all our houses, are not mentioned. It is likely that the greatest pollutants in this world are aircraft. If we take what people who are against smoking say to its logical conclusion, we should immediately ground aircraft because the great pollutants are cars and aircraft.
          Sir George Young: We made it absolutely clear that we are not banning smoking. We have asked those who smoke to confine it to private places or to designated areas in public places.
          Mr. Beaumont-Dark: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, and bearing in mind his wonderful speech in Sweden, what he wants us to do would make us act as though we were doing something furtive and always blow our smoke up the chimney so that no one else can smell it.
          The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) rightly described what all the cranks who want to stop us exercising our freedom want us to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton pedals away like billy-o on his bicycle, getting eggs thrown at his wife and not even wanting to get the muck out of her hair because he thinks it will be good for it. His poor wife rushes about the countryside on a tandem, sucking in carbon monoxide, and aircraft and car fumes, but then my hon. Friend says that if his wonderful wife sits in a restaurant for 45 minutes she will be on the path to death and lung cancer. A bigger load of nonsense was never heard. Even with the wealth of my hon. Friend—it is a legend to us all—he would have to feed her in that restaurant night and day for 115 years before she came to any harm.
          Those who are against us exercising our freedom are saying no more than, "We don't like smoking." Well. I do not like some of the nonsense on television, or some of the colours that people wear—
          Sir George Young: Turn if off then.
          Mr. Beaumont-Dark: We live in a society in which we cannot turn anything off. I hope that this House, which is meant to be a bastion of freedom, will reflect the need for non-smokers, in the name of justice, to be as tolerant towards us as we are towards them. If we accept the measure before the House, we shall set man against brother and wife against husband. Happily, in my house we all smoke. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Acton, who comes from a family with an honourable tradition of toleration, to show some of the tolerance that his family have shown for generations.
          Mr. Simon Hughes: I want to make two simple points in response to what was in part a light-hearted but in part serious bid for tolerance towards smokers.
          First, what should the presumption be? Surely it should be that we should have as pollution-free an environment as possible. People can opt out of that, but potentially harmful activities should not be allowed to take place in public—
          Mr. Beaumont-Dark: We want a friendly society.
          Mr. Hughes: Of course we do, and public places that permit smoking should allow a place in which smokers can opt out and smoke with other smokers.
          Secondly, the evidence of the damage that smoking causes is becoming more apparent. I shall not go into the arguments about passive smoking, but it is now generally

          1127
          accepted that smoking causes deaths. We should therefore educate the next generation to be more healthy; such education will include teaching people about the dangers of activities that pose a risk to their health. They are of course free to choose thereafter, but we should teach children how to avoid smoking.
          We can never legislate against sin or against weakness but we should legislate to encourage people to do what is best, without banning activities in which those who want to opt out of the norm wish to indulge.
          Mr. Hunter: Last year, when I successfully piloted my private Member's measure, the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Bill, through the House, the Liberal Democrats did not argue in this way. They were happy to leave aside issues of tobacco smoking, so there is an inconsistency between the hon. Gentleman's argument now and that advanced by his party last year.
          Mr. Hughes: I do not want to be taken down that road. The Bill was limited and we supported it. This new clause is specifically about smoking. It is interesting to note that it was selected whereas the one on CFCs was not. Those who want to smoke pipes, cigarettes or cigars must have the freedom to do so with others in certain areas in public, and to do so in private, but we should surely aim at the best possible environment, and smokers must accept that smoking does harm. They should take the risk themselves but not impose it on the rest of us.
          Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Although we are being lighthearted, this is a serious debate. Although my wife and I both smoke—I more heavily than she—we bribed our children not to smoke, so I agree that you should not encourage smoking. My son still does not smoke, but my daughter does. You who are against the freedom of smokers should agree that as long as we do not try to lead people to the devil there is something to be said for the freedom of the individual, who should not be blackmailed, bludgeoned or made to feel guilty—
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish the hon. Gentleman would not keep bringing me into these matters.
          Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
          Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman might think that he needs you in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
          Of course I accept that the hon. Gentleman cannot imagine that Parliament would wish to make social outcasts of people who engage in an activity which, like drinking and other activities, it is correct that they should have a right as adults to choose to do. However, there is a difference from the other examples that the hon. Gentleman cited. Activities such as drinking and watching television do not necessarily have an effect on other people. Of course the person who drinks and is then sick over somebody causes a problem, but there is no such problem for those who can hold their drink.
          It is possible to turn off the television and to deal with other potential pollutants, but one cannot deal with people who are smoking except by going somewhere else. Why should it be presumed that those who wish to take the healthier option by not smoking should have to move away to find their private secret corner? The presumption should be the other way and those who choose to engage
          1128
          in an activity in which they are perfectly entitled to engage, even though it is potentially harmful to them and to others, should have to withdraw to do so, thereby keeping the healthier majority happy.
          Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Much of the debate has been misconceived, in that those who wish to smoke have drawn parallels with drinking. But nobody forces drink down somebody else's throat. The debate is about the alleged right of people who wish to smoke to compel other people to breathe in the smoke when they do not wish to do so.
          Once upon a time there were separate smoking rooms. Let us look at a clearer and nearer analogy. When imprisoned suffragettes refused to take food there was considerable debate, including in Parliament, about whether they should be forcibly fed. But that was to save their lives. It was not because somebody else enjoyed doing it.
          In the Palace of Westminster smoking is prohibited in the Chamber, in public sessions of Select Committees and in Standing Committee. Except for that, it is impossible for hon. Members to escape from other people's smoke that they do not wish to breathe in. That applies whether they are in the Corridors, in the Library—except for one room—in the Dining Room, in Select Committees in deliberative session, travelling to take evidence away from the House in buses or taxis taking Members of the Select Committee, or in party committees.
          Hon. Members who do not wish to breathe in smoke are forced to do so by the minority who wish to be at liberty to pour smoke into the air. That is what the question is about. It is not about the right of those who wish to smoke to do so, but about the right of the minority who wish to smoke to force other people to breathe it in when they do not wish to do so.
          The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), for whom I have a great affection and respect, referred to nicotine, but it is not nicotine that does most of the damage to passive smokers; it is the tars. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who opened the debate, referred to deaths from cancer as a result of passive smoking. Probably far more serious are the deaths from asthma, which is very much an increasing manifestation.
          The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Rotherham was logically defective in that he pointed to other undeniable sources of atmospheric pollution as a reason for forcing people to breathe in tobacco smoke. The case for not forcing people to breathe in fungus spores or the fumes given off by furniture or carpets is a strong one, but it is not a case for forcing people to breathe in tobacco smoke when they do not want to do so.
          Mr. Crowther: The hon. Gentleman will recall that nicotine was specifically referred to in only only one of the studies that I mentioned. All the others spoke about health in general terms and looked at factors other than nicotine, such as tar content. Only the New York study referred to nicotine and I do not want that to be assumed to be the case in all the studies about which I spoke. We are all forced to breathe in the carbon dioxide that other people have breathed out. We do not notice it, but that is similarly polluting the air.
          9.30 pm
          Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: People cannot help breathing out carbon dioxide, but they can help breathing out smoke which they force other people who do not want to to breathe in. The one is unavoidable and the other is not.
          The new clause and the amendment are not about preventing people who wish to from smoking, although my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) was inaccurate when he said that his daughter did not smoke. If she shares her father's house, she has to smoke, like it or not. She is merely a passive smoker rather than an active smoker. Her medical history later in life is likely to be less favourable as a result of her parents' habit—
          Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Absolute rubbish.
          Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: —whether they like it or not, than if she were not living in a household where she had to breathe in the smoke. Her medical history will not be representative of somebody who will be exposed to tobacco smoke. It will be representative of somebody who is compelled to breathe in the smoke while she lives in her parents' house. I cannot see how she can possibly avoid it. This debate is about the right of people who want to exercise a pleasure—there is no reason why they should not exercise it as mature people—in circumstances where they do not force people who do not wish to do so to breathe it in.
          Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am a non-smoker and am broadly in agreement with the new clause, but it does not define "public place". For example, what about a racecourse or a football ground?
          Mr. Simon Hughes: It says "enclosed".
          Mr. Wareing: What is "enclosed"? A football ground could be defined as "enclosed" and so could a racecourse. That deficiency must be remedied. Although I am in favour of the principle behind the new clause, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) should look at it again and define it more clearly.
          Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Amendment No. 327 deals with "Smoking in Public Places". If the hon. Gentleman looks at it, he will find considerable elucidation of new clause 59. If it were in any way defective, there are later opportunities for correction. This is the right Bill and the right time for incorporating this measure, even though, as is often the case, it may need refinement at a later stage, including in the other place.
          Mr. Anthony Steen: The issue is not the danger about which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) spoke, but the simple one that I do not like smokers. I do not like the smell of smoke, which makes my eyes water and my clothes smell and causes me to lose my voice. The smoking sections on British Rail are so open to the non-smoking section that, as I travel up and down to Devon, this dreadful smell of smoke has progressively worked its way into my throat and, as a result, over the last week, I have progressively lost my voice. I unwisely spent an hour in the Members' Smoking Room this afternoon and that virtually finished it off.
          I see no reason why I should be subjected to the tobacco smoke from the pipe of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). I remind
          1130
          my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak of a short exchange we had in the Harcourt Room a few months ago when I was entertaining some guests. It was lunchtime, about 1.30 pm, and the table at which my hon. Friend was sitting was, as it were, lighting up. I remonstrated with him. I told him that I did not want to smell the smoke of all the smokers at that table. I explained that I did not want all the food that my friends and I were enjoying to be ruined by the dreadful smell of the pipe smoke of my lion. Friend or that of his guests.
          My hon. Friend was extremely understanding of my plight, although slightly resentful of my intervention. He properly advised the people at his table that it might be prudent not to incur the wrath of such an articulate campaigner as myself on anti-smoking. I am glad to say that everyone at the table, including my hon. Friend, extinguished his pipe or cigarette. We have had a continuation of that discussion.
          Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I shall remind my hon. Friend of what I said. When my hon. Friend intervened, I told my friends, "I'm sorry, but this man is a bit of a crank about smoking. Rather than have trouble with someone who is going to get tired and emotional about it, and as we have almost finished our meal, let's let this nut have his way and we shall go outside." Those were the very words that I used.
          Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend's intervention illustrates the intolerance and indifference of some to others in this place. He has shown that pipe smokers and cigarette smokers have no idea of the discomfort that it may cause to others. That, of course, applies also to cigar smokers. My hon. Friend has shown that he has no idea of the anger, irritation and discomfort that he creates by his pipe smoking. The aim of the new clause is to make the nation realise that we who support it have nothing against pipe or cigarette smokers. In public places, however, they must not impose their smoke on the increasing mass of people who do not want to smoke. I am not concerned for the moment about the health risk, to which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) referred. That is an important issue that we can debate on another occasion.
          The real issue is that I do not want to smell the smoke that comes from the pipe of my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak, for example. I see no reason why, in a dining room in this place or in a restaurant elsewhere, I should have to suffer the smell of smoke. Most Members of this place are not as intolerant as my hon. Friend and not so insensitive of the wishes of the nation. I am sure that most people would not support his line.
          My hon. Friend and others should be allowed to smoke wherever they like in their own homes. If they want their clothes, their children's clothes, the upholstery of their furniture and their cars to smell, that is their choice and they are entitled to have that smell. If that is their wish, let them have that nasty smell around them. They have no right, however, to expect the public to make way for them if the majority do not want it.
          It is argued that smoking should be an exception, and that the presumption should be that of non-smokers. Hon. Members should be allowed to smoke in public places, but not at the inconvenience of others. The attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak shows the intolerance of smokers. I hope that the House, with the help of the Minister, will ensure that the vast majority of people who

          1131
          believe that smoking is dangerous, bad for health and most unpleasant for those who do not like it, will have the right to choose to avoid smoke.
          The new clause is brilliantly drafted, as we would expect from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). The House should give it a fair wind.
          Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: A fresh wind.
          Mr. Steen: That is right. The Government could do a great service to the nation by ensuring that the vast majority of people who do not smoke do not have the pipe smoke of my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak imposed on them in the way that he would wish.
          Mr. Gwilym Jones: I have been tempted briefly to contribute to the debate because of the slightly aggressive remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), although in an intervention he had an equally aggressive response from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark).
          I am a non-smoker, or, to be more precise, I am an ex-smoker. It is usually among ex-smokers that there is the greatest hypocrisy about smoking. I hope that I will not be guilty of such hypocrisy. I wonder how much hypocrisy there has been already this evening. I managed to give up smoking more than two years ago, and since then I have occasionaly wondered whether I did the best thing. I have had to have two nasal operations. My general practitioner tells me that, previously, my nasal passages were anaesthetised by cigarette smoke, but now fresh air is getting into them. I very much hope that the surgeon was successful in my last operation and that it will not become an annual occurrence.
          Much reference has been made to the smells caused by cigarette smoking. As a result of my operations and of giving up smoking, I am sure that I have an improved sense of smell. However, I do not find the pipe smoke from my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak objectionable—indeed, I quite like it. I find pipe smoke preferable to cigarette smoke. What I find objectionable in this place—and I have only noticed it since I gave up cigarette smoking—is body odour. It is very prevalent when we press together in the Division Lobbies late at night in the warmer weather. All sorts of smells can be regarded as offensive. Perhaps it is all in the eye of the beholder.
          My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) referred to the independent study on smoking and health. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) rightly responded with a quotation from it to the effect that none of the studies could be taken as unequivocal. I did not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Acton placed very great store on the study. In fact, the most specific direct quotation that he cited from the study was:
          "It might, however, amount to".
          Have hon. Members ever heard such a woolly set of words in what is supposed to be an independent, authoritative report?
          We are dealing with prejudices. This debate is a mirror of a debate I attended in a previous incarnation when I was a member of the Cardiff city council. It decided to become a non-smoking body. Some of my hon. Friends might be inspired by that message. No good reason was advanced in the debate for imposing a non-smoking rule. In the fine
          1132
          city hall of the capital city of Wales, with lofty ceilings in imposing rooms, there is no good reason for imposing such a rule. The same applies to places with air conditioning. I have heard no good cause, only what I suspect to be prejudice, for making these no-smoking demands.
          Sometimes I get the impression that smokers realise that the balance of fashion has changed and are much more willing to accede to the wishes of non-smokers when requested not to smoke or to ask first before they smoke in the presence of other people. I am generalising and there may be exceptions, but I imagine that the vast majority of smokers would not go into somebody's house and start smoking without asking permission. There seems to be a lot more give and take on the part of smokers than there often is on the part of those who are agin it.
          We could make more progress if there was more balance in the argument. The anti-smoking lobby should consider whether its negative and hysterical approach to smoking is counter-productive. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton talked about banning smoking in public places except in designated areas. He should withdraw the clause so that the matter can be given more mature consideration and perhaps equal provision can be made for both sides. There should be freedom in this. There should not necessarily be designated places for one group, but designated places for both groups. Let us have a balanced approach to the problem, not a display of prejudice.
          9.45 pm
          Mr. Morley: The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) has bravely brought forward his all-party new clause. We have had a useful discussion in which the contradictory views of those who support the rights of smokers and non-smokers have been put forward.
          I am a life-long non-smoker. I like to think that I am a tolerant person and I recognise the right of people to smoke if they so choose. But there is no doubt that in public places such as restaurants, cinemas and bars an area must be set aside for those who do not smoke and, understandably, find smoking objectionable.
          I do not accept all the arguments put forward in support of the sick building syndrome. I have spent much of my political career in the archetypal smoke-filled rooms. When I was a member of the Hull city council Labour group, by the end of one of our evening meetings, which often lasted until midnight, I could not see the chairman due to a combination of smoke and my streaming eyes. We no longer care to tolerate such an atmosphere.
          I am pleased that a reasonable attitude on both sides, not legislation or coercion, has led to more and more non-smoking areas being set aside. I am not sure whether society is ready for the new clause, but, as fewer and fewer people smoke and as more and more people want the right at work and in their leisure time to have areas set aside for non-smokers, that will be the inevitable course.
          Mr. Crowther: I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates the essential difference between setting aside a place for non-smokers, to which he is now referring, and setting aside a place for smokers, which is what the new clause is about. To my delight, my hon. Friend begins with the assumption that smoking is allowed in places other

          1133
          than those where it is not allowed. I am happy with that, but the phraseology of the new clause is precisely the opposite.
          Mr. Morley: My point is that there is a trend in society as a result of which smokers are now in the minority and that trend must be reflected by provision in our public spaces for smokers and non-smokers.
          Mr. Steen: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman travels, as we all do, on trains and planes. Does he agree that in the past 10 years the non-smoking areas in trains and planes are full and the smoking areas are increasingly empty? Does he further agree that that needs to be reflected in our public transport policy with more places for non-smokers and designated pens for smokers?
          Mr. Morley: I would not use the hon. Gentleman's terminology, but I understand from people who deal with airline tickets that there is over-demand for airline seats in the no-smoking section of aeroplanes and under-demand for the smoking section. That has caused many airlines to reconsider their policy on the number of seats that they put aside for non-smokers. I think that the same will happen with British Rail because of the changing trend.
          The trend towards non-smoking is unstoppable. I do not want people to be coerced. I recognise a person's right to smoke and I believe that smokers recognise that smoking causes offence to non-smokers. They appreciate that, in public areas, the rights of non-smokers must be respected and that facilities must be provided.
          Mr. Trippier: It is perhaps unfortunate for my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) that, out of the eight Ministers in the Department of the Environment, I am the only one who smokes. I am not proud of it, but I am not ashamed of it either, and I am proud to be a member of a political party which believes in freedom above all else. I do not want to introduce party politics into the debate. I agree with much of what the hon. Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) have said, as I shall try to explain.
          The Government support the view that non-smokers should not be obliged to be exposed to tobacco smoke when visiting public places. but we do not believe what hon. Members propose in the new clause is necessary or—what is more to the point—enforceable.
          Government policy has been developed in the light of medical evidence and aims to create a non-smoking environment with facilities for those who wish to smoke, by encouraging voluntary policy on smoking in public places. That is in contrast to the use of legislation. Our approach is flexible and results in policies which are tailor made for each situation and respond to public demand.
          The common misconception is that the voluntary approach is less effective than the statutory approach. That is not true, as voluntary measures arise from popular demand and are accepted.
          The statutory ban proposed by the hon. Members who have put their names to the new clause would create overwhelming difficulties. For example, who would enforce the legislation? Do we want to divert the resources of the police or environmental health officers to do the
          1134
          work? The legislation would apply to so many thousands of premises that detection and enforcement of such a blanket ban would be utterly impossible.
          The Government have made it clear that they wholeheartedly encourage the implementation of smoking policies and the provision of smoke-free areas. Progress during the past year has been encouraging. Many major companies and organisations have introduced or strengthened smoking policies. Smoke-free areas are widely available in cinemas, shops, restaurants and on public transport. Some cinema chains and airlines provide completely smoke-free facilities. Even such traditional no-go areas for smoking restriction as pubs and betting shops are rethinking their approach where consumer demand for no-smoking facilities is apparent.
          Voluntary policies are the best way to proceed because they are produced in response to consumer or employee demand, they cater for the needs of smokers and non-smokers and they can more easily be tailored to individual areas and workplaces. Voluntary policies usually have a greater chance of success than those imposed by legislation, as they secure local commitment by management, staff and the public.
          When banning smoking is necessary for reasons of safety and hygiene, we have not hesitated to introduce legislation—for example, in the preparation of food or on the underground.
          Many hon. Members who considered the Bill carefully in Committee are smokers. It is interesting that this issue has been raised on Report, as it did not arise at any juncture—
          Mr. Morley: It did.
          Mr. Trippier: To my recollection, it never arose in Committee. I apologise if I am wrong. I believe that the voluntary controls adopted by the Government are the best way forward. As we have seriously considered the rest of the Bill, I hope that those hon. Members who have put their names to the new clause will not press it.
          Sir George Young: This has been a useful and, at times, somewhat heated debate. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he was in favour of freedom, but it became clear during the debate that there are two freedoms which are incompatible. It is no answer for my hon. Friend to say that he is in favour of freedom without saying whether he is in favour of the freedom of those who wish to smoke in public and impose that pollution on others or in favour of the freedom of those who do not wish to inhale polluted air. We are all in favour of freedom, but there is a choice to be made and a priority to be determined.
          The principle is: who has to give way? Who has to go to a designated area? Should it be the majority who do not smoke or the minority who do? What is the premise from which we start? The new clause says that the premise is that, by and large, people have the right to breathe unpolluted air and those who wish to pollute it should go to a designated area and pollute it together.
          The new clause, which I proposed some time ago, has the support of most of those who smoke. I gave the figures at the beginning of the debate—more than 80 per cent. of smokers support these measures. Yes, there is intolerance and prejudice. We must decide who is being intolerant arid who is being prejudiced. We argue that we are not imposing anything on anyone. The imposition is made not by us but by those who wish to smoke in public places,

          1135
          with all the adverse consequences that were so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and by my almost speechless hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), whose vocal chords, we understand, are disintegrating because of the volume of smoke on British Rail services and in the Harcourt Room and the Smoking Room.
          I am not sure that now is the right time to push further forward the frontiers of social legislation. I have not been totally reassured by the response by my hon. Friend the Minister. The Government have a role to play in setting an example and giving advice to others. I do not agree that this measure is unenforceable. We already have legislation to prevent smoking on London Transport services and buses, and it is self-enforcing. The Government have introduced a range of legislation—for example, covering dogs wearing collars and people having to keep the areas outside their shops free of litter—which will be much more difficult to enforce than the provisions in new clause 59.
          I do not wish to press the new clause to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
          Hon. Members: No.
          Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
          The House divided: Ayes 31, Noes 131.

          Division No. 191]

          [9.57 pm

          AYES

          Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

          Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

          Beggs, Roy

          McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

          Beith, A. J.

          Maginnis, Ken

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

          Meyer, Sir Anthony

          Boateng, Paul

          Michael, Alun

          Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

          Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

          Callaghan, Jim

          Morley, Elliot

          Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

          Mowlam, Marjorie

          Duffy, A. E. P.

          Skinner, Dennis

          Eastham, Ken

          Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

          Flynn, Paul

          Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

          Foster, Derek

          Wallace, James

          Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

          Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

          Hood, Jimmy

          Howells, Geraint

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

          Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop and Mr. Anthony Steen.

          Ingram, Adam

          Jessel, Toby

          NOES

          Alison, Rt Hon Michael

          Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

          Arbuthnot, James

          Carrington, Matthew

          Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

          Chapman, Sydney

          Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

          Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

          Ashby, David

          Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

          Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

          Cope, Rt Hon John

          Baldry, Tony

          Cran, James

          Batiste, Spencer

          Crowther, Stan

          Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

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

          Bellingham, Henry

          Davis, David (Boothferry)

          Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

          Day, Stephen

          Benyon, W.

          Dixon, Don

          Bevan, David Gilroy

          Dorrell, Stephen

          Boswell, Tim

          Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

          Bowis, John

          Dover, Den

          Brandon-Bravo, Martin

          Dunn, Bob

          Brazier, Julian

          Durant, Tony

          Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

          Fallon, Michael

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

          Fenner, Dame Peggy

          Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

          Fookes, Dame Janet

          Burt, Alistair

          Forth, Eric

          Butcher, John

          Freeman, Roger

          Butler, Chris

          French, Douglas

          Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

          Fry, Peter

          1136

          Garel-Jones, Tristan

          Nicholson, David (Taunton)

          Goodlad, Alastair

          Paice, James

          Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

          Pike, Peter L.

          Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

          Portillo, Michael

          Ground, Patrick

          Rathbone, Tim

          Hague, William

          Renton, Rt Hon Tim

          Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

          Riddick, Graham

          Hanley, Jeremy

          Ridsdale, Sir Julian

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

          Rowe, Andrew

          Harris, David

          Ryder, Richard

          Haynes, Frank

          Sackville, Hon Tom

          Heathcoat-Amory, David

          Shaw, David (Dover)

          Hind, Kenneth

          Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

          Howarth, G. (Cannock &, B'wd)

          Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

          Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

          Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

          Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

          Skeet, Sir Trevor

          Hunt, David (Wirral W)

          Speed, Keith

          Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

          Speller, Tony

          Hunter, Andrew

          Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

          Irvine, Michael

          Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

          Jack, Michael

          Stanbrook, Ivor

          Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

          Stern, Michael

          Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

          Stevens, Lewis

          Kennedy, Charles

          Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

          Key, Robert

          Stradling Thomas, Sir John

          Kilfedder, James

          Summerson, Hugo

          King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

          Taylor, Ian (Esher)

          Kirkhope, Timothy

          Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

          Knapman, Roger

          Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

          Lee, John (Pendle)

          Tredinnick, David

          Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

          Trippier, David

          Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

          Trotter, Neville

          Lightbown, David

          Waller, Gary

          Lilley, Peter

          Watts, John

          Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

          Wells, Bowen

          Lord, Michael

          Wheeler, Sir John

          MacGregor, Rt Hon John

          Widdecombe, Ann

          McLoughlin, Patrick

          Winterton, Mrs Ann

          Mans, Keith

          Wood, Timothy

          Monro, Sir Hector

          Moss, Malcolm

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Mudd, David

          Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

          Nelson, Anthony

          Nicholls, Patrick

          Question accordingly negatived.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Environmental Protection Bill and Lords Amendments to the Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Durant.]

    Environmental Protection Bill
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
    Environmental Protection Bill
      Clause 1

        PRELIMINARY
        Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 2, line 23, leave out
        '(carried on by any person)'
        and insert
        'carried on in Great Britain, whether on premises or by means of mobile plant,'.
        Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: Government amendments Nos. 27 to 32, amendment No. 240, in clause 4, page 6, line 12, leave out from 'air' to end of line 13 and insert
        'or land (but not water)'.
        Government amendments Nos. 33 to 36.

        1137
        Amendment No. 147, in clause 6, page 8, line 10, after 'applicant', insert
        'has assessed the likely effects of the process on the environment in an adequate manner and'.
        Government amendments Nos. 39, 42 to 45, 50 to 54, 56 to 58.
        Amendment No. 293, in clause 20, page 22, line 19, at end insert—
        '(6) No proceedings in respect of an offence under this section shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or by the enforcing authority.'.
        Government amendments Nos. 59 to 61.
        Amendment No. 294, in clause 28, page 29, line 2, at end insert—
        '(9A) No proceedings in respect of an offence under this section shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or by the enforcing authority.'.
        Government amendments 91 and 92.
        Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Most of the Government amendments in this group are minor drafting amendments, while others have been tabled to give effect to commitments made in Committee.
        Mrs. Ann Taylor: We welcome some of the Government amendments that meet commitments given to us in Committee, but the Minister will have noted amendment No. 147, standing in our names, which raises the important question of environmental impact assessments. The Minister should not be surprised to see the amendment on the amendment paper because we discussed the matter in Committee, and the Government stated that they would be bringing forward regulations under schedule 1 to the Bill, requiring applicants for authorisations under integrated pollution control to furnish information about the effects of the processes for which they were applying on the environment. We still feel that it would be better if that part of the regulations was not left in that form but written into the Bill.
        I hope that, even if the Minister is unwilling to accept our amendment tonight, he will look at the matter again; otherwise, the impact of integrated pollution control in protecting the environment will not be maximised. I hope that the Minister will give us a positive assurance that he will look at the matter and keep an open mind, and perhaps in another place, when there is more time to debate the matter, he will reconsider environmental assessments. If we are to make real progress, integrated pollution control and environmental assessments ought to go hand in hand.
        Mr. Hunter: With the utmost brevity, I wish to refer to my amendments Nos. 293 and 294.
        I belong to the school of thought that believes that industry creates the wealth that pays for welfare services. I believe that industry will likewise ultimately pay for the protection of our environment. My fear, which I expressed in Committee, is that, as it stands, the Bill will allow the green nutters to get on parade and have a field day of litigation against industry, on entirely inconsequential grounds.
        Amendments Nos. 293 and 294 simply seek to establish a filter against unnecessary third-party campaigns of accusations against industrial processes. That point was not sufficiently taken on board in Committee and I make no apology for referring to it, albeit in such little detail.
        10.15 pm
        Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is true that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) raised the subject of amendment No. 147 in Committee. I am sympathetic to the intention of the amendment. Indeed, I undertake to bring forward regulations that will require the operator of a process to include in his application an assessment of the likely effect on the environment of releases from the process. That is an appropriate, flexible but certain way of delivering what the hon. Lady wishes.
        Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the point. Why is he so resistant to writing it into the Bill?
        Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Some matters are better achieved by writing them into the Bill where they are set in concrete and some matters are better left to regulations because they may be subject to amendment and changes in the light of experience which would not alter the effect of what is required. That would build in flexibility to suit the action to circumstances. However, that in no way weakens our commitment to require from an applicant an assessment of the likely consequences on the environment of releases. I assure the hon. Lady that the final regulations will fully put into place what she requests in amendment No. 147. Perhaps with that in mind she will consider not pressing her amendment.
        Unfortunately, I must continue to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). We discussed new clause 3 on Monday, and we remain convinced that in this case, if, an individual has the necessary evidence to mount a case, he should be free to do so without recourse to the Director of Public Prosecutions. We must rely on the courts to deliver justice in this case.
        Mr. Hunter: In coming to that conclusion, what assessment did my hon. Friend make of the cost of that process to industry? Does he accept that innumerable people will be likely to challenge an industrial process on the basis of no technical knowledge whatever and that that will result in a cost to industry and to those who indulge in litigation? It will not help the environmental cause but merely incur costs.
        Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I remain of the view that the commitment of industry to pollution control is the surest defence against such litigation. I also believe that access to the courts without necessarily resorting to the DPP is fully in line with other parts of the Bill. I must stick by the line that we took on Monday, which was accepted by the House then.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 27, in page 2, line 28, leave out from 'whatsoever' to end of line 29 and insert
        '(including, with or without other activities, the keeping of a substance);
        "Great Britain" includes so much of the adjacent territorial sea as is, or is treated as, relevant territorial waters for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Part III of the Water Act 1989 or, as respects Scotland, Part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974; and
        "mobile plant" means plant which is designed to move or be moved whether on roads or otherwise.'.
        No. 28, in page 3, line 7, after second 'authorisation', insert
        'for a process (whether on premises or by means of mobile plant)'.
        No. 29, in page 3, line 11, after 'medium', insert
        'whether it is released into it within or outside Great Britain'.
        No. 30, in page 4, line 1, leave out 'any form of energy' and insert 'electricity or heat'.
        No. 31, in page 4, line 21, after 'substance', insert 'as a substance'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

      Clause 3

        EMISSIONS ETC. LIMITS AND QUALITY OBJECTIVES
        Mr. Pike: I beg to move amendment No. 135, in page 5, line 7, at end insert—
        '(2A) No regulations shall be made under subsection (2) above in respect of air pollution before the laying before Parliament by the Secretary of State of a document setting out a national transport policy for the purpose of reducing harmful emissions to the air from motor vehicle and promoting forms of transport which minimise the pollution of the environment due to the release of substances into any environmental medium.'.
        Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 148, in page 5, line 32, at end insert
        'and any plan shall be accompanied by an Environmental Statement, which shall include an assessment of the likely significant effects of the plan on the environment.'.
        No. 149, in page 5, line 36, after 'revised', insert `including the Environmental Statement'.
        Mr. Pike: Given the time, my speech will be shorter than I intended if we had reached this set of amendments at a reasonable hour. That does not mean that the proposals contained in the amendments are not extremely important. I am sure that you appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that amendment No. 135 has so many different facets that one could have a major debate on the items covered by it.
        It is extremely important that the Government should consider transport policy and fuel emissions far more seriously than they have to date. We are all aware that some progress has been made on lead emissions with the gradual move towards lead-free petrol—the tax incentive on the price of that petrol has encouraged the move towards it. Lead-free petrol, however, deals only with the problem of emissions from petrol and diesel vehicles, but we must remember other considerations. The Minister will accept without hesitation that emissions from vehicles and power stations represent the two major contributors towards global warming and it is important to remember the implications of that for the world as we approach the next century. Whether we are considering catalytic converters or lean-burn engines, much more positive steps must be taken to encourage developments to tackle the problem of fuel emissions.
        If we had a proper transport policy that provided a good, efficient public transport system, which attracted people away from their own vehicles, it would make a major contribution to combating pollution. We must have a cheap, efficient and reliable public transport system and the necessary infrastructure to uphold it.
        We need only walk around the streets of London to appreciate the problems caused by vehicle emissions and their effect on global warming. We should consider what we are breathing in as a result of massive traffic jams caused by people using their private cars when they should be attracted to public transport. I am not one of those who
        1140
        believes that it is all right for me to use my car while wanting to introduce regulations to prohibit others from using their private vehicles. Some people believe that it is all right for them to use their cars, but want action taken to stop compulsorily other people from using their own. We should not adopt such a policy.
        If we are to have the necessary integrated public transport system, massive public investment is needed in the buses, the underground and the railway system. We should all recognise that such investment would be good not only for our transport system, but for energy conservation and the environment as a result of subsequent reductions in pollution. That is why the implications of amendment No. 135 are extremely important.
        If time permitted, I should like to have gone into greater detail about all the aspects of those different policies, which are all part of the same extremely important argument, and must be the direction in which we ultimately move. They have extreme relevance to the Bill and if the Government were to accept this positive amendment, they would make a great contribution towards not just protecting the environment, but enhancing it—as the Minister of State has said repeatedly during the debate on the Bill. If we were to pass amendment No. 135, I am sure that we should be doing that.
        Amendment Nos. 148 and 149 relate to providing environmental assessment statements and considering the implications of emissions covered in clause 3, and are extremely important. Having been a member of the Select Committee on the Environment for the past five years, I have learnt that when one deals with one environmental problem, one can create another. Energy is probably the biggest single example of that. If we say that we do not want fossil fuel power stations, do we turn to nuclear power, wind power or barrages, which each have problems? If we change one problem for another, we need carefully to assess the implications involved.
        As the Third world rapidly develops, one of the biggest factors during the next 10 years and into the next century will be a massive increase in the demand for energy throughout the world. We all know that pollution and environmental problems do not recognise national boundaries. Therefore, we must ensure that we consider that aspect positively.
        The Council for the Protection of Rural England strongly supports the assessments that we seek in those two amendments. It gave one example, which we looked at closely in the Select Committee on the Environment, and we previously dealt with it in a different way—flue gas desulphurisation. If we want to deal with the problems created by coal-fired power stations—as shown in the two Select Committee reports dealing with acid rain—there are a number of options, and two major ones. One is FGD, which creates a demand for large quantities of limestone, and which has environmental implications because of the quantities required.
        If we were to start talking about excavating large areas of the Peak district, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) would fight with every ounce of his body to ensure that we did not destroy that part of the country, and I would fully support him. But we much acknowledge that there will be a demand for limestone, which in turn will create large

        1141
        quantities of gypsum, some of which can be used, some of which cannot. Therefore, while that might seem an easy option, it may be necessary to look for another.
        If we were to have an assessment, we would consider the matter objectively and decide whether, environmentally, such a programme was the best solution for dealing with emissions from power stations. We must decide on the best environmental solutions to such problems in a realistic and balanced way.
        All those issues are extremely important and I could speak at great length about all of them. I have made an extremely brief case tonight, but I hope that the Minister will respond to it in the same positive spirit in which I have made it.
        Mr. Trippier: I much appreciate the spirit behind the amendments to which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has spoken, but I must ask him to be a little more patient, especially about amendment No. 135. As I have said several times, we propose in the autumn of this year to bring forward a White Paper that will deal with all the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We shall not duck them. Those issues will have to embrace the environmental consequences of responsibilities that go far wider than those of the Department of the Environment—this amendment, for instance, concerns the Department of Transport.
        I have great difficulty with amendments Nos. 148 and 149, although I understand the spirit behind them. I suggest that they would cause a bureaucratic nightmare. The amendments call for a full environmental statement every time a plan is amended. The first plan that we intend to introduce will limit national emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from large combustion plants. I doubt whether Opposition Members would challenge the need for that. We are doing many things on this front, but the clear-cut demands of the amendments would be, as I have said, a bureaucratic nightmare.
        I am not certain what information would go into the statements. Are we, for instance, concerned with local effects or transboundary effects when we are dealing with secondary pollutants that produce, say, low-level ozone? The immediate local impact may depend on the climatic conditions and so be difficult to predict in the short term.
        What is the purpose of the statements? What do readers who are unhappy with them do? Do they appeal? If so, to whom? What requirements for discussion are there to be?
        The amendments are unnecessary and I urge the House to reject them. I hope that we shall meet the spirit of the main amendment with the publication of the White Paper.
        Mr. Pike: I believe that the issues in amendments Nos. 148 and 149 are important. I hope that they, too, will be incorporated in the White Paper presented to the Tory party conference later this year. We need to show publicly that all the implications of environmental matters have been examined.
        I wait to see what the White Paper does about the subject of amendment No. 135. I also wait to see what action the Government take on it. If the Government do not deal objectively and properly with those issues in the White Paper, and do not follow that up with action, they will be major issues at the next general election. I believe that the public will recognise that the Labour party has the policies to deal with transport and pollution problems.
        I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 4

        DISCHARGE AND SCOPE OF FUNCTIONS
        Amendments made: No. 32, in page 6, line 5 leave out 'or apparatus'.
        No. 33, in page 6, line 38 leave out `the authority's area' and insert
        'the area of each authority affected by the direction',—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 6

        AUTHORISATIONS: GENERAL PROVISIONS
        Amendments made: No. 34, in page 7, line 39, leave out 'in Great Britain'.
        No. 35, in page 7, line 42, leave out 'in pursuance of' and insert 'under'.
        No. 36, in page 7, line 45, leave out subsection (2).
        No. 37, in page 8, line 2, leave out from 'authority' to `Schedule' in line 3 and insert 'in accordance with'.
        No. 38, in page 8, line 15, at end insert—
        '(6A) The enforcing authority shall, as respects each authorisation in respect of which it has functions under this Part, from time to time but not less frequently than once in every period of four years, carry out a review of the conditions of the authorisation.
        (6B) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, substitute for the period for the time being specified in subsection (6A) above such other period as he thinks fit.'.
        No. 39, in page 8, leave out lines 18 to 26.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 7

        CONDITIONS OF AUTHORISATIONS
        Amendments made: No. 40, in page 8, line 35, at end insert
        'but no condition shall be imposed for the purpose only of securing the health of persons at work (within the meaning of Part I of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974).'.
        No. 152, in page 9, line 44, leave out 'include conditions' and insert
        ', without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, include conditions—
        (a)'.
        No. 153, in page 9, line 46, at end insert
        `; and
        (b) requiring advance notification of any proposed change in the manner of carrying on the process'.
        No. 41, in page 10, line 6, at end insert—
        '( ) It shall be the duty of enforcing authorities to have regard to any guidance issued to them by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the application of subsections (2) and (7) above as to the techniques and environmental options that are appropriate for any description of prescribed process.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 8

        FEES AND CHARGES FOR AUTHORISATIONS
        Amendment made: No. 154, in page 10, line 24, leave out 'the amendment' and insert
        ', or of applications for, the variation'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 9
        ALTERATION OR TRANSFER OF AUTHORISED PROCESS
        Amendment made: No. 155, in page 11, line 28, leave out clause 9.—[ Mr. Trippier.]
      Clause 10
        REVOCATION OF AUTHORISATION
        Amendment made: No. 42, in page 12, line 35, after 'on', insert 'or nor.—[Mr. Trippier.]
      Clause 11
        VARIATION NOTICES
        Amendment made: No. 156, in page 13, line 2, leave out clause 11.—[Mr. Trippier.]
      Clause 12
        ENFORCEMENT NOTICES
        Amendment made: No. 43, in page 13, line 39 leave out `in pursuance of and insert 'under'.—[Mr. Trippier.]
      Clause 13

        PROHIBITION NOTICES
        Amendments made: No. 44, in page 14, line 11 leave out `in pursuance of and insert 'under'.
        No. 45, in page 14, line 13 leave out first 'the' and insert `an imminent'.[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 14

        APPEALS AS RESPECTS AUTHORISATIONS AND AGAINST VARIATION, ENFORCEMENT AND PROHIBITION NOTICES
        Amendments made: No. 157, in page 15, line I leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
        '(c) a person who has been refused a variation of an authorisation on an application under section (Variation of conditions etc: applications by holders of authorisations);'.
        No. 46, in page 15, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—
        '(3) Where an appeal under this section is made to the Secretary of State—

        (a) the Secretary of State may refer any matter involved in the appeal to a person appointed by him for the purpose; or

        (b) the Secretary of State may, instead of determining the appeal himself, direct that the appeal or any matter involved in it shall be determined by a person appointed by him for the purpose;

        and a person appointed under paragraph (b) above for the purpose of an appeal shall have the same powers under subsection (4), (5) or (6) below as the Secretary of State.'
        No. 47, in page 15, line 11, at end insert—
        '( ) An appeal under this section shall, if and to the extent required by regulations under subsection (9) below, be advertised in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under that subsection.'.
        No. 48, in page 15, line 12, after 'requests' insert 'or the Secretary of State so decides'.
        No. 49, in page 15, line 12, after 'be' insert `or continue'.
        No. 158, in page 15, line 18 leave out from 'or' to 'the' in line 20 and insert
        `the variation of an authorisation, may direct a enforcing authority to grant the authorisation or to vary'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

      Clause 15
        APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF INSPECTOR AND OTHER INSPECTORS
        Amendment made: No. 50, in page 16, line 24, leave out 'council' and insert `authority'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Clause 16

        POWERS OF INSPECTORS AND OTHERS
        Amendments made: No. 51, in page 16, line 37, leave out from beginning to second 'the' and insert `purposes of.
        No. 52, in page 18, line 16, leave out from `to' to `powers' in line 17 and insert `mobile plant an inspector shall have, in circumstances corresponding to those specified in subsection (2) above'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

      Clause 18

        OBTAINING OF INFORMATION FROM PERSONS AND AUTHORITIES
        Amendments made: No. 53, in page 19, line 39 after `following', insert `authorities'.
        No. 54, in page 19, line 44, leave out from 'person' to `as' in line 46 and insert',
        require that person to furnish to the authority such information which the authority reasonably considers that it needs'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

      Clause 19
        REGISTERS OF INFORMATION
        Amendment made: No. 25, in page 20, line 5, leave out clause 19.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Clause 20

        OFFENCES
        Amendments made: No. 55, in page 21, line 15, at end insert—
        `(aa) to fail to give the notice required by section (Transfer of Authorisation) (2) above;'.
        No. 56, in page 21, line 20, leave out 'or 17'.
        No. 159, in page 21, line 37, leave out 'amendment' and insert 'variation'.
        No. 57, in page 22, line 6, leave out from 'paragraph' to `(f)' in line 7 and insert
        `(aa)'.
        No. 58, in page 22, line 13, leave out from 'above' to `shall' in line 14.—[ Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

      Clause 22
        ONUS OF PROOF AS REGARDS TECHNIQUES AND EVIDENCE
        Amendment made: No. 59, in page 22, line 32, leave out `by virtue of and insert `under'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Clause 24
        POWER OF CHIEF INSPECTOR TO REMEDY HARM
        Amendment made: No. 60, in page 23, line 14, leave out `his' and insert `their'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Clause 25

        AUTHORISATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY CONTROLS
        Amendments made: No. 160, in page 23, line 20, after 'shall' insert 'at any time'.
        No. 161, in page 23, line 27, leave out subsection (2).
        No. 61, in page 24, line 7, leave out from 'on' to 'authorisation' in line 8 and insert 'under an'.
        No. 162, in page 24, line 12, leave out from 'shall' to 'vary' in line 13 and insert
        'exercise its powers under section (Variation of authorisations by enforcing authority) above so as to'.
        No. 239, in page 24, line 16, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory]

      Clause 26

        AUTHORITIES FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PART
        Amendments made: No. 64, in page 25, line 29, after `disposal' insert 'or regulation'.
        No. 93, in page 25, line 38, after 'collects,', insert `keeps,'.
        No. 65, in page 25, line 39, leave out
        'under the Companies Act 1985'.
        No. 109, in page 25, line 42, at beginning insert `either'.
        No. 66, in page 25, line 42, leave out
        'under the Companies Act 1985'.
        No. 67, in page 25, line 45, after 'and', insert
        "'company" has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 1985 and'.
        No. 68, in page 26, line 1, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
        '(6) In this Part, in its application to Scotland, "river purification authority" means a river purification authority within the meaning of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951.
        (7) It shall be the duty of each authority which is both a waste regulation authority and a waste disposal authority for the purposes of this Part to submit to the Secretary of State for approval details of the administrative arrangements which it has made for separating its functions as a waste regulation authority from its functions as a waste disposal authority.'.—[ Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

      Clause 27
        TRANSITION TO WASTE DISPOSAL COMPANIES ETC.
        Amendment made: No. 151, in page 26, line 25, leave out 'undertakings' and insert 'undertaking'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Clause 28

        PROHIBITION ON UNAUTHORISED DEPOSIT, TREATMENT OR DISPOSAL ETC. OF WASTE
        Amendments made: No. 163, in page 27, line 42, after 'deposited', insert 'in or'.
        No. 164, in page 27, line 46, at beginning insert 'in or'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory]
        Mr. Paul Marland: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 28, line 18, at end insert—
        '(5) The Secretary of State shall exercise his power under subsection (3) above to make regulations excluding from the controls imposed by waste management licenses those ferrous and non-ferrous scrap dealers and processors whose business
        1146
        is to recycle such scrap as the Department of Trade and Industry may classify as non-hazardous in a list which it shall publish, based on customs and excise tariff classifications.'.
        Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 100, in clause 39, page 41, line 6, at end insert—
        '(1A) Without predudice to the provisions of any regulations made, or having effect as if made, under section 55 below, it shall be the duty of each waste collection authority, if requested by a harbour authority or terminal operator, to arrange for the collection of any industrial waste deposited at reception facilities—

        (a) provided in accordance with the Prevention of Pollution (Reception Facilities) Order 1984 for vessels using the harbour or terminal; or

        (b) provided in accordance with the Merchant Shipping (Reception Facilities for Garbage) Regulations 1988 for ships using the harbour or terminal;

        unless other arrangements for the collection of the waste are made by the waste disposal authority whose area includes he area of the waste collection authority.'.
        No. 328, in clause 44, page 49, line 26, at end insert—
        '(c) to send to the planning authorities for the areas covered or affected by the plan a copy of the plan or, as the case may be, particulars of the modification to be considered in relation to development plans prepared for those areas.'.
        No. 142, in clause 54, page 58, line 43, leave out from beginning to 'it' in line 44.
        Government amendments No. 77 and 78.
        No. 298, in clause 65, page 70, line 10, at end insert—
        ', nor scrap metal, whether ferrous or non-ferrous, handled in the normal course of business by a scrap dealer registered under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964.'.
        No. 299, in page 70, line 12, at end insert—
        ', except that the presumption shall not apply where metal is sold for a consideration to a scrap metal dealer registered under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964'.
        Government amendment Nos. 79, 80, 196, 197, 330 and 123 to 125.
        Mr. Marland: I realise that there is much pressure on time, but I have sat here since 4.30 and I am anxious to put my speech on the record. I shall start by making my own position absolutely clear. I am involved in the metal recycling industry which enables me to speak in the debate with a certain amount of understanding and first-hand knowledge of the industry.
        Recycling of all types makes a massive contribution to the environment, not only by minimising waste and keeping the countryside clean, but by making a tremendous contribution to saving our finite resources. To give the House an idea of the scale of this industry, I am pleased to be able to say that, in Britain, metal recyclers process or recycle 4,000 old motor cars a week. That is more than 2 million a year. They also recycle 150,000 white goods items—cookers, refrigerators and washing machines—a week, and 50 per cent. of all the copper used in the United Kingdom is recycled, as is 40 per cent. of all the aluminium used in the country.
        The energy savings from recycling are just as spectacular as the amounts involved. By recycling aluminium, for example, the energy used is only one twentieth of that required for refining bauxite. For every 1,000 tonnes of ferrous scrap turned into steel, there is a saving of 140,000 gallons of fuel oil. Those are big and impressive figures for what is a big and impressive industry.
        When the Bill was in Committee, there was much satisfaction in the recycling industry for the supportive

        1147
        remarks by the Government. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), will remember from previous debates that there is great concern in the metal recycling industry that scrap metal is defined in the Bill as waste, and that there is a strong possibility that it could be treated in the same way as dangerous chemical waste.
        The local authority environmental health inspector is free to interpret the regulations as he sees fit, and if he decides to be over-officious he could make the life of a metal recycler very difficult and seriously inhibit his business. Scrap metal is not waste but a valuable secondary resource, and it is wrongly defined in the Bill.
        The World Health Organisation defines waste as something which the owner no longer wants at a given place and time and which has no current or perceived market value. The Japanese, who usually get most things right, say that waste refers to something the owner of which cannot use or sell for any countervalues. The Bureau International de la Recuperation, the international arm of the recycling industry, says that waste is redundant goods, by-products or residues that have no value and must be disposed of at cost.
        I know that the Department of the Environment will not accept that definition, for in a letter to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) my hon. Friend the Member for Wells says that the key test of whether something is waste is the attitude of the person who produces the waste. The letter says that if the holder of the substance, goods or article wishes to dispose of it, then it is waste to him. Whether or not the waste has any value or can be of use to somebody else does not affect the fact that it is waste. What about scraps of gold in a jewellery-making business, or a five-year-old motor car that the owner wishes to dispose of in order to buy a new one? I do not believe that a five-year-old motor car is waste, but the definition in the Bill, and in the letter, makes it so. Clearly, they are not waste, and neither are the metal turnings from an engineering plant. They are valuable secondary raw materials and should be classified as such.
        The hon. Member for Rochdale is assured in the letter that there are some exceptions to the rule, such as waste paper and textiles or rags. They are not classified as waste as they do not pose an environmental problem, but some rags and waste paper are impregnated with some pretty nasty substances and, when they come to be disposed of, if they are burnt, they can give off some unpleasant odours. The Government are seriously out of line with what the industry believes in, and what normal commonsense dictates.
        In Committee, I tried to raise the status of some of this non-toxic waste through the attitude of the holder of the material to the material that he held. His attitude to the material would determine its legal status. If the material was unwanted, and could not be sold—if the owner had to take it away, for example—fair enough, it was waste. If the material arose out of the holder's business activity, such as waste paper, off-cuts of aluminium or metal turnings from boring steel, and had a resale value, it should be classified as a secondary raw material. That is slap in line with the BIR proposal.
        There would be categories of secondary raw materials, just as there are categories of waste, be they hazardous or
        1148
        non-hazardous, and they would be treated accordingly. I pointed out to the Committee the sheer size and value to our balance of payments of the exports of secondary raw materials and the frequency of transfrontier shipments within the EEC suggest that this demanded that something should be done to clarify the situation. Sadly, the suggestion of introducing the classification of secondary raw materials was firmly rejected.
        To be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells, he said that if I could find cases where local authorities had been too heavy handed and had inhibited the development of the recycling business, I was to get in touch with him, and he would try to do something about it. Since I last spoke to him about this subject, I have visited scrap metal and recycling businesses in Long Marston, Derby, Sheffield, Leeds and Glasgow. Although there is concern about the implementation of some of the regulations, I have not yet found any of the first-hand evidence that he asked me for. However, I saw metal recycling yards where there was no toxic material whatever—no acid from batteries or engine oil from old motor engines.
        However, there is concern that local inspections are done at random, in rather a haphazard way, very much influenced by personal choice. It seems that the local environmental health officers would rather avoid the yards where savage dogs are kept and the yard is not concreted over, and where the proprietor is thoroughly offensive. While these are the very people who give the industry a bad name, the local environmental health officer would rather go to a well-run yard where he gets a cup of coffee in a warm office, has a nice chat and then tours a well-run yard while wearing a pair of shoes. He then sometimes makes a lot of fuss about a small oil seepage from an old car.
        I stress that the scrap metal and recycling industry does not fear registration or control, but it believes that these should be appropriate and fair. A cloud is appearing on the horizon, and I ask my hon. Friend to comment on it. It is the possibility that future regulation will stipulate that metal recyclers will have to be licensed to handle waste. To obtain a licence, the operator would need a certificate of competence issued by the Institute of Wastes Management. As I have said, the industry agrees that regulation is a good thing and that it must be enforced. The scrap metal industry is as anxious as any other to pursue quality control. Is the Minister satisfied that the Institute of Wastes Management itself is competent to issue a certificate of competence to an industry that it knows nothing about?
        Having recognised that the definition of waste is Europeanwide and even a worldwide problem, not merely a domestic one—hence the interest of the BIR—my hon. Friends and I turned our attention to Europe and went to meet Mr. Jean Marie Junger, who is a senior offical in the Euro equivalent of the Department of the Environment. He told us that the European Community would like to help the reclamation and recycling industry and suggested having recourse to three criteria that would exempt valorisable waste or, as I prefer to call it, secondary raw materials, from the procedures that would be applicable to disposable waste.
        First, operators and collectors of recyclables should be listed. That means not that they should be registered, licensed or authorised but just that they should be listed. The list could be based on a national federation membership and then widened. Secondly, it was recommended that each country should decide on a single

        1149
        body which would have authority over the reclamation and recycling industry. That authority would be a different one from the one which deals with disposable waste. In the United Kingdom, I believe that the Department of Trade and Industry should be responsible for the recycling industry and that the Department of the Environment should be responsible for the disposal of waste. Thirdly, the reclamation and recycling industry could be exempted from the administrative consequences of the directive on transfrontier shipments of hazardous waste through the use of various lists of goods, which could be prepared on the basis of Customs and Excise classifications.
        10.45 pm
        Non-toxic valorisable waste or secondary raw materials would be on a white list, toxic valorisable waste would be on a grey list, whereas disposable waste would have to be on a black list. As a basis for the white list, the Customs and Excise tariff classifications could be used. Products that would be on the white list would be entirely exempt from any control whereas those on the grey list would be subject to a simplified monitoring procedure.
        On the basis of that advice, I tabled the amendment, for if we are going anywhere it is into Europe. The amendment is in line with European thinking and has the full backing of the British Scrap Federation and the support of many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. I understand also that the British Secondary Metals Association is anxious to identify with it, though I have not had direct dealings with it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will carefully reflect on the amendment, for it is one that has been seriously and painstakingly put together. It would do much to encourage an industry which itself can do much more to help cherish our environment.
        Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I shall speak on two seemingly unconnected matters though they appear in the batch of amendments that we are considering. The first is the matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) has just referred—the inclusion of the secondary metal industry within the definition of waste. That means that the industry could be subject to possibly unsuitable and bureaucratic licensing requirements. There are many who believe that, although such requirements may be appropriate to the waste disposal industry, they are not appropriate to a sector that is dedicated to the reclamation and recycling of metal.
        The recycling of metal by the secondary metal industry provides the United Kingdom with the equivalent of about £1·5 billion in imports saved or exports made each year. If the metal were not recycled, it would be dumped—some of it is toxic—or consigned for landfill disposal. I submit that both actions are potentially damaging to the environment. The imposition of costly new licensing controls on the metals reclamation industry will threaten the scale of the United Kingdom's current recycling activity at a time when every environmentalist is seeking a dramatic increase in recycling. The industry appears to be committed to the safe disposal of all waste and is prepared to be subject to a stringent code of practice. It is unfortunate that our recycling activities will be caught up in what could be considered to be a web of controls that will probably have no impact on the end disposal of real waste.
        1150
        Secondly, I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a second question relating to my local borough. My previous statements have been on behalf of the Richmond Metal Company. My next statements will be on behalf of Richmond-upon-Thames council. I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in the collection and recycling of waste. He is aware that the council is concerned about what will happen to its effective way of collecting waste. Its method is supported by all parties on the council. I am fairly sure that after tomorrow there will be no change of policy, although I hope that there will be a change in the party in power. The council has led the movement for the recycling of useful waste. Successive Ministers have visited the borough. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs made his debut in ministerial engagements when opening a new waste paper collection plant.
        Currently, the borough is both a waste collection agency and a waste disposal agency. It appears that, under the Bill, it will be prevented from buying equipment for baleing and sorting recyclable waste. The council is good at recycling waste. Indeed, the current administration probably creates more waste paper than any other local authority and so needs to recycle it. Under the Bill, it will no longer be allowed to acquire the machinery to recycle that waste.
        I am concerned that when the West London waste disposal authority no longer deals with that area of recycling, the council will no longer be able to dispose of its waste. It will have to contract its services to a new authority, thereby wasting what could be the most effective and least expensive way to produce something of value out of disposable waste. I want my hon. Friend to assure me that the new body that will be established under the Bill will be not only the most effective but the least expensive way to recycle beneficial products into society. It would be crazy to close the recycling plant simply for some piece of dogma. I want an assurance that the new body will have a large input from the local authority. If the local authority finds that it is the cheapest body to recycle waste, I hope that there will be no undue costs or bureaucratic constraints imposed upon individuals in the borough.
        Mr. Roger Knapman rose—
        Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
        Mr. Knapman: I sense that my hon. Friends want me to address my remarks to amendment No. 100, which stands in my name. It is an amendment to clause 39, under which harbour authorities and terminal operators must provide reception facilities for waste from ships using their harbours. The waste can take many different forms. It can be residues, mixtures, mixtures including oil, other noxious liquid substances or, of course, vast quantities of garbage.
        The potential problem is that, although harbour authorities have the absolute requirement to accept those wastes into their reception facilities, they may not be able to dispose of them from their reception facilities to what one might call their final resting place. If that happened, the harbour authorities would be placed in a difficult position; it may not be putting it too strongly to say that the legislation's intention would be frustrated.
        I understand that the Control of Pollution Act 1974 states that ships' waste is industrial waste. The deposit of such waste on land requires a licence, otherwise the deposit

        1151
        would be prohibited. That prohibition does not generally apply to the deposit of waste from the ship into the reception facility, but it does apply to the disposal of the waste from the reception facility.
        Clause 39 specifies the duties of a waste collection authority, but will the Minister consider subsection (2), which says that, although a waste collection authority may arrange for the collection of industrial waste from premises in its area if it is requested to do so by the owner, it is not obliged to do so and must also obtain the consent of the waste disposal authority before exercising that power.
        Therefore, a harbour authority or terminal operator who must provide reception facilities for residues might
        1152
        not be able either to obtain a licence to deposit the waste elsewhere or to persuade the collection authority to collect it, with the consequences that I have already described.
        The amendment deals with the problem by inserting a new subsection (1A) which would make it
        "the duty of each waste collection authority, if requested by a harbour authority or terminal operator, to arrange for the collection of any industrial waste deposited at reception facilities … provided … unless other arrangements for the collection of the waste are made by the waste disposal authority."
        I think that my hon. Friend will agree that that would in no way prejudice the provision of special waste as provided for in the Bill, and I should be grateful if he would give the matter his characteristically detailed consideration.
        Mr. Trippier: I was not surprised to see that we have amendments seeking to exempt the scrap industry from waste controls. I would be the first to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), who was particularly tenacious in Committee in his defence of the metal scrap industry, and he gave us fair warning that the matter would not be allowed to drop.
        We have before us some hard-line and some more reasoned amendments, with which I shall deal briefly.
        Amendments Nos. 298 and 299 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) would alter the definition of waste to remove scrap metal from waste management controls altogether. I am not prepared to distort the established definition of waste in that way. Nor can I accept that the treatment of scrap metal is such an environmentally harmless activity that it can be entirely exempt from controls without further ado.
        Amendment No. 106 adopts a less absolute stance. The wording of the amendment owes something to proposals being prepared in Brussels to exempt non-hazardous recyclables from the new EC controls on the movement of waste. The European Commission is attempting to define what recyclables are non-hazardous on the basis of tariff classifications, but agreement has not yet been reached. The amendment would achieve the exemption of non-hazardous scrap recycling on the same tariff-based classification.
        However, the parallel is misleading. It is one thing to exempt scrap metal, which may be quite safe and inert to transport, from controls on its movement, but it is quite another to exempt the processing of scrap from domestic site licensing controls. The Government support the view that EC controls should not hamper trade in recyclables. Such trade may be needed to make recyclables viable. But that does not constitute a reason for ending controls on scrapyards and metal recycling plants, which can be a source of local environmental problems. There is provision in the Bill for innocuous processes to be exempted from site licensing.
        I emphasise that I am most concerned to keep burdens on the scrap industry to a minimum, as long as that is consistent with environmental protection. I would like to see the scrap industry make a case for exemption on those grounds, and I again invite it to do so, but I cannot accept any of the amendments which seek to achieve exemption through primary legislation.
        11 pm
        My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West raised the subject of the Institute of Wastes Management. It will not be issuing certificates of competence. There is a training board—the waste management industry training board—and an advisory board to set up qualifications, chaired by Lord Gregson, who takes the Labour Whip in the House of Lords and for whom I have the highest possible regard. The board is composed of members of industry and local authorities. The scrap industry should be involved in that to ensure that it is competent to decide on qualifications.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) referred to the excellent example in his constituency of Richmond borough council in recycling waste. He was concerned that it should not be put at risk by any measures in the Bill. I assure him that that is not the case. The Bill prevents any authority which is both a collection and disposal authority—as Richmond is—from
        1154
        providing those facilities directly. As a disposal authority, Richmond will have duties under clause 45 to arrange for the recycling and disposal of waste by arrangement with a waste disposal contractor. It does not make any sense for the authority to provide its own facilities as a collection authority, which as a disposal authority it would then have to pass to a contractor.
        Mr. Hanley: Is it not true that the local authority could still have a sizeable influence over that contractor if it was deemed to be desirable that that influence existed?
        Mr. Trippier: In two ways. First, the local authority would be the regulatory authority. Secondly, in the case of a local authority company—an arm's-length company—as defined by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, 20 per cent. of the board have to be local authority elected representatives or chief officers. If the facility which my hon. Friend has described to the House is as good as lie suggests, I have no doubt that the new National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors will be successful in winning the contract once the bids or tenders are put out.
        Finally, I shall reply to amendment No. 100 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman). The problem of pollution of coastal waters from ships' refuse needs attention, but placing a duty on local authorities is not necessarily the best way to tackle it. Waste collection authorities already have the power to collect that waste if they are requested to do so. The private sector is only too willing to provide collection and disposal services to port authorities.
        I know of no problems where an authority has been unable to find a contractor to take waste, and I am sure that the proposed duty would place an unreasonable burden on the collection authorities to provide specialist collection equipment. I cannot accept that amendment.
        Mr. Marland: My hon. Friend has replied in his normal constructive and helpful way. Bearing in mind that the problem is not solved, and I would like to feel that his door would always be open, especially in view of the fact that we have a White Paper coming up in the autumn, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendments made No. 113, in page 28, line 40, leave out from 'to' to `and' in line 41 and insert
        'imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both;'.
        No. 114, in page 28, line 46, leave out from `to' to 'and' in line 48 and insert
        'imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both;'.
        No. 69, in page 29, leave out lines 3 to 14.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 29

        DUTY OF CARE ETC. AS RESPECTS WASTE
        Amendments made: No. 115, in page 29, line 26, after `person', insert
        'or to a person for authorised transport purposes'.
        No. 116, in page 29, line 46, at end insert—
        `( ) The following are authorised transport purposes for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above—

        (a) the transport of controlled waste within the same premises between different places in those premises;

        (b) the transport to a place in Great Britain of controlled waste which has been brought from a

        1155
        country or territory outside Great Britain not having been landed in Great Britain until it arrives at that place; and

        (c) the transport by air or sea of controlled waste from a place in Great Britain to a place outside Great Britain;

        and "transport" has the same meaning in this subsection as in the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989.'.—[Mr. Trippieri.]

      Clause 30

        WASTE MANAGEMENT LICENCES: GENERAL
        Amendments made: No. 70, in page 31, line 3, at end insert
        'and any person whose consent would be required shall grant, or join in granting, the holder of the licence such rights in relation to the land as will enable the holder of the licence to comply with any requirements imposed on him by the licence.'.
        No. 110, in page 31, line 3, at end insert—
        `( ) Conditions may relate, where waste other than controlled waste is to be treated, kept or disposed of, to the treatment, keeping or disposal of that other waste.'.
        No. 165, in page 31, line 28, leave out subsection (12).—[ Mr. Trippier]

      Clause 31
        GRANT OF LICENCES
        Amendment made: No. 71, in page 32, line 8, leave out 'severe' and insert `serious'.—[Mr. Trippier.]
      Clause 34

        SURRENDER OF LICENCES
        Amendment made: No. 72, in page 36, line 47, at end insert—
        `( ) A person who, for the purposes of an application for the surrender of a licence, makes any statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes any statement which is false in a material particular shall be liable—

        (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; and

        (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or both.'.—[ Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 38

        APPEALS TO SECRETARY OF STATE FROM DECISIONS WITH RESPECT TO LICENCES
        Amendments made: No. 73, in page 39, line 44, after 'revoked' insert 'under section 33 above'.
        No. 176, in page 40, line 4, leave out `in acordance with regulations'.
        No. 177, in page 40, line 6, at end insert—
        '(2A) Where an appeal is made to the Secretary of State—

        (a) the Secretary of State may refer any matter involved in the appeal to a person appointed by him for the purpose;

        (b) the Secretary of State may, instead of determining the appeal himself, direct that the appeal or any matter involved in it shall be determined by a person appointed by him for the purpose (who shall have the same powers as the Secretary of State);

        (c) if a party to the appeal so requests, or the Secretary of State so decides, the appeal shall be or continue in the form of a hearing (which may, if the person
        1156
        hearing the appeal so decides, be held or held to any extent in private).'.

        No. 178, in page 40, line 7, after 'State', insert
        'or other person determining the appeal.'.
        No. 167, in page 40, line 22, after 'preventing' insert
        `or, where that is not practicable, minimising'.
        No. 179, in page 40, line 27, after 'State', insert
        'or other person determining the appeal'.
        No. 180, in page 40, line 42, at end insert—
        '(7) Provision may be made by the Secretary of State by regulations with respect to appeals under this section and in particular—

        (a) as to the period within which and the manner in which appeals are to be brought; and

        (b) as to the manner in which appeals are to be considered.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 43

        WASTE RECYCLING PLANS BY COLLECTION AUTHORITIES
        Amendments made: No. 234, in page 47, line 4, at end insert—
        '( ) It shall be the duty of a waste collection authority, before finally determining the content of the plan or a modification, to send a copy of it in draft to the Secretary of State for the purpose of enabling him to determine whether subsection (3) above has been complied with; and, if the Secretary of State gives any directions to the authority for securing compliance with that subsection, it shall be the duty of the authority to comply with the direction.'.
        No. 74, in page 47, line 11, at end insert—
        '( ) It shall be the duty of each waste collection authority to keep a copy of the plan and particulars of any modifications to it available at all reasonable times at its principal offices for inspection by members of the public free of charge and to supply a copy of the plan and of the particulars of any modifications to it to any person who requests one, on payment by that person of such reasonable charge as the authority requires.'.—[Mr. Trippier]

      Clause 44

        WASTE DISPOSAL PLANS OF WASTE REGULATION AUTHORITIES
        Amendments made: No. 168, in page 47, line 22, at end insert
        `or harm to human health;'.
        No. 75, in page 48, line 26, leave out from beginning to second 'the'.
        No. 76, in page 49, line 10, leave out from first 'authority' to 'in' in line 11.
        No. 111, in page 49, line 20, at end insert—
        '( ) It shall be the duty of the authority, before finally determining the content of the plan or modification, to send a copy of it in draft to the Secretary of State for the purpose of enabling him to determine whether subsection (3) above has been complied with; and, if the Secretary of State gives any directions to the authority for securing compliance with that subsection, it shall be the duty of the authority to comply with the direction.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 45

        FUNCTIONS OF WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITIES
        Amendments made: No. 63, in page 51, line 3, at end insert—
        '( ) Subsection (1) above is subject to section (Transition from Control of Pollution Act 1974 to this Act).'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 52

        POWERS TO REQUIRE REMOVAL OF WASTE UNLAWFULLY DEPOSITED
        Amendments made: No. 169, in page 57, line 33, after `deposited', insert 'in or'.
        No. 170, in page 57, line 35, leave out 'the environment' and insert 'land, water or air'.—[Mr. Trippier]

      Clause 54

        DUTY OF WASTE REGULATION AUTHORITIES AS RESPECTS CLOSED LANDFILLS
        Amendments made: No. 142, in page 58, line 43, leave out from beginning to 'it' in line 44.
        No. 171, in page 59, line 8, after 'in' insert 'or on'.
        No. 77, in page 59, line 16, at end insert—
        'In this subsection "controlled waste" means household, industrial or commercial waste as defined in section 65(7), (8) and (9) below (subject, if the regulations so provide, to regulations under section 56(1) or 65(10) below).'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 55

        SPECIAL PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN DANGEROUS OR INTRACTABLE WASTE
        Amendments made: No. 181, in page 60, line 30, leave
        out from second 'of' to 'as' in line 31 and insert
        `those records, or such information derived from those records,'.
        No. 78, in page 60, line 47, at end insert—
        '(4) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland "waste regulation authority" means a district council established under the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972.'.—[ Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 57

        PUBLIC REGISTERS AND ANNUAL REPORTS
        Amendments made: No. 182, in page 61, line 26, at beginning insert
        `Subject to sections (Exclusion from registers of information affecting national security) and (Exclusion from registers of certain confidential information)below'.
        No. 183, in page 61, line 27, leave out from 'containing' to end of line 45 and insert
        `prescribed particulars of or relating to—

        ( ) current or recently current licences ("licences") granted by the authority;

        ( ) current or recently current applications to the authority for licences;

        ( )applications made to the authority under section 32 above for the modification of licences;

        ( )notices issued by the authority under section 32 above effecting the modification of licences;

        ( ) notices issued by the authority under section 33 above effecting the revocation or suspension of licences or imposing requirements on the holders of licences;

        ( ) appeals under section 38 above relating to decisions of the authority;

        ( ) certificates of completion issued by the authority under section 34(9) above;

        ( ) notices issued by the authority imposing requirements on the holders of licences under section 37(4) above;

        ( ) convictions of the holders of licences granted by the authority for any offence under this Part (whether in relation to a licence so granted or not);

        1158

        ( ) the occasions on which the authority has exercised any power under section 37 or 54 above:

        ( ) directions given to the authority under any provision of this Part by the Secretary of State;'.

        No. 184, in page 62, line 1, leave out 'copies or all'.
        No. 185, in page 62, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert—
        `( ) such matters relating to the treatment, keeping or disposal of waste in the area of the authority or any pollution of the environment caused thereby as may be prescribed;
        and any other document or information required to be kept in the register under any provision of this Act.'.
        No. 189, in page 62, line 6, at end insert
        'and applications for licences are "recently" current if they relate to a licence which is current or recently current or, in the case of an application which is rejected, for the period of twelve months beginning with the date on which the waste regulation authority gives notice of rejection or, as the case may be, on which the application is deemed by section 31(7) above to have been rejected.'.
        No. 188, in page 62, line 6, at end insert—
        `(2A) It shall be the duty of each waste collection authority in England which is not a waste regulation authority to maintain a register containing prescribed particulars of such information contained in any register maintained under subsection (1) above as relates to the treatment, keeping or disposal of controlled waste in the area of the authority.
        (2B) Waste regulation authorities in England which are not waste collection authorities shall furnish any waste collection authorities in their areas with the particulars necessary to enable them to discharge their duty under subsection (2A) above.'.
        No. 187, in page 62, line 7, leave out from beginning to `is' in line 8 and insert
        `Each waste regulation authority and waste collection authority shall secure that any register maintained under this section'.
        No. 186, in page 62, line 11, leave out 'documents included' and insert 'entries'.
        No. 190, in page 62, line 11, at end insert—
        `(3A) Registers under this section may be kept in any form.
        (3B) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.'.
        No. 191, That Clause 57 be divided into two Clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (3B) of that Clause and the second consisting of subsection (4) to (7) of that Clause.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 58

        FUNCTIONS OF SECRETARY OF STATE AND APPOINTMENT ETC. OF INSPECTORS
        Amendments made: No. 172, in page 63, line 35, after `environment', insert
        'or serious harm to human health'.
        No. 173, in page 64, line 15, after 'environment' insert
        `or harm to human health'—[Mr. Trippierl

      Clause 63
        APPEALS AND OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CIVIL LIABILITY
        Amendment made: No. 112, in page 68, line 18, after first 'or' insert `knowingly'.—[Mr. Trippier.]
      Clause 65

        INTERPRETATION
        Amendments made: No. 174, in page 70, leave out lines 13 to 19.
        No. 79, in page 70, line 23, leave out from 'from' to end of line 26 and insert—

        '(a) domestic property, that is to say, a building or self-contained part of a building which is used wholly for the purposes of living accommodation;

        (b) a caravan (as defined in section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960) which usually and for the time being is situated on a caravan site (within the meaning of the Act);

        (c) a residential home:

        (d) premises forming part of a university or school or other educational establishment;

        (e) premises forming part of a hospital or nursing home.

        No. 80, in page 71, line 3, at end insert—
        `( ) "Special waste" means controlled waste as respects which regulations are in force under section 55 above.'.
        No. 175 in page 71, line 4, leave out subsection (11).
        No. 196 in page 71, line 8, leave out 'subsection' and
        insert 'section'.
        No. 197 in page 71, line 17, leave out from 'appropriate' to end of line 18.
        No. 330, That Clause 65 be divided into two Clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (10) of that Clause and the second consisting of subsection (12) of that Clause.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 66

        STATUTORY NUISANCES AND INSPECTIONS THEREFORE
        Amendments made: No. 117, in page 72, line 7, leave out `or' and insert—
        '( ) smoke emitted from a railway locomotive steam engine, or'.
        No. 118, in page 72, line 12, leave out `by' and insert `from'.
        No. 194, in page 73, line 37, at end insert
        'or the Alkali &c. Works Regulation Act 1906 or section 5 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974'.
        No. 119, in page 73, line 40, after 'and', insert
        'subject to subsection (11) below,'.
        No. 120, in page 73, line 46, at end insert—
        '(11) A vessel powered by steam reciprocating machinery is not a vessel to which this Part of this Act applies.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 67
        SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS FOR STATUTORY NUISANCES
        Amendment made: No. 199, in page 73, line 47, leave out 'are' and insert 'is'.—[Mr. Trippier.]
      Clause 70

        STATUTORY NUISANCES: SCOTLAND
        Amendments made: No. 300, in page 76, line 44, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'paragraph'.
        No. 301, in page 76, line 45, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'paragraphs'.
        No. 302, in page 76, line 49, at end insert—
        `(5B) Any dust caused by any trade business, manufacture or process, being a nuisance or injurious or dangerous to health:'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 73

        PRELIMINARY
        Amendments made: No. 200, in page 79, line 14 at end insert—
        `( ) Land is "Crown land" if it is land—
        1160

        (a) occupied by Her Majesty as part of the Crown Estate,

        (b) occupied by or for the purposes of a government department or for naval, military or air force purposes, or

        (c) occupied or managed by any body acting on behalf of the Crown;

        is "relevant Crown land" if it is Crown land which is open to the air and is land (but not a highway or in Scotland a public road) to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access with or without payment; and "the appropriate Crown authority" for any Crown land is the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Minister in charge of the government department or the body which occupies or manages the land on the Crown's behalf, as the case may be.'.
        No. 201, in page 79, line 17, after 'undertaker', insert
        'or statutory undertaker of any description".
        No. 202, in page 79, line 26, after 'institution', insert
        'or educational institution of any description'.
        No. 203, in page 79, line 29, after 'treated', insert
        'as relevant Crown land or'.
        No. 204, in page 79, leave out lines 41 and 42.
        No. 205, in page 80, line 7, at beginning insert
        except where he is the highway or roads authority)'.
        No. 206, in page 80, line 11, at end insert—
        'and where, by an order under this subsection, responsibility for the discharge of those duties is transferred, the authority to which the transfer is made is, for the purposes of this Part, "responsible" for the highway, road or part specified in the order.'—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 74

        OFFENCE OF LEAVING LITTER
        Amendments made: No. 235, in page 80, line 35, leave out second 'or' and insert
        `, any trunk road which is a special road and any'.
        No. 207, in page 80, line 38, at end insert—
        `( ) any place on relevant Crown land which is not a free public open place;'.-[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 75

        FIXED PENALTY NOTICES FOR LEAVING LITTER
        Amendments made: No. 208, in page 81, line 9, leave out from 'a' to 'finds' in line 11 and insert 'litter authority'.
        No. 209, in page 81, line 39, leave out 'principal'.
        No. 210, in page 82, line 4, leave out 'principal'.
        No. 211, page 82, line 8, at end insert—
        '( ) For the purposes of this section the following are "litter authorities"—

        (a) any principal litter authority, other than a county council, a regional council or a joint board;

        (b) any county council, regional council or joint board designated by the Secretary of State, by order, in relation to such area as is specified in the order (not being an area in a National Park);

        (c) any National Park Committee;

        (d) any Park board for any area in a National Park; and

        (e) the Broads Authority'.

        No. 212, in page 82, line 10, leave out 'a principal litter' and insert
        or in the case of any Park board or National Park Committee, an officer acting on behalf of, a litter'.
        No. 213, in page 82, line 13, leave out from 'officer' to end of line 14 and insert
        in relation to a litter authority, means the person having responsibility for the financial affairs of the authority';'.
        No. 214, in page 82, line 14, at end insert—
        ' "National Park Committee" means a committee appointed to perform functions under paragraph 5 of Schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972;
        "Park board", in relation to a National Park, means—

        1161
        (a) a joint planning board reconstituted under paragraph 1 of Schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972; or
        (b) a board reconstituted as a special planning board under paragraph 3 of that Schedule;'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 76

        DUTY TO KEEP LAND AND HIGHWAYS CLEAR OF LITTER ETC
        Amendments made: No. 215, in page 82, line 20, at end insert—
        `( ) the Secretary of State, as respects any trunk road which is a special road and any relevant highway or relevant road for which he is responsible,'.
        No. 216, in page 82, line 21, at end insert—
        `( ) the appropriate Crown authority, as respects its relevant Crown land,'.—[Mr. Trippier]
        Mr. Pike: I beg to move amendment No. 138, in page 82, line 30, after 'practicable', insert 'within the resources available'.
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 139, in page 82, line 31, at end insert—
        '(1A) The Secretary of State shall in respect of each financial year satisfy himself that the resources available to each local authority or other body to which this section applies are adequate to secure the proper carrying out of the functions conferred by subsection (1) above.'.
        No. 145, in page 83, line 34, after 'prepared', insert 'or modified'.
        Mr. Pike: Amendment No. 145 is a minor one, which makes a small improvement to the Bill. Although it is likely that the Minister will respond negatively to amendments Nos. 138 and 139, I hope that he will respond positively to that one.
        Clause 76 deals with the duty of local authorities to keep highways and land free of litter. Amendment No. 138 provides that, where that is practicable, it should be carried out "within the resources available". This is the last option that we would want the Government to accept, because I believe that amendment No. 139 contains a better proposal. We tabled amendment No. 138 because we recognise that the Government are loth to make funds available to local government. If they are not prepared to meet the requirements in amendment No. 139, they should tackle the problem in the best possible way "within the resources available". That is an important distinction, going beyond the practicability referred to in clause 76.
        We have seen the Government's proposals and seen how they categorise different types of streets, highways and land covered by the clause. We know about the powers they are giving the public to take action against local authorities. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, always take a close interest in your local authority, Sandwell, and that you recognise the problems that the council will have in meeting the requirements of this part of the Bill. We all want litter to be eliminated.
        The Government are all too fond of giving responsibilities and duties to local authorities without giving them the resources to carry them out. Councils were given the duty of calculating housing benefit after that duty was transferred from the Department of Health and Social Security, as it then was. Every local authority would claim that it has a net deficit because of that burden. The
        1162
        Government have a duty to ensure that local authorities have the cash resources available to carry out their responsibilities.
        Mr. Trippier: We cannot have this. I must have told the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) a hundred times in Committee that we will provide additional resources through the revenue support grant, as soon as we have ascertained from the consultants' study how much money will be required to provide for that new facility. It is not as easy as the hon. Gentleman makes it sound. A number of local authorities manage to do the job perfectly well within their existing resources. We are sitting in the middle of one—the City of Westminster. There is also Canterbury and, to name one that is not controlled by the Conservatives, the London borough of Sutton. It is under Liberal control, but it somehow manages miraculously to work well within its existing resources and keep the streets remarkably clean.
        With the new duties imposed by this legislation, may right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have said many times that we are certainly prepared to consider providing additional resources as soon as the consultants' study is completed, which I hope will be within the next few months. We hope then to announce the formula that will be used for calculating those additional resources.
        Mr. Pike: We have heard the same message from the Minister time after time. We judge the Government by their track record. They have failed to deliver in the past. We believe that they will again fail to do so. No doubt they will make additional resources available but they will not be sufficient. That is why we thought amendment No. 139 was essential to safeguard the position.
        With the permission of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendments made: No. 217, in page 82, line 32. after `of, insert `(a)'.
        No. 218, in page 82, line 34, after 'responsible', insert
        `and, (b) the Secretary of State, as respects any trunk road which is a special road and any relevant highway or relevant road for which he is responsible,'.
        No. 219, in page 83, line 31, leave out `authority' and insert 'person'.—(Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 78

        SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS BY PERSONS AGGRIEVED BY LITTER
        Amendment made: No. 220, in page 84, line 32, at end insert—
        '( ) any trunk road which is a special road;'.
        No. 221, in page 84, line 33, at end insert—
        `( ) any relevant Crown land;'.
        No. 222, in page 84, line 39, at end insert—
        `( ) A principal litter authority shall not be treated as a person aggrieved for the purposes of proceedings under this section.'.
        No. 236, in page 84, line 41, leave out 'authority, institution or'.
        No. 237, in page 84, line 45, leave out 'authority, institution or'.
        No. 238, in page 84, line 46, leave out 'authority, institutionr'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 79

        SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS BY LITTER AUTHORITIES
        Amendments made: No. 223, in page 86, line 3, at beginning insert—
        '( ) any relevant Crown land,'.
        No. 224, in page 86, line 17, at beginning insert—
        '( ) as respects relevant Crown land, on the appropriate Crown authority;'.
        No. 225, in page 87, line 8, after 'to', insert 'relevant Crown land or'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 82

        DEFINITIONS
        Amendment made: No. 226, in page 90, line 21, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
        '(5) "Highway"(and "highway maintainable at the public expense"), "special road" and "trunk road", in relation to England and Wales, have the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 and "public road", "special road" and "trunk road", in relation to Scotland, have the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 83

        APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF INSPECTOR FOR ENGLAND AND WALES AND FOR SCOTLAND
        Amendments made: No. 1, in page 90, line 40, leave out from 'Act' to 'the' in line 41.
        No 2, in page 90, line 42, leave out from 'inspector' to end of line 45.
        No. 3, in page 91, line 13, leave out '9 and 14(3)' and insert 'and 9'.
        No. 4, in page 91 line 18, leave out '16'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 85

        ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF CHIEF INSPECTOR
        Amendments made: No. 5, in page 93, line 18, after 'one', insert
        'or subsection (5) of section three'.
        No. 6, in page 94, line 18, after 'one', insert
        'or subsection (5) of section three'.
        No. 7, in page 94, line 29, after 'any', insert 'public or'.—[ Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 89

        PURPOSE OF PART VI AND MEANING OF "GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS" AND RELATED EXPRESSIONS
        Amendments made: No. 268, in page 96, line 19, leave out 'comprising' and insert 'consisting of'.
        No. 269, in page 97, line 8, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections (4) and'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 90

        MEANING OF "DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT", "CONTROL" AND RELATED EXPRESSIONS IN PART VI
        Amendments made: No. 270, in page 97, line 19, leave out from 'water' to end of line 20 and insert
        `or any of those media'.
        No. 271, in page 97, line 22, after 'have', insert
        '(or of a single such organism which has)'.
        No. 272, in page 97, line 23, leave out 'human' and insert 'a person's'.
        No. 273, in page 97, line 24, leave out from first 'are' to 'capable' in line 27 and insert '(or is)'.
        No. 274, in page 97, line 30, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
        '(3A) An organism shall be regarded as present in the environment notwithstanding that it is present in or on any human or other organism, or any article or other substance, which is itself present in the environment.
        (3B) Genetically modified organisms present in the environment are capable of causing harm if—

        (a) they are individually capable, or are present in numbers such that together they are capable, of causing harm; or

        (b) they are able to produce descendants which will be capable, or which will be present in numbers such that together they will be capable, of causing harm;

        and a single organism is capable of causing harm either if it is itself capable of causing harm or if it is able to produce descendants which will be so capable.
        (4) "Harm" means harm to the health of living organisms or other interference with the ecological systems of which they form part and, in the case of man, means offence caused to any of his senses or harm to his property.
        (4A) "Harmful" and "harmless" mean respectively, in relation to genetically modified organisms, their being capable or their being incapable of causing harm.
        (4B) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide, in relation to genetically modified organisms of any description specified in the regulations, that—

        (a) the capacity of those organisms for causing harm of any description so specified, or

        (b) harm of any description so specified,

        shall be disregarded for such purposes of this Part as may be so specified.'.
        No. 275, in page 97, line 35, leave out from 'under' to 'keeps' in line 36 and insert
        'the "control" of a person where he'.
        No. 276, in page 97, line 37, leave out from 'for' to end of line 40 and insert
        'either or both of the following purposes, namely—

        (a) for ensuring that the organisms do not enter the environment or produce descendants which are not so contained; or

        (b) for ensuring that the organisms which do not enter the environment, or any descendants of the organisms which are not so contained, are harmless.'.

        No. 267, in page 97, line 45, at end insert—
        '( ) Genetically modified organisms of any description are "marketed" when products consisting of or including such organisms are placed on the market.'.—[Mr. Trippier]

      Clause 91
        RISK ASSESSMENT AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
        Amendment made: No. 244, page 98, line 3, leave out clause 91.—[ Mr. Trippier.]
      Clause 92
        REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO PERSONAL IMPORTS
        Amendment made: No. 256, in page 99, line 5, leave out clause 92.—[Mr. Trippier.]
      Clause 93

        CONSENTS REQUIRED BY CERTAIN PERSONS
        Amendment made: No. 262, in page 100, line 2, leave out from beginning to 'any' and insert 'or acquire, release or market.—[Mr. Trippier.]
        No. 277, in page 100, line 5, leave out 'received a direction' and insert `been given directions'.
        No. 245, in page 100, leave out line 6 and insert
        '(risk assessment and notification requirements) (8)(a) above'.
        No. 263, in page 100, line 9, at end insert—
        '(1A) Subject to subsection (6) below, no person who has imported or acquired any genetically modified organisms (whether under a consent or not) shall continue to keep the organisms—

        (a) in such cases or circumstances as may be prescribed, after the end of the prescribed period, or

        (b) if he has been given directions under section (risk assessment and notification requirements) (8)(b) above, after the date specified in the directions,

        except in pursuance of a consent granted by the Secretary of State and in accordance with any limitations or conditions to which the consent is subject.'.
        No. 291, in page 100, line 9, at end insert—
        `(1B) A person who is required under subsection (1A) above to cease keeping any genetically modified organisms shall dispose of them as quickly and safely as practicable'.
        No. 264, in page 100, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
        No. 265, in page 100, line 28, leave out from beginning to `above' and insert
        `any requirement under subsection (1) or (1A)'.
        No. 289, in page 100, line 34, leave out from 'consent' to 'or' in line 35 and insert
        'subject to such limitations and conditions as may be imposed under section (consents: limitations and conditions) below'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 95
        DUTIES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION, KEEPING OR RELEASE OF ORGANISMS IN THE COURSE OF AN UNDERTAKING
        Amendment made: No. 254, in page 101, line 22, leave out Clause 95.—[Mr. Trippier.]
      Clause 97

        RIGHTS OF ENTRY AND INSPECTION
        Amendments made: No. 278, in page 103, line 30, leave out from 'be' to 'genetically' in line 31 and insert
        `a genetically modified organism or to consist of or include'.
        No. 279, in page 104, line 13, leave out from 'above' to `he'.
        No. 280, in page 104, line 17, leave out from 'above' to `an' in line 18.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 98

        OBTAINING OF INFORMATION FROM PERSONS
        Amendment made: No. 290, in page 105, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert—
        '(a)) to be involved in the importation, acquisition, keeping, release or marketing of genetically modified organisms; or
        (b) to be about to become, or to have been, involved in any of those activities;'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 99
        PROHIBIlION NOTICES
        Amendment made: No. 257, in page 105, line 16, leave out clause 99.—[Mr. Trippier.]
      Clause 100

        POWER TO DEAL WITH CAUSE OF IMMINENT DANGER OF DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT
        Amendments made: No. 281, in page 105, line 36, leave out `anything' and insert 'any thing or substance'.
        No. 282, in page 105, line 38, leave out from beginning to 'and' and insert
        `a genetically modified organism or that it consists of or includes genetically modified organisms'.—[ Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 101

        OFFENCES
        Amendments made: No. 246, in page 106, line 14, leave out '91(1) above to or' and insert
        '(risk assessment and notification requirements) (1) above'.
        No. 247, in page 106, line 16, at end insert—
        `(aa) to fail to comply with section '(risk assessment and notification requirements) (3) above when keeping something which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, a genetically modified organism;'.
        No. 258, in page 106, leave out lines 17 to 23.
        No. 266, in page 106, line 24, leave out 'above to. or' and insert 'or (1A) above.'.
        No. 255, in page 106, line 27, leave out from first 'or to `above' in line 28 and insert
        `subsection (2), (3) or (4) of section (general duties relating to importation or acquisition, keeping, marketing or release of organisms)'.
        No. 248, in page 106, line 30, at end insert—
        `(aa) to fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section '(risk assessment and notification requirements)' (5) or (6) above'.
        No. 249, in page 107, line 7, leave out '91' and insert
        '(risk assessment and notification requirements)'.
        No. 250, in page 107, line 14, after '(a)', insert '(aa)'.
        No. 259, in page 107, line 14, leave out `(b), (c)'.
        No. 260, in page 107, line 23, leave out `(b), (c) or'.
        No. 251, in page 107, line 29, after '(a)', insert 'or (aa)'.
        No. 252, in page 107, line 36, after 'paragraph', insert '(ee)'.
        No. 253, in page 108, line 4, leave out '(a)' and insert '(aa)'.—[Mr.Trippier.]

      Clause 103

        DEFINITIONS
        Amendments made: No. 283, in page 108, line 26, leave out 'the acquisition of.
        No. 284, in page 108, line 27, leave out `by any person'.
        No. 285, in page 108, line 28, leave out 'his' and insert `a person's'.
        No. 286, in page 108, line 32, after 'conditions' insert `subject'.
        No. 287, in page 108, line 32, leave out from 'which' to `has' in line 33 and insert
        `the consent for the time being'.
        No. 261, in page 108, line 40, leave out '99' and insert `(Prohibition notices)'.
        No. 295, in page 108, leave out lines 41 to 45.
        No. 288, in page 108, line 45, at end insert—
        '(2) This Part, except in so far as it relates to importations of genetically modified organisms, applies to the territorial sea adjacent to Great Britain, and to any area for the time being designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, as it applies in Great Britain.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 117

        POWER TO PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT THE IMPORTATION OR EXPORTATION OF WASTE
        Amendments made: No. 192, in page 116, line 29, at end insert—
        `(dd) provide for the keeping by the Secretary of State, waste regulation authorities and waste collection authorities of public registers of information relating to the importation and exportation of waste and for the transmission of such information between any of those powers;'.
        No. 193, in page 116, line 41, after `"waste"', insert `,
        "waste collection authority",'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 118

        POWERS TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
        Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 118, line 7, at end insert:—
        `(5) Regulations under this section shall, in relation to any requirement to be imposed under subsection (e) above where there is more than one person who manufactures the substance in or imports it into the United Kingdom, make provision for allocating the responsibility for providing test data on an equitable basis.'.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 228, 227 and 231.
        Amendment No. 318, in clause 133, in page 125, line 10, at end insert—
        `(2) The following provision of the Act shall come into force on the day on which it is passed, namely—
        section 128 (application to Crown).'.
        Government amendments Nos. 232, 229, 230, 296, 297 and 233.
        Mr. Bennett: I want the Minister to concentrate on amendment No. 318, which deals with the commencement day for the provision on the removal of Crown immunity. I want from the Minister an assurance about how quickly he will bring hospitals under the control of the legislation. The Minister is well aware that on several occasions I have raised the problem of the disposal of clinical waste in the greater Manchester area and the problems which the greater Manchester waste disposal authority has in getting a plant suitable to deal with it.
        The Minister will be aware that from 1 April the disposal authority stopped taking hospital waste and left it to the hospitals to dispose of it themselves through private contractors or by putting it into their own incinerators. He will also be aware that several hospital incinerators in greater Manchester are out of date and do not reach the standards which will be required when Crown immunity has been removed.
        Many of those incinerators are old but sadly the incinerator at Manchester Royal infirmary, which is relatively new, will not meet the standards. That incinerator is used to dispose of large quantities of hospital waste and is pumping out noxious materials over the people in the surrounding area. It is ironic that a hospital, which is supposedly there to improve people's health, is causing problems by the pollution which is coming from its incinerator.
        I hope the Minister will tell us that Crown immunity will be removed as soon as the legislation receives Royal Assent and that the Government will not delay the
        1168
        removal of Crown immunity, thus allowing plants like that at Manchester Royal infirmary to go on polluting the surrounding area. I will listen with interest to the Minister's reply.
        Because of our desire to finish at a reasonable time, I did not get a chance to speak on amendment No. 317. If I send the Minister a note about it, I hope that he will try to produce an answer before the matter reaches the House of Lords. The amendment deals with the removal from footpaths of obstructions which the Ramblers Association regards as nuisances.
        Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The reason I cannot accept the amendment, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise, is that there is normally at least a two-month period before provisions are brought into effect. If we accepted the amendment, we would have the rather odd position of part of the Bill being brought into effect with nothing to which to apply it. I ask him to accept that two months is the minimum provision for bringing the clauses into effect. It is our aim that that should apply in this case.
        Mr. Bennett: May I have an assurance that Crown immunity will be removed two months after the legislation comes into effect?
        Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes; it is our firm intention to bring that provision into effect within two months of Royal Assent.
        Amendment negatived.

      Clause 121

        BURNING OF STRAW AND STUBBLE ETC.
        Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 309, in page 120, line 15, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 310, in page 120, line 21, leave out 'in all, or'.
        No. 311, in page 120, line 22, leave out 'in all, or'.
        No. 312, inpage 120, line 23, leave out 'in all, or'.
        No. 313, in page 120, line 23, at end insert
        `where disposal of crop residues through incorporation, baling, briquetting or composting is not a practical option.'.
        Mr. Beith: This is only one of a group of amendments that are designed to strengthen the Government's resolve. Hon. Members will see that they deal with the various options for exempting the ban on straw and stubble burning.
        I warmly welcome the Government's decision to include the ban in the Bill. The amendments try to ensure that it really is a ban and that the provision for exemptions does not make it inoperative. I speak with feeling, because a large part of my constituency is on fire, although not in this case because of stubble burning. It may have been started by operations conducted by the Forestry Commission. Such fires spread extremely dangerously. Hon. Members who think that it is funny should go out now with the full-time and part-time fire brigades who have been out night after night for the past month trying to put out serious forest fires. Fires cause enormous damage.
        There has been a fair amount of straw burning in the past that has not given rise to dangerous fires, but some of it clearly has. One of the most compelling reasons for the

        1169
        ban is the fact that any such uncontrolled fires are dangerous. They will be especially dangerous this year. We have had a dry winter and the summer has started dry. We face a serious danger.
        A decade ago, serious fires in the north of Scotland ravaged forestry crops there. The same is likely to happen in Northumberland this year if the utmost care is not taken—and not only by the public, who always get the blame. Fires always supposed to have been started by a member of the public discarding a match or cigarette end, but fires started in the course of agricultural or forestry operations often spread.
        Last summer, we had fires that caused serious danger to road traffic. There was a fire that caused serious smoke over the A1 not far south of Berwick for a long time. It is extremely dangerous if smoke billows across a busy road, often unexpectedly because of a change in wind direction. There is nuisance and danger; there is also enormous damage to animal and plant life, as anyone who visits areas ravaged by fires can see.
        Above all, it is wasteful to destroy straw. Enterprising farmers in my constituency have taken straw to west coast farms for some years now. Usually, they can get a reasonable price for it, or at least a price that pays for the cost of transport. In some years, that has not been possible, and the National Fanners Union has organised the transhipment of straw from the east to the west coast, to the general benefit.
        It is in the interests of all those farmers who have tried to abide by and operate the voluntary codes that we adopt something strict enough to deal with the handful of people who still cause problems, danger and waste. We have felt it necessary to table the amendments because we fear that exemptions might be sufficiently numerous to make it impossible for the public to know whether straw or stubble burning is taking place within the law.
        I think that the Government's intention—it was certainly our belief—was that it should be quite clear that, as of this Bill coming into force, stubble and straw burning was banned. Exemptions must be so rare as not to cast doubt on a general understanding by farmers, farm workers and the public that people cannot burn straw and stubble. That understanding would be fatally undermined if there were so many exemptions, for which there is not usually strong justification, that there did not appear to be a general ban. One of our amendments indicates the numerous other things which can be done in order to make good use of straw and stubble. Stubble itself, for instance, can be ploughed back into the land.
        I therefore ask the Minister for an assurance that the Government intend to see this through and ensure that there is a general ban on straw and stubble burning and that they do not envisage widespread exemptions. If there are widespread exemptions, some farmers will say that the ban is not serious and will feel that they can do a bit of straw burning and check up later to see whether they would have been exempted; and the public will not have the confidence to report any incident which poses a danger to them or a threat to wildlife and which is a wasteful use of products which can be recycled.
        Mr. Morley: I rise very briefly, because we have gone through some of these points in Committee and there is no point in going over them all again. The Minister in Committee gave certain assurances about the exemptions that would be made available. Legitimate concern has
        1170
        been expressed by various organisations about what those exemptions will be, and it might help if a code of guidance was published so that we could see the exact thinking of the Government on what exemptions will be allowed.
        Just for the benefit of hon. Members who are present, I might remind the House, to show the scale of the problem, that in 1988 there were 160 complaints about smoke and soot nuisance to local councils, a figure which went up in 1989 to 1,635 complaints.
        I would also appreciate a comment from the Minister about the treatment of agricultural premises as trade premises for the burning of other wastes. Just recently, as I have travelled round the country, I have noticed large plumes of smoke coming from various farms where presumably people have been burning to dispose of such things as plastic bags, old tyres used on silage clamps and so on. I would be grateful for some clarification on whether the burning of such waste comes under the control of this Bill as it applies to trade premises and smoke pollution control.
        Mr. Trippier: I very much welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and I am most grateful to him for supporting the clause I, like him, do not wish to see widespread exemptions. Nor do the Minister of Agriculture or the junior Minister who served on the Standing Committee—I must apologise to the House that he cannot be present at this juncture, owing to the very sad and untimely death of his mother, which has meant his leaving the House today.
        I can tell the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that the exemptions will certainly be limited. It may well be a good idea to come forward with some clearer idea as to what they could be. From memory, my hon. Friend in Committee mentioned two possible exemptions: the burning of linseed in all areas and in certain circumstances and the burning of crop residues in the context of an approved agricultural training board course, even where alternative forms of disposal for that residue exist.
        However, if we carry on cataloguing the number of exemptions, we fall into the trap which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed seeks to avoid, and I agree with him that we should not do that. I will certainly ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to respond to the precise point that he has made, so that it can be clearly seen what exemptions he will consider. I hope that there will not be very many. The signal that must go out from this short debate is that we intend to stop straw and stubble burning. The move has been widely welcomed. The NFU's support of the Government's proposals shows that it appreciates that this change in the legislation is one whose time has come.
        Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I am a bit anxious about the idea that we need to train more people on courses to carry out straw burning. In the past I might have welcomed it, because it is a job which, if it is done at all, needs to be done with a great deal of skill and care and only when the wind direction can be predicted safely; but I hope that we will not need to train people to do this at all in the future, so courses will not need to be included.
        I was also a bit concerned about what was perhaps a slip of the tongue by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). We are past talking about codes

        1171
        of practice now. The Minister will make regulations that will be strictly limited. The fact that the code of practice proved not to be enough led us to legislate on the matter, with the support of those in the farming industry who tried to make the code work. Clearly, we needed something stronger, and the Government have given us that. The Minister has also given us the assurance that I sought, that this is intended to be a general ban and that the exemptions that he mentioned are restricted. Once the legislation and the regulations have been passed, the public will know that straw and stubble burning is banned and so will farmers. That will be a good thing for everyone.
        Amendment negatived.

      >Clause 122
        FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PURPOSES
        Amendment made: No. 228, in page 121, line 29, leave out 'the United Kingdom' and insert 'Great Britain'.—[Mr. Trippier.]
      Clause 128

        APPLICATION TO CROWN
        Amendment made: No. 227, in page 123, line 34, at end insert—
        '(7) For the purposes of this section in its application to Part II and Part IV the authority charged with enforcing the provisions of those Parts in its area is—

        (a) in the case of Part II, any waste regulation authority, and

        (b) in the case of Part IV, any principal litter authority.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 131

        CONSEQUENTIAL AND MINOR AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS
        Amendment made: No. 231, in page 124, line 46, at end insert—
        '(4) Any regulations made under section 100 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 shall have effect after the repeal of that section by subsection (2) above as if made under section 116 of this Act.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Clause 133

        SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
        Amendments made: No. 232, in page 125, line 30, at end insert
        `and, in Part VIII, the repeal of section 100 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.'.
        No. 229, in page 125, line 36, at end insert
        `section 55(2)(e) in so far as it relates to importation;'.
        No. 230, in page 126, line 3, at end insert
        `section 127 in so far as it relates to Part VI and sections 116, 117 and 118 so far as they extend to Northern Ireland;'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

        ABANDONED SHOPPING AND LUGGAGE TROLLEYS

          Application
          1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, this Schedule applies where any shopping or luggage trolley is found by an authorised officer of the local authority on any land in the open air and appears to him to be abandoned.
          (2) This Schedule does not apply in relation to a shopping or luggage trolley found on the following descriptions of land, that is to say—

          (a) land in which the owner of the trolley has a legal estate;

          1172

          (b) where an off-street parking place affords facilities to the customers of shops for leaving their shopping trolleys used by them, land on which those facilities are afforded;

          (c) where any other place designated by the local authority for the purposes of this Schedule affords like facilities, land on which those facilities are afforded; and

          (d) as respects luggage trolleys, land which is used for the purposes of their undertaking by persons authorised by an enactment to carry on any railway, light railway, tramway or road transport undertaking or by a relevant airport operator (within the meaning of Part V of the Airports Act 1986).

          Power to seize and remove trolleys
          2.—(1) Where this Schedule applies in relation to a shopping or luggage trolley, the local authority may, subject to sub-paragraph (2) below,—

          (a) seize the trolley; and

          (b) remove it to such place under its control as the authority thinks fit.

          (2) When a shopping or luggage trolley is found on any land appearing to the authorised officer to be occupied by any person, the trolley shall not be removed without the consent of that person unless—

          (a) the local authority has served on that person a notice stating that the authority proposes to remove the trolley; and

          (b) no notice objecting to its removal is served by that person on the local authority within the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which the local authority served the notice of the proposed removal on him.

          Retention, return and disposal of trolleys
          3.—(1) Subject to the following sub-paragraphs, the local authority, as respects any shopping or luggage trolley it has seized and removed,—

          (a) shall keep the trolley for a period of six weeks; and

          (b) may sell or otherwise dispose of the trolley at any time after the end of that period.

          (2) The local authority shall, as respects any trolley it has seized or removed, as soon as reasonably practicable (but not later than fourteen days) after its removal, serve on the person (if any) who appears to the authority to be the owner of the trolley a notice stating—

          (a) that the authority has removed the trolley and is keeping it;

          (b) the place where it is being kept; and

          (c) that, if it is not claimed, the authority may dispose of it.

          (3) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) below, if, within the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above, any person claims to be the owner of a shopping or luggage trolley being kept by the authority under that sub-paragraph, the local authority shall, if it appears that the claimant is the owner, deliver the trolley to him.
          (4) A person claiming to be the owner of a shopping or luggage trolley shall not be entitled to have the trolley delivered to him unless he pays the local authority, on demand, such charge as the authority requires.
          (5) No shopping or luggage trolley shall be disposed of by the local authority unless (where it has not been claimed) the authority has made reasonable enquiries to ascertain who owns it.

          Charges
          4.—(1) the local authority, in fixing the charge to be paid under paragraph 3 above by the claimant of a shopping or luggage trolley, shall secure that the charges so payable by claimants shall be such as are sufficient, taking one financial year with another, to cover the cost of removing, storing and disposing of such trolleys under this Schedule.
          (2) The local authority may agree with persons who own shopping or luggage trolleys and make them available for use in its area a scheme for the collection by them of trolleys they make available for use; and where such an agreement is in force with any person, no charge may be demanded under paragraph 3 above by the local authority in respect of any trolley within the scheme in relation to which the provisions of the scheme are complied with.

          Definitions
          5. In this Schedule—
          "luggage trolley" means a trolley provided by a person carrying on an undertaking mentioned in paragraph 1(2)(d) above to travellers for use by them by carrying their luggage to, from or within the premises used for the purposes of his undertaking, not being a trolley which is power-assisted; and
          "shopping trolley", means a trolley provided by the owner of a shop to customers for use by them for carrying goods purchased at the shop, not being a trolley which is power-assisted.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]
          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added tothe Bill.

      Schedule 1

        AUTHORISATIONS FOR PROCESSES; SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
        Amendments made: No. 81, in page 127, line 6, leave out `and advertised'.
        No. 82, in page 127, line 7, at end insert—
        ( ) An application to the enforcing authority for an authorisation must also, unless regulations made by the Secretary of State exempt applications of that class, be advertised in such manner as may be prescribed in regulations so made.'.
        No. 83, in page 127, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert—
        '(4) Regulations under this paragraph may make different provision for different classes of applications'.
        No. 84, in page 127, line 18, at beginning insert
        `Subject to sub-paragraph (1A) below,'.
        No. 85, in page 127, line 21, at end insert—
        '(1A) The Secretary of State may. by regulations, exempt any class of application from the requirements of this paragraph'.
        No. 86, in page 128, line 35, leave out `(2) and'.
        No. 87, in page 128, leave out lines 40 to 44.
        No. 62, in page 128, line 47, after 'shall' insert
        'If the applicant notifies the authority in writing that he treats the failure as such'.
        No. 88, in page 128, line 50, at end insert
        `and different periods may be substituted for different classes of application'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Schedule 2

        WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITIES AND COMPANIES
        Amendments made:No. 95, in page 132, line 41, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'the transfer scheme'.
        No. 122, in page 132, line 42, at end insert—

        WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITIES AND COMPANIES

          'Benefit of certain planning permission
          .—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to planning permission deemed to have been granted to the authority under regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1976 (deemed planning permission for development by local authorities) which subsists at the vesting date.
          (2) Any planning permission to which this paragraph applies which authorises the use of land by the authority for the treatment or disposal of waste shall, on the transfer of the land to the company by the scheme, enure for the benefit of the land.'.
          No. 96, in page 135, leave out lines 3 to 16.
          No. 97, in page 135, line 17, at end insert—
          1174
          '16A. A waste disposal authority shall, in determining the terms and conditions of any contract which the authority proposes to enter into for the keeping, treatment or disposal of waste, so frame the terms and conditions as to avoid undue discrimination in favour of one description of waste disposal contractor as against other descriptions of waste disposal contractors.'.
          No. 98, in page 135, line 19, leave out from 'contract' to 'of' in line 20 and insert
          `which the authority proposes to enter into for the keeping, treatment or disposal'.
          No. 99, in page 135, line 31, at end insert—

          'Procedure for putting waste disposal contracts out to tender
          17A.—(1) A waste disposal authority which proposes to enter into a contract for the keeping, treatment or disposal of controlled waste shall comply with the following requirements before making the contract and if it does not any contact which is made shall be void.
          (2) The authority shall publish, in at least two publications circulating among waste disposal contractors, a notice containing—

          (a) a brief description of the contract work;

          (b) a statement that during a specified period any person may inspect a detailed specification of the contract work free of charge at a specified place and time;

          (c) a statement that during that period any person will be supplied with a copy of the detailed specification on request and on payment of the specified charge;

          (d) a statement that any person who wishes to submit a tender for the contract must notify the authority of his wish within a specified period; and

          (e) a statement that the authority intend to invite tenders for the contract, in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) below.

          (3) The authority shall—

          (a) ensure that the periods, place and time and the charge specified in the notice are such as are reasonable;

          (b) make the detailed specification available for inspection in accordance with the notice; and

          (c) make copies of the detailed specification available for supply in accordance with the notice.

          (4) If any persons notified the authority, in accordance with the notice, of their wish to submit tenders for the contract, the authority shall—

          (a) if more than four persons did so, invite at least four of them to tender for the contract;

          (b) if less than four persons did so, invite each of them to tender for the contract.

          (5) In this paragraph—
          "the contract work", in relation to a contract for the keeping, treatment or disposal of waste, means the work comprising the services involved in the keeping, treatment or disposal of the waste under the contract; and
          "specified" means specified in the notice under sub-paragraph (2) above.
          17B. A waste disposal authority, in taking any of the following decisions, namely—

          (a) who to invite to tender for the contract under paragraph I 7A(4)(a) above, and

          (b) who to enter into the contract with,

          shall disregard the fact that any waste disposal contractor tendering for the contract is, or is not, controlled by the authority.

          Variation of waste disposal contracts
          17C. Where a waste disposal authority has entered into a contract with a waste disposal contractor under the authority's control, paragraph 16A above shall, with the necessary modifications, apply on any proposed variation of the contract during the subsistence of that control, in relation to the terms and conditions that would result from the variation as it applies to the original contract.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]
      Schedule 4

        FURTHER AMENDMENTS OF THE RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES ACT 1960
        Amendments made: No. 8, in page 138, line 39, leave out from second 'inspector' to end of line 40.
        No. 9, in page 140, line 10, leave out `(4)' and insert `(5)'.
        No. 10, in page 140, line 37, at end insert—
        '(d) in subsection (6), for the words "the last preceding subsection" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (5) of this section".'.
        No. 11, in page 142, line 33, leave out 'for England and Wales'.
        No. 12, in page 142, line 39, at end insert
        `or
        (d) revoke such an authorisation.'.
        No. 13, in page 143, line 34, at end insert—
        '( ) An appeal under this section shall, if and to the extent required by regulations under subsection (10) of this section, be advertised in such manner as may be prescribed.'.
        No. 14, in page 144, line 23, leave out 'the procedure for'.
        No. 15, in page 144, line 40, after 'whom', insert 'he has served'.
        No. 16, in page 144, line 41, leave out 'is served'.
        No. 17, in page 148, line 3 after 'inspectori, insert '(a)'.
        No. 18, in page 148, line 4 leave out 'and' and insert—
        `(b) for the words "the last preceding section" there shall be substituted the words "section twelve of this Act"; and
        (c) '.
        No. 19, in page 148, line 16, at end insert—
        '(10) After subsection (8) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
        "(9) Where the commission by any person of an offence under this section is due to the act or default of some other person, that other person may be charged with and convicted of the offence by virtue of this subsection whether or not proceedings for the offence are taken against the first-mentioned person.'''.
        No. 20, in page 149, line 4, at end insert—

        FURTHER AMENDMENTS OF THE RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES ACT 1960

          'Expenses and receipts
          In section 16 of the 1960 Act (expenses and receipts)—
          (a) in subsection (1)(a), for the words following "incurred by" there shall be substituted the words "the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under this Act"; and
          (b) in subsection (2), for the word "Minister" there shall be substituted the words "Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food".'.
          No. 21, in page 149, leave out lines 18 to 22 and insert—
          '(a) for any reference to the chief inspector there shall be substituted a reference to the chief inspector for Scotland, being the inspector so appointed by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Act in relation to Scotland;
          (b) any reference to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shall be omitted and anything required to be done in England by both the chief inspector and that Minister shall be done in Scotland by the chief inspector for Scotland;'.
          No. 22, in page 149, line 37, leave out from `(k)' to 'in' line 42.
          No. 23, in page 150, leave out lines 4 to 7—[Mr. Trippier]

      Schedule 11

        AMENDMENTS OF THE PREVENTION OF OIL POLLUTION ACT 1971
        Amendments made: No. 303, in page 176, line 23, at end insert—
        '(ia) when, in the absence of a warrant or citation, the master or owner is first brought before a court competent to deal with the case;
        (ib) when, in a case where he is liberated upon a written undertaking in terms of section 18(2)(a) or 295(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, the master or owner appears at the specified court at the specified time;
        (ic) when, in a case mentioned in paragraph (ib) above, the master or owner fails to appear at the specified court at the specified time, the court grants warrant for his apprehension;'.
        No. 304, in page 176, line 26, leave out from '1975' to `; and ' in line 27.
        No. 305, in page 176, line 34, after 'abandoned', insert '(other than pro loco et tempore)'.—[ Mr. Trippier.]

      Schedule 12

        CONSEQUENTIAL AND MINOR AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS
        Amendments made: No. 91, in page 180, line 46, after `or', insert 'the'.
        No. 90, in page 181, line 42, at end insert—

        CONSEQUENTIAL AND MINOR AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS

          `Functions assignable to London port health authority
          In section 7(4) of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (enactments functions under which are assignable to London port health authority), after the paragraph (k) inserted by paragraph 23 of Schedule 6 to the Building Act 1984, there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
          "(1) Part I and Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;".'.
          No. 296, in page 182, line 18, at end insert—

          'Meaning of household waste: competition
          . In Schedule 1 to the Local Government Act 1988 (competition: collection of household waste), paragraph 1 shall be amended as follows—

          (a) in sub-paragraph (1), the words "In the application of this Part to England and Wales," shall be omitted;

          (b) in sub-paragraph (2)(a), for the words "section 12 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974" there shall be substituted the words "section 39 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990";

          (c) in sub-paragraph (3), for the words "section 30(4) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974" there shall be substituted the words "section 65(10) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990"; and

          (d) sub-paragraph (4) shall be omitted.'.

          No. 123, in page 182, line 46, at beginning insert '1(4)(a),'.
          No. 124, in page 182, line 47, after '5(1)', insert 'and (4)(a)'.
          No. 125, in page 183, line 8, after '(3)', insert (4)'.—[ Mr. Trippier.]

      Schedule 13

        REPEALS
        Amendments made: No. 92, in page 184, line 25, leave out 'the work' and insert `so'.
        No. 195, in page 184, line 43, at end insert—

        '1990 c.

        Environmental Protection Act 1990

        In section 66(9), the words following "Part I".'.

        No. 297, in page 185, line 8, at end insert—

        '1988 c. 9.

        Local Government Act 1988.

        In Schedule 1, in paragraph 1, in sub-paragraph (1) the words "In the application of this Part to England and Wales," and sub-paragraph (4).'.

        No. 121, in page 186, line 27, column 3, after '22', insert `(1) and (2)'.
        No. 233, in page 187, line 37, at end insert—

        '1974 c. 40.

        Control of Pollution Act 1974

        Section 100.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

      Title
      Amendment made: No. 315, in line 13, after 'clean', insert
      'to make provision conferring powers in relation to trolleys abandoned on land in the open air,'.—[Mr. Trippier.]
      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].
      11.25 pm
      Mr. Trippier: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment opened the Second Reading debate, he said that he hoped that we would have an instructive time in Committee. I can honestly say that we did. It is a matter of some satisfaction to me and my right hon. and hon. Friends that the Opposition parties have welcomed virtually every aspect of the Bill. It is in line with the widespread support that it has received outside the House. There is no dispute that it delivers a series of major measures to further the protection of our environment, and its enhancement. We welcome the constructive approach that has sprung from that.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State happily conceded that the Bill does not do all things to all environmental problems. It never could, and we all understand why. It is fantasy to suggest that we can legislate away problems such as the greenhouse effect overnight.
      Let me remind the House of some of what the Bill accomplishes. It provides a far-reaching system of controlling major industrial pollution. Integrated pollution control puts this country in the forefront of pollution control in Europe. It completely overhauls and considerably toughens our national system of waste disposal and gives an important boost to recycling at the same time. It introduces radical measures for tackling what for many people is one of the most serious environmental issues—the litter that disfigures our towns and cities.
      It provides brand new controls to deal with the environmental effects of genetically modified organisms. It lays the foundations for greatly improved delivery of nature and countryside conservation at all levels. That has always been the one contentious part of the Bill. We remain convinced that reform of the Nature Conservancy Council is required and that our proposals will be wholly
      1178
      beneficial to conservation. That view is strengthened by Lord Carver's report. I promise the House that our response to that report will be positive and sympathetic.
      On top of all that, the Bill provides for higher penalties and tougher enforcement of them for polluters across the board. It strengthens the role and powers of local authorities in dealing with local environmental issues. It provides for greatly improved public access to environmental information and includes a battery of further environmental measures, from powers to deal with imports of waste to further controls over dumping at sea.
      The Bill is in the best shape to be sent on its way to the other place. It marks a milestone on the path to a better environment in Britain, and I commend it to the House.
      11.28 pm
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: I agree with the Minister that we had a constructive time in Committee. We spent a good number of hours debating the Bill in Committee and on Report during the past few days. Many amendments have been tabled. Many were tabled by Conservative Members and in particular by the Government. That says something about the way in which the Bill was originally drafted.
      We welcome the fact the Government have for once taken on board some of the suggestions that we have made in the spirit of constructive opposition. It is a somewhat unusual experience that Ministers occasionally accept Opposition amendments. Indeed, even this evening amendments have been proposed by the Government which were the result of promises made to us in Committee in recognition of the validity of the points that we have made. That is somewhat unusual for the Government, and we welcome it.
      Most Committee members and most hon. Members who have taken an interest tonight feel that they have been able to make a minor, but possibly significant, contribution to the Bill. A significant contribution was made by the Government's acceptance of the need for a register of contaminated land. I am sure that that is particularly welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) whose Select Committee has done a great deal of work on that matter.
      There are still glaring gaps in the Bill. The Minister said that environmental problems could not be solved overnight, but in Committee we were disappointed that the Government did not accept some of our suggestions for a more integrated policy between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy and between the Department and the Department of Transport. We understand the internal difficulties that exist and, as a result, we look forward with keen interest to the White Paper that will follow the Bill to see who will win and what Department will win.
      We still have some reservations about the Bill. We shall watch carefully to see what happens to part VII and the amendments that may be forced on the Government in another place to make more sense of their proposals. We still have many reservations about the resource implications of the Bill. Promises have been given about resources for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, but local authorities have been given a wide range of extra responsibilities and duties without adequate back-up, which will cause problems in the future.
      Obviously we shall not vote against Third Reading, just as we did not vote against Second Reading. Although we

      1179
      are pleased that there has been some progress and some constructive amendments have been accepted, we still think that the Government have wasted a valuable opportunity and could have achieved far more.
      The Bill has a grand title and the Government had the chance to match the image promoted by that title with some amendments. We welcome the Bill so far as it goes, but we hope that it will be significantly strengthened in another place. If that happens, we shall give the Bill all the support we can during its remaining stages.
      11.32 pm
      Mr. Roger Gale: I congratulate my hon. Friends on a tour de force, an enormous piece of work. I have studied their deliberations with great interest and their work has been magnificent. I am particularly pleased to see, at last, a measure to control straw and stubble burning on the statute book, something for which I have fought for many years. However, a small but pertinent matter has not been attended to in the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that I tabled some amendments at a late hour yesterday, which appear on the Order Paper as starred amendments—understandably, in those circumstances, they were not called. I tabled those amendments late because the national chairman and committee of the Bird Scarers Anti-Nuisance Group yesterday met with officials of the Department of the Environment and I felt that it would have been discourteous to have tabled those amendments prior to that meeting.
      The control of noise in the countryside is a matter of great concern to many people. Audible bird scaring has been the subject of discussion by the Department for more than two years. It is a source of sadness to me that the same arguments have been rehearsed again and again. The Department has now produced two draft codes of practice for the use of audible bird scarers, but the measures that we have sought for more than two years are still not included in those drafts.
      The amendments I tabled have not been discussed, but there will be an opportunity to address that small but important matter in another place. I hope that the Miinster will study the amendments to see if he can assist the other place to ensure that the matter receives the attention that many people believe it deserves.
      11.34 pm
      Mr. Pike: I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) in opening the Third Reading debate for the Opposition. I welcome her comments about contaminated land and about the direction in which the Government have moved on that issue.
      In the five years that I have served on the Select Committee on the Environment, I have seen the tremendous role served by Select Committees, conducted in a non-political way, in spurring and encouraging the Government to move on many issues. The Select Committee on the Environment has always tried to reach consensus decisions without dividing which has meant give and take on both sides. The Government have responded positively on many issues to recommendations from the Committee, some of which are covered by the Bill.
      1180
      I agree with many of the Minister's comments and believe that the Bill has been conducted well throughout. I has been encouraging that the Government have been prepared to listen to debate and respond to positive contributions from wherever they came in Committee. The Minister highlighted many issues covered by the Bill. He did not cover them all, but I make no criticism because it was impossible for him to do so in the time allowed.
      However, although many issues in the Bill were steps in the right direction, we now need to take a stride to ensure not only that when the Bill has passed through the other House and becomes an Act its provisions are enforced, but to build on that base. Other issues are not covered by the Bill. We look forward to the Government coming forward with their White Paper, and further legislation. The next major Bill on environmental protection and enhancement may be introduced by a Labour Government who will tackle the problem positively.
      These issues are of worldwide signficance and are growing in importance in the public's eyes. It is right for Parliament to address the problems positively and it is important for us to play a major role in dealing with them on a worldwide basis because we must ensure that we protect the earth, not only for the people living on it now, but for future generations.
      11.37 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: There is no doubt that this is a wide-ranging and welcome Bill. It ranges from the widely understood plague of litter to the sophisticated scientific study of genetically modified organisms. There are no two more extreme poles of environmental concern. I willingly concede that it marks the Government's conversion to green interests, which is welcome. I understand that that has been strongly advocated by the Ministers in charge of the Bill, which is also welcome.
      There is still some doubt about whether we have a Government with a green philosophy. We are a long way from seeing that. Perhaps the proper description is that we have a Government who are green in parts, but not yet right through. Environmental improvement in the Government is welcome, but an environmentally sound Government is yet some way removed.
      The best symbol that I could find, having followed, albeit remotely, the processes of the Committee and the questions and answers that were subsequently tabled, is the exchange that has taken place several times, most recently the other day, about the Government's use of recycled paper in the Department of the Environment. That is slightly inaccurate. The Government use paper produced from offcuts in timber yards, but not paper recycled from paper used before. They have gone some way down the road, but have not yet become truly environmentalist. I hope that we shall continue much further and faster than in the past. In the 1970s we legislated against pollution. Much of that legislation was never backed up by secondary legislation. At the beginning of the 1990s, I hope that we shall have a significant Bill on the statute book. But the real proof of whether the Government are green will come when environmental matters become as dominant in their thinking as Treasury matters. I await that day with interest.
      11.40 pm
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome a great deal in the legislation, and I enjoyed the Committee and Report stages of the Bill.
      Throughout our debates there has been an undercurrent, created by two missing ingredients. First, we needed a clear statement from the Government that they would make available the necessary resources. Secondly, we do not know what the White Paper will contain. That leaves me with the worry that, although a large number of new duties have rightly been placed on local authorities, the Government have not given them the proper resources to carry out their work. Through the poll tax, the Government are pressurising local authorities to spend less, and it is impossible for them to carry out their duties under the Bill without incurring extra expenditure. Most local authorities are not wasting money on other areas from which resources could be transferred.
      It is appalling that the Minister announced on Monday that the White Paper was being prepared to present to the Tory party conference at the beginning of October. That is a misuse of public money, and it is bad for the protection of the environment. We were first promised the White Paper for the summer—
      Mr. Trippier: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. I said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State promised the Conservative party conference in Blackpool last year that a White Paper would be published before the next conference.
      Mr. Bennett: The Minister said on Monday that the White Paper would be presented for the Conservative party conference—
      Mr. Trippier: Before then.
      Mr. Bennett: If it comes in the summer, I will take back everything I have said, but I suspect that the date will be closer to October. By then it will be too late to include its contents in the legislative programme.
      So much has been left out of the Bill, just because we are told to wait for the White Paper. If the White Paper comes out in the summer and the legislation is included in the next Session of Parliament, well and good. But I suspect that it will not appear until the party conference. Then there will he no legislation next year, and the White Paper will merely become a contribution to the Tory party manifesto.
      That is appalling, because it means using Government resources to prepare and carry out policy reviews for the Tory party—and because it means delaying action on these issues. We need the White Paper in June or July and legislation in October so that we can start to protect the environment as soon as possible.
      As far as the legislation goes, I welcome it, but I still have the two major reservations that I have described.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
    Clause 1

      QUALIFYING CONDITIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, leave out line 27 and insert—
      "(c) in subsection (8), for the words "or (3)(a) above, or in both," there shall be substituted the word "above"."
      11.44 pm
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Paul Flynn: These amendments are reasonable, benign and moderate, and, as an Opposition who are also reasonable, benign and moderate, we shall not oppose them.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 5

      GUARANTEED MINIMUM PENSIONS: ABOLITION OF DOUBLE INDEXATION FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 5, line 8, leave out from "be" to "and" in line 10 and insert
      "taken to be one half of the rate of the deceased spouse's guaranteed minimum pension at that time".
      Mr. Ryder: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 3, in page 5, line 13. leave out from beginning to "of" in line 14 and insert
      "subject to any directions under section 59A below (whether made before or after the coming into force of this subsection), be accordingly reduced under that subsection by an amount equal to the rate, as determined under paragraph (b) above".
      Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]
      Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to. [Special entry.]

    Clause 10

      RESTRICTION ON ELECTION THAT REGULATIONS SHALL NOT APPLY TO PERSONS WHOSE SERVICE HAS TERMINATED
      Lords amendment No. 4, in page 8, line 6, after "employment" insert "or office".
      Mr. Ryder: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. He described the Bill as reasonable, benign and moderate, and that is also an ample description of the two of us.
      Question put and agreed to.

  Train Services (Bromley)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  11.44 pm
  Mr. Roger Sims: My constituency could well be described as commuter country. I have nine railway stations in my constituency or on the periphery from which local residents travel to and from central London daily to work and also for shopping and visits to the theatre, and so on. They do so mostly along the lines from Orpington via Chislehurst to London Bridge and Charing Cross or via Bickley to Victoria. I travel daily on the route, in my case from Petts Wood. Later in the month I shall do so in a little less comfort and more slowly because British Rail has decided that services which hitherto ran fast from Petts Wood to London Bridge will no longer stop at Petts Wood. That will reduce the long distance service time by two or three minutes, but it will increase the journey time from Petts Wood from about 20 minutes to 30 minutes.
  Most of my constituents use the stations along the main suburban line. The exception is the small branch or spur line from Grove Park to Sundridge Park and Bromley North. At one time there was a regular service on that line to London Bridge and Charing Cross, but it has been gradually reduced until there are just a few through trains in the peak hours. Otherwise, Bromley North and Grove Park are connected by a shuttle service.
  In 1986 British Rail attempted to cut out the through service. There was strong local resistance, led particularly by a local organisation, the Bromley North and Sundridge Park Association of Rail Travellers, otherwise known as Bronspart, and at that time British Rail relented. Five years ago there were five through trains in the morning and in the evening. A year ago there were three through trains at less attractive times in the morning rush hour and three in the evening rush hour. Apart from that, there was simply the shuttle service which ceases at about 10 o'clock at night and at about 7 o'clock on Saturday evenings. There is no Sunday service at all.
  Last summer, British Rail announced the intended withdrawal of the through service by reducing in October the three morning and three evening peak services to two trains. There was a further reduction from two to one this month, as shown in the new timetable, and in October this year the plan is for a complete withdrawal of the through service. Only a shuttle will then be available at peak times. I have said that British Rail announced its proposals. There is, of course, a legal obligation on BR to consult only if it intends complete withdrawal. In this case it was a gradual withdrawal and the legal obligation may well not apply. However, the House may feel that there is surely a moral obligation on British Rail to consult.
  Mr. Harrison Mee, the manager of Network SouthEast, attended a Bronspart meeting on 7 June and quite incidentally told the meeting of his plans. A few days later the London borough of Bromley was told. Initially, people were given the impression that these were simply proposals, but it was quite obvious that the matter had already been decided and a letter to me was couched in those terms. British Rail also claimed that public meetings had been held, but later admitted that the only meeting was the Bronspart one, to which I have referred, at which 30 people were present.
  1184
  In subsequent correspondence, BR spoke of the possibility of further meetings, and told the council that its representatives would be willing to attend. They did not do so, and a meeting held by Bronspart on 18 October last year, which I chaired, was notable for the complete absence of any representatives from BR, as they refused to attend.
  The manner in which BR has let its plans be known has left a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth. As a result of the withdrawal of the service, some 1,700 season ticket holders will suffer a much poorer service, assuming that they continue to use it. According to BR figures, some 1,200 people use the through trains in the morning. From October, they will have to use the shuttle and, at Grove Park station, cross the bridge—about 300 or 400 people will go in each shuttle at the 8 o'clock peak—to wait on the station, much of which is open and most uncongenial on wet and windy mornings, for the mainline train. By the time it reaches the station, it will almost certainly be full. Passengers will find that the length of their journey both to and from town has been lengthened by up to 20 minutes, or possibly even half an hour in the evenings, particularly if the mainline trains are late and the shuttle has left. These passengers—BR likes to call them customers—are people who pay the full fare, and many have chosen to live near Bromley North and Sundridge Park stations because of the train service that BR now proposes to withdraw.
  The local people believe that the line makes a profit, but as BR will not issue profit and loss figures, we do not know. The figures that it produces show that reducing this service will produce savings. That is surely self-evident, and on that principle BR could go on withdrawing more services and making more savings. BR is in receipt of a public service grant. In 1988, in respect of this, the Secretary of State required BR
  "to provide a public service which is comparable generally with that provided by the Board at present."
  BR shields behind the word "generally", but it is obvious that passengers on the line will not enjoy a service comparable with that which they had in 1988.
  One of the claims that BR has made is that the withdrawal will enable stock to be transferred to other routes, but there are doubts that this has been done, or even that there is capacity on the other routes to do so.
  The reaction to these proposals was hardly surprising. A large number of letters came to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt), whose constituents also use this station, and who hopes to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. We had letters from passengers, from the residents association and from Bronspart, and I was recently presented with a petition that has over 1,000 signatures. Alas, it is couched in terms that do not enable me formally to present it as a petition to Parliament, but it contains not only more than 1,000 names, but space for comments, and many of the signatories have taken advantage of that, and have not minced their words. I have already referred to the well-attended public meeting last October, at which my hon. Friend and I were present, although BR was not, and where strong views were expressed.
  The London borough of Bromley has made representations to BR and had a meeting with officials, whom it found most unforthcoming. The only response was to invite the council to provide a capital injection of £4

  1185
  million—a rather unrealistic approach. I understand that the London Regional Passengers Committee has discussed this matter and is making representations to BR.
  There is a real suspicion in the constituencies that British Rail is trying to run down the services on the line so that usage will steadily decrease, when it can argue that there is a case for closing the line. British Rail would then develop the station site. Those suspicions were strengthened by the fact that British Rail suggested to officials of the London borough of Bromley that, following the closure of the through line and the platform which serves it, the council might be interested in part of the station area for an office development and car park.
  The possible shadow of closure was lifted with the proposal to extend the docklands light railway to Bromley North, but recently we have been told that that extension is not to proceed. Doubts about the future of the station and the line remain.
  I want Network SouthEast to reconsider its proposals. It seems deaf to pleas from its customers, from passenger organisations, from Bromley council and from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne. That is why I have chosen to raise the issue in the House and to give my hon. Friend the Minister the opportunity of hearing my case and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne. I am grateful to the Minister for his presence, especially as I appreciate that there are many other matters occupying his time at present. I know that when he responds he will say that the day-to-day running of British Rail is a matter for it and not for him. I ask him, however, to consider carefully my case and to tell Network SouthEast to think again. It has a duty to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne, who are its customers. It has a duty also, I suggest, to make the best use of its assets. Far from reducing the services on the Bromley North line, it should be developing them. There is a formidable case for doing so. In the past three years both passenger numbers and receipts on the line have increased.
  Bromley North station is close to the new shopping development in Bromley town centre, as well as providing easy access to the courts and the fine Churchill theatre. Bromley North is one of the few stations in the area that are completely at street level. That is a great attraction to the elderly and the disabled. They can board a train at Bromley North and go to Charing Cross, which again is at street level. London Bridge and Waterloo have ramps.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Minister and to Network SouthEast that the other station, Bromley South, is heavily used. It will have to carry increased traffic with the opening of the Channel tunnel, wherever the link is finally established. Network SouthEast should be offering Bromley North as an attractive and comfortable alternative.
  As a marketing man, I would advise Network SouthEast that it has in the Bromley North line a product which it should be marketing vigorously and not phasing out of use. I hope that on these grounds, and especially in the interests of my constituents, British Rail will think again, even at this late stage. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to urge this upon it in the strongest possible terms.
  11.58 pm
  Sir John Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for allowing me a few moments to support the convincing case which he has made for the Bromley North line and to reinforce his plea for the retention of through trains on a much-needed and widely used commuter service to London.
  I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that throughout my 25 years in the House there has always been a significant level of dissatisfaction with the service provided by British Rail for this part of my constituency, together with a lurking fear that the Bromley North line would sooner or later be closed altogether. There is no doubt that, compared with the gloss and glamour of Bromley South, Bromley North is seen as a sort of Cinderella station. In recent months, the dissatisfaction with it has become markedly worse. At the same time there has been a corresponding increase in the fears about closure. In other words, the rumble of discontent has become a roar of disapproval.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst said, a number of my constituents now suspect that British Rail has embarked on a cynical exercise in which it will allow the Bromley North service to run down to such an extent that the number of passengers using it will decline to a level at which the arguments for closure can finally be clinched. It is obvious that with through trains withdrawn, the alternative of changing at Grove Park via a footbridge on to already overcrowded trains presents very real difficulty, especially for the elderly and disabled, and is a guarantee that passenger figures from Bromley North will inevitably show a decline in the months ahead. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can provide some reassurance tonight about the retention of Bromley North station and the survival of the Bromley North line.
  I wish to put a final point to my hon. Friend. Unlike many other parts of Greater London, Bromley has no underground railway services. It is, therefore, dependent on a surface railway in a way in which many other London boroughs are not. That, coupled with the still uncertain impact of the Channel tunnel services on the Bromley South route, make it vital that the future of the Bromley North service be safeguarded and guaranteed. I hope that my hon. Friend can tonight provide such undertakings for the House and for my constituents.
  12.1 am
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) began by describing his constituency as a commuters' constituency. If I may, I shall describe him as a commuters' friend. He has assiduously represented his constituents over the years. When I was researching for the debate, I discovered that it was almost six years ago to the day that he raised another Adjournment debate on the same subject. That debate took place at 3.2 am, so I consider myself lucky that history has not repeated itself.
  Many matters have changed since then, and my speech will, in many respects, be dissimilar to the one given by the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). Then, the' picture was of a railway whose numbers were declining Today, the picture is of a railway whose numbers are increasing. Much of the logic has changed with that.

  1187
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst, who is moderate in all that he says and who considers his words carefully, said in that previous debate:
  "It is obviously sensible that British Rail should review its timetables from time to time to take account of changes in travel patterns and demand."—[Official Report, 30 April 1984; Vol. 59, c. 166.]
  It is just such a process that has been under way.
  In the debate six years ago, my hon. Friend the then Minister referred to a public service obligation grant to British Rail of £855 million. He spoke of a reduction in the number of train miles being run in the south-east of 2 per cent., and of a decline over four years in peak commuting on the southern region into central London of more than 12 per cent. The contrast between then and now is stark.
  Between 1984 and 1988 demand for Network SouthEast services rose by 26 per cent., so that in 1988–89 nearly 500,000 commuters were using NSE each day, representing 41 per cent. of all central London commuters. The increased revenue that that has created, together with improvements in productivity, has enabled BR to reduce its call on the taxpayer since 1984 by almost 50 per cent.
  As my hon. Friends know, at the same time investment has risen dramatically. Over the next three years NSE plans to invest some £1·2 billion, mainly on new rolling stock both to replace existing stock and to cater for areas of particular growth. In the short term, NSE is seeking to match its services as closely as possible to demand by adjusting train formations and making alterations to the timetable. From 14 May, the total number of train miles operated by NSE will increase by 2 per cent. but changes to the timetable are never universally welcomed and that is, in part, the subject of tonight's debate.
  It is right that British Rail's customers should be able to have a say when alterations to the services that they use are proposed. I am distressed to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst that the consultation has not taken place in the way that he would have wished. But I hope that I can reassure him and my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt), who raised the point in particular, that the concerns of their constituents about ceasing services to Bromley North are unfounded and that it will continue to play a part in BR's plans for south-east London.
  I obviously must confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst said: as a general rule Ministers do not like to become involved in operational matters. Few subjects are as complicated as railway planning and we believe that it should be left to the experts, but I do know that the approaches to London from the south are extremely congested and adjustments to services are made only after careful thought. Anyone who has stood at the end of the platforms at London Bridge in the morning rush hour, as I have, and observed the number of trains going through there will know that trains are almost literally fighting for space.
  The decision to remove direct services from Bromley North has not been taken lightly and BR is well aware that some inconvenience may result. I have great sympathy for my hon. Friends' constituents because they will be inconvenienced, but BR has an equal responsibility to its passengers using the other lines into Charing Cross and
  1188
  Cannon Street, most notably the north Kent lines via Dartford. My hon. Friends will know that those commuters also have formidable champions in the House.
  I am well aware that conditions have become intolerable for many commuters. British Rail recognises that the rolling stock in use is getting towards the end of its useful life and a major investment programme is planned over the next few years. To demonstrate the severity of the problem, in the 1988 annual passenger count, the last for which we have complete data, 16 trains arrived at London Bridge between 8 am and 9 am from Dartford or stations further in those trains were carrying more than 17,500 passengers, meaning that nearly 3,000 were travelling in excess of the agreed load factor standard which allows for 10 per cent. standing on journeys of less than 20 minutes.
  British Rail needs to cope with that sort of demand every working day and for the time being that means allocating the resources available to it as carefully as it possibly can. Difficult choices have to be made, which will inevitably generate dissatisfaction from some and relief from many more. Sadly, we never seem to hear from the passengers whose journeys are improved.
  As I have said, the removal of through trains will result in some inconvenience for passengers using Bromley North and Sundridge Park stations, as it will necessitate changing at Grove Park. But, as I have tried to explain, BR must rightly consider the needs of all its customers using the Kent link services and balance those needs. It will be of small consolation to my hon. Friends, but the policy of reallocating rolling stock from the Bromley North line has already brought relief to the services in north Kent.
  The removal of the 7.22 am through service from Bromley North to Charing Cross last October released a train path which enabled Network SouthEast to relieve overcrowding on three heavily loaded trains on the Dartford lines. But by adding an extra shuttle from Bromley North and providing greater capacity on the corresponding Charing Cross service from Orpington, that adjustment was carried out with the minimum of disruption for Bromley North passengers. Similar adjustments will be made in the new timetable to ensure that the removal of the 8.45 am through service will cause Bromley North passengers the least inconvenience possible.
  The other concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst is for the long-term future of the Bromley North line. It is perhaps not at all surprising, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne said, that the gradual withdrawal of through services has been interpreted as signalling the line's inevitable closure in the longer term. "Closure by stealth" is the expression that is used. I can say now that that is not BR's intention at all. On the contrary, it is simply looking at ways of making the line as efficient as possible in both operational and commercial terms. The majority of Bromley North's through services were not as heavily used as other services into London and it made sense to give priority to the more heavily used mainline trains. But in so doing, BR is ensuring that Bromley North will continue to be a viable, more cost-effective area of operation.
  The shuttle service will be more reliable and more frequent. From October BR intends to increase the capacity of the shuttle train from two to four cars. As a result of the move to a shuttle-only service, the costs of running the line will be reduced—of course my hon. Friend

  1189
  the Member for Chislehurst was right about that—which British Rail says argues in favour of retaining the line and not closing it. The more that it makes it efficient and viable, the more certain it is that it will remain in operation.
  A further indication of British Rail's long-term plans for the line can he seen in its strategy of introducing the Networker trains over the next few years. These brand new high-capacity trains, many of which will run on the Dartford line in 12-car formation, will replace the Kent link fleet and will be British Rail's best weapon yet in its continuing efforts to improve conditions for its customers. British Rail intends to order one four-car Networker unit for use on the shuttle service, so that will benefit from the re-equipment of the rolling stock, and there is a specific provision for new rolling stock for that line. The decision to earmark reinvestment for that line in that way would seem to offer the clearest possible evidence that British Rail has no intention of closing the line.
  It is vital that British Rail should discharge its responsibilities for all its customers in the south-east subsector of Network SouthEast. That means—I am afraid to say—weighing up the needs of all passengers who wish to travel on the congested lines into London. Whatever shortcomings there may have been in the meetings that my hon. Friends arranged and chaired, I am told that British Rail has had regular contacts over recent years with the groups representing passengers who use
  1190
  Bromley North and Sundridge Park stations. Following criticisms made six years ago of its efforts, BR has been trying to keep its customers informed of the plans for the line.
  The proposal to withdraw the through services will certainly not be welcomed with open arms, but I hope that my hon. Friend's constituents will accept that, by improving the shuttle service and improving conditions on trains serving Grove Park, British Rail has not forgotten the needs of Bromley North commuters. British Rail has made great efforts to improve the robustness of all its services and in so doing it insists that the future of the Bromley North line has been secured.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst deployed his case formidably as he always does. My hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne managed to give the essence of the case in a few words. Of course, I shall ask that British Rail reads both speeches made by my hon. Friends and considers carefully the points that have been made.
  I hope that if I have not been able to offer much consolation, at least what I have had to say about the long-term future of the Bromley North line may have given some reassurance to my hon. Friends and. most importantly, to their constituents.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Hedgerows
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will place in the Library copies of the two hedgerow surveys he mentioned in his answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 13 March at columns 185–86.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Both reports are already in the Library. The survey carried out by Hunting Surveys and Consultants Ltd. was published in 1986 under the title "Monitoring Landscape Change". The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food "Survey of Environmental Topics on Farms, England and Wales, 1985" was published under that title as a MAFF statistics release (reference number 244/85) on 30 September 1985.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all sites of special scientific interest currently the subject of(a) appeals and (b) inquiries.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) on 21 March 1990,Official Report, column 679.

  "Financial Times" Conference
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representatives his Department had at the Financial Times conference on industry and the environment, held in London on 23 and 24 April.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), gave the keynote speech at the conference on 23 April. He was accompanied by two officials.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the definition of(a) a married couple, (b) an unmarried couple and (c) persons who do not fall into either category (a) or (b) but who live together, for the purposes of community charge classification; and how many couples of each category there are in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) England, (iii) Norfolk and (iv) North Norfolk district council areas.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]: The definition of people who are married to each other for the purposes of the community charge is set out in section 16(9) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 which
  540
  states that they are those who are married, or those who are not married but living together as husband and wife. The figures requested are not available.

  Houses of Parliament (Static Electricity)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to instigate a monitoring programme in respect of static electricity levels within the House.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]: I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what figures he has to enable a comparison to be made between static electricity levels within the House and those in comparable circumstances elsewhere; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]: There are no figures available.

  Heavy Lorries
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what(a) reviews his Department is carrying out and (b) legislation he is planning to introduce to reduce environmental pollution from heavy lorries.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on 7 February at columns 653–54. Local highway authorities already have wide-ranging powers in respect of heavy lorries using unsuitable roads.

THE ARTS

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the ending of research on fossil birds and plants at the natural history museum in London; and if he has proposals to increase funding to the natural history museum.

  Mr. Luce
  The day-to-day running of the natural history museum, and decisions on the museum's research programme, are matters for the director and trustees of the museum.

  With regard to funding, I announced in November 1989 that the Government were increasing the museum's grant-in-aid for 1990–91 by 16·5 per cent. over 1989–90. Future funding for the national history museum will be considered in conjunction with the funding bids from other national museums and galleries, details of which are contained in their 1990–95 corporate plans which are being submitted to me.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Business Expansion Schemes
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what compensation is available from the Inland Revenue to an applicant company in the event of excessive delay resulting in the loss of potential business expansion scheme investments and other improvements to finance.
  541
  Mr. Lilley
  As a general policy, the Inland Revenue will consider reimbursing expenditure which has arisen unnecessarily and is directly attributable to a serious error on the part of its staff. Serious error is defined as something which no responsible person, acting in good faith and with proper care, would reasonably do. Each case is considered on its merits.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to amend section 294 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 to make explicit that bridges, equipment and track of private railways are to be regarded as plant and machinery.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have no plans to do so.

  Flights (VAT)
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which rate of value added tax applies to the carriage of passengers on non scheduled flights, including scenic, pleasure and special passenger transport services in aircraft capable of carrying not fewer than 12 passengers, including pilot and crew; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) which rate of value added tax applies to the carriage of passengers by hot air balloons capable of carrying not fewer than 12 passengers, including pilot and crew, on non scheduled scenic, pleasure and special passenger transport flights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The VAT Act 1983 provides zero-rating for the transport of passengers in aircraft designed or adapted to carry not less than 12 passengers, but, in applying that relief, a distinction has been made between conventional aircraft and hot air balloons. Conventional aircraft are capable of performing the function of conveying passengers with certainty between specified places—the essential characteristic of a supply of transport. However hot air balloons, which are not capable of powered flight, are largely at the mercy of the

  All trainees

  Disabled status trainees

  Early leavers

  Per cent, all leavers

  Early leavers

  Per cent, all disabled leavers

  Great Britain

  1 April 1986–31 March 1987

  223,400

  52·1

  6,770

  58·7

  1 April 1987–31 March 1988

  260,100

  79·4

  8,510

  73·8

  1 April 1988–31 March 1988

  276,900

  66·7

  10,880

  70·9

  1 April 1989–31 March 1990

  245,000

  63·5

  8,560

  65·6

  West Midlands

  1 April 1986–31 March 1987

  31,100

  54·2

  630

  54·7

  1 April 1987–31 March 1988

  36,300

  80·0

  920

  73·0

  1 April 1988–31 March 1989

  37,300

  69·7

  1,120

  69·0

  1 April 1989–31 March 1990

  28,900

  65·1

  840

  65·6

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details for Great Britain and for the west midlands region, for each year from April 1986 to the most recent date, of the number of YTS leavers entering part-time employment(a) in total and (b) with disabilities.

  All Leavers

  Disabled Leavers

  West Midlands

  Great Britain

  West Midlands

  Great Britain

  April 1986–March 1987

  359

  2,723

  3

  66

  April 1987–March 1988

  812

  6,050

  21

  182

  April 1988–March 1989

  849

  6,811

  26

  226

  April 1989–November 19891

  622

  4,873

  20

  171

  1 Subject to revision.

  542
  elements and do not satisfy that criterion. They are, therefore, excluded from the benefit of the relief and flights in them are thus liable to VAT at the standard rate.

  Retail Sales
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the annual rate of growth for retail sales for the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 1 May 1990]: The volume of retail sales increased by 6·9 per cent. between 1987 and 1988 and by 2·2 per cent. between 1988 and 1989. Retail sales growth has clearly slowed sharply in response to monetary policy.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide details for each YTS in the Birmingham and Solihull and Sandwell and Dudley areas, for each year from April 1986 to the most recent date, of the number of YTS trainees(a) in total and (b) with disabilities.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details for Great Britain and for the west midlands region for each year from April 1986 to the most recent date, of the total number and percentage of YTS trainees(a) who did not complete their full entitlement to YTS and (b) with disabilities who did not complete their full entitlement to YTS.

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

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of YTS leavers for Great Britain and for the west midlands region for each year from April 1986 to the most recent date entering part-time employment(a) in total and (b) with disabilities are as follows:
  543
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details for Great Britain and for the west midlands region, for each year from April 1986 to the most recent date, of the number and percentage of YTS leavers gaining a qualification(a) in total and (b) with a disability.

  All Leavers

  Disabled Leavers

  West Midlands

  Great Britain

  West Midlands

  Great Britain

  April 1986–March 1987

  1,403

  8,963

  13

  159

  11·8 per cent.

  10·9 per cent.

  6·8 per cent.

  7·5 per cent.

  April 1987–March 1988

  7,160

  49,675

  79

  790

  29·6 per cent.

  28·7 per cent.

  14·7 per cent.

  16·2 per cent.

  April 1988–March 1989

  9,980

  79,315

  133

  1,284

  40·7 per cent.

  40·6 per cent.

  22·5 per cent.

  22·6 per cent.

  April 1989–November 19891

  8,636

  70,869

  112

  1,090

  48·1 per cent.

  47·2 per cent.

  25·7 per cent.

  27·3 per cent.

  1 Subject to revision.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details for Great Britain and for the west midlands region, for each year from April 1986 to the most recent date, of the number of YTS leavers entering full-time employment(a) in total and (b) with disabilities.

  West Midlands

  Great Britain

  West Midlands

  Great Britain

  All leavers

  Disabled leavers

  April 1986–March 1987

  5,174

  37,442

  38

  473

  April 1987–March 1988

  13,976

  97,649

  154

  1,516

  April 1988–March 1989

  16,278

  123,869

  211

  1,979

  April 1989–November 19891

  11,984

  97,206

  174

  1,533

  1 Subject to revision.

  Government Training Programmes
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons on work-related Government training programmes in 1989 were nationals of other countries, showing European Community countries separately.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not available.

  Staff Qualifications
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the numbers and percentages of his staff in grades 1 to 7 who have each (a) arts, (b) science and (c) technical degrees, (d) who are qualified accountants, (e) have postgraduate qualifications in management and (f) who were educated in (i) local authority and (ii) private schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are 817 grades 1 to 7 and equivalents who hold one or more degree-level qualifications. This equates to 50 per cent. of total staff in post for these grades. A detailed breakdown by subject of qualifications held and type of education cannot be provided other than at disproportionate cost.

  Skills Training Agency
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a further statement about the sale of the Skills Training Agency.
  544
  Mr. Nicholls
  The number and percentage of YTS leavers for Great Britain and for the west midlands region for each year from April 1986 to the most recent date gaining a qualification(a) in total and (b) with a disability in Great Britain and the west midlands are as follows:

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of YTS leavers for Great Britain and for the west midlands region for each year from April 1986 to the most recent date entering full-time employment(a) in total and (b) with disabilities are as follows:

  Mr. Eggar
  The sale of the majority of the businesses to Astra Training Services Limited was completed on 30 April. As a result 42 skill centre businesses, the STA head office, mobile training service, sales teams, and colleges, and the staff employed in them, have transferred to the private sector. The sale of the gas and water safety training business at Letchworth skill centre to Mr. James was also completed on 30 April. The sales to Astra of the businesses of four other centres, and the sales to other successful bidders, are planned for completion shortly.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he is financing any expenditure in connection with the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency.

  Mr. Howard
  The full expenses will be covered by receipts from the sale. Some of the payments by the Government to training business purchasers need to be made before the arrival of receipts from the sale of assets not included in the business packages. Parliamentary approval for this new expenditure will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency (class VI, vote 5). Pending the necessary approval, urgent expenditure estimated at up to £16·324 million is being met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Employment Service
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which unemployment benefit offices and jobcentres(a) are to be closed and (b) have been closed following the announcement of the reorganisation of the employment service in December 1989.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]: The employment service, which is responsible for jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices, became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service Agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Lady.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what information he has on the number and percentage of present permanent secretaries in the civil service who were educated at(a) public schools, (b) Oxford university and (c) Cambridge university.

  Mr. Luce
  The number and percentage of present permanent secretaries in the home civil service who were educated at(a) public schools, (b) Oxford university and (c) Cambridge university are:

  Per cent.

  (a)17

  49

  (b)13

  37

  (c)9

  26

HEALTH

  Hip Replacements
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations for the insertion of an artificial hip are carried out on United Kingdom citizens in(a) National Health Service hospitals, and (b) private hospitals in England annually.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities in England reported 45,600 hip replacement operations in 1988–89.

  Information is not collected centrally on surgical operations carried out in private hospitals. However, a report "The Role of the Private Sector in Elective Surgery in England and Wales in 1986" by J. P. Nicholl, M. R. Beeby and B. T. Williams, published in the 28 January 1989 issue of the British Medical Journal, copies of which are available in the Library, showed that 7,066 total hip replacement operations were performed in private hospitals in 1986.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations his Department is(a) funding and (b) co-operating on in respect of (i) the sexual abuse of children and (ii) the ritual abuse of children.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department funds a programme of research into child sexual abuse. An interdepartmental group on child abuse meets regularly to 546
  discuss a number of cross-sector policy issues in relation to child protection. The Department also regularly meets those voluntary organisations that it funds. On the issue of ritual abuse, the Department is aware of a number of child sexual abuse networks that have been investigated by social services departments and the police. The Department arranged a meeting in November 1989 with representatives from the NSPCC, Childline, the Children's Society and the Association of Directors of Social Services. A further meeting is to be arranged. The social services inspectorate is continuing to monitor the situation in order to assess the scale and nature of child abuse networks and ritual abuse.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring arrangements he has in place to ensure that all guidelines issued to those social workers involved in cases of alleged child abuse incorporate the recommendations of the Butler-Sloss report.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Guidance issued by the Department in relation to child protection takes account of the recommendations of the Butler-Sloss report. The Department's social services inspectorate provide advice and support to local authorities, and as part of their inspection work look at practice in the light of local guidance issued to social workers.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what directives he has given to directors of social services arising from the recommendations of the report of the inquiry into child abuse in Cleveland in 1987.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Simultaneously with the publication of the report of the inquiry into child abuse in Cleveland in 1987 the Department of Health issued copies of the document "Working Together: a guide to arrangements for inter-agency co-operation for the protection of children from abuse", under cover of circular LAC(88)10/HC(88)38, copies of which are available in the Library, to statutory agencies in England with responsibilities for child protection. The Home Office and the Department of Education and Science issued complementary ciculars to the police and school service respectively. The guidance document and the circulars took account of the recommendations in the inquiry report.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from local authorities about the need for additional funding required for the purpose of training social workers involved in cases of alleged child abuse.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department's training support programme has, since 1989–90, included an element for training local authority staff who provide social services for children and their families, including staff who deal with cases of alleged child abuse. All local authority social services departments receive grant aid under the programme in response to bids made to the Department.

  Airborne Emissions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by year for the last five years, the percentage of people who have suffered health problems from airborne emissions of(a) lead, (b) carbon monoxide and (c) particulates.
  547
  Mr. Freeman
  Except for instances of massive accidental exposure or deliberate self-exposure to carbon monoxide the informaton is not available. The effects of airborne emissions of lead, carbon monoxide or particulates currently experienced cannot be isolated from many other factors unrelated to air contaminants but contributing to health problems. Concentrations of these pollutants in the air are monitored at critical sites and, in general, they fall within the limit values prescribed under EC directives or the guidelines proposed by the World Health Organisation. Where these limit values or guidelines are exceeded occasionally, the measured levels have been within the recognised safety margins.

  Recycling
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussion Ministers had with suppliers of disposable equipment for hospitals, in drawing up the guide lines for the campaign, towards a greener NHS, to assess the degree to which materials used would be recycled, or disposed of with minimum environmental damage.

  Mr. Freeman
  Departmental officials have been in touch with glass manufacturers and the Aluminium Can Recycling Association to assess the degree to which these materials, as used in hospitals, can be recycled or otherwise safely disposed of with minimum environmental damage. A review is in progress within the NHS procurement directorate on the potential costs and benefits of using recycled paper more widely in the NHS and this will involve discussions with industry representatives. A number of health authorities have also taken helpful initiatives in this area. The only safe way of disposing of much single use or otherwise disposable equipment after use in hospitals is via incineration. The Department's estates directorate is in regular touch with incinerator manufacturers to ensure that the best possible advice is always readily available to the NHS.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what facilities currently exist to test for the effects of exposure to pesticides; whether he has any plans to improve diagnostic and treatment facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Doctors have access to the whole range of NHS testing facilities to assist them in diagnosis and treatment of people who may have been exposed to pesticides. They can seek advice from national poisons units and can arrange for special tests if necessary at pathology laboratories. There are no plans to make improvements specifically to pesticide testing facilities.

  All doctors receive training in the diagnosis of acute poisoning, including that from exposure to pesticides. In addition, all general practitioners and hospital accident and emergency departments have been issued with a copy of the book "Pesticide Poisoning", a copy of which is available in the Library. This gives guidance on the diagnosis and treatment where acute poisoning from pesticides is suspected, but not on exposure to the very low levels of residues in food as these are within the accepted safety limits.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government will be in a position to respond to the Social Services Committee's follow-up report on food poisoning, listeria and listeriosis.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have today published their response to this report. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Staff Qualifications
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report the numbers and percentages of his staff in grades 1 to 7 who have each (a) arts, (b) science and (c) technical degrees, (d) who are qualified accountants, (e) have postgraduate qualifications in management and (f) who were educated in (i) local authority and (ii) private schools.

  Mr. Freeman
  Full details could be recovered from personal files only at disproportionate cost. But the records held on computer for payroll purposes indicate that some 30 per cent. (164) of those in the relevant grades have arts degrees; 16 per cent. (88) have science and 4 per cent. (21) technical degrees; and there are on these records five qualified accountants and one person with a post graduate qualification in management. Type of school is not recorded, and the reliability of payroll data in respect of qualifications is sufficient only to illustrate orders of magnitude.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what requirements for the disclosure of interests exist for members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines follow a code of practice on the declaration of interests. Details of the code and of interests declared are published with the annual report of the Medicines Commission. A copy of the 1988 report is in the Library.

  Depo-Provera
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the number of women receiving Depo-Provera injections in each of the district health areas of west Yorkshire in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may like to contact Sir Bryan Askew, chairman of Yorkshire regional health authority for further information.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are issued to district health authorities with regard to the administration of Depo-Provera to women who have recently given birth.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information about the use of Depo-Provera is set out in full in a product data sheet supplied to all doctors. The data sheet states that because of the risk of heavy or prolonged bleeding in some women, the drug should be used with caution in the puerperium
  549
  and that if the puerperal woman will be breast feeding, the initial injection of Depo-Provera should be delayed until six weeks post-partum.

  Guidance about Depo-Provera is also contained in the "British National Formulary" which is published by the British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and issued twice yearly to all practising doctors.

TRANSPORT

  Heavy Lorries
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) reviews his Department is carrying out and (b) legislation he is planning to introduce to reduce environmental pollution from heavy lorries with particular reference to (i) minor and (ii) unclassified roads.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on 7 February at columns 653–54. Local highway authorities already have wide-ranging powers in respect of heavy lorries using unsuitable roads.

  Shipping
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the proportion of exports from and imports to the United Kingdom, excluding ferry operations, carried in British registered ships; and what approximate proportion of ships engaged in ferry services to and from the continent are registered in United Kingdom ports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information is not available in the form requested. However the table shows, for 1989, the percentage, by value and by weight, of imports and exports carried in United Kingdom-registered vessels, distinguishing separately trade with Eurpean countries:

  Percentage of trade carried in United Kingdom registered vessels: 1989

  European Countries

  Rest of World

  Total

  By weight

  Imports

  21

  20

  21

  Exports

  26

  9

  21

  By value

  Imports

  40

  18

  34

  Exports

  44

  20

  37

  Information on the proportion of ships engaged in ferry services to and from the continent that are United Kingdom registered vessels is not available.

  Imports and Exports
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the approximate cost in sterling and other currencies, respectively, of carrying imports and exports of the United Kingdom in the years 1979 and 1989 at actual and weighted prices, together with the percentage of cost in sterling for both years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The actual costs of carrying imports to the United Kingdom in 1979 and 1989 were £2,349 550
  million and £2,992 million respectively. No information is available for the carriage of United Kingdom exports. In 1979 freight costs accounted for 5 per cent. of the value of goods imported as declared to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. In 1989 the percentage was 2·5 per cent.

  London Traffic Director
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to appoint the traffic co-ordinator for London; what will be his powers and terms of reference; what size of secretariat he will control; and where it will be located.

  Mr. Atkins
  The role of the Traffic Director was outlined in paras 7.34–7.38 of "Traffic in London" published following my right hon. Friend's statement on 14 December last. We shall be consulting the organisations concerned shortiy on proposals for legislation. The appointment will depend on the timing of legislation. The director will have a small staff, but its size and location have not yet been decided.

  Staff Qualifications
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will publish in the Official Report the numbers and percentages of his staff in grades 1 to 7 who have (a) arts, (b) science and (c) technical degrees, (d) who are qualified accountants, (e) have postgraduate qualifications in management and (f) who were educated in (i) local authority and (ii) private schools.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information available from our computerised staff record is as follows:

  (a), (b), (c)

  115 staff in my Department in grades 1 to 7 have an arts degree, representing 12 per cent. of the total in these grades.

  334 staff in these grades have a science or technical degree, representing 36 per cent. of the total.

  (d) Nine staff in these grades are qualified accountants, 1 per cent. of the total.

  (e) No staff in these grades have postgraduate qualifications in management.

  (f) Information about types of school is not available.

  King's Cross
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications of the contractual agreement between British Rail and the developers of the King's Cross site for national transport requirements.

  Mr. Parkinson
  In its discussions about the development of the King's Cross railway lands, British Rail has sought to preserve the option of desirable improvements to the national and local rail systems.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report a list of the blood-alcohol limits enforced on drivers in each country of Europe, including eastern Europe.

  Mr. Atkins
  The most recent list of which we are aware relates to 1985. It is as follows:
  551

  Blood-alcohol limits

  Austria

  80

  Belgium

  80

  Bulgaria

  0

  Czechoslovakia

  0

  Denmark

  80

  Finland

  50

  France

  80

  East Germany

  0

  Greece

  50

  Hungary

  0

  Iceland

  50

  Ireland

  120

  now 100

  Italy

  not set

  now 80

  Luxembourg

  80

  Netherlands

  50

  Norway

  50

  Poland

  25

  Portugal

  not set

  now 50

  Rumania

  0

  Sweden

  50

  Switzerland

  80

  Spain

  80

  United Kingdom

  80

  West Germany

  50

PRIME MINISTER

  Flooding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will receive a deputation from Clwyd county council concerning the impact upon people's property of the north Wales sea inundation;

  (2) what plans she has to visit houses flooded by the sea inundation in March on the north Wales coast; and if she will make a statement;

  (3) if she proposes to meet business men whose premises were flooded by the sea inundation in March on the north Wales coast.

  The Prime Minister
  As I told the hon. Member on 5 April at columns 735–36, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has already visited the area as has the Minister of State. Both Ministers and officials have held meetings with the local authorities most involved. These contacts continue and on 30 April the Secretary of State was able to announce that the Bellwin scheme at the rate of 85 per cent. would be extended to 31 July and that he would be ready to consider a further extension to the scheme in the light of circumstances nearer that date. I know that this continued close contact is the right approach to ensuring that the area returns to normal as soon as possible.

  Armed Forces (Medical and Dental Officers)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement about the pay of medical and dental officers in the armed forces.

  The Prime Minister
  The armed forces pay review body has submitted to me a supplementary report on the pay of medical and dental officers in the armed forces which recommends increases of between 6 and 10·7 per cent. The Government have decided to accept the recommendations in full, though, in common with the pay awards announced for other review body groups in February,552
  implementation will be staged, with 7 per cent. payable from 1 April 1990 and the balance of the award payable from 1 January 1991.

ENERGY

  Local Authorities (Energy Production)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the local authorities that are actively producing energy from waste materials and show for each local authority from what source the material comes.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department is aware of the following:

  Energy from the combustion of municipal solid waste (MSW)

  North London waste disposal authority

  Coventry city council

  Nottinghamshire county council

  Sheffield city council

  Energy from land-fill gas

  East London waste disposal authority

  Merseyside waste disposal authority

  Warwickshire county council

  Lancashire county council

  Cheshire county council

  Production of refuse derived fuel from MSW

  Isle of Wight county council

  East Sussex county council

  Birmingham city council

  Newcastle city council

  Glasgow city council

  Offshore Oil Installations
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is considering any further proposals to enhance safety on offshore oil installations in advance of the report by Lord Cullen into the Piper Alpha disaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  We are continuously looking to improve offshore safety standards. Regulations requiring emergency shutdown valves on offshore installations were introduced in June 1989, as were regulations requiring the election of offshore safety representatives and safety committees. Regulations relating to revised arrangements for first aid offshore were made in September 1989.Further regulations relating to sub-sea isolation systems are being prepared. Discussion documents have been issued detailing proposals for a review of the requirements for life-saving appliances, work permit procedures and fire and explosion protection on offshore installations, together with proposals requiring formal safety assessments to be applied as a continuous process at all stages of an installation's life cycle. In addition, a number of safety notices have been issued drawing the attention of the industry to specific areas of concern. The Government have made it clear that any improvements to safety recommended by the Piper Alpha public inquiry will be acted upon.

  Staff Qualifications
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish in the Official Report the numbers and percentages of his staff in grades 1 to 7 who have each (a) arts, (b) science and (c) technical degrees, (d) who

  553
  are qualified accountants, (e) have postgraduate qualifications in management and (f) who were educated in (i) local authority and (ii) private schools.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I regret the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Gas Imports
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what new imports of gas have been agreed within the last 12 months.

  Mr. Wakeham
  None. If a purchaser wished to construct a marine pipeline to carry imports, consent would be required under the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-Lines Act 1975 and a treaty would have to be negotiated with the country from whose territory the pipeline crossed to the United Kingdom. In the case of the pipeline from the Frigg field, which is now in rapid decline, a new treaty or amendment of the existing treaty would be required to govern any new uses of the line. British Gas plc gave an undertakkng in 1986 that it would consult the Government regarding any import plans as these develop. In considering any import proposals, we shall weigh carefully the availability of competitive UKCS gas supplies and the market opportunities open.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fair Employment
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when a formal hearing will be held by the Fair Employment Commission into a complaint made by Mr. T. Barker in November 1988 against Sean Quinn Quarries Ltd., Derrylin.

  Mr. Needham
  Investigations into an individual complaint of discrimination under the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1976 are governed by schedule 5 to that Act. The investigation must be conducted in private and it is, therefore, not the commission's policy to confirm that a complaint has been made.

  Water Service Properties
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) whether valuations have been completed in respect of residences occupied by employees of the Department of the Environment (NI) water service; and when occupiers will be offered the opportunity to purchase their homes;

  (2) whether all tenants of Department of the Environment (NI) water service homes will have a right to purchase;

  (3) what progress has been made to date in the valuation of Department of the Environment (NI) water service tenanted residential properties in the (a) Northern division, (b) Southern division, (c) Eastern division and (d) Western division.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  All water service dwellings are being considered for possible disposal. The first group to be offered for sale comprises 35 dwellings, 31 of which have been valued, 10 being in Northern division, nine in Southern division, 11 in Eastern division and one in Western division. The occupants will shortly be offered the opportunity to purchase the dwellings in which they live.

  Metric Measures (Spirits)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whom he will consult before he publishes his draft amending legislation on metric measures for spirits; and how long the consultation period will last.

  Mr. Needham
  As required by article 48(2) of the Weights and Measures (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 the Department of Economic Development will again consult with interested organisations, including those listed in my reply of 9 March, at columns 863–64 before making any order.

  The period of consultation is normally between four and six weeks from publication of the proposal for the draft amending legislation.

  Farm Dwellings
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in how many cases in 1988 where application for planning approval was made for an additional farm dwelling evidence was sought from the Department of Agriculture as to the viability of a farm unit and the need for a farm labourer's dwelling.

  Mr. Needham
  It is the policy of the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland to consult the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland on applications for planning permission for farm dwellings in areas where such permission is granted only when a need to live in the countryside can be demonstrated. Consultations with that Department are carried out occasionally on applications affecting sites in other areas. Information on the number of cases is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many planning approvals have been given for the building of dwellings for farm labourers in each of the last 10 years; what is the average size of such dwellings and the number of rooms provided; and how many are currently occupied by farm labourers.

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

  Language Courses
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will consider funding towards the cost of providing opportunities for secondary school children who are in attendance at grant-aided schools to improve their knowledge of French, German or Spanish by attendance at specially designed residential language courses.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  As part of its response to the challenge of 1992, the Government wish to encourage greater competence in a wider range of languages among pupils in Northern Ireland. The Department of Education for Northern Ireland has invited education and library boards to put forward proposals for support for programmes of European awareness drawn up by them. The enhancement of foreign language skills by various means, including residential courses provided by boards could form an appropriate part of such programmes.

  Employment and Training Schemes
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the number of approved and filled action for community employment projects in each year

  District councils

  Other public bodies

  Voluntary bodies

  Private sector

  Totals

  March 1986

  Approved

  70

  104

  1,044

  4

  1,222

  Filled

  61

  91

  971

  4

  1,127

  March 1987

  Approved

  48

  54

  540

  1

  643

  Filled

  48

  52

  540

  1

  641

  March 1988

  Approved

  15

  4

  359

  —

  378

  Filled

  15

  4

  359

  —

  378

  March 1989

  Approved

  16

  4

  345

  —

  365

  Filled

  16

  4

  345

  —

  365

  March 1990

  Approved

  16

  3

  315

  —

  334

  Filled

  16

  3

  315

  —

  334

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the flexibilities recently introduced to apply to youth training in Great Britain will be extended to the youth training programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The new flexibilities which are being introduced into youth training in Great Britain and which will be applied to the youth training programme (YTP) in Northern Ireland are:

  a. an emphasis on outputs rather than training processes;

  b. flexible design of individual schemes to achieve outputs;

  c. all YTP entrants will have the opportunity to train for a national vocational qualification and the targets for level 2 and above are being increased over the next three years;

  d. improved assessment and endorsement procedures for special training needs;

  e. enhanced training opportunities to help unemployed trainees nearing the end of training to secure jobs;

  f. extension of the guarantee to include certain groups whose entry into training has been unavoidably delayed.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the destinations of people leaving action for community employment and the job training programme; how many leavers got jobs, became unemployed or went on to further training, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  A recent survey showed that three months after leaving the action for community employment programme, 32·1 per cent. of participants had obtained jobs, 58·8 per cent. were unemployed and 0·2 per cent. were receiving further training. The most recent survey information available for the job training programme (JTP) reveals that between May and July 1989 a total of 52 per cent. of participants leaving JTP did not return to the unemployment register, with the destination of 48 per cent. not determined. For the period August to October 1989, a total of 47 per cent. of participants leaving JTP did not return to the unemployment register, with the destination of 53 per cent. not determined.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the eligibility conditions that a person has
  556
  since 1986, and how they have been distributed between (a) district councils; (b) other public bodies; (c) voluntary bodies and (d) the private sector.

  Mr. Needham
  Details of approved and filled ACE projects 1986–1990 are as follows:

  to satisfy if they are to take up a job or training place on (a) action for community employment, (b) job training programme, (c) youth training programme and (d) enterprise allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The eligibility conditions that a person has to satisfy if they are to take up a job or training are as follows:—

  (a) Action For Community Employment

  Applicants must meet three conditions:—

  (1) be at least 18 and under 64 years of age;

  (2) have been unemployed without a break for at least three months immediately before starting on ACE protect;

  (3) have been unemployed for at least 12 months out of the last 15 months.

  There are exceptions to condition (3) in the case of disabled people, young people who have recently been on the youth training programme and adults who have recently been on the job training programme.

  Unemployed 18 to 24-year-olds who are in receipt of unemployment benefit or income support need be unemployed for only six months in order to qualify.

  (b) Job Training Programme

  Adults between the ages of 18 and 60 who have been continuously registered as unemployed or who have been in receipt of invalidity benefit, sickness benefit or severe disablement allowance for at least six months are eligible for the Programme. Periods spent in prison on a custodial sentence or on remand may be counted in satisfying the six month qualification period. Certain other groups who have not been registered as unemployed are also eligible. These special groups include disabled people, ex-service personnel and lone parents whose youngest dependant child is in statutory full-time education and who have been in receipt of income support on an order book for at least 26 weeks.

  (c) Youth Training Programme

  Young people, whether employed or unemployed are eligible to join YTP at any time between the date on which they are first entitled to leave full-time education and their

  557
  18th birthday. Young people with disabilities are eligible to join the programme at any time between their minimum school leaving date and their 22nd birthday.

  (d) Enterprise Allowance Scheme.

  Applicants must meet eight conditions:—

  (1) they must be receiving unemployment benefit or income support in lieu of unemployment benefit (either personally or through their spouse) on the date of their completed application;

  (2) they must have been unemployed and actively seeking work for at least eight weeks prior to the receipt of their application. (Time spent under formal notice of redundancy, or Department of Economic Development training-rehabilitation schemes or in part-time employment for up to eight hours per week will count towards this eight-week period);

  (3) they must be aged 18 (or over) but under state pension age;

  (4) they must be able to show that they have at least £1,000 available to invest in the business during the first 12 months. (This can be in the form of personal savings, loan or overdraft);

  (5) they must agree to work full-time (at least 36 hours per week) in the business;

  (6) their proposed business must be approved by the Department of Economic Development;

  (7) they must not have participated in the enterprise allowance scheme within the 12 months prior to any second application;

  (8) they must have participated in approved enterprise training prior to making their application.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the destination of youth training programme leavers for each year since 1986–87; and of those who found employment, how many were with the employer who provided their training.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  YTP leavers whose destination is known

  To employment

  Percentage of total

  1986–87

  10,271

  5,686

  55

  1987–88

  10,509

  5,787

  55

  1988–89

  10,232

  6,428

  63

  1989–90

  10,914

  6,767

  62

  No figures are available for YTP leavers who found employment with the employer who provided their training.

  Full time education

  Percentage of total

  Unemployed

  Percentage of total

  1986–87

  430

  4

  4,155

  41

  1987–88

  503

  5

  4,129

  40

  1988–89

  460

  5

  3,334

  33

  1989–90

  649

  6

  3,498

  32

  No figures are available for YTP leavers who found employment with the employer who provided their training.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many unemployed claimants have, since 9 October 1989,(a) been issued with warning letters for not actively seeking work, (b) had their claims referred to an adjudication officer for not actually seeking work, (c) had their claims allowed or disallowed and (d) been referred to an adjudication officer for refusing suitable employment; how many of those in (d) have had their benefits disqualified; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Up to 9 April 1990, just over 5,000 unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland were interviewed specifically about their efforts to find work. As a558
  result, 67 claims were referred to the adjudication officer and of these 25 were allowed and 42 disallowed. In addition, a further five claims were referred to the adjudication officer on grounds of refusing employment and of these two were disallowed. Given the difference in administrative arrangements as compared with those in Great Britain, the actively seeking work condition has been introduced in Northern Ireland in a sensible and sensitive manner.

  Upper Bann
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to visit the constituency of Upper Bann before 17 May.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 27 April 1990]: It is not the custom to give details of ministerial programmes in advance.

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the number of road fatalities since 1 October 1989 and for each year from 1980 to 1990.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]: Royal Ulster Constabulary road traffic accident statistics show the following figures:

  Month and year

  Fatalities

  October 1989

  13

  November 1989

  12

  December 1989

  15

  January 1990

  18

  February 1990

  21

  March 1990

  121

  April 1990

  81

  1980

  229

  1981

  223

  1982

  216

  1983

  173

  1984

  189

  1985

  177

  1986

  236

  1987

  214

  1988

  178

  1989

  181

  1 Provisional.

  Since the road casualty reduction campaign started on 1 November, the preliminary provincial number of deaths is 13 per cent. down on the same six months over the previous two years.

  Exports
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development unit are taking to monitor the export performance of their client companies.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 1 May 1990]: Companies in receipt of assistance from the Industrial Development Board (IDB) and the Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU) are required to submit annual accounts as a condition of this assistance. These accounts assist the agencies to monitor the performance of these

  559
  companies including their overall sales performance both domestic and export. Both agencies are currently in the process of introducing new computing systems which will further facilitate the monitoring process.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for community charge benefit have been received from individuals qualifying under the new capital limits.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Arrangements have been made for the information to be collected by the housing benefit and community charge benefit management information system. The information will not be available until early 1991.

  Benefits (Application Forms)
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to review or alter the provision of application forms for(a) family credit and (b) other Department of Social Services benefits at post offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are no plans to alter the provision of the family credit application form, FC1, at post offices. FC1 is the only application form available at post offices.

  The facilities offered by the Post Office are used to display leaflets which inform about the whole range of benefits available and advise how claims can be made. The eight leaflets currently displayed include FB2, "Which Benefit?", a general guide to benefits, as well as those concerned with community charge benefit, housing benefit and income support. The leaflet about the new capital limits will shortly be on display.

  The leaflets and posters displayed are regularly reviewed to ensure best use of the facilities offered to inform the public.

  Disability
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) in the latest year for which figures are available how many people previously in receipt of severe disablement allowance had their entitlement to that benefit reassessed following the completion of a YTS;

  (2) in the latest year for which figures are available how many people previously in receipt of severe disablement allowance have had their entitlement to that benefit reassessed having left a YTS before completing the course.

  Mr. Scott
  A record is not kept of the number of previous recipients of severe disablement allowance who claim the benefit again after leaving a YTS.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) in the latest year for which figures are available how many people previously in receipt of severe disablement allowance lost their entitlement to that benefit having completed a YTS;

  (2) in the latest year for which figures are available how many people previously in receipt of severe disablement allowance lost their entitlement to that benefit having left a YTS before completing the course.
  560
  Mr. Scott
  This information is not available. Trainees who were receiving severe disablement allowance immediately before starting YTS can have it reinstated as a linked claim when they leave the course if they are incapable of work and make the fresh claim within eight weeks of leaving the YTS.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) in the latest year for which figures are available how many people previously in receipt of severe disablement allowance had their entitlement to that benefit reassessed following a short period of employment;

  (2) in the latest year for which figures are available how many people previously in receipt of severe disablement allowance lost their entitlement to that benefit as a result of a reassessment following a short period of employment.

  Mr. Scott
  This information is not available. If a break in entitlement to severe disablement allowance lasts no longer than eight weeks, benefit can be reinstated as a linked claim if the person again becomes incapable of work.

  EC Pensions
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the value, converted into £ sterling, of the basic pension per age paid in each European Community country, including any relevant major supplements.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Department's publication "Tables of Social Benefit Systems in the European Communities (Position at 1 January 1989)," a copy of which is in the Library. These tables set out the level of pension in the national currencies together with the sterling equivalent converted according to the OECD's purchasing power parity figures as explained in the introduction to the tables.

  War Widows
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the steps that have been taken by his Department to assist war widows since May 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government have honoured their pledge to maintain the value of war widows pensions. Since 1979 these pensions have been uprated annually in line with the retail prices index. In 1979 the basic pension was £30·20 a week. It is now £60·95.

  In 1979 the Government freed war widows pensions from income tax.

  In 1984 the Government introduced a new tier of age allowance for war widows aged 80 or over. Age allowances are paid in addition to the basic war widows pension. These age allowances were increased by more than the retail prices index in April 1990; from £6.10 to £7.00 a week for war widows aged 65–69, from £12.20 to £13.50 a week for those aged 70–79 and from £15.30 to £20.00 a week for those 80 or over.

  In 1987 the Government significantly improved the help with funeral costs for war pensioners whose death was due to service.

  In 1988 the Government increased from £4 to £5 a week the amount of war widows pension which is disregarded for the assessment of entitlement to income related benefits. From April 1990 the disregard was further

  561
  increased to £10 a week and arrangements were also made to disregard completely the new special payments of £40 a week to pre-1973 war widows.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of cases settled under the criminal injuries compensation scheme in the calendar years 1987, 1988 and 1989 together with the average length of time taken to settle such cases; if he will provide a separate similar analysis for cases involving police staff and pensioners settled in those years; and if he will give similar figures for the Northern region.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of applications resolved by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in the calendar years 1987, 1988 and 1989 were 26,619, 38,016 and 38,484 respectively. Information about the average time taken to resolve applications is not available in the form requested, but the percentage of cases submitted to a single member of the board within certain periods from registration is shown in paragraph 6.1 of the board's 25th annual report (Cm. 900), a copy of which is in the Library. The relevant figures are:

  Year ended 31 March

  1989

  1988

  1987

  (per cent.)

  (per cent.)

  (per cent.)

  Up to 3 months

  1·0

  1·5

  1·5

  3 to 6 months

  2·1

  2·6

  5·1

  6 to 9 months

  4·8

  6·7

  16·4

  9 to 12 months

  19·0

  20·0

  26·8

  Over 12 months

  73·1

  69·2

  50·2

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  The board does not keep separate statistics for applications from police and pensioners; nor are records maintained for separate regions.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what directive he has given to police forces arising from the recommendations of the report of the inquiry into child abuse in Cleveland in 1987.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Two circulars of guidance to the police have been issued to date. Home Office circular 52/1988, which was issued to coincide with the publication of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss's report into child sexual abuse in Cleveland, establishes the principle that the needs of the child should come first and recommends the joint interviewing of alleged child victims by police officers, social workers and, where necessary, doctors; interviewing in comfortable surroundings; and the video-recording of interviews with child victims.

  Home Office circular 67/1989 gives guidance to chief officers about specialist training for police officers who take part in joint interviews with social workers of alleged child victims.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what training is being made 562
  available to the police to enable the video taping of first disclosures by allegedly abused children for presentation in court;

  (2) what training is being made available to police surgeons in the physical examination of children suspected of being the victims of sexual abuse.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for training rests with the chief officer of the force concerned. Home Office circular 67/1989, which gives guidance about the content of joint training courses for police officers and social workers responsible for investigating child sexual abuse, lists training in the video-recording of interviews as one of the essential components of a training course. There is no specific guidance about training for police surgeons.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional funds he has made available to police forces to enable the early implementation of the recommendations of the report of the inquiry into child abuse in Cleveland in 1987.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Chief officers have not sought additional funds specifically to deal with child abuse. It is up to them to decide on operational priorities and to allocate funds accordingly. Total police expenditure since the publication of the Cleveland report has risen from £3,643 million in 1988–89 to a projected £4,384 million in 1990–91.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines on sentencing he gives to magistrates about drink-drive offences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Sentencing is a matter for the courts within their overall powers as laid down by legislation and in accordance with the guidance given by the Court of Appeal. I understand that the Magistrates Association is revising the guidelines on road traffic sentencing that it issues to its members.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the British Government's response to the decision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the case involving the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and Ms. Patricia Hewitt.

  Mr. Waddington
  The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has yet to adopt a resolution in this case. Until it does so, its decision remains confidential and I am unable to comment.

  Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the report of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The advisory council's report "Problem Drug Use: A Review of Training" was published today. Copies have been placed in the Library. The Government welcome this report and are grateful to the council for its
  563
  comprehensive study of training. If the Government's strategy for tackling drug misuse is to have the most impact, it is clearly important that all those whose work brings them into contact with problem drug users are properly trained. The training needs of teachers and others involved in prevention programmes must also be considered. The threat of the transmission of HIV infection, which gives rise to AIDS, through the sharing of injecting equipment, highlights the importance of ensuring that all who deal with the treatment or prevention of drug misuse have developed the right skills to deal with the problems.

  The council's recommendations are directed at central and local government, health authorities, academic and professional bodies, the police and probation services and other health agencies including non-statutory drug services. The report will, therefore, be widely distributed. The Government will be responding to the report when it has had an opportunity to consider the recommendations fully.

  Teletext
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters and other representations he has received concerning the continued provision of a teletext service.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received a considerable number of representations on this subject. As my hon. Friend will be aware, I announced on 15 March that we intend to amend the Broadcasting Bill to guarantee the continuation of a commercial teletext service.

  Green Goddess Vehicles (Maintenance)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of his Department's staff are involved in monitoring and checking the quality of servicing and maintenance carried out by TNT on Green Goddess vehicles;

  (2) how many quality assurance and budgetary officers have been recruited to supervise the servicing and maintenance of the Green Goddess fleet by TNT;

  (3) if he is satisfied with the quality and level of servicing and maintenance presently being carried out by TNT on the Green Goddess fleet.

  Mr. John Patten
  Arrangements are currently in hand for recruiting two quality assurance and budgetary officers. In the meantime, the servicing and maintenance of the Green Goddess fleet by TNT is being overseen by a Home Office official on site to ensure that the work is being carried out to an acceptable level.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is(a) the current cost of the TNT contract for servicing the Green Goddess fire appliances and (b) the original agreed contract price;

  (2) what is the value of contracts entered into by his Department with (a) TNT plc and (b) C. Walton Ltd. of Bruntingthorpe airfield.

  Mr. John Patten
  Formal contracts are still under negotiation and it is unlikely that they will be signed until planning permission has been received for the construction of a purpose-built storage facility at Bruntingthorpe airfield. In the meantime, interim arrangements entered 564
  into with TNT plc and C. Walton Ltd. for storing and servicing the Green Goddess fire appliances have been given effect through restricted instructions which are limited in both time and value. The details of these arrangements must, necessarily, remain commercially confidential.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long he intends to retain the present level of servicing and maintenance of the fleet of emergency fire service vehicles and equipment.

  Mr. John Patten
  The current level for servicing and maintaining the fleet of emergency fire service vehicles and equipment will continue for as long as is considered necessary. The proposed contract, which will ensure the maintenance of the fleet to current in-house standards, will be for an initial period of five years with an option for a further period of five years to run consecutively.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the in-house tender price for the contract to service the Green Goddess fire appliance fleet.

  Mr. John Patten
  In accordance with Treasury guidelines the in-house organisation did not tender for the contract to service the Green Goddess fire appliance fleet, but provided estimates of costs and service levels as the base line against which the commercial tenders were to be compared and contrasted.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the extra cost in building, land and plant incurred by his Department as a result of putting the servicing of Green Goddess fire appliances out to private tender;

  (2) what extra facilities his Department is supplying in terms of land, buildings and plant to TNT to enable it to carry out the servicing of the Green Goddess fire appliance fleet.

  Mr. John Patten
  Under the proposed contracts for servicing the Green Goddess fire appliances all necessary buildings and land are to be supplied by the contractors. Minor items of plant, which formed part of the Green Goddess fleet and were used to service the appliances, have been made available to TNT.

  Drugs
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department following the introduction of confiscation of assets following conviction of drug offences, what is the total amount so far confiscated, and what this money has been used for.

  Mr. John Patten
  The latest figures, which are in respect of confiscation orders made in 1987 and 1988, are given in table 7.25 of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales, 1988," a copy of which is in the Library. These show that over £9 million were ordered to be confiscated in those two years. The current estimate by the national drugs intelligence unit of the cumulative total of confiscation orders made since the Drug Trafficking Offences Act came into force in January 1987 is in excess of £16 million.

  Under present public accounting arrangements confiscated money is treated in the same way as fine revenue, and paid directly into the Consolidated Fund from which

  565
  Government expenditure generally—including substantial support for drug-related work—is financed. Ministers are considering the detailed arrangements whereby a proportion of the sums confiscated from drug traffickers as a result of international agreements might be used directly to strengthen the United Kingdom's enforcement and other efforts to curb drug misuse.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the costs of national emergency planning provision in Great Britain; and what information he has on comparable costs in(a) France, (b) Germany, (c) Italy, (d) Holland, (e) Belgium and (f) Denmark;

  (2) what is the total annual cost of national emergency planning in Great Britain excluding provision for military nuclear disaster;

  (3) what is the total annual cost of national emergency planning provision in Great Britain;

  (4) what are the costs per head of population of national emergency planning provision in the United Kingdom; and what information he has on comparable costs per head of population in other EEC states.

  Mr. John Patten
  Expenditure on civil preparedness in the United Kingdom in 1990–91 is estimated at £128,837,000. No figure for total expenditure by central and local Government on emergencies in peacetime is available. Nor are comparable figures for other EC countries.

  Assuming a population of 57 million, the cost per head of the civil preparedness programme in 1990–91 is estimated as £2·26.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the total cost of emergency planning in the Greater London area excluding provision for military nuclear disaster;

  (2) what is the total cost of emergency planning provision in the Greater London area.

  Mr. John Patten
  Civil Defence approved expenditure for the London fire and civil defence authority in the financial year 1990–91 is £2·45 million. Planning for all emergencies in peacetime may be carried out by London boroughs at their own discretion under section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the percentage of black police officers currently serving in British police forces.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The most recent figures relate to January 1990 when 1,312 officers from ethnic minority communities were serving in police forces in England and Wales. This represents 1·04 per cent. of total strength compared, for example, to 273 officers or 0·24 per cent. of total strength in March 1980.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of probation officers are black.

  Mr. John Patten
  The results of a survey of probation officers carried out on 31 December 1987 were as follows:
  566

  Per cent.

  White

  83·7

  Afro-Caribbean

  1·0

  Asian

  0·4

  Other Black

  0·6

  Not recorded

  14·4

  100

  The proportion of ethnic minority recruits to the service is higher than the proportion in post: 13 per cent. of those sponsored by the Home Office in 1988 and 1989 to train as probation officers were from ethnic minority groups. We propose to introduce routine ethnic monitoring of all probation staff and caseloads shortly.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Equal Opportunities Commission letter suggesting amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act was received; and when he intends to reply to it.

  Mr. John Patten
  The EOC's formal proposals for amending the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 were received in March 1988. The Government are considering the commission's proposals, but we shall not be in a position to reply until we have been able to consider the results of the commission's review of the Equal Pay Act 1970 which we await in due course.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what would the increase in the grant in aid to the Equal Opportunities Commission over the last six years have needed to be to have kept in line with inflation.

  Mr. John Patten
  The table sets out the information requested for the last six years and also gives details of the grant in aid the Equal Opportunities Commission will receive in 1990–91, subject to approval by Parliament.

  Year

  Equal opportunities commission's grain-in-aid

  Increase in EOC's grant-in-aid over the previous year

  Increase needed to keep pace with inflation1

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  1984–85

  3,387,000

  219,000

  157,450

  1985–86

  3,434,000

  47,000

  181,543

  1986–87

  3,538,000

  104,000

  116,756

  1987–88

  3,716,000

  178,000

  189,637

  1988–89

  3,810,000

  94,000

  264,580

  1989–90

  3,894,000

  84,000

  247,650

  1990–912

  4,579,000

  685,000

  253,110

  1 Calculated using the GDP inflators.

  2 Subject to approval by Parliament.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many lawyers the law and enforcement divisions of the Equal Opportunities Commission have.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Equal Opportunities Commission has four lawyers who provide a service to the commission as a whole.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers the Equal Opportunities Commission has to take cases to court directly; and how many they took last year.
  567
  Mr. John Patten
  The Equal Opportunities Commission has powers to take cases to court directly under sections 71, 72 and 73 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. In addition the commission is recognised as having locus to seek judicial review through its duty to work towards the elimination of discrimination.

  In the 12 months from January to December 1989 the commission took proceedings in three cases under section 73 and one under section 72. It also applied for judicial review in one case.

  International Crime Survey
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the telephone survey undertaken by his Department into crime levels in 14 countries; and if he will make a statement on the benefit which has been obtained from this survey.

  Mr. John Patten
  The cost to the Home Office of taking part in the international telephone survey in which 14 countries took part was about £33,000, of which one-third was for staff resources from the research and planning unit. Each country paid their own contribution to the survey.

  The benefit of the survey is that it gives a comparable measure of the level of a number of offences across different countries—a measure which is independent of offences recorded by the police. It also offers information on other topics such as fear of crime, crime prevention habits, opinions about the police, and attitudes to sentencing.

  Cocaine and Crack
  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of seizures of cocaine, in the most recent years for which figures are available, was of cocaine entering the United Kingdom from member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of seizures of cocaine, in the most recent years for which figures are available, was of cocaine entering the United Kingdom from member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Mellor
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 January 1990, c. 868–69]: I regret that incorrect information was provided for the percentage of seizures of cocaine by Customs in 1988 which were known to have originated from or arrived in the United Kingdom via other EC countries. The correct figures for that year are 31·5 per cent. by numbers of seizures (35·8 per cent. by weight), corresponding to 102 kg.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Serjeant at Arms Department
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how many of the Officers of the House employed in the Serjeant at Arms Department are women; what measures are in hand to increase these numbers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beith
  The only Officers of the House in the Serjeant at Arms Department are the Serjeant at Arms, the 568
  Deputy Serjeant at Arms, the Assistant Serjeant at Arms, and the two Deputy Assistant Serjeant at Arms, all of whom are men. The House of Commons Commission is, however, an equal opportunities employer and women are encouraged to apply for vacancies when they occur, on the same basis as men.

WALES

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any proposals to reduce the level of the poll tax in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The community charge is set by local authorities and not by the Government. The generous revenue settlement I provided for 1990–91 gave councils a realistic opportunity to budget for an average charge of £173. They chose instead to budget for expenditure increases which have resulted in an average charge of £232. Community charge payers, and particularly those on low and fixed incomes will expect local authorities in 1991–92 to budget in line with my plans and to achieve community charge levels commensurate with those plans.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what plans he has to introduce new legislation concerning the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Government will review the operation of the community charge system. It is too early to say what changes might be made or whether legislation will be needed.

  Afforestation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what area was approved for afforestation by(a) coniferous planting and (b) broadleaved planting for each county of Wales for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Manor Lane Industrial Estate
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to visit residents in Manor lane, Hawarden, to discuss plans concerning changes in the Manor lane industrial estate.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to increase consular and commercial representation in eastern Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 5 March 1990 to a question on the same subject.

  Since then, an additional three commercial posts have been created at embassies in eastern Europe. Consular and visa staffing levels are being monitored continuously. Reinforcement will be provided where necessary.

  Staff Qualifications
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report the numbers and percentages of his staff in grades 1 to 7 who have each(a) arts, (b) science and (c) technical degrees, (d) who are qualified accountants, (e) have post graduate qualifications in management and (f) who were educated in (i) local authority and (ii) private schools.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Paul Ashwell
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations are being made to the Greek authorities regarding the detention of Mr. Paul Ashwell.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have made a number of representations to the Greek authorities on Mr. Ashwell's behalf. The Prime Minister spoke to the Greek Prime Minister about this in Dublin on 28 April. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Athens has an appointment to see the Greek Minister of Justice on 2 May 1990. We shall continue to follow the case closely and keep under review the possibility of making further representations.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Maude
  The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 7 and 8 May. The Council will discuss follow up to the special meeting of the European Council in Dublin on 28 April, and prepare for the meeting which member states will hold later in May with the European Parliament on the IGC. The Commission is expected to present views on the institutional aspects of EMU. The Council will discuss the Commission's communication on audiovisual policy, and their proposal for measures to encourage the development of the audiovisual industries (MEDIA) 1990–95. Ministers will discuss a draft negotiating mandate for a trade and co-operation agreement with Romania, and the Tempus programme for eastern Europe and the European training foundation both called for by the Strasbourg European Council. Ministers will also discuss visas for East and Central Europe, and may receive a Commission Statement on Asia and Latin America. Ministers may also discuss preparations for the negotiations with EFTA on a comprehensive EC/EFTA agreement to complete the European Economic Space. The Council will endorse the Community's position for the thirteenth meeting of the EC/Cyprus Association Council, which will take place in the margins. Also in the margins, Ministers will sign trade and cooperation agreements with Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and the GDR.

  At the Internal Market Council on 14–15 May Ministers will discuss a number of measures relevant to completion of the single market, including the motor vehicle insurance directive, computer software, European company statute, pharmaceutical patents and the Third Motor Vehicle Liability Directive which contains further
  570
  provisions on the level and content of compulsory insurance cover and on procedures for claiming from member states guarantee funds. Barriers to takeovers may also be discussed.

  The Health Council will meet on 17 May. Ministers will consider maximum tar yields, the implementation of the Cancer programme and advertising of tobacco products. The Council will also discuss youth and health issues, the fight against AIDS and the use of medicinal products.

  At the Culture Council on 18 May Ministers will discuss the circulation of national art treasures, training, the European City of Culture, and co-operation between Libraries on information. The Council is also expected to have a first discussion of cultural aspects of the Commission's communication on audiovisual policy and on the MEDIA programme 1991–95, and may discuss European artists residence.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 21 and 22 May and may discuss non-food uses of agricultural products, organic farming, beef balance sheets, foot and mouth disease, the veterinary fund, trade in live animals, poultry and hatching, and the trade in horses.

  The Energy Council will meet on 21 May. Ministers are expected to adopt the resolution on transparency of prices and to reach agreement on gas and electricity transit. The Council will also discuss notification of investments, energy and the environment, Thermie, and the registration of crude oil imports.

  At the Industry Council on 28 May the Commission will submit proposals for a replacement for the Council Directive of 28 January 1987 on aid to shipbuilding which expires at the end of this year. Ministers will discuss the impact of developments in eastern Europe on the shipbuilding industry in the EEC. There is general concern about the effect that the state-owned eastern European shipyards could have on the Community market and the work in the OECD to eliminate subsidies. German unification and the absorption of an industry the size of the United Kingdom's into the Community have implications for the new directive. Ministers will be asked to consider a Commission communication on the Community's semi-conductors industry, which is expected to address the economic importance of the industry, as well as the respective roles of producers and users of semi-conductors. The Council is expected to endorse the recommendation for administrative simplification of SME's which has been amended to take into account some of the changes suggested by the European Parliament, in particular a number of issues concerning member states' domestic arrangements for assessing and minimalising the impact of regulations on business, especially SME's. Ministers may also hold a first discussion on industrial aspects of the Commission's communications on audiovisual policy.

  The Social Affairs Council will meet on 29 May. In the field of health and safety the Council will discuss draft directives on exposure to biological agents, the manual handling of heavy loads, and visual display units. The Council is expected to consider resolutions on long-term unemployment, racism and xenophobia, and on the protection of the dignity of women and men at work. Action programmes on continuing training and on the elderly are also likely to be discussed.

  The Development Council will meet on 29 May when Ministers will adopt conclusions arising from a Commission paper on environment and development and

  571
  conclusions on the development aspects of the conservation of tropical forests. The Council may consider a Commission paper on cooperation with the developing countries of Asia and Latin America in the 1990's, and will adopt conclusions on the integration of food aid with other forms of development assistance and multiannual programming, and conclusions on a Commission work programme for the integration of women into the development process. Ministers will also approve conclusions arising from a Commission paper on evaluation of development cooperation.

  At the Education Council on 31 May Ministers will be invited to adopt a draft resolution on the integration of children and young people with disabilities into mainstream educational institutions. They will also be invited to agree conclusions on equality of educational opportunity in the initial and in-service training of teachers; meetings of senior officials in the education sector; and on the preparation of a new convention for European schools. There will be discussions about distance education and training and education for enterprise.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role was played by the trade section of the British embassy in Baghdad in securing the contract cover for the seized equipment, destined for Iraq.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 25 April]: In the light of the arrest of an individual on 25 April, and in the light of the continuing investigations by Customs and Excise, it would be wrong to comment further on these matters.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Office of Technology Assessment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what contacts his Department has had with the Netherlands Office of Technology Assessment in the Hague.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department has not had any official contact with the Netherlands Office of Technology Assessment.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have now been given grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has so far approved 37 of the 48 proposals for grant-maintained status which have reached him for decision.

  Special Needs Education
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the provision of education for those with special needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Representations have been received recently on a range of subjects relating to the provision of 572
  education for those with special educational needs. In particular, representations continue to be received in respect of the Department's draft circular "Staffing for pupils with special educational needs" and on in-service training for teachers specialising in special needs subject areas. The closing date for comments on the circular is 27 July 1990. My right hon. Friend set out in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire South-East (Mr. Paice) on 18 April, Official Report, column 850 the funds available for the training of teachers in special needs areas.

  School Discipline
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a further statement on the recommendations of the committee of inquiry into discipline in schools.

  Mr. MacGregor
  When the committee's report was published in March last year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced immediately his acceptance in principle of a number of its recommendations. I am now able to report the following developments:1. The management of pupil behaviour has been designated a national priority area under the local education authority training grants scheme with £1·7 million of expenditure being supported in 1990–91.
  2. Two new education support grant categories, to improve support services in respect of difficult pupils and to raise attendance levels in designated schools, were introduced on 1 April. In both categories, expenditure of around £2·5 million is being supported in 1990–91.
  3. My Department has introduced a national exclusions reporting system for a two-year period from the beginning of the summer term this year. Heads, governors and local education authorities, as appropriate, are being asked to provide information on the background to cases of permanent exclusion from LEA-maintained primary, secondary and special schools and from grant-maintained schools. Individual pupils will not be identified. In the light of the information provided we shall be deciding on the future of the existing statutory provisions on exclusion.
  4. The criteria for the approval of courses of initial teacher training which I published last November give practical effect to the committee's recommendations that such courses include specific training in group management, and that lecturers providing training in teaching skills should regularly update their classroom experience.

  The Government have also considered, as the committee recommended, whether legislation should be introduced in respect of the legal basis of teachers' authority and of parental liability for their children's civil wrongs committed while in school. We have concluded, after very careful examination of the issues, that legislative action would not be appropriate in either case.

  The Government have now completed their consideration of the report. Its publication, and its circulation by my Department to local education authorities and all maintained schools, have a most useful and important impact on discussion and action by the education service in a difficult area. For its part, and apart from the specific measures my predecessor and I have announced, the Government will continue to take careful account of the committee's advice and recommendations as they develop their education policies, particularly in respect of the implementation of the national curriculum.

SCOTLAND

  COSLA
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Rifkind
  With my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment, I met the president and other senior office-bearers of the convention on 6 April. This was the first of this year's meetings to discuss Government support for local authority current expenditure in 1991–92.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people he expects to qualify for ex-gratia poll tax rebates covering the year 1989–90 under his recently announced scheme for such payments.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I expect between 15,000 and 20,000 people to qualify for special payments under the scheme.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has had on the subject of the community charge in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend continues to receive a number of representations on different aspects of the community charge.

  Statutory instrument

  Statutory instrument number

  Date of coming into force

  The Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 Commencement Order 1987

  1987/1489

  18 August 1987

  The Non-Domestic Rates and Community Charges (Timetable) (Scotland) Regulations 1987

  1987/2167

  7 January 1988

  The Non-Domestic Rates and Community Charges (Timetable) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989—these revoked part of Schedule 2 to SI 1987/2167

  1989/2436

  22 January 1990

  The Abolition of Domestic Rates (Domestic and Part Residential Subjects) (Scotland) Regulations 1987— now revoked

  1987/2179

  8 January 1988

  The Abolition of Domestic Rates (Domestic and Part Residential Subjects) (Scotland) Regulations 1988— these revoked and replaced SI 1987/2179

  1988/1477

  15 September 1988

  The Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) Regulations 1988—now revoked

  1988/157

  26 February 1988

  The Community Charge (Registration) (Scotland) (No. 2) Regulations 1988—these revoked and replaced SI 1988/157

  1988/1539

  1 October 1988

  The Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) (No. 2) Amendment Regulations 1988

  1988/1611

  1 October 1988

  The Standard and Collective Community Charges (Scotland) Regulations 1988—regulations 3 and 4 now revoked

  1988/631

  20 April 1988

  The Standard and Collective Community Charges (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 1988—now revoked

  1988/1540

  1 October 1988

  The Standard and Collective Community Charges (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989—now revoked

  1989/1004

  1 July 1989

  The Standard Community Charge (Scotland) Regulations 1989—these revoked and replaced regulation 3 of SI 1988/631, SI 1988/1540 and SI 1989/1004

  1989/2437

  22 January 1990

  574
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to bring forward any changes to the poll tax legislation in the present Session.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to bring forward any changes to the poll tax legislation in the present Session.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend keeps all aspects of the community charge arrangements under review. He has made it clear that he is prepared to make changes if they are required.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the highest and lowest community charge in Scotland in 1990–91; and what were the comparable charges for 1989–90.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The highest and lowest community charges in Scotland in 1990–91, at taxpayer level, excluding the community water charge, are £419 and £87·26. Corresponding figures for 1989–90 are £374 and £100·60.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report a list of numbers of Statutory Instruments issued under the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act 1987, the dates on which these came into force and the dates on which any Statutory Instrument referred to above ceased to be in force.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The information requested is as follows:
  575

  Statutory instrument

  Statutory instrument number

  Date of coming into force

  The Standard and Collective Community Charges (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1989— these revoked regulation 4 of SI 1988/631

  1989/1476

  4 September 1989

  The Personal Community Charge (Students) (Scotland) Regulations 1988—now revoked

  1988/632

  20 April 1988

  The Personal Community Charge (Students) (Scotland) Regulations 1989—these revoked and replaced SI 1988/632

  1989/32

  3 February 1989

  The Housing Benefit (Social Security Act 1986 Modification) (Scotland) Regulations 1988

  1988/1483

  21 September 1988

  The Community Water Charges (Scotland) Regulations 1988

  1988/1538

  1 October 1988

  The Community Water Charges (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989

  1989/2362

  15 January 1990

  The Personal Community Charge (Exemption for the Severely Mentally Impaired) (Scotland) Regulations 1988—now revoked

  1988/1541

  1 October 1988

  The Personal Community Charge (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 1989—these revoked and replaced SI 1988/1541

  1989/63

  9 February 1989

  The Community Charges (Levying, Collection and Payment) (Scotland) Regulations 1988

  1988/1880

  22 November 1988

  The Community Charges (Levying, Collection and Payment) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1990

  1990/684

  18 April 1990

  The Community Charges (Information Concerning Social Security) (Scotland) Regulations 1988—these lapsed on 31 March 1990

  1988/1889

  23 November 1988

  The Community Charges (Information Concerning Social Security) (Scotland) Regulations 1989—these replaced SI 1988/1889 on 1 April 1990

  1989/476

  1 April 1990

  The Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Regulations 1988

  1988/1904

  24 November 1988

  The Local Government (Non Domestic District Rates and District Community Charge) (Scotland) Regulations 1988

  1988/1963

  2 December 1988

  The Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1988— now revoked

  1989/69

  12 January 1989

  The Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1989— this revoked and replaced SI 1989/69

  1990/130

  26 Jannuary 1990

  The Abolition of Domestic Rates (Domestic and Part Residential Subjects) (Scotland) Regulations 1989— now revoked

  1989/241

  20March 1989

  The Abolition of Domestic Rates (Domestic and Part Residential Subjects) (Scotland) Regulations 1990— these revoked and replaced SI 1989/241

  1990/630

  1 April 1990

  The Community Charges (Deductions from Income = Support) (Scotland) Regulations 1989

  1989/507

  8 April 1989

  The Community Charges (Deductions from Income Support) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 1990

  1990/113

  1 April 1990

  The Abolition of Domestic Rates (Domestic and Part Residential Subjects) (No. 2) (Scotland) Regulations 1989

  1989/1477

  4 September 1989

  The Personal Community Charge (Exemption for the Severely Mentally Impaired) (Scotland) Regulations 1989

  1989/2234

  29 December 1989

  The Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Regulations 1989

  1989/2462

  24 January 1990

  The Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1990

  1990/131

  26 January 1990

  The Personal Community Charge (Relief) (Scotland) Regulations 1990

  1990/421

  28 March 1990

  The Personal Community Charge (Relief) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1990

  1990/625

  28 March 1990

  Homelessness
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current estimates of homelessness in Scotland; what steps he proposes to take to reduce homelessness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  During 1988–89 local authorities assessed 9,300 households as being homeless and 5,850 as being threatened with homelessness. Local authorities have a good record in finding accommodation for homeless applicants.

  EC Regional Fund
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he takes to ensure that in regard to European Community regional fund projects in Scotland the additionality rule is applied.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government ensure compliance with requirements on additionality in the relevant European structural fund regulation throughout the United Kingdom.

  Lothian Council Staff (Self-defence Courses)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was his advice to Lothian regional council before that council introduced the offer of self-defence courses in certain martial arts for council employees who have to deal directly with the public in matters affecting the poll-tax; if he will specify which forms of karate were considered; what payments he will offer the council; what lists he has received of cases in which officials have been threatened with violence; what consultation he has had with relevant trade unions on the matter; and what figures of poll-tax-related assault he has received from Sir William Sutherland QPM.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is entirely a matter for Lothian regional council and my right hon. and learned Friend has neither offered advice nor sought consultation with the trade unions. I understand, however, that the question of self-defence training for certain staff is still under consideration by the council and is not confined to staff dealing with the community charge. Any costs involved would need to be met in the normal way from the resources available to the authority. We have received no lists of cases where officials in Lothian region have been threatened with violence nor have we received from Sir William Sutherland any figures relating to the kind of assault described.

  Scottish TUC
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he received an invitation to address the annual conference of the Scottish Trades Union Congress.

  Mr. Lang
  No, Sir.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Scottish Trades Union Congress: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 20 December 1989.

  Councillors (Allowances)
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has made in determining a new scheme for local authority councillors' allowances; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In a paper issued on 19 December 1989, the Government put proposals for a revised scheme of councillors' allowances to the local authority associations for comment. My right hon. and learned Friend subsequently met COSLA on 9 February when he stressed his willingness to be flexible on the distribution of the Scottish quantum and to consider alternatives for the definition of approved duties. Comments and views have been received from a number of interested parties. These are being carefully considered and my right hon. and learned Friend expects to announce his decisions shortly. The intention is that the revised scheme should operate from 1 July 1990.

  Speech Impediments
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy for the provision of educational facilities for children with speech impediments.
  578
  Mr. Lang
  Education authorities are statutorily required to make appropriate educational provision for all children of school age in their area. This will include provision for special educational needs, such as those of children who have difficulties with speech.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from hospitals in the Ayrshire and Arran area regarding opting out.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  An expression of interest in self-governing status has recently been made on behalf of the South Ayrshire unit comprising the hospitals at Ayr and Ballochmyle.

  A1
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has made in setting up arrangements between his Department and highway authorities to discuss the future of the A1 beyond the proposals in the roads south of Edinburgh study.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Representatives from the roads departments of Lothian and Borders regional councils, and of Northumberland county council, will be invited to join with officials from my Department and the Department of Transport to form the A1 steering group described in our "Routes South of Edinburgh: Report on Public Consultation and the Government's Decisions", copies of which are in the Library. Detailed terms of reference for the group are currently being drafted by my Department in liaison with the Department of Transport.

  Primary Schools (Testing)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to review his plans to introduce testing in Scottish primary schools.

  Mr. Lang
  No, Sir. It remains the intention to test performance in English and mathematics at P4 and P7, and information about piloting will be issued shortly.

  Offensive Weapons
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to make it an offence to sell or supply knives and other offensive weapons to young persons under 16 years of age; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The sale or hire of flick knives and gravity knives is an offence under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. The sale or hire of a further range of spiked, bladed and other offensive weapons specified in the Offensive Weapons Order 1988 is an offence under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. These provisions apply irrespective of the age of the buyer, and my right hon. and learned Friend sees no need for further legislation.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to meet trade union representatives of the work force in the Scottish steel industry.
  579
  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend met representatives of the Ravenscraig work force last November. I met representatives of the Clydesdale work force in January and will be meeting representatives of the Dalzell work force in the near future.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet British Steel to discuss investment in Scottish steel plants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend expects to meet the chairman of British Steel in the relatively near future to discuss matters of current interest concerning the Scottish steel plants, including the company's investment strategy. At the end of the day, investment decisions are a matter for the commercial judgment of British Steel, in the light of their assessment of market conditions. However, it is clearly important that the company should be in a position to consider carefully all the options, including that of investment in Scotland, before reaching their decisions.

  Childhood Immunisation
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for improving the uptake of childhood immunisations against infectious diseases.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I announced on 26 April an accelerated schedule for childhood immunisation against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough and poliomyelitis. The new schedule, which will be introduced on 1 October 1990, provides for the course of immunisation against these diseases to be carried out between two months and six months of age as compared with three months and 11 months at present. The shortened programme, to which appropriate publicity will be given, is expected to lead to higher uptake levels.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of violent crimes reported in Scotland each year since 1979 where firearms were involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 5 April.

  Nirex
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the nuclear industry radioactive waste executive; and what matters were discussed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend and the Secretary of State for the Environment met the then chairman and senior officials of the Executive on 15 March 1989 to discuss its report on sites for investigation for the deep disposal of low and intermediate level radioactive wastes.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received regarding the fishing industry on the west coast of Scotland.
  580
  Mr. Lang
  The Government issued a consultation document on 28 March which discussed a range of additional conservation measures that might be taken in the waters off the west coast of Scotland. Some replies have been received and others are awaited. In addition, my noble Friend the Minister of State met a delegation on 24 April to discuss these issues.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the current situation facing the Scottish fishing fleet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  A variety of representations have been received. In addition my right hon. and learned Friend met the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 7 February and will be doing so again very soon. We are continuing to monitor the situation of the industry very carefully. It remains the case that reductions in landings are being substantially offset by increases in prices. Up to the end of March landings by United Kingdom vessels into Scotland of cod, haddock, whiting and saithe have declined by 28 per cent. compared with the same period in 1989, but the value of these landings in that period has declined by only 3 per cent. in cash terms. The total value of all landings into Scotland in the first three months of this year has declined by only 1 per cent. in cash terms compared with the same period last year.

  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representation he has received on the proposals for the fishing industry for aggregation of capacity and for transferable quotas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The consultation paper on capacity aggregation, which was issued last November, elicited a wide range of responses from the industry. The Government recently announced their intention to proceed with the capacity aggregation proposals. We will, of course, monitor their operation carefully.

  The Government are interested in considering individual transferable quotas, but any proposals it may develop will be the subject of full consultation with the industry.

  Private Landlords
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the proportion of landlords in the private sector in Scotland who reduced combined rent and rate bills in 1989–90 to take account of the abolition of domestic rates.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No information is available centrally.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to find more apprenticeship places for young people in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The provision of apprenticeships is a matter for industry and in particular for industry lead training bodies such as the construction industry training board. In recent years the number of apprenticeships based on time serving has decreased as industry has moved towards flexible training systems for young people. Such schemes
  581
  operate in conjunction with youth training and are based on the achievement of standards of competence. This shift of emphasis is welcome as it encourages the rapid attainment of skills by trainees.

  Poverty (Church Report)
  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the Moderator of the Church of Scotland to discuss the report from the church and nation committee of the Church of Scotland entitled, "Scotland's Poor—a challenge to Kirk"; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend at present has no plans to do so.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board (Takare Contract)
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when Greater Glasgow health board will release details of the Takare contract to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand that Greater Glasgow health board will provide further details to the hon. Member shortly.

  Pre-school Education
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any fresh proposals to increase pre-five education in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  It is for education authorities themselves to determine the level of provision they wish to make in their area for the education of children under five, having regard to available resources, local circumstances and competing priorities.

  Health Services (Glasgow)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of Greater Glasgow health board to discuss health services in Glasgow.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend met Greater Glasgow health board representatives in March 1989, when he opened a new 90-bed unit at Woodilee hospital. I regularly meet health board chairmen to discuss a variety of topics.

  Health Spending
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated expenditure by each health board in Scotland in 1990–91.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards are expected to contain their expenditure within the amounts allocated to them at the beginning of each financial year. The amounts allocated to each health board in Scotland in 1990–91 for gross revenue and capital expenditure are as follows:

  Health board

  £ million1

  Argyll and Clyde

  150·284

  Ayrshire and Arran

  135·563

  Borders

  34·965

  582

  Health board

  £ million1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  56·547

  Fife

  111·210

  Forth Valley

  103·695

  Grampian

  198·975

  Greater Glasgow

  535·870

  Highland

  83·173

  Lanarkshire

  178·255

  Lothian

  341·482

  Orkney

  6·528

  Shetland

  8·788

  Tayside

  198·227

  Western Isles

  19·153

  1 These figures do not include allocations for systems implementation, computers and breast cancer screening services totalling £29·376 million which have still to be notified to Boards.

  Ayr Road Route
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the timetable for the construction of the Ayr road route (A77).

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Ayr road route is divided into two sections. That between the M77 and the City of Glasgow district boundary is a regional road scheme promoted by Strathclyde regional council. The remainder of the route to Malletsheugh is a trunk road and the responsibility of the Secretary of State.

  A legal challenge has been made by Glasgow district council to the Secretary of State's decision on the regional road section. Prior to the challenge, that section was scheduled for a start during 1991 and it was hoped that the trunk road section would follow on in 1992 subject to the availability of funds and priorities at that time. Advance works for the regional road section, in areas not affected by the legal challenge, have already started.

  Flood Damage
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can give up-to-date details of assistance which has been given to landowners, farmers and householders whose property was damaged in the recent floods in north Tayside.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Twenty-six applications have been received from farmers in Tayside for special assistance for the repair of elevated floodbanks damaged in the recent floods. Engineering specifications have been drawn up for the 20 of these cases and returned to the applicants for them to obtain contractors' estimates. So far, only two applicants have submitted detailed costings.

  As to other damage and losses sustained by landowners, farmers and householders, it has been the long-standing policy of successive Governments not to pay compensation for the effects of severe weather, particularly where risks are insurable.

  Unemployment
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed unemployment with the Scottish Trades Union Congress.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I met the general council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 10 November 1989 for a discussion of economic issues, including unemployment. I
  583
  called attention to the sustained improvement in the Scottish economy in recent years which has seen unemployment fall to its lowest level since 1980.

  Arts Provision
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to encourage other cities in Scotland to emulate Glasgow's emphasis on provision for the arts.

  Mr. Lang
  I am happy to acknowledge Glasgow's success in developing provision for the arts and in exploiting the valuable contribution made by the arts to the economic life in the city. Glasgow's achievement as this year's European city of culture shows what can be done when local authorities join forces with private and corporate sponsors.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a Scottish university student registered for community charge at his or her parents home in Scotland, is also required to register and pay community charge during the period of attendance at university at the address of his or her accommodation in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A full-time student in Scotland is not required to pay the personal community charge at more than one address at the same time. He or she is regarded, for community charge purposes, as being resident, and therefore liable for the personal community charge at the reduced rate of 20 per cent. of the full charge, at his or her term-time address for the duration of his or her course, including vacations.

  Forestry
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many vehicles the Forestry Commission operates.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Forestry Commission is currently operating 1,859 of its own road vehicles and 230 leased road vehicles.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the area of forestry plantations in Scotland which has been killed by pine beauty moth or pine sawfly since 1986; and if he will list the names of the plantations affected, their size, their dates of planting and the dates of the attack leading to the plantation death in each case.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Only two areas of forestry plantations of any size are known to have been killed by pine beauty moth or pine sawfly in Scotland since 1986. These were two hectares at Truderscaig which were planted in 1972–73 and attacked by pine beauty moth in 1987 and 1988, and 12 hectares at Poulary which were planted in 1967–68 and attacked by pine beauty moth in 1986. Both these areas are in Highland region.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names, locations and areas of any further forestry grant applications since his answer of 22 March 1989,Official Report, columns 660–61 in excess of 100 hectares for which the Forestry Commission has not requested an environmental assessment.
  584
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the following table:

  Name and Region

  Area proposed for planting (ha)

  Borders

  North Hurdlaw

  164

  Heathpool

  224

  Ladhope

  158

  Central

  Gartchonzie

  171

  Gartnafuaran

  153

  Muirhill

  199

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Glenquicken

  168

  Loch Ree

  328

  Shilling Land

  117

  Ericstane

  168

  Grampian

  Pluscarden

  110

  Tillypronie

  200

  Ballogie

  132

  Cowden

  128

  Christkirk

  128

  Craigs of Succoth

  103

  Bisset Moss

  278

  Smallburn

  149

  Boghaugh

  134

  Torry Hillock

  136

  Wraes

  101

  Highland

  Coille am Sealbach

  122

  Coille Buidhe

  122

  Achlibster

  291

  Braelangwell

  487

  Loch Choire

  1,396

  Tacher

  243

  Astle

  114

  Ackron

  270

  Woodend

  251

  Greshornish

  962

  Wyvis

  114

  Glen Speireig

  288

  Loubcroy

  388

  Loubcroy 2

  295

  Orkney Isles

  Melsetter Hill

  215

  Strathclyde

  Brackley Hill

  304

  Cleughearn

  186

  Dalrazzie

  104

  Darley

  524

  Western Isles

  Sollas

  520

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names, locations and areas of any plantings carried out by the Forestry Commission since July 1988 which are in excess of 100 hectares; and if he will list any proposed plantings for 1990–91 which are above this threshold.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the tables:
  585

  Areas planted since July 1988

  Forestry Commission

  Name of forest area

  Area planted (ha)

  Forest District

  Lome

  Achnafanich

  269

  Kintyre

  Glenskile

  168

  Perthshire

  Camserne

  152

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Auld Craigoch

  107

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Mossdale

  236

  Newton Stewart

  Arecleoch

  302

  Newton Stewart

  Glentrool

  327

  Nithsdale

  Kinharvie

  114

  Nithsdale

  Maidenpap

  106

  Borders

  Priesthill

  164

  Wester Ross

  Glenarroch

  151

  Wester Ross

  Orbost

  110

  Lochaber

  Lochan Dhoire

  130

  Moray

  Blackwater

  120

  Dornoch

  Tannach

  231

  Dornoch

  Cnoc a Mhoid

  171

  Dornoch

  Achormlarie

  192

  Dornoch

  Stroupster

  127

  Fort Augustus

  Phochaicain

  134

  Strontian

  Lochan Dubh

  115

  Easter Ross

  Strathrory

  223

  Current Position

  Name

  Region

  Area Proposed for planting (ha)

  Statement

  Application

  Baillie Whirr

  Dumfries and Galloway

  40

  Not provided

  Withdrawn

  Glenure Forest Estate

  Dumfries and Galloway

  28

  Presented

  Under consideration

  Stonehouse Farm

  Dumfries and Galloway

  19

  Being prepared

  Under consideration

  Gulls Nest

  Grampian

  298

  Not provided

  Refused

  Ardtornish

  Highland

  55

  Presented

  Under consideration

  Auchtertyre

  Highland

  357

  Presented

  Under consideration

  Bhealaich

  Highland

  280

  Presented

  Under consideration

  Brabster Farm 2

  Highland

  564

  Presented

  Approved1

  Cnoc nan Gall

  Highland

  231

  Presented

  Under consideration

  Corrielair

  Highland

  458

  Presented

  Approved

  Forest Farms

  Highland

  2,310

  Being prepared

  Under consideration

  Gortoneorn

  Highland

  296

  Not provided

  Withdrawn

  East Halladale

  Highland

  810

  Being prepared

  Under consideration

  West Halladale

  Highland

  730

  Being prepared

  Under consideration

  The Hope

  Highland

  233

  Presented

  Under consideration

  Lochluichart

  Highland

  218

  Being prepared

  Under consideration

  North Winless

  Highland

  90

  Presented

  Withdrawn

  South Channain 2

  Highland

  39

  Presented

  Under consideration

  Auchenroy and Dalcairnie

  Strathclyde

  419

  Presented

  Approved2

  Coull Farm

  Strathclyde

  77

  Not provided

  Withdrawn

  Gallohoille Farm

  Strathclyde

  136

  Not provided

  Withdrawn

  Mulea Plantation

  Strathclyde

  42

  Presented

  Under consideration

  Turbiskill Farm

  Strathclyde

  207

  Presented

  Under consideration

  Pitcarmick

  Tayside

  160

  Presented

  Under consideration

  Cragganester

  Tayside

  135

  Being prepared

  Under consideration

  Notes:

  1 Only 118 hectares of this application were approved; the remainder was withdrawn.

  2 Only 242 hectares of this application were approved; the remainder was withdrawn.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names, locations and areas which are proposed by the Forestry Commission for aerial spraying with fenitrothion in 1990 to combat forest pests.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Forestry Commission is not expecting to carry out any aerial spraying with fenitrothion, or other insecticides, in 1990.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the current commissioners of the Forestry
  586

  Areas proposed for planting in 1990–91

  Forestry Commission Forest District

  Name of forest area

  Area to be planted (ha)

  Kintyre

  Invernei

  167

  Kintyre

  Alltmore

  108

  Perthshire

  Rannoch Invercarie

  180

  Perthshire

  Camserne

  123

  Wester Ross

  Braebost

  175

  Wester Ross

  Glenarroch

  120

  Dornoch

  Stroupster

  267

  Dornoch

  Inveroykel

  410

  Fort Augustus

  Phochaicain

  238

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Mossdale

  230

  Newton Stewart

  Gentrool

  125

  Borders

  Langburnshiels

  275

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will name the sites, locations and areas for which the Forestry Commission has requested environmental assessments under the Environmental Assessment (Afforestation) Regulations 1988 since their introduction; and if he will state for each site whether an assessment has been presented, or is in progress, and whether the applications for forestry grant have been approved, withdrawn, refused or are still under consideration.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following table lists all those sites for which the Forestry Commission has requested an environmental statement.

  Commission was appointed to fulfil both the requirement under section two of the Forestry Act 1967 and section four of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1985.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Messrs Francis, Bradley, Foot, Woosnam and Strang-Steel fulfil the requirement under section 2 of the Forestry Act 1967 that at least three of the Forestry Commissioners must have special knowledge and experience of forestry; Messrs Francis, Bradley and Foot fulfil the requirement that at least one Commissioner must have scientific attainments
  587
  and a technical knowledge of forestry, and Mr. Mallinson the requirement that at least one must have special knowledge and experience of the timber trade. Section 4 of the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985, which amended the Forestry Act 1967, places a duty on all the Commissioners to endeavour to achieve a reasonable balance between the needs of forestry and those of the environment.

  Enterprise Companies (Complaints)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the basis for his decision that complaints relating to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise should not fall within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Mr. Lang
  Bodies which operate in a predominantly commercial manner are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Both Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise fall into this category.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that people in Scotland who might be aggrieved at the manner in which a local enterprise company has dealt with its affairs will have the same avenues of redress available to them as people in England and Wales who have similar grievances in respect of alleged maladministration by training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Lang
  Local enterprise companies will be obliged by the terms of their contracts to operate a complaints procedure, under which an individual with a complaint can be assured that his or her case will be considered by the chief executive of the local enterprise company, and if necessary by the chairman. This obligation is no less than that which will operate in England and Wales.

  RENAVAL
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he expects the allocation of grants available to Strathclyde region under the European Community's RENA VAL programme to be fully utilised;

  (2) if he will list the local authorities and other public bodies involved in submitting applications for financial assistance under the European Community's RENAVAL programme in Strathclyde region.

  Mr. Lang
  A decision is still awaited from the European Commission on the Government's bid to establish Strathclyde's eligibility under RENAVAL. There are therefore no Strathclyde authorities as yet involved in submitting applications for financial assistance under RENAVAL, and no grants available.

  Farm Woodland Scheme
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will bring forward legislation to allow crofters access to the farm woodland scheme through planting on common grazings.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend is awaiting confirmation that legislation which would allow crofters to participate in the planting of commercial woodlands on common grazings would be acceptable to all crofting interests. It is not possible to say when such legislation might be introduced.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of hospitals closed in Scotland in the past 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since 1980, 42 hospitals have been closed in Scotland. During the same period 62 major new hospital projects have been completed.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the way the mental health services are operating in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Mental health services in Scotland are designed to ensure that people with mental illness receive appropriate treatment either as in-patients or increasingly as out-patients or through a wide range of services in the community. The recommendations of the SHARPEN report, which the Government have endorsed, accord a high priority to care in the community whenever appropriate for people who are mentally ill. The proposals set out in the White Paper "Caring for People: Community Care in the Next Decade and Beyond" will bring further improvements in community care services for people with mental illness.

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of road fatalities since 1 October 1989 and for each year from 1980 to 1990.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer Monday 30 April 1990]: The information requested is as follows:

  Number of road fatalities in Scotland

  Year

  Number

  1980

  700

  1981

  677

  1982

  701

  1983

  624

  1984

  599

  1985

  602

  1986

  601

  1987

  556

  1988

  554

  19891

  554

  1989 October-December1

  148

  1 Provisional

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Kryptrons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what protective rules exist to cover the export from the United Kingdom of kryptrons.

  Mr. Redwood
  Kryptrons are subject to control under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989. A licence is required to export such goods to any destination if the performance parameters are within the scope of entry IL 1542 (b) of group 3 of the order.

  Staff Qualifications
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish in the Official Report the number and percentages of his staff in grades one to seven who have (a) arts and (b) science and technical degrees, who (c) are qualified accountants or (d) have post-graduate qualifications in management and who were educated in (e) local authority and (f) private schools.

  Grade level

  Total in grade

  Agriculture

  Arts

  Business studies

  Education

  Language and literature

  Miscellaneous

  Professional studies

  Science

  Social studies

  Technology

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Grade level 1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  100·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade level 2

  13

  —

  —

  3

  23·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  7·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  15·4

  4

  30·8

  —

  —

  Grade 2

  13

  —

  —

  3

  23·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  7·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  15·4

  4

  30·8

  —

  —

  Grade level 3

  55

  —

  —

  13

  24·0

  1

  1·8

  —

  —

  6

  10·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  32·7

  13

  23·6

  5

  9·1

  Grade 3

  55

  —

  —

  13

  24·0

  1

  1·8

  —

  —

  6

  10·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  32·7

  13

  23·6

  5

  9·1

  Grade level 4

  13

  —

  —

  2

  15·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  38·5

  1

  7·7

  —

  —

  Grade 4

  8

  —

  —

  1

  12·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  37·5

  1

  12·5

  —

  —

  Deputy Inspector General

  3

  —

  —

  1

  33·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Assistant Comptroller (Patents)

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  100·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade level 5

  249

  —

  —

  39

  15·7

  4

  1·6

  2

  0·8

  23

  9·2

  —

  —

  3

  1·2

  71

  28·5

  58

  23·3

  25

  10·0

  Grade 5

  209

  —

  —

  39

  18·7

  4

  1·9

  2

  0·9

  23

  11·0

  —

  —

  3

  1·4

  43

  20·6

  57

  27·3

  19

  9·1

  Principal Examiner (Patents)

  28

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19

  67·8

  1

  3·6

  5

  17·8

  Superintent Examiner (Patents)

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  90·0

  —

  —

  1

  10·0

  Grade level 6

  199

  1

  0·5

  7

  3·5

  11

  5·5

  —

  —

  9

  4·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  66

  33·1

  33

  16·6

  30

  15·1

  Grade 6

  182

  1

  0·5

  7

  3·8

  9

  4·9

  —

  —

  9

  4·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  66

  36·2

  32

  17·6

  30

  16·5

  Insolvency Grade A

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  14·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Legal Assistant

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  33·3

  —

  —

  Grade level 7

  1,187

  1

  0·1

  53

  4·5

  35

  2·9

  1

  0·1

  53

  4·5

  1

  0·1

  3

  0·2

  320

  26·9

  123

  10·4

  126

  10·6

  Grade 7

  912

  1

  0·1

  49

  5·4

  29

  3·2

  1

  0·1

  51

  5·6

  1

  0·1

  3

  0·3

  241

  26·4

  117

  12·8

  114

  12·5

  Insolvency Grade B

  65

  —

  —

  3

  4·6

  6

  9·2

  —

  —

  1

  1·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  6·1

  1

  1·5

  Senior Examiner (Patents)

  210

  —

  —

  1

  0·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  0·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  79

  37·6

  2

  0·9

  11

  5·2

  Only one member of Department of Trade and Industry staff in grades 1 to 7—a grade 7—is shown on the Department's personnel computer system as having a post-graduate qualification in management. This represents 0·10 per cent. of grade 7 staff.

  The Department does not record details of the schools attended by its staff on its personnel computer system.

  Grade level

  Total in grade

  Accountants in grade level

  Percentage of total in grade level

  Accountants in grade

  Percentage of total in grade

  Grade level 1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade level 2

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade level 3

  55

  2

  3·6

  —

  —

  Grade 3

  55

  —

  —

  2

  3·6

  Grade level 4

  13

  1

  7·6

  —

  —

  Deputy Inspector General

  3

  —

  —

  1

  33·3

  Grade level 5

  249

  6

  2·4

  —

  —

  Grade 5

  209

  —

  —

  6

  2·9

  Grade level 6

  199

  14

  7·0

  —

  —

  Grade 6

  182

  —

  —

  11

  6·0

  Insolvency Grade A

  14

  —

  —

  3

  21·0

  Grade level 7

  1,187

  42

  3·5

  —

  —

  Grade 7

  912

  —

  —

  32

  3·5

  Insolvency Grade B

  65

  —

  —

  10

  15·4

  Enterprise Initiative
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many firms have received grant assistance, and at what average percentage level, under the quality initiative of the enterprise initiative in Scotland.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.
  590
  Mr. Forth
  The information is as follows:

  The numbers and percentages of Department of Trade and Industry staff in grades 1 to 7 with either graduate or post-graduate level qualifications as shown on the Department's personnel computer system, and by the subject groups in which this information is recorded there, are as follows:

  Information on the types of schools attended by staff in grades 1 to 7 could, therefore, only be made available at disproportionate cost.

  The numbers and percentages of Department of Trade and Industry staff in grades 1 to 7, who are shown on the Department's personnel computer system as being qualified accountants, are as follows:

  As at 13 April 1990, 249 firms in Scotland had completed consultancy projects under the quality initiative, for which DTI assistance amounted to 65 per cent. of project costs on average.

  Cars
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cars were exported to the European Economic Community and imported from the European Economic Community in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; what was the balance of trade figure; and what were the comparable figures in each of the previous five years.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]: The information is as follows:
  592

  United Kingdom trade with EC: passenger cars (SITC 781)

  Year

  Exports to EC

  Imports from EC

  Balance

  Balance

  '000

  '000

  '000

  £ million

  1985

  117

  705

  −588

  −2,630

  1986

  139

  782

  −643

  −3,224

  1987

  157

  784

  −627

  −3,220

  1988

  184

  1,034

  −850

  −4,409

  1989

  256

  1,096

  −840

  −4,583

  12 months to February 1989

  198

  1,060

  −862

  −4,512

  12 months to February 1990

  262

  1,076

  −814

  −4,567

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics (MM20).

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Warhead Testing
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reasons underpinned the decision not to include United Kingdom—United States collaboration on nuclear warhead testing in Nevada in table 2, page 35, of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990, volume 1.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The table lists projects related to the joint development or procurement of equipment. British nuclear warheads are developed and manufactured nationally.

  Ballistic Missiles
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence there is that any country outside the acknowledged nuclear weapons states has developed a nuclear capable re-entry vehicle for use with a ballistic missile system.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Any country which acquires or develops a ballistic missile for military purposes will also require as part of the missile package a means of delivering its payload. Whether or not this comprises a re-entry vehicle capable of carrying a nuclear warhead will depend on its range and payload.

  For an assessment of countries known or believed to have deployed ballistic missiles I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) on 22 January 1990. We cannot comment on the capabilities of all of these missiles.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Trident ballistic missile system falls within the remit of ballistic missiles covered by the missile technology control regime outlined on page 13 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990, volume 6.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Trident D5 missile system falls within the range and payload parameters covered by the missile technology control regime. However, as the United Kingdom is an existing nuclear weapon state, our acquisition of the Trident system is not inconsistent with the MTCR's aim of preventing ballistic missile proliferation.

  Research and Development
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are currently employed, respectively, in the royal aerospace establishment's propulsion department, the Admiralty research department, the royal armament research and development establishment and the royal signals and radar establishment; and what changes in(a) total and (b) sectional employment is expected when the defence research agency replaces these establishments in 1991.

  Mr. Neubert
  As at 1 April 1990 the staff employed at the establishments named were as follows:
  594

  Staff

  Royal Aerospace Establishment

  4,878

  Admiralty Research Establishment

  2,898

  Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment

  2,365

  Royal Signals and Radar Establishment

  1,593

  It is not our policy to publish figures for individual departments.

  Future staffing levels will depend on the development of the defence research agency's business.

  Radiation
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on radiation dose exposures for refit workers involved in the United States nuclear propulsion programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Based on information available from the United States, the shipyard work force performing USN nuclear propulsion work during 1989 and involving occupational exposure to ionising radiation, consisted of 24,422 workers. These workers received a total occupational exposure of 29·41 sieverts.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what radiation dose records for submarine refit workers at royal dockyards were computerised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Radiation dose records for employees at the royal dockyards were computerised at the army pay and record centre, RAPC Worthy Down on 1 January 1979. On 1 November 1984 they were transferred to the defence radiological protection service at Gosport.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total occupational, whole body equivalent, radiation exposure of each individual worker employed in Royal Navy dockyards in the United Kingdom, in milliSieverts, for each year since the onset of the naval nuclear propulsion programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is not considered appropriate to present this detailed personal information to the House. Individual dose records are available to the individuals themselves on request.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women involved in submarine refit operations have received radiation dose exposures greater than 13 mSv in any consecutive three month interval; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  None.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many pregnant women employed at Royal Navy dockyards have received radiation doses of, or greater than, 10 mSv during their declared term of pregnancy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  None.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy dockyard personnel involved in submarine refit and associated work involving exposure to ionising radiations are women of child-bearing age; and if he will make a statement.
  595
  Mr. Neubert
  There are a total of 31 women, including contractors' personnel, employed in submarine refit and associated work involving exposure to ionising radiations. It is assumed that all women are of reproductive capacity as described in the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what register of pregnant women employed at the Royal Navy dockyards is kept in respect of ionising radiation dosage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  None. Legislation does not require such registers to be maintained. However, local administrative procedures at each royal dockyard are such as to ensure that women do not exceed the limits specified in parts IV and V to schedule 1 of the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a breakdown for Rosyth dockyard of annual individual radiation exposure for workers in the bands of(a) 0 to 10, (b) 10 to 20, (c) 20 to 30, (d) 30 to 40, (e) greater than 50, (f) greater than 70 and (g) greater than 100 milliSieverts for all years since the onset of nuclear work.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 26 April 1990]: A breakdown of annual individual radiation does for Rosyth dockyard workers for each of the years 1979–89 is given in the table. The figures shown in brackets are the number of additional employees monitored for exposure to ionising radiation by the local issue of direct reading dosimeters while employed under a written system of work. A more detailed or alternative breakdown of the figures and data for years earlier than 1979 can be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Radiation Dose Statistics—Rosyth Dockyard 1979/1989

  Number of personnel in dose ranges

  Year

  0–15mSv

  15–20mSv

  20–30mSv

  30–40mSv

  40–50mSv

  Over 50mSv

  1989

  478

  20

  28

  5

  1

  0

  (1,200)

  1988

  503

  18

  9

  0

  0

  0

  (1142)

  1987

  569

  4

  2

  1

  0

  0

  (1,439)

  1986

  711

  6

  1

  0

  0

  0

  (1,002)

  1985

  644

  28

  18

  4

  0

  0

  (1,018)

  1984

  565

  34

  56

  21

  3

  1

  (593)

  1983

  495

  49

  68

  31

  29

  0

  (699)

  1982

  580

  44

  39

  10

  6

  0

  (539)

  1981

  568

  37

  49

  21

  4

  0

  (551)

  1980

  584

  49

  77

  35

  4

  0

  (731)

  1979

  510

  39

  50

  38

  48

  1

  (577)

  Warsaw Pact
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the source for the figures for Warsaw pact main battle tank production produced in figure 3, page 11, of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990, volume 1.
  596
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The figures for Warsaw pact main battle tank production are provided by the defence intelligence staff whose responsibilities include the assessment of Warsaw pact arms production levels.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the source of his information on the Warsaw pact nuclear forces at the end of 1989, if figure 5, page 15, of the Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1990, volume 1; and how he assesses the reliability of the data reproduced in figure 5.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As the Warsaw pact countries do not publish comprehensive information on all the forces covered by the figure in question, it is compiled from a variety of material, ranging from published data to information supplied by the defence intelligence staff. The data are considered to be the most reliable that can be presented within existing constraints.

  French Defence Minister
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what matters were discussed during his recent meeting with his counterpart in Paris.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A range of defence questions were discussed including future European security, arms control, and extended co-operation between the United Kingdom and France on procurement and wider defence activities.

  War Widows
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the war cemeteries and the countries in which they are located, to which visits have been arranged for war widows under the war widows pilgrimages scheme since the scheme's inception.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Thailand

  Kanchanaburi

  Chungkai

  Israel

  Ramleh

  Burma

  Rangoon, Htaukkyan

  Gibraltar

  France

  Abbeville

  Calais Martigny

  Marquise

  West Capol

  Oye Plage

  Beaurains

  Beury

  Romeries

  Bayeus

  Banneville

  Secqueville

  Ranville

  Roques

  Hottot-les-Baques

  Foistay

  Beny-sur-Mer

  St. Desire

  Bretteville

  597

  St. Charles-de-Percy

  St. Brieuc

  Guidel

  Fouesnant

  Escoublac

  Le Paradis

  St. Omer

  Morbeque

  Boulogne

  Dunkirk

  Martigny

  St. Remy

  Etaples

  Terlingthun

  London Cem Extension

  Mondicourt

  St. Pierre

  La Delivrende

  Brouay

  Tilly-sur-Seulles

  Ryes

  Hermanville

  Cambes

  Le Mans

  Jerusalem

  St. Manvieu

  Fontenay

  Guidel

  Pornic

  Pont du Cens

  St. Nazaire

  Quinquempoix

  Tannay

  Lille

  Ste. Marie

  Algeria

  Bone

  Le Reunion

  El Alia

  Deli Ibrahim

  Indonesia

  Djakarta

  Ambon

  Belgium

  Koersal

  Kasterlee

  Leopoldsburg

  Gent

  Brussels

  Adegem

  Hasselt

  Wevelgem

  Terdechem

  St. Sylvestre

  Maldegem

  Schoonselhof

  Heverlee

  Geel

  Ostende

  Ath

  Esquelmes

  Dozinghem

  Hondeghem

  Egypt

  El Alamein

  Alexandria (Hadra)

  Moascar

  Tel el Kebir

  Ismaila

  Fayid

  Cairo (Heliopolis)

  Cairo (War Memorial Cemetery)

  Port Said

  Greece

  Phaleron

  598
  Crete

  Suda Bay

  Tunisia

  Massicault

  Beja

  Enfidaville

  Sfax

  Medjez-el-bab

  Thibar

  Tabarka

  Oued Zarga

  Singapore

  Kranji

  Malaysia

  Cheras Road

  Tai Ping

  Terendak

  Penang

  Labuan

  Labuan

  India

  Madras

  Delhi

  Bhowanipore

  Bombay

  NE India(Kohima etc.)

  Kohima

  Imphal

  Guwahati

  Hong Kong

  Sai Wan

  Japan

  Yokohama

  Cyprus

  Waynes Keep

  Nicosia

  Dhekelia

  Kenya

  Nairobi

  Nakuru

  Poland

  Cracow

  Malbork

  Faroe Islands

  Klakvik

  Spain

  Tarifa

  Bilbao

  Norway

  Stavangar

  Nesbyan

  Kristiansand

  Aarendaal

  Ethiopia

  Addis Abada

  West Germany

  Durnback

  Soltau

  Hamburg

  Kiel

  Reichswald Forest

  Berlin

  Munster

  599

  Oldenburg

  Hanover

  Celle

  Rheinberg

  Italy

  Salerno

  Cassino

  Minturno

  Caserta

  Sangro River

  Bolsena

  Ancona

  Santerno Valley

  Forli

  Faenza

  Padua

  Florence

  Assissi

  Ravenna

  Milan

  Naples

  Anzio

  Orvieto

  Rome

  Bari

  Coriano Ridge

  Arezzo

  Gradara

  Argenta

  Udine

  Meldola

  Foiano deal Chiano

  Bologna

  Castiglione

  Holland

  Jonkerbos

  Woensal

  Arnhem

  Nijmegen

  Overloon

  Milsbeek

  Venray

  Bergen op Zoom

  Rotterdam

  St. Oedenrode

  Berghoren

  Friesen Islands

  Groesbeek

  Tilburg

  Sittard

  Uden

  Emmen

  Mook

  Mierlo

  Valkenswaard

  Eindhoven

  Hollandsche

  Vlissingen

  Sicily

  Catania

  Syracuse

  Malta

  Capuccini

  Valletta

  Pemborke

  Bighi

  Kalkara

  Imtarfa

  Madagascar

  Diego Suarez

  Azores

  Terceira

  Rhodes
  600
  Rhodes

  Denmark

  Aabenraa

  Gulf States

  Bahrain

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the steps that have been taken by his Department to assist war widows since May 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In October 1984 a scheme was announced under which financial assistance would be provided to enable war widows to visit their deceased husband's grave overseas. The first visits under the scheme took place in April 1985, and the first main pilgrimage began on 8 May 1985.

  In December 1989 it was announced that new special payments of £40 per week would be made to pre-1973 war widows. These payments began in April 1990.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of the Government's financial contribution to the war widows pilgrimages scheme since the scheme's inception.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal British Legion pilgrimages department administers the war widows pilgrimages scheme on our behalf and receives funding through an annual grant in aid paid in quarterly instalments. The annual grants in each year since the scheme's inception have been as follows:

  £

  1985–86

  157,000

  1986–87

  187,000

  1987–88

  207,000

  1988–89

  167,000

  1989–90

  101,000

  The amount to be paid during 1990–91 will total £196,000.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many war widows and members of their families have received financial help from the Government to visit war cemeteries under the war widows pilgrimages scheme in each year since the scheme's inception.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Government funding is provided only for war widows' visits. The following numbers of war widows have received assistance under the scheme:

  War widows

  1985

  376

  1986

  467

  1987

  396

  1988

  216

  1989

  205

  Iraq (Exports)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 25 April,Official Report, column 210, what was the general nature of the two telephone conversations that took place between Walter Somers Limited and a Ministry of Defence metallurgical expert in 1988.
  601
  Mr. Alan Clark
  In the light of the charges laid against an individual recently and in the light of continuing investigations by Customs and Excise, it would be inappropriate to give any further information.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications have taken place between his Department and the firms(a) Matrix Churchill, (b) Technology and Development Group and (c) TMG Engineering regarding the sale of equipment to Iraq.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None.

  Space Research Corporation
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the activities of the Space Research Corporation that relate to the actual or possible export of non-lethal defence equipment.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In the light of the charges laid against an individual recently and in the light of continuing investigations by Customs and Excise, it would be inappropriate to give any further information.

  Iraq (Long-range Gun)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that no military equipment, munitions or materials supplied under any agreement with Jordan, other than the experimental propellant for Iraq's long-range gun programme dispatched as a consignment of chocolates for Jordan, has been dispatched to or reached Iraq under false documentation.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have no knowledge of false documentation in connection with the export of chocolates, or of anything else.

  Iraq Defence Industry
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the state of development of the Iraqi defence industry.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Iraq is actively engaged in establishing a large industrial infrastructure to support the development of its arms industries. It is pursuing a wide-ranging missile and space programme; it also produces a range of ammunition and small arms and is developing the capacity to produce more sophisticated ground forces equipment.

  Defence Equipment (Exports)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment his Department has made of the activities of the company TMG Engineering that relate to the actual or possible export of non-lethal defence equipment;

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the activities of the company Matrix Churchill that relate to the actual or possible export of non-lethal defence equipment;

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the activities of the company Technology and Development Group that relate to the actual or possible export of non-lethal defence equipment.
  602
  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department plays its part in assisting checks on commercial firms as appropriate. It would not be right to go into any further specific detail.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his Department distinguishes between lethal and non-lethal defence equipment for policy purposes.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department interprets lethal equipment as covering military equipment designed to kill.

  Jordan Defence Packages
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the credit made available under the Jordan defence packages of 1985 and 1986 was taken up by the Jordanian Government to buy British-manufactured equipment and material solely for Jordan's own defence needs.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Virtually all the credit made available under the Jordan defence packages of 1986 and 1987 has been committed. All the contracts involved are on behalf of the Jordanian armed forces.

  International Military Services Ltd.
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the protocol 3 deal between International Military Services Ltd. and the Government of Iraq to supply a military field hospital was not completed; and if he will give details of protocols 1 and 2.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I understand the Iraqi Government decided not to proceed with an inquiry for equipment for military hospitals. The protocols referred to are between the Government of Iraq and Her Majesty's Government. They are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, I can confirm that financial protocols 1 and 2 involved the provision of credit facilities of £275 million and £300 million respectively.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, further to the supply of the propellant for the Iraqi long-range gun programme, Astra plc has been a supplier to foreign countries through International Military Services Ltd.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  International Military Services Ltd. is a commercial company which is wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence. In its work with many foreign countries it uses the services of a large number of subcontractors including Astra Holdings plc. It is not the practice to comment upon specific defence sales.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Chicken Breeders
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to alleviate the fears of small chicken breeders and hatcheries regarding the impact on their business of the fees levied under the Poultry Flocks, Hatcheries and Processed Animal Protein (Fees) Order 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have agreed to delay the introduction of charges for the registration of poultry breeding flocks and
  603
  hatcheries until 1 June 1990. Existing units registered before that date will, therefore, not be charged for their initial registration. I have also sought to minimise the impact on small units by relating the fees for the taking or supervision of taking of samples to the time spent. This will mean that the costs to the producer are generally proportionate to the size of the enterprise.

  Pesticide Residues
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the level of pesticide residues on foodstuffs imported from Cyprus; and whether he has recently altered the level of monitoring of maximum residue levels on such imports.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government continue to monitor Cypriot produce as a part of its regular surveillance programme for pesticide residues. The republic of Cyprus also provides us with the results of its own monitoring. Press reports earlier this year referred mainly to levels of residues on Cypriot strawberries, but none were imported by the United Kingdom in 1988 or 1989.

  Veterinary Products Committee
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what requirements exist for the disclosure of interests of members of the Veterinary Products Committee.

  Mr. Maclean
  Members of the Veterinary Products Committee comply with a code of conduct on the declaration of interests. The code and the interests declared in accordance with it are included in the VPC annual report which is published and laid before Parliament.

  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the role of the Meat and Livestock Commission in giving guidance, advice and publicity to its produce; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under the Agriculture Act 1967, the Meat and Livestock Commission has a general duty to promote greater efficiency in the livestock and livestock products industries in Great Britain. It raises a levy to fund its general expenses including generic marketing and promotion: a species promotion levy funds its promotion of the merits of individual meats. In addition, the commission increasingly provides advice and guidance on a commercial fee-paying basis. In particular, the commission offers advice to all sectors of the industry on the achievement and maintenance of a high-quality product and on the export of meat and meat products to other countries.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to bring forward the latest topping date on set-aside land to 1 August of each year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are considering whether there is a case for any change in the set-aside rules, including those relating to the management of land set-aside to fallow. An announcement will be made shortly.

  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information is available to him from international sources concerning the incidence of foot and mouth disease in each of the countries of Eastern Europe.

  Mr. Maclean
  According to the information available from the Food and Agricultural Organisation and the Office International des Epizooties the last recorded outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the countries of eastern Europe are as follows:

  Yugoslavia 1978

  USSR 19901

  Romania 1973

  Poland 1971

  Hungary 1973

  German Democratic Republic 1982

  Czechoslovakia 1975

  Bulgaria 1973

  1Two outbreaks

  Employment Opportunities
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department are taking to aid employment opportunities in the north-east of England.

  Mr. Gummer
  As announced yesterday, Ministers have approved in principle the intervention board's proposal that a third of the agency's functions, consisting of its external trade work and administrative support, should be relocated in Newcastle, in order to relieve its staff shortages in Reading. About 350 posts will be transferred. In deciding upon Newcastle, where the agency already has facilities, Ministers and the agency were satisfied that there are good recruitment and career prospects, and that satisfactory office accommodation, housing communications and other facilities are available. Subject to the necessary resources being available, the transfer of work will begin as soon as accommodation can be obtained and be made ready and essential data links installed. After a suitable period at this new site, the agency's experience there will be reviewed and further report made to Ministers.

  Dimethoate
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the impact of dimethoate on wildlife; whether this pesticide has been reviewed; and whether he has any proposals to reduce its application.
  605
  Mr. Maclean
  No formal representations have been received about dimethoate. However, the environmental panel of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides is aware of concern by the Game Conservancy Trust and beekeepers, and is keeping a close watch on the use of dimethoate on field crops.

  The Government monitor incidents involving pesticides and honeybees; in 1988, 22 out of 60 such incidents were linked to dimethoate; in 1989 the figures were 15 out of 59.
  606
  Last year the ACP reviewed the use of dimethoate on protected lettuce. As a result, the conditions of approval were amended with effect from 1 April 1990 to restrict application to one per crop and to increase the minimum period between application and havest from seven days to four weeks.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

The Lord Bishop of Bristol
Barry Lord Bishop of Bristol—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Gloucester and the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

The Three Graces
2.41 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make a statement on any developments since 4th April in their policy on the proposed export of the statue known as The Three Graces.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the position remains as I stated in answer to my noble friend on 4th April. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is continuing to consider representations and hopes to make an announcement shortly.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, to which I am able to give one cheer. Is he aware that many in the art world would accept the intervention of private funding in this sphere if there were access for the public in perpetuity and a permanent export ban? But, in the absence of a public interest, what possible grounds can a Conservative Government have for intervening and distinguishing between one private owner and another?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if I am right in assuming that my noble friend in his supplementary question is referring to the offer of the Barclay brothers, I must point out that that offer has nothing to do with the Government; it is an offer to the owners of the statue. In answer to the second part of his question, which I believe was also mentioned in The Times two days ago, he does not address the matter of compensation if there was to be a restriction on the export without any other consideration.
Lord Renton: My Lords, how long is "shortly"?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I hope as soon as possible,
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister has not given much more information than he gave a month ago. Like the noble Lord, I too should like to be assured regarding the length of time that the statue
1034
will be in the public domain. Is it possible that there could be a guarantee of public access? I doubt it. While the Secretary of State is considering all that, will there be parliamentary discussion and approval of the decision, or will it just be an order emanating from the Secretary of State, and that will be that?
Will the Secretary of State also consider the offer of Lord Rothschild, which I gather is still on the table? Although it is a variation of the in lieu scheme, it would secure The Three Graces to the nation in perpetuity and the public expenditure implications would be largely offset by the increasing value of the statue and the fact that it would be permanently based in this country and always open to public view.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness's multitudinous questions, and starting with the last suggestion, she makes a reasonable assumption. It would be a reasonable change in public expenditure policy on the basis of the increase in the value of the statue if at any future point it was to be considered for sale. I suggest that the noble Baroness does not consider that it ever would be for sale in the future, and thus the implication that it would be of benefit to public expenditure is hypothetical rather than factual.
But the various offers in no way involve the Government. They are offers or suggestions which relate entirely to the owners of the statue and not the Government. The role that the Government play on this occasion, as in the past, is that of deciding on an export licence, which has nothing to do with any arrangements that may be made in the future.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister did not answer one very important point. Is it true that, if and when this decision is made, it will be by personal edict of the Minister and will not be discussed in Parliament in order to seek parliamentary approval?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that nothing is ever by personal edict of the Minister. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State proposed an extension of the criteria in order to provide the protection to which I referred in previous answers. That protection was necessary because of the uncertainty and unhappiness in the art world which stretched back to last October when an object was lost based on a private offer within the United Kingdom. Those are the facts of the case.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, would it not be better if in future responsibility for these matters were transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Office of Arts and Libraries in view of the muddle that has occurred during the last month?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Waverley Rules of 1952 were based on the 1939 Act, which has been the basis of all protection. That position has not changed for a very long time.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us will reserve our cheers,

1035
singular or plural, until his right honourable friend has made his decision known, whether that be now, not too long in the future, as soon as possible or whenever?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am always looking forward to the noble Lord's cheers. I remind him that the decision will be made by the owner and not by the Government, because the statue is the property of the owner and not of the Government.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is it not a fact that the framework within which the owners make their decision is laid down by the Government? When shall we hear what that framework is? Is it not a fact that the longer the situation continues and the more Ministers are involved, the greater the state of confusion?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government's involvement is limited only to the case where the owner is desirous of exporting the work of art. At the end of the day the decision will be down to the owner. In this case, which is the important case to which my noble friend refers, the Secretary of State has taken time in reaching his decision in order to be in receipt of all representations and to be fully aware of the facts as he sees them.

National Dock Labour Board Assets
2.47 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn Lord Taylor of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to dispose of the assets of the National Dock Labour Board.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the assets of the National Dock Labour Board are being disposed of by the board in accordance with Section 2 of the Dock Work Act 1989.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but will he explain to the House what Section 2 of the Dock Work Act consists of and whether we are getting value for money for the sale of these assets?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, Section 2 imposes a duty on the National Dock Labour Board to wind up its affairs in a quick and orderly fashion and to comply with the directions of the Secretary of State. It allows the board to dispose of its assets at less than market value or for nothing with the permission of the Secretary of State and the Treasury. It provides for the board to be dissolved on a date specified by the Secretary of State and for the board's assets and outstanding liabilities to be transferred on that date.
With regard to the second point, all freehold and leasehold properties are being sold at full market value. The exceptions are the dock workers' clubs which are being sold at 50 per cent. of market value.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, does the noble Earl recognise that one government introduced the dock labour scheme but another government utterly and completely destroyed it without any tangible reason that one could understand? Pressures from certain Members of this House were instrumental in destroying the scheme. Can the Minister give the House some idea of how much the assets are worth? Does he know?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: Yes, my Lords. The properties are currently worth about £6 million.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the generous settlement with the dockers who received redundancy of up to £35,000 has paid off? A number of dockers have gone to Southampton and are now operating a rival scheme which is much more efficient than the scheme operating there normally.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. In Southampton, 325 workers have each pledged £10,000 of their compensation money to a new co-operative company—the Southampton Cargo Handling Company—which will service ships in the eastern and western docks.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, attributing a degree of credit for getting rid of this obsolete organisation to a number of Members in your Lordships' House, is deeply appreciated?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I note what my noble friend says.

Eye Tests: Charges
2.51 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the fall in the number of people having routine eye tests since the charges introduced in April 1989 and whether they will now reconsider their decision.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, we are currently conducting a survey into the number of sight tests carried out during the first quarter of 1990. We expect results to be available towards the early summer. The survey is being conducted by NOP on behalf of the Government. It will provide an independent analysis of the present market situation. The market is, however, still unsettled, as people generally have their sight tested only once every couple of years.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister accept that there has already been a thorough and professional study of sight tests since the Government introduced charges? That study shows

1037
a 30 per cent. decline in testing. Even if the pattern were to settle down to a 20 per cent. reduction, that would lead to approximately 2-5 million people not having their eyes examined. It could mean as many as 50,000 people would not have conditions such as cataracts or glaucoma diagnosed. Is this not confirmation of the most convinced concerns expressed by noble Lords when this House voted against the Government's decision?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is far too early to draw such conclusions from the surveys that have been carried out. The market has obviously not settled since the April 1989 changes. In fact, we estimate that since 1987 and before 1989 about 1-4 million more sight tests were carried out over and above normal expectations. Extensive publicity about charges undoubtedly encouraged many people to bring forward their appointments to avoid the April deadline. As people generally only have their sight tested once every couple of years it will take time for a true picture to emerge. Notwithstanding that, one-third of the population is still entitled to free sight testing.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in January and February the Liberal-Democrats carried out a survey of almost 2,000 opticians' practices? The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has referred to a figure of 30 per cent. Our survey showed a 29 per cent. fall in the number of eye tests since the introduction of charges last year. There was no evidence of a large increase in tests the previous year.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am of course aware of the recently published survey by the Liberal Democrats. It covered a relatively small number of people. On the other hand, the government survey to which I referred is an independent market research arrangement which will cover a random sample of about 10,000 adults to ascertain whether they have had a sight test since Christmas and, if so, whether it was done through the National Health Service or privately. We believe that it would be better to await the outcome of that survey before drawing any conclusions.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it has been reported that a considerable number of people involved in motor accidents are subsequently found to have poor eyesight? Therefore, does not the noble Baroness agree that the unsettled position she describes, and the results of the surveys that have been made, can only exacerbate that grave danger?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it seems unlikely that a charge of between £10 and £12 once every two years, or even following an accident as the noble Baroness suggested, should deter too many people. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that serious eye diseases are going undetected.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, while agreeing with my noble friend that it is too early to
1038
be quite sure of the deterrent effect of having to pay for eyesight tests, is she aware that the organisation that made the inquiry to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred was the Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians, of which I am president. The survey was carried out through an independent firm of chartered accountants. It represented nearly 30 per cent. of all the sight tests which had taken place during the course of the nine-month period. Therefore, I think one can consider it as being entirely accurate. In fact, the result was a fall of 36 per cent.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving the House more details of that survey, but I am glad that he agrees it is too early to draw Final conclusions.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Baroness denigrates the survey carried out by the Liberal-Democrats, does she not agree that it represented a far higher proportion of opticians than is commonly the proportion questioned in opinion polls to which, until recently, the Government have paid a great deal of attention?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I had no intention of denigrating; I do not think that I said anything which did so. I simply recommended that your Lordships have a little patience and await the outcome of the current government survey.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, are the noble Baroness and the Government really satisfied with their policy on eye tests? Is the noble Baroness aware that people are now being encouraged to have eye tests and, indeed, buy glasses at departmental stores and even by mail order? The charge for the glasses and the so-called eye test is cheaper than the standard charge by opticians for an eye test. Surely that cannot be good. Will the Government reconsider their attitude, even at this stage, as people's sight is bound to be injured?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that serious damage is going undetected. We believe—I have said this on previous occasions to your Lordships—that those who can afford to pay for sight tests should do so. That is the way to free resources for other parts of the health service. After all, children, people on low incomes and those with special needs, continue to enjoy a free service.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I simply do not accept that there is no evidence? The Royal National Institute for the Blind—surely no one is going to run down that organisation or its degree of knowledge—has conducted its own survey. It found that around 2,240,000 people have been deterred from having their eyes tested. As regards deterrence, the institute points out that people on low incomes appear twice as likely to be deterred as the better off. The poorest people are three times more likely to be deterred than the very well off. What the noble Baroness says is simply not in conformity with the view of the

1039
experts. We should listen to those representing the Royal National Institute for the Blind.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can only repeat that we believe that this continues to be an unsettled period and that any effects are temporary. We realise that there may not be total awareness among those entitled to a free service. A publicity campaign intended to bring attention to entitlement to free NHS sight tests is to be launched later this year.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if I heard the noble Baroness aright, in her first reply she stated that there is a survey covering the first quarter of this year. Surely the Government know what the figures are for the nine months between the introduction of the order and the end of 1989. What do those figures show? Do they bear out what the noble Baroness said, namely, that this is an unsettled period and that we need not worry? Or do they show what other surveys have shown—a drastic drop in the number of eye tests since last April?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the figures that we have for the earlier period relate to those obtaining a free service under the National Health Service. As I have said, that applies to about a third of the population. There is no change in the uptake of eye tests in that proportion of the population.

Horses: Export and Slaughter Controls
3 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What efforts they have made to secure the necessary changes in EC regulations to bring them into line with British equine protection regulations by 1992.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, discussions in Brussels on proposed measures for the protection of animals during transport are at a very early stage. We will be pressing hard to maintain controls to prevent the export of horses for slaughter.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. It seems to indicate that the Government are very well aware that those countries that will comprise the single European market in 1992 have very little concern for that remarkable piece of legislation, the Animal Health Act 1981, which means so much. Does he agree that unless those countries are prepared to accept the principles of the Act there will be a very serious situation and abominable cruelty to horses will continue? I hope that the Government will fight hard to see that EC regulations are improved so that they are in line with our Animal Health Act.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, yes. We shall fight very strongly for the retention of minimum values. There is deep concern in this country for the plight of Dartmoor and other wild ponies, as well as for aged, infirm and other surplus
1040
horses if sent abroad for slaughter. Experience before minimum values were established showed that these animals were abused during journeys and on arrival in Europe. We have seen nothing in EC transport proposals to guarantee the safe handling of our horses if exported to Continental abattoirs.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl and the Government will not only fight the proposals emanating from Europe but will insist that ours remain in place. Is he aware that the present regulations were obtained from the British Government after a good deal of fighting on a cross-party basis in the House of Commons? Does he not agree that it would be quite intolerable for a decision that was arrived at almost unanimously by the House of Commons to be set aside by a group of European countries which does not have the same concern for animals as we have in this country?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as I have already said, the Government will be fighting extremely strongly for the retention of minimum values. We are also considering other means for restricting the export of horses and ponies for slaughter.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the five abattoirs which are currently export-approved for the slaughter of equines are adequate as regards their location and their capacity for both the present and future trade in equines?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have that information at hand. If I may, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I ask the Minister whether he saw the article in Horse and Hound a few weeks ago which has shocked very many people about the export of horses from Britain and the state of such animals. Does he not agree that it would be kinder to put them down first and then to export them as dead meat?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as regards the noble Baroness's suggestion, meat exported in the form of dead carcasses is not as welcome as live animals.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, following my noble friend's Question, can the noble Earl give an assurance that the minimum values order of 1950, as embodied in the 1981 Act, will not be negated or frustrated either by the Treaty of Rome or by the Single European Act?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I cannot go completely down that road. I must restate what I have said. The Government will be fighting extremely strongly for the retention of minimum values.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl will be kind enough to go down that road and give me a direct answer to my question.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, but I cannot give him a direct answer to his question. It would not be right for me to reveal our negotiating position. But I can assure noble Lords that it will reflect our recognition of the considerable depth of feeling in this country.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the International League for the Protection of Horses is quite prepared to make its vast knowledge and experience available to the department so that it will have a superb case to present for our fundamental principles Act of 1981 to be adopted. Can the Minister say whether the department is prepared to consider that offer?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I am well aware of the noble Lord's association with the International League for the Protection of Horses.. I have read the document which it has put out. The Government are in full agreement with the noble Lord that all horses should be protected at all times.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. On the principle that the mover is allowed 20 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, all other speeches should not exceed
11 minutes.

Channel Tunnel: Road and Rail Links
3.6 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill rose to call attention to the Channel Tunnel and its road and rail links, and their relationship to the national interest and to the interests of all parts of the country; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the debate is to ensure that Britain is able to take full advantage of the single European market in 1992, which is only two years away. Will the national transport network be ready in time? I am gratified by the number of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in this debate. In particular, I welcome the maiden speech that we shall have from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. I am sure that all noble Lords will listen with great care to what he has to say.
In December the House debated the report of the European Select Committee on Transport Infrastructure. Paragraph 151 of that report states:
"Transport infrastructure in the Community as a whole, and in the UK in particular, is inadequate and underfunded".
The Select Committee placed emphasis on the importance of the Channel Tunnel to all parts of the United Kingdom. A number of witnesses, including
1042
the International Road Federation, the CBI and the County Surveyors Society, expressed concern that the Department of Transport was paying too little attention to the development of links between the United Kingdom regions.
Paragraph 47 of the report ends by stating:
"But the Department of Transport were not prepared to carry out a study of the regional impact of the Channel Tunnel, because it would be difficult to isolate its effect from other influences on the industrial growth of the regions and it was not expected to have a significant influence on the regional distribution of industry and employment".
I suggest that that statement reflects what appears to be a lack of urgency and an absence of any co-ordination of strategic planning. Has the Department of Transport changed its views since that statement was made to the Select Committee? The tunnel will not alter the fact that most goods will continue to be moved by road in the United Kingdom.
There will remain an important place for the ports and ferries of the United Kingdom. The question is whether the Department of Transport has changed its view from that expressed to the Select Committee or whether that view is still held by the department. Where does the Government stand on that statement, which was presumably made on their behalf by the Department of Transport?
Before proceeding further I must make reference to the safety aspect. It will be recalled that during consideration of the Channel Tunnel Bill I and a number of other noble Lords questioned the proposal not to segregate drivers from their vehicles. I was reassured, when the Minister referred to a memorandum of Eurotunnel, that there would be a number of attendants who would deal with the behaviour of passengers in their vehicles. I recently had opportunity to read the full report of the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority on non-segregation of drivers and passengers from their vehicles. Unless I have read through it too quickly and missed something I can see no reference whatever to the question of attendants.
As the safety authority has decided that there shall be no segregation from cars and coaches which run on petrol or diesel, I must again raise this issue. The House will want some reassurance that whatever happens there must be no decision taken on the grounds of the financial cost that could be involved. Further, has the decision of the safety authority to be confirmed by the inter-governmental commission before rolling stock is ordered? It has been suggested that some rolling stock has already been ordered on the basis of the safety authority's decision.
Section 40 was inserted in the Channel Tunnel Act to provide that British Rail would produce by the end of 1989 a report on plans for international passenger and freight rail services. That report International Rail Services for the UK was published in December. British Rail states that the plan is based on a total of 135 consultation meetings held with 13 regional fora. The British Rail plan envisages that when the Channel Tunnel opens in June 1993 80 passenger trains a day will carry 13 million passengers to and from Europe yearly, and 54 freight

1043
trains daily will move 6 million tonnes of freight each year.
British Rail has asserted its determination to maximise the benefits of the Channel Tunnel and the new opportunities for rail travel which it presents. British Rail's view of the importance of the tunnel services outside the South-East is indicated by its estimate that 30 per cent. of international passengers will come from destinations beyond London, and that more than 70 per cent. of rail freight will begin or end in the regions. However, there is growing pressure in the English regions and in Scotland and Wales for major investment in improved infrastructure to enable them fully to share in the economic benefits which may follow the opening of the tunnel in 1993. There is a growing realisation that many parts of the United Kingdom could be seriously disadvantaged unless they have fast and efficient access to and through the tunnel. There is a widespread feeling of disappointment in British Rail's Section 40 consultation report, to which I have referred, and that British Rail has seriously underestimated the likely demand for services to the north, west and east of London.
Certainly, the North of England Regional Consortium states that after undertaking a full analysis of British Rail's plan both freight and passenger proposals fail completely to meet the aspirations of the northern areas and fall short of the demand as indicated at the Section 40 consultations. This view is held also by the North-West Channel Tunnel Group, which comprises chambers of commerce, local authorities, the development corporations and the CBI. Further, the six local authority associations of England, Scotland and Wales, in a document entitled Getting the Best from the Channel Tunnel, urge a strategy to create the best possible links to the tunnel to maximise the benefits for all parts of the United Kingdom.
The British Rail plan envisages a network of between six and 12 regional terminals for freight distribution. An early decision is needed on this matter. Will the number determined and their actual siting meet the requirements of the regions? There must also be opportunity to ensure that there will be adequate rail and road connections to these freight terminals.
The last paragraph of British Rail's published plan sets out three criteria governing the choice of terminal locations. The first is that,
"traffic volume must be sufficient to generate profit on investments in the terminal facilities and equipment required".
In fact it is made absolutely clear by British Rail that the entire plan has been developed within the financial framework set out in Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act—that international services via the tunnel should operate on a fully commercial basis with no government grant or subsidy. Further, any investment funded by British Rail is subject to government authority and the ability to achieve the appropriate 8 per cent. return on capital expenditure. There is considerable criticism of this policy. It must not be overlooked that the development of effective rail services will relieve the roads of hundreds of thousands of lorry loads each year. Therefore there is
1044
considerable environmental benefit which we should not overlook.
That leads to the question of a fast rail link which is generally regarded as essential if full benefit of the tunnel is to be achieved. I do not overlook the fact that we await details of adequate road links to the tunnel for traffic which will proceed direct there from areas away from the rail link. Lack of regard to environmental problems led British Rail to defer a final decision on the route. We need an early decision on what will be British Rail's final preferred route. We are told that a new Bill will be introduced by British Rail in November. If all goes well the fast link will be operating by 1998. That is five years after the tunnel opens. There must surely be some way of speeding up the provision and working of the rail link. Any further delay will be a tragedy for other parts of the United Kingdom.
Noble Lords will recall the general support given to the British Rail (No. 3) Bill which provides for various works in connection with the fast link. I repeat what I said then. I was tremendously impressed with the attitude of the Kent County Council which, although petitioning against aspects of the Bill, supported the Bill's general direction in the interests of freight coming from the north of London as well as easing commuter traffic. The county council's attitude is further reflected by its joint sponsorship of a conference, held in Leeds only recently, representative of all parts of the country. At the conference there was a strong consensus of opinion for firm and early decisions by the Government on a number of issues. Those included the rail link, freight terminals and funding.
We learn of the large sums being spent by our Continental neighbours on roads and railways in readiness for the tunnel and as a springboard for their industies in the barrier-free Europe of 1992. This applies in particular to what is being planned and achieved in France. Reference has also been made to the plans of European railways for a high-speed link, possibly taking in Eastern Europe. We are told that the French part will be in place by 1993. Belgian railways expect to complete their high-speed link by 1995. But our link to London is not expected at the earliest until 1998.
The other place debated public transport on 23rd March. Many government supporters urged that reconsideration be given to Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act which bars any public money for international rail services in connection with the tunnel. With the repeal of Section 42 there should be an early strategic view of the entire tunnel development to get the best value for money in economic, social and environmental terms. We have all seen reports of the difficulties not only with the financing of the tunnel itself but also with the financing of the rail link. I noted that in his speech in the debate the Minister, Mr. Michael Portillo, made no reference whatever to those points and to the pressure from many government supporters that attention should be paid to a reconsideration of the Section 42 provisions.
Will we receive an encouraging speech of urgency from the noble Viscount who is to reply to the debate today? Further, if financial help is to be given from

1045
what might be a European strategic fund, can we be assured that that will be additional money and that it will not be money taken away from any other funds which will be provided?
It may be recalled that right at the outset my party pressed for a full-scale inquiry into the matter before the go-ahead was given for plans for the Channel Tunnel. There was no opposition to it; but we wanted to ensure that everything was carried out correctly and that we would have the best possible system to take advantage both of the tunnel and of 1992. Have we no: reached the stage where bold decisions will now have to be taken? A high level review is needed of all possible rail links, including the possibility of a dedicated rail link from Scotland right through to the tunnel.
There is a need for foresight to prepare for modern travel in the coming years and also the political will to do so. This call for a review is part of a statement made by Mr. John Prescott, the Labour Party's shadow spokesman on transport. Indeed, he released a statement to that effect less than an hour ago. This is a matter to which I hope the Government will give some consideration. The review need not take long; but if we are to make the utmost use of the tunnel, and of 1992, this Motion must be given the most serious consideration. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.21 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of the House on the occasion of my first address to your Lordships. I very much welcome the opportunity which this debate has provided. Being based in Scotland, but with a landscape practice which is available nationally, I cannot help but take a great interest in regional and national transport policies—of both of which I frequently feel either a beneficiary or a victim. As with many of your Lordships, I am well aware of the trials and tribulations which can be afflicted on today's growing number of travellers. There are times when the only possible source of comfort is the attitude that it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive—unless, of course, everyone in the tailback is a travel author for whom the slower the journey the richer her the experience.
It is not as a traveller that I wish to speak today, nor is it for family reasons. However, I should add that it is fitting that my first address to your Lordships involves transport. My father had much experience and considerable expertise in this field and it had been his hope to spend many years in this House contributing to debates on such matters.
It is as a landscape architect that my attention was drawn to today's debate and to that part of the question which deals with the relationship of the road and rail links to the national interest. Possibly the most valuable, sensitive and irreplaceable part of the national interest is the environment. It is important to remember that the natural physical fabric of this country is a finite resource, entirely fixed in its dimensions. As a nation, we can convert part of our wealth, and though diminished, we have the prospect of watching the remainder increase. However, the conversion of our landscape enjoys no
1046
such regeneration; the area we diminish will not be compensated by an increase in the area which remains.
In considering the Channel Tunnel links it is therefore vital to outline the comparative impact of road and rail systems on the environment. Neither of the two systems should really survive without the other in this instance, but their relative impacts should help establish basic priorities. In terms of simple land-take, there is a marked difference. Motorways are three times wider than high speed rail lines of the same capacity. Further, a high speed rail line has a performance capability three times higher than that of a motorway.
If one includes pollution in that comparison, the land impact of a motorway is even greater as exhaust pollution neutralises a strip of land a further 100 metres wide. In France, it has been calculated that 20,000 hectares of land directly adjacent to roads have been sterilised through lead pollution—that is about 50,000 acres.
In urban areas, transport systems seem even more intrusive. Here, road systems typically occupy 19 per cent. of a large city's surface, whereas railways on average only occupy about 4 per cent. That 4 per cent. can be reduced further by tunnelling and the covering over of electrified lines. There has been considerable success achieved with the latter in France where the TGV's new Atlantique line has created linear parks over submerged track. These continuous stretches of landscape, known as green corridors, plunge through the middle of urban and suburban areas.
But what about the expense of such environmental protection? The TGV found that the new parks had one further bonus, and that was the interest shown by local authorities. On the expectation of land values rising along these green corridors, local authority funds were attracted to the scheme. That expectation has been fully realised.
What happens to the urban landscape when such far-sighted transport planning is abandoned or unpopular? I have spent some time in Los Angeles where the car and its owner are such important political creatures that 50 per cent. of the city's surface is devoted to roads and parking. Environmentally, this represents an extraordinary level of poor planning in every respect. That is lunatic when one realises that the average car spends 90 per cent. of its life parked, and only 10 per cent. in use.
The other aspect of the environment for which Los Angeles is justly infamous is smog. As with land-take, the comparative impact of pollution between roads and railways is startling. I have already referred to the 100 metre-wide band of exhaust damage that is a feature of a modern motorway. That is caused by nitrogen oxide and lead. Road transport, being totally dependent on fossil fuels, is blamed for half the total pollution by these toxic substances. As one can imagine, the costs to soil, every form of plant life and human health are extensive.
Carbon monoxide is another car-related pollutant which affects both ourselves and the atmosphere. A slightly uncomfortable statistic is that a single car

1047
emits more carbon monoxide than an entire diesel train, while an electric train emits virtually no chemical waste. In Europe and in this country most main-line travel is more and more on electric traction.
Railways seem to hold some of the answers to the environmental and other pressures caused by booming infrastructures. However, life is not that simple. British Rail, without government help, has attracted the necessary funds for the basic construction and operation of a high speed rail link to the Channel Tunnel. What is proving more difficult is the incremental cost of minimising the impact of the rail link on the environment, a feature that British Rail believes is indispensable. Tunnelling, cutting-and-covering, and anti-noise screens are not cheap. If British Rail is expected to use private sector finance to fund this from the start, passengers and freight will have to be charged accordingly.
In comparison, motorists and heavy goods vehicles hammering down the Kent motorways are causing considerable environmental damage but bearing a very small proportion of the cost. Therefore, if rail users have to pay the external and social costs in full, many of the people and much of the tonnage that should be on the trains will be priced on to the roads. We all know what can happen in such circumstances; we have the example of what took place on the M25 when unexpected increases in traffic occurred.
There seem to be two immediate dangers associated with allowing British Rail's commitment to the environment and a high speed rail link to go either unaided or unrecognised. Having attracted the promise of considerable private sector funds, the viability of its project remains in doubt so long as the question of the payment of external costs remains undecided. If assurances were given on the incremental costs involving our environmental protection, the private sector funds currently on offer could be secured. Otherwise the high speed link may be stalled and there is a danger that those outside funds will then be allocated elsewhere and will not be available at the second time of asking.
Such assurances seem a sensible option to consider, in that the taxpayer is paying only a part of the costs, and even then it is only that part which affects the environment. The benefit is therefore to the local communities and not to the rail traveller.
The second problem has the same consequences of pricing traffic and tonnage off the railways. If the high speed rail link is delayed or cancelled, the pressure and congestion on the proposed road links will build up to the point where they have to be widened and there follows a call for a second, third or fourth motorway. Throughout that whole cycle of congestion, further improvements, new construction, and all the associated roadworks and contraflows, the entire environmental burden will be borne at every stage by the local communities and their surroundings. The financial burden will be borne by the taxpayer, who will no doubt make up most of the traffic jams.
The problems that we suffer today are a hint only of what is to come later as the demands for transport
1048
continue to spiral. Railways cannot eclipse roads in a transport system, but their environmental benefits, capacity and performance capability suggest that they must play, from the very beginning, a central part in the Channel Tunnel link. It is no service to the national interest, the taxpayer or the traveller if British Rail is left struggling and delayed, not with basic construction and operating costs but with the financing of the high standards of environmental protection that we all expect and that British Rail itself wants to meet.
Today's transport planning decisions will be inherited by the next generation and beyond. It is they who will have to cope with the legacy of our environmental care.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, my immediate pleasant duty is warmly to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, on an extremely effective maiden speech.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the noble Earl clearly speaks as an expert in the matters that he has chosen for his maiden speech. I know that he has already served with distinction in his chosen profession. I know too that the whole House—it is a rare privilege for someone to be aware that he speaks for the whole House—will look forward to the many future occasions upon which we shall listen to the noble Earl's contributions.
The House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for raising this subject and for the way in which he raised it and the framework within which he put his views. I join with him in deploring the inadequacies of the Government's approach to matters relating to the Channel Tunnel. I should perhaps declare an interest, since I live in East Kent near what I understand is likely to be British Rail's preferred route. That no doubt colours my views a bit. My views are equally coloured by the many years I spent as a Scottish Member of Parliament and the years I spent as a Regional Development Commissioner of the European Community. As the noble Lord made clear, the Channel Tunnel and its rail and road links constitute much more than a problem of the over-congested, albeit prosperous, South-East. The matter is one which, as the noble Earl made too clear, affects the whole of the United Kingdom—my native Scotland as much as my adopted county of Kent. The noble Lord talked about a dedicated railway from Scotland to the Continent. I look forward to a dedicated railway line from Dundee to Dover. That is something in which I have a close interest.
What is needed is a comprehensive national infrastructure strategy as part of an integrated European-wide transport system. It would make a vital contribution to bridging the present North-South divide in this country.
In Kent, British Rail is regarded as the villain of the piece. At times its public relations have been catastrophic; but the real culprits are the Government with their doctrinaire approach of

1049
leaving the building of the tunnel and everything connected with it almost entirely to the private sector and, in particular, to a British Rail that is under the pressure of privatisation. In contrast, the governments of our Continental neighbours go into positive partnership with private enterprise in the creation of a Europe-wide fast rail network.
The vacillation and delay which have resulted in Britain stand in stark contrast to the way in which our mainland neighbours are forging ahead. We still await British Rail and Euro Rail's proposals for next November's private Bill which has been delayed for 12 months. In the meantime, uncertainty and blight persist over which areas of Kent will be directly affected. The time for any serious consultation on these matters, when they come, is becoming shorter and shorter.
Some of those affected by the proposals have put a great deal of thought and effort into producing what they regard as practical alternative routes which they believe would be more acceptable environmentally and in other ways. I think particularly of the plan which is called TALIS, which proposes a 24-kilometre tunnel under the North Down, a road along the Thames estuary and then an international terminal at Stratford before reaching King's Cross and the national rail network.
It is clear that a consensus has developed in favour of King's Cross as the international terminal within London. Stratford, compared with King's Cross, is inconvenient for rail travellers from the North changing from an intercity to an international train. However it is a disgrace that for two years neither TALIS nor the alternative put forward by a group headed by Ove Arup Partners have ever been evaluated by government alongside British Rail's plan so that a proper judgment could be made about which route was likely to serve the public interest better.
All those routes involve an international passenger station at Ashford in East Kent. Ashford has a great tradition as a railway town going back to the 19th century and is keen to resume the same role for the 21st century. It is crucial that by the time the tunnel opens in 1993 the Ashford international station should be ready, otherwise no international trains will stop in Kent and any of us who live only a few miles from Folkestone who want to go to Paris by train will have first to return 60 miles or so to Waterloo to start our journey. It is also vital—this may be even more important—that by 1993, while the new high speed line is still being built, the existing lines are updated and reshaped to take what British Rail itself—like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I believe that British Rail underestimates those matters—forecasts as a tripling of international freight traffic by rail. It calculates that that will mean the transfer to the railway system of the equivalent of 400.000 lorry trunk hauls a year.
If British Rail does not have the existing lines adapted to take an extra 35 trains a day, each way, every day; if it does not have its national network of freight depots ready; if it does not have its marketing in top gear, in 1993 the extra freight will be lost to rail and it may, as the noble Earl said, be difficult to recover and will instead go on the
1050
motorway links to the shuttle terminal. The noble Earl described vividly and expertly the environmental damage that will occur if there is an unnecessary extension of motorway routes if we do not modernise our railway system. For Kent the prospect of further congestion on the motorways is too awful to contemplate.
Those are the urgent priorities for 1993 while the high speed link is being planned and built. I agree with the sense of urgency that has been expressed by both previous speakers. It should be completed as soon as possible and certainly no later than 1998. If the high speed line is to be a national asset and not a national disaster, the environmental considerations to which the noble Earl referred are of great importance, not merely to Kent but to all the regions of the United Kingdom. The environmental assessment that has to be made in that respect must be meticulous. Special attention must be given to mitigating the noise effects, to providing tunnels and deep cuttings where necessary, and to using the considerable and interesting German and French experiences of sound absorbent barriers. The track specification, I am told, is critical, since it affects the levels of vibration and noise.
The environmental impact of a high speed line, as the noble Earl argued very cogently, raises issues that go far beyond the economics of running an efficient and profitable railway—important though that certainly is. I do not believe that we can have both a high speed national railway network and a satisfactory level of environmental protection within the confines of a privatised British Rail balance sheet. There are wider public interest considerations which go beyond the reasonable responsibilities of railway operators. Here I completely agree with the argument put by the noble Earl. In the national interest of everyone these require a contribution from all of us as taxpayers.
I therefore add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to plead with the Government that they seriously consider whether, in the way matters have developed, Section 42 remains a sensible inhibition on government. Ought it not now to be repealed? If that cannot be done, are there other ways in which the Government, through public funds, could make the necessary contribution that is required to ensure that these vital developments are consistent with maintaining our quality of life in this country?
The Government now claim to be as green as anyone else and to be thoroughly aware of their environmental responsibilities. The environmental arrangements for the high speed link through Kent will be a test case of their good faith. The arrangements will set the standard for the way in which other regions of the country will be treated.
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I associate myself warmly with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, in giving thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for bringing the debate before us and for the way in which he introduced it. I am also grateful for his tribute to the maiden speech

1051
of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, to which we listened with great respect and interest.
I follow two Scots. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, painted a vivid picture of hell on earth as a result of pollution from the motor car and the lorry in Los Angeles as well as on this side of the Atlantic. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the story of the Scottish minister who was fulminating from the pulpit about the perils of hell that awaited his hearers. He told them that when they looked up from their agonies and called "Lord, Lord, we didna' ken", the Lord in his infinite mercy would look down from heaven and say, "Well, ye ken the noo". One might well say that if we make mistakes on these vital matters of transport policy, producing something of a hell on earth by giving way too easily to the power of the lorry, it will not be much good saying, "Well, we didna' ken" because we shall certainly "ken the noo".
I must confess that I have not been all that keen about the Channel Tunnel project from the start. I have had serious reservations about it, partly because I have never heard effectively answered the arguments about the dangers of terrorism on a slender link which becomes increasingly important to this country. Secondly, there is the possible deterioration of ferry services and, thirdly, the environmental problems which now face us in abundant measure.
However, the fact is that it is coming. We need to see the positive side, welcome it and make the best we can of a remarkable development in engineering technology. In particular the boost to rail transport is to be warmly welcomed. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, has put before us in an expert way the great advantages which railways have when we are threatened with pollution of various kinds. No solutions are pollution-free, of course; certainly not the railways. But when compared with the movement of large quantities of freight by lorries along motorways, railways have obvious great advantages. I understand that about 2 million tonnes of cross-Channel freight a year is moved by rail compared to 24 million tonnes by road. That works out at a proportion of only one-thirteenth moved by rail. British Rail estimates that in 1993 approximately one-sixth will be carried by rail. Eurotunnel's estimates are even higher. That must be counted as a real gain in environmental terms.
In the regions, especially the north of England and the older manufacturing areas, we are vitally concerned that the benefits of the Channel Tunnel should be spread as evenly as possible. Perhaps I may make one digression here on the whole question of wealth creation and its spread in relation to the Churches. Some of your Lordships may remember a sharp attack by Mr. Peter Morgan, the director-general of the Institute of Directors, a few weeks ago, which received wide publicity. Among other subjects he attacked the Churches, saying that the concept of wealth creation was alien to them. I am glad to say that we were not the only target in his sights. He also had a go at other sides of the establishment represented by many of your Lordships in this House.
1052
We must agree that the Churches are vitally concerned with the distribution of resources, with fairness and with social justice. Many pronouncements by Church leaders and declarations in our synods have dealt with these issues. That does not mean that the Churches do not also consider that wealth creation and growth of the right kind are not important. We believe that these—including the advances of modern technology—should be seen as gifts from God himself.
It is not surprising that Churches in various parts of the country are joining those taking a keen interest in what the Channel Tunnel will bring and how wealth is to be distributed in the regions. Perhaps I may give the House an example. A wide range of organisations have joined together in the Greater Manchester Transportation Consultative Committee which has produced the document which may have found its way into some of your Lordships' hands. It is entitled The North and the Tunnel. In a long and varied list of organisations it is not surprising to find the Churches included through the Greater Manchester Ecumenical Council. We, together with our people, are vitally concerned that this great development should produce benefits for all the regions of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as the South-East.
We represent regions where there has been a massive rundown in manufacturing industry in recent years. That is well known. Some exciting things are happening, certainly in the area from which I come. I think particularly of Manchester International Airport and a number of activities in the centres of our towns and cities.
But it remains true that these areas are grossly disadvantaged when compared with some other parts of the country. It matters a great deal to those in the regions what decisions are made about transport now and how the Government react to the opportunities and challenges before us as a nation.
Particularly important is freight transport as opposed to the transport of passengers. There is a simple and obvious reason for that. As we reach distances of over 1,000 miles, it becomes more and more advantageous for passengers to move by air. That is not so with freight: the balance of advantage turns the other way. The greater the distance the more important freight traffic is and the greater the advantage of moving large quantities of freight by rail. The tunnel will clearly have a major impact on regional development.
If I heard correctly the quotation that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, used from the Department of Transport, it seems rather to play down the effect on the regions. Perhaps I may quote to your Lordships a few sentences from the document, The North and the Tunnel. The document states:
"Carefully planned investment will increase rail traffic, in both the freight and passenger markets and this can be part of a larger strategy to improve the prosperity of the Northern parts of the country … We believe that an energetic policy to promote all viable rail routes to and from the Tunnel is essential for the economic prosperity of the North … In addition trains cut pollution, need less land than motorways and have high energy efficiency … the outlying Regions of the Community will benefit from improved communications, possibly more than the core areas".

1053
I associate myself with those sentiments.
Finally, I should say a few more words about the railways. I believe that in spite of all we suffer from British Rail and all the kicks it receives, it is of enormous benefit and advantage to our people at the present time. The fact that it is publicly owned is an enormous benefit and advantage. That is not to say that I go along with everything that British Rail does. British Rail irritates me a great deal and I get angry when I see too high a proportion of first-class carriages travelling practically empty because of exorbitant fares while the standard class is less expensive but is overcrowded. British Rail needs to look at issues such as that and not look too narrowly simply at the issue of cost effectiveness. British Rail needs to consider its public relations image.
Having said that, it would to my mind be criminal folly to think of privatising British Rail or large parts of it at the present time when we are faced with the kind of problems that exist in our transport policy. As we look at the important issues that will be spelt out in this debate such as the high-speed link, King's Cross and the link to the North-East and the North-West, one of the gravest dangers that threatens us is apathy on the part of decision-makers as regards the strength of our attachment to cars, lorries and motorways. We have a unique opportunity to reverse that trend and perhaps, in a small way, this debate may do something to assist that process.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, it is far more than convention that brings me to congratulate the noble Earl or his maiden speech. It is refreshing to have among us someone with the training, knowledge, and appreciation of the noble Earl. At the same time the noble Earl combines those attributes with the ability to express his views attractively and clearly. I share the sentiments that have already been expressed that we shall listen to the noble Earl with attention and pleasure on many future occasions.
For once I find myself in disagreement with the right reverend Prelate. Unlike him, I have always been a great supporter of the Channel Tunnel. I shall not go into the reasons for that, but I start with a predisposition in favour of the tunnel. However, I have always considered that two grave question-marks hang over the tunnel. The first is the effect that it will have on the environment and on the general social life of south-east England, and in particular the county of Kent. I am concerned about the effect that the tunnel will inevitably have, regardless of what is done, of concentrating ever more industry and people in that already over-industrialised, over-populated and beautiful part of the country.
Secondly, I fear the effect that the tunnel will have on the economic development of the rest of the country. In that respect I come close to what the right reverend Prelate said. The more industry is dragged towards the South-East, the less it will be prepared to continue or set up new premises in the
1054
Midlands, the North-West, East Anglia or other places where there is still room for an expansion of industry and where, historically, particularly in areas of the North-West, a large amount of our industrial wealth has been created.
There is one way in which those drawbacks of the Channel Tunnel can be overcome and it has been mentioned by all the previous speakers. Its drawbacks can be overcome by developing effective transport links with the areas to the north and, to a certain extent, to the west of London. As other noble Lords have said—I make no apology for repeating this point because it is of vital importance—those links must not rely upon yet more motorways with their resulting damage to the environment, their relatively high accident rate and their pollution. As the noble Earl so rightly pointed out, motorways inevitably bring with them pollution.
The right way to deal with this matter is by creating rail links. That is a real possibility. The French and the Germans have shown us how high-speed modern railways can be effective, economical and can produce a good return. We have, alas, for one reason or another, lagged behind. However, here we have a great opportunity to reverse that trend and to show that we can develop a viable, efficient and modern railway network which will not only take traffic from the Channel Tunnel up to London, but will also branch out from London to all other parts of the country. The immediate concern is how we shall get the traffic from Folkestone up to the London complex. We have heard of the problems that have arisen and are arising and we have heard of the completely unwarranted delays which have occurred. I shall not go into the reasons for those delays, but it is expected that there will be at least three years after the opening of the Channel Tunnel before there is any viable rail link to take the tunnel traffic onwards.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in his clear and admirable exposition said that 6 million tonnes of freight per annum is expected to come through the Channel Tunnel. Other estimates put that figure even higher. I have heard estimates of something over 7.5 million tonnes. However, I shall not quibble about the odd million tonnes or so. We must consider how those 6 million or 7.5 million tonnes of freight will be transported. Will that vast amount of extra freight be put on juggernauts which will then plough through the beautiful Kentish countryside on still to be constructed four-lane motorways to the detriment of the environment and to the grave detriment of those living along the routes of the motorways? We are talking about the possibility of tens of thousands of juggernauts every week. Or will that freight be loaded onto trains and be transported along a route which will protect the inhabitants of Kent and will deliver it at a general London centre more quickly and with far less damage to the environment than if it were transported by road? Surely the answer must be that the great majority of the extra freight which will come from the Channel Tunnel should travel by rail. I shall not enter into the arguments concerning the rival plans.
We are told that the British Rail Scheme will not be ready until the end of the century, at a very high

1055
cost. It will terminate at King's Cross, right in the centre of the city, which in itself will cause very considerable problems. However, that is not the only option.
A consortium, called the Rail Europe Group, has recently been formed. It has chosen Stratford as the base for its terminal. I understand from the promoters of that imaginative line that not only will it cost substantially less than the King's Cross option but it will take five years to bring into operation. That is a considerable improvement on the eight years envisaged for the other scheme. It is estimated that it will give a pre-tax return to the private investor—which should appeal very much to the present Government—of between 11.25 per cent. and 13.92 per cent. That is apparently an attractive return to investors in such schemes.
As I said, I do not wish to take sides in the matter. However, I suggest to your Lordships that the alternative proposal is of very great significance. It should be assessed not only very seriously but with real urgency so that whichever route is decided upon those who will put it into operation will be able to start work at least by the end of 1992. If that is done, with luck, by the end of 1995—if the quicker route is chosen—there will be a train service to London which will safeguard the interests of the inhabitants of Kent and open up the vista of rail transport further north. It would also make possible the extension of high speed lines, which are so successful on the Continent, from London into those areas which at present will gain no benefit from the Channel Tunnel.
If we are to overcome the damage to the inhabitants, the beauties and the environment of Kent and at the same time overcome the increased localisation of industry in the South-East, and spread it throughout the country to where it is needed far more than it is in the South-East, we must with the greatest urgency make sure that the rail connections between the Channel Tunnel and the rest of the country are put in hand with the least possible delay and in the most effective and efficient manner.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I greatly admired the enthusiasm for the environment which the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, expressed in his speech today. However, I am not so sure that that is an argument for the project.
The present tunnel project at first offers little or no benefit to the British balance of trade or balance of payments. Even if traffic increases as a result, imports will increase as fast as exports. The conclusion of the London Business School, which appears to be alone in having made a serious study of the scheme, is that:
"The Channel Tunnel will have no major affect on the pattern of European or United Kingdom trade".
The only certain economic effect will be further pressure for expanding industry to move to the South-East of England.
Even if the project succeeded technically, from any serious judgment of social and human priorities it is an extraordinary misdirection of capital
1056
resources. The sum of £8 billion would enable us to rehouse decently the 130,000 homeless families in this country and solve one of our very worst social evils. It makes no difference that the money is spent from private rather than public finance because the same resources are bound to be consumed.
The scheme was sold to a gullible public and a not much less gullible City of London with the basic argument that if the travelling time for passengers by train from London to Paris were cut to 2½ hours and from London to Brussels to 2¼ hours enough passenger traffic would be tempted away from the ferries and airlines to make the project profitable even though the capital costs were bound to be huge. The major weakness in that argument was the assumption that one could run trains from London to the tunnel at the same speeds as are achieved on the high speed French lines, which were constructed largely regardless of the environment and entirely regardless of cost.
However, the population per square mile is far greater in South-East England than in France and those high average speeds could only be achieved between London and Folkestone at enormous cost and probably with far-reaching damage to the environment.
The awkward hard facts are these. So far as concerns goods, the London Business School study concluded:
"We do not expect the Tunnel to have a significant impact on trade".
Indeed, it quotes the EC Commission in support of that conclusion. The crucial economic question therefore is whether sufficient passengers will switch from the ferries and airlines for the sake of the allegedly shorter journey time.
During the period 1993 to 1998 trains will leave Waterloo for the tunnel and run on the existing track through Tonbridge and Ashford. They will first have to negotiate a sharp new curve in the Stewarts Lane area in South London, necessitating lower speeds. They will then compete with commuter trains as far as Sevenoaks. There are four tracks on that line only as far as Orpington. It is only between Tonbridge and Ashford that high speeds can be achieved, but if there is to be a stop at Ashford, then even that is doubtful.
Then a new snag arises. It does not appear to be entirely understood that apart from the service tunnel there will be only one line in each direction through the tunnel, which will thus before long become a super bottleneck. Fast passenger trains will have to compete at the tunnel entrance with two slower forms of traffic—freight trains and car and lorry shuttle trains containing 200 or more cars with passengers and petrol. The shuttle and freight trains will have to shunt on and off the fast line both before and at the end of the tunnel causing even further delays.
In the circumstances it is not credible that passenger trains will reach the French entrance to the tunnel in less than two hours from London. It is almost 170 miles from the Boulogne area to Paris and it is not claimed that even French trains cover 170 miles in half an hour or indeed in one hour.

1057
Therefore until 1988 and perhaps later the journey time in practice will not be materially less than by air or terry. It is therefore a gamble to assume that the required additional traffic will be attracted from those modes of transport.
After 1998 a fast link from King's Cross to the tunnel entrance is proposed. The first schemes proved too costly and too damaging to the environment. No decision has been made but there is a possibility of a tunnel from King's Cross under the Thames emerging somewhere unspecified in South London. In that case trains would have to compete at the junction with those from Waterloo and then either run to the Swanley area on the commuter lines or on new fast tracks alongside them, causing further major environmental damage in South London and Kent. Even after 1998 they will still have to face the bottleneck at the tunnel entrance.
In either case it seems to me to strain credulity to argue that the journey time of 70 minutes would be reduced by the 30 minutes claimed by British Rail or that any but an exceptionally lucky train, day or night, would reach Paris in less than three hours. Therefore the economic case does not stand up.
The risk is that even after 1998 a great many people will be disappointed and a considerable sum of money will be lost. If that is true, what should be done now? In the rather parallel case of Concorde, I was persuaded in 1964 by the argument that so much money had been spent, we could not go back and to have stopped then would have been to lose everything. However, in this case there is a possible alternative: to abandon the fast rail link through south London and Kent and make the best of a bad job with the existing lines. It would be less foolish to take that course rather than to throw a great deal more good money after bad.
Of course there will be a demand—we have heard it today—for the Government to save the shareholders by putting up billions of public money on the grounds that it is needed to protect the environment. However, if that argument is accepted, almost any entrepreneur could propose any scheme damaging to the environment and ask for large sums in compensation in return for not carrying it out. In addition, if that were done, the ferries and the airlines would have justifiable grounds to protest at subsidised competition which would be highly damaging to them. The loss—if there is to be a loss—should fall on the shareholders who put up the money.
I fear that this story is not so much a triumph of hope over experience as a triumph of political fantasy over common sense.
4.12 p.m.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, the best way that I can thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for initiating the debate is to say how much I agree with him in the importance that he attaches to the Channel Tunnel and to the rail links associated with it. In that, I fear that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Jay.
1058
This is part of a massive restructuring of transport in Europe. To give only two examples, the Scandinavians are planning enormous bridges between the islands and the Spaniards are planning to reconstruct railways with the European gauge rather than their own gauge, all of which must be of assistance to their trade. The Channel Tunnel is a vital part of our trade.
The progress of construction is good. Here I should perhaps declare an interest—or a past interest—as until recently I was a director of George Wimpey, one of the 10 contractors. The boring is going well and the Eurotunnel company in its latest announcement says that it has completed half the tunnelling and the lining. True, it is the service tunnel rather than the running tunnels, but it is nevertheless good progress.
I am more concerned with the financial aspects. The latest estimates given by the company are in the range of £7-5 billion to £7-6 billion. It is not entirely clear exactly how they relate to the original estimate of £5-8 billion, which included a billion pounds worth of contingencies. That is a huge figure. Certainly £6 billion will have to be borrowed. That implies that when the tunnel opens for business the annual interest charges will certainly exceed £600 million. You can apply whatever seems a realistic interest rate to arrive at that enormous figure which tends to be discouraging for the shareholders.
There is a further problem; namely, that there is a large and as yet indeterminate figure for claims. As everyone will know, claims arise in any civil engineering contract. They are variations and additions. Usually, they are settled by agreement and from time to time they go to arbitration. The figure is undoubtedly large. Eurotunnel suggests that the contractors are thinking in terms of £700 million or more and it does not indicate what it thinks is reasonable. The conditions of financing are that a rights issue of an indeterminate amount shall be completed by the end of the year. As a retired financial man, it seems to me that there must be a finalisation of that figure before a rights issue arises.
I hope that all can be solved. I would go so far as to say that I believe it can be solved, but one must recognise the possibility that it might not be solved. To that end, I ask my noble friend the Minister at least to suggest to the Government that they should, if they have not already done so, give serious thought to what will happen if financing is not achievable. I am convinced that the tunnel will be completed because I am convinced that if those unhappy circumstances were to arise the French Government would take the matter in hand and would no doubt look to our Government to be a partner. It is a possibility—nothing more.
Turning to the rail issue, here I agree with much that has already been said. The rail links are perhaps partly covered by the limitations on government assistance for a high speed link. The high speed link was not included in the original prospectus. No doubt it would be helpful to the profitability of the Channel Tunnel but it is not essential in that way. From 1987 to the present day it has emerged that in the earlier years it was assumed that the existing railways could carry the load until the end of the

1059
century. The chairman of Eurotunnel said in a Committee in this House that he thought the rail link would be swamped when the Channel Tunnel was open. To that end, it is surely a British Rail responsibility, which in turn is therefore a government responsibility, to ensure that there is railway capacity. If it is to be new, surely it should be a high speed link.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to give assurances that, first, the Channel Tunnel will be built, willy-nilly, and that, secondly, the undoubted limitations of private enterprise will not be allowed to hold up the rail links which are so essential to this country.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, listening to noble Lords this afternoon, one gathers that the Government appear to treat the largest infrastructure project ever undertaken in the history of this country as an ordinary commercial venture and do not seem to recognise the wider regional and national interests. The Government's view seems to be reinforced by their focusing on the implications of the Channel Tunnel for British Rail alone. There appear to be no avenues available for consideration by the Government of any wider interests.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester drew attention to the meetings of local authorities from north of Watford to consider the implications for the regions in which they operate. They came together to formulate a strategy for creating the best possible links with the Channel Tunnel to maximise the benefits for all parts of the United Kingdom. At a meeting of local authorities from north of Watford in Birmingham at the end of last year, it was concluded that there was a need for a national view to be taken of the economic and environmental implications arising from the development of the tunnel. I think that that is what the Government need. They seem to suffer from myopia. Their vision goes only as far as the entry of the Channel Tunnel into the country and no further.
Turning to the investment benefits of the Channel Tunnel, manufacturing is increasingly integrated on a European scale. That is important to world competitiveness. It will be given a further boost by the removal of the internal trade barriers in 1992. So any integration of export manufacturing bases that is taking place in Great Britain vis-à-vis its export trade to Europe—I think in particular of the Ford engine plant in Wales which supplies other Ford plants throughout Europe—needs fast, reliable and low cost freight transit if there is not to be waste of excess capital tied up in warehousing. In the area of manufacturing on which many places north of Watford concentrate, it is important that the manufacturing locations should be fully integrated into the European freight network. Otherwise those businessess will be unattractive to capital investment.
It has been said that the United Kingdom is peripheral geographically. The Channel Tunnel is therefore of particular significance to overcome that disability of the United Kingdom. However, it is
1060
vital that the regions do not become more peripheral. It is important to concentrate on the regions as well as considering the direct benefits that will come from the Channel Tunnel itself.
Although the West Midlands suffered badly during the recession years of this Government, it has worked hard to regain its long and enviable reputation in the history of manufacturing. The development of the Channel Tunnel links is welcome, particularly because of the implications for restoring some of the West Midlands economy that was lost during the recession. It will also help to increase prosperity in the area. The Government recognise that the West Midlands is an area which needs support. It has within it the Black Country Urban Development Corporation. It is obvious that any help coming from extra manufacturing into the West Midlands will have an impact not only on the industry there but also on the people employed in industry.
My noble friend Lord Underhill gave some details about the restrictions under Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act and Section 8 of the Railways Act 1974. It appears that the Government will have to look seriously at the legislation in Section 8 of the Railways Act to make quite sure that there are environmental gains when traffic is taken off the roads and transferred to the railways.
In accordance with Section 41 of the Channel Tunnel Act, all regional organisations have to be consulted by British Rail with regard to regional freight terminals. British Rail and the West Midlands authorities have agreed that Bescot and Landor Street in Birmingham are excellent locations in that respect. Obviously links are necessary so that the freight terminals can be programmed and ready by the time the tunnel is opened.
So far as concerns particular lines, West Midlands oganisations and local authorities support King's Cross although their preference is for a new freight line via Reigate, Reading and Coventry which bypasses London, which they think would be the best arrangement. That is their preference although they will support the Kings's Cross terminal.
There are difficulties on the alternative routes that are now being discussed. There is not only delay in the construction of those lines but also consideration must be given to how they are likely to undermine the many proposals put forward in various regions throughout the United Kingdom to develop freight and passenger strategies which will take full advantage of the Channel. Estimates of economic viability are influenced directly by the ease with which traffic can reach the tunnel. The absence of strong direct links to the north of London is likely severely to prejudice the attractiveness of freight and passenger services. The long delay about where the rail link will be from the tunnel itself into the London area will have serious repercussions on the regions and the various industries in those areas, which will suffer serious economic disadvantages. Help to the regions seems to be hindered by financial constraints and the commercial criteria which British Rail is forced to adopt.
The Government must recognise that with regard to the regions there are economic and social

1061
considerations to be taken into account in addition to the usual BR investment criteria. A strategy is required to create the best possible links with the Channel Tunnel in order to maximise the benefits for all parts of the United Kingdom. I agree wholeheartedly with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester who said that the development of the Channel Tunnel has far-reaching implications. The Government must recognise that it is of very considerable significance to the future of the country and its people. They must make the necessary resources available.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Pennock: My Lords, I must begin with regret and disappointment to apologise because I am unable to stay until the end of this most important debate. I suspect that that is more disappointing to me than to other noble Lords. However, I have a long-standing engagement with some important Russian officials who are here on a very tight schedule which was not possible to be rearranged.
I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, on what I thought was a quite brilliant opening maiden speech. It is always very arresting for members of my generation to hear those of the next generation make us aware of our awful responsibilities in this respect. He did it with great conviction and eloquence. I should also like to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I remember in the early days when the tunnel was in its perhaps pre-14 days fetus stage. We had many discussions and I was always glad to hear his balance and penetration when he asked the right questions. He has certainly asked the right questions today.
The last time I spoke to noble colleagues about the tunnel was at the Bill's Second Reading, a little more than three years ago. Noble colleagues may recall that I then spoke as co-chairman of the tunnel board and spoke with considerable fervour in its support. Noble Lords may also recall that shortly afterwards I moved away from that important appointment. I hasten to add that, so far as I am aware, there was no connection between those two events. However, I have remained a member of the board and therefore today I declare an interest. I have been closely embroiled, and sometimes immersed, in the vicissitudes which a project of these proportions was bound to endure.
1 approach today's debate with almost the same sense of déjà vu that I had at the time when we were seeking to obtain support for the operation in its first stage. We then had to fight tooth and nail, inch by inch, first with government (Was it to be a hybrid Bill or a public Bill?) and then with the City (Would it pay? Would it be effective? Could it ever be constructed?). We had to fight also with public opinion on issues such as defence, terrorism and rabies, some of which have arisen incidentally today. Finally we won through.
I believe that we are again fighting tooth and nail, inch by inch, but there is a significant difference. Having come this far, and having decided to build a tunnel, time is of the essence. The issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, are most urgent and
1062
I share his concern about the delay in seeking to deal with them.
I should like to make three points. First, the tide of history and events during the past three years has moved dramatically in favour of the tunnel and its importance to our national interest. The year 1992, with all its implications, was then scarcely on the drawing board. Thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, some 300 directives ensuring that the barriers to trade and the transport of people will have vanished by 1992 have now been agreed and all but a handful have been accepted by the sovereign states. It is interesting to note that the supposedly backward United Kingdom has a smaller handful of such directives still to be passed than any of its colleagues in the Community.
Secondly, I turn to traffic forecasts. When we put forward the case for the tunnel we made certain traffic forecasts which should be met by 1994. The figures with which I have been presented show that the traffic forecasts for freight and personnel from the UK to the mainland were met in 1989. We heard from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and from other noble Lords about the environmental issue. It has grown most significantly since we commenced operations. The conservative estimate of British Rail of the increase of exports from 2 million tonnes to 6 million tonnes will take 1,500 juggernauts off our roads every day.
The opening of Eastern Europe must be very much in the interests of the tunnel's success. Noble Lords will recall that when we put forward the original case we stated that since joining the Community our exports as a percentage of the total had risen from 35 per cent. to between 55 and 60 per cent. With the bringing down of the barriers and the opening of Eastern Europe we are presented with a further splendid commercial opportunity. We said that sending semiconductors from Linlithgow to Milan will cost one-third less and take one-third of the time that it takes at present. That will obviously greatly increase our competitiveness, and it must apply to Eastern Europe and the rest of the Europe in the same way as it applies to the outer confines of the Community.
I was interested to hear the right reverend Prelate say that one of his worries about the tunnel was that ferry services would decline. One of the major points that we made was that there would be room for both. The competition that we would provide would make the ferry services improve. As a frequent traveller on the ferries, I am delighted to tell the House that in the past three years they have improved enormously. Therefore, the tide of history has moved in our favour.
Thirdly, because bad news sells newspapers and improves TAM ratings, the quite phenomenal—and I repeat "phenomenal"—progress in tunnelling which has taken place particularly in the past year has been hidden behind the difficulties and discussions about costs and who will pay. On 21st April we were happy to announce that we were 71.5 kilometres through the 150 kilometres which the tunnel will finally cover. That is over halfway. More than 50 per cent. of the progress made this year was achieved during the past five weeks. The progress

1063
that was achieved during the first 15 weeks of 1990 was twice that in the last 15 weeks of 1989. There are nine boring machines each 200 metres long, all working flat out. Currently we are achieving on both sides of the Channel a total per week of one mile of tunnel bored and lined. I am happy to tell the House that we have now caught up with the French. During the month of April we on the UK side achieved one kilometre per week of bored and lined tunnel from the British side.
I suggest that those are impressive figures. The gap of 11 kilometres in the service tunnel will be completed by the end of November. By then we shall have a total geological knowledge of the deposit under the Channel. As regards tunnelling, we expect the two marine tunnels to be completed by the end of next year.
I should have loved to have time to deal with finance. However, as a banker on the board of one of the banks which is underwriting the loans and the increases which will be required, I simply say that most of our clearing banks, including the bank to which I belong, have during the past five years written off many hundreds of millions of pounds per annum in provisions to deal with the debts of developing countries which they are doubtful will be repaid. As a result of the increased costs we shall require £2 billion more from the banks during the next couple of years. There are 250 banks underwriting that £2 billion. The extra loan will be less than £10 million per bank. It will be paid for at a higher interest rate and a little later than it might have been originally. That is the true perspective of the financial problems which may appear to beset us.
With that favourable background, I turn to the real issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. With our insular eyes we tend to see the tunnel as a connection between the UK and France. Our colleagues in the Community and now on the Continent at large recognise that it is a vital component in a massive international fast speed network which is beginning to build up and which will be built up dramatically throughout the 1990s on the mainland as a whole.
As your Lordships already know, the French have built the TGV line to Lyons. The effect of having the high technology speed which comes from the TGV means that the radius for passenger train travel expands very significantly. Within 12 months air traffic from Paris to Lyons was demolished by the TGV because of its convenience, comfort and certainty. If that is repeated throughout the mainland of Europe, as it surely will be, it is bound to mean less air traffic, less dislocation and fewer of the problems which we experience in the summer. The international high speed network will bring about dramatic changes.
The French are now extending the TGV line to Marseilles. At the moment they are building a loop from Roissy airport around the whole of Paris to Lille and on to Calais. Three months ago the Belgians announced that, through public and private finance, there would be a fast rail network to Brussels. Plans
1064
are being laid for that network to extend from Brussels to Amsterdam and from Brussels, at German expense, through to Cologne and Frankfurt. It has been hinted that the Danes may join in the network at Amsterdam to take it through to Copenhagen. All that will happen in the 1990s. We, with our preoccupation over the tunnel and with an unhistorical sense of delay, have still to complete our consideration of fast speed links in our own country.
I fear that we may sacrifice ourselves on some altar of ideology as to what is public and private finance. I should have thought that the increasing stress on the environment, mentioned by every speaker here today must lead one to believe that questions of the infrastucture are not solely a question for private enterprise and finance but must be the responsibility of the government also.
Viscount Long: My Lords, the noble Lord has now spoken for longer than the 11 minutes which is allotted to each speaker. This is a very important debate and perhaps he will now conclude his speech.
Lord Pennock: My Lords, I conclude very quickly but with great conviction that we have come a long way. Our colleagues in the Community recognise the great environmental and economic advantages and are proceeding even faster. We have a great deal on which to catch up. I hope that it is not too late.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, in his reassuring and encouraging statement on the prospects for the Channel Tunnel. I very much regret that my noble friend Lord Jay is not in his seat because I think that his has been the only dissenting voice in the debate so far. I believe that he made one or two departures from his normal logic. First, he based the assumptions of the Channel Tunnel traffic on a switch from the cross-Channel shipping services. I believe that he excludes and underestimates the substantial growth in total traffic which will take place as a result of the new relationships with Europe.
He also suggested that those of us who are enthusiasts for the proposition of public sector involvement in the high speed link are asking the Government to bail out the shareholders. That is totally untrue. The banks have invested in the Channel Tunnel. We are discussing the British Rail high speed link. In the light of the statement just made by the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, the City is frequently criticised for so-called short-termism in its investment strategy. If ever I saw a long-term prospect of return, it is investment in the Channel Tunnel. The City should receive a certain amount of credit for its response to this imaginative scheme.
I support the proposition that there should be public sector support and involvement in what is not only an environmental matter but also an important matter of social policy because it goes to the root of regional policy. In arguing that the link to the Channel Tunnel from the regions is desirable, I take Glasgow as an example. By road, and with a good

1065
driver, it takes 48 hours to reach Paris. By tunnel it will take half that time, namely, 24 hours.
The economy of Scotland has changed. There has been substantial investment in high technology with the inward investment of international companies which are linked to European partners and branches. Therefore, a high speed connection to those branches and centres is very important. As has already been said, it also affects the prospects for inward investment. Any company wishing to invest in this country must have a reasonably fast connection with its major customers in Europe.
This morning I attended a seminar with some Japanese bankers. They pointed out that 33,000 jobs had been created by inward investment of Japanese companies in factories. In addition, there is a substantial spin-off in suppliers to those Japanese factories. However, the inevitable question is asked: how close will we be to our European factories and customers? Unless we provide the necessary high speed link, the regions will suffer and inward investment is bound to be centred nearer the South-East. That is a very serious social problem.
The environmental impact has been well aired and I do not plan to say much more about it. I look frequently at the substantial flow of traffic from Scotland and the oil centres of Aberdeen down to the South as I sit in comfort in an InterCity train for five and a half hours on the journey from my home. I see the congestion and the inevitable pollutive effects of those substantial lorries. I thank God that I do not drive on the A1 or any of the major roads from Scotland to London. It is becoming impossible. A high speed link to the Channel Tunnel is essential on those environmental grounds.
I wish to return to the question of the impact on the South-East. When we looked at the Channel Tunnel originally, some of us felt that there would be a tendency to bring more and more industrial activity to the South-East with a consequent disadvantage to areas like the silicon glen in Scotland which is 400 or 500 miles from here.
Regional policy is one area which this Government have neglected. A recent article in the Glasgow Herald stated:
"In the most dramatic demonstration of regional policy in reverse yet mounted by the Thatcher Government, the London Docklands Development Corporation is to receive an increase in its direct state funding next year greater than the entire budget allocated to the Scottish Development Agency".
It is no wonder that the ratings of the Scottish Nationalists are moving ahead, largely at the expense of the Conservative Party.
During the past three years the London Docklands development received £813 million from the Environment Secretary, Chris Patten, as against the total budget of Mr. Malcolm Rifkind in Scotland which is £350 million. The Government have become obsessive about market forces controlling the economy to the exclusion of social concerns. Unless we obtain this high speed connecting link with the Channel Tunnel, regional policy will suffer further.
I repeat the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill; the link is essential. I also agree with
1066
the noble Lord, Lord Pennock. Let us not get bogged down on the ideology of whether it is a public enterprise or private responsibility. We are concerned with a social policy of great significance to the future of our country. Therefore I very much support the general proposition which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, so ably presented.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Johnston of Rockport: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for initiating this debate. One of the difficulties of taking part in a long debate in your Lordships' House is the problem of repetition. Time and again we quote details that are tied in with the whole enterprise but someone has mentioned them before and we find ourselves listening to the same points.
However, I am reminded of an incident that happened to Winston Churchill. It is a true story and I am sure that some Members on this side of the House will remember it and were probably present at the time. He used to speak from very carefully typed notes on cards; he made full use of capitals, spaces for pauses and the underlining of important points.
The incident occurred at one of the last Conservative Party conferences that he addressed, and by then he was quite old. In some way or other he omitted to turn over the page and began to read the same page for the second time. The audience shuffled uneasily in their seats and there was a wave of concern and sympathy for what was happening. Half-way through the page he must have realised what he had done for he suddenly paused. Looking over his spectacles he said, in his own inimitable way, "I know what you are all thinking; you are thinking you have heard this before. Well, you have. It is a very important part of my speech and I am going to repeat it; it stands repeating". He continued with his speech and received a wonderful reception at the end.
I will not offer to do that, but I make no apology for repeating a few pertinent points which may already have been alluded to, because I wish to enphasise that this is a subject of vital importance to the regions outside London.
I have lived and worked for most of my life in the North-West.
Lord Tordoff: Hear, hear!
Lord Johnston of Rockport: Thank you, my Lord. I am glad to have a supporter. It is a region which, since the Industrial Revolution, has been a manufacturing and commercial centre. It has contributed greatly to the prosperity of our country. In recent years it has suffered, like other regions in the Midlands and the North, from the changing pattern of manufacture and trade in the world. Sadly many of its old established and traditional industries have suffered. Unemployment has been high and times have been difficult. But people in the North-West are resilient and innovative. They have risen to the new challenges, new industries and businesses. New businesses have taken the place of the old traditional ones. One only has to travel to the northern cities and towns to see the dramatic

1067
developments which have taken place and the improvements which are resulting. Employment has improved; living standards have been raised and a new feeling of confidence abounds—and rightly so.
The North-West—and this is worth noting—is now the second highest regional contributor to the gross domestic product and is of major importance to the UK economy. I am concerned that that position should not be jeopardised by the coming of the Channel Tunnel. The North-West can only compete with the South of England and Europe if its connections are fast, reliable, adequate and competitive. A good transport infrastructure with quick and economical transport to and from the tunnel will be vital if the region is to retain and expand its position in the wider European market.
While road transport is and will continue to be a major means of transporting goods and people—one welcomes the progress made with the motorways and the projected improvements planned by the Minister for Transport—rail services will be a major factor in ensuring the continued competitiveness of the North-West.
Rail has many important advantages and I list four which immediately come to mind. These points have been made before, but they stand repeating. First, it takes goods and traffic off our already overcrowded roads. Secondly, it is quicker. With the right track and facilities freight trains should average up to 75 miles per hour and passenger trains up to 150 miles per hour. Thirdly, for long hauls it is very cost effective, and the hauls from the North-West to the South and through the tunnel would be long hauls. Fourthly, it is environmentally less damaging than road transport.
My noble friend Lord Lindsay developed that point in a most excellent maiden speech. We will all benefit considerably from his knowledge in that field.
I am concerned that British Rail currently seems to be under-estimating the future needs of the North-West, both with regard to freight and passenger traffic. British Rail's estimates of likely freight and passenger traffic are only two-thirds those of a comprehensive study commissioned locally. It seems to be reluctant to publish detailed plans of its proposals.
British Rail must look, as a matter of urgency, at ways and means of ensuring an efficient rail service to and from the North-West to the Channel Tunnel, based on an upward revision of the anticipated freight and passenger traffic figures when the tunnel opens and the publication by British Rail of detailed plans as to how it will cope with the situation.
There must be early implementaton of the plans for the development of an international passenger terminal at King's Cross, either with a connecting line via Hampstead to the North-West or, if not, a truly reliable travelator under ground from Euston to King's Cross. I emphasise "truly reliable" because I am sure that most of us find at the airports that it is either going in the opposite direction to that in which we wish to travel or it is not going at all.
We need the development of major freight terminals in Merseyside, Greater Manchester,
1068
Lancashire and Cheshire. These should be ready in good time for 1993 and developed, I hope, as joint ventures with private enterprise. Eventually they will provide an improved and direct freight and passenger link from the North-West to the tunnel either using the improved west coast line taking a route to the west of London or, if the money can be found, a new line in its entirety.
We need to back this resolution and to press hard for urgent action by British Rail. I have much pleasure in speaking in support.
5 p.m.
Lord Crook: My Lords, half the aggregate length of the Channel Tunnel has now been built and it seems that it will be finished and we shall have a tunnel. Many people who originally opposed the scheme still persist in decrying it. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was correct in saying that now we must drop that negative attitude and see how best we can take advantage of the Channel Tunnel. Perhaps one day north-east France will be part of the London commuter belt.
It has been apparent since the 1970s that the Channel Tunnel would need a rail link. At a recent conference Mr. Portillo identified a problem which exists and which is the fault of no one. It is that no one in this country has had experience of building railways here. It was true in the 1970s and it is true now. We have not been building railways. Therefore, it is inevitable that the process of designing a high speed rail link will be painful.
However, it is now four years since the start of the tunnel and there is still no definitive proposal for a fixed high speed link from the tunnel into the country as a whole. Instead, we have been forced to accept a stop-gap measure of improving the existing suburban system, with its excruciating curves and intricate interconnections, in an attempt to improve temporarily the running time between Folkestone and London and then the rest of the country. We have to accept that because there is no time for anything better and we must wish British Rail good luck in achieving it.
Similarly, freight services will have to occupy part of the existing network of the South-East of England. Certain sleepy lines will have a considerable increase in their traffic. In that connection Kent County Council is pressing British Rail to pay for the cost of insulating lineside properties against sound and vibration. That would be an unfortunate step if it were to be accepted because it would open the floodgates as a precedent, with far-reaching implications way beyond the problems immediately found in Kent. However, long-welded rails and modern track and stock technologies should help these people.
We have heard much about the need net to be seen to be giving a subsidy to the Channel Tunnel. However, it is a difficult matter to define because for years we have been subsidising the ferry boats by courtesy of the duty-free system. Little of the saving is passed on to the passengers. Most of the refund on duty goes to the ferry companies.

1069
I now turn to high speed rail link. This is to be limited to a rail between London and the Channel Tunnel. We have a bizarre contrast, as the noble Lords, Lord Thomson and Lord Pennock, have already mentioned, between the attitude of the French towards high speed rail transport and the attitude in this country. The French took it for granted that the high speed line would have to connect with the Channel Tunnel. Here, we are making a tentative approach to building our first and relatively short high speed line.
We are worried about the cost and run the risk of making a half-hearted attempt which will be doomed to failure by its sheer inadequacies. Our need is to produce a high speed rail link that has style, is handsome in scale and can be operated with a degree of swagger by those who have that responsibility. Indeed, if we do not become involved in such construction it may add another nail to the coffin of the British railway industry.
There is nevertheless the problem of the environmental impact on Kent of this high speed rail link. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, in his maiden speech suggested—by implication, if not directly—that the incremental costs of safeguarding the environment against the high speed link might well be reimbursed by the state without really acting as a subsidy in the sense of, I believe, Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act.
As matters stand at the moment, journeys north and west of London will continue over existing British Rail tracks. There is no proposal to put high speed trains beyond King's Cross. Travellers will have to change from high speed trains onto existing InterCity services. Some trains will indeed travel from the North, through London, and through the Channel Tunnel but they will not be the high speed trains of which the Continental people speak. They will be our medium speed trains, which may not always be tolerated on the Continental rail network.
The rail link and its argument have caused considerable planning blight through much of Kent. There are so many proposals that people who own property in these areas are having difficulty in selling them when needs they must—a common enough situation. It is important that a decision is made quickly so that everyone else can at least rest assured that their homes are safe. The others can expect compensation. I do not know how compensation will work but there will need to be compulsory purchase and it is to be hoped that the amount offered in compensation for compulsorily purchased properties allows for the inevitable escalation of house prices in the area when so many people are simultaneously seeking houses, having been displaced.
We have spoken a little about roads so far in this debate. Clearly road improvements are going ahead. The M.20 will be completed. I have no idea what effect the residual traffic not taken by rail will have on the existing road network. However, we must always bear in mind that seaside space in northern Europe is limited. The amount of coastline available to serve the population of Germany and the Low Countries is relatively short. It would seem that if
1070
we have a decent improvement in the roads along the south coast the ailing seaside resorts in that area might manage to spruce themselves up and catch some of the people seeking to escape the crowding on the north-eastern coast of Europe. After all, our weather is no worse than theirs.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Underhill for initiating this very topical debate and for the positive and constructive way in which he dealt with the critical issues in his opening speech. There are at least three aspects of the Channel Tunnel which stretch the imagination and understanding of transport professionals, politicians and the general public. They are engineering, finance and the rail linkage.
There are impressive engineering features of which we should all be proud. These features include the most technically advanced equipment and methods ever used in a civil engineering project. There are laser and micro hi-tech devices to keep mining and construction machinery working at hitherto unheard of minute tolerances with hair's breadth precision.
There is the astronomical financial budget of the mounting construction cost. The latest figure is £7-5 billion, which is more than 50 per cent. above the original estimate made less than two and a half years ago. The noble Viscount, Lord Hood, and the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, both referred to these issues in a little more detail than I can.
It is now claimed that the final cost may be 75 per cent. above the initial figure, with a debt of about £6-6 billion when the tunnel begins to earn income in 1993. Some commentators are perhaps facetiously questioning whether the tunnel is being lined with silver and gold rather than with steel and concrete. Whatever the reasons, the financiers and the cost accountants should exercise some of the laser precision techniques employed in the engineering.
Even before the trains commence running it is now suggested that some form of price regulation of fares will be necessary between the tunnel operators and the Channel port ferries as full-blooded competition will not be in the best interests of the respective shareholders. One of the most informed and challenging reports that I have read about the project was published last month by the Royal Town Planning Institute. In the foreword the president, Robin Thompson, states:
"The Channel Tunnel project has provided the best reason for believing in strategic planning that this country has ever witnessed. As the project has lurched inevitably from one calamity to another, the case for planning has grown by leaps and bounds. There is an ironic justice in the fact that the scheme may yet end up as a large hole with no links. As a piece of mega-project management it has been full of holes and largely lacking in linkages. What is patently needed is a combination of clear and regional planning objectives and a flexible but coherent form of planned management of every aspect of the Channel Tunnel scheme. It is late to make this shift but not too late. The Channel Tunnel still offers an exciting opportunity".
There is the blatant ambiguity about the proposed operational services for both the passenger and freight trains already mentioned by other speakers. While there is still much confusion about the

1071
expected type of services in the immediate Dover-London area, there is utter bewilderment about the extent and type of services in the different regions of the United Kingdom.
The paucity of reliable data concerning these primary operational functions has given rise to much speculation and confusion about the possible social and economic impact of the Channel Tunnel project.
Whatever the reasons for believing that the single market of 1992 and the Channel Tunnel will open up new opportunities for employment in the United Kingdom, the trends show a marked widening in the North-South gap in employment expansion. That is a trend which the Channel Tunnel is likely to exacerbate. Patterns of employment growth over the period since 1982 show a marked widening of the then existing large gap. Employment growth in the South has increased by 13-1 per cent.; in the Midlands and Wales by 9-5 per cent.; in the North by 6-2 per cent.; and by only 3-8 per cent. in the peripheral areas of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
In his reply to the debate can the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, indicate how the Government view this growing gap in employment opportunities between the South and the peripheral areas of North-West England, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Can he also say how the Channel Tunnel is likely to remedy the situation?
On completion of the Channel Tunnel in 1993, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic will comprise by far the largest land mass and have the largest population in Europe without a direct land transport link to the Continent. Therefore, of special interest to me are the reports which specifically deal with the railway links and propose a tunnel connection from Merseyside, the Clyde and the Loch Ryan region in Scotland.
The published studies about the implications of the Channel Tunnel for Ireland, both North and South, strongly agree. They agree that the future prospects for trade are very closely associated with the need for urgent measures for a rail link in northern England and in Scotland. These measures are to promote up-to-date, effective and efficient passenger and freight rail services and rail service links with the London-Dover Channel Tunnel rail connection.
Some concern has been publicly expressed by the Northern Ireland General Consumer Council about the passenger and ferry services through Larne harbour in Northern Ireland to the West of Scotland and the ongoing rail links to the Channel Tunnel. Some of these matters have already been mentioned by other speakers in this debate. It has particular reference to the whole of Ireland. The Northern Ireland General Consumer Council has also stressed the need for improving roads within Ireland and particularly the east coast ports in Ireland, together with the urgent upgrading of the Belfast-Lame road.
The Westminster Secretary of State for Transport is responsible to Parliament for roads and rail transport in Scotland. It has been suggested that it could be of help if Mr. Brooke, the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, arranged a meeting with the
1072
Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. Cecil Parkinson. It would be a meeting to discuss all the implications and to move forward together to produce a cohesive transportation strategy for the areas of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I am pleased to say that the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Brooke, and the Northern Ireland Minister for the economy, Mr. Richard Needham, have recently launched two very important and challenging strategy documents. The first is called Transportation Programme for Northern Ireland and the other The Key to Growth—Economic Strategy. I am sorry to say that both documents have been issued separately. There is no mention in the latter document of the importance of transport.
Among the representative and professional organisations which have publicly responded to the respective suggestions for action in both the strategy documents are the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions; the Northern Ireland Confederation of British Industry; the Northern Ireland Economic Council; the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce; the Northern Ireland General Consumer Council and the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland.
I mention these bodies because in Northern Ireland there is great community concern about the impact of the Channel Tunnel, particularly on employment and industrial development. But what is needed is much more than statements of general support. Concerted action is needed, and not only in the Province.
It is my view that the distribution of the tunnel benefits will depend on the outcome of many decisions. Many of these are only partially related to the tunnel itself. Market forces alone cannot achieve the necessary adjustments. Permissions, rights and protections are needed which can be given only by or under legislation. I support the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Underhill in his opening remarks about the need for a review or a parliamentary Select Committee representative of all the United Kingdom regions which will reflect the national interest. The terms of reference should embrace social, environmental and financial criteria. Such an inquiry is urgently required if we are to make progress in this respect.
Northern Ireland, like every part of the United Kingdom, should be preparing for the opportunities that will arise with the opening of the Channel Tunnel. It is for the experts and professionals to advise on the specific road, rail, sea and air linkages that should emerge. Is it too much to ask that, however acute are the political differences within Northern Ireland, or however strained are the relations between the two islands, the evident self-interest of all in planning and in implementing a coherent and integrated transport strategy should now be grasped and genuinely tackled without further delay?
My time has come to an end. I hope that the noble Viscount who is to reply will take on board the two matters that I mentioned.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Hardinge of Penshurst: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for introducing the Motion in these precise terms. It gives me an opportunity to express a view about the interests of one part of the country.
In a speech with which I thoroughly agreed the noble Lord referred to areas to the north, west and east of London. One direction was missing—the south. I wish to talk about the South, especially East Sussex. I have no interest to declare beyond the fact that I have lived for most of the past 50 years in East Sussex. I am not an expert on roads. Indeed, I have the greater danger of what is called "a little knowledge". I also have the evidence of my own eyes for all those years, so I have some notion, as regards roads in particular, of what has happened and, more conspicuously, what has not happened.
In recent years the interests of East Sussex were often championed in your Lordships' House by my friend, the late Lord De La Warr. I cannot hope to match his knowledge or style, but I am glad that my noble friend Lord Teviot will speak about railways.
Folkestone and Dover are in Kent. Next to Kent the nearest county to Folkestone is East Sussex. So absurd is the present position that it takes as long to get from Hastings to Folkestone as it does from Brighton to Folkestone, though Brighton is some 30 miles further away to the west. I realise that it is not the present situation that we are debating, since as yet there is no Channel Tunnel, but I mention it as an example of the way this area has been neglected in regard to road and rail communications. The point here is that Brighton has the M.23 whereas Hastings has only the A.21, which south of Pembury is a very poor road. The present state of the route to the tunnel, across Romney Marsh and so on, is a bad joke, where it exists at all. It does not exist in some places. But, again, it is the plans we are debating and their likely dates of completion.
I am speaking of Hastings, which is to some extent the heart of the matter. But other towns, comprising in all a large population, are equally or almost equally affected; notably, Bexhill, Battle, Lewes and Eastbourne as well as some large towns in Kent and many large villages. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people.
Before getting down to the details of the plans for the A.259 I should like to make two general points. First, there is not in East Sussex one single mile—one yard—of motorway. Secondly, it takes on average nine years—yes, my Lords, nine years—from the appointment of consultants to the completion of a road. The actual figure may vary from five years to 14 years, but the average is nine years. It sometimes takes years to appoint the consultants.
The experts on East Sussex County Council tell me that some harmony now prevails between the various authorities, including the Department of Transport, about the development of the A.27 and particularly the A.259 east of Lewes to the tunnel. The principal reason for this harmony is that the scheme has been adopted into the national programme, which is a great step forward. What now concerns East Sussex is that the target dates may be
1074
missed due to what is usually described by the dread word "slippage". The only way future slippage can be estimated is by looking at past slippage. To do that I must explain some of the jargon.
There is adoption of the scheme which I have just mentioned; there is the appointment of consultants; there is the choice of preferred route; and finally there is completion or opening date. There are a good many other stages but I have chosen the peaks or watersheds. I have before me a section of a planning map drawn in 1985 or 1986, which is not long ago. I shall take as examples three sections only. First, I refer to the Pevensey bypass. The map gives the opening date as mid-1989. I am told that it wi1l actually be 1991, which is not too bad. Secondly, I refer to the Bexhill and Hastings western bypass. The map projects "after 1989", which may remind some noble Lords of War Loan—1952 or after—though I am glad to say that things are nothing like as bad as that. Completion is expected about 1995 if nothing else goes wrong. Thirdly, there is the Hastings eastern bypass to Icklesham, about which the map says "not yet programmed". Here real progress has been made after a very long delay in appointing consultants. It is now thought possible that the road will be built by 1996-97, though I am a little sceptical about that.
The point I am trying to make is that we must estimate future slippage from past slippage—and past slippage has really been pretty bad. I am looking to the Government to apply real urgency to the execution of these schemes, as when we talk about 1997 and so on we shall already, even before things get any worse, be four years behind the completion of the tunnel. I noted that the word "urgency" occurred more than once in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
It may be thought a digression in the context of this debate to mention the A.21 again. Yet it is fair to say that in the event of the agreed A.259 route slipping very badly, people would look to the A.21 as a means of reaching the tunnel via the M.25, which will already be carrying extra traffic. It is something of a Catch 22. If, for the sake of East Sussex, the A.21 south of Pembury is developed, as it should be, before the A.259 schemes are completed, tunnel traffic will flood up and down it to and from the M.25. On the other hand, the completion of the tunnel scheme via the A.259 will leave a great many of the problems in the area unsolved until something is done about the A.21.
In a perfect world both these main access routes would be completed simultaneously, and quickly. It is worth adding at this point that some expert opinion in East Sussex puts forward the view that the sooner the existing schemes are completed the sooner the strains will be lightened on important national routes such as the M.25. I cannot find any fault with this argument which, again, is pressing for greater haste on the agreed A.259 route.
I am not criticising any government, especially this one who actually completed the great engineering feat of the M.25—a concept which has been much abused. I am not criticising the bureaucracy. My plea is simply that slippage should be avoided and that things should be speeded up

1075
with more urgency. For much of my life I have been depressed by the snail-like progress of road developments in the area in which I live. A great many people are affected by it. I hope that the Government may feel some sympathy for what I have said.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Fisher mentioned that she thought one of the problems was that people are rather inclined to treat the tunnel as merely another commercial job. In my view that attitude was epitomised by the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, when in the final stages of his speech he said, "I will now turn to the subject of the Motion". As we all know, the subject of the Motion is the effect the tunnel will have on England—that is, our nation. From then on I listened carefully to hear him mention, London, Manchester, Birmingham or Glasgow. But no, not a word did I hear. All we heard about was Lyons, Paris, Brussels and somewhere else. In fact, we only heard about the Continent.
That epitomises the attitude of the people who originated the tunnel. There was no conception of its national significance. Moreover, when the Government went along with the idea, there was no conception on their part that it would change the whole transport infrastructure of Europe and Great Britain. They said that the best way to handle the matter was to leave it to private enterprise. Therefore we got the tunnel and we now have the initiator of the tunnel who cannot mention the subject of the Motion because he is not concerned about it.
I grew up on Merseyside and one advantage of growing up there is that you are very much involved—that is, if you are involved in the politics of the area—with the international scene. Merseyside owed its livelihood to the fact that it was the crossroads between the new world and the old. I am sure that many noble Lords do not realise that it is 50 miles nearer than London to both Australia and New York. Shipping coming into Liverpool does not have to go through that maritime M. 1 the English Channel.
We have had rough times in Merseyside and in the North West; but we are doing all right. We still have one of the finest and largest container ports in Europe. Much traffic passes through the port very speedily and efficiently. However, that will not be any good if we ignore the needs of the North West, which at this moment is the second highest contributor to the gross national product. It will not be any good if our manufacturers cannot find their way to our greatest market. Seventy per cent. of our manufactured goods go to Europe and if we cannot get there, it will be a disaster.
When I read in British Rail documents such statements as, "No grants shall be made by the Secretary of State… towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the railway board for the purpose of the provision, improvement or development of international railway services", in my view that is the death knell for areas like the North West. The expenditure in our national budget has already
1076
dropped from £1,000 million in 1985 to a miserable £470 million for last year.
Are we to rely on the private sector to provide this necessary link in order that the wealth of the North West can in fact find its way to the Continent? Of course we cannot do so. It is not the private sector's job. It is not even British Rail's job. I have heard today about four different meetings and four different organisations all calling for the need to make the Government realise the sense and the urgent necessity of providing links between the tunnel and the regions. I did not know that there were so many of them. There is a lesson to be learnt. It is about time that people north of Watford started getting their act together to bring pressure to bear upon the woman to ensure that what we are asking for becomes a reality.
If you summarised the divide which exists in this country, you could say that in the North West we make things and that in the South East they make money. There is a world of difference between the two. When the manufacture of goods dries up, any possibility of making money goes right out of the window.
There was some humour expressed in this Chamber in 1979 when I criticised the Government's attitude. They said, "All we have to do is to create private enterprise, give it its head and it will pull the nation up by its bootstraps". I pointed out at that time that I did not believe that prediction. In my view the probability was that private enterprise would look after its own and that it would not worry very much about the national interest if it was making a profit by pursuing its own line. I even went so far as to suggest that the invisible exports upon which we were relying to make our balance of trade sensible might be threatened by a place like Frankfurt. That view was treated with some levity and amusement by certain people on the other side of the Chamber. However, it does not sound so amusing now. Indeed, it is actually happening.
The congestion which exists in the South East is preventing this country from reaching its potential. In congratulating the mover of the Motion, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester mentioned that the noble Lord had referred to the importance of the tunnel to the North West. In fact, my noble friend Lord Underhill did not say that; he said that there was a potentially important factor about the tunnel for the North West. However, he underlined that it was a potential importance and that things would have to be done in order to make us realise that contribution.
There is no point in trying to stress the importance of rail over road for long distance haulage. I shall not try to do so, because I assume that even the Government are aware of that fact. However, there is an overriding need to keep our industry flourishing—that is, what is left of it after the locusts have been in for the past 10 years. Nevertheless, it is still there; the potential is still there; the industry is still there; and the enlightenment still remains in the North West and in the northern parts of this country. Therefore, it is not too late.
A major fear is that the congestion in the South East on both road and rail will reduce the attraction

1077
of the North West as an area for new economic development. At the same time, the level of investment in transport and economic infrastructure on the other side of the Channel so graphically described by the noble Lord, Lord Pennock—one of the institutors of the Channel Tunnel—will make regions like Calais very attractive. When one adds to that the fact that the French Government are not slow in giving grants for industrial development and so on, and grants for transportation in that area of the world, it poses a very serious problem for the rest of this country.
I sometimes wonder how we arrived at the situation of thinking that a fast rail link from the tunnel to London is more important than a fast rail link to enable industry and commerce to be served in the rest of the country. I do not believe for one moment that if the Government gave it any serious attention—indeed, if they even gave it any thought—they would ever have arrived at the conclusion that the first priority for the tunnel was passenger traffic to London. Lord knows—though no one on the other side of the Chamber seems aware of it—the conditions for passengers in London are so bad at present that what we need to do is to reduce the numbers of passengers travelling to London rather than increase them. We need to increase the trade link which exists with the Continent and the northern parts of this country: that is what the tunnel is if it is anything.
One of the things that I have learnt over many years is that there are places other than Merseyside and the North West which are governed by their relationship with other places—a point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Blease. The link with Northern Ireland is essential. The North West is the last place to retain good communications with Northern Ireland and Dublin. They must be introduced into the mainstream of communications with the Continent or we shall damage those two places. Thanks to the Japanese, North Wales is fast becoming a main producer of engines and motor cars. They are not being produced for North Wales. The Japanese want to get them out of there and on to the Continent. Is it suggested that they should go over the Pennines and leave from Hull? Of course not. There should be a direct link with the Continent.
When the Government are questioned about the electrification of the line to Holyhead, they do not seem to know of its existence. I sometimes believe that they have never heard of Holyhead. Nevertheless, it is Ireland's most important link with the Continent.
I conclude by saying that there should be no misunderstanding: the Government are aware, or should be aware, of how involved the country ought to be in establishing links between the rest of the country and the Continent. If they are not aware of the need, that is a disgrace of almost unfathomable proportions. If they are aware, they should be blamed when the whole of the North becomes as peripheral as Southern Italy is at present—because that is the prospect we face. If the Government do nothing about it, it will be their responsibility, because they will have been slavishly obedient to the so-called rules of private enterprise.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for giving us this subject for debate to which there have been some outstanding contributions. It is clear that we all believe that it is most important that a decision should be made, and made quickly, about the route into London so that the matter can be progressed. It is dragging on, and uncertainty is the biggest problem of all. That is a point which has come through from every Member of the House.
The Channel Tunnel is a unique infrastructure project. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, was fascinating. He was able to tell us about the day-to-day construction. The scale of the operation and the consequences to the country as a whole cannot be overlooked. Britain's long-term prosperity is clearly linked to the tunnel.
I support the views that have been put forward about the North-West. I have been approached by the North-West Channel Tunnel Group, perhaps because I was a parliamentary candidate there once. It is correct to want the link. I was equally impressed by the case put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and the speakers from Scotland and Northern Ireland. Everyone wants to see a general link.
I believe that that general link can come only from having the King's Cross terminal. I shall push strongly for that terminal. The general debate on the Channel Tunnel, as opposed to the debate in the House today, has tended to divide into three main components: the effect on Kent of the increase in road traffic and the high speed link—we had a marvellous maiden speech on that topic—and the implications of the tunnel and the transport links as regards the regions; the preferred route through London; and the siting of the second London terminal to complement Waterloo.
As your Lordships are aware, I have long been involved in planning in London and so I shall concentrate my remarks upon the siting of that terminal. I declare an interest in that I am directly involved with the London Regeneration Consortium which hopes to redevelop the King's Cross area. There has been a lengthy debate about the rival merits of King's Cross and Stratford. There now appears to be general agreement, as I have heard this afternoon, that the second terminal should be at King's Cross. The only continuing debate is whether the high speed link should approach King's Cross via Swanley, as proposed by British Rail and Eurorail, or via Stratford, as proposed by Ove Arup.
British Rail clearly believes that the southerly approach is preferable and the British Rail/Eurorail proposals are already with the Secretary of State for Transport. He has to decide whether the proposed route is acceptable. He also has to decide whether there will be any element of government financial support. It is difficult seriously to contemplate having the Channel Tunnel rail link without support. It is also difficult to contemplate not having the link.
Britain must be seen to be responding to the opportunities of the single European market, a point which has been clearly made today. The absence of proper rail links, especially in the light of the

1079
continental investment about which we have heard so much, would show a lack of commitment to a more united Europe at a time when Britain may already be perceived as being peripheral, both geographically and politically, to the rest of the Continent.
My main interest this afternooon is to urge the Government and British Rail to decide those questions with the minimum of further delay. The endless speculation about what the decision might be is not just debilitating to those whose homes and lives might be affected by the choice of route; it is also a great anxiety to those who are keen to see the regeneration of a near derelict area to the north of King's Cross station. Southwark Council has sent me a paper today. I was interested in the point it makes; namely, that compensation would be available for people affected by the new service but not by changes in existing services during the interim phase. That is a case which should be pressed further. There are precedents where the Government have given further thought and compensated people living in an area who have been adversely affected by an increase in traffic. There may be a case for such an area, and I was glad to receive that paper.
I have received interesting and informative papers from people in many different areas. It is important for London as a whole that the King's Cross area should be redeveloped. Agreement about the terminal and getting on with it should be a first priority. The King's Cross area is an eyesore and a wasted opportunity. Good quality redevelopment could transform the area and provide new housing for local people; the canal basins could be re-opened—as a former chairman of the London Canals Committee I should very much like to see that—new civic amenities could be provided and high quality offices. There could be mixed development. Good accommodation with first-class transport will be important if London is to maintain and strengthen its position as Europe's major financial centre and one of its main commercial centres. Other European cities such as Frankfurt and Paris have a much clearer strategy for growth than London. Much of the onus in London rests on the investment and efforts of the private sector.
The King's Cross Railways Bill is currently before the other place. It contains proposals to change railway alignments at King's Cross, and to provide a major new passenger interchange between King's Cross, St. Pancras, Thameslink, and the five Underground lines. The proposals will allow a new low level station to be built to take both the Channel Tunnel and the Thameslink trains. The Bill will come before the House for debate in the autumn, It is interesting that the proposals for the north-west also suggest the "people mover", as it is called, which will connect Euston into that block. Again it will be an enormous benefit to have the linkage of those three major mainline stations which are now physically so close, but inconveniently separated for passenger traffic.
The King's Cross Railways Bill also provides for major improvements to the London Underground facilities at King's Cross. That is important,
1080
particularly in terms of passenger safety in view of the station's history. The existing ticket hall will be expanded to relieve congestion and a new second ticket hall will be built to be shared with Thameslink. All that will take away much of the anxiety people still suffer when they go to the King's Cross Underground. New subways will be built between the different Underground lines and other measures will be taken to implement the Fennell Report.
These changes which are linked with the proposed new rail passenger interchange, will cater for the passengers using the trains via King's Cross, St. Pancras, Thameslink and Euston. They are a strong justification for the King's Cross Railways Bill. However the real difficulty is that discussions on the Bill have been coloured by the uncertainty about the plans for the high speed rail link. That is why I speak in the debate today. The two matters are so connected that we must look at them jointly. It is difficult to see how the King's Cross development could proceed at all until there is some certainty about the rail link. The King's Cross Railways Bill cannot proceed until then.
It is time for the uncertainty to end. We need action urgently. The Government should announce as soon as possible the route of the high speed link and explain how it is to be funded. Furthermore, they should accept that the only way in which such a proposal could be carried through in the lifetime of this Parliament is with a hybrid Bill. Such a Bill could be introduced before the end of the year so as to complete the passage in the next Session and within the lifetime of this Parliament. I am sure that all parties will see merit in rapid progress. That theme has been repeated often in our debate today.
British Rail, on the other hand, should also bestir itself. It should produce a detailed comparative analysis of the cost and benefits of the preferred route with the other route options which have been publicly canvassed over recent months. That is the only way in which to demonstrate the superiority of the British Rail route compared with the alternatives and to satisfy public opinion that the most sensible route capable of being selected is being selected for both passenger and freight traffic through London and the regions.
The opening of the Channel Tunnel and the ability to move substantially greater numbers of people and freight by rail offer a golden opportunity to reduce pressure on the overcrowded road system and the environment in general. We must not fail to respond.
This House should deal expeditiously with the King's Cross Railways Bill when we receive it from the Commons, but it is all being held up because of decisions on the Channel Tunnel. I have urged these actions principally because of my concern about the effect of the Channel Tunnel rail link on London in general and on the King's Cross area in particular. However there are equally necessary and important benefits for the rest of the country. I believe that other regions should be given the chance to benefit from the high speed link and the decisions that we hope will be made shortly. I support action on the matter.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, we have just heard a most able and interesting speech from the noble Baroness, which is one of many such speeches today, starting with an extremely able introduction by my noble friend Lord Underhill.
We all recognise that we must have a high speed rail link, but it is rather in the doldrums. It is an essential part of the Channel Tunnel scheme. We want it soon. It is shocking that we have to wait until 1998 to get it. Why do the British always do too little, too late? This is absolutely typical.
The French, who are interested in the British market now, have improved communications on their side with the TGV and motorway link improvements. If there are no corresponding rail improvements on our side, we may be flooded with trucks and cars, with a tremendous amount of traffic coming onto the roads of Kent, East Sussex and across the country. We must therefore have a better and new high speed rail link.
Why are matters going so slowly? The reason is that the Government have not given adequate support. They must do so now, as the French Government have done. This is a vital British interest affecting all parts of the United Kingdom. The dreadful delay to the railway legislation is a national scandal. A private Bill will take years to be passed into legislation. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that the least we can have is a hybrid Bill. If the Government made it a national Bill in some way, it would go through on the nod. We must recognise that much more support is needed.
There is a particularly good county council in Kent. The leader, Mr. Tony Hart, is a man of character, imagination and real competence. He has handled his county problems with, I think, consummate skill. However, in Kent and East Sussex we need more effective action by British Rail and the Government. Make no mistake about it, the Government hold the key.
This brings me to my next point. I served for years as a diplomat in Europe and industries there receive much support from their governments. Our Government ought to pay much more attention to what our industries need. They ought to see the CBI just as often as the Bank of England and the City institutions. Industrial production, including the service sector, is the lifeblood of the country. The Government should not become too closely involved in individual firms. It is important for them not to do so, but they should be prepared to lend a hand.
When the Prime Minister went to Oman some time ago and lent a hand to the British companies which were to build the new university, there were screams from various people that she was acting improperly. She was not at all; she was doing exactly what all our competitors do. As a diplomat with 38 years' service, I assure the Houe that that is so. We should not leave our industries in the lurch. We should give them a good deal more support.
We need backing for British Rail to build the new rail link, direct sponsorship of the really urgent legislation and moral support for British Rail in dealing with some of the more idiotic objectors. In
1082
all these ways I think that the Government could and should help enormously.
I wish to say something now about British Rail. It is not easy for British Rail, with privatisation ahead. It is told that it must make a profit; people keep telling it to make new things which are hard to cost. It is difficult, and no wonder British Rail dithers. However, it is much harder because the Government have dithered too. We want all parties to get on with it. One matter which is particularly important for British Rail is that as we shall not have the high speed link in time, we must ask it to get on with developing the freight connection. It must go out and take trouble to organise the freight links adequately by the time the tunnel opens within three years. I do not just mean trains trundling along, we want to know that the rail yards are properly protected at night and that goods are not stolen. We want real efficiency, and perhaps British Rail will have to have more staff and pay them properly.
In these matters one gets what one pays for. The Government have done well to set this country on a path of prosperity. To some considerable degree the current inflationary trend is a measure of their success. However, I seriously think that our countrymen would prefer to have effective common services such as education, the health service, the police and the prison services, even if they cost a little more, rather than a further reduction in income tax. The Government should pay attention to developing common services effectively.
The Channel Tunnel communication links fall into the same category, especially as we stand to gain greater prosperity from active participation in the new Europe of 1992. This is a worthwhile national investment and we should be getting on with it urgently.
Or shall we fail and become an impoverished backwater? I leave that matter to your Lordships' consideration.
6 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, this debate is very timely. As my noble friend Lord Underhill indicated, some urgent decisions need to be taken in connection with the links to the Channel Tunnel. But even if those decisions were taken immediately, we should still be far behind the French, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has just said, have undertaken a tremendous investment programme in their rail infrastructure. These decisions need to be taken quickly.
I want to approach the debate from a regional point of view and particularly from the point of view of Yorkshire and Humberside. In the recent past the region has experienced problems brought about by the decline of its traditional industries of coal, steel, textiles and engineering. Some of the problems are still quite acute. However, I do not wish to concentrate on them because Yorkshire is a diverse region and there are possibilities for development. Economically it still has a sound manufacturing base. In terms of the tourist industry and the service sector, particularly the financial sector, there have been considerable developments recently. There is

1083
good scope for further inward investment. Therefore it is essential that the region has direct links with Europe. Socially too the region has quite a lot going for it because the quality of life that it can offer compares favourably with that of other parts of the country. It also has a good basis for a transport system, but it needs to be developed. I shall refer to that point later.
I wish to concentrate on a number of points. First of all I should mention the need for strong links with the Channel Tunnel. Most speakers have already referred to that. A decision on that matter is absolutely urgent from the point of view not only of the Yorkshire and Humberside region but the North as a whole. It is important that King's Cross should provide the link. Exceptionally I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who said that he did not propose to enter the controversy. However, he seemed to be speaking in favour of the alternative to King's Cross.
The important point about the link is that it is a link. It is not a terminal that will disgorge into the centre of London. It is a link with the whole of the North. As I have said, it would be valuable not only to Yorkshire and Humberside but throughout the North-East, up to Scotland, and to the North-West in the absence of a direct link to Merseyside. Likewise it would be important to the Midlands in the absence of a direct link to Birmingham. This matter needs a quick decision, but I hope that it will be a decision in favour of King's Cross.
My second point concerns the electrification of the East Coast line. That is welcome to Yorkshire, but it needs to be extended. I hope I may put in a claim for Sheffield because Sheffield needs its own electrified line into the centre. However, Bradford also needs an extension of the line. That is of immediate importance and is particularly urgent. There has been agreement between the local authority and the West Yorkshire passenger transport executive as regards extending the electrification of the line from Leeds to Bradford. That makes good sense, particularly if an immediate decision could be made. It would be economical to add to the order for rolling stock which has already been placed for the line going up to Edinburgh and so benefit from economies of scale. It would also be possible to benefit from economies of scale by using the electrification depot at Doncaster before it is wound down. However, those orders need to be placed almost immediately; otherwise the advantages of linking with the main electrification scheme will be lost. That is particularly important to Bradford, which has not quite shared in the increasing prosperity of, for example, Leeds. Bradford needs a boost to its industry.
The scheme would be economically viable and the Government are not being asked to contribute in any way. Indeed all they are being asked to do is to give their authority for the scheme to progress as there is a public sector borrowing requirement. However, there is another sensible aspect to the scheme. British Rail has plans for a direct trans-European link between Paris, Leeds and Edinburgh and between Brussels, Leeds and
1084
Edinburgh. The plans currently are for one train a day in each direction. The train will be split at Doncaster, with one half going to Edinburgh and the other going to Leeds. As the journey to Edinburgh is much longer, clearly the half of the train that goes to Leeds will be in limbo for some time until it comes back to Doncaster to link up with the Edinburgh half. Therefore it would be sensible to utilise that train to go on to Bradford and extend the trans-Continental line to Bradford. However, that could only be done if electrification of the line took place.
But this scheme's progress depends on how soon the Minister can reach a decision. I mentioned this point to the noble Viscount who is to reply and I hope that he will be able to give a favourable response. A delegation met the Minister responsible for this matter last week in order to underline the urgency of the case. I gather that he is looking favourably at it, but I wonder whether that extends to making a decision this month, which is absolutely essential if the scheme is to go ahead.
My third point concerns freight, which has been mentioned by many noble Lords in their speeches. There is a need to reduce the congestion around London by transferring more goods and services to rail. London is a bottleneck through which goods from the North must pass in order to reach the Continent. It is therefore important for British Rail to plan to extend its Freightliner services.
I understand, as my noble friend Lord Underhill mentioned, that British Rail expects to attract some 6 million tonnes of freight traffic per year through the tunnel. That would be a considerable improvement on the present position. However, it does not seem very ambitious when compared with the 50 million tonnes of freight that pass through the Humberside ports. Perhaps British Rail has underestimated what can be done in that very important area. I hope that it will look at the matter again.
My fourth point relates to the question of co-ordination. There is no simple, single transport solution to our problems. As I have mentioned, the Humberside ports are very important to Yorkshire and Humberside. Their trade has doubled in the past 20 years or so. They conserve our trade with northern Europe very well but do not do so as effectively in the case of southern Europe. Even to serve northern Europe they need better links with the whole of the British Rail network.
The trans-Pennine lines from Hull to the North-West have always been the Cinderella of the system. Very real improvements are needed in that area. We also need links with Leeds/Bradford Airport. The road links are not good and a new rapid transport system is needed in Leeds which should also be linked with the airport. The local authority is considering such a system.
One of the problems of co-ordination in an area such as Yorkshire and Humberside is that there are two county councils and a number of metropolitan district councils. An authority to co-ordinate services and provide a strategic overview is lacking. Unless we have such an overview no real choice will be available.

1085
Good links do not alone make a region prosperous. However, without good transport links and a good transport network no region can prosper. Therefore we must ensure that there is an adequate transport infrastructure in the northern regions of the country so that we can take full advantage of the single market and the Channel Tunnel.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I open my remarks by declaring an interest. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on giving us the opportunity today for a very topical debate. It is particularly welcome that it has attracted a number of speakers who do not normally participate in our transport deliberations. As many other speakers have mentioned, we have also enjoyed a breath of fresh air in a maiden speech which has introduced a new dimension and is to be greatly welcomed.
Several noble Lords have mentioned alternatives to the Eurorail proposals. Others have reminded us that the single market in 1992 and the opening of the tunnel in 1993 mean that time is of the essence if we are to spread the benefits of the tunnel throughout the country. Hence I feel that we must push on with Eurorail, establishing as quickly as possible what is desirable and what is viable and then consider how to bridge the gap between the two.
Should we speak to repeal Section 42? Should we seek to get round it, perhaps by taking government funds to protect the environment? Should we consider the possibility of public funds on behalf of the Network SouthEast commuter who, after all, could enjoy halved journey times particularly from mid and East Kent if the Eurorail scheme obtains funding and satisfies Parliament? Should we not consider that if we do not get Eurorail right we shall penalise the rail traveller and inevitably also the road traveller in Kent?
I should like to ask my noble friend three questions relating to Eurorail. First, does my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's directive to British Rail last autumn that it should concentrate its resources on Eurorail to the exclusion of other proposals still stand? That has a bearing on timescales. Secondly, we know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has the Eurorail proposal on his desk. When can we look for either comment or for decision? That, too, has implications for the timescale as so many speakers have reminded us. Lastly, does my right honourable friend's statement, also last autumn, that putting roads into tunnels regardless of expense is not a policy that appeals to him, also apply to any decision upon Eurorail? I hope that it does, partly as a matter of viability and partly as a matter of even-handedness between road and rail.
I mentioned Section 42. That section is usually underpinned by a policy of not supporting air and sea operators. However, day by day the Riverbus passes our terrace. It runs principally for the benefit of air passengers using the Docklands Airport. That has received government funding. It may not be a direct subsidy operator but I believe that the
1086
consumer benefits from an indirect subsidy. Should not the rules that enabled Her Majesty's Government to give funding for the Riverbus equally be taken into account when considering the undoubted problems regarding the financing of Eurorail?
A number of noble lords have commented on regional benefit. They have argued, as have a number of outside bodies which have written to many noble Lords, that British Rail's proposals for services from the Channel Tunnel to the provinces, which by-pass London, are inadequate. It is felt that the density of trains will not reach what British Rail believes to be the demand. I believe that in the long term that is probably correct. However, I believe that in the initial period British Rail's proposals, as a result of Section 40 consultations, are about right.
That does not necessarily lead to provincial cities and regions being disadvantaged because there is another solution. That solution lies in King's Cross. It is a proposal which many of us have supported. The King's Cross proposal, plus the travelator linking Euston, should be pursued. Inter-City services from Euston, King's Cross and St. Pancras operate half-hourly to Birmingham, hourly to Lancashire, the Potteries, Preston, Carlisle and almost hourly to Scotland. From King's Cross there are better than hourly services to Peterborough and Doncaster. There are hourly services to Leeds, York, Newcastle and Edinburgh. In addition, if one takes into account the stopping points on those routes there are also hourly services to less favoured places such as from Peterborough to Nottingham, from Doncaster to Hull, from York to Scarborough, from Darlington to Teesside and from Newcastle to Wearside.
If one brackets all of those hourly frequencies on both Inter-City and provincial services with the hourly frequencies which in the course of time we shall have to King's Cross, there is plenty of opportunity for journeys to be made between the provinces, the tunnel and beyond to the Continent. In the fullness of time I hope that demand picks up sufficiently to justify additional trains avoiding London. In the first instance I note that there is no rush by our European partners to build trains to serve our provinces. The traffic is all aimed at services ex-UK in the morning or by night and returning in the evening.
Turning to freight, I agree with all those noble Lords who said that we must push on with our inland depots, be they for wagon-load, container or swap-body. One might consider as an example what was done last year in Teesside where ICI co-operated with British Rail, ICI providing the land and, when British Rail was desperate, the occasional use of a shunting locomotive, and British Rail providing everything else involved in operating a brand-new container depot. It is those kinds of partnerships between the private sector and British Rail to which we should look. However, I do not believe that that rules out local authorities. They should push too. I do not believe that last year's local government reforms exclude them from doing that, if they so wish. I hope that they will continue to play a role locally, pushing for what they need locally and putting together a local package with a good road

1087
and rail infrastructure. That is where I should like to see them fight their battles.
I should also like to see local authorities fight their battles on Section 8 which my noble friend Lord Davidson told us on 17th January was under review. Section 8 has a substantial role to play in enabling each transport mode to do the job that it does best—rail for trunk haul and road for local distribution. However, Section 8 has fallen into disuse and disrepute. The criteria which prevailed when it evolved no longer apply because of the spread of bypasses and motorways. When the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, goes back to Birmingham and reports to those who have briefed her, I hope that she will remind them that Section 8 is under review and that their voices should be heard speaking on its behalf. Although modest, Section 8 has a considerable role and could have a great role in spreading the benefits freight-wise to the regions. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will tell us how the review is progressing.
I should like to deal briefly with a number of other points. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, was hostile to noise compensation, as am I. I discovered this morning that the Bakerloo Line between Regent's Park and Oxford Circus now carries 52 per cent. more passengers than it did in 1981 and that the number of trains running on that line has increased by 18 per cent. I live seven yards form the Bakerloo Line and I do not believe that I should be entitled to compensation simply because London Transport's marketing is competent and because rail has turned out to be attractive again. I urge the Government to resist that approach.
I heartily support—again, because time is of the essence and because there are Private Bills in one House or the other which have been there since January 1988—the idea that we should go for a hybrid Bill for Eurorail. Otherwise, we shall lose more and more time. It is not just a question of the time involved in assembling the Act and passing it through Parliament. One must remember that, as with road construction, railway construction is a time-consuming operation. The last main line which was built in this country—the so-called Selby diversion between Selby and York, built in the 1970s—took about 11 years from the establishment of need, which I would take as the starting point, to the first revenue passenger. Anything that we can do to telescope that time-scale must be to the benefit of the regions.
If we cannot have a hybrid Bill, perhaps my noble friend the Minister will tell us what progress is being made on the review of the Private Bill procedure. We know from an oral answer in the other place that the Government hope to come forward with proposals soon. Of the 67 Private Bills before the two Houses at present, 23 concern railways in one way or another. We may not necessarily like what we see when the reform proposals are published, but we should like to see them, and the sooner the better.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may commence by expressing my appreciation to my
1088
noble friend Lord Underhill for initiating the debate, which is extremely important for all the regions of the United Kingdom. I should also like to join with previous speakers in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, on his maiden speech. It contained a substantial amount of information which I and, I am sure, other Members of the House will find helpful in future debates. It was well researched and I was greatly interested in it. Like other noble Lords, I shall look forward to more contributions from the noble Earl.
I shall attempt to make a case for the North of England in general with my accent being on the Greater Manchester area where I spent most of my political career. However, I had quite a spell as a Member of Parliament in Yorkshire, in the Leeds area, and the problems of both areas are similar. My noble friend Lady Lockwood spoke extensively about the situation as Yorkshire sees it. I support her comments about the requirements of that area. As I understand it, West Yorkshire is awaiting a decision from British Rail as to which will be the freight depot for the wider area between Leeds and Wakefield. I hope that it will reach a decision quickly because, although it will be some time before we are faced with the sharp end of the matter, time is not on our side. I hope that the decision will not be delayed by internecine wrangling between local authorities in the area. If the metropolitan counties, with all their faults, had been retained, the decision would have been taken more quickly and on a strategic basis.
I find the debate useful in that we are talking about the main arteries of commercial life and what the North of England will gain from the Channel Tunnel. I do not see anything in British Rail's present proposals that gives me a great deal of comfort in that direction. I have been provided with a brief by the North of England Regional Consortium which speaks with a general voice for the wider areas of the North. On the subject of passenger transport, British Rail has forecast that 30 per cent. of passenger demand will emanate from beyond London. It seems ridiculous that only between 10 and 20 per cent. of the service levels proposed by British Rail will be provided from beyond London, so the figures do not match. Obviously, there is some inconsistency on British Rail's part.
On the freight side, the consortium is seriously concerned that the proposals do not reflect the high level of agreements reached through the Section 40 consultation process. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester referred to the Section 40 consultation process and its procedures. It is important to press British Rail to give an assurance that it intends to proceed on the basis of those agreements.
Let us consider some of British Rail's proposals. It proposes 15 trains (each of 18 coaches) per day in each direction between London and Paris and 15 trains per day in each direction between London and Brussels. Beyond London, it proposes one half-train (each of nine coaches) each morning to Paris from Manchester and Wolverhampton, with the two half-trains joining up at Rugby. The return journey in the evening will similarly split at Rugby. The same

1089
service will be provided to Brussels. There will be one half-train each morning to Paris, one from Edinburgh and one from Leeds, with the two half-trains joining up at Peterborough. A returning train in the evening would split similarly at Peterborough. The same service would be provided for Brussels.
Those who are concerned with putting into effect some of the proposals or attempting to get the best possible for the North-West out of the proposed Channel Tunnel rightly say that the proposals are quite inadequate. In his speech the right reverend Prelate made a genuine plea, saying that over a period the North-West and the North in general had suffered the biggest loss of manufacturing jobs in the United Kingdom. I have worked in a factory and can speak from personal experience. Not many years ago that factory employed 25,000 people; the number of employees is now down below 7,000.
I take my name from a small area in north-east Manchester which was a teeming hive of activity only 1.5 to 20 years ago. It is now an industrial desert. It has the highest unemployment figures in the Greater Manchester area. Attempts are being made to try to remedy that situation, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester referred. Although I can criticise some aspects of government propaganda in overclaiming what is taking place, it would be churlish of me not to admit that there are signs of improvement. I am not involved especially in the situation but redevelopment is taking place at Trafford Park, which at one time was the biggest industrial area anywhere in Europe. The Government are taking initiatives there. The structural basis is there to regenerate and completely reorganise Trafford Park to try to recover it as an industrial manufacturing centre.
But unless areas such as Trafford Park—areas in the north, Merseyside, Lancashire as a whole and north across the Pennines, where they too have been hit very badly, especially the textile industries and the coal mining areas—are adequately provided for by the railway system, one is wasting one's time and the attempt to restore these areas and deal with some of their social problems which is now starting to emerge and take off will be blunted for a long time in my opinion. That will be one of the worst aspects.
I may be misreading the situation. As I said, it is the lifeblood for the North to have new arteries running up in the form of lines. However, I get the impression that the Government are leaving it far too much to British Rail to decide. I do not think that that is on. As I said, we are talking about restoring the North to what it was; namely, a major workshop. We must get people out of the dole queues in order to provide funding for a more equitable society and we must put right the horrendous balance of payments from which the country as a whole suffers. I believe that the Government should not leave it to British Rail. They have a duty to say what should happen and influence events.
The Government should not stand on the sidelines because British Rail will then almost certainly be bound only by market forces. There are some areas in the North which, if they get freight yards or dispersal yards, may very well attract EC funding.
1090
That is a good bonus. But there could be other areas nearby which might be chosen but do not attract such funding. Could anything be more ludicrous than to decide a policy for the future lifetime of the North of England on that basis?
I hope that the Government will take seriously the points made in this debate. They must not sit back and put the onus on British Rail to decide the level of provision of rail services for the North in terms of passenger transport and freight. Freight in an economic sense is certainly the most important. If adequate freight carrying capacity is not installed it will be almost a waste of time for people to take the initiative to go there. And the result will only be to overload the already overcrowded South-East. I hope that I do not misquote when I say that it is believed to be the Government's policy to disperse industry a little more, if possible, so long as it does not interfere too much under their policy with market forces. I hope that the Government will listen, take heed and be more interventionist in what they do and not just leave it to market forces to decide what British Rail can do with the resources at its disposal.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, it is my great pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Dean. I shall follow in the same vein and make a parish pump speech, although for a different part of the country. Nonetheless, I shall talk about local issues. I have joined in many debates initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and I commend the one that he brings before us tonight. My contribution will mainly deal with East Sussex matters.
My noble friend Lord Hardinge of Penshurst mentioned roads in the area. I realised only yesterday that I had my name down to talk about railway issues, which are rather important. The officials of East Sussex County Council kindly gave me some useful notes. We are happy to have a five-hour debate and 11 minutes is a very generous time but the minutes creep on. The main concern of my noble friend Lord Hardinge and I both for counties in Sussex and other counties in the South of England is to get off the ground the agreed programme to invest in south coast routes in order to take traffic away from over-utilised routes which must concentrate on the capital and places north of the country. I do not think that any noble Lord who has spoken would disagree with that. There is a need for people to turn left when they come through the tunnel rather than to carry on northwards. My noble friend may think that they should turn right and go to Kent.
I hope that Ashford International station will be ready and operational by the time the tunnel opens. International passenger rail services will operate from London to Paris and Brussels, with Waterloo as the London terminal. Interchange with trains to other European destinations will be possible in France at Frethun and Lille. Thus if passengers to and from East Sussex, Kent and other southern counties are to avoid the need to travel north to London, across London and south again—a totally absurd situation—a reasonable number of trains,

1091
which I would like to see as high as 50 per cent., should be made to stop at Ashford. Road and rail services should be provided for people to catch trains there. I should be very grateful to my noble friend if when he comes to reply he would indicate British Rail's present intention with regard to the number of trains that will stop at Ashford. I have been told that to all intents and purposes it is not entirely clear.
The next priority is that the electrification of the trains from Ore to Ashford section of the south-east coastline should be complete when the tunnel opens. At present all passengers have to change at Hastings because only diesel trains operate beyond there.
Network SouthEast presented a viable plan to electrify the line to Ashford but recently stated that it will not be finished until 1994. There is a nasty feeling that, due to the pressure of the investment programme, that date may not be achieved. It will hamper efforts in providing a satisfactory service. There should be a regular hourly service with limited stops operating from day one from Brighton to Ashford. In the longer term it should extend to Portsmouth, Southampton and the West Country.
Unfortunately, it is now possible to place only four-car trains through Brighton. That would be of benefit to passengers in the major south coast towns and it would alleviate congestion in London and take people off the crowded and narrow roads. I believe that many people in the North of England do not realise how appallingly narrow and small are many of the roads in the South of England. Thank goodness that the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, was batting second. We all listened with interest and heard him put across the message that if it is possible for people to stay off the roads and use public transport they should do so.
I must deal with some small—almost minute—but important points. First, the Polegate-Pevensey link was removed a few years ago. If it is not put back in place the services that I mentioned from Brighton to Ashford will be extended a further 20 minutes because people must go in and out of Eastbourne. I am sure that British Rail considers Eastbourne to be an important place and a good commercial area. If one person in a family agrees to travel by train the others have the most appalling excuse that because it will take an extra 20 minutes they will not do it. The rail bed is in place and the county council is perfectly happy to provide the land in order to reopen the line. I am sure that in the short term British Rail will find it to be commercially profitable.
Single track working between Ore and Ashford I would be in order if there were more places where trains could pass. At the moment they exist only between Rye and Appledore, and that is not sufficient. There are also hazards at two small halts where there are open level crossings.
When talking about the railways one must not talk solely about passengers, because freight is equally important. British Rail should be uged to investigate the possibility of providing a freight terminal to serve the south coast. It should ensure that any environmental intrusion of night freight through East Sussex is mitigated. There is no freight terminal
1092
planned south of an imaginary line between London and Bristol. Firms in the South should be encouraged to send their freight by rail via Willesden and Stratford. However, I am sure that it will not happen because it would be most inconvenient. Although on paper the amount of traffic generated might not look very great I am sure that British Rail could find a market for a freight terminal south of London. My last point on this subject relates to providing a parcel service for the industries on the south coast. Basically they are technology and service industries.
I am sure that the Bus and Coach Council will be cross because I cannot do it justice. It considers that the proposal that all services should begin at Waterloo and King's Cross is totally inadequate. Being in the private sector with a government monopoly it does not wish to be a second-class citizen. I hope that the council will forgive me for being so brief.
In my last two minutes I wish to raise an important point—the extension of the roads. During our discussions of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, raised the issue of the A.2 to the port of Dover. The situation would be greatly improved if the last six miles of the A.2 were of motorway standard, or at least of dual carriageway standard. I should be grateful if my noble friend could give us news about the A.2. If not, can he say whether there is any news about the extension of the M.20 from Folkestone to Dover?
When in 1985 and 1986 we went through the various proceedings and discussed the ferries, competition and so forth, we gave our blessing to the tunnel. No one wanted the number of ferries to be diminished and it was agreed that there should be a free competition policy. As I have said, roads in the South of England are a joke. When people come over from the Continent they cannot understand the reason. That point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Crook. I hope that my noble friend will answer my questions. Having made those comments, I shall quietly sit down.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, those of us who are regular speakers in transport debates in this House are pleased and surprised to find so many noble Lords joining in this debate. That is greatly to the credit of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who tabled the Motion on the Order Paper today and made the debate very attractive.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is not in his place. However, in spite of his persistence in trying to pull up the drawbridge and keep the foreigners beyond Dover, it is inconceivable that the tunnel will not be completed. It is clear from any investigation of the situation, and from listening to the debate today, that too little thought was given to a co-ordinated transport strategy in relation to the Channel Tunnel. I hope that it is not too late. If it is, severe damage has been done to the economy of this country.
I support what was said by representatives—perhaps that is not the right word—of regional interests; for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Johnston of Rockport, the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of

1093
Rednal, and noble Lords from Lancashire and Yorkshire. I am particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, made a plea for the integration into the system of Northern Ireland. There is no question in my mind that anything which helps the industry and economy of Northern Ireland can only be of help in settling many of the more difficult problems in that troubled province.
There is meagre provision in the Government's proposals for the more peripheral areas. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, that the Channel Tunnel is not about getting people on holiday to France; it is about getting freight from the industries in the North of England and the Midlands into the markets of Europe. We must keep that in the forefront of our minds whenever we are discussing the subject.
The problem has been the insistence of the Government on allowing the free operation of market forces. Eurotunnel and British Rail were forced into a position where they have had to sub-optimise their operation in relation to their own bottom line. That has been to the detriment of the economy as a whole. We are still waiting for a coherent approach from the Government to the problem. If the situation carries on for much longer we shall have lost the opportunity and the cost of the movement of goods in the United Kingdom will be a major factor in increasing the UK's lack of competiveness in European markets. It will also be a significant component in increasing inflation in this country.
It is astonishing that the Government still maintain a hands-off approach to what is an important situation. In my view, they are still playing down the potential of the Channel Tunnel. I refer to a conference in Leeds on 17th/18th April where the keynote address was given by Mr. Michael Portillo. That man has made such a great success of Channel Tunnel and other matters that we understand from this morning's newspapers that he is now being moved to sort out the poll tax. The best of luck to him on that. He said:
"The Tunnel will be a very substantial and important addition to these existing links. But let us remember that the capacity of the Tunnel will be sufficient to handle 6 per cent. of total UK trade by volume in 1993; by comparison, in 1988 Liverpool handled 7 per cent. of total UK trade by volume, Southampton 11 per cent. and Tees and Hartlepool 13 per cent. If the Tunnel were open today and operating at its capacity, it would rank with the twelfth or thirteenth largest port in the UK in terms of the volume of goods it handled".
That seems to me to be a particularly depressing approach to the problem.
None of that suggests that there is any great enthusiasm to make the tunnel work as it should. We have talked about national strategies and again, in that speech, Mr. Portillo, said:
"It has been said that the Government should devise and implement a national strategy to ensure that the best advantage is taken of the opportunities presented by the Channel Tunnel. The Department does of course have a national road strategy and BR have a national rail strategy".
That seems to me to underline the problem. The Government's problem is the road strategy; British Rail's problem is the rail strategy. Never the twain shall meet.
1094
That explains a matter on which the noble Viscount was good enough to write to me some time ago. I asked him if he could tell me how much money the Government had put into the Channel Tunnel when he alleged that they had put in a considerable amount. I thought that they had put in nothing. However, he wrote to me and said that the Government had put a lot of money into the Channel Tunnel in respect of motorways. Every time we come back to the fact that the Government think that only roads are important and that the railways can fend for themselves in the general marketplace.
I noticed in some documents which were produced by Transport 2000 some very interesting statistics in terms of freight. It concerns a comparison between export and import freight flows in the eastern part of the country between the northern and southern counties, in the eastern counties corridor. Imports in the northern counties—Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Durham and Cleveland—were 1-65 million tonnes and exports were 3-15 million tonnes. For the equivalent southern counties, the imports were 1-58 million tonnes and the exports were 300,000 tonnes. It seems to me that those are important statistics because they emphasise that building lines to the South will not do very much for our economy other than to increase imports. Those strike me as quite dramatic figures.
As many noble Lords have said, the fact is that the railway lines must be upgraded. In particular the west coast main line must be upgraded. That would unlock much potential in the North-West. Speaking as someone who lives in the South-West, I believe that that area—South Wales, Bristol, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall—has been totally left out of everybody's considerations.
We keep running into Section 42. With all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, when the Channel Tunnel was being considered, some of his honourable friends put a lot of pressure on the Government not to put money into a system which was to be partly privately funded. They put on quite a lot of pressure to stop the Government putting money into the scheme. However, I am glad that there has been a conversion in that regard and that they now support the proposal that at least some government money should go into this.
Again, Mr. Portillo in that same speech said:
"Some people suggest that we should repeal Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 which prohibits subsidy for BR in respect of international rail services. I do not agree at all".
He is absolutely dogmatic that he does not agree. He continues:
"Section 42 accords with the policy of successive Governments, Labour as well as Conservative, that one mode of long-distance travel should not be subsidised at the expense of others".
That was a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, referred as the Government's defence on that.
That will not do. If we are to have a proper rail link to the Channel Tunnel the Government must find a mechanism for getting themselves out of the hole which they dug when Section 42 was passed. I am delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, supporting that view although many of her noble friends on that side of the House

1095
voted with the Government when Section 42 was passed in this House. Some of us were less sure at that time.
We are not talking about subsidising services, which is the response that one always receives from the Government. We are talking about putting in an infrastructure capable of carrying the services which can open up the potential for the Channel Tunnel.
I should be glad to have a response from the Government, although not necessarily today, on the Channel fixed link agreement between the Secretary of State for Transport and his French opposite number and the Channel Tunnel Group and France Manche SA. That states:
"Except as expressly permitted by this Agreement, by national and Community laws and by their international engagements including the Treaty, the Principals will not intervene in the conduct or operation of the Fixed Link".
However, it then goes on to say:
"They will use reasonable endeavours to carry out the infrastructure necessary for a satisfactory flow of traffic, subject to statutory procedures".
It seems to me that that is a way in which the Government can unlock themselves out of a very difficult situation.
The problem is that the criteria which the Government are laying down do not take into consideration the impact of lorries and particularly heavy goods vehicles on our roads and motorways. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, referred to Section 8 and the opportunities for private sidings to be subsidised. Those criteria are far too tight and take no account of overcrowding on motorways. I hope that the noble Viscount can reply to that point.
To sum up, the Channel Tunnel offers to this country a most exceptional opportunity which will go away if we do not seize it now. What is inhibiting us from making the most of that chance is the Government's refusal to ensure that the infrastructure of this country, particularly as regards railways, is capable of unlocking the potential which exists for taking us into the 21st century. I hope that we receive a better response from the Government than we have in the past.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, like other noble Lords I thank my noble friend Lord Underhill for raising this matter today. This is a very timely debate and there was considerable surprise that so many noble Lords wished to speak in the debate. I was particularly pleased at the very wide representation of people from outside the South East of England. Noble Lords have spoken from the North West and the centre of England, Yorkshire, Scotland and of course there was the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, from Ireland. Those speeches were a timely reminder of the fact that whatever were the previous attitudes towards the Channel Tunnel, we are now very much aware that it will be with us in the very near future.
We are at a watershed; the Channel Tunnel will be with us very soon and we have many important and bold decisions to make. I was not just politely pleased with the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay; it was a maiden speech that we all
1096
enjoyed. But more than that, it brought home to me a certain number of points. For instance, he spoke with a different time perspective from most of us in this House. I made my first speech on the Channel Tunnel in 1983 and it all seemed to be a long way off. It is now almost with us. The noble Earl spoke as a young man who will, I hope, not look back 30 years from now and say, "We lost a lot of chances". I do not think many of us will be here with him to look back in 30 years' time, but there are opportunities which he was able to show us.
He took a bold look at the future and had the temerity to question the wisdom of a road solution, particularly for freight. That is a breath of fresh air in regard to many of our transport debates. He gave figures for California and the enormous proportion of the state taken over by roads and car parks. However, I believe it was the Secretary of State for Transport who once said that if UK car use increased at the present rate, by the end of the century the additional cars would need a car park the size of Berkshire. That means that we are reaching a ludicrous situation and must look at some other way of dealing with the problems.
I am grateful to the North-West Channel Tunnel Group for some of the figures that it supplied to me. In this country we are speaking of an overall speed of freight vehicles between 40 and 50 miles per hour door-to-door. The European railways standard for freight wagons is likely to be around 75 miles per hour and some of the passenger trains will travel in excess of 150 miles an hour. There is a strong possibility that the EC regulations will move more and more towards a reduction of driver hours for freight. Also heavy public pressure may build up in this country for no heavy goods vehicles on the roads on Saturdays and Sundays, which is the case on the Continent. That would mean that freight by road would be more likely to be uneconomic, except for very special types, and therefore the railways seem to be the solution to the problem.
We could be allowing a great chance to slip by. The French will be ready with their fast trains by 1993 and Belgium by 1995; I understand that the United Kingdom will be ready by 1998. It is not just that but the quality of the French and Belgian service as against the quality that we are likely to provide. The fact that we are thinking of putting new trains with new potential on old and already congested lines and junctions is ridiculous and appallingly inefficient.
The inter-city speed agreed between the railway administration of the 12 EC countries for principal express routes is around 187 miles an hour. The west coast mainline through the area that many of my colleagues spoke of, close to Manchester, Liverpool and up to Glasgow, is considered to be one of our major lines. The maximum speed on most of that line is around 100 miles an hour, with certain areas at 110 miles an hour, where the EC countries decided that the average speed for express passenger trains should be around 187 miles per hour. The French had a TGV running in December of last year reaching speeds of 300 miles an hour.
We are therefore speaking of different qualities from the mainland Europeans. How do we manage

1097
to break the logjam? I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, particularly on rail matters, but he became rather tied up on the question of procedures, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff tried to explain, are rather secondary; if there was a political will there would be a way of finding a solution to the problem. The question of Section 8 grants is not terribly important. It is better to have Section 8 grants than none at all. I should rather we looked more closely at Section 42 to find out how we can break down the barrier between government money and private finance. I am sure that, again with a will, there is a way through that.
We are speaking of a great opportunity. One of the problems faced by many of us who travel fair distances down from Scotland every week is that, although we have a wonderful aeroplane which brings us down very quickly, we then find ourselves flying around in circles over London Airport for 20 minutes to half-an-hour. A good high speed rail network would not only give us a better journey into London, relieving the congestion at the airports, but we may find that it would be worthwhile to have that high speed network going right through to Paris from Scotland. We should be thinking 30 years ahead and not just to 1998 or 1999. British transport cannot move into the 21st century if we simply continue to patch up the inadequacies of the 1970s and 1980s. There must be a way forward.
My honourable friend the Shadow Minister for Transport spoke at a conference in Leeds a week after Mr. Portillo and put some ideas forward. He said:
"The Government cannot let ideological dogma stand in the way of economic progress, so they must repeal Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act to provide public money. It is a public project and must have public accountability that puts the public interest first—not private".
Even at that late date he called upon the Secretary of State for Transport to set up a committee of experts to examine all the available rail link options. He said that it must consider the economic benefits, the environmental effects, the cost and, above all, the safety aspects. He believed, and I believe too, that again with the right will and with a sense of urgency a committee of experts could report its findings in a relatively short time. There are an enormous amount of data available and these people know exactly where to obtain it. A public Bill could then be put before Parliament in order to break some of the logjams that we are experiencing. I believe, and I recommend to the House, that that is the sort of bold attitude we should take if we are to obtain the full benefit of the tunnel. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, will then be able to look back and say, "Perhaps my maiden speech did something towards brushing away the cobwebs and moving a little into the 21st century."
7.10 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, this has been a fascinating and well-balanced debate and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will read Hansard with great interest. I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for initiating this debate and I congratulate him on
1098
attracting such a distinguished list of speakers. As some of your Lordships said, he has attracted speakers who do not normally attend our transport debates and that has widened the scope and the interest considerably. I also warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Lindsay on his carefully considered and well-delivered maiden speeach.
In view of the importance of the subject, and the fact that I did not wish to reduce the time available for each speaker by intervening earlier in the debate—as it turns out, I could have done so—I have tried to anticipate in my winding-up speech many of the points which have been raised. I will also try to answer those which I failed to anticipate, but if the time is not available to answer them all I shall of course write to noble Lords.
The English Channel has separated this country from the Continent for several thousand years. Many people have seen this as a benefit, but that is no longer so, as I think that was agreed by most speakers. Economic ties with our European neighbours have increased considerably. In 1973 we joined the European Economic Community; nearly two-thirds of our foreign trade is now with Europe and the much heralded completion of the European single market is only just around the corner. It has been predicted that even without a tunnel, cross-Channel traffic will rise by 75 per cent. between 1986 and the year 2008. It was for these reasons that it became apparent that there was a need for increased links across the Channel and that the construction of a permanent fixed link would be of great benefit to the whole country.
There is therefore a need to ensure adequate road and rail links to cope with the traffic using the tunnel and to provide access to the whole of the United Kingdom. I will first consider the road network. It should not be overlooked that the road infrastructure needs to take account both of traffic using the tunnel and that using the Channel ports. The forecast average annual daily flow of all cross-Channel traffic (ferries as well as tunnel) is 14,000 vehicles per day in 1993, rising to 20,000 in 2008. Although that is a not inconsiderable flow, we have to keep it in perspective; it is about the level of traffic currently using the A.2 between Canterbury and Dover, which is a mostly dual two-lane all purpose trunk road. Parts of the M.25 carry six times as much traffic and so does the Lille périphérique in France.
It is also important to understand that the extra road traffic arising as a result of completion of the tunnel will have its main impact in Kent, as we have heard, that it will mostly use the trunk road network and that it will form only a small part of the overall traffic growth which the Government's national roads programme is designed to cope with. Within an extensive programme in Kent generally, it is the Government's particular policy to develop the M.20, together with the A.20 between Folkestone and Dover, as the main artery linking the tunnel and the Channel ports with the M.25, M.26 and the rest of the United Kingdom motorway network.
There are four major schemes to complete the improvement of this route; together they are valued at £200 million and all are receiving high priority.

1099
The M.20 will provide at least a dual three-lane motorway from the tunnel to the M.25. To the east of the terminal, the new dual two-lane A.20 will connect right to the Dover Eastern Docks. The aim is to have all four schemes open by the time the tunnel opens in 1993.
To assist with the development of the road network, the Government also support the local authorities' own building programmes through the Transport Supplementary Grant system, with grants on approved schemes at a flat rate of 50 per cent. This includes support for an agreed package of local road schemes in Kent costing more than £75 million over and above support for the county council's ordinary programme. This is in recognition of the special circumstances made necessary by the Channel tunnel.
For the M.25 and beyond, Channel tunnel traffic is fully taken into account in the now greatly expanded national roads programme. New schemes added in last year's White Paper Roads for Prosperity and the recent roads report, Trunk Roads, England into the 1990s, have more than doubled its size, bringing the total cost of the programme to £12-4 billion at November 1987 prices. The new Dartford-Thurrock crossing now being built, comprehensive widening of the M.25 to dual four-lanes, and the many major schemes in hand or planned for, will together provide greatly improved links with all parts of the country. Looking still further ahead, a number of major studies are to be commissioned, including one into the possible need for a new east-west strategic route between Kent and Hampshire.
I will now consider the railways. Perhaps the most important aspect of the tunnel is its role in joining the UK rail network to the mainland of Europe. For the first time British Rail will be able to compete in terms of price, speed and comfort with the airlines. Though much concern has been expressed about a bias to the tunnel's advantages in favour of the South East, there are great opportunities for the UK generally. The longer distances and the time savings will give transport of freight by rail an edge over road haulage, and BR estimates that 70 per cent of rail freight through the tunnel will originate or terminate beyond the South East. I will say more about this later.
British Rail is keen to exploit every commercial opportunity offered by the tunnel. It set up a series of regional consultations with representative bodies, including local authorities, tourist boards and business interests to help assess the likely level of demand for regional passenger and freight services through the tunnel. BR then drew up the plan of proposed international services required by Section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987.
BR's plan, published last December, sets out its current view of the international services using the tunnel which are commercially viable. It will keep the plan under review both up to the opening of the tunnel and thereafter; and will revise it as appropriate as the pattern of demand for international services and the associated commercial opportunities become clearer.
BR's strategy, which the Government fully support, is to provide commercially attractive
1100
services to its customers. Taking passenger services first, BR plans to run services to and from the UK regions, as well as from London, as soon as the tunnel opens, using existing lines. BR believes that passengers from places with frequent, fast, Intercity services to London will also have the option of changing there to the inter-capital trains, so few through daytime passenger services from the regions are currently planned. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, rail had the advantage of transporting the traveller from city centre to city centre. However, it must be recognised that the rail journey time from Edinburgh or Glasgow to Paris or Brussels will be over five times longer than by air—a difference of six to eight hours, depending on which journey you look at. It is therefore likely that business travellers from the more distant cities will take this into account when choosing whether to travel by train or plane, though leisure travellers might not think the time difference so important. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, there are those who say that BR is not providing enough passenger services, but I can tell him and the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, that BR will be providing something like three times as many seats on trains to Paris from Manchester, 11 times as many from Edinburgh and four-and-a-half times as many from Glasgow as on air services between those cities. There will be of the order of six times as many seats from Manchester to Brussels.
The right reverend prelate the Bishop of Manchester and other noble Lords recognised that a major benefit of the tunnel to the regions will of course be the provision of through rail freight services between the Continent and destinations throughout the UK. I can assure my noble friend Lord Johnston of Rockport that this will assist the economic development of the less favoured, more distant UK regions and will also encourage the transfer of freight from road to rail, with the important environmental benefits that that will bring to the community at large.
In its Section 40 plan, BR proposes to carry 6-1 million tonnes of freight per annum. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that the carriage of 6-1 million tonnes of freight is an insignificant contribution to UK trade. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that BR is confident that it has sufficient capacity on existing lines to take that level of traffic. That is the level of service that BR considers it can operate commercially and it estimates that in the first years of operation the rail freight service should result in up to 400,000 fewer trunk lorry movements a year over the roads of Kent and the South East. The ability of rail to supplant road transport, is however, often exaggerated: a 50 per cent. increase in rail traffic would reduce road traffic by less than 5 per cent.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, that BR is anxious to provide a quality service and to compete effectively in the international freight transport market and is currently negotiating with road haulage operators and industry to ensure that businesses have the most efficient access possible to the rail system. BR intends to use new wagon technology which can provide the same loading

1101
capabilities as those in mainland Europe, even though the British loading gauge itself is smaller than that in Europe. BR is looking into the possibility of developing a fleet of intermodal "swap-body" wagons to facilitiate the transfer of containers between road and rail transport. BR is also negotiating with the private sector for regional rail freight terminal sites and hopes to announce their locations during the course of this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to government investment in motorways. Perhaps the reason for that is that the Department of Transport is responsible for building motorways whereas it is the statutory responsibility of BR and not the department to build railways. British Rail already has in hand substantial investment amounting to about £1 billion in rolling stock and infrastructure to enable it to provide passenger and freight services when the tunnel opens in 1993. We are always willing to consider worthwhile investment proposals by BR.
I shall now try to answer as many of the points as I can which were raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, expressed criticism at the failure of the Department of Transport to make a study of the likely impact of the Channel Tunnel on road traffic in the South East. The net extra traffic resulting from the tunnel is not expected to be significant compared with the forecast of traffic growth generally. Therefore, no specific study has been planned. In March 1986 the department established a traffic working group to assess the impact of road traffic in Kent and the South East. That group comprised the department, Eurotunnel and Kent County Council. It reported in June 1986 and the figures have since been updated following changes in Eurotunnel forecasts.
A working group is meeting now to produce up-to-date estimates of road traffic. The results should be available this summer. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether the safety authority's decision on non-segregation had been confirmed by the intergovernmental commission and whether the shuttle trains were being designed on the basis of non-segregation. The decision on non-segregation was taken by the intergovernmental commission. In doing so the commission took the advice of the safety authority and took account of security of defence and environmental considerations. Contracts for the design and construction of the shuttle trains have, I believe, been given by Eurotunnel.
The noble Lord also asked why, in the light of the decision to permit non-segregation—that is, for the drivers to remain with their cars on the shuttle trains—the safety authority has not commented on the number of attendants who will be on the shuttle trains. The safety authority's conclusion is that the principle of non-segregation is acceptable in relation to the design of the shuttles. The number of attendants who will travel on the shuttles is a matter for the operating rules which the authority has yet to agree.
The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Thomson of Monifieth, asked about repealing Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. I believe
1102
that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, also asked about that matter. That section prohibits a subsidy for BR in respect of international rail services. As my honourable friend said:
"Section 42 accords with the policy of successive governments".
I believe that is the quotation which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, read out, so I shall not bother to repeat it save to say that I agree entirely with what my honourable friend said.
My noble friend Lord Lindsay, in his excellent maiden speech, drew attention to the much higher level of pollution from cars than from trains. He produced some very interesting figures to support his conclusions. The department is encouraging improvements in the efficiency of engine design so that cars consume less fuel. It is encouraging the use of unleaded petrol wherever possible. It is also committed to setting more stringent limits on emissions from new vehicles as a result of EC directives.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester expressed concern about the deterioration of ferry services as a result of the Channel Tunnel. My noble friend Lord Pennock answered that point. The impact of the tunnel on the ports and ferries was thoroughly investigated by the UK-French group in 1982. The group's report is still valid. It concluded that traffic levels on ferries crossing the Dover Straits might be higher in the year 2000 than in 1980. Even when the tunnel first opens it is thought that the growth in travel will ensure that most sea routes will be relatively unimpaired.
The right reverend Prelate also referred to the threat of terrorism. Appropriate arrangements will be made to counter that threat but for obvious reasons I cannot go into detail about what they might be. The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Mountevans and other noble Lords, asked about the new Channel Tunnel rail link with London. As well as its extensive planning for 1993 British Rail has also looked further ahead to the time when the capacity of the existing railway from the Channel Tunnel to London becomes fully utilised. BR and Eurorail have worked out the details of a possible joint venture to run international services and to construct a new Channel Tunnel rail link to London.
The Government are considering the proposals put forward and will be responding in due course. I can tell the noble Lords, Lord Walston and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that the link will be for passengers and not freight. It has always been intended that freight should go on the existing tracks to a network of up to 12 regional freight terminals throughout the United Kingdom and that includes Scotland. I also take this opportunity to welcome the support of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for the proposed second international passenger terminal at King's Cross.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, raised the question of the international passenger station at Ashford. BR has repeatedly expressed its intention to provide an international passenger station there and the Government have supported that. BR's investment has to be viable in accordance

1103
with Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act. I understand that BR is continuing to work towards having the IPS ready in time for the opening of the Channel Tunnel. It is not the Government's place to offer assurances on whether the work will go ahead or be completed by a particular date as regards this or any other investment.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, suggested that the tunnel would become a bottleneck. That is a matter for Eurotunnel. It has clearly said that the tunnel will open with a great deal more capacity than predicted demand. More capacity will be developed within the initial tunnel system in advance of rising demand in the late 1990s. The concession agreement requires Eurotunnel to achieve shuttle transit times of about 35 minutes.
My noble friend Lord Hood asked what the Government will do if Eurotunnel fails to raise new money. It is a private sector project and financing is a matter between Eurotunnel and its bankers. If money is not available, procedures are laid down in the concession agreement for the next steps to be taken by the Government. If the procedures are exhausted the agreement states that it is not the intention of the Government to continue the project if the concession period terminates prematurely. However, having listened to my noble friend Lord Pennock, I am sure that your Lordships will be very much reassured on that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, suggested that the Government should devise and implement a national strategy to ensure that the best advantage is taken of the opportunities presented by the Channel Tunnel. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, also referred to that matter. The Government believe in competition between the various modes of transport so that customers can choose the best method to suit their needs. Comprehensive centralised transport plans are slow and cumbersome to compile. They rarely take account of changing circumstances and so they tend to be out-of-date before they can be implemented. The Government's policy is not to formulate voluminous strategies but to deregulate. Probably the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has heard those words before from me.
As one might expect, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, spoke about Scotland. I must admit that when he started to speak my eyes looked in a different direction. I did not expect him to be speaking from the Benches immediately opposite: chacun à son goût.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, he is warmly welcomed.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government's policy of creating the right climate for the market to work better in order to stimulate enterprise and initiative also applies to Scotland. The Scottish Development Agency has commissioned a report from consultants. It has asked them to consider the likely impact of the Channel Tunnel on Scotland and the ways in which the potential benefits can be maximised. The Scottish Office organised jointly with Scotrail and the Confederation of British Industry a very successful conference on the
1104
opportunities which the tunnel can offer Scotland. A wide range of interested parties attended and took part in the open forum.
My noble friend Lord Johnston of Rockport spoke about the great economic progress that has been achieved in the North West over the past decade and wondered about the future. The Government take the view that the impact of the Channel Tunnel on the North of England will be positive, reflecting the anticipated benefits from the project for the whole of the British economy. As my noble friend said, the North West of England is a region of great economic importance to the United Kingdom economy as a whole, being, as he said, the second highest regional contributor to the national gross domestic product. It is the largest single market area for international rail freight and passenger services outside the South East. It is therefore well placed to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the tunnel.
I have noted with interest the report of the North-West Channel Tunnel Group entitled Capitalising on the Channel Tunnel: Action for North-West England. It makes a number of demands for improved international rail freight and passenger services and increased rail funding. I must stress that these services must be commercially viable if British Rail is to consider them seriously. But the House will be interested to note that British Rail hopes to announce the location of freight terminals, including one in the North West, during the course of this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Crook, mentioned that high speed lines were not being considered for the regions. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, may be interested to hear that the main lines from London to the regions are already suitable for high speed running. More trains currently operate in the United Kingdom at more than 100 miles an hour than in any other European country except France. The east coast mainline is being electrified in a massive investment programme, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, knows, and will bring significant improvement to journey times. There is no need either for new lines to provide extra capacity for services to the regions. The main lines beyond London are already connected to the Southern Region lines and are quite capable of absorbing extra traffic when the tunnel opens.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked two questions about Northern Ireland. In reply to the first, I can tell him that the Channel Tunnel will offer great opportunities for Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom. It is likely that it will benefit the ferry industry through the growth of rail passenger movements to and from Britain and the possibility of attracting Continental car passengers travelling via the tunnel. As regards freight, there is considerable scope for an increase in roll-on, roll-off traffic, and British Rail is currently negotiating with road hauliers and port operators with a view to providing the most efficient access possible to Channel Tunnel services. It will also benefit tourism since the increase in visitors to Britain will mean a filtering through of tourists to Northern Ireland.

1105
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, suggested that there was an urgent need for a meeting between my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Northern Ireland to discuss transport problems which might arise from the opening of the Channel Tunnel. I shall of course draw lis suggestion to the attention of my right honourable friends.
My noble friend Lord Hardinge of Penshurst expressed his concern about the snail-like progress of road building in East Sussex, as did my noble friend Lord Teviot. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, spoke of the opportunities of south coast resorts to benefit from the tunnel. The Department of Transport has 11 schemes in our programme for improvement of the A.27/A.259 south coast route in the county, costing £176 million, including a £25 million scheme for dualling between Lewes and Polegate. British consultants were appointed in January. New regional organisations were set up on 2nd April 1990 to speed up the delivery of road schemes. Divisions dealing solely with major road schemes were established which will make use of private sector consultants to work on project management within regional offices of the Department of Transport. The department is continuing to seek ways to speed up the procedures without detracting from the rights of those affected.
My noble friend also spoke about the need to improve the A.21 in East Sussex. The department has three schemes in a national programme, totalling £13 million on the A.21.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, suggested that British Rail had underestimated Channel Tunnel traffic. There are obvious difficulties in assessing demand for a facility which has not previously been available. The argument that the taxpayer should subsidise rail services through the tunnel regardless of the level of demand for such services is groundless. We believe that British Rail is taking the right way forward, planning to meet the demonstrated commercially viable needs of those wishing to travel or transport their goods by rail to the Continent. Its Section 40 plan is, as I said earlier, flexible and can be revised to take into account changing patterns of demand. I regret that I am not in a position to give the noble Baroness an answer today to her question on the electrification of the Leeds-Bradford line even though she kindly gave me notice of the question. I shall, however, write to her with the greatest of urgency.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans asked about the progress of alternatives to the Private Bill procedure. This is still under consideration and we wish to make quick progress. I can tell my noble friend that the Government are currently reviewing freight facilities grants—so-called Section 8 grants. These grants are available where the correct commercial decision would be to send freight by road but where transferring it to rail can obtain significant environmental benefits at reasonable cost. The review will consider whether road congestion should be taken into account in this scheme and whether environmental benefits should be evaluated on a
1106
different basis. It is too early to say when the review will be complete.
I can also tell my noble friend that I think that my right honourable friend's directive to British Rail to concentrate on the Eurorail proposal has been overtaken. As I said earlier, British Rail and Eurorail have now presented my right honourable friend with their business plan for a rail link from the tunnel to London. It is a complex document which is still being considered and it is too early to say when any decision might be taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred to the need for a decision on a freight terminal in Leeds or Wakefield. British Rail expects to make a decision within the next few weeks. My noble friend Lord Teviot asked about a freight terminal in the South. Such a terminal might take some southern lorries off the road but it would have the effect that many freight trains coming through the tunnel might offload in the South, thus increasing the number of lorries and defeating the advantages of rail freight links to the North.
My noble friend Lord Teviot also asked about access to Dover from the M.20 at Folkestone. The department's proposals for a new dual carriageway on the A.20 between Folkestone and Dover were finalised in December when the decision supporting the eastern half of the route was announced. Work on the first stage should start later this year and the whole scheme should be completed by summer 1993. Concerning the A.2, a scheme to dual the last remaining single carriageway between Lydden and Dover was added to the programme in February 1990. The target date for announcement of the preferred route is 1993. There are no doubt points on which I have failed to comment and questions which I have failed to answer. If so, I shall write to the noble Lords concerned.
The impact of the tunnel will benefit the whole united nation—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Viscount Davidson: That is a line which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has not heard before.
The Government's primary aim has been to create the right climate for the market to work better to stimulate enterprise and initiative in all regions. Industries to benefit in the first instance will be construction equipment and railway equipment suppliers, which with a few exceptions tend to be located in major conurbations outside the South East. As my noble friend Lord Pennock said, the tunnel will reduce the need for trans-shipment and cut manufacturers' transport costs to European markets, thus enhancing the competitiveness of British industry. The prospects for further industrial investment in all the regions can only improve as the United Kingdom economy becomes less peripheral to the other European countries.
I conclude by saying that the main message that I have received throughout the debate from all sides of the House has been the urgent need for decisions to be taken and for speedy action to follow. I am not in a position to say whether the criticisms and

1107
worries expressed are well founded or not, but I can assure the House that I shall certainly pass on the message to my right honourable friend.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps I may say how grateful we are to him especially for those last few words. I should like to ask for elucidation in relation to something that he has already said. I shall well understand if he cannot answer today. Many of us understand his problem of not being a departmental Minister and having to deal with such difficult issues. With no disrespect to him, perhaps it is time that we had a departmental Minister from the Department of Transport in the House.
The noble Viscount said that a 50 per cent. increase in freight on rail would lead to a reduction of only 5 per cent. in road traffic. That 5 per cent. is of total road traffic. It would be interesting to know at some time what percentage of the heavy goods vehicle traffic it represents. It will be significantly higher than the 5 per cent. he mentioned.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I certainly take the noble Lord's point. I shall write to him and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
As for his request for a Minister from the Department of Transport, it is the fate of the Deputy Chief Whip to become a spokesman for a department which does not have a Minister in the House. I have been in that position for the past three years with three different departments. I regret that I have had that criticism thown at me—
Noble Lords: No!
Viscount Davidson: I regret that I have had criticism implied—
Lord Ennals: It is not the noble Viscount's fault.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, absolutely no criticism is implied. The noble Viscount has served us very well today, as always. It is unfortunate for the House that unreasonable demands are placed on him.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, this has been a constructive debate. It remains for me to say that it has achieved its objective. As a number of noble Lords have said, it has attracted no fewer than 24 speakers from all sides of the House and from most parts of the country. It was interesting to note that most of those who took part dealt with the key part of the Motion regarding the national interest and the interests of all parts of the country.
Without taking advantage of my position with these last few words, I must mention one matter referred to by the noble Viscount as regards the point I raised on paragraph 47 of the report of the Select Committee on the European Communities on Transport Infrastructure. Apparently he was given the advice that I was referring to a survey of the position in the South East of England. However, the complaint of the Select Committee was that,
1108
"the DTP were not prepared to carry out a study of the regional impact of the Channel Tunnel".
I do not expect the noble Viscount to reply to me on that issue tonight, but I should like him to write to me as regards the two points I raised during my opening speech. Does this still remain the policy of the department, and what is the Government's attitude to that statement made by witnesses who gave evidence to the Select Committee?
Having said that, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for the attention which he has given to all the points raised. I also thank all those who took part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Westminster and Chelsea Hospital: Costs
7.41 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals rose to ask Her Majesty's Government why the proposed Westminster and Chelsea Hospital, costed by the Secretary of State at £135 million in December 1988, is now estimated to cost £226 million, and what effects this will have on capital expenditure for the rest of the North-West Thames Health Region.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may first say that I have letters of apology from the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, who is president of the Westminster Hospital Development Fund and from the noble Lord, Lord Kissin, who, together with me, is one of the patrons of the fund. Both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord are unable to take part in the debate, although they would have liked to have done so. I also have an apology from the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who is president of the Children's Medical Charity, in respect of which I am chairman of the trustees. The charity is concerned with funding vital research at the Westminster Children's Hospital. My noble friend Lady Phillips had hoped to take part in the debate but the timing is such that she cannot do so because of a previous engagement. However, I am delighted to see that the noble Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Auckland, will be taking part in the debate.
Both these internationally famous and well-loved hospitals are to be demolished within the next few years—indeed, I think that it is within the next three years—together with two other hospitals in the City of Westminster, leaving Westminster totally without any hospital provision. In my view it is an act of extraordinary butchery by the Secretary of State for Health, the Riverside District Health Authority and the North-West Thames Regional Health Authority.
The Secretary of State's decision, which followed a very long debate—one which I might call "the people against the State"—was finally determined by Mr. Kenneth Clarke on 22nd December 1988. On that date he gave the go-ahead to what I believe to be a bizarre proposal, greatly to the detriment not only of the people of Westminster, its residents, its massive daily work population as well as many who come into London from all parts of the United Kingdom for work and pleasure, but also to the

1109
detriment of millions of tourists who visit London in increasing numbers. The accident and emergency service of these hospitals always takes emergency patients from every central London tragedy. It will be greatly missed—in my view, it will be terribly missed.
The St. Stephen's Hospital, part of which was only commissioned in 1973—in fact, 260 beds were commissioned at that time—has now been totally demolished to clear the ground for the newest and most expensive hospital ever established in the United Kingdom. It is located on a site in Fulham just a mile away from Charing Cross Hospital and it is hopelessly located. Its access by ambulance and car is fearfully hampered by narrow, crowded streets. Tests lave been carried out which show how long it would take to get very sick patients to the new site. I believe that if the hospital is ever opened the public will be staggered to think that anyone could have conceived of such a location for a modern hospital when the Westminster Hospital is so conveniently located.
Many of us here owe our lives to the Westminster Hospital. I suspect that that includes the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. As we do not know who will be the occupants of Westminster City Hall by tomorrow evening, I feel that I should point out that all parties in the Westminster City Council opposed the Secretary of State's decision to embark upon this ill-fated project, as did the Community Health Council and a massive proportion of the population in Westminster.
So concerned was I at this proposal that, with the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and the noble Lords, Goodman, Kissin and Wigoder, and others, I was involved in submitting in great detail, with professional advice, an alternative plan which was eventually, even after presentation, rejected by the district, the region and the Secretary of State. That is the background to the subject of my Unstarred Question this evening.
The submission of the North-West Thames region to the Secretary of State showed that there were eight possible options in Riverside of which either a rebuild or a refurbishment in Westminster would be financially more viable than Riverside's own scheme (the one which is now being implemented). On 21st December 1988 additional billions of pounds for the 14 regions in England and Wales were announced and the then Minister of Health, Mr. David Mellor, stated that evening on LBC Radio that no hospitals would now need to close for reasons of revenue saving alone—a hostage to fortune if ever I heard one.
On the following day, 22nd December 1988, Mr. Kenneth Clarke announced his approval of Riverside's plan, costing, according to his press release, £135 million. On the same day, the North-West Thames' press release referred to a figure of £155 million for the project. The Secretary of State's press release stressed that the scheme,
"will greatly improve health service in this important part of the Capita".
I can only say that if the term "economic with the truth" has now become popular, it applies to that
1110
statement more than any other that I have heard. As a consequence, on 3rd February 1988, the 10 cot level 3 special care baby unit at Westminster Hospital, opened by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, in 1979, was closed to make way for the decanting of patients from St. Stephen's. The babies in the unit were sent to the level 2 special care baby unit at the West London Hospital which does not provide 24-hours a day surgical care.
On 2nd March 1989, as a result of representations, Mr. Clarke confirmed to me by letter that when the new Westminster and Chelsea was commissioned it would have a 15 cot level 3 special care baby unit replacing the level 2 unit at the West London Hospital and also the closed level 3 unit at the Westminster Hospital. In the interim, no arrangements were made for any re-provision at level 3 while the new hospital was built. I hope to hear some assurance from the Minister about that promise.
On Sunday 20th August the London Ambulance Service, dealing with the "Marchioness" riverboat emergency at Southwark Bridge, nominated St. Thomas's Hospital as the receiving hospital and Westminster Hospital as the first supporting hospital. What happened then demonstrated that for any real disaster or emergency in central London, the retention of a hospital on the Westminster site was crucial if large numbers of casualties were to receive adequate attention.
On 31st March 1990 we had the poll tax riot in Trafalgar Square. Very many of the 339 injured policemen and 86 members of the public were taken to the nearest local hospital; that is, the local Westminster Hospital. On 16th May 1989, in response to a Written Question from Mr. Frank Field, the chairman of the Social Services Select Committee in another place, the junior Minister, Mr. Roger Freeman at col. 152 said:
"Westminster and Chelsea Hospital…Year of start 1989/90… Estimated year of completion: 1992-93 … Estimated total cost: Original/Current £116,070,000".
That was just over a year ago. Look at what we are dealing with now. On 18th January this year the North-West Thames Regional Health Authority decided to adopt the emergency regions revised 10-year capital programme which included the Westminster and Chelsea Hospital's total estimated cost as at 11th January 1990 of £203,785,900; but, in addition, the five nursing homes, the health centre and decantation separate estimates took the then total budget figure up to £226,297,000—roughly double the figure confirmed only 12 months previously.
The doubling of such a large sum results in a great deal of money. The region and its patients are now faced with a new hospital in London SW10, a mile only from Charing Cross, at this stage of estimates costing, as I said, a massive figure—an escalation of some £125 million. What is the explanation? Is someone making a massive profit at the taxpayers' expense, or were the original calculations totally wrong? There is a revised 10-year capital budget with most projects either abandoned or deferred. The decision to put that amount of money into that sort of hospital is devastating the prospects for improved hospital services or even the maintenance

1111
of them in other parts of the region. The decision was hopelessly wrong.
At the same time as those huge capital sums were being committed, through lack of revenue both now and during the summer months a large number of beds will be closed in the central London teaching hospitals now available; namely, St. Mary's Hospital in Parkside, Charing Cross in Riverside and St. Thomas's in West Lambeth. On Thursday, 26th April 1990 the Riverside Health Authority announced the closure of a further 102 beds at the Charing Cross and Westminster hospitals to add to the already nearly 500 beds closed this year by West Lambeth, Bloomsbury, Parkside and Wandsworth health authorities, mostly in the major great teaching hospitals.
The Riverside district general manager, Mr. David Knowles, stated that the closures were,
"in order to enable the authority to live within its statutory requirements to balance its budget".
He also said that the total effect on patients would be very significant indeed. It is, to the tune of 500 beds. We now have a situation in which well over £226 million is spent on providing 667 new beds in west London on an obviously unsuitable site when almost that number of beds is being closed for statutory revenue reasons alone.
The revenue from that figure of £226 million, if placed on deposit on the money market at 15 per cent., would produce for those London district health authorities nearly £34 million per annum, which would keep all those beds now closed, or due to close during the next few weeks, open every week for each year that the money was invested. It is a mad hatter's tea-party! It is crazy for the Government to decide to take that action. I presented to the Secretary of State an alternative which would have provided the same number of beds, better located, at a figure totally different from that which the country now has to face. It is gross maladministration on a scandalous scale.
The Government always reel off statistics relating to NHS expenditure. This is one item that they could save right now. I go further. There should be an immediate ending to this grotesque situation, even though some million pounds has already been spent in digging out the foundations.
Before I sit down perhaps I may ask the Minister some questions of which I have given her advance notice. First, once a district scheme such as this undermines the finances of one of the four London regional health authorities, how can the continuation of the project be justified without it adversely affecting the immediate and long-term future hospital care facilities for the vast majority of the region's patients? Why was it allowed to go forward?
Secondly, how can any properly run or controlled regional health authority, without maladministration, get itself into such a mess over a project which will be one mile only from another of the same district's teaching hospitals? Thirdly, can it be confirmed that to rectify the deferred or abandoned projects in the former North-West Thames 10-year capital programme additional
1112
funds will be made available centrally to ensure that the vast majority of patients in the region do not suffer as a result of that crass mistake? Fourthly, can Mr. Duncan Nichol, the chief executive of the NHS, explain how in his letter to North-West Thames region dated 31st January 1990 he congratulated the region on its achievement during the past 18 months—he pinpointed,
"the approval in principle of the Westminster and Chelsea project"—
bearing in mind that on 18th January the hopes of the people in the rest of the region were dashed by the cancellation of projects to which they were looking forward?
Penultimately, following the poll tax riot on Saturday, 31st March, 1990 can I be assured that on public policy grounds a Westminster hospital will be retained and that for the good of all the North-West Thames region's patients the building of the Westminster and Chelsea Hospital will be immediately abandoned and the moneys saved used to keep beds open and available at all the central London hospitals? Finally will the noble Baroness ask the Secretary of State now to set up a proper independent inquiry fully to investigate the project and give it power to cancel it with a view to saving most of the £200 million not yet thrown away?
7.56 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I intervene in the debate more in sorrow than in anger. I apologise to my noble friend the Minister for intervening late in the day, but I was not sure what the parliamentary timetable would be. I have no direct financial or any other interest in the Westminster Hospital, but I am aware, as are most noble Lords, of patients who have been there. Over the years I have known various nurses, nursing sisters and doctors who worked there.
Both this House and the other place could, I suppose, be accused of special pleading. It is, after all, the hospital to which any of us may be taken. We are obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for having put the Question. A number of distinguished Members of both Houses of Parliament have been taken to that hospital and their lives have been saved.
What I am not certain about—there is a great deal of confusion here—is how much of Westminster Hospital will be closed, what the timetable is, and what the reasons for the closure are. All right, it is an old hospital. It does not need someone experienced in hospital management to realise that much of it has needed rebuilding. I happen to know the Fulham area quite well. I know Fulham Road. I know the old St. Stephen's Hospital. It is a good hospital. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has rightly pointed out the length of the journey from here to Fulham. The point has been made many times. Even if there were a police escort with the traffic lights set at red, I reckon that it would take 20 minutes to half an hour to get a patient there. That does not allow for roadworks, of which there are many in London now. Although it may be a fait accompli and certain decisions may have been taken, I believe that it is worth making these points in your Lordships' House even at this late hour.

1113
Suppose somebody has a serious road accident or a coronary near Westminster. Half an hour can make a great deal of difference. That does not mean that our ambulance drivers do not do a marvellous job. They do. But some people need specialised treatment. St. Stephen's Hospital is a long way away.
I shall not go into all kinds of figures but it seems to me that the increase in costs over a period of 18 months is absolutely amazing. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give some explanation as to how the costs have been incurred. It may well be that if any government of any party had been advised that the scheme would take place they would have implemented it. I do not blame the Minister necessarily for having made the decision. It could well have come under any administration, but whoever thought this up needs to have a rethink.
There are one or two alarming points. I believe that the authority stretches right out to Middlesex, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. I know Hertfordshire quite well. I lived in Baldock for a number of years. As your Lordships know, there are a number of special hospitals there. Watford and St. Albans—how will their funding be affected? There is the new Lister Hospital at Stevenage, which is a very fine general hospital. There is Queen Elizabeth's Hospital at Welwyn Garden City. I remember going round it before it was officially opened. How will its funding be affected? The House needs to know whether the increased expenditure will mean any decrease in the capital allowances to these hospitals as a result of this decision. It is a disturbing matter.
There is concern about Charing Cross Hospital. I happen to know the main professor of anaesthesia there. I went round the hospital, as I mentioned to your Lordships, a few weeks ago. I was taken round the dialysis unit. There is the threat of closure of some functions there because of shortage of staff. All these matters make the decision most distrubing.
I have spoken long enough. I have made certain points. Other noble Lords present are much more experienced in these matters of management and therapeutics than I am. They know these hospitals better and know that it will be a great tragedy. We should bear in mind that Pimlico has a fairly large residential population. What will happen there? Some may say that people can be taken to St. Thomas's Hospital, but that has had ward closures. There is much that the House would like to know. Quite apart from the enormous increase in expenditure, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, quite reasonably said, the citizens of Westminster will be deprived if the decision goes ahead.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, did he notice an interesting statement in a recent press release on 6th February 1990 by Mr. Roger Freeman, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary? He said:
"Our Victorian forefathers were excellent builders. They built hospitals to last, and it seems to me to be economic nonsense to demolish a soundly-constructed building simply because it looks shabby".
He might have been talking about Westminster Hospital.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I cannot but agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, by inadvertence my name was not put down to speak but I wish to support my noble friend. He prepares his cases with consummate skill and attention and he presents them with an enthusiasm which is quite remarkable for one who has spent so long in parliamentary life. I greatly admire what he does and the matters on which he has so much experience and great knowledge. I am most anxious to encourage him in what he is doing in regard to Westminster Hospital.
I have been a resident of Westminster for many years. When I first came to London the old Westminster Hospital still existed near Parliament Square. The new Westminster Hospital was a vision in the minds of a number of people who had a great desire for a better hospital for Westminster. It was erected by voluntary effort. I doubt whether there was a penny piece of government money in Westminster Hospital until it was taken over under the National Health Service. It is very much a hospital that belongs to Westminster. To take it away and bury it in Fulham is almost like shifting the Houses of Parliament to Brixton.
There seems to be a subtle psychology about the movement of London hospitals. Charing Cross is no longer in Charing Cross. When I was in that hospital not long ago a friend of mine went to Charing Cross to look for it. St. George's, which is known to be near Hyde Park Corner, is in Tooting. The Royal Free is in Hampstead. Now we are to have the Westminster and Chelsea Hospital close to the Charing Cross Hospital in the same part of congested London. Access to both the Charing Cross Hospital and to the St. Stephen's site where the new hospital will be is a nightmare. Relatives visiting the hospital will find that it is a serious inconvenience. I reckon that it will cost up to £6 to take a taxi from Westminster to the new Westminster Hospital. If people look for Westminster Hospital in Westminster they will find that it has moved beyond their reach.
I am not impressed by the boast of the Secretary of State that the new hospital is the biggest ever. I am not one of those who believe that the biggest things are necessarily the best. Often psychologically they can be forbidding. I did not like Charing Cross Hospital. The whole atmosphere made me scared of going into it to be attended to or to have surgery. I managed to escape. When I was all prepared to go down to the operating theatre for a tonsillectomy at the age of 90 which I ought to have had when I was nine, I was asked, "Have you had anything to eat today?" I said, "Yes, you put off my appointment for the theatre twice during the day and I went downstairs and bought a bar of chocolate". Panic stations set in. They told me they were sorry but they could not go on with the operation and that I would have to go home and make a fresh appointment.
I found that it was difficult for a Member of your Lordships' House to make an appointment to have

1115
an operation during the Christmas Recess in order to return to your Lordships' House for the resumption of business. The end of this little story is that I had to have the operation done privately. That cost me £1,500. However, I must say that I enjoyed the comfort of the private hospital. That was my experience of Charing Cross Hospital. The same consultant who was due to operate on me in Charing Cross Hospital operated on me in the Cromwell Hospital. Therefore, one gets the same man either way but it costs a lot more to get him in the place where he collects fees as distinct from the place where he does not.
I suppose that that is just my experience of the health service. I am sure that everyone has their own stories of the health service. I believe that the general pattern of the hospital service today is bewildering for the general public. Presumably there are general principles behind the service, but one suspects that the arbitrary cuts which the Government make in order to save money on the National Health Service are at the back of some of the decisions that are taken. That is disturbing because the public have made it clear more than once that they are quite ready to put more of their resources into the National Health Service if only a way of doing that can be found. There is an association at Westminister Hospital called the Friends of Westminster Hospital, but it appears that nothing can be done to keep the hospital in Westminster by voluntary effort or support. That is not provided for in the new scheme.
I have attended meetings to try to find ways of saving the hospital. At those meetings a lot of canvassing was taking place, but one feels that the decisions are predetermined and that the wider financial strategy has already been decided. However, whether future needs can be estimated with any degree of accuracy is unclear, though one thing is almost certain and that is that during the period between deciding on a project and completing it, nearly all the calculations will have gone wrong. That is due to the pace of change in the price factor, in demographic considerations, in building operations and in the density of residential populations. There will be a greater residential population in Westminster in the years to come because people are not prepared to put up with the expenses and discomfort of commuting into central London.
A large rebuilding operation is to take place in Horseferry Road and Marsham Street, where the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was situated. Some 27 shops have been swept away and people have suffered considerable inconvenience. However, Westminster City Council has been vigilant and has insisted that the terms of the planning permission for the new building are followed. Residential accommodation will form part of that building. Previously there was no provision for residential accommodation. Those factors have to be taken into account.
I wish I could be convinced that what is proposed will be a good thing. Certainly the siting of the new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital so close to Charing Cross Hospital will lead to congestion and
1116
traffic blocks. It will be a nightmare. There may well be casualties in central London which need attending to. Have the Government not considered that they might need special hospital accommodation for the casualties of poll tax demonstrations? If those demonstrations continue until the general election, we shall need a special hospital to accommodate the casualties. Seriously, however, with the numbers of tourists who are around in central London, the thousands of other people who are about and the work that is being carried out along the river, a grave incident could well occur and those people might need hospital accommodation speedily. That accommodation will not exist. St. Thomas's is only a shadow of the vision that was originally entertained for the development of the hospital across the river. It was envisaged that the building would comprise five blocks whereas the present hospital only has one. There has been no replacement of decrepit buildings which have been allowed to fall into disrepair. Those buildings look desolate and, to some extent, unoccupied.
I have watched from my apartment in Marsham Court the deterioration in the condition of Westminster Hospital. On the ground floor the external part of the building is filthy and the whole place is now becoming unattractive. Beds are left unoccupied and one gets the feeling that the whole place is on the way out and that what is left is only a temporary provision until people can be shifted elsewhere. That is a very unpleasant atmosphere to exist in a place like Westminster. I wonder whether anyone has borne in mind the fact that a place like Westminster needs a more prestigious hospital. In my opinion the building is beautiful. I saw it go up. It was a tremendous triumph for those who had worked so hard to provide the funds for it. The site, which is of great value, was really a free gift to the National Health Service. Now it looks as though the health service is going to cash in on it.
I am disconsolate about this matter. I support the protest of my noble friend. I do not know what can be done, because the steamrollers roll on, contracts are placed and the senior staff at Westminster are dismayed at what is happening. I shall not repeat the words that I have heard from the people there whose opinions I value, but their comments are very unfavourable indeed. A hospital building of the size and content of the new Charing Cross and Chelsea Hospital has never been built before. No one has built a hospital of that size with the equipment that such a construction will need. This is a new venture in construction on a large scale. It will be undertaken by contractors who I understand have had little experience of this kind of work. We may even have some problems with that new hospital before we are through. I hope there is a possibility of fresh thinking on this matter. That may well be forced upon the health authority before the contract is completed. It may be worth while to seek a fresh assessment of what is afoot and what is likely to happen.
I cannot let this matter go without voicing my own discontent. I am hopeful that some fresh attention will be paid to the problem. In the meantime I sincerely hope that I shall never have to go to the new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, normally I am extremely wary about poking my Manchester nose into London affairs. However, I have always had a soft spot for the Westminster Hospital. I used to attend postgraduate courses there when I felt that I was getting out of date. I do not do so any longer; I enjoy being out of date. In addition I often had occasion to send Members of your Lordships' House to Westminster Hospital and subsequently had the very great pleasure of seeing them return restored to full health. Therefore I am concerned about the fate of Westminster Hospital.
My noble friend Lady Robson has great experience in the matter and has been closely involved. She was to have spoken today but has another important public engagement and asked me to take her place. I said that I did not know a great deal about the details but she said that she would help. She gave me an excellent brief. However, she did not tell me that she had also given it to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Therefore I followed his speech with great interest. I said to my noble friend Lady Seear, "Is it in order for him to miss out two lines?" and "If only he would turn over two pages". However, he missed out what I thought were important points. Then, to my horror, in an intervention during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, he added those as well. I shall return to them in a moment.
The whole business has been a chapter of accidents. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to the early history of the affair, which goes back to 28th January 1988 when the Riverside Health Authority announced a three-month consultation on its proposal to close the Westminster Hospital, Westminster Children's Hospital, West London Maternity Hospital and the St. Mary Abbot's Hospital in Kensington in 1992 after reproviding most of the beds in a new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital to be built on the site of St. Stephen's Hospital in London S.W.10.
From the start of the consultation the principal Riverside officers and representatives of the combined Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School made it clear that that was the only financially viable proposition which would provide for a new hospital while at the same time achieving across the district the required annual revenue saving of £15 million. I am told that the consultants at both the Westminster and St. Stephen's were told in mid-February, just after the consultation document had become available, that unless they supported the plan the closures would take place and there would be no reprovision.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, explained what happened subsequently in terms of the public consultations and the reaction of the community health councils. In the consultations nobody could be found who was in favour of the proposal. The ordinary members of the public did not believe that the beds would be replaced. They thought that they would lose beds. Nor were they very happy about losing the last of the central London teaching hospitals in exchange for St. Stephen's in S.W.10, rebuilt, with a new name.
1118
We have heard the facts and much of the history. I do not want to go into much more detail. However, it was important that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, should emphasise the case of the special baby units and how those are to be replaced. He asked a specific question on that point. I believe that it is important that we should know the answer because certain undertakings were given by Mr. Kenneth Clarke regarding the replacement of the cots which were lost in the Westminster and elsewhere and what was to be provided in the new hospital. We should like to hear more about that and how they are to be paid for.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, in his press release way back whenever it was, Mr. Kenneth Clarke said that the scheme would:
"greatly improve health services in this important part of the capital".
He said nothing about the consequences for the rest of the North-West Thames Health Region, much of which is not in the capital at all. It is those parts of the region which are concerned at the moment. The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, concerns the effects of the proposal on capital expenditure for the rest of the North-West Thames Health Region.
Since we are dealing with capital expenditure, it is relevant to turn to the part of our common brief which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, did not quote in full. On 6th February 1990 Mr. Roger Freeman, the Minister responsible, issued a press release introducing shadow capital charging from 1st April 1990 in advance of the real thing one year later. The press release stated:
"First, the introduction of capital charges. This means that new hospital buildings will have to be properly depreciated and, for the first time, health service managers will have to pay regard to the consequences for revenue expenditure of capital spending programmes.
Capital charges will enable more informed decisions to be taken about whether to build new hospitals or renovate old ones".
At his press conference Mr. Freeman apparently gave an example showing that, including depreciation, property assets worth £100 million would attract an annual capital charge of £20 million. On £226 million, which is the cost of the new hospital, that would presumably mean a capital charge of £45 million, which would have to be funded annually from revenue. Is it any wonder that the rest of the region is alarmed about the prospect facing it? Is it any wonder that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, put his Question down on the Order Paper and asked the supplementary questions which he has just put to the noble Baroness?
Where is the annual revenue to come from to fund and maintain, full operative, the 15-cot level 3 special care baby unit to reprovide for the closed vital unit at the Westminster?
The noble Lord asked whether there could be an independent inquiry into the matter. As I see it, of that huge sum, £26 million has already been spent. Another £200 million is to be spent in 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93. At what stage does it become impossible to unscramble the egg? Looking from the outside, particularly from Manchester, it is very difficult to see what can now be done. However, it is quite clear that decisions have been taken which

1119
have been misguided. Better use could have been made of land which was available and of existing hospital provision and better plans could probably have been drawn up. I cannot attach blame—I am not sure who is responsible.
My noble friend Lady Robson funded a charity to look into possible viable alternatives. I am not sure what it found, but I am quite sure that the solution which has been arrived at is not the best one, for reasons given by those who know about the matter. Why concentrate three teaching hospitals in such a small area? Why leave a part of London in which a great many people live without any such provision? The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was quite right. The "Marchioness" disaster demonstrated that we need a casualty department in Westminster. Without one, if there were any future disaster of that kind we should be in difficulty.
What options are available to us now? Can we rejig the matter in some way to make better use of what we have? We must find out why the prices have risen so astronomically. When the Riverside Health Authority first costed the proposal it seemed to think that it would cost only £3 million. It said that it would cost £78 million but the sale of old sites would bring in £81 million.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Does he accept that the purpose of making any change was in order to make revenue savings? That was the requirement of the department, and it has resulted in this monstrous row.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I have already said that the object was to make revenue savings. My point now is to ask what has happened to the capital cost. The original figures quoted by the Riverside Health Authority was that the cost would be £78 million and £81 million would be gained from the sale of sites which would become available. That looked like a very good deal. However, what has happened since? How have we arrived at these extraordinary figures?
I know that the Riverside authority explained that there has been a sudden slump in the expected return from the sale of the sites. I think that the figure will not be £81 million as was once thought but £30 million or £40 million. That is one aspect. The authority then found that the building would cost a great deal more, but the matter has gone on and on.
We are used to that. We are used to things like Concorde, which we were told would cost only so much, and we then found that it cost five or 10 times as much. The same is true of the Channel Tunnel. However, we should have had some experience with health service expenditure. We should by now be able to cost things a little more accurately than this rather than suddenly finding that we are spending well over £200 million on something which, from a capital point of view, would originally have cost almost nothing.
We shall not benefit greatly from finding out whose fault that is, but we shall benefit if we can find out what can now be done without wasting money. To stop the whole thing and start all over
1120
again would certainly waste the £26 million which has already been spent, but could something else be done? Is that possibility being considered? Surely the purpose of the Question is to ask the Secretary of State whether he will look again, seek advice and see whether there is a better, and possibly even cheaper, way of providing for the hospital needs of London as a whole and of this particular area. Is it possible to do that at this late stage without wasting the money which has already been spent? On the other hand, is it possible to stop the whole thing here and now and start all over again?
I am not a financier. I should not like to say which course one should pursue, but it has been a most appalling muddle. We want to know why. We want to know what decisions will now be taken in order to answer the important questions which have been put to the noble Baroness by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have heard many and varied views on the Westminster and Chelsea project. I am grateful to all who have contributed and I welcome the opportunity to explain the background to the project.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness so soon, but we have not heard varying views. We have heard uniform views throughout the evening.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I wish to indicate the varied points that have been raised. I appreciate the problems of dual briefing experienced by noble Lords opposite, but they coped well with the problem.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I trust that I sent the noble Baroness the same briefing.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, and I promise not to come back to it a third time.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned at the outset, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced his approval in principle of the Westminster and Chelsea project in December 1988. The project was subject to full public consultation and the decision was reached after careful consideration of all the views expressed both in favour of and in opposition to the scheme. I dispute the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that it was a foregone conclusion.
Riverside District and North-West Thames regional health authorities have identified the opportunity for a major change in the way services are provided in the district. The reconfiguration will result in more efficiency in the district and even better care for the people who live there, which I am sure is what we all seek.
A key component of the project is the new teaching hospital—the Westminster and Chelsea—to be built on the site of St. Stephen's Hospital. Other elements, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, told us when he filled in some of the gaps, are the closure of the

1121
Westminster, Westminster Children's, West London and St, Mary Abbott's Hospitals. We fully recognise that all those have provided excellent health care over the years, but the time has come to replace them with the new hospital. We believe that services will be greatly improved when they are relocated in one modern district general hospital with all the back-up and support services available. The new 650-bed hospital will provide a modern, up-to-date environment to take health care into the 21st century. We believe that that will also help staff recruitment and enable the health authority to maximise the use of scarce, qualified staff.
However, there are other elements of the project which are no less important to the local community and to us in the Palace of Westminster. A new health centre will be built in Pimlico which will provide GP care, outpatients' clinics and a minor casualty service. Five new nursing homes are to be provided for elderly people who require long-term care in the community. Those elements are included in the costs of £226 million to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred and to which I shall return in more detail later.
Riverside health authority expects to achieve revenue savings of up to £15 million a year on completion of the project, so we are fulfilling the original objective. That not only means that there will be no revenue problems for the new hospital, as has been suggested, but that a large proportion of those savings can be redistributed to the shire districts in the North-West Thames regional health authority in line with its regional strategy. The release of those savings will mean a more balanced distribution of health services throughout the region in the future, a point on which there was unanimity in the contributions made to the debate.
We are confident that the new hospital is a sensible and practical way of meeting local health needs. It shows that the National Health Service can be innovative and flexible in providing services for local communities. Furthermore, it is due to be completed in 1992, which shows that the National Health Service can handle modern techniques and match the private sector for speed. That is something of which we can and should be proud. By sheer coincidence, I passed the site earlier today and was amazed at how visible the structure already is. The region is to be congratulated on the energy and enterprise with which it has pursued this ambitious project.
Perhaps I may now turn to a more detailed analysis of the cost of the project. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is particularly concerned about that and, quite rightly, has requested an explanation, as have others. When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State approved the project, he gave specific approval for the cost of the new hospital alone. The proposals had been thoroughly vetted by the Department of Health and the Treasury and some modifications were made, including those insisted upon by the local planning authority. My right honourable friend announced his approval in December 1988 and quoted the approved cost of the hospital as £135 million.
1122
Noble Lords should note that that cost relates to the new hospital alone. It did not cover the other developments that I mentioned, such as the new health centre. The figure covered construction costs, equipment costs and professional fees, but, as is customary, not a weighting for site location. That is an element of construction costs which is volatile and difficult to forecast.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that her right honourable friend announced his approval on 22nd December 1988 and gave the cost in his press release as £135 million. On the same day, the North West Thames regional health authority's press release referred to a figure of £155 million. Do the additionals explain that discrepancy?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I was about to deal with the point of the discrepancy in the quoted figures. The departmental press release referred to the figure of £135 million, but that referred to a standardised cost figure, which did not include the local factors and the local constructive costs to which I referred. The regional health authority's press release which quoted the figure of £155 million included that additional load factor or weighting.
Work on the new hospital started on site in May 1989 under a management-type contract using fast track construction methods. With that type of contract, tenders are invited for different parts of the work as the project proceeds. North West Thames regional health authority forecasts, which take account of prospective movements in both national and local price indices over the duration of the project, suggest that, with the addition of fees and equipment, the total cost will now be around £203 million. The figure of £226 million quoted by the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Winstanley, is in fact that figure of £203 million plus the cost of the other schemes in the district which I have previously described, such as the health centre.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as the noble Baroness says, the comparison is between £155 million and £226 million. That is the actual comparison.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, this is a matter of detail, but these additional things which are being added in this area would not have been necessary if the hospital had not been moved. They are costs incurred as a result of the move, are they not?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, but also to provide a better service for the people in the area. We have covered that difference between the initial cost of the hospital alone and the revised figure of £203 million. The increase in cost, whichever basic figure one takes, is simply due to the movement in building costs in the London area over the past 16 months. It also takes account of the expected movement during the period to the completion of the project.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked me about the management of the scheme. We are monitoring the project closely, especially as it breaks new ground in terms of the combination of management contract and fast track construction methods. I can assure

1123
noble Lords that those aspects of the project that are within the control of the health authority and subject to regular monitoring by the department are proceeding satisfactorily.
With regard to funding, the North West Thames RHA has always planned to fund the scheme entirely from the proceeds of land sales achieved by the reconfiguration of hospital services. That is still the expectation. However, we recognise the considerable difficulties faced by the authority at present due to the current downturn in land values and sales, which is an area completely outside its control. Noble Lords may be aware that the capital programme in North West Thames has undergone a major review. The reasons for the review were as a result of the fall in residential land sales in the region and the high and increasing cost of building in London. Although North West Thames remains committed to its programme of capital investments in the region, a number of schemes have been deferred for 18 months to two years. However, it is important to note that these schemes have been deferred only, not abandoned. They will be implemented as soon as land sales pick up.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to Riverside's announcement that 102 beds would have to be temporarily closed for financial reasons. It is proposed that 48 local acute beds be closed at Charing Cross Hospital and 54 beds at Westminster. The bed closures involved are in line with Riverside's longer-term strategy once the Westminster and Chelsea Hospital is built. There will be effects on caseloads in those hospitals but the district is confident that the long-term viability of the specialties involved will not be placed in jeopardy. Bed numbers will still be in excess of those needed for the district's own residents.
Lords Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister saying therefore that those beds which are temporarily closing now will not in fact open at all? That is what I understood her to say. The announcement was that they would be closed for a year, until April next year. It seems to me that the noble Baroness is now saying that they will not be opened again.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my understanding is that it is part of the phasing out in view of the replacement of the facilities in the new project.
I turn to some of the specific issues that were raised. On the question of the future capital charges on the hospital and comparison with the hospitals due for closure, results of the land valuation exercise are not yet to hand. However, I think it is fair to say that the new hospital with a longer life expectancy would attract greater charges than an older hospital. Land itself will attract a capital charge. The new hospital will replace five existing hospitals, including St. Stephen's, and this will attract a much smaller capital charge for the land occupied.
The noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Winstanley, also asked for an assurance about the future provision of neonatal intensive care in the new hospital. I understand that the specialist facilities currently provided for the care of the newborn at West London and Westminster are designated by
1124
the region as Level 2 units. The service in the Westminster and Chelsea Hospital—the new hospital—will be a Level 3 unit and will be one of five regional perinatal centres. Noble Lords may be assured that the neonatal care facilities are a vital component in the services that will be reprovided at the new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital.
Concern has been expressed that local residents in SW1 will be seriously deprived of health care when the Westminster Hospital closes. I must confirm to my noble friend Lord Auckland that it will close completely, however nostalgic some of us may feel about it. That is something which was looked at very carefully before the decision to approve the scheme was made. We are confident that the new primary health care centre will offer significant advantages to local residents. They will be very well served by a brand new hospital which will serve the part of the district which does not look to Charing Cross.
With regard to accident and emergency facilities when the Westminster Hospital closes, the new hospital will have an accident and emergency department capable of dealing with up to 60,000 cases a year. Also, let us not forget—it has not been forgotten so far in the discussion—the existence of St. Thomas's Hospital just across the river, although it will, as always, be for the London Ambulance Service to decide where emergencies are taken for treatment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question on that matter. The point has been made about the disturbances in connection with the poll tax trouble in Trafalgar Square. Is she aware that there has been a whole series of major public disorders in what could be described as the greater Westminster area? Will additional facilities be made available at St. Thomas's Hospital to deal with such situations because, as has been pointed out, the delay in taking patients from Westminster to Fulham in the rush hour would create an extremely serious situation? It could easily take 25 minutes, as most of those who drive cars are well aware.
Baroness Hooper: My Lord, in the event of a major incident there are a number of designated hospitals within reasonable distance of the City of Westminster. These include Charing Cross, St. Mary's, Hammersmith, St. Thomas's, Guy's and University College/Middlesex Hospitals. Those are all hospitals that have sufficiently large accident and emergency departments to cope with such incidents and are able to provide mobile teams and a site medical officer if necessary. For what are commonly termed "the walking wounded" in Westminster—and I hope that there are not too many from this Palace—there will be new and up-to-date facilities available at the local primary health centre to which I referred.
Perhaps I may take the opportunity of making quite clear the answer to the question which was raised about beds closing in the Westminster Hospital. It appears that beds are temporarily closed for 12 months, when the position will in fact be

1125
reviewed. But once the new hospital is built the beds will net be needed any longer.
Finally, a number of noble Lords referred to this as one of the biggest hospital projects ever approved by Ministers in the history of the National Health Service. We are confident that it will greatly improve health services in this important part of the capital. It is a measure of the Government's commitment to the National Health Service and the staff who work in it.
Baroness Seear: The noble Baroness always tells us that she believes this and is confident about that, but she never tells us why she believes it or what her confidence is based on. We are interested not in her faith but in the facts behind it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have spent the last 18 minutes giving very good reasons why I am confident and why I have faith and I am sorry if the noble Baroness was not totally convinced.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Does the noble Viscount wish to intervene?
Viscount Long: My Lords, no, I am waiting for the noble Lord's question.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I believe that I have a right to comment briefly on the Minister's reply.
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Ennals: I have not: very well.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I did not realise that my noble friend had finished her reply.

Port of Tyne Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee.
House ajourned at ten minutes before nine o'clock.

  PALESTINE: EDUCATIONAL RESTRICTIONS
  PALESTINE: EDUCATIONAL RESTRICTIONS
  "CRACK" SEIZURES
  "CRACK" SEIZURES
  CASTINGTON YOUNG OFFENDERS INSTITUTION CNA
  CASTINGTON YOUNG OFFENDERS INSTITUTION CNA
  PRISON DISTURBANCES: COSTS COURT SYSTEM
  PRISON DISTURBANCES: COSTS COURT SYSTEM
  TELEVISION LICENCES AND PENSIONERS
  TELEVISION LICENCES AND PENSIONERS
  AGRICULTURAL INTERVENTION BOARD: RELOCATION
  AGRICULTURAL INTERVENTION BOARD: RELOCATION
  DRIFT NETTING: MAMMAL AND BIRD CATCHES
  DRIFT NETTING: MAMMAL AND BIRD CATCHES