Sitting of 12 November 1990

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

    Offshore Oil Employees
    Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the blacklisting of offshore oil employees by oil companies and contractors.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): During unofficial offshore industrial action by contractors' employees in August a number of men "sat-in" on installations and consistently refused to comply with the offshore installation manager's instructions to return to shore. Some men did not leave until a court interdict was obtained. They were subsequently dismissed by their employers.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the Minister aware that that is a wholly unsatisfactory statement? He appears to be entirely in the pocket of the oil companies and the contractors. Can he and the oil companies not yet accept that we are no longer in the era of masters and men when masters could do exactly as they wanted with working people? On this day of all days, which will be known as the Cullen day in Scotland, does he accept that he should talk not to the oil barons in their ivory towers and big limousines, but to the men and women who go out on to the oilfields and risk their lives? Is not it time that he called in the oil companies and told them to listen to the men and women's claim for trade union recognition and safety?
    Mr. Moynihan: I wholly disagree with the hon. Gentleman's comments. It is vital that the actions of individual short-term or long-term contract workers on rigs should demonstrate that they are prepared to respond to the instructions of offshore installation managers. That they were prepared to ignore those instructions on this occasion does not lead me to the view that the hon. Gentleman reached. Naturally, all of us are concerned about anything that has an effect on the maintenance of good offshore industrial relations. The dispute is for the parties involved to settle.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is not it a fact that any of us who have been to any of these platforms must recognise that the success of production, research or work at whatever level depends on teamwork? Therefore, the key factor is that every member working on a platform should have confidence in his neighbour and should know that if an instruction is given, everyone will respond to it.
    Mr. Moynihan: I completely agree with my hon. Friend's views.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister recall the Labour Front Bench getting in touch with him a few weeks ago on this very subject? Does he agree that it is vital to implement Labour's policy on those matters, which is that people should not be blacklisted because of trade union membership or activity, particularly when we think of the immense health and safety problems of the industry? Will the Minister agree to meet members of the anti-blacklisting campaign, which is supported by 80 members of various parties in the House, who are extremely worried about those matters in this industry among others?
    Mr. Moynihan: The Labour Front Bench has not brought to my attention any details of a specific blacklist, but if it does, of course we shall look into it. The reality is that we have made inquiries of Shell regarding the offshore personnel records information system, which is unique to Shell. The important point, on which I wanted assurance from Shell, was that it would not pass on the names of any men who took part in industrial action on Shell installations to any other operator, and it has given me that undertaking.
    Mr. Dobson: May I take up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and remind the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) has written to him on the specific issue of blacklisting?
    My specific question is addressed to the Secretary of State. Will he take the opportunity presented by today's publication of the Cullen report into the Piper Alpha disaster to call together the operators, the contractors and the representatives of people who risk their lives every day working in the North sea to make a fresh start to achieve the good industrial relations that are necessary if those people are to have a safe working environment? Will he insist that the contractors and operators withdraw the sackings and abandon the blacklisting, which is a disgrace to both?
    Mr. Moynihan: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, of course, make a statement on the Cullen report later this afternoon. No doubt he will bear in mind the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. If, by implication, he believes that my right hon. Friend, or anyone in the House of whatever political persuasion, does not put safety first, he is wholly misguided and wrong.

    Exploration Wells
    Mr. Doran:: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many exploration wells were drilled in the United Kingdom continental shelf in the six months commencing 1 January 1990.
    Mr. Moynihan: Fifty-six new exploration wells were started in the United Kingdom continental shelf in the period to which the hon. Gentleman refers. By the end of October the number had increased to 128, already the highest level of exploration drilling in any year since UKCS activity began.
    Mr. Doran: The Minister and the Secretary of State are proud to boast about the level of exploration activity in the North sea. Later we shall have a statement from the

    313
    Secretary of State on the Cullen report, which will have expenditure implications for the oil industry. The Minister has had that report for three weeks. Has he considered what impact implementation of the Cullen report will have on further exploration activity in the North sea?
    Mr. Moynihan: Of course, Ministers have considered that point in detail. My right hon. Friend will refer to that when he makes his statement later this afternoon.
    Mr. Wallace: I welcome the news that the Minister has given about the increase in the number of exploratory drilling wells. Does he accept that that increased activity, together with the situation in the Gulf, improves prospects for North sea developments? Is he able to give any colour or detail to the House about a report in today's The Times of a further multi-million pound investment at the Sullom Voe terminal in Shetland?
    Mr. Moynihan: I am not in a position to give further details along the lines requested by the hon. Gentleman. I can assure him, however, that the high level of exploration drilling activity looks set to exceed 200 wells for the first time this year. From the end of October the number of new wells is set to increase from 128, as recorded in my answer, to 181. We shall make an announcement on each new major find as soon as we can.

    Oil Imports
    Mr. Campbell-Savours:: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total volume of oil imports into the United Kingdom for each of the last seven years.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): The total volume of oil imports into the United Kingdom for each of the years 1983 to 1989 inclusive, are, in million metric tonnes, 40·1, 53·5, 52·1, 56·4, 53·9, 54·2 and 58·1 respectively. However, for each of those years the volume of oil exports from the United Kingdom exceeded the level of imports.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In so far as the Government have raised £100,000 million in oil revenues in the past 10 years and gained thousands of millions of pounds in terms of benefit to the balance of payments, can they tell us where all that money has gone? Why was not part of it used to ameliorate conditions of exploration and drilling in the North sea?
    Mr. Wakeham: In answer to the specific question about the North sea, it is clear that the level of activity is as high as it has ever been and that the level of capital investment is steadily going up. There is no lack of investment in the North sea. On the more general point raised, the hon. Gentleman will know that, as a result of many things, not least the revenues from the North sea, we have been able to spend far more on the health service—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and on investment, we now have a higher standard of living and we are spending more on social services than before. Perhaps that is what is upsetting the hon. Gentleman.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the oil that we get from the North sea is of a high quality and, because of that characteristic, we can trade it at a higher price per barrel than the oil that we bring in?
    314
    Therefore, is not it true that by trading oil, we can make a profit for this country, not only because we export more than we import, but because we export high-quality oil?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. Crude oil imports account for about half of the United Kingdom's refinery throughput. As my hon. Friend is well aware, a similar proportion of United Kingdom crude oil is exported. The high proportion reflects the price differential—more than £2 a tonne—in favour of the United Kingdom because of the high quality of North sea oil.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the Secretary of State think that Scotland has had value for money from the £100,000 million with which it has bankrolled the Government during the past 10 years? The Secretary of State will have noted the effect on the balance of payments of high oil prices and also that Shell and BP, announcing more than £1,000 million of excess profits last week, said that those would contribute to oil taxation. If that is so, why, in his autumn statement, did the Chancellor forecast a £100 million decline in oil revenues for this year? What has happened to the £1,000 million?
    Mr. Wakeham: First, I do not go to Aberdeen as often as the hon. Gentleman, but I go quite often and it strikes me as a pretty prosperous part of the world. The only thing that baffles me is why anybody should have elected him in that part of the country, but that is a matter for them to decide, not for me. It is a lovely part of the world and pretty prosperous.
    The stock adjustments included in the recently announced BP and Shell profits give rise to only paper increases in profits. We should also remember that the greater part of oil companies' stocks are held under Government direction—the companies do not have the discretion to dispose of such stocks and realise the profits in the paper increase.

    North Sea
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by how much he expects the output of the North sea to grow between 1990 and 1995.
    Mr. Moynihan: The output of North sea oil and gas taken together could hit an all-time peak in the mid-1990s.
    Mr. Marshall: May I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which illustrates one of the Government's many successes? Will he remind the professional pessimists that it can be only good news for Britain and oil-related employment in Scotland?
    Mr. Moynihan: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. A record number of discoveries, substantial increased investment and the job opportunities that go with it, and the fact that it is a net exporter of oil, all make good news for Britain.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not the Minister recognise that much of the increased activity and the high volume of production is the result of a dedicated work force in the North sea? Therefore, will he ask his officials to brief him a bit more carefully about industrial relations, as his earlier answers showed that he has been signally ill advised? Is not he aware that the companies have said that industrial relations involve primarily contractors and unions and that when they got together and were on the point of

    315
    signing an agreement to allow the reinstatement of almost all those sacked, the oil companies vetoed it and said that they would not accept it? Is not that secondary action of the worst kind and is not the Minister ashamed that the companies should do that?
    Mr. Moynihan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's opening remark. Anyone analysing and assessing North sea successes should recognise that it is due to the outstanding competence of the work force. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that, be it on safety or any other consideration, it is necessarily better to be unionised than non-unionised, which is not a relevant consideration. What is relevant is that the training and contribution to the development of the UKCS output is based on a high level of quality manpower and womanpower—with an increasing number of women working offshore. I am sorry, but I disagree with the hon. Gentleman and believe that the issue bears no relation to union recognition.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: In an earlier reply, the Minister referred to the good news for Britain. What proposals does he have to make good news for the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Moynihan: The right hon. Gentleman is right to point that out. What is good news for Britain in this case is good news for the United Kingdom as well.

    Mining Subsidence
    Mr. Haynes:: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss compensation for mining subsidence.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. Haynes: Why do the Government keep kicking this ball around and doing nothing about it? It took a question to the Prime Minister last week to get some movement—she gave me half a promise. I want to know whether the Minister will tell the chairman of British Coal in no uncertain terms that he must pull his finger out. I want a settlement of this business before he retires and before I retire—because we are both retiring.
    Mr. Baldry: The fact that a coal subsidence Bill was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech does not rule out such a Bill being introduced this Session. We are determined and ready to bring forward such legislation as soon as parliamentary time can be found. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister observed to the hon. Gentleman only last week that last year 15 Bills were specifically mentioned in the Queen's Speech but by the end of the Session Parliament had passed 45. We look forward to the co-operation of the hon. Gentleman and of the Opposition in expediting the passage of those Bills in the Queen's Speech so that we shall have more parliamentary time in which to deal with this measure.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I and my colleagues care just as much about the subsidence problems of our constituents as does the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes)—although perhaps with fewer histrionics—but he raises a perfectly valid point. I seek the Minister's reassurance that the delay in presenting a Bill to the House is merely
    316
    because the Government want to consider exactly what British Coal plans to do over the next couple of months. If its plans are satisfactory, so be it. If not, I trust that a Bill will be brought before the House.
    Mr. Baldry: I must make it clear that we are determined and ready to bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time can be made available, but I should also make it clear that we are making steady progress in advance of legislation. British Coal is shortly to introduce a scheme administered by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. The scheme will provide quicker, cheaper and simpler ways of resolving subsidence disputes. British Coal is determined henceforth to notify householders individually of its mining plans, which should alert householders to the possibility of subsidence damage and enable them to make claims earlier. The time limit for making claims has been clarified, and that clarification has been amplified by a new leaflet from the Department, 20,000 copies of which have been distributed since May. So much is being done to improve arrangements for compensation in advance of the legislation.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Minister acknowledge that there is support from the Opposition to get legislation on mining subsidence through, and that there are even Conservative Members who are only too happy to get it through? We shall give him a guarantee to get it through by March with no problem, so why does not he have the guts to give a guarantee that legislation will be introduced even though it was not included in the Queen's Speech?
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my earlier comments; I have no doubt that the business managers will have heard his.
    Mr. Tredinnick: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (M r. Brandon-Bravo), and point out that there is still considerable concern in Leicestershire, particularly in my constituency, about subsidence. Roads regularly subside there. So the prospect of a Bill is exciting for my constituents. In the meantime the continuing process of improvements to the existing arrangements that he has outlined.
    Mr. Baldry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that there is support for a coal subsidence Bill right throughout the House, as evidenced by the comments of the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and others, for which I am grateful. As I said, we are determined and ready to bring forward that legislation as soon as parliamentary time is made available. In the meantime we shall continue to make steady progress in advance of legislation on improving the situation with regard to coal mining subsidence.
    Mr. Barron: The Government recently published their observations on the recent report on mining subsidence by the Select Committee on Energy. In their observations the Government reject a subsidence advice centre, recommended by the Committee, because they say that they are quite happy with the British Coal scheme that the Minister has just announced. Is the Minister happy about the way in which British Coal has been running its mining subsidence estate offices, especially in the midlands coal area? If those offices continue to be run in the same way, will the Minister introduce an advice centre that is

    317
    independent of British Coal to which people can go for what they believe to be accurate and independent advice rather than having to seek advice from someone who has been the principal participant in the damage?
    Mr. Baldry: We were grateful to the Select Committee on Energy for its report on coal mining subsidence, to which the Government have responded positively. The hon. Gentleman should distinguish between the statutory and non-statutory remedies that might be available. We take issue about whether an advice centre should be part of a statutory framework. I hope that I have shown in my earlier answers that in some areas we think that we can make non-statutory progress as well.

    Coal Mining Industry
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in labour productivity in the coal mining industry sinbce 1983–84.
    Mr. Wakeham: British Coal is making good progress with productivity, which is up by over 80 per cent. from pre-strike levels. British Coal is again recruiting apprentices. In the week before last, British Coal and its work force achieved a best-ever productivity record of over 5 tonnes per man shift. Continuing productivity gains are essential and I belive that the industry has the technology, the investment and the will to succeed.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an impressive increase in productivity? Can he say how productivity in British coal mining compares with that of our major competitors?
    Mr. Wakeham: The answer, as I have said, is that British Coal has enormously increased its productivity which is now as high as the productivity of any of our competitors. However, we must bear it in mind that geological differences have a considerable effect, as does opencast mining. Opencast mining is vital for British Coal's success, but, of course, countries with a substantial amount of opencast mining have better productivity than us.
    Dr. Kim Howells: In the light of the magnificent increases in productivity, will the Minister look carefully at the large tonnages of imported coal to make sure that the prices are not subsidised by the Governments of the exporting countries, because such subsidies nullify the tremendous achievements of British coal miners?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree that we should be right to be concerned if there were evidence of highly subsidised imports of coal. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter is primarily for the European Commission and, from time to time, British Coal has lodged complaints. So far I have not seen a substantiated case of a large amount of coal from subsidised sources.

    Electricity Privatisation
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairmen of the 12 area electricity companies to discuss the effects of privatisation on less well-off consumers.
    Mr. Baldry: The Government believe that all consumers will benefit from the privatisation of the electricity industry.
    Mr. McAvoy: The Minister will recall that the Secretary of State has devised a system whereby domestic electricity consumers will face price increases of at least 11 per cent. next year. That increase is based on the October retail prices index plus 1 or 2 per cent. Does he also recall that those who buy electricity shares will be protected from those increases by the award of vouchers that can be used to offset their electricity bills? Will he undertake for this year only to extend the voucher system to all less well-off consumers so that electricity privatisation does not further deepen the divisions in our society?
    Mr. Baldry: The price controls on the industry are designed to protect customers against increases over and above the rate of inflation subject to unforeseen circumstances until 31 March 1993. In the past five years, domestic prices have fallen by about 5 per cent. in real terms.
    I think that the hon. Gentleman is slightly confused about the electricity vouchers. The incentives that include electricity vouchers are part of the Government's marketing campaign for the share offers. The cost of those incentives is met by the Government, from the proceeds of the sales, and not by the regional electricity companies or the consumer. The price of electricity is set by the companies and will be the same whether or not incentives are offered.
    Mr. Mans: As many less well-off people rely wholly on electricity for their heating, may I ask my hon. Friend what steps have been taken to guarantee the supply of electricity and to discourage disconnections under the new privatised regime?
    Mr. Baldry: I am glad to say that disconnections for debt now represent only 0·33 per cent. of all customers. That is the lowest-ever level, and is less than half that in 1976. Indeed, previous protections against disconnections are being not only retained but enhanced, because licences require each regional electricity company to produce a code of practice to help those finding difficulty in paying bills and to draw up procedures to deal with customers who fall into debt.

    Electricity Supply Industry
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what provisions govern the operation of the electricity supply industry during an energy crisis, following privatisation.
    Mr. Baldry: When an Order in Council has been made under section 3 of the Energy Act 1976, the Secretary of State has power under sections 1 and 2 to control the production, supply, acquisition or use of electricity and to give directions. Under section 34 of the Electricity Act 1989, the Secretary of State may give directions to generators regarding the operation of power stations.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister confirm that the electricity privatisation prospectus makes it clear that, in the event of an emergency—such as a war breaking out in the Gulf—the Secretary of State will have power literally to take the industry back into public ownership? Would not it be

    319
    better, in those circumstances—at least until the problems in the Gulf have been resolved—for the privatisation to be deferred. especially as it could save thousands of small investors from the risk of getting their fingers badly burnt?
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman is trying to confuse two issues. There have always been plans for dealing with electricity supply emergencies and the Government have clear statutory powers to ensure that the industry operates as effectively as possible in an emergency. There is a comprehensive strategy and framework to cover any such contingency, as my earlier reply made clear.
    As for any incidents that may arise in the Gulf, the Government have taken the view that it is not reasonable for investors to be exposed to Gulf war risks. That is why the Government have acted as they have. Let me make it clear, however, that a war clause would not relieve the underwriters of any of the normal risks that they are paid to bear, such as market movements for other reasons. The hon. Gentleman must not confuse two entirely separate issues.
    Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest benefit that the industry can gain at a time of crisis is ready and flexible access to capital? Does he agree that the apparent huge success of the privatisation of the supply industry is in itself a guarantee that the industry will in future be able to meet any conceivable crisis?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes his point very well.
    Mr. Morgan: The Minister has just told the House what we all learnt from the press on Friday: that the Secretary of State has had to climb down in a most humiliating manner by allowing the underwriters of the issue, not him, to decide whether to pull the issue in the event of a Gulf crisis. It is not normally the function of the Government to give up their role to underwriters from the City. Does the Secretary of State now agree that he has a moral duty to cease the "Frank N. Stein" advertising campaign, which is designed to lure in the financially unsophisticated? Does he accept that what is good for the City must be good for the Sids as well?
    The Secretary of State will be retiring at the end of this Parliament: the man who sold tickets for the last trip of the SS Titanic did not get a good press, and nor will the Secretary of State unless he agrees to cancel this disgraceful advertising campaign.
    Mr. Baldry: With all respect to the hon. Gentlernan, I must say that his question was a lot of drivel. The campaign for registrations has been outlined, it is going well and a large number of people have registered their interest in buying shares in a privatised electricity supply industry. In due course, they must rely upon their own judgment as to whether it is a sensible investment, having regard to all the information available at that time.
    My right hon. Friend's decision on force majeure was sensible and straightforward. It was taken on the advice of the Government's financial advisers, having regard to all the circumstances. It is a poor reflection on the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends if they consider such a mature and sensible decision as in some way being a climbdown.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the rate of improvement in energy efficiency in the United Kingdom and other European countries.
    Mr. Baldry: Between 1983 and 1988, the United Kingdom reduced its energy intensity—the ratio of energy consumption to GDP—by an average of 2 per cent. per year. This is more than twice the rate of improvement in the European Community as a whole over the same period.
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend's answer is excellent news for British industry in a European context. However., in the wider context, how has the United Kingdom compared with our better international competitors, such as Japan? To what extent has the Government's Energy Efficiency Office contributed to that development? Will he assure the House that the Government's commitment to energy efficiency will continue?
    Mr. Baldry: I am glad to say that according to the OECD—its figures, not ours—since 1983 United Kingdom energy intensity has fallen faster than that of most of our competitors, including Japan, which is regarded as the world's most efficient nation. I am also glad to say that the Energy Efficiency Office programme alone has, to date, achieved recurring annual savings now worth more than £500 million a year.
    Mr. Hardy: If one destroys large parts of industry, inevitably a great deal is achieved in energy conservation. Some countries have not pursued that option.
    Will the Minister explain the latest inconsistency in the Government's position on energy conservation? How can the Prime Minister make some extremely fine remarks at the world climate conference, emphasising the Government's commitment to energy conservation, while in Brussels, the Minister's Department seeks to be obstructive and to oppose sensible and effective energy conservation measures that appear to be required by the very European countries that the hon. Gentleman criticises?
    Mr. Baldry: Gross domestic product in the United Kingdom has increased by 25 per cent. in real terms since 1979, while energy consumption has remained almost unchanged. We are producing substantially more national wealth with virtually no additional energy consumption.
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I imagine that he is relying on a somewhat tendentious article in The Observer yesterday. The facts contained in that article are untrue. We are carrying forward the White Paper commitments on appliance labelling, not retreating from them. We are consulting the industry and consumer organisations about a voluntary scheme. We are arguing the case in Brussels for a voluntary scheme across the Community and I am glad to say that Britain's proposals were well received at last week's meeting. We believe that minimum standards should be the basis of a labelling scheme.
    At a recent meeting that I convened in the Department, it was made clear that the Department's proposals for a labelling scheme were similar to those put forward by organisations such as Friends of the Earth. I am glad to tell

    321
    the hon. Gentleman that we are determined to take forward an effective appliance labelling scheme as soon as possible.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent initiatives he has taken to encourage the development of renewable energy sources.
    Mr. Moynihan: The Government are establishing an equitable legislative and administrative framework for renewables to compete with other sources of energy. The main focus is the non-fossil fuel obligation under the Electricity Act 1989. Seventy-five renewables projects comprise the initial order laid in September, which will bring to 250 MW the level of renewables-sourced electricity generating capacity in England and Wales.
    Mr. Butler: Will my hon. Friend update the position regarding the Mersey barrage, which has the potential to generate £1 million worth of clean renewable energy every week?
    Mr. Moynihan: The Government are supporting a two-phase programme of studies that is being carried out by the Mersey Barrage Company. The cost of phases 1 and 2 is £2 million, to which the Department of Energy is contributing 50 per cent. We are giving all the support possible to the Mersey Barrage Company to ensure that its officials have an opportunity to consult officials from a range of Departments to consider effective cost-benefit analysis. I hope that the project will be economically viable and technically feasible.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Law Centres
    Mr. Fraser: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the Government's policy on the funding of law centres.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Law centres are funded principally by local authorities, supplemented by payments received from the Legal Aid Board for specific work carried out under the legal aid scheme. In addition, seven law centres continue to be funded by grants from the Legal Aid Board.
    Mr. Fraser: Will the Solicitor-General reaffirm the general support that he and his colleagues gave to law centres during consideration of the Courts and Legal Services Bill? Will he confirm that it is appropriate for law centres to do work other than legally aided work, such as prosecutions under the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 and tribunal cases? Will he do something, even at this late stage, to save the three law centres that are threatened with closure by Wandsworth borough council?
    The Solicitor-General: I can reaffirm our general support for the good work done by many law centres throughout the country. As the hon. Gentleman realises, the funding of a law centre in a particular area is a matter for the local authority and it has been a cause of controversy among local authorities backed by all political parties.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Attorney-General what action he has taken and proposes to take in response to the recent report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the future of the Crown prosecution service.
    The Solicitor-General: The Government's response to each recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs was laid before the House on 17 July this year. Good progress is being made in implementing the many recommendations that have been accepted.
    Mr. Greenway: The Crown prosecution service has a formidable workload. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the light of the Government's proposals for community sentencing, we can divert more young offenders from courts by the use of cautions? Does he further agree that if, as the Committee recommended, we could extend the use of cautions to allow the police to administer penalties, such as reparation or compensation for damage or theft from victims, that would not only strengthen the deterrent effect of community service and cautions but divert young offenders from the courts and reduce the workload of the CPS?
    The Solicitor-General: The Government recognise the value of cautioning in appropriate cases. One advance since the Government gave their response to the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs was the issuing of a Home Office circular on national standards for cautioning. My hon. Friend raises a separate and extra question about penalties being imposed by the police. He will recall that that was dealt with in our response. Policy is a matter for the Home Secretary, but our response said that penalties were not for the police but for the courts.
    Mr. Vaz: The Solicitor-General will recall that in oral evidence to the inquiry the Director of Public Prosecutions made the astonishing claim that members of the police force at all levels were obstructing the work of the Crown prosecution service. Have any discussions taken place between himself and the Home Secretary about those claims? Has co-operation between the police and the CPS improved since that report?
    The Solicitor-General: I remember fairly well reading of the part played by the hon. Gentleman during the oral hearings. I did not take part in them, so I am not sure what he is talking about.
    Mr. Vaz: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have read the report.
    The Solicitor-General: I read the hon. Gentleman's words—they were fairly extensive, as usual. The interdepartmental working group on pre-trial issues, which is examining the crucial working arrangements between the police and the CPS, is maintaining its tight timetable and will report to the Director shortly.
    Mr. Holt: A 73-year-old constituent of mine was knocked down on a zebra crossing between her church and her church hall. Although the CPS knew that the driver was speeding at the time, it did not bring sufficiently serious charges for the matter to be dealt with by the High Court. The magistrates decided, in their infinite wisdom, to impose a fine and allowed the points that would

    323
    automatically have taken the taxi driver into disqualification to be taken concurrently with the penalties applying to his previous offences so that he was not disqualified from driving. If such actions are allowed to continue, will not faith in the CPS be totally eroded?
    The Solicitor-General: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety about particular cases, but I invite the House to remember that we live in a society in which prosecutions are a matter for the independent prosecuting authorities and penalties are wholly a matter for the independent courts which try each case.

    Birmingham Pub Bombings
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Attorney-General when he next expects to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General: I meet the Director of Public Prosecutions frequently to discuss matters of departmental interest.
    Mr. Mullin: The six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings now face their 17th Christmas in prison for offences of which many people believe they were entirely innocent. The Home Secretary acted with commendable speed in August in referring the case back within two days to the Court of Appeal. The Director of Public Prosecutions has so far taken three months to set a timetable for the appeal to take place. When will that appeal take place?
    The Solicitor-General: The date of the appeal is primarily a matter for the court, subject to its listing arrangements. The court can be expected to hear the matter once all parties are ready. As the hon. Gentleman should, and probably does, know, since my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary referred the case on 29 August, it has been necessary to collect and collate an enormous mass of written material. About 130 files have fairly recently been disclosed to the defence after careful collation, together with important scientific evidence concerning the electrostatic evidence which was the basis of my right hon. and learned Friend's reference and further important evidence in relation to the handling of explosives.
    Mr. Mullin: When?
    The Solicitor-General: The matter will be brought before the court when the defence has had the opportunity to assimilate that material.
    Mr. Mullin: The defence is ready.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman should listen to the answer. It is rather foolish of him to say that the defence is entirely ready when it has just received a large bundle of material which it will wish to look at extremely carefully before bringing the matter before the court. The material is with the defence and the matter can now proceed.
    Mr. Stanbrook: If the evidence of all criminal trials were to be as thoroughly examined as in this case, no one would ever remain convicted.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter is sub judice, as the hon. Gentleman should know, and he should therefore be very careful what he says.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is it right that we should try so hard to discredit our own system of justice?
    The Solicitor-General: We have a careful system which includes the power of the Home Secretary in appropriate circumstances to refer a case again and, in exceptional circumstances, for a second time, to the Court of Appeal. The case has been referred to the Court of Appeal. It is, of course, sub judice, and it will be heard as soon as the parties are ready and the court gives a date.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Attorney-General whether he proposes to appear in his official capacity in court in any poll tax case.
    The Solicitor-General: I am not aware of any cases on the community charge currently before the High Court or Court of Appeal other than the Crown ν. Leicester City Justices ex parte Barrow and Barrow. That case relates to the right of a charge payer defending proceedings for a liability order to have a friend, usually known as a McKenzie friend, in court. In that case, at the request of the court, the Attorney-General has appointed an amicus curiae to assist the court.
    Mr. Cohen: But there are many poll tax cases before the magistrates at the moment. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are the Government's chief prosecutors and, as everyone knows, the poll tax is a Government tax, so why are not the cases before those higher courts? Perhaps the Solicitor-General can explain why magistrates are ignoring people's pleas that they cannot pay and why they are ignoring the McKenzie ruling, which says that people can have someone sitting beside them to defend them, especially as the cases are dealt with so rapidly. One of the Government's legal officers said that about 2,500 cases are dealt with in a day in one court. Surely that denies people the right to speak in their own defence. Are not the Government running the legal system of a Saddam Hussein? Why has the poll tax been allowed to bring British justice to such a low point?
    The Solicitor-General: That was an interesting question. Most taxes in a democracy are Government taxes—not many other people levy taxes—but the determination of cases in which people do not pay is a matter for the independent courts.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Saw Mill Projects
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help is given to transportable saw mill projects.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): We are supporting a project promoting the properly managed use of portable saw mills in Papua New Guinea, the Solomon islands and Vanuatu. We are ready

    325
    to consider other projects provided that the International Institute for Environment and Development review of the project is positive.
    Mr. Bottomley: In addition to encouraging the turning of wood on islands into construction timber, which is of great advantage to the local people, will my right hon. Friend try to find ways of promoting ecological trading in planks from fine timber so that, instead of mass clearances which do no good to local people, we can have sustainable development in wood? The use of portable saw mills would allow that to happen rather than all the wood having to be dragged away in the form of trees.
    Mrs. Chalker: One of the useful aspects of the walkabout saw mill project is the training that it provides in marketing, rotational felling in woods and environmental awareness which will prevent the very results that my hon. Friend fears. With the benefit of training, indigenous peoples will find that the projects are not only environmentally sound but avoid the need for mass felling, road building through forest areas, heavy extraction plant and everything that we dislike about large-scale wood felling.

    Human Rights
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to link United Kingdom overseas aid to human rights observance.
    Mrs. Chalker: The observance of human rights is an important factor which the Government take into account in allocating aid to developing countries.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Minister accept that that reply will be extremely disappointing to many British people who fail to understand why British overseas aid should not be directly linked to human rights observance? Does she understand that there is great concern about human rights violations in Sri Lanka, the Punjab, Kashmir and many other places? Will she urgently consider adopting the suggestions being made in America and elsewhere that aid should be linked with human rights?
    Mrs. Chalker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am already doing what he asks. The Government take the human rights record of aid recipients very seriously, but there are many other factors which we must consider at the same time, including a nation's poverty, the state of its environment and its population and health problems. One cannot consider human rights in isolation, but we never fail to consider them in making a decision.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is not it absolutely right and extremely important that a country's human rights observance should be a fundamental part of any development aid awarded by this Government? Will my right hon. Friend give us some examples of where the human rights record has played a fundamental part in the award of aid?
    Mrs. Chalker: It is easier to say where, sadly, we have had to take action because the human rights record was so bad. In that respect I can name Somalia, Burma and Sudan. However, it is also important that we try not to hurt the ordinary people who are very vulnerable. That is why we often maintain humanitarian aid through
    326
    non-governmental organisations and perhaps the United Nations when we cannot possibly continue to give Government-to-Government aid to countries where human rights are not respected.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: With regard to the question by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), will the Minister make representations to the new Government of India in relation to human rights violations in the Punjab? We are aware that the Punjab is a small part of the area covered by the Indian programme, but, as it is the largest programme in the Government's overseas development effort, it would be appropriate for strong representations to be made as a matter of urgency given the allegations—which have been supported—of regular human rights violations.
    Mrs. Chalker: We are extremely disturbed by the recent communal violence. It is too early to comment on whether the new Government will get to grips with the problem, but obviously we believe that they should. I hope that we will enjoy the same close relationship with the new Government so that we can talk frankly and help the Indian Government to bring about peace in those areas and a respect for human rights which is so essential.

    Cambodia
    Mr. Lawrence: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what humanitarian aid has been provided for Cambodians over the past two years; and what plans he has for further provision of such aid.
    Mrs. Chalker: In the past 18 months, the ODA has committed £565,000 supporting 12 NGO projects. A number of other NGO project proposals is being considered. We have also allocated £1·25 million for programmes carried out by the United Nations childrens fund, the World Food Programme and the World Health Organisation. In addition, up to £100,000 will be spent through British NGOs to help civil war displaced persons. Cambodia's humanitarian assistance needs are monitored regularly.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a very encouraging answer? While a resolution to the political situation in Cambodia is unfortunately taking time, the Government appear to be getting on with humanitarian aid through the NGOs which is generous, highly effective and shows no sign of diminishing.
    Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. However, we are not just involved in humanitarian aid. The friends of the co-chairmen's working group met at the weekend in Jakarta. We are working together with the permanent five under the chairmanship of the Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali Alatas and we are doing all that we can to bring about a meeting at which the co-chairmen can bring the Supreme National Council together. Until there is a peaceful solution in Cambodia, no matter how much money we put in or how much help we provide through the NGOs, we will not be able to bring peace to the people.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Why does the Minister come here month after month offering limp and petty excuses for denying proper developmental aid to one of the poorest countries

    327
    in the world? Does the Minister realise that the United Nations General Assembly resolution on Cambodia, which was passed in October without dissent, calls on donor countries to provide resources for the economic and social reconstruction of Cambodia? When do the Government propose to implement that resolution which they signed and voted for?
    Mrs. Chalker: As usual, the hon. Lady goes wide of the aid brief. However, we have always believed that the United Nations had to have a central role in restoring peace and stability to Cambodia. We have also given the humanitarian aid that we can put in. We now want to ensure that the co-ordinating committee in Paris thrashes out the details for a settlement. As soon as that is done, we shall be able to follow through on giving more help and aid to Cambodia which it needs for reconstruction.

    Brazil
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on Britain's environmental aid to Brazil following the recent visit of the Minister for Overseas Development.
    Mrs. Chalker: During my three-day visit I signed agreements for two new environmental co-operation projects. I saw some of the serious urban environmental problems of Recife and Olinda in the north-east, where Britain provides technical co-operation. I opened the Anglo-Brazilian environmental conference, supported by ICI, on the theme of "Ecological Restoration for Forest Conservation" and I discussed environmental matters with Brazilian Ministers.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend accept that her visit was particularly welcome as it highlights the importance given in this country to the question of tropical forests? What progress has been made under the memorandum of understanding with the Brazilian Government? Can my right hon. Friend mention any projects that are being developed under the agreements?
    Mr. Chalker: Following the memorandum of understanding that was signed last year, our programme is making good progress. We have already agreed four projects at a cost of £4·6 million: the Institute of Hydrology climate research project; the Caxiuana research station; the Recife environmental control project; and aromatic plant development. We expect to approve shortly a further four projects, costing another £4 million. We are discussing a number of other proposals with the Brazilian authorities. One of the other major steps forward is to get our forestry adviser based permanently in Brasilia to monitor what is going on there on the ground.
    Mr. Dalyell: What part are we to play in Project North-East in relation to the drylands?
    Mrs. Chalker: That was precisely one of the subjects on which, when I came back from the north-east, I asked for more information and work. I discussed the matter with Mr. Lutzemberger and with Mr. Goldenberg. I hope that there may be work that we can do with the Brazilian Government, and indeed with governments of local states there, to try to bring some solutions to those very dry lands.

Piper Alpha
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the report of the public inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster. My right hon. Friend and predecessor, the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), the present Secretary of State for Transport, set up the public inquiry on 13 July 1988 and appointed Lord Cullen as its chairman. I am publishing his report today as a Command Paper, and copies are now available in the Vote Office.
I am sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing my deepest sympathy for the relatives and friends of the 167 men who lost their lives in this disaster. Our thoughts are no less with those who survived, but suffered physical or mental injury.
The House will also join me in paying tribute to the many people who gave unstintingly of their courage, skills and kindness in rescuing and aiding the survivors: crewmen of nearby vessels, helicopter crew, medical teams and hospital staff. The report draws particular attention to the bravery of the crews of the fast rescue craft and of the standby vessel.
Lord Cullen concludes that the intitial cause of the disaster was an explosion in Piper Alpha's gas compression module. He indentifies the underlying causes as failures of communication and weaknesses in mangement control. The initial explosion set in train an escalating series of fires that destroyed the installation. The death toll among those in the accommodation might have been significantly reduced if instructions had been given for personnel to escape from the accommodation by whatever means they could.
The primary responsibility for safety has always been, and will always remain, with the operator. Lord Cullen observes that there were significant flaws in the way in which safety was managed by Occidental. Senior management were too easily satisfied that safety was being maintained. Workers and management on the platform were not adequately trained and prepared for a major emergency. While the Department of Energy had regularly inspected Piper Alpha, and those inspections had shown up a number of deficiencies, including deficiencies for which Occidental had been successfully prosecuted, Lord Cullen felt that the existing system did not give sufficient emphasis to the auditing of Occidental's management of safety.
The main thrust of the report is thus to propose a new approach, under which the operator would retain the primary responsibility for safety, and would be required to prepare a comprehensive safety case. The regulator would be responsible for continuously reviewing the case. Lord Cullen believes that that is the best way to prevent any recurrence of such failings in the future, and the Government accept his conclusions.
In all, the report makes 106 recommendations, for improvements in the management of safety on offshore installations; design and equipment; planning and provision for emergencies, for evacuation, escape and rescue and for strengthening the involvement of the work force in safety.
The principal recommendation points to a fundamental change in the system for regulation of offshore safety. The
330
new system should be based on requirements for operators of offshore installations to carry out formal and comprehensive safety assessments of their installations. Those should be presented to the regulatory body as a safety case, covering: the adequacy of the company's safety management system; the controls of potential major hazards, and the provision of temporary safe refuge, and of means for safe evacuation, escape and rescue, on each installation.
New installations should not commence operations until the safety case has been accepted by the regulator, and a safety case should be submitted in respect of existing installations as urgently as practicable. The report goes on to make recommendations on the content of the safety cases, for example, that the exposure of personnel to accidental events has been minimised, and on the criteria for acceptance.
As the analysis of the Piper disaster makes clear, it is of the highest importance that there should be a reliable assurance that the proper principles and measures of safety management are not only adopted, but consistently put into practice. The report therefore recommends that the operator himself should be required to confirm, by comprehensive and regular auditing, that his safety management system is being adhered to. The regulatory body should review and audit that critical activity.
The report makes recommendations for the overhaul of existing regulations on offshore safety, and for their replacement by new regulations which, in the main, should set goals to be achieved rather than prescribe specific measures. It is expected, however, that there will still be a need for some detailed prescriptive regulations.
The House will recall that the present arrangements for regulatory responsibility were instituted following the report in 1980 of an independent committee under Dr. J. H. Burgoyne. Lord Cullen has reviewed the allocation of those responsibilities in the light of the proposed new framework. His recommendation is that there should be a single regulatory body with a clear identity. That would deal with all aspects of offshore safety. On balance, he concludes that it should be located within the Health and Safety Executive. It should employ a specialist inspectorate with adequate resources to discharge its role.
The Government accept Lord Cullen's conclusions and recommendations. Arrangements have been put in hand to progress the necessary detailed work. I have written to the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission about the transfer to the executive of the responsibilities in respect of offshore safety for my Department's safety directorate, together with specialist personnel engaged in that work in my Department and the Department of Transport. I have sought the views of the commission on the proposed creation of the single regulatory body for offshore safety as a discrete division within the Health and Safety Executive. Subject to satisfactory completion of those arrangements, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has agreed that when they are implemented my responsibilities for offshore safety should be transferred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The statutory responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport would not be affected.
In a number of areas, the report recommends immediate action by the industry. My director of safety has today written to the industry, asking it immediately to undertake the necessary action.

331
I take this opportunity to thank the professional staff who have aided me in the discharge of my responsibilities for offshore safety. I am confident that the energy and commitment that they have displayed will be great assets to the new system.
Finally, I should like to express my thanks to Lord Cullen, his assessors, and the many others who participated in the investigation, for the immense labour and dedication that went into their unprecedented and exceptionally difficult task. The Piper Alpha disaster was the most serious industrial accident in Britain in over 50 years. It was the most serious to occur anywhere in the history of offshore development. Its investigation was an altogether exceptional responsibility; and, because so much of the evidence was unrecoverable, it was also one of exceptional difficulty. I believe that Lord Cullen and his team proved equal to those challenges, and that his far-reaching and comprehensive recommendations will have a lasting influence on the safety of offshore operations hereafter.
The Government's concern throughout has been that the events should be properly probed and the lessons learnt as soon as possible. We have already taken important action to improve safety following my Department's technical investigation. That includes new regulations on the provision of emergency shutdown valves, the election of safety committees, and guidance on the priority areas for action by operators following the disaster. The Government are now acting to implement the recommendation for a new regulatory system, and to ensure that the lessons of this terrible event are fully learnt and thoroughly put into effect. Until the details of the measures that we shall take are fully worked out, it is impossible to determine the precise level of resources that will be required, but I assure the House that offshore safety will not be sacrificed through lack of resources.
The Piper Alpha disaster was an awful event, one which has been felt throughout the nation and around the world. Those of us who have seen it from afar can only offer our most sincere sympathy to those who were there, and to those who lost someone they loved. The measure of our sympathy is the determination, which I am certain is shared by the whole House, that nothing of this kind shall ever happen again.
Mr. Frank Dobson: May I join the Secretary of State in offering condolences to those who were injured and bereaved by the Piper Alpha disaster and paying tribute to the people who helped save those who survived, but may I add that condolences and tributes are not enough? The 30,000 people who daily earn their living on North sea installations work and live in a profoundly hostile environment. They deal with raw energy in concentrations the magnitude and danger of which it is hard to comprehend. They produce oil and gas, the importance of which to the British economy is hard to exaggerate. We owe them more than tributes and condolences. We owe them the safest working conditions that can be obtained. Those people have been badly let down.
The Cullen inquiry revealed, for example, that on the fateful night of 6 July 1988 on the Piper Alpha platform life rafts would not inflate, automatic fire pumps were switched to manual control, and gas pipelines discharged yet more gas on to an already blazing platform. That night 80 million sq ft of gas exploded and burned. Taken
332
together with the oil and other flammable materials, the release of energy must have approached the scale of the Hiroshima bomb and that occurred on what Occidental, the operators, said was a well-run platform.
Lord Cullen did not agree. He referred to failures in training, failures to resolve technical problems, superficial attitudes and deficient practice. If rules mean anything, Occidental must have broken them and it should be prosecuted. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Occidental is to be prosecuted, or will he tell us that Scotland is to join England as a country where a truthful, conscience-stricken, engine driver is sent to gaol while rich and powerful corporations go free?
The disaster probably resulted in part from shortcomings in the permit to work and handover arrangements. A previous failure led to a fatality in 1987. Occidental was prosecuted, yet it did not change those arrangements. Will the Secretary of State promise that action will be taken against all responsible for the Piper Alpha disaster and remember the old legal dictum, "Be you never so high, yet the law is above you"?
The responsibility for safety in the North sea is not just a matter for operators, their contractors and staff. It is the responsibility of Government. In 1980 the Burgoyne committee reported. It recognised that the ramshackle collection of regulations and the involvement of several agencies in North sea safety was a danger. It recommended a new goal-setting approach to North sea safety and that the Government should discharge their responsibility for offshore safety via a single Government agency whose task was to set standards and ensure their achievement. It stated that those tasks were so important and immediate that delay in dealing with them could not be allowed.
Can the Secretary of State confirm Lord Cullen's conclusion that between 1980 and the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988 virtually nothing was done to implement those Burgoyne recommendations, and can he tell us why? Will he tell us what was given a higher priority by his predecessor Secretaries of State for Energy? Was it the privatisation of Britoil and British Gas? If not, what was it that took priority in their minds over North sea safety?
Can the Secretary of State confirm that at the time of the Piper Alpha disaster there were 217 installations in the North sea? Can he confirm that, to inspect those 217 complex and often gigantic structures his Department employed just eight professional, full-time, field inspectors? Can he confirm that nine out of the 46 jobs in the safety section were vacant? Is it any wonder that Cullen finds that their investigations were
"superficial to the point of being of little use"
and that
"the inspectors were … inadequately trained, guided and led"?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that Lord Cullen finds that persistent undermanning undermined both the frequency and depth of inspections? Will he confirm that only 40 per cent. of even fatal and serious accidents were investigated? Will he confirm that, in the years up to 1988, the priorities of the Department of Energy were such that more was spent on publicity, advertising and public relations than on the North sea safety inspectorate? Will he confirm that the same applies to this very day?
While on the subject of spending priorities, will the Secretary of State now undertake to pay the legal expenses incurred in representing the relatives at the Cullen inquiry? Will he deplore the callous decision of his predecessor to

333
expect those relatives to throw themselves on the mercy of Occidental, whose help with legal costs they proudly and rightly refused?
We welcome Lord Cullen's report and its recommendations. We look forward to an early opportunity for a full debate on them. We welcome Lord Cullen's endorsement of the Burgoyne committee's 1980 main recommendations and his acceptance of the view of the trade unions and the Labour party that North sea safety should be brought together in one agency and should be the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive.
Finally, I ask the Secretary of State once again today to take this opportunity to call together all operators, contractors and representatives of those who daily work and risk their lives in the North sea to make a fresh start to reverse all the sackings and blacklistings. Instead, they should work together to create a new safe regime in the North sea. That need for a fresh start is backed up by Lord Cullen's recognition of the benefits that trade union involvement can bring to safety. In future safety must be an integral part of all decision making, design, construction and operation. It cannot be an optional extra to be tacked on at the end.
I agree with the Secretary of State that the only proper tribute to those who died or suffered as a result of the Piper Alpha disaster is to do all that is humanly possible to ensure that such a disaster does not happen again. Some of the responsibility for that lies with the House.
Mr. Wakeham: I of course share the hon. Gentleman's concern over safety. We must get matters right for the future. As I said in my statement, the primary responsibility for safety has always been and will always remain with the operator. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, Lord Cullen observed that there were significant flaws in the way in which safety was managed by Occidental. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I have sent the report to the Lord Advocate as that was the proper thing to do. At this stage, however, it would be wrong for me to say anything further about the events, which are now a matter for the Lord Advocate and not for me.
The hon. Gentleman is also right about the permits for work. My Department's technical investigation identified possible failings in the generation of Occidental's permit to work system as an element in the disaster. That system had broken down in the earlier accident for which Occidental was prosecuted and fined following an investigation by my Department.
I should perhaps say something about the situation in 1980 and 1990. In 1980, the Government accepted the majority view of the Burgoyne committee, which was set up by the previous Labour Government. It said that, on balance, it believed that the best case for safety in the North sea was to leave the matter with the Department of Energy. In 1990 Lord Cullen has recommended that, on balance—again it is a question of balance—the best case would be for transferring responsibility to the Health and Safety Commission. We have accepted the recommendation of the majority committee in both cases.
Since 1980, of course, the situation has changed. There have been a lot of developments in the North sea, the industry has become more complex and the HSC has also developed. That is why we believe that Lord Cullen was
334
right to recommend the transfer to the HSC and why we accepted that recommendation. Lord Cullen also stated that he has not reached his conclusion on the question of independence, as was sometimes suggested. He reports that there was no evidence that the Department put production before safety.
Safety is the top priority. The number of inspectors has doubled to 60 since 1980. We have more than 120 officials engaged on safety matters. There have been difficulties in recruiting such staff and we have faced stiff competition for their special skills. We are actively seeking staff, we have put up their rates of pay by 23 per cent. and we are recruiting more. We also have the equivalent of 450 man years per annum working for the certifying authorities.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the trade union position. Lord Cullen recommended that 40 per cent. of the legal costs of the trade union group at the inquiry should be met from public funds, and I am certainly happy to accept that. I and my colleagues in the Department of Energy are happy to talk about the report's details with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues with specialist knowledge and concern, and with the trade unions that have taken an interest in the matter. Together, we must all find a better way forward and Lord Cullen shows us how that can be done. We have an opportunity to go forward from a bad past to the future.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Having families in my constituency who lost loved ones in that terrible disaster, may I say to my right hon. Friend how much we are grateful to him for using this opportunity to remember those whose lives are permanently scarred by it? I also thank my right hon. Friend for remembering those who played such a remarkable part in the rescue operation following that disaster. I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the skill and thoroughness of Lord Cullen and his assessors. Anyone who watched that inquiry at any stage must be immensely impressed by the way in which it was carried out. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is to accept all the recommendations.
I welcome the new approach to safety that makes safety much more a matter of general management policy—proactive rather than reactive—which should be welcomed by everyone. I also welcome the intention to put safety under the Health and Safety Executive. It is important that the safety regulatory organisation should be independent and should be seen to be independent. That is what matters and I hope that that is ultimately achieved. I pay tribute to those who work in the safety directorate. Having spent time working with them, I pay tribute to their integrity and independence of mind in dealing with safety matters. I hope that we do not forget that.
In order to make the new regulatory safety organisation effective, would not it be sensible, as it is to be a discrete division within the Health and Safety Executive, for it to be sited in Aberdeen, where oil industry activity takes place? If that were done, better interplay and interface between the new safety organisation and those who are responsible, offshore, for carrying out safety measures, would be more likely.
Mr. Wakeham: Let me start with the last point. I realise the strength of feeling that the operation should take place in Aberdeen, but I think that my right hon. Friend will

335
agree that the staff of the new organisation should look at that and make a decision when they have their feet under the table, and they will obviously do that.
My right hon. Friend, who has a great knowledge of such matters and had responsibility for them in the past, is right that Lord Cullen's central point is that the new system is designed to concentrate on the auditing of the operators' management systems. Lord Cullen did not question the effectiveness of the inspection system in its own terms but looked at it more fundamentally. My right hon. Friend has got the point absolutely right.
Mr. Stanley Orme: I welcome what the Secretary of State said about the role of trade unions and the part that they can play in safety offshore. That is in contrast to the negative approach shown by the employers over a number of years, which I hope will now end.
When the Health and Safety Executive body is in place, will the regulations that apply now onshore—with all the back-up responsible for the health and safety of onshore workers—apply offshore? That is crucial for the future.
Mr. Wakeham: No, the tripartite approach will certainly stay, but the regime will have to be a different regime, and that will be the subject of discussion. As I said, I am perfectly happy to hold discussions with all those, of good will, wherever they come from—including the trade unions—on North sea safety. Lord Cullen rejects the simplistic equation of union recognition and safety, and endorses the Government's approach. Safety committee regulations give all workers a voice, and provide new rights to raise safety issues and to call inspectors, and arrangements for the hotline telephone number are included. Lord Cullen rightly says that the Government are correct to say that these matters should be reviewed after two years: they will be.
Sir Trevor Skeet: While the primary responsibility for safety lies with the operator, will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that this was a unique case and that, generally speaking, the response to the 1980 report was rather reasonable? Does he agree that there is no reason to believe that, under the proposals, which I fully endorse, the response will not be excellent?
One matter worries me. Two or three Ministries are still involved in this. Could not all the regulations, including those under the Department of Transport and other Departments, be focused on one directorate?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is correct to say that this great disaster was not symptomatic of a badly run industry. Lord Cullen's recommendations are based on existing best practice in the industry. We need to make sure that the best practice is followed by all the companies concerned.
We have met my hon. Friend's concern about one Department in practice, except that responsibility for maritime matters will remain with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. James Wallace: I certainly wish to be associated with the tributes paid by the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to those who died, to the relatives, to those who still suffer, to the emergency services—and to Lord Cullen for the effort that he has put into this report. I also echo the Secretary of State's comment that the measure of our sympathy will be our
336
determination that this should never happen again. But many people will ask why it ever happened in the first place and why it needs a disaster of these proportions to bring about the sort of review that has been carried out in this and in transport cases. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the measures proposed here will be sufficiently buttressed to stop us backsliding in future and returning to complacency?
I welcome the steps that the right hon. Gentleman has taken so far to implement the recommendations of the transfer to the Health and Safety Executive. What time scale does he have in mind for existing installations to bring forward their safety cases as urgently as practicable?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the involvement of individual employees in safety is the key; that they must be allowed to feel that they have a contribution to make in safety matters without fear of intimidation; and that this, perhaps more than any other day, is an opportunity for a fresh start in industrial relations offshore?
Mr. Wakeham: Absolutely—I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. Safety is, of course, a matter for the operator, but it is also a matter for every single person working in the North sea, and one of the necessary steps that must be taken is to draw more and more attention to that. Lord Cullen has produced a way forward that is as good as anyone can propose. It is an excellent report and it will be a landmark in these matters.
It is difficult in a short time to absorb and assess a very lengthy report. The central point of the report is where Lord Cullen says that, although my Department placed great emphasis on inspections and made great efforts to maintain a comprehensive and effective inspection programme, the form of those inspections concentrated too much on hardware and not enough on management systems. That is why, bearing in mind that the primary responsibility lies with the employer and must continue to do so, Lord Cullen recommends a change in the form of regulation to a system that is designed to concentrate on the operator's management systems. I think that Lord Cullen sees it very much in the same way as the hon. Gentleman.
Dr. Michael Clark: May I also extend my sympathy to all those who were injured in mind or body in this terrible incident and offer my condolences to all those who lost relatives in the Piper Alpha disaster?
Does my right hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the recommendation in the Cullen report to change the emphasis from arbitrary checking of safety procedures to a planned audit to prevent accidents and incidents by looking carefully at safety planning? Does he agree, as I think many hon. Members agree, that the best way to use the highly skilled staff that are necessary to implement this new auditing procedure is to concentrate them in one organisation—the Health and Safety Executive—so that we can get the best use of those skills?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend has understood it very well. The basis of Lord Cullen is that he says that a safety case will have to be made out for any operator. That safety case will have to show that the company has its own systems for auditing its safety arrangements. It will be the regulator's task to check that that audit system is working. That, in as few words as possible, is the new system.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is widespread anger in Scotland at the campaign currently being mounted by oil companies against trade union representation offshore? Is it not clear that a health and safety representative who has the backing and support of an independent trade union is likely to be more effective than a non-union safety representative? That is why many people believe that the Government's regulations last year providing for non-union safety representatives were a green light for the oil companies' campaign. Will the Secretary of State look again at this issue and consider whether the best approach is to extend the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to enable offshore oil workers to have statutory rights similar to those of onshore oil workers with respect to trade union safety representatives?
Mr. Wakeham: I understand how strongly the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends feel about this issue. However, it is not a view that is shared by Cullen in his report. Cullen believes, as the Government believe, and endorses our view, that every employee working offshore has a right to be represented on the safety committee. Whether or not he is a member of a union, he still has that right, and we are determined to persevere with that.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will realise that my constituents who work offshore will be delighted at the Government's positive and quick response to this very important report. I should like to be associated with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), and will not repeat them.
Does the Secretary of State agree that every manager and every other person working offshore in the North sea will read the Cullen report and the lessons in it and will insist that those lessons be incorporated in the cases that are brought forward by individual operators? We should not forget that the North sea was developed largely by the private sector, which we should stop lambasting.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Safety requires everyone who works on the North sea to participate. Operators have their prime responsibility, but they also have a responsibility to ensure that their employees are fully involved in safety matters.
Mr. Peter Hardy: May I illustrate the scale of the tragedy by referring to the case of one of my constituents? He was a young man of enormous promise who was the joy and pride of his family. He had only just graduated, was just completing his first period in offshore employment and was about to return home for his 21st birthday. No doubt other massive personal tragedies were involved in the accident.
Will the Secretary of State give an absolute assurance to those who still mourn that the safety audit will be carried out, that it will be effective and that it will be adequately resourced? Does he accept that too much parsimony in public expenditure can often lead to loss of life?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has made his point graphically by giving instances from his own constituency. He is right: we all owe it to those who are continuing to work on the North sea to bring the new regulations and arrangements into play as soon as possible. I confirm what I said in my statement: no shortage of resources will slow down their introduction.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the current inquiry was based primarily on a study of fixed production platforms, and that those platforms are fundamentally different from mobile offshore drilling units that are, for most of the time, completely out of contact with hydrocarbons? Can my right hon. Friend bear that difference in mind when deciding how to implement the Cullen recommendations? Has he had any discussions with the British Rig Owners Association about it?
Mr. Wakeham: That illustrates another important point about the Cullen report. Cullen has not set out specifically and in detail the arrangements in every case; he has said that the operator of a platform or drilling installation must make his own safety case to satisfy the regulators. That does not mean that all cases must be identical, as my hon. Friend pointed out; they must be appropriate to the circumstances, and subject to review and auditing once established.
Mr. Robert Hughes: May I join those who have expressed condolences with the bereaved, and also with the families and survivors who have been scarred in body and mind? The repeated speculation on television over the weekend—with repeated footage of Piper Alpha being engulfed in a fireball—was as tasteless as it was insensitive.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Cullen report is a damning and devastating indictment of both Occidental and the Department of Energy, whose efforts to apply a safety regime have been described as ineffectual and superficial? We welcome his assurance today that their responsibility will he transferred to the Health and Safety Executive.
Will the Secretary of State re-read the report, in which Lord Cullen states clearly that he accepts that the appointment of trade union safety representatives could be very effective because of the credibility and backing that trade union membership could give? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a further assurance that, although the responsibility may be technically removed from him, he will use his place in the Cabinet to be absolutely certain that a new regime will not lack credibility and backing, and that all the money to provide the inspectors will be made available? Does he accept that—as Cullen says—we must have prescribed regulations for safety in the North sea?
Mr. Wakeham: As I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), I will not comment on the position of the company or what is revealed about it in the report. I shall, however, challenge the hon. Gentleman on his comments about the effectiveness of my Department's inspectors, who do not deserve the criticisms that he sought to heap upon them. Lord Cullen did not question the effectiveness of the inspection in its own terms; he examined it more fundamentally, saying that the system that had been adopted for a number of years was probably not the right system and proposing a new one. He made it quite clear that it would be unfair to blame the inspector involved, who had done a competent job within the existing framework. The proposal is to change the framework, and that is right, which is why we have speedily accepted that recommendation.
Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. Friend should be congratulated on following Lord Cullen's advice and includng the regulator's duties within the scope of the Health and Safety Executive. However, will he clarify one point? Will the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 be amended? If my right hon. Friend cannot yet determine what the necessary financial provisions might be, can he at least say approximately how many personnel will work for the regulator when that important function is operating properly?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sorry to disappoioent my hon. Friend, but I cannot go further than what I said in my statement. I have written to the HSE today and I want to hold discussions with it. It will have an important say about whether it is satisfied with the arrangements to be made. Some of the necessary changes arising from the report can be achieved by administrative action, some by changes in the regulation, and some need primary legislation. However, I emphasise that nothing will be delayed for longer than I can possible help. I intend to proceed as fast as possible.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Secretary of State says with sincerity and, I am sure, genuine human feeling that these terrible events must never be repeated. Will he bear that in mind and bring his influence to bear before anybody talks about military options in relation to other oil wells?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a bit wide of the statement.
Mr. Dalyell: What would the right hon. Gentleman say to a constituent whose Member of Parliament had played a part in the Burgoyne committee report and initiated an Adjournment debate on that, as I did, and who wanted to know why the recommendations of that report were not implemented? For once, it was not the fault of the House of Commons. Some of us raised the issue time and time again, and there was a debate on the report on 6 November 1980, as the Hansard of the time shows. Why were not the recommendations implemented?
Mr. Wakeham: I have tried to explain that I believe that it is perfectly consistent for the Government to have taken the view of the majority report of the Burgoyne committee in 1980—which said that, on balance, the best way forward was for the work to be undertaken by the Department of Energy—and to take a different view in 1990 following Lord Cullen's report, and wish to implement his recommendation that the balance of advantage—it is not a clear-cut, no-argument case—was that the work should be transferred to the HSE.
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to ask what has changed between 1980 and 1990; it is a fair question. Two things have changed. First, the industry is much more complex, and secondly, the HSE is in a much better position to deal with these matters than it was in 1980. That is why I believe that Lord Cullen is right.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am always reluctant to curtail questions when a tragedy of this magnitude has occurred. However, there is important business to follow. I hope to call all hon. Members who have been rising, but I ask them not to enlarge their questions beyond the statement and also not to ask questions that have already been asked and answered.
Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the report makes it clear that, whatever happens, responsibility for safety on the platform lies squarely with the employer? Does he further agree that that responsibility cannot possibly be met unless the employer or the operator has the full co-operation of every person on the rig at the time? Is it not true, therefore, that safety is damaged by strikes, by sit-ins and by the rantings and posturings of the media? Are those not to be deplored?
Mr. Wakeham: I take my hon. Friend's point. Strikes and industrial disputes are bad for several reasons, not least safety. It is in our best interests to avoid them.
Mr. Alex Salmond: May I, on behalf of the Scottish National party, join in the welcome for the removal of the safety inspectorate from the Department of Energy and support the call for the new inspectorate to be located in the north-east of Scotland? Does the Secretary of State agree that the move to the independent inspectorate is not only important in itself but that it should signal the start of a new era in oil development in the North sea, when safety rather than production is king?
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he did not highlight in his statement the important passages from the Cullen report on the role of trade unions on safety committees, which highlight the benefit of trade union representation—their ability to resist pressure? Did not Lord Cullen recognise that the fear of victimisation stops proper safety reporting in the North sea? Why does not the Secretary of State acknowledge that? Does not he realise that whatever regime is in place in the North sea will depend on human resources and good industrial relations? There will not be good industrial relations in the North sea until the legitimate grievances of offshore workers are met by the Secretary of State responsible.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are supported by the Cullen report. To equate union recognition and safety is a simplistic approach. Our safety committee's regulations give all workers a voice and provide new rights to raise safety issues and call inspectors. That is why we wish to continue with our original arrangements, which are supported by Lord Cullen and are subject to review when they have been in operation for two years.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend accept it from me, as one who had responsibility at the Department of Employment for health and safety at work, that his approach and the Cullen approach of building in safety rather than trying to bolt it on afterwards must be the right way of pinning responsibility day by day, week by week, on operators? Many of us hope this will apply to sub-contractors, on both design arid supply of personnel. Will he ensure that, at some stage, there is a review of all the split responsibilities of the various Departments with which the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executived link? Will he try to ensure, in his offer of talks with unions and representatives of the Opposition, that the argument about trade union recognition does not become the most important thing, which is the elimination of risk?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can give him the undertaking that he seeks: there will be a

341
review of all the overlapping matters to ensure that they are limited, and there will be a review of the role of the certifying authorities, as Lord Cullen recommended, after the new regime is in place.
Mr. Thomas Graham: I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 21.84, which welcomes trade union involvement in health and safety on offshore oil rigs. Will the Minister condemn the practice of oil companies that are operating a blackmail list—a blacking list of workers who have fought for health and safety at work on the offshore rigs? They are being denied their rights and opportunity honourably to earn a living by the offshore oil companies. Does the Minister realise that in my constituency people lost their lives and that people who are fighting for safety to be uppermost at their place of work are being denied the right to work? Will he condemn the practice of oil companies blacklisting honest and decent men?
Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman has a blacklist, he had better send it for me to have a look at. We have seen no evidence of this blacklist, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tells me that most of the people who were on strike are back at work in the North sea.
Mr. George Foulkes: Does not the Secretary of State realise that his reply to the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) about the siting of the new unit in Aberdeen was totally inadequate? By the time those people have their feet under the desks, the position of the desks will have been decided. Why cannot he make the decision today? What are the arguments against having the unit sited in Aberdeen? Surely a decision should and could be made by the Government as quickly as possible.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman comes out in his true colours from time to time. He is clearly a doctrinaire man. If I had announced that I was deciding what to do without consulting any of the employees concerned, he would have been up in arms. As I said, this is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive to consider in the light of its new responsibilities. That is a perfectly reasonable point of view.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the Secretary of State accept that there will be no confidence in the arrangements offshore in the North sea while the operators carry out an anti-trade union policy and have blacklists, and while many people are intimidated because of their trade union actions? The right hon. Gentleman said that he is willing to meet the trade unions, and that is welcome, but the operators are not. Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence so that the operators make a new start by taking the more enlightened view that he takes? Will he look——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly, please.
Mr. Leighton: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the arrangements in the Norwegian sector of the North sea, which are much more civilised—where, for example, health and safety representatives have the power to stop a job if they think that there is a danger? They do not do that
342
very often, because they do not need to do so. Will the right hon. Gentleman perhaps recommend some of those arrangements to the operators?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman, who knows a lot about these matters, talks about being civilised. I have said that I am prepared to talk to trade union leaders about the Cullen report and other matters relating to the North sea. Union recognition is a matter for the parties involved to decide between themselves. The question that is relevant to today's discussion is safety and Lord Cullen was clear—union recognition and safety matters are separate issues; one is not connected with the other. Indeed, Lord Cullen endorses the Government's approach, which is to allow all people who work in the North sea to have a say in safety matters. Our safety committee regulations give all workers a voice and provide new rights to raise safety issues and to call inspectors if workers are in any way disatisfied. We are content with those arrangements, and they have been endorsed by Lord Cullen.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I shall not be able to call all the hon. Members who have been standing. I shall call two more Back Benchers and then the Opposition Front-Bench speaker. We must then move on to the debate on the Queen's Speech.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Will the Minister clarify two points that he made this afternoon? The first concerns safety in the work force. He told us at the beginning that everyone should participate in safety matters, and in answer to another question told us that he was against strikes. Many of the people who went on strike were my constituents. After Piper Alpha, they wanted their union to represent them on health and safety issues. That is all they wanted, and that right has been denied to them. Will the Minister also clarify——
Mr. Speaker: Order. No—one question, please.
Ms. Mowlam: Oh, go on. My question will be very short.
The Minister referred several times to the safety audit. Will he tell the House how that safety audit will operate, so that we will know that the operators are obeying its recommendations? Chapter 12 of the report refers to an audit recommendation that the diesel fire pumps should not be on manual mode during diving. There was already an audit recommendation to that effect, so how do we know that the safety audit will work?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Lady may be right in saying that some of her constituents went on strike because of their view about safety arrangements. All I can say to them is that their view was not endorsed by Lord Cullen, and I have accepted his report. The hon. Lady wants certain safeguards. The safety case which will have to be presented by any operator in the North sea will have to include an arrangement for the operators to audit their management of safety. The task of the regulator under these new arrangements is to see that that happens. If the Health and Safety Executive needs new powers, it is entitled to talk to me about that. I have accepted what Lord Cullen said about these matters'in their entirety.
Mr. Ken Eastham: I am sure that anyone who analyses the Minister's remarks and

343
subsequently reads the report will conclude that the comments about the operators and owners of the rigs are most damning.
One aspect of safety has not been mentioned this afternoon. It concerns hours of work. Some of the men who work the rigs are working 12 hours on, 12 hours off, plus overtime. Some of our rig workers work no fewer than 2,300 hours a year plus overtime, whereas workers in the Norwegian fields work 1,600 hours. The Minister must apply his mind to the question and recognise that, with men working such long hours, the rigs must be in great danger.
Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure whether there is evidence to support what the hon. Gentleman says, although I recognise his concern about something that is a right and proper matter for inclusion in any arrangements. In the arrangements for the proper management of safety on rigs, it will have to be made clear that people should not work such long hours that they cannot concentrate on the job in hand: I entirely agree with that.
Mr. Frank Doran: May I join hon. Members in expressing my appreciation to Lord Cullen for the magnificent job that he has done in cutting through the evidence and presenting a report which I think will mark a watershed in safety in the North sea? As a Scottish lawyer myself, I think that one of the advantages of having a Scottish lawyer do the job is that it helps to cut through some of the prejudices.
For the benefit of the Secretary of State, who appears to be somewhat dyslexic in his reading of certain aspects of the report, let me quote paragraph 21.84, which contains Lord Cullen's views on the trade union position:
"I am prepared to accept that the appointment of offshore safety representatives by trade unions could be of some benefit in making the work of safety representatives and safety committees effective, mainly through the credibility and resistance to pressures which trade union backing would provide."
That seems to me unequivocal.
It is inappropriate that the Secretary of State should pursue his prejudice, and his party's prejudice, against trade unions and about the benefits that they have clearly brought to the safety regime onshore. I still do not understand why that prejudice remains, especially as it prevents the Secretary of State from recognising the clearly expressed view of Lord Cullen that the safety systems and the involvement of the trade unions should be pursued offshore.
I have two questions for the Secretary of State. The first concerns legislation. It is clear—as the Secretary of State has admitted—that primary legislation will be required. The right hon. Gentleman had the report some three weeks before the Queen's Speech, although that speech contained no reference to possible legislation. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, if primary legislation is necessary, it will be introduced expeditiously—if possible during this Parliament and before the election?
Another question that needs to be asked, although not ncecessarily by me—I know that it is being asked by my constituents, by the survivors of the Piper Alpha tragedy and by the relatives of the victims—concerns responsibility. It is clear that the Secretary of State is being evasive in his interpretation of what Lord Cullen said. It was not only the oil company—Occidental—that was
344
responsible. The company obviously had some responsibility but it operated according to the latitude allowed by the Department.
The question of the right hon. Gentleman's officials is dealt with emphatically by Lord Cullen in his report, but Lord Cullen is the first to point out that those officials were under-resourced and that they were operating in difficult circumstances and without strong political direction or support. It is clear that it was the Government who ignored the recommendations of the Burgoyne committee and who consistently under-resourced the inspectorate and tried to apply the principles of the free market to safety. They failed to recognise that, while the oil industry risks only its capital, oil workers risk their lives and therefore need the protection of a strong safety system.
The Government have consistently abdicated their responsibility. Will the Secretary of State today tell the survivors and relatives where the guilty party is and who will carry the can for the tragedy?
Mr. Wakeham: First, I share the hon. Gentleman's praise for Lord Cullen's skill. I am happy to associate the hon. Gentleman, who is a Scottish lawyer, with Lo rd Cullen. If Lord Cullen is a good example of a Scottish lawyer, then Scottish lawyers are good lawyers. The hon. Gentleman was right to praise Lord Cullen.
With regard to trade union recognition, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I suggest that he and any other hon. Member who feels strongly about it should read the whole of the report before they reach a firm conclusion. In particular, they should read chapter 21.85 in which Lord Cullen states:
"I consider that it would be inappropriate for me to recommend any change in the method by which safety representatives are chosen."
Just as the hon. Gentleman can pick examples to make his point, so I can pick examples to make mine. We owe it to Lord Cullen and to those who work in the North sea to study this comprehensive report before we reach premature conclusions which may be of a partisan nature.
I have said that I have sent the report to the Lord Advocate, who must consider it in the light of his responsibilities. However, I have made it abundantly clear that I accept that the work of the officials in my Department was carried out with the best intentions and with the best skill and expedition.
Chapter 15.50 is one of the most significant parts of the report. Lord Cullen states there:
"Even if the shortcomings"——
that is, some of the shortcomings that were recognised in some of the officials—
"which I have mentioned above were made good would inspections be able by their nature to achieve the objective of assessing the adequacy of the installation as a whole?"
The answer to that forms the basis of the report—to recommend a completely new system for regulation.
Mr. Dobson: That was recommended in 1980.
Mr. Wakeham: I have answered the question about 1980 and 1990 on several occasions. There were many fundamental differences between 1980 and 1990. In 1980, the Government accepted the majority report of the Burgoyne committee. In 1990, we have accepted Lord Cullen's report. That is right and proper in both cases.

BILL PRESENTED
  CARAVANS (STANDARD COMMUNITY CHARGE AND RATING)
  Mr. Secretary Patten, supported by Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Michael Portillo and Mr. Robert Key, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the liability to standard community charges and non-domestic rates in respect of certain caravans and their pitches: And the same was read the First time: and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 10.]
Orders of the Day
  Debate on the Address

    FOURTH DAY
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [7 November].
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
    Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Younger.]
    Question again proposed.
    Mr. Speaker: Before I propose the Question again, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in today's debate. Therefore, I propose to place a 10-minute limit on speches between 6 pm and 8 pm. I ask those hon. Members who are called before or after then to bear that general limit in mind, please.

    Rights, Freedoms and Responsibilities
    4.38 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): The title of today's debate—"Rights, Freedoms and Responsibilities"—is identical to that chosen by the Opposition last year. I was surprised then, and I am even more surprised today, that the Opposition should have thought it right to choose such a title. Words such as "rights, freedoms and responsibilities" form part of the language of liberty and have no place at all in the vocabulary of socialism. The Conservative party believes in and understands the meaning of freedom. Our vision is of a free society in which intrusions on individual liberty are minimised and take place only under the rule of law.
    If the right hon. Member for Birmingham Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the Labour party have finally abandoned socialism and embraced freedom, I am perfectly prepared to accept their conversion. But I am blessed if I can see why I or anybody else should vote for a lot of Johnny-come-latelies with the inspiring slogan: "We do earnestly repent of our sins and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings. The remembrance of them is grievous unto us. The burden of them is intolerable." The idea of Neil kneeling is somewhat unconvincing.
    The Labour party may not be proud now of its commitment to socialism, but I understand that the commitment still exists, and it is hardly qualified therefore to talk about freedom. It is entirely disqualified from claiming an interest in responsibility.
    All hon. Members have a responsibility to uphold the rule of law—I should have thought that all hon. Members would agree with that. If any hon. Member does not believe that, and does not believe in a parliamentary democracy the only way to change a law is through Parliament, he or she should not be here today. Responsible citizens pay their taxes and responsible Members of Parliament should pay their dues to their local authorities. They certainly should not add to the burdens of their fellow men and women by refusing to pay. Yet

    347
    Opposition Members—more than 20 of them now., I am told—have at one time or another publicly stated that they would not pay their community charge. I do not know whether they have now done so, or whether they are still imposing on their neighbours the cost of the services which they receive, but, even if those hon. Members have seen sense, the damage has been done.
    The message has gone out that Labour Members of Parliament are prepared deliberately to ignore the laws of this land. What does that sort of behaviour contribute towards the "rights, freedoms and responsibilities" that we are debating today? What does the Labour party's failure to take action against the law-breakers on its own Benches say about the true extent of its commitment to "rights, freedoms, and responsibilities"?
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In the past 10 years how many times have the courts found the Government guilty of breaking their own laws? How many times have they been taken to the European Court and found guilty?
    Mr. Waddington: Decisions taken by Ministers in good faith and on legal advice as to the effect of legislation passed by this Parliament are one thing. Deliberate defiance of the law—that is what we are talking about now—is an entirely different matter.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Are not matters somewhat different if the franchise has been fiddled and if a measure such as the poll tax is introduced and knocks people off the electoral register? In those circumstances, logic no longer applies. When I make my speech I shall explain the situation, why I have not yet paid, and why it is in defence of parliamentary democracy that I have not paid. We require to get rid of that pernicious piece of legislation which picks at parliamentary democracy.
    Mr. Waddington: I will be very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's speech in due course. I shall be very interested to hear whether the hon. Gentleman's attitude is condoned by the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on his Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman is saying that, despite a law that has been passed by a democratically elected Parliament, he is entitled to elect not to obey that law. What is worse, more mischievous and more disgraceful is that he then heaps the burden of the cost of the local services that he receives on to his neighbours.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way, particularly as he is upbraiding the official Opposition. On public figures breaking the law, would he care to comment on allegations that were widely made this weekend that the Prime Minister knew of British Satellite Broadcasting's breaking of the Broadcasting Act 1990 and did not even report it to the responsible Minister, never mind to the law-enforcement authorities?
    Mr. Waddington: That is a most extraordinary question which has been framed by the hon. Gentleman [Interruption.] Just a minute. I shall refer to broadcasting in a short time, and I am confident that we shall have a bit of knockabout fun then, judging by the way in which that question was framed, but it is very much better that I should keep to the theme of my speech and refer to broadcasting when it is appropriate to do so.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Home Secretary give way?
    Mr. Waddington: Only if the hon. Gentleman's intervention will not touch on broadcasting. [Interruption.] I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman on broadcasting when I refer to it, but not now.
    Mr. John Evans: Will the Home Secretary give way on the poll tax?
    Mr. Waddington: Yes.
    Mr. Evans: The Home Secretary has been busily condemning Labour Members of Parliament for riot paying the poll tax. I assure him that I have paid my poll tax and have urged everyone to pay their poll tax. Does the Home Secretary agree that any system that provides the London borough of Westminster with twice the resources to look after children who are deemed to be at risk than it gives the metropolitan borough of St. Helens can only be described as absolute corruption?
    Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman has apparently well rehearsed that question, which he put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment last week. The hon. Gentleman knows the answer perfectly well. I certainly do not propose to waste the time of the House giving it again today.
    We should not be surprised by Labour's attitude. We all remember the Labour Members who supported the pickets against the police at Orgreave and at Wapping. We all remember that every single Labour Member voted against our proposals to give trade unions back to their members, that every single Labour Member voted against our proposals to outlaw secondary picketing, and that every single Labour Member voted against the proposal to give people the right not to join a trade union. Labour might talk about rights and freedoms but it never, never, never votes for them.
    Mr. David Nicholson: On the subject of rights and responsibilities, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of the law-abiding majority who have paid thier community charge greatly resent the threat that they might have to pay more next year because local authorities have failed to collect the charge from a law-breaking minority? Will my right hon. and learned Friend pass on to his colleagues in the Cabinet the need for the capping mechanism to take account of the fact that, perhaps spending should be cut to meet the failure to raise revenue?
    Mr. Waddington: I shall certainly pass on to my right hon. and hon. Friends what my hon. Friend says, but his point is well taken. The real gravamen of the charge is that, while pretending that they are making a grand political gesture, people are just heaping burdens on their neighbours. I do not see anything commendable in that.
    If Labour pays only scant regard to rights, freedoms and responsibilities, for those who sit on these Benches it is the very essence of our belief, and our belief is evidenced by our acts.
    Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Home Secretary give way?
    Mr. Waddington: As long as it is not on broadcasting. I shall refer to that matter in a few minutes.
    Mr. Graham: On poll tax capping, rate-capping, and so on, the way the Home Secretary is carrying on today, next he will be suggesting a bit of knee-capping.
    Mr. Waddington: I find that question somewhat difficult to follow. I think that it was meant to be in jest, and I shall take it so.
    I was saying that our belief in rights, freedoms and responsibilities is evidenced by our acts. We have given the right to be balloted before industrial action and to be balloted for the election of trade union leaders.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: As the Home Secretary is so keen on ballots, will he answer this question: is he in favour of a ballot for the leadership of the Tory party next week?
    Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman seems unaware that any hon. Member who wishes to stand for the leadership of the Conservative party may do so every year.
    We have stopped people being compelled to join trade unions against their will. We have given council tenants the right to own their own homes. We have given parents more choice about the school that their children attend and more say about the way in which that school is run.
    Last year, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) accused me of not having "the faintest idea" of what freedom means. I know what it does not mean. It does not mean the creation of a socialist economy, with less and less choice and a downward spiral of living standards. It does not mean the sort of penal tax rates which Labour previously imposed and now promises to impose again. It does not mean the virtual confiscation of property such as the shares held by the millions of individual shareholders in British Telecom and in the water industry. In short, freedom does not mean socialism.
    Last year, the Home Office brought forward several Bills, perhaps the most important of which was the Broadcasting Bill. The Broadcasting Act 1990, now on the statute book, offers a dramatic extension of choice for the viewer and listener. It provides for a tremendous expansion in radio, with three new national radio stations and many new local and community stations. It also makes provision for a new terrestrial television channel, with a far more open and publicly understandable process for the granting of franchises for Channel 3. It provides for a new framework for satellite and cable television services. It will, I am sure, come to he seen as one of the most important reforms of broadcasting in the past 40 years.
    On satellite television, the Independent Broadcasting Authority will, of course, have to make a judgment about the future of the DBS franchise, but non-domestic satellite broadcasting is clearly going to offer more choice to the viewer. If the Labour party's view is that restrictions should be placed on the company prepared to take the risk of developing this sort of competition, and if it wishes to see this increased choice for the viewer snuffed out, it will only be running true to form. Labour has always opposed greater choice in television. It voted against the creation of ITV. It has always been against freedom of choice.
    Mr. Grocott: When the Prime Minister was told about the proposed restriction of choice in relation to satellite channels and Mr. Murdoch's proposed monopoly, did she inform the Home Secretary, the Minister responsible, that that was about to take place?
    Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman seems unaware that the possibility of such a merger has been knocked around in the trade press for months and months. I have an edition of "Broadcast" with me. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the edition for 9 November, he will see that its very first page reproduces what was on the front page of a previous edition a year ago—
    Mr. Tony Banks rose——
    Mr. Waddington: Just a minute. I have not finished answering the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott).
    During the meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Mr. Murdoch mentioned the possibility of a merger, but only in the most general terms. Such a possibility had already been floated in the trade press in the way in which I have already mentioned. What has happened is now a matter for the IBA and the Office of Fair Trading. It was not a matter for the Government a fortnight ago; it is not a matter for the Government now. It certainly was no business of the Prime Minister to go telephoning around the place to all and sundry, me included, saying that she had been told by Mr. Murdoch what everybody already knew.
    Mr. Roy Hattersley: Since, in the Home Secretary's words, the idea of a merger has been "knocked around" for some time, he will have had an opportunity to consider its implications. He will know that the chief executive-designate of the Independent Television Commission believes that the BSB franchise was not its to dispose of and that it was not legally entitled to pass it to Mr. Murdoch. Therefore, although Mr. Murdoch is operating that franchise, he is operating unlawfully. Bearing in mind the Home Secretary's strictures on obedience to the law, what advice can he give Mr. Murdoch about his unlawful conduct?
    Mr. Waddington: It is not a question of advice to Mr. Murdoch; it is a question of what power the IBA has in this situation. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. It may be that the contract between BSB and the IBA has been infringed, in which case it is possible for the IBA to terminate the contract. However, the right hon. Gentleman also knows what could be the consequence of that for those who are able to watch on squarials at present. If it is the new company's intention eventually to broadcast on Astra alone, there would not be much advantage in the termination of the contract tomorrow rather than in a few months' time.
    Mr. Hattersley: I assure the Home Secretary that I am perfectly prepared to tell my friends that they should obey the law and pay the poll tax, so why does not he have the same respect for the law and tell the Prime Minister's friend, Mr. Murdoch, that he should obey the law, too?
    Mr. Waddington: I am not sure that that question is even worthy of an answer. What took place between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Mr. Murdoch is certainly none of my business, but my understanding is exactly as I expressed it to the House a short time ago—that the possibility of a merger was mentioned only in the most general terms. Such a possibility had already been floated in all the papers—certainly in the trade press—for months and months.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Although I do not believe everything that I read in the newspapers, I should be interested to know whether the Home Secretary saw the front page of The Independent on Sunday, according to which a representative of Mr. Murdoch has said:
    '''The Prime Minister took notes and treated the matter confidentially.'''
    Did the Prime Minister treat the matter so confidentially that she did not think that it was worth speaking about it to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who has direct responsibility for such matters? Was the Prime Minister keeping the right hon. and learned Gentleman in ignorance because, since he is so unimportant in her eyes, there did not seem to be much point in her telling him anything?
    Mr. Waddington: This is absolute rubbish. My officials were told about the merger on the Friday afternoon—in advance of the public announcement. What transpired between Mr. Murdoch and the Prime Minister is exactly as I have stated it.
    But this debate is about the Queen's Speech and the Home Office programme for the coming Session, and before I move to the bigger Bill, the Criminal Justice Bill, I should say a word or two about the War Crimes Bill.
    As you heard in the Gracious Speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we intend to bring the Bill back to the House in due course. I think that it would be odd if we were not to do so in view of the very clear support that the Bill received here not so very long ago. However, what is far more important is that those of us who voted for the Bill the last time round are convinced that it is right.
    I do not accept the argument that a decision was taken after the war not to pursue war criminals. It is true that a decision was taken to stop trials in the British zone of Germany, but at that time nobody addressed his mind to the possibility of people having arrived and settled here in Britain immediately after the war who were guilty of the horrific crimes set out in the Hetherington—Chalmers report. Because no one knew that any of them were here, no one could have made a judgment to allow them to evade the consequences of their crimes. I am convinced that there is a world of difference between making a criminal offence of an act which was not unlawful at the time of its commission, and giving the courts power to try people who, if the allegations against them are correct, perpetrated acts which they must have known at the time were crimes according to the law of every civilised nation.
    But the House will wish to consider whether adjustments can be made to meet some of the concerns expressed in another place while preserving the fundamentals of the Bill, and I am sure that that is something which will be well debated when the Bill is brought back to the House.
    I now come to the Criminal Justice Bill. With extraordinary cheek, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has from time to time suggested that the Government's proposals foreshadowed in the White Paper represent a belated conversion to ideas which he has nursed close to his heart for years and years. My wife tells me that he became so carried away the other day that he referred to 25 years. I do not know about his heart, but he certainly kept the ideas close to his chest. Of course, the previous Labour Government did absolutely nothing to forward the policies to which he now seems to give a warm welcome.
    352
    This is not the Second Reading debate, but there are several aspects of the Bill which I should like to highlight.
    First, the Bill sets out a coherent statutory framework for sentencing based on the seriousness of the offence. This is a just approach and, together with the work on the Judicial Studies Board, the power in the hands of the Court of Appeal to set sentencing guidelines and the power in the hands of the Attorney-General to refer over-lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal, it should make for much greater consistency in sentencing.
    Secondly, the Bill extends the range of community penalties available to the courts and enjoins the court not to pass a custodial sentence unless, having considered all the opportunities for punishment in the community, it concludes that only a custodial sentence is justified. In effect it extends over the whole age range the requirements placed on the courts in respect of young offenders in the Criminal Justice Acts 1982 and 1988 which, incidentally, have contributed to a large decline in the number of young people sent to prison. Sending people to prison is an expensive pastime and all too often it is likely to result in people coming out of prison worse than they were when they went in. Community penalties, however, can make tough demands on the offender—we intend that they should—yet allow him to continue to maintain his family and make reparation to those who have suffered at his hands.
    Thirdly, the Bill sets out to reform the parole system so that those sent to prison will be subject to a more rational and predictable system, and the sentences that they serve will be more closely related to the sentences passed on them.
    Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Most of us agree that it is much better that those who commit crimes of violence and might commit them again should be kept in prison. However, the perpetrators of some of the worst crimes in the City have not been kept in prison. I do not believe that crimes of fraud in the City are victimless. A crime is a crime. Is not it true that wealthy people who have lived a life of great luxury fear going to prison much more than they do a great fine? If we say that we shall fine people £1 million, £2 million, £3 million or £4 million, we might even encourage crime. The one thing that people who live good lives do not like is the idea of being in the slammer. In the end, the possibility of being put in the slammer helps to stop those who could commit those crimes from doing so.
    Mr. Waddington: There is nothing in the framework set out in the Bill to lead anyone to suppose that serious cases of fraud will not result in imprisonment. I do not suggest that for one moment. But my hon. Friend is right to touch on the changes in the fining system which will give the courts greater flexibility. There may be cases where people who are not fined today will be fined in future. However, that was not the point that my hon. Friend was making.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am enormously encouraged by the spelling out of the intention to extend the use of community penalties. My right hon. and learned Friend will know that study after study has shown that the best chance of reclaiming particularly young criminals is to give them the opportunity to do voluntary or semi-voluntary service of one sort or another for the less fortunate. On many occasions in the past, good programmes were run for three years as an experiment but

    353
    then came to an end. That seems an awfully expensive and extravagent way of doing things. May we hope for greater continuity of those excellent projects in the future?
    Mr. Waddington: I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend said. There will be many opportunities for developing all sorts of new programmes for punishment in the community. I certainly want the voluntary sector to play a much greater role than now. Perhaps my hon. Friend will come to see me with his ideas. He will have a receptive ear.
    Fourthly, a system of unit fines will be introduced. That was touched on in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) a moment ago. Less well-off offenders will pay less than the better-off, so the fines will make similar demands on each. The system will help courts to set fines at realistic levels and that together with the power to attach income support, should ensure that more fines are paid and fewer people finish up in prison for fine default. People should not be sent to gaol if they can't pay only if they won't.
    Together with the Maintenance Enforcement Bill, which will enable the courts to make an attachment of earnings order when a maintenance order is first imposed, the Criminal Justice Bill forms part of the Government's strategy to strengthen the family and reinforce parental responsibility. The Bill will ensure that parents have to be present when their children are before a court. The courts will also be given power to bind over parents to exercise proper control over their children. In addition, where parents are ordered to pay their children's fines, the amount of the fines will be related to the means of the parents.
    Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will have been delighted to see the proposals contained in the Bill which relate to the Pigot committee's proposals. The Bill will make it easier for children in abuse cases to give evidence, for example by allowing a video-recorded statement to be admissible, while ensuring that the rights of defendants are properly safeguarded.
    Finally, the Bill allows for the private sector to tender for police and prison escort duties and the operation of remand centres.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What does the Home Office intend to do about the difficult case of life sentence prisoners who are out on licence and have their licences revoked? I ask that question in the light of the recent case which went to the European Court of Human Rights. Will there be judicial review of that process?
    Mr. Waddington: One must examine separately discretionary and mandatory life sentences. I shall reply first with regard to discretionary sentences, with which the European Court of Human Rights dealt the other day. We have only just received the judgment. I am studying it carefully and, of course, I shall come to the House as soon as possible to tell it our conclusions.
    I cannot predict what precise effect our proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill will have on the prison population. Although its overall effect will be beneficial in that regard, it certainly would not be right to present our proposals as being designed to get rid of prison overcrowding. It would be easy to do so, but wrong. It is not my job to keep out of prison those who, in the public interest, should be there.
    354
    Therefore, we have been right to get on with the prison building programme. The recent encouraging fall in the prison population—down by more than 4,500 compared with two years ago and by more than 3,000 compared with a year ago—has enabled us this year, and will enable us in 1991–92, to spend more money on refurbishment, particularly on the programme to end slopping out.
    In the preparation of the Criminal Justice Bill we have not discovered all the causes of crime or identified all the ways to prevent it. We shall undoubtedly be presented with numerous glib analyses today. I fear that Labour's first response to rising crime is almost always to blame society or the Government or both, but rarely the criminal.
    Labour Members used to say that the number of reported offences had increased because we had created what they chose to call a "loadsamoney economy". It was an insulting way of putting the point and almost as though people should not have the cars, televisions and video recorders which, as often as not, are the targets of thieves. Nevertheless, there was more than a grain of truth in what they said. There is, indeed, much more property about to steal than there was 10 or 20 years ago. The recent disappointing figures showed that, with much of the increase due to theft of or from cars.
    Now, Labour Members sing a different tune. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook recently told the annual general meeting of Crime Concern that he was convinced by the argument that
    "a decline in our sense of community coupled with a renewed growth in unemployment"
    goes some distance to explaining why crime is increasing. Not that is to my mind a particularly insulting diagnosis to those people who suffer misfortune in their lives and put up with hard times, yet never dream of turning to crime.
    Clearly, there is much about which the Opposition will never agree, but there are many things about which we can all agree, and the first is that the fight against crime needs the active support of us all. The Government, the police and the community are all in it together. The Government's principal role is to encourage an awareness in the community of what people can do to help themselves, to further crime prevention schemes, such as the safer cities programme, and to see that the police are properly resourced. I have been impressed by the co-operation between local authorities, the police and local residents in the operation of the safer cities programme. I am delighted by the positive attitude of local authorities, playing a part in all the projects, and I pay tribute to them.
    No one can question this Government's support for the police. Between May 1979 and May 1990, the total number of police officers in England and Wales increased by 15,096. In 1990, 1,100 uniformed police officers were added to the 126,000-strong establishment. Provision was also made for some 1,200 more civilians, so releasing more policemen from desk jobs for operational duties. However, there is no point in providing new officers unless they have the equipment they need to do the job. I was pleased to announce last week that we are increasing our support for police capital expenditure by nearly £60 million in the next year. On top of that, I was also able to announce a further increase of 700 uniformed officers and 1,300 more civilians.
    I have mentioned the Home Office Bills in the Queen's Speech, but there are other matters that I want to bring before the House when time allows. I have already

    355
    announced that I intend to take the first opportunity to create a new offence of prison mutiny to deal with the kind of events that we saw at Strangeways. I can confirm today that we intend to introduce legislation to cover the proposals contained in Lord Justice Taylor's report into the Hillsborough stadium disaster. He recommended the creation of four new criminal offences to deal with disorderly behaviour at football grounds.
    The Government have considered his proposals and concluded that they would provide valuable new measures to help control hooliganism at football grounds. The sale of tickets on the day of the match without the authority of the home club, throwing missiles, chanting obscene or racist abuse, and running on to the pitch without reasonable excuse would become offences. We believe that it is right that in the context of football those activities should be unlawful because of their implications for order. We shall bring proposals before the House as soon as parliamentary time allows.
    In a speech the other day the right hon. Gentleman offered to make "common cause" in the fight against crime, but I doubt Labour's commitment in that regard. Last week the right hon. Gentleman reaffirmed that he wants to put the police forces of this country into the hands of those local authorities whose mischievous antics have brought such shame on his party.
    Far more important was his promise to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act. How on earth can he reconcile that promise with the rights, freedoms and responsibilities which we are debating today? What of the rights of those killed and maimed by the IRA? Will others who are threatened be better protected by the right hon. Gentleman's commitment? Would the freedom of all of those faced with the evil menace of the IRA be more secure if one of our weapons against the terrorists was scrapped? What sense of responsibility does the Labour party have when it talks of scrapping a power which a Labour Government introduced, and the value of which the Labour party recognised year after year until a different breed of Labour Member came into this place in 1979? The right hon. Gentleman knows that he should have had the courage to stand up against them.
    We will be carrying on the fight. We will remain firm to the principles which have guided us over the years. We will certainly continue to see that the rights and freedoms of the British people are protected and enhanced, and that a proper balance is struck between freedom on the one hand and responsibility on the other.
    5.17 pm
    Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Home Secretary was kind enough to remind the House that the topic for today's debate chosen by the Opposition was identical to that which we chose a year ago. My opening comments are identical to those of a year ago. By his speech he demonstrates that he is neither psychologically nor intellectually equipped for his office. I do not propose to play his game. Instead, I shall talk about the real issues facing this country and the concerns covered by the topic that we have chosen for debate.
    I offer my unqualified support for one sentence in the Gracious Speech:
    "My Government will vigorously pursue their policies in fighting crime."
    I hope that the Government will have more success with those policies than they have had in the past 10 years.
    356
    September crime figures were the worst recorded in our history. They showed an increase of 70 per cent. since the 1979 general election. That is a humiliating record for a Government who were elected on the specific promise to strengthen law and restore order. The Government's failure to curb and control crime is another reason why they are unfit to hold office.
    On Thursday, the Home Secretary told the country that spending on law and order had increased by 70 per cent. since the Government were elected in 1979. If that is the case, the taxpayers are entitled to complain that they have had nothing like value for their money.
    Of course, nobody claims that the Government are directly responsible for the whole increase in crime, but there is no doubt that they have escalated that increase. At one end of the crime spectrum the "get rich quick" mentality, so much the theme of the Thatcher years, has fostered a contempt for the law typified by the Guinness trial.
    It has also been typified by the Home Secretary's refusal to condemn the unlawful behaviour of his friends at Sky. At the other extreme is the argument that I made some days ago, and shall continue to make, about the increase in crime as result of unemployment and poverty. When I made that point, I was quoting from a Home Office working document. The Home Secretary is perfectly entitled to refute it if he wishes to do so, but to condemn me for quoting it is a new view of ministerial responsibility.
    Mr. Waddington: What is the right hon. Gentleman quoting from?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am quoting from the same document that I quoted from six months ago when the Minister of State—no longer in his place—then intervened to say, "That one doesn't count. It was written by the man with the earring". No doubt the Home Secretary will be able to find the man with the earring whom his Minister identified. He will then obtain the working document, which I have in my possession and which I shall gladly send him, which says that unemployment and the fear of unemployment contribute to the increase in crime.
    My principle charge today is not that Government policy causes crime, but that the Government have done far too little to contain the epidemic. Instead, they have tried to blame everyone else, for example, victims who they say do not take sufficient care of their property—the Home Secretary said that again today—and chief constables who are said to be deficient in their duties and should be the subject of performance assessments. Everyone is to blame except the Government.
    For a decade, a fundamental error has prejudiced Government policy. The emphasis has always been on solving crime and creating a deterrent to crime by imposing severe sentences on those who are caught and convicted, but that strategy contains two fatal flaws. Only one crime in four is ever solved, so criminals do not go around with the constant fear of detection and punishment. Perhaps more important, by expending so much time on headline-catching promises about tough sentences, attention and energy has been diverted from the much more important subject of crime prevention.
    The Home Secretary persists in saying that the Government took the lead on crime prevention long before anyone in the Opposition thought about it. I must warn him that I propose to retaliate with force next week

    357
    with the worst punishment at my disposal—I shall quote from my speeches of 10 or 15 years ago. I know that the Home Secretary regards that as the ultimate deterrent and I propose to use it against him if he persists in saying that he, and only he, has thought about crime prevention. The Home Secretary is in the reverse position—he must take part of the blame for the emphasis on punishment as distinct from the emphasis on prevention. He must know from the evidence that capital punishment will not cut the murder rate. He parades his support for it to ingratiate himself with the diehards in his party, but in doing so he prejudices the whole crime debate.
    Prevention is far more important than capture and conviction as the stiffest sentences never compensate for the material loss and psychological trauma of a burglary or a mugging. However, throughout almost the lifetime of the Government, crime prevention has been relegated to the second order of importance. That is exactly the point made by Lord Justice Tumin, Her Majesty's Chief inspector of prisons, in an article entitled "Prevention better than Punishment", which appeared in The Times on Tuesday. His message was that
    "jail should be reserved for the most serious criminals"
    and that prison regimes should not be judged according to whether they are "nice or nasty" but according to the effect that they have in preventing those who inhabit them from committing further offences. For some men, young men in particular, prison ingrains their criminal tendencies. The reform of prisons is an essential part of the war on crime.
    In my view—I detect that somewhere buried under what the Home Secretary said today it is his view as well—the war against crime should be based on a partnership between the police, people and local authorities. It is the Government's duty to reinforce and encourage that partnership, yet they have allowed the police to become dangerously overstretched—more overstretched than at any time in recent history. Local authorities have been positively discouraged from playing a proper part in crime prevention, but people have been expected, privately and individually, to carry more of the responsibility for crime prevention than they can successfully discharge.
    I gladly pay tribute to neighbourhood watch, crime concern and the public's involvement in the safer cities project—limited geographically and in terms of funds though that initiative may be. Such schemes are to be encouraged and should be developed, but unless they are matched by more direct action they can make only a marginal contribution to crime prevention. I propose to describe how a better contribution should be made and I shall take first the police.
    The Home Secretary says that no one can doubt the Government's commitment to the police, but the police doubt it. I am astonished that he has not learnt that during a year in which his relations with the police have sunk lower than those between any Home Secretary and the police for a long time. I make my position absolutely clear—there is no doubt that we need substantial increases in police manpower, effective manpower. We should not have increases on paper, but real increases in police houurs devoted to real police duties.
    Establishments have been increased in the past 10 years—usually, each increase has been announced several times to give the impression that it is greater than it is. However, often the new recruits have been financed by reductions in
    358
    overtime, which have reduced the net increase that the new establishments provided. More important and more damaging is the fact that police officers continue to perform tasks that should be discharged by civilians. More important and more damaging still is the fact that because the police have had heaped upon them new and often inappropriate burdens, their resources do not match the crisis that we expect them to face and overcome.
    Last week the chief constable of Durham described to me the problems that his force faces in conducting a prolonged murder investigation. Dozens of detectives have taken hundreds of statements, recorded under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Those detectives are then obliged to type up their interviews when they should be pursuing their inquiries as detectives and not acting as copy typists. They are required to undertake the long process of one-finger typing because the authority cannot afford to employ audio-typists. That is the direct result of pressure on local authority spending created by the poll tax and the revenue support grant. It makes nonsense of the claim that the Government are providing all the resources necessary to allow the police to do an effective job.
    The Government have certainly increased the obligations on the police and some of them, PACE for example, are undoubtedly necessary and should be applauded. Nevertheless, they are time-consuming. Some of the new burdens are not so much unnecessary as positively undesirable. Police time should not be spent pursuing overseas visitors who have overstayed the time specified on their visas; nor, to echo the words of the chief constable of South Yorkshire, should police officers be used as a debt collecting agency for poll tax defaulters. The performance of such a task drives a wedge between the police and the community whom they serve. Such tasks are also a scandalous waste of police time.
    The police want to get on with their business of real policing, freed, as they said to me at the Police Federation's annual conference at Scarborough this year, from the impertinent claim that they are the property of this Tory Government. For the police to discharge their duties effectively, they must be convinced that society values their service, but the Government behave in a way that seems to be positively intended to undermine police morale.
    The Government vetoed the arbitration judgment, which increased housing allowance, and in doing so broke their promise always to implement the Edmund Davies award. The Government threaten the essential confidentiality of the central police computer by turning it into an independent agency. They are risking the efficiency of the forensic science service by requiring it to sell off its goods and wares to police forces as if it were a private contractor.
    The Government insist that tasks that are the proper resonsibility of the police should be performed by untrained employees of private security companies. Instead of all those issues, the Gracious Speech should have contained the diametrically opposed provision—a proposal for the licensing and regulation of the private security industry.
    Mr. Rowe: I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman intends to be absolutely clear in his speech. May we then expect a Labour document defining precisly those activities deemed to be wholly appropriate to the police and those deemed not to be? He has already complained

    359
    bitterly that police are involved in pursuing people who will not pay the poll tax or keep the law, but also that several other functions have been taken away from the police.
    Mr. Hattersley: I do not want to be absolute about that, because a chief constable has obligations and responsibilities. As the Home Secretary will be the first to say to his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), it is not for politicians to tell chief constables what or what not a police officer should do. The hon. Gentleman may, but I do not, want politicians to have tactical control over police forces. However, I want the House to stop imposing specific, undesirable burdens on the police force. The poll tax provision that I described, and the pursuit of overstayers—visitors who have extended their visa limits—are not a matter of general definitions, but duties and burdens imposed by the House, which should stop doing so and instead act in the interests of good policing.
    The third element of the essential coalition is local government. The best councils want to work enthusiastically with the police. Two weeks ago I was in Keighley, where the local authority recently completed a pilot scheme that tested the sort of practical, perhaps prosaic policy of better locks and lighting, and more facilities for the young unemployed, which was once sneered at as an element of crime prevention. As a result of such improvements and interest in crime prevention that the scheme generated, crime in the district had fallen, year on year, by 81 per cent. The scheme was a success, but the council was unable to extend it to other districts that would benefit because the money was simply not available.
    The small sums allocated by central Government to local government for crime prevention—for example, in the city of Birmingham, £250,000 was allocated for the safer cities project—in no way compensate for the £20 billion loss of rate support grant that councils have had to endure throughout England and Wales in the past 10 years. As a result, hard-pressed local authorities without any specific crime prevention obligations naturally concentrate their efforts and spending on other sectors. The Gracious Speech should have included the promise to impose a statutory duty on all local authorities to introduce crime prevention measures. That duty should have contained the obligation to include crime prevention in local authority development plans and planning
    I repeat that reform of the penal system is an essential part of the war against crime. The Criminal Justice Bill is based on that principle. Although our detailed debate on those proposals will take place in a week or two, I propose to say something about the Bill in a moment, as the Home Secretary has done. Before I do so I shall deal with other aspects of the Gracious Speech, both inclusions and omissions.
    First, at a time when there is an increasing public determination to end racial discrimination in this country, the Gracious Speech said not a word about the disadvantages suffered by black and Asian British, or ways of ending them. The Police Federation commits itself to eliminating any sign of racial discrimination in its ranks. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis urges greater efforts to stamp out racial attacks. The Army promises to take action to ensure equal opportunities. But the Home Secretary is wholly silent on the subject. I know that racial equality is not a subject that enthuses him, but
    360
    it enthuses the Opposition. We propose to take action to eliminate racial discrimination after our victory in the general election.
    Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman should be careful about what the says. I was at Bramshill the other day to show my support and take part in a seminar organised by the police on some of the very matters that the right hon. Gentleman raised. If events are taking place in the police force of which he approves, I cannot see how he can say that the Home Office is doing nothing. We have been fully involved in those initiatives and are proud of that. We are paying a great deal of attention to such matters and I am doing my level best to promote all such initiatives and am proud to do so.
    Mr. Hattersley: I am glad that the Home Secretary intervened, and he can do so again immediately after my next paragraph, which deals directly with the question: what should the Home Office be doing that it has not done, and does not do? The Home Secretary knows that, while the Criminal Justice Bill was being drafted in the Home Office, officials—I am assured that they were senior officials—approved clauses to impose a duty on courts to end all racial discrimination in the criminal justice system. Those clauses included the provision of ethnic monitoring of sentences. We know that ethnic minorities are more likely to be sent to prison than their white contemporaries, and stay there for longer.
    Those clauses were drafted in the Home Office, but none of them appears in the Bill. Would the Home Secretary like to intervene again to say why not?
    Mr. Waddington: For what it is worth, at no time since I came into the Home Office have I ever seen any such draft clauses or anything remotely like them. If the right hon. Gentleman's imagination is running away with him, he must be responsible for it. We can certainly debate whether it would be desirable to spell out in black and white on the face of the Bill that there should be no discrimination throughout the criminal justice system, but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if we were to do so, we should merely be restating what is the law now.
    Mr. Hattersley: I hope that the Home Secretary is not telling me that no clauses exist in draft form in the Home Office.
    Mr. Waddington: I have not seen them.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary says that he has not seen them, but that may be a confession of his incompetence. Is he telling me that they do not exist? IF he is not, we can pursue the matter on Second Reading.
    Mr. Waddington: What was the last question?
    Mr. Hattersley: Do such clauses exist? Does the Home Office have them ready if the Home Secretary approves them?
    Mr. Waddington: They clearly exist in the right hon. Gentleman's imagination, but I have never heard of them or seen them.
    Mr. Hattersley: May I urge the Home Secretary to inquire into the matter when he returns to his Department tonight or tomorrow? That is the first issue that does not appear in the Gracious Speech.

    361
    Another issue to which no reference is made, even though the Home Secretary was kind enough to refer to in in his opening passage, is broadcasting, even though we are promised, and anticipate, secondary legislation this Session in the form of orders to regulate the operation of satellite broadcasting. I have several questions to ask the Home Secretary and it is clear from what he said at the beginning of his speech that not only does he not know the answers, but he does not know the crucial questions in this matter.
    I do not expect the Home Secretary to intervene straight away. All I ask is that he notes the questions, does his best to understand them and obtains answers, not necessarily by the winding-up speech tonight, but by tomorrow or the end of this week. I could not be more reasonable in my request. All we ask for is answers to the questions, which are crucial and which up to now the Home Secretary does not appear to have appreciated.
    The questions have achieved a new importance because of the de facto merger between British Satellite Broadcasting and Sky and the conversation on the subject between the Prime Minister and Mr.Rupert Murdoch. I know that the Prime Minister's meeting with Mr. Murdoch was kept from the Home Secretary and he did not know about it until newspapers told his office. However, I assume, putting aside the usual contempt of the Prime Minister for her Ministers, that the Home Secretary has now found out what went on.
    It is silly, and an insult to the intelligence of the House, to say that Mr. Murdoch merely mentioned the matter to the Prime Minister and it was not regarded as being in any way important. Mr. Andrew Knight, chief executive of Mr. Murdoch's empire in this country, said that Mr. Murdoch has only two or three meetings a year with the Prime Minister and that he began with some casual conversation on the subject of BSB and Sky. That sort of explanation is wholly incredible, and in the light of it I want to ask the Home Secretary some specific questions.
    First, I wish to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman another chance to answer a question that he has already refused to answer. Does he share the view of the chief executive of the new Independent Television Commission, that BSB is not entitled to pass on its contract to Sky, and that Sky transmissions are now being broadcast through BSB dishes unlawfully?
    Mr. Waddington: That is certainly my understanding. I think that there was a clear breach of contract, but as I pointed out earlier and as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, that is a matter for the IBA; and the IBA, as a consequence, is perfectly entitled to terminate the contract that it made with BSB. I thought that I had made that abundantly plain.
    Mr. Hattersley: That leads us to the next question. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us advice as to whether the Prime Minister understood that this was an unlawful operation when she discussed it with Mr. Murdoch? I suspect that, as usual, the Prime Minister, believing herself to be omnipotent, thought that she understood what she was talking about and gave Mr. Murdoch to believe that he had tacit support for his wilful disregard of the provisions in the Broadcasting Act which was passed a few months ago.
    362
    How does the Home Secretary propose to ensure proper respect for and compliance with the Act that he sponsored last year? Does he believe, for instance, that, after the merger is complete, the DBS satellite—the old BSB satellite—must be kept in use, or is he content with satellite broadcasting in this country developing merely around Rupert Murdoch's inferior Astra technology?
    My second question is directly related to the Home Secretary's specific legislative duties during the rest of this year. What regulations does he anticipate will govern the conduct of the new merged authority? Originally, it was thought that the quality requirements imposed on channel 3 and channel 5 broadcasters would not be necessary because satellites were competing with each other. Now there are no competing satellites. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that quality obligations must be introduced through secondary legislation?
    Thirdly, what is the Government's position on the ownership of newspapers by satellite broadcasters? We were told last year that secondary legislation would be introduced to place a limit on BSB newspaper holdings. We were also told that, for a variety of reasons—I shall not go into them—this would not apply to Sky. Will the limitations on newspaper ownership apply to the new merged Sky and BSB company?
    In short, what do the Government believe should happen now? Are we to have secondary legislation limiting cross-ownership—the sort of idea that was going to apply to BSB before Mr. Murdoch took it over—or, now that Mr. Murdoch is involved, is the new company to be given the preferential treatment which he was previously going to enjoy with Sky? The crucial question is: is Mr. Rupert Murdoch to be given special treatment again as he was when he acquired the Sunday Times, The Times and Today and as he was when Sky was absolved of the obligation placed on BSB?
    In the past, the Government have done Mr. Murdoch favours as a mark of their gratitude for the way in which he has helped them to win general elections. Now that, with or without his help, they are going to lose the election, is there any hope that they might behave with a little integrity?
    Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman is very free with his insults, but he must not make snide allegations of dishonesty against individuals unless he is prepared to make them outside the House. He knows perfectly well what I said before about what was discussed at the meeting. Even if Mr. Murdoch had said in plain terms that he was about to sign an agreement with BSB, that would not have been a statement that he was going to behave unlawfully, because what appears to be unlawful, or contrary to the contract signed between BSB and the IBA, is the fact that no warning was given to the IBA and that it would seem that there might be a controlling interest by a non-EC body in the new outfit.
    As none of this was discussed at No. 10, it has no bearing on the right hon. Gentleman's allegation—so now let us come to the specific question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Briefly."' I will not allow the right hon. Gentleman to make snide, nasty remarks imputing dishonesty without coming back at him, and he had better get used to that.
    We intend to put a 20 per cent. ownership limit on newspaper interests in DBS. That is what we always said we would do. We always said that there would be no

    363
    similar limitations on the newspaper interests in pure satellite broadcasting, for two reasons. First, the practical reason——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Surely some of this could he left to be rebutted in winding up.
    Mr. Waddington: With respect, I was asked a specific question.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Even the Home Secretary does not have the right to make a second speech.
    Mr. Waddington: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would not be customary to ask leave of the House to speak again, so I have but one opportunity to reply to the questions put to me by the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want me to reply——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has the right to intervene if the right hon. Gentleman who has the Floor gives way—but intervention should be brief.
    Mr. Waddington: I shall try to be brief——
    Mr. Hattersley: I old the Minister that I would be happy to receive his answers on a future occasion, but I do not want to quarrel with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I shall let the Home Secretary do that. I shall accept whatever ruling you make.
    Mr. Waddington: We made it plain that we would conduct matters in this way, first, for reasons of practicality, because the satellite company can uplink from abroad. Secondly, we recognise a world of difference between the Government imposing restrictions on ownership of scarce frequencies allocated by Government, and imposing restrictions on satellite broadcasting in which there is scope for diversity of different channels. As for the right hon. Gentleman's last point——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have an obligation to preserve the rights of other right hon. and hon. Members who want to take part in the debate. I very much hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will bring his intervention to a conclusion.
    Mr. Waddington: I can swiftly deal with the last point. I cannot say whether the contract for DBS will be re-let if the contract with BSB is terminated. It will be a pity if there is no contract for DBS, but that is outside the Government's control and it is quite likely a matter for the market.
    Mr. Hattersley: What I find extraordinary about that intervention is that the Home Secretary had it all ready to read out but did not feel it right to read it out during his speech. He could have encapsulated the principle in a single sentence. When BSB was independent, newspaper ownership rules were to be imposed upon it. Now that it is associated with Mr. Murdoch, those rules are riot to apply. The country, like the House, will regard that as a disgrace.
    I want to make our position on this subject plain. Immediately after the Labour Government are elected, we shall ask the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to examine the concentration of media ownership in this country-newspapers as well as television and radio. We
    364
    shall ask the MMC to make specific recommendations on how the present unacceptable degree of concentration of ownership can be split up.
    Another topic omitted from the Gracious Speech and connected with newspapers was the Calcutt report. Will the Home Secretary confirm—I am reluctant to ask a question lest he should answer—that it is still his intention to implement the Calcutt proposals for statutory regulation if the newspapers do not accept the Calcutt last-chance offer to put their own house in order?
    When the Calcutt report was published, the Home Secretary was admirably firm on this matter, and he had my wholehearted support. Cynics outside said that the firmness would disappear as the general election approached. I would be grateful if his Minister will confirm that it is still intended that Calcutt will be the last chance before statutory action. I know that the industry is setting up a commission to supervise self-regulation and that a code, not quite the Calcutt code but a code of sorts, is being drawn up. I want to be told explicitly that, if that code is broken, the statutory route will be followed.
    That leads to my next question about Calcutt. Some of the Calcutt recommendations propose changes in the law that are not directly related to the code. I shall give the obvious example. It is recommended that taking a photograph of a person on private property without the explicit permission of that person should be an offence. I assumed that the Home Secretary was going ahead with that statutory element in Calcutt. I am glad to see him nodding. I would have been more reassured if I had found that proposal in the Gracious Speech.
    The Taylor report is not mentioned in the Gracious Speech but apparently proposals about that will be brought before us this year. We shall examine the Home Secretary's proposals, some of which are right. Proposals about throwing missiles and about racial chants are right. We want to examine carefully the dangerous matter of running on to pitches without adequate reason. I am against people running on to pitches, but I am worried about the definition of "adequate reason", and we shall look carefully at the legislation's small print.
    I should like to refer briefly—because that is all that the Home Secretary's remarks deserve—to his comments on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, before finally speaking to the main legislative item. He does himself, his Government and his cause no good by, for the narrowest and cheapest of political reasons, trying to suggest that there are some hon. Members who do not detest terrorism and wish to exterminate it in this country. I can think of nothing that would give the IRA more pleasure than to believe that what the Home Secretary says is true.
    We have had what I knew would be the general statement on terrorism. I take this opportunity to reaffirm, because it is right to do so whatever the Home Secretary says, the general determination of the House to obliterate terrorism in the United Kingdom. In a free Parliament and a democracy, there are different views about how that can best be achieved, but no one should have any doubts—this is directed particularly to the IRA—about our united determination to achieve the basic objectives.
    I shall make only one comment about disagreement on tactics. I do not propose to talk about the Government's practical record, lest that should give heart to our mutual enemies, but nothing has happened in the last 10 years to entitle the Government to dismiss out of hand the Labour

    365
    party's prescription for greater success. That prescription says that tough action against terrorism has to be matched with the determination to do nothing that alienates the law-abiding majority. That has always been our pragmatic objection to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and it remains our objection.
    We also have an objection in principle. The simple injustice of long periods of detention without charge or judicial examination during which there is no access to legal advice is a matter of principle that the Government should take seriously when they consider the consequences of the wrongful conviction of the Guildford Four, the Maguire family, and, as I think will soon be demonstrated, the Birmingham Six. The new Criminal Justice Bill could have been the opportunity to ensure that such injustices occur more rarely. I regret that such injustices will never be eliminated, but their incidence could have been reduced, and, the chance has been missed.
    It gives me no pleasure to say that there has never been a time in modern history when the British people were less confident about their criminal justice system. Many, although not all, of their doubts are misplaced, but there is no doubt about how they came about. The doubts have been encouraged by judges who impose preposterous sentences accompanied by absurd opinions, by notorious miscarriages of justice, and by a whole variety of allegations—most of them unjustified—against the police. The police have reacted to allegations more rationally than the Government. The police see immense advantage to themselves in an independent system of investigation of police complaints. That is what the police want, and I promise that they will have it after the next general election.
    The Government could have done much to quieten other fears by adding three radical but simple proposals to the Criminal Justice Bill. They could have improved the provision that a defendant cannot be convicted solely on uncorroborated confession evidence. They could and should have included additional safeguards to ensure that suspects are properly represented.
    Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The right hon. Gentleman speaks about conviction on uncorroborated confession evidence, and I know that he takes the matter seriously. What would he say to a woman who has been raped and whose only evidence is what she says on oath actually happened? Some time later, the man can get rid of all the forensic evidence against him and what remains is the woman's word. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to go into the next general election saying that the single woman complaining without corroboration can never bring to justice the man who raped her?
    Mr. Hattersley: The hon. and learned Gentleman asks a politically hard question, and I shall give him the intellectually hard answer. First, I did not talk about the evidence of the victim against the man who had been charged. I talked about confession evidence, a confession by the man who has been charged and against whom there is no evidence apart from what he said when he was interviewed immediately after his arrest. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked a question which was different from the point that I was making, but I shall do my best to answer it, because I take the matter seriously.
    366
    The rules of evidence to protect the innocent in cases about which one feels deep sympathy have to be applied with equal rigour to cases of a different sort. We cannot say about cases for which we have such sympathy that the rules of evidence which are generally regarded as right and proper can somehow be forgotten. That is not an easy answer, and some people will criticise me for giving it in this particular. The serious point about evidence is that, by and large, the rules have to apply in all cases and the innocent have to be given the opportunity to protect their innocence.
    The Criminal Justice Bill should include the creation of an independent review body to investigate suspected major miscarriages of justice. The Maguires, the Guildford Four and, I believe, the Birmingham Six demonstrate the need for that reform. I have no doubt that the inadequacies of the present appeals system are the result of the narrow legal confines within which judicial appeals are now bound and limited. Some cases need to be looked at again from start to finish without the prejudices—I use the word in its least pejorative sense—that result from a liftime spent in the legal professions.
    Anyone who reads the appeal case of the Birmingham Six and others has the terrifying suspicion that, if what was said on their behalf had been said to a tribunal that was not exclusively made up of judges but had perhaps a majority of judges and some representative, intelligent, informed laymen, the examination would have been different and the outcome might well not have been the same. A new tribunal must be set up to examine cases of long detention. I repeat that it will include judges, but it will also include laymen who will examine the whole issue from a wider perspective.
    The second great omission, apart from the absence of a proper civil rights dimension in the Rent Bill, is its failure to make any serious inroads into the scandal of remand prisoners. That scandal was highlighted in national newspapers by the case of Mr. Terry Marsh, who spent 10 months in prison before he was tried and acquitted. Respect for civil liberties requires us to reduce the number of remand prisoners and the time that they spend on remand. Our desire to reduce the prison population also stems from that respect. That chance has been missed.
    I emphasise that my questions are rhetorical and ask the Home Secretary, why is the rule that all defendants must come to trial within 112 days of committal not immediately put into operation all over England and Wales? Why have London and the south-east—where the problem of delays in bringing prisoners to trial is most acute—been exempt from that rule? Why is there no proposal in the Bill for a tightening of the criteria in the Bail Act 1976?
    The number of remand prisoners in gaol has doubled during the life of this Government. The legal provision—that bail is granted unless a strong case can be made against it—should be made more explicit, and the law should require that the principle be uniformly applied.
    Perhaps most important of all, to reduce the time that is wasted in court, a court inspectorate should be established to report to the Lord Chancellor on the efficiency of the courts' conduct and operation. At present, the courts too often operate for the convenience of judges, barristers and solicitors. To free the courts and to get them moving, that sort of restrictive practice ought to be ended.

    367
    It would be ended by a genuinely radical Government, and it will be ended by a generally radical Government after the next general election.
    That having been said, I repeat my unqualified support for the principle that underlies the Criminal Justice Bill. Of course a custodial sentence is very often the most appropriate sentence for crimes of violence and sexual offences. Sometimes, men and women have to be imprisoned to protect the community; the Home Secretary and I are at one about that. We are also in agreement that very many men and women now in prison should be serving their sentences in the community.
    At least, I think we are in agreement. Sometimes, the Home Secretary agrees that prison corrupts rather than reforms. He described prisons in the News of the World—a dangerously radical journal by the Home Secretary's standards—as "universities of crime" and implied that the time had come to change both the syllabus and the minimum entrance requirement. However, on other—occasions launching the Bill was one of them—he takes, or appears to take, quite a different view. Unless he gives a clear and unequivocal lead, the Criminal Justice Bill will not reduce the prison population to the extent that is essential.
    The Governor of Armley prison told me on Friday that his inability to build the proper relationship with prisoners—to prevent the tragedies that have occurred at that prison, and to have some hope of preventing prisoners from offending again—required him to have more resources: prison officers as well as new and better buildings. The right ratio of staff to prisoners will not be achieved simply by recruiting more officers; it will be achieved only by a substantial reduction in the prison population.
    I very much welcome the emphasis of the public expenditure White Paper on improving old prisons—ending slopping out, for instance—rather than the slower process of building new ones. But the only way in which we can make prisons work—to cut crime—is to achieve a substantial reduction in the prison population.
    I offer two other reasons for introducing more sentencing within the community. First, it is cheaper. It costs £20,000 a year to keep a man in prison which often achieves nothing at all. Secondly, alternative sentencing is more satisfying for the victim who has been mugged or burgled. Retribution may be sweet, but restitution is usually sweeter. On that principle, it is important that, wherever possible, alternative sentencing—sentencing within the community—should be related to the offender's making good the loss or damage.
    I hope—although I am not sure, even from what the Home Secretary has said today—that that is common ground between us. Today I shall not deal in detail with any of the other areas of cross-party agreement—video recording admitted in evidence for child cruelty cases, or unit fines in magistrates courts. Nor shall I describe at length our opposition to the privatisation of court escort duty, the privatisation of remand and the fatuous proposal for electronic stagging, which merely fulfils the purpose of getting the other Minister of State on television during each summer recess. Now that he has had his moment of glory, that proposal should be buried as the inoperative and useless proposal that it is. More detailed comments must wait for the Second Reading debate on the Bill. I shall simply end by describing again my forebodings about
    368
    the central purpose of the Bill's actually being implemented by the judges, unless additional steps are taken.
    On the day when the Bill was published, Judge Derek Clarkson announced:
    "The Court of Appeal is reducing sentences in a way that is derisory and derogates from the authority and dignity of Her Majesty's judges."
    Does the Home Secretary think that anyone who takes dignity so seriously and talks of Court of Appeal decisions as derisory will voluntarily co-operate with his proposed reforms? Of course they will not—not until they are encouraged to do so by the policy of ensuring that the will of Parliament is expressed and implemented by a sentencing council which advises on sentencing.
    That advice would be designed to achieve some uniformity in sentencing—between courts, the sexes and the ethnic groups. It would encourage the principles of sentencing—in this case, a reduction in committal to prison—that Parliament and Government wish to apply. I have no doubt that judges must be allowed discretion. I am not in favour of judges being told precisely what sentences they must apply to every conviction. However, if judges are to be given that discretion, a sentencing council to guide—not instruct—them is essential.
    The House should not take my word for it. I quote from last Saturday's edition of The Times. Referring to the Bill, it said:
    "Another provision ought to be added. The guidelines, though an improvement, still give the judges considerable discretion. Much depends on how the appeal court interprets them. All this is hazardous. The transmission mechanism between parliament, Home Office and judiciary is creaky and ineffective. Judges are notoriously their own creatures, disinclined through long exercise of power to heed outside influence. Penal reformers … have long advocated the creation of a sentencing council. Representing all interested parties, its job would be to formulate detailed guidance on sentencing for the courts. Justice demands no less."
    I hope that in Committee, the House will demand exactly that.
    I doubt whether the Government—for all their claims to reforming zeal—will summon up sufficient courage to take such a radical step. However, the next Labour Government will. Indeed, the message from this day of the Queen's Speech debate is absolutely clear: in some areas—combating crime in particular—the Government's policy has been a ghastly failure. In others—broadcasting, community relations and the reform of the judicial system—it has been grotesquely wrong. Even when they have accepted the right principles, such as the extension of non-custodial sentences, they have acted—and are acting—with pathetic timidity. The next Labour Government will right all those wrongs.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that, between now and 8 pm, speeches should not exceed 10 minutes.
    6.8 pm
    Mr. Tony Durant: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for inviting me to speak.
    It is after a seven-year silence that I rise to address the House. I feel rather like a Trappist monk a phrase that has now been given currency by the Leader of the Opposition; I sometimes wish that he would enact it himself. I am not making a personal statement—I left of my own free will

    369
    —so there will be no statement about why I left. The longest speech that I made in the seven years was to report on the Committee stage of a Bill that was taken on the Floor of the House. Perhaps the most popular speech that I used to make was "I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn." That is not to say that I am moving that motion now; let us be clear about that!
    I have listened to a great many speeches in that period—good bad and indifferent. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has left the Chamber. When I had to do the march up with replies from Her Majesty, with what he called my billiard cue, I stood at the end of the Chamber, marched up and read out the message from Her Majesty. The first time I did it, he came up to me and put his Polo mint over the top of the "billiard cue". I said to the hon. Member for Bolsover, "Dennis, you have obviously done this before." He said, "Ah, but we have now got television."
    Obviously he thought that it was worth doing again. The most frightening part of that job is not the coming up, but the going back. I must warn anyone who takes it on about that. That is when the rude remarks begin—"He needs a haircut," "His shoes are no good," and so on. However, I was given great confidence on my first occasion because a revered Conservative colleague, a squire of the realm, said, "Better than the last one." I was comforted by that remark.
    The speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was long on analysis of crime but short on remedies. It was usual Labour party policy—more money, more intervention.
    No separate debate has been provided to discuss the important subject of the environment. From what the Labour party has said time and again, I understood that the environment was a key subject. However, it has not chosen it for debate, so many of us are here today to make a speech on the environment in a debate that provides a rather loose framework.
    The Gracious Speech contains some good proposals, and I am especially keen on the emphasis on parental responsibility. For many years, I have stated my belief that parents, together with their teenage children, should accept responsibility, for the crimes of their children. They should be jointly summonsed in court. If that were the case, the practice of Dad throwing the children out of the house because he wanted to watch television would die. He would not want again to suffer the agony of a court summons. Instead, he would say, "Where are you off to at this time of night?" It is a simple doctrine, but it would work.
    The importance of the family is vastly underrated by both sides of the House, especially its importance for children aged one to five. That time span is a crucial part of their development. All parties are encouraging women to go out to work far too soon. We must consider fiscal measures that would encourage women to stay at home. Some of my hon. Friends would raise the issue of child benefit, which I accept is important, but the important new legislation for separate taxation of women provides new initiatives. We must deal with the problem, because we are creating a society of delinquents. There is no longer the necessary close contact between the mother and the child in the formative years——
    Mr. Robin Corbett: What about the Dad?
    Mr. Durant: Dad comes in later, but the mother is the most important figure during those years.
    I am keen that the Government should consider family policy with that very much in mind. If they do not, there will be long-term problems.
    I wish now to touch on the environment, even though this is not strictly an environment debate. In particular, I wish to deal with the construction industry, which in my part of the world has been hit very hard by the downturn in the economy. I declare an interest as a political adviser to a demolition contractor. The main problem is that there is a surplus of buildings and of completed new houses. It will be a long time before the industry can pick up the backlog and move forward. I ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor seriously to consider another 1 per cent. reduction in the interest rate before Christmas. That would make a considerable difference. He should also remember that many young couples have mortgages based on an annual rate, which are due to be revised on 1 January. Many people will be badly affected.
    Although the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" makes no mention of a Bill, I hope that one will be introduced. I welcome the fact that it deals with the maintenance of cathedrals, something for which I pressed many times when I was on the Back Benches. The Church has lacked a certain responsibility for such buildings, and if it is not prepared to do anything, the state should have the opportunity to intervene. Some of the buildings are in a bad state and need immediate help.
    I very much welcome the establishment of the National Rivers Authority, and I am delighted that it is prosecuting every water authority in the country. The chairman is a former Secretary of State for Wales, with whom I worked, and he is a robust man. He is doing an excellent job in making the water authorities more conscious of water quality. Indeed, the Thames is improving rapidly.
    The White Paper also refers to leaded petrol. I aid the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) waged a campaign on that issue many years ago, when no one was interested. A professor in my constituency has been banging on about lead in petrol for many years. The hon. Member for Perry Barr and I had many Adjournment debates in the middle of the night on that issue. We must press harder to ensure that people use unleaded petrol.
    I want to say a word about Europe. I know that this is not a Europe debate, but I feel that it is an appropriate subject. Britain is part of Europe, and it always has been. It is not a new phenomenon. We have not suddenly discovered Europe, not having known that it existed and therefore never having been there. Indeed, we have always quarrelled with Europe. Disraeli, when he was Lord Beaconsfield, attended the congress in Berlin in 1878 and had a major row with Bismarck. Disraeli threw down the gauntlet and said, "I want the matter settled." In a loud voice, he said to his personal assistant, "Go down to the station and get the train engine warmed up, because I am going home."
    Arguments between Britain and Europe are not new; they have been going on for generations. The public are not that convinced about complete integration with Europe. They want independence, and they want to retain the British dimension. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister takes the right attitude.

    371
    There is a good programme for this Session. I hope that we are not diverted by leadership issues whipped up by the media. No one telephoned me over the weekend.. I sat there, thinking that the media might think that I was a stalking horse, or that it might want to know whom I would support, but not a dicky bird. Of course, someone might have telephoned this morning, but no one telephoned on Saturday or Sunday.
    I support the Bills proposed for this Session. There is not too heavy a load. It is a positive, radical approach and I am sure that, on that basis, the Conservative party will win the next election.
    6.16 pm
    Mr. James Molyneaux: I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) when he referred to the burdens imposed upon the police. I agree with him in certain respects, but I wish to add to his list. I recently had a conversation with an officer of the Metropolitan police, who said that job satisfaction had been so badly damaged by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that many of his colleagues were tempted to look the other way when a crime was being committed because, more often than not, the policeman and not the offender attracted the complaints and the hassle. That must be rectified.
    At yesterday's remembrance services, most of us thought of our late colleague Ian Gow. His memory is especially vivid in Ulster—a part of the kingdom that lay close to his heart, and for which he sacrified a promising ministerial career and, only a few months ago, his life. Five years ago, another supporter of another Government resigned over the same issue—Senator Mary Robinson. She and Ian Gow felt that they could not continue to support their respective Governments, who had reached an agreement that they knew, as we knew, would end in failure. Other Members of this House shared their view.
    Many such hon. Members expressed their misgivings as they emerged from the Aye Lobby. They patted me on the arm and said, "James, you understand that we had to obey the Whips—but don't feel too depressed, because such a crazy agreement has no hope of success." Thankfully, Ian Gow lived long enough to know that his action had been vindicated when, on 5 July, the Government were prevented by Irish republicanism from revealing to the House the terms of the policy document to which general assent previously had been given.
    Mrs. Mary Robinson, too, has been vindicated and rewarded by her own people—the majority of people in southern Ireland, who only last week elected her as their first woman president. She was quoted as saying in her acceptance speech on Friday that she intends to establish contact with individuals rather than with political parties. As a party leader, I do not resent that suggestion. I know that a head of state cannot consort with political parties, particularly those in another nation, but the new Irish president has it right because too much was asked, and has been asked, of political leaders in Northern Ireland.
    The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) was also realistic when he told the House last Wednesday that it is foolish and unfair to advise Northern Ireland parties to "get together" to find a solution to all our problems. He used another phrase:
    "We get together every day of the week." [Official Report, 7 November 1990; Vol. 180, c. 77.]
    372
    I pay tribute to his party for its willingness to co-operate in essential matters such as agriculture, education, social security and economic issues. We should be enabled and encouraged to continue our joint endeavours in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. An extension of that desirable co-operation was in the mind of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh when he contributed to the debate last Wednesday.
    When the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland launched his present initiative last January, I felt that I owed it to him to accept his invitation. No one who has worked with him over the past 10 months could doubt his fairness and sincerity. That initiative might have been successful had we been permitted to content ourselves with modest objectives. Unfortunately, it was hyped to a quite unrealistic proportion, and against all my instincts we were forced on to the high-wire circus act, with all the inevitable speculation that has wrecked previous initiatives in the past 20 years. Unfortunately, the consequent disillusionment, which is keenly felt by all of us, has further destabilised the situation in Northern Ireland, and the price is being paid in the increasing loss of life, particularly in recent weeks.
    Clearly, we cannot drift on as we have been since the collapse of the initiative on 5 July. We cannot expect the community to continue paying the price of escalating violence and murder. We all have a duty to restore stability by means of a modest, unspectacular progression on the road to involving elected representatives in the House and on local councils in the governance of Northern Ireland. That is provided for in the Northern Ireland section of the Queen's Speech.
    Those pledges go hand in hand with the subjects of today's debate—rights, freedoms and responsibilities—because Government, Parliament and people must accept their responsibility to guarantee rights and freedoms. The Government have made a start with the presentation of two key Bills—the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill.
    When the House addresses itself to the succeeding stages of those Bills, I ask right hon. and hon. Members to bear in mind the scale of lawlessness in many parts of the United Kingdom. I ask them to bear constantly in mind our fellow citizens who will be murdered before those two measures receive Royal Assent, those who will live out their lives in heartbreak and misery and the far larger category throughout these islands who cower under the shadow of intimidation of one sort or another.
    All those groups are entitled to have their rights and freedoms guaranteed. Whatever reservations some right hon. and hon. Members may have about some aspects of civil liberties—I acknowledge their sincerity—I trust that it will also be recognised that the greatest civil liberty is the right to live and the freedom from fear. Those two Bills can be fashioned into instruments of assistance to the guardians of the law. The hope must be that the pendulum which in recent years has been pushed too far against the keepers of the law will be at least restored to centre point.
    6.25 pm
    Mr. Timothy Raison: The right hon. Members for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) is entirely right to remind us of the suffering that so many people

    373
    have endured in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Although I do not propose to follow him in his speech, I very much endorse his concluding words.
    It was a pleasure to listen to my former area Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant). All those years of silence were not entirely silent; he used to telephone me occasionally, as I gather people no longer telephone him. The House appreciated what he had to say and is delighted that he has joined the ranks of the civilised once more.
    As I listened to the Queen's Speech the other day, it struck me that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs bears the lion's share of the legislative programme for this year. I did not know then that among the other measures that will be laid before us there was a further Home Office contingent. It is clear that he and his team have an enormous amount to do. I do not agree with him about everything, or with his views on capital punishment, but I have confidence in his ability to handle these matters in the way that they will have to be handled because they are so important.
    I do not agree with my right hon. and learned Friend about the War Crimes Bill. I devoutly hope that the Government will not feel that they have to press this measure at all costs. We all know that dreadful crimes—probably the worst recorded in history—were committed under Nazi rule, but there are powerful arguments against this legislation which were set out with particular force in the other place. Among those who set them out were at least two distinguished Jewish noble Lords, and I believe that they struck a chord with many people in this country who thought about the matter.
    We do not like the Bill's quasi-retrospective nature nor the arbitrariness of confining it to one group of war criminals. We feel that it is rather unlikely that anybody will ever be sentenced and punished and, although perhaps this is not so important in principle, we have grave doubts about whether it is right to assign police resources to this task. I do not believe that the Bill will reach the statute book, but even if it does I do not believe that it will be effectively implemented.
    We all recognise that the Home Office is faced with quite peculiar difficulties in dealing with crime. The rest of the world can happily align itself to one of two camps—the reformers and the punishers. They can each pursue their paths with vehemence and vigour, but the Home Office is the point where the two arguments come together and my right hon. and learned Friend must try to reconcile those different strands in current thinking. In particular, he must face the dire question of how on earth we reduce our prison population and at the same time reduce crime. It must be said, rather pessimistically, that there has been a fall in the number of people in prison in the past few years, but at the same time there has been an increase in crime, so we are a long way from solving that problem in theory.
    My right hon. and learned Friend issued a White Paper earlier this year setting out the strategy that lies behind the Criminal Justice Bill. On the whole, it was a good White Paper, but I am bound to say that I have some doubts about an important element in the philosophy which lies behind it and which is repeated in the Bill—the rejection of deterrence as a principle. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was adamant
    374
    in support of the view that deterrence does not count for anything very much. In the White Paper, greater emphasis is placed on retribution, the notion of the "just desert" for the offender. Incidentally, "desert" is mispelt as "dessert", although that does not necessarily undermine the force of the argument.
    It is an error to play down the rationality of much crime, and the White Paper makes that mistake. If one plays down the rationality of crime, inevitably one plays down the value of deterrence. There is a kind of wishful thinking about this. Many well-meaning people wish that deterrence could be proved not to work, but the evidence does not support that idea, although it is commonly said that it does.
    Nigel Walker, the doyen of English criminologists, acknowledges that deterrence is less effective on the basis of the evidence than some people who made strong claims for it said a generation or two ago. On the one hand, he says, research has not justified the statement of some critics that "deterrents never work". He says that this belief is
    "prompted by dislike of deterrents rather than hard evidence."
    A more detailed study by Donald Lewis in The British Journal of Criminology in January 1986 looked at 15 studies of the general deterrent effect of long sentences: 12 apparently provided substantial support for what he called the deterrent hypothesis, two provided mixed results and only one was
    "inconsistent with the deterrent hypothesis."
    Other studies have shown that, as punishment for juveniles decreases, so offences rise. There is a well-known example in the book by Charles Murray, "Losing Ground", in which he describes what happened to juvenile crime in Cook county, which includes Chicago. In 1966, about 1,200 juveniles were committed to the state system of training schools. Ten years later, fewer than 400 were committed, but arrests were soaring. The number of arrests before a youth was committed to a reform school for the first time was 13·6. The risk of significant punishment for first arrests fell close to zero. As Murray
    "a youngster who found criminal acts fun or rewarding and had been arrested only once or twice could have chosen to continue committing crimes through the simplest of logics: there was no reason not to."
    Criminal records were increasingly being expunged. Mr. Murray used words which we cannot ignore—they are, in a sense, profoundly gloomy—but there is plenty of other evidence to show that we must face the facts that he describes.
    What does that mean when it comes to the practical policy of running the penal system which is the task of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary? Does it mean that we should lock up more and more offenders? I do not think that that necessarily follows, although we must be careful about casting away the penal sanction, but it means that we must be sure that those who are sentenced, whether to a custodial sentence or a non-custodial sentence, receive sentences which bite hard.
    To be frank, one of our problems has been the way that many young people have been sentenced to non-custodial sentences. They have laughed at what they have received. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend, of all people, will clearly understand that we cannot rely on an increasingly non-custodial policy unless we, and the general public as a whole, are convinced that these sentences are having the results that they should have.

    375
    Like everybody else, we would like to believe that the operation of the penal system is about not only deterrence but seeking reform. We know that reform has proved elusive in the penal system and that the high hopes in the heyday of the borstal system, for example, have been very much dashed over the years. But we should not give up.
    If we accept, as I do, that there are many cases where custody is necessary, we should accept that it is vital that it includes not only the deterrent effect of being locked up but a real attempt to provide adequate work and an adequate education in prison. We know that often those facilities are not provided. The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts is one body that has looked at prison education more than once over the past year or two. It has come up with strong and critical recommendations about what needs to be done about education in prisons. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us some encouragement.
    We have a time limit. There are other points that I would have wished to make, but I shall end on a different matter, to do with refugees. I have seen references in the press recently to a feeling that we should tighten up our control over people who come to this country seeking asylum. I understand the problem of economic refugees—I have seen them in Vietnam and elsewhere. I understand the intense difficulties and frustration that can be caused to the Home Office by these matters and know that the public can be alarmed about them.
    I hope that we never forget in any changes that we make the fundamental principles embodied in our commitment to the convention on refugees. I hope that there will continue to be some kind of second chance for those who are trying to find asylum if they are turned down by immigration officers and that there will be some way of having their cases looked at. We have at the moment——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sorry, but I must stop the right hon. Gentleman.
    6.35 pm
    Mr. John Evans: I agreed with a great deal of what the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said in his thoughtful speech. Indeed, I agreed with much more of what he said than with what the Home Secretary said in his much longer speech.
    Today's debate is entitled "Rights, Freedoms and Responsibilities". I should have liked to talk about the rights, freedoms and responsibilities of the metropolitan borough of St. Helens, especially in relation to the iniquitous poll tax and its effect on the citizens of my constituency. I should have liked to draw attention to the iniquitous situation whereby, if St. Helens were receiving the financial support that the London boroughs of Westminster and Wandsworth receive, its finance officer would be able to send every poll tax payer in the borough a large cheque and not ask for any money. I should have liked to draw attention to the fact that unemployment, which features so largely in St. Helens and has always been a major factor in rate support grant in the past, does not figure at all in the standard spending assessments of local authorities. But the time factor prevents me from doing that.
    As Home Office Ministers are present, I want to concentrate on the punishment and treatment of 'young offenders. The figures are frightening. In 1988, the last year
    376
    for which figures are available the breathtaking fact was that almost 300 14-year-olds ended up in penal institutions. It is a sad commentary on our society that practices that Charles Dickens opposed continue today.
    There is growing concern at the number of young suicides in our prisons. The brutal end of this system leaps at us through the suicide statistics. This year, 36 young people have killed themselves and a further 116 have tried but failed. In the last incident just a few days ago, a 15-year-old on theft charges was put in prison because no special accommodation was available. In his fragile state, that young boy hanged himself in Swansea gaol.
    That shocking death is not isolated. The vulnerability of the young mind has been recognised in legislation ever since the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 stated that the type of incarceration for young people with a criminal record must be left to the discretion of the Home Secretary. It is a terrible indictment of Government policy that young people still end up in adult prisons, but we should not spend time arguing over the past. There is a desperate need now to identify the type of institution required to deal with young offenders from now on.
    The situation is bad enough when young people are thrown into prison because not enough secure accommodation is available. It is even worse when there is the threat of the closure of any secure centre that has been doing valuable work in this respect; yet such an institution, one of the nation's best, could soon close if the Government do not take action now.
    Red Bank school at Newton-le-Willows in my constituency is threatened because Lancashire county council, which has financed it since the local government reorganisation in 1974, is to remove itself from the school's management following a review of its child care provision. The council announced its decision in letters to the Secretary of State for Health and to the Red Bank trustees dated 26 September 1990.
    The school is designated as a controlled community home with education—a CHE. Red Bank caters for youngsters who are in care for a wide variety of reasons. At present the CHE has a complement of just over 50 young people, although it could accommodate many more than that.
    No criticism can be levelled at Lancashire for its review or its decision. It is the council's duty to make such decisions and, undoubtedly, the decision was forced on it by the pressures of the poll tax. The problem is, however, that within the wider provisions of Red Bank is a Home Office secure unit that caters for 26 young males who have committed serious crimes. Such has been the unit's success in dealing with those disturbed people that 23 of them now have open access rights. Their crimes range from murder and manslaughter to arson to rape to drug trafficking. The young people are detained under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
    The special unit is not a harsh place, but it has rules that must be adhered to. The young people learn self-control and discipline in an affectionate environment that is sensitive to their special needs. Anyone who reads their letters cannot fail to be moved by their gratitude for what Red Bank has offered them.
    The regime and philosophy of Red Bank are based upon security and care, with specialised individual programmes to meet each young person's requirements. Such provision can be offered only in such a unit. If any of the children end up in the prison system, it will be a

    377
    national disgrace. Red Bank, has achieved remarkable results with some of the most difficult and traumatised young men in Britain.
    The young men come not just from the north-west but from other parts of England. The secure unit is financed entirely by the Home Office but, if the rest of Red Bank closes as a result of Lancashire's decision, the secure unit will simply cease to be viable. For example, although the unit has its own gymnasium—essential to get the aggression out of many young men—it depends on the CHE's first-class facilities, such as its sports hall, sports field and swimming pool.
    The north-west probation service is horrified at the prospect of closure. I have seen letters to the headmaster at the centre from the probation services of Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside, all of which have expressed serious concern at the prospect of Red Bank having to close.
    Action on Red Bank is needed now. It cannot be allowed to close, and nor can matters be allowed to drift. Lancashire county council has given the statutory two years' notice of withdrawal from Red Bank, but the vital questions of staff morale and the future of jobs remain to be answered. All the expert staff at Red Bank are now looking for alternative employment with long-term guarantees and, given that they have families to support, who can blame them? They are entitled to reassurance about their prospects.
    Young people must be kept out of prison. The country is horrified at the suicide rate in our prison system. We must provide more places like the Red Bank secure unit, not fewer.
    I conclude by inviting the Home Secretary, who represents a constituency in the north-west, to come with me to Red Bank and see the facilities for himself. Once he has witnessed the work that is being done at the centre, I am sure that he will wish to ensure that it can continue its excellent and valuable work in future.
    6.43 pm
    Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I welcome the reference in the Gracious Speech to the affairs of Northern Ireland. The commitments to the defeat of terrorism, political and economic progress, the promotion of mutual respect and trust throughout the community and positive relations with the Republic of Ireland represent a Conservative policy for Northern Ireland which, for the first time in five years, I can support—if, that is, the words in the Gracious Speech comprehend the whole of future Government policy. But perhaps I am being over-optimistic, because there is an omission from the Gracious Speech: it contains no reference to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I hope that that is deliberate.
    Recent policy, founded on the agreement, has been a disaster. Any agreement that is conceived and implemented without consultation with the majority of the population to which it refers is bound to fail and, worse still, a device to enable a foreign state to have an automatic right of consultation in the domestic affairs of its neighbour—a neighbour to whose territory it solemnly lays claim in its c onstitution—is a constitutional outrage that cannot possibly endure. I hope that the words in the Gracious Speech mean that the Government are actively
    378
    seeking to remove that obstacle to peace, stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and to replace it with an agreement more appropriate to the honour and integrity of two neighbouring sovereign states.
    I welcome the firm language in the Gracious Speech about the defeat of terrorism. It is much to be preferred to what has become Ministers' ritual utterance after every terrorist outrage—that we shall never surrender to terrorism. We all know that the Government will never surrender to terrorism. What we want to hear from them more often is that we shall defeat terrorism. We want to see the Government taking the offensive against the IRA. It is reasonable to expect and to say that the IRA will not be defeated by military means alone, but there are better political ways of defeating it than appeasement of the Irish Republic and its "constitutional imperative" to take over Northern Ireland.
    I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland recently saw fit to say that, if only the IRA laid down its arms, a united Ireland would be possible. That is yet another illustration of the way in which the Government seem always to be appealing to the Republican minority in Northern Ireland rather than to the Unionist majority, whose views are constantly undervalued or ignored.
    We have already heard several references in the debate to Ian Gow, murdered by the IRA, who sacrificed his career, and then his life, for the Unionist cause. He was my dear friend. He was a strong opponent of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. He was generally recognised as one of the best parliamentarians of his generation, displaying not only courage but great political skill and judgment in the causes that he served in the House.
    Is it enough for us to lament Ian's passing, pay tribute to his qualities and then pass on to other things as we do for colleagues who die from natural causes? He was struck down by vile assassins. In doing what it did, the IRA was striking not only at him but at every Member of the House and at parliamentary democracy. Is it sufficient merely to bemoan our loss? Should we not marvel at the excellence of the cause that inspired such a man to lay down his career, and ultimately his life? Should we not seek to carry on his good work in this matter? Should we not strike back at the evil thing that deliberately destroyed such a life? Ian founded the Friends of Ulster, a trust established to remind the British people of the value of the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Such a cause is of even greater value in honouring his memory than a charitable trust.
    I hope in due course to hear from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the Government will at last give up their insane attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable but will, in future, adopt a policy of integration of the Province with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a policy of which Ian Gow would certainly have approved.
    6.49 pm
    Mrs. Audrey Wise: Two years ago, my speech in this debate took the form of an alternative Queen's Speech for women. I want to consider what has happened since then, after two more years of this Government who are so neglectful of women's interests.
    The biggest thing that has happened is the poll tax, the most amazing feature of which is that it is levied on millions of women who have no income. Only this

    379
    Government could think of such a breathtaking idea. The Government have been boasting about independent taxation, but they have tied women who have no income completely to their husbands, causing them to be treated like appendages and burdens. The Government have penalised one-income families, most of whom have young children.
    They have refused even to give women access to rebates in their own right, and they have forced an unprecedented number of people into debt and into the courts.
    While all that has been happening, the Government have kept their eyes firmly closed to the misery that they have created. There is no mention in the Queen's Speech of that problem, and the Government have no intention of doing anything to relieve it.
    In order to disguise their lack of commitment to women's issues, there has been some fanfare abut the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), who is trumpeted as the Minister for women. Her actual responsibilities include animal welfare, Sunday trading, British summer time, inner cities and women's issues. The latter takes the form of chairing a ministerial group which has existed for some time, which was previously chaired by a man and which meets three or four times a year. That just about describes the sense of urgency that the Government feel about the issue. In contrast, the Labour party is committed to a proper and powerful Ministry for Women, headed by a Cabinet Minister. As well as introducing legislation, it will examine all Government policies and actions for their impact on women, and ensure alteration when necessary.
    Another press fanfare greeted the Government's latest new earnings survey. We were told that women were closing the gap between their wages and men's. Closer examination reveals no cause for headlines. It is true that women's earnings grew very slightly more than men's between April 1988 and April 1990. However, average male earnings are £94·01 more than average female earnings. Women's earnings remain very much lower even when reckoned on an hourly basis, thus disregarding longer hours and overtime premiums. My calculations show that, on the most optimistic way of looking at the figures, the gap would not be closed for full-time workers for at least 22 years. I just hope that women will not be so patient.
    My calculations take account only of full-timers, disregarding the basic flaw in the statistics which exclude many part-time employees precisely because they are low-paid. The lowest paid are simply not counted by the Government in the new earnings survey.
    In case anyone thinks that large numbers of women work part-time because they do not need the money, I can state that it is precisely because women have responsibilities for children and other dependants that they seek part-time work. That same factor means that they need their wages—and better wages—very much indeed.
    Part-time workers, temporary workers and home workers are being subjected to ever-worsening conditions as well as to low pay. The EC wants to improve the position of women workers, but this Government have set their face against all the EC initiatives. In particular, they opposed a draft directive on part-time work.
    My union, USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—organises many part-timers. We have a slogan:
    "Full-time rights for part-time workers."
    380
    We know a lot about it and we are furious that the Government should have stated in evidence to a House of Lords Select Committee:
    "While there are clearly advantages which some part-time workers suffer in relation to full-timers, it is possible to see this as a price which part-timers, in particular women, are prepared to pay for the opportunity to fit work into other commitments."
    Women do not voluntarily decide that they are willing to pay the price of poverty pay and insecurity. They do it because they have no alternative. Employers know that, and they take advantage of it.
    The Government have also said that they prefer to leave such matters
    "for voluntary agreement between employer and employee, either individually or through collective bargaining."
    Collective bargaining needs trade unions strong enough to face employers on equal terms. This Government have place every possible difficulty in the path of the unions, and they then have the nerve to call them in aid when opposing measures such as the EC draft directive.
    The Government demand that employees show a reasonable level of commitment to an employer before acquiring rights against that employer. Those working eight hours but less than 16 hours a week must work continuously for the same employer for at least five years to qualify even for basic employment rights. The Government call for commitment by workers to employers. We ask: where is the commitment by employers to their workers?
    Exactly the same story can be told about the draft directive on temporary workers. The Government have stated:
    "Temporary workers do not necessary want the same conditions as permanent workers. They may prefer other advantages to those of security, such as flexibility to work when and how they wish."
    Temporary work with no contract is on the increase, and the main characteristic of the new temporary work is not flexibility, but simply the likelihood of being pushed around and then pushed out when that suits the employer.
    In the past two years, no progress has been made on rights for part-timers, temporary workers and home workers. Over the past decade, their position has become worse, especially for those who have not yet joined a trade union.
    Only this Government in the EC oppose a draft directive giving rights to parental leave. In March this year, on behalf of the House, I went to an EC women's conference in Brussels. The women from the other 11 member states felt tremendous anger against the British Government for depriving them of that improvement. That has done the reputation of this country no good at all in the eyes of the women of Europe.
    The Tories parade themselves as the party of the family. However, when people throughout Europe, including Britain, were asked to choose the priorities for family policy, housing was top of the list. This Government preside over ever-increasing homelessness. When I spoke in the debate on the Loyal Address two years ago, homelessness was overwhelmingly a London problem. It is now nationwide. We have a housing crisis in Preston as a result of homelessness and Government attacks on council housing. Women are suffering agonies because they have no home for their children. Anyone really concerned about families would ensure that they had decent homes.
    The availability of child care was second in the list of people's priorities for family policy. Again, Britain's

    381
    record under this Tory Government is deplorable in that regard. There has been one small improvement, with the abolition of the tax on workplace nurseries. That was important more for its principle and potential than for any mass effect, because very few workplace nurseries exist.
    The Opposition welcome any good quality nursery provision. However, most of us would prefer to see local council provision so that changing a job does not mean having to change a child's nursery. What is happening now? The Prime Minister's favourite council, Wandsworth, is planning to close all its day nurseries. A mother might have to pay as much as £100 a week for a private nursery in Wandsworth. Even in Preston, the going rate is around £50 a week.
    Training is another imperative if women are to have real equal opportunities. There is no national strategy for training of women. Indeed, the newest training scheme caused the chief executive of the Equal Opportunities Commission to express great concern at the discriminatory effects of the new arrangements.
    Women going out to work can mean women improving their standard of living, getting job satisfaction and laying the groundwork for satisfactory long-term employment. However, too often it does not mean that. Too often, women are driven out to work by mortgages, rents and poll tax. They are struggling to maintain—not improve—their standard of living, often doing jobs that are damaging to health, working when they are over-stressed and worried about their children.
    Health and safety at work is still too much seen in terms of accidents and not enough in terms of functional health. However, jobs such as supermarket checkout operator involve twisting, lifting one-handedly and repetitive movements which cause great strain to the back, arms and neck. But what can the Health and Safety Executive do with a total budget of £120 million and an inspectorate of 200 fewer than it had when the Government came to office?
    A Government who were really concerned about women would make sure that there was good child care, good training, healthier work conditions and better pay for women. They would help unions instead of hindering them.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry but I must stop the hon. Lady. I call Sir Rhodes Boyson.
    6.59 pm
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I welcome the proposed war crimes Bill. It is a matter of principle. Certain events in the Gulf, where war crimes may be happening again, make it even more topical then it was before.
    The rights, freedoms and responsibilities about which I am concerned are those about which my constituents are also concerned. One responsibility is the state of the environment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) mentioned. The Gracious Speech states:
    "My Government will continue to work for the regeneration of our cities."
    We allowed the destruction of the inner city, and that has occurred over 20 years. Unless we are careful, we shall destroy suburbia at the same time by overbuilding,
    382
    destroying sports fields, and back-garden development. In 20 years we will ask, "Why did we not stop it before it got into this state?"
    The Government should take note of three simple issues which I have mentioned before and all of which are supported by hon. Members from my area, irrespective of party affiliation, and by hon. Members from big cities. First, no house should be allowed to be knocked down without planning permission. One can knock a house down now and make it look like a bomb site and then apply to build something. To buy the peace, the application goes through. If we need planning permission before we build, there should be planning permission to knock down.
    Secondly, it is against justice and against the little man and woman who have saved all their lives to own a house, that if a planning application goes through a local council there is no appeal by the little people who live round the area. However, if a planning application is turned down by a council, there is a right of appeal by the developer to the Secretary of State. That is against justice, freedoms and responsibilities.
    Thirdly, no planning application should be allowed until people own the land concerned or until they have a letter saying that they agree to the development. Several years ago, in respect of people living in 700 houses, a planning application went in and the person concerned did not own one centimetre of land. The worry of the old people in that area was such that I had to go from door to door to settle them down before they were almost forced by salesmen at the door to sell at reduced prices.
    In the area that I have the honour to represent, some of the things that housing associations are building are certainly worse than I have seen any councils build, apart from the fashion of the tower block. One evening in my constituency, I visited 150 people who were gathered because of a further development going on behind their homes. They lived in a housing development with hardly any garages or gardens—it was a window box society. They had done their best to make it better. They then found that a sports field behind them was subject to a planning application which would confine them in a concrete jungle and, to mix metaphors—why not, if one is enjoying it?—it was worse than the back-to-back developments of the 19th century.
    There is a right to a decent standard of education. All of us know that there is a problem with education standards at present. If hon. Members do not know that, they must have been having no surgeries and not opening their letters. The Government have five things to do. The Gracious Speech states:
    "My Government will continue to take action to improve quality in education."
    I thought that I should state where the Government should take action to help them along their way.
    First, the seven-plus tests are good, but they should be made and conducted by teachers, not by an educational establishment which has hardly seen children for the past 20 years. Tests that take one and a half weeks, when the sadly demoted 11-plus test took two hours, and that come from outside are totally wrong. If we put six infant teachers in a room with six heads of infant schools. they could make the tests in an hour. They do not need £6 million and all the committees and bureaucracy that are attached to it.

    383
    Secondly, we need specialist schools for children aged 14 and upwards. All our competitors have such schools—Russia, Japan, Germany and Sweden, irrespective of their economic system. Such schools must be brought in. The Labour party destroyed the grammar schools which 75 per cent. of the population want back. They will not come back, but specialist schools should. Any party that takes up that suggestion, brings in specialist schools for pupils aged 14 to 18 and trains them for proper apprenticeships will have the support of masses of people in this country. Thirdly, I believe in grant-maintained schools, but every school in the country should have to vote on whether to become grant-maintained.
    Fourthly, if we are to have three-year degree courses, we must maintain A-level standards. Fifthly, there must be an improvement in teachers' salaries. That matters more than buildings or anything else. We must have good teachers more than lower pupil-teacher ratios. Good teachers are more important than a reduction in the size of classes. Any teacher who can control 20 children can control 30 children. Those who cannot control 20 children would have a riot with a dead rabbit, and there is nothing we can do about that. One fears for the teachers who cannot cope inside the classroom.
    In a debate on education in July, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) referred to my views on the assisted places scheme as given in a review that I did for The Times higher education supplement. I explained that in at least one case the results were very different from what was intended. The hon. Lady kindly sent me a note that she was to speak, but, unfortunately, I had already left for a radio broadcast so I was not here to comment.
    I fully support the assisted places scheme. Anything that one starts finishes rather differently from what one started. In that review I indicated how the differences work. I still strongly deplore the Labour party's stated policy to end the assisted places scheme, the remaining grammar schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges, all in pursuit of an egalitarian, socialist education policy that was long ago long left behind by the rest of the world.
    Another right is the right to movement. Twenty thousand people in my constituency travel by tube to London every day. The third biggest debate in my constituuency—I will tell nobody tonight what the biggest debate is; it has nothing to do with their Member of Parliament, incidentially—is about getting to work on time without having to set off early and getting back in time before the evening meal. We are creating a sandwich society. There are sandwich bars everywhere. Passengers never know when they will get into London, and they never know when they will get out.
    I welcome the fact that transport investment has gone up to £16 billion over three years, which is £4 billion more than the previous three years and £2 billion more than we thought it would be last week. We need many more tube lines in London. It is not good enough playing around extending bits and pieces. If we are to get London right, four or five new tube lines must be built in the 1990s.
    We should privatise British Rail, which is what I would prefer to do, or invest in it. We cannot leave it as a running sore for which the Government take responsibility. Yesterday, I was trying to get from Manchester to London so that I could be here today, but there was a guards' strike. The first train from Manchester to London was at
    384
    5.30. I could have walked to London in that time—I do not mind getting up at 6 o'clock in the morning. Fortunately, we have privatised British Airways, and there was no strike. In the case of British Rail, the customer does not matter, because the railways are still a nationalised industry.
    I have two more minutes, I believe. On Europe——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: One minute.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: Just over one minute. I am obeying the Chair. I shall miss out something. Hon. Members will never know what I was going to say about Europe. They will have to wait for another speech.
    In Brent, the money from the standard spending assessment has gone up this year from £190 million to £216 million, which is a 13·5 per cent. increase. Provided that the Labour party and the Liberal party in Brent behave properly, which would be a new experience, but there is still time for it to happen, because I have always believed in the forgiveness of sums—[Interruption.]—and the forgiveness of sins, and the salvation of men—and provided that those parties co-operate with the biggest party in Brent, which is the Conservative party, I believe that we can bring the community charge there down to below £400. If we can do that, people will be able to afford more sandwiches and to move their children to the grant-maintained schools more than they can at present, and then they will come and see me in the constituency to ask me my views on Europe.
    7.9 pm
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: As the hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) said, we may be living in a "sandwich society" in which one never knows when one is coming in or getting out, but no one could describe this as a "sandwich debate" because, as the hon. Gentleman found, hon. Members know when they are going to be cut off in midstream.
    The debate is about rights and responsibilities. One right which is not protected in this House is the right of minority parties to be heard. We heard an interesting speech, lasting 50 minutes from the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, with a good deal of which I agree. Although an effective speech may be made in 10 minutes—the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) made such a speech—it is not possible to do justice in that time to the political philosophy of the Liberal Democrats in the matters facing the country. Therefore, I shall not attempt to deal with or even to refer to all the matters that concern us deeply. It is right to note that the public will be mystified when reading the report of the debate because there will be so little in it about the views of the Liberal Democrats, and they will comment on the fact that it is not possible to develop those matters.
    I begin by referring to the speech within a speech by the Home Secretary on the merger between BSB and Sky. His scant regard for the illegalities struck a jarring note at the beginning of a speech in which he thought fit to take the official Opposition to task for their attitude to the poll tax. The fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not think it odd that the Prime Minister had not notified him about the impending illegality was, frankly, bizarre. The Home Secretary shows himself more sensitive to certain breaches of the law than to others especially, it appears, when his friends are involved.

    385
    I submit that it is not in the viewers' interests for satellite television to be further disrupted now; nor it is is it in their interests to allow such ownership concentration in the long run as now appears likely. When a non-domestic satellite service can reach 15 to 20 per cent. of the total television audience, it should then be subject to the same ownership rules as other television services. Then, a level playing field will be achieved, the public will be protected from ownership abuse and those who have invested in the new services will be enabled to make a fair return. Unless the Government act, the merger threatens to undermine the Independent Television Commission before it has come into operation, and will mean that the Broadcasting Act 1990, which we spent so long labouring to put on the statute book last Session, will not be worth the paper on which it is written.
    The Home Secretary did not touch on a further point arising from the merger—the threat to the D-Mac technology that is used by BSB. The technology has been developed in Britain. It has been supported by the European Broadcasting Union and has the potential to become the world leader for the new high-quality televisions of the future. The Government should underwrite the ownership of the satellites and the uplinking station, and reallocate the BSB frequencies. The terrestrial channels could be duplicated on those frequencies, using D-Mac. Thus, if they chose, people could receive the main services with far higher quality than now, and those with poor or non-existent reception would have the opportunity to improve their service. Alternatively, the frequencies could be handed to the BBC or jointly to the BBC and the IBA, which could run them on a public service basis. Channels could be designated for news, public information, sports, arts or education. It would be a tragedy for the future of British engineering and electronics if D-Mac technology were allowed to wither. Ministers must not allow their enthusiasm to promote News International's operations to damage Britain's and Europe's long-term industrial and broadcasting interests.
    Most of this debate has naturally focused on the Government's proposals for the reform of the criminal law. That is scarcely surprising because we meet against an extremely sombre background of lawlessness and criminal outrage which is probably unparalleled in western Europe. I beg the Home Secretary not to underplay this by making trivial partisan points across the Floor of the House in our major debate of the year on this matter.
    We have witnessed serious rioting in Trafalgar square, involving the wounding of many people—innocent passers-by and policemen alike. We have witnessed the devastation of Strangeways prison in Manchester. We have been shocked by the repeated suicides of young unconvicted people in our prisons, most notably at Armley in Leeds. Terrorists have struck down our citizens, and not only in the Province of Northern Ireland. In this country they struck down our colleague, Ian Gow, who was a valued Member of the House.
    In the past year, the gravest miscarriages of justice have been revealed, with the wrongful imprisonment of our citizens coming to light after years and years of protest and investigation. We have had the highest recorded crime
    386
    rates in our history. We know that the public are showing a growing loss of confidence in the probity and effectiveness of some of our police forces.
    It is against that appalling background that the Home Secretary's programme for the year must be judged. The Criminal Justice Bill is a major measure of reform. Much of it is to be welcomed. Because I am confined in the debate to 10 minutes, I do not propose to dwell on that Bill, except to make one adverse point. I regret that so much weight rests on the proposal to interfere with the income support arrangements in substitution for fines. That will place the burden of the penalty on innocent families, not on the criminal.
    Against the background to which I have alluded, it is a sad comment on the Government's priorities that the Home Secretary himself gave so much attention to the War Crimes Bill. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury made the case against that Bill and I do not propose to repeat his arguments. Indeed, the case for such a Bill was comprehensively demolished in another place. The fact that it should now take up valuable legislative time seems a gross diversion of parliamentary effort.
    In the two minutes left to me, I conclude by making an appeal to the Home Secretary—that when he approaches the matter of criminal law reform, he will recognise the structural defects of his own office and the fact that, by dividing the responsibility for law reform between the Lord Chancellor and nimself, and through his own Department's involvement not only in matters of law reform, but in the necessary maintenance of internal security, he must too often face a conflict of interest between the protection of human rights and of citizen's rights, and the maintenance of law and order.
    I do not think that that is an appropriate structure of government. That is why I advocate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously considers the possibility of establishing a Ministry of Justice, with full responsibility for law reform and the administration of justice. It is perhaps because we do not have such a Ministry that the Government have not introduced a proposal to enact the findings of the Law Commission and encode the entire criminal law in an Act of 210 sections. That would have made for accessibility, comprehensibility, consistency and certainty. In the words of the Lord Chancellor himself:
    "It would have saved money and time at all levels."
    That would be a major contribution to the changes that we need if our criminal justice system is to be restored to effectiveness.
    7.19 pm
    Mr. Robert Boscawen: This year, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have some of the most important and major parts of the Government's programme to handle—in particular, the Criminal Justice Bill, to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) just referred. In particular, my right hon. and learned Friend intends to introduce measures to increase parental responsibility. I do not wish to dwell on that side, but I hope that he will also consider counselling of hard-pressed families, particularly families in which the marriage is in difficulties. When a couple splits up, it causes a great deal of pressure on the single mother and, in consequence, on the children. In many ways, that can affect the crime figures. So often, it is children from families under such pressure in the home who go wrong. My right hon. and

    387
    learned Friend knows as well as I and all other hon. Members know that rising crime among young persons is one of the saddest features of today's society.
    Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that his colleagues whose duty it is to assist the creation of family centres do so? Family centres are a good idea, because they bring in the voluntary element as well as the National Health Service and local authority social services to counsel families who are in danger, before the trouble starts.
    Several of my hon. Friends have mentioned what is perhaps not the most important but is nevertheless a worrying proposal in the Queen's Speech—that to reactivate the Bill on war crimes. My right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues know that I do not like the proposal. I suppose that I am one of the few hon. Members in a position to represent the thousands of people in my generation who were front-line service men in the war, albeit at a junior level. Many of us witnessed or heard at first hand about the terrible it.roci ties that took place in central Europe 45 or 50 years ago. We saw more of such horror than perhaps most people have seen in a lifetime. It gave us many sleepless nights.
    No one who took part in those terrible days at the end of the second world war would go soft on war crimes. But it is a mistake for Her Majesty's Government to introduce a War Crimes Bill which has retrospective effect and seeks to catch a few of those who remained in Britain or escaped here, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, to evade capture and trial for the atrocious crimes committed all those years ago.
    I do not wish to rehearse the legal reasons and the legal and mechanical difficulties of obtaining evidence and identification, which were so well rehearsed in another place before the House rose last summer. They were all valid arguments. I am sorry that my right hon. Friends did not find those arguments overwhelming. I feel strongly that we should not resurrect those terrible atrocities now, rake over them before the courts, go through all the lurid details of the massacre of innocent people, and inevitably raise the demon of vengeance in certain people's minds, as we would be bound to do. We should say, "Let bygones be bygones; 50 years is a very long time ago."
    We in the United Kingdom have nothing whatever to reproach ourselves for in the way in which we handled the Nazi criminals at the end of the second world war. First, we pursued and our leaders accepted for us a policy of unconditional surrender. By doing so, we were able to take absolute power to deal with the criminal masters of Nazi Germany, and we did so.
    The war crimes trials were stopped after a few years, as my right hon. and learned Friend and others have said. Perhaps it is not understood why that was so. Those of us who were near at hand and saw the trials know why they were stopped. The inevitable sentence for murder in the British zone of Germany was the capital sentence, as it was in the United Kingdom at the time. In consequence, morning after morning, week after week and month after month, British soldiers had to lead a score or more of men and women to the gallows. That had a great effect on the morale of the people stationed there. We were as human then as we are today. The trials had more effect on us than on the indigenous population, who of course were interested only in their own survival in the terrible conditions of food, housing and heat shortages.
    I ask the Government once again to reconsider their
    388
    policy, and not rake up the matter again. A great friend of mine who died earlier this year spent two years at Sachsenhausen outside Dresden. He was one of the two or three score British soldiers sentenced to the concentration camps for enabling Jews to escape through their wire into our camps and out into the world. He lived in indescribable conditions. I and my late colleague, Airey Neave, and others—I believe that Mr. Deputy Speaker, who has just left the Chair, was also one of them—helped those men when I first came to the House. We campaigned to give them extra help to overcome the indescribable difficulties which they suffered.
    I went to see my friend, Mr. Jim Franklin, in January this year, as he was dying in incredible stomach pain caused by what he suffered in the concentration camp. He said to me, "Don't let them do it. It is all too long ago. Let's not rake up that wicked, evil past that we all suffered." I hope that my colleagues on the Front Bench will remember that view.
    7.29 pm
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) that forgiveness is far more important than revenge. I am perhaps one of the few people on Opposition Benches who greatly regret the Government's intention to reintroduce the war crimes legislation.
    Over the past 11 years when I have listened to Queen's Speeches, I have regretted what was in them and what was omitted from them. On this occasion I am most concerned about the omissions. Although today's subject for debate is rights, I should like briefly to put on record my anxieties about the situation in the middle east. I want to see Kuwait free and under democratic Government. I do not go along with all this heady stuff about a new world order, if the conflict is settled by the use of force.
    Such a conflict would be just like any other war—ordinary people would be killed. It would be almost as pointless as the many other wars that have been proclaimed as wars to end wars. If we are to talk about some new world order, we must ensure that right succeeds as a result of peaceful means. That is why making sanctions work is one of the most important tasks. I do not mind if it takes a long time. We should be prepared to accept that it might take even up to five years. If a solution is found as a result of sanctions and peaceful endeavours, it will be far more worth while in the long term.
    I understand why George Bush and our Prime Minister have reservations about sanctions. So long as they preside over greed societies, they must have reservations about how long they can persuade people to forgo profits on trade and make sanctions work. I wish that world leaders who talk about the use of force spent more time ensuring that sanctions worked. I welcomed the Government's action in expelling two Iraqi officials who appeareded to try to break sanctions. I hope that the Government are applying all the pressure they can to ensure that sanctions work.
    If we are to talk about a new world order, we must ensure that we put principle and people's lives before profit. We should also remember that profit is part of the problem in the middle east. We have been only too happy to sell arms to almost any obnoxious regime and we should consider that seriously.

    389
    To make a new world order succeed, we must make sanctions work and tackle the issue of arms. We must make certain that the test ban treaty operates, so that we do not continue polluting the world with nuclear material. It is appalling that the Government should go ahead with a nuclear test on Wednesday. If we had any intent to make the non-proliferation discussions of a few months ago or the test ban treaty work, we should be prepared to forgo that test. I do not understand how anyone can believe that our Trident has a useful purpose or our test any value.
    If we want a new world order, we must consider arms manufacture across the world. I welcome Labour's commitment to an arms conversion agency in the United Kingdom. The British Government should press the European Community to set up such an agency within the EC. We should also consider that issue in eastern Europe. Far too many people depend on making arms for a job. So long as we make arms in such quantities, we shall store up further conflicts for ourselves. If we are to talk of a new world order, we must eliminate the possibility of those conflicts.
    We need to find alternative work for those involved in arms manufacture. We must rid the world of so many arms. It is sad how, first, are are procured by major powers, then sold second-hand to second-rate powers and, finally, find their way into the third world. Each time they are used for destruction and finally they may find their way to terrorist organisations. The United Nations or the EC should look hard at whether they can buy up those second-hand arms and take them out of circulation.
    For most of the past 10 years I have been secretary to the parliamentary Labour party's civil liberties group. We have often tabled an amendment to the address, listing some items that we regret the Government have not tackled. During that period the task has got harder and harder. Our amendment, which has not been selected for debate, lists all our regrets at the Government's failure to act and the areas where they have acted wrongly in reducing civil rights. The problem is that the list that we should like to record has got longer, so that it is difficult to keep it within the 250 words to stay in order.
    I cannot refer to all the items on the list, but I should like to refer to a few. There is a little in the Criminal Justice Bill, which I welcome, but not much. If we are to make our prisons work effectively, we must give prisoners far more rights. It is easy to give rights to people whom we approve of. The trouble is that we must give civil liberties to people of whom we least approve. That is a problem with prisoners. They are in prison to be punished, but we must ensure that they have a just system in prison. By the way we treat them, we must show how we want them to treat society when they are released. They must be told clearly what their rights are, the conditions for parole and the conditions that they must observe when they are out on parole. As the Bill progresses, I hope that I can argue further about that issue of rights.
    It is sad that, during the past 10 years, we have not had a freedom of information Act. Many hon. Members talk proudly about how the new Select Committees work effectively. So many of their supposed triumphs involve getting information out of the Government. We should not need Select Committees for that. If we had a freedom of information Act, that information would be readily
    390
    available without the whole paraphernalia of Select Committees and without the need to convince Members that they are being useful because they tease out information from Ministers which should be freely available.
    I agree with my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that we should speed up trials. I realise that there is sometimes a conspiracy between some prisoners and their lawyers who tell them that they are better off on remand than convicted because conditions are supposedly better. Speedy trials are extremely important, particularly for those who are found innocent and should not have spent a long time on remand.
    In particular, I should like to press the Home Secretary on what is happening in Manchester. It is regrettable that, following Strangeways, the Government have been unable to remove more remand prisoners from police cells. Some policemen like the overtime involved, although that presents the Greater Manchester police authority with the problem of paying for it. The Home Secretary must consider that. Many of the cells where remand prisoners are kept are unsuitable and cause major problems to the efficient running of the police stations. We should not be paying overtime to policemen who look after remand prisoners there. The Home Secretary should deal with that problem rapidly.
    Several constituents with relatives in the Gulf have expressed their anxieties about the way in which the media have treated them. As someone in public service, I must accept a certain amount of media attention whether I like it or not, but I have a great deal of sympathy for my constituents who are under a great deal of pressure. I hope that legislation on privacy will be introduced in due course.
    Why have not the Government included proposals to reform the private Bill procedure? Given that this is a slack Session it would have been possible to include such proposals in the Queen's Speech. I regret that the Queen's Speech does not do more to confer civil rights on all our people, particularly those who are already at a disadvantage.
    7.39 pm
    Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I welcome the Government's programme as set out in the Gracious Speech, including the War Crimes Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) will forgive me if I do not dwell on my reasons for welcoming that Bill.
    I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be there to see this programme implemented and that she will still be there to implement the programme that will emerge from the Queen's Speech in the Parliament which will follow the next general election.
    It saddens and distresses me to see respected Conservative colleagues venting their frustrations on the party for which they have fought for so long and with such distinction. Tearing ourselves apart in response to goading from the media can do no good to the party, the country or those who are behaving in such a destructive manner. Do they really imagine that a party that does not stay loyal and united behind perhaps the most successful and purposeful Prime Minister that the nation has known in peacetime this century will continue to command the loyalty of the people come the next election?

    391
    It is a peculiar kind of conceit that' imagines that this nation will admire disunity at a time of a threat to world stability and when the economic going gets rough. Will our forces in the Gulf be able to fight more steadfastly if their political leaders are in disarray? Will the tyrant Saddam Hussein be more easily removed if our leadership is divided? Will we be more able to stand up to the threat to our national sovereignty posed by those in Europe who want us to become part of a Euro-federal superstate where 80 per cent. of the laws will be made in Brussels?
    I hope that common sense will prevail, that there will be no wounding leadership contest and that we can concentrate on implementing the programme set out in the Gracious Speech and on winning the next election.
    The programme for this Session has been called thin—would that it were so. I fear that "other measures" are already proliferating, as will the European measures that are likely to keep us here night after night. If there were any thinness, I should welcome the opportunity for my right hon. and hon. Friend's to get out into the constituencies to communicate our policies better. If we did so, the public opinion polls would be substantially more in our favour.
    Crime, particularly violent crime, destroys not only the victim, but the society in which it flourishes, because it engenders fear. Only a tiny proportion of elderly people are assaulted, but all elderly people fear to go out into the streets at night in case of assault.
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: The same goes for women on their own.
    Mr. Lawrence: Yes.
    I can remember no Government who have striven with more determination to take every reasonable step and opportunity to reduce crime, to strengthen the armoury of the law and the forces of law and order—sparing little expense. We now have more policemen, who are better paid, better equipped, better led and furnished with better laws, than ever before. We now have more courts, with more powers and better trained personnel.
    Community involvement has been ensured through the neighbourhood watch scheme. A charter of rights for victims has been established. Community penalties are now widely used. There is the urban action programme. Now the Criminal Justice Bill advances the progress achieved several stages further and is most welcome.
    I hope that the Criminal Justice Bill will frighten more potentially violent criminals from offending. They will be aware of the longer sentences to be given where appropriate. Those sentences will be further increased with the loss of parole for the sexual offender. If a capital punishment clause were added to the Bill, it would be even more frightening and more successful in deterring the violent offender. If we frightened the offender from offending, perhaps members of society would be less frightened of going into the streets.
    The Bill will also affect the incidence of crime committed by young people, by placing a greater responsibility on parents. Although the average age of offending is rising, it still stands at only 16 years. It is too easy to blame teachers for lack of discipline: without parental responsibility and discipline in the home, teachers cannot hope to succeed. Both kinds of discipline are necessary.
    392
    However, we must be careful about trials involving children. If we intend to protect children from court appearances, we must be careful not to remove the right to question them properly. If we do that, we may find that innocent people are convicted through mistaken identity evidence that has not been properly investigated.
    There is a manifest paradox about the crime figures. On the one hand, we have a record of action and achievement in introducing measures to control crime: on the other hand the criminal statistics are high, and in some areas they are rising. What is the explanation? The answer is there to be seen. Much more opportunistic crime is being committed, because people leave car doors, front doors and windows open. I do not know whether that is a reflection of a more prosperous society, but if fewer people left such doors open, we would not be talking about the increase in crime as recorded in the last quarter.
    It is also important to consider how crime is reported in a free society. With better communications, and the police's more humane treatment of women who complain about assault, we must accept that more crimes are reported. Insurance companies now require that an offence should be reported to the police before they pay out. Obviously more crime is reported, but that almost certainly does not mean more crimes are being committed. Common sense on the crime statistics, should prevail, rather than the silly, simplistic criticism of the Opposition.
    Do the Opposition have a better programme than ours? I listened carefully to the recipe of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for less crime, but I am far from convinced, and I am sure that my constituents will share my doubts. I am doubtful whether elected police authorities would contribute to a better, more efficient and more effective police force, especially when the only purpose of electing them is to give those authorities more political control, particularly in Labour areas.
    I have great difficulty in seeing how the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989 would strengthen our fight against terrorism. I cannot see why it is necessary to have another independent police complaints authority when we already set one up under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—especially when former or serving police officers are banned from membership. The commitments outlined by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook stopped short of spending any more money on law and order lest his right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor is angry with him.
    It is unlikely that the prison system would be improved by the Opposition. Improvements were just as necessary when the Labour party was last in Government, but all it managed to do was cut capital spending by 20 per cent., while the prison population rose by 14·5 per cent. In its last election manifesto, the Labour party did not bother to mention prisons at all.
    The Opposition have voted not only against the Prevention of Terrorism Acts, but against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988. With that track record, how can the Labour party expect to be treated with any real credibility when it says that it will take law and order seriously? I do not find the Opposition's case convincing and nor will my constituents.
    In the real world, we enjoy a free society only because there are laws that protect rights and help to enforce responsibilities. The question is, by what kind of criminal

    393
    justice system can we enforce those rights and protect them? The answer is that the system must have sanctions. Some of which need only be educational; others need to protect society; and some need to be so severe that they frighten would-be offenders from offending.
    Such a system needs to have a balance and also the support of the people. I believe that the proposed programme is balanced, and I hope that we shall have sufficient time during the current parliamentary Session to go out to the people to explain how important this law and our achievement is.
    7.49 pm
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: I wish to talk about the right of people to have decent health care and the Government's responsibility to provide it. Two news items caught my attention last week. The first, in The Independent on Wednesday was headlined
    "NHS cuts 4,500 beds to save cash."
    The second one, in the Morning Star on Saturday described how leave for key staff in London hospitals had been cancelled.
    The first headline referred to the crisis facing the national health service, which was brought on, not by inefficient management or overpaid staff, but by a Government who have deliberately underfunded the national health service for the past 11 years. The survey in The Independent included beds that had been closed purely for the lack of cash in the past financial year. All the managers who replied to the survey were clear on the key reason for the bed losses—to wipe out deficits by the end of the financial year, whatever the cost in pain and misery. The survey underestimated the number of bed losses. It included my own local health authority, Calderdale, and said that the bed loss was 76, but the actual number is 99.
    The last time that the national health service faced such a crisis was in 1987. Then as now, there was a massive bed closure and the Prime Minister stepped in and ordered a review—the rest is history. We are now stuck with the dreadful National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, with which nobody agreed but the Prime Minister and a few of her advisers. The Prime Minister based her model for new health care on the United States market structure. Early experience of that market-oriented model shows that it has abjectly and spectacularly failed.
    In my health authority last week we heard that a new hospital that should have been built had been put back yet another four years. The excuse given was the slump in the property market that has forced the regional health authority to delay its capital programme. I do not believe that the Government seriously intended to build the new hospital, but they closed wards and a laundry to make way for it and have thus seriously damaged the service. The recent advice from local consultants is that because of those closures, waiting lists will rise to more than 1,000 in a year, and in the gynaecological department, 500 women will have to wait more than 12 months for treatment. Those closures have obviously caused a great deal of damage to the service and many people on waiting lists will become ill; some may even die.
    My local example also shows that this year's bed closures could take waiting lists in England to more than I million for the first time in the national health service.
    394
    That is a disgraceful statistic for a Government who pretend to spend a lot of money on health care. I do not believe that the extra £2·4 billion—the pre-election bribe announced by the Chancellor—will do much to alleviate the crisis. The Government calculations assume an inflation rate of 6 per cent. If wage increases are 10·9 per cent., which is what they should be if staff are not to take a cut in pay, the calculation of any growth is worthless. I do not see why low-paid health authority staff should have to bail out a Government who will not fund them properly. Health authorities are expected to find an additional £210 million from efficiency savings—a Government euphemism for cuts.
    The Government's privatisation programme in the health service has been a complete disaster and led to dirtier hospitals, poorer food and, in many cases, a lousy laundry service, which any nurse will say is disgraceful. The forthcoming Labour Government will end the system of compulsory competitive tendering in such services as catering, laundry and domestic services.
    As time is short, I shall refer to the second headline in the Morning Star. It states:
    "London hospitals have cancelled leave for key staff and reserved emergency beds for possible war casualties from the Gulf crisis."
    The Ministry of Defence initially denied that contingency plans for an emergency had been put into operation. However, today's edition of The Guardian carries a report that
    "Britain's naval hospitals have more than doubled the amount of space set aside for mortuary preparations … The hospitals at … Plymouth and in Portsmouth, have each turned a medical ward into a mortuary to allow them together to deal with up to 100 bodies each day."
    We have been told that if war breaks out in the Gulf a worst case scenario would be as many as 400 dead a day. Yesterday, the Secretary of State rejected any such suggestion. He said:
    "Our determination would be to see casualty figures nothing like that figure at all."
    If the Secretary of State for Defence believes that, before he plunges this country into war, he has a duty to tell us his estimate of the number of casualties. How many body bags does he anticipate will occupy the new mortuaries in Portsmouth and Plymouth? Where will the victims of a modern war be treated and what will happen to the hundreds of thousands of civilians currently on the growing waiting lists?
    The world has no shortage of enemies. If the Prime Minister and the Government want to look for enemies, they can look at poverty, hunger and disease, and find plenty. They could have joined in with Opposition Members in opposing Saddam Hussein years ago when we said that we should not increase export credits to that man. The Government have used double standards on the Gulf. We did not go to war when the United States invaded Grenada or Panama, the Soviet Union went into Afghanistan, Indonesia annexed East Timor, or Israel claimed Jerusalem as its capital city and continued to occupy Gaza and the west bank. The hypocrisy of a Prime Minister who can mouth platitudes on the sanctity of international law and the necessity of war trials when she has slavishly followed United States policy in Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador and Cambodia, is frankly sickening. The stench of such hypocrisy brings shame to our country.

    395
    If the Prime Minister takes this country into what will be a devastating war, let her at least be honest about the reasons. Those include self-preservation and her hope for the Falklands factor—then, as now, she was in deep trouble at home, as is the President of the United States. Another of her reasons is to protect the oil companies' interests and the west's determination to get its hands on the oil.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Mahon: No, I shall not—I have only 10 minutes.
    Everyone knows that this war is unnecessary and sanctions could be made to work. In The Independent today there is a letter from Staff Sergeant William Ghetti of the United States air force, which states:
    "As each day passes, it is becoming more apparent that our primary mission is to protect the Saudi oil fields, with the restoration of Kuwait as a negotiable secondary concern. After all, we have not intervened in areas of less economic importance. The greed that drives our oil-based world economy has put us in the position that we are willing to risk our nation's sons and daughters in the quest for stable prices at the pumps."
    I agree with that staff sergeant, who is now in the Gulf.
    The banging of the war drum is totally irresponsible. Either before or after a war, people with the right credentials will have to sit down and negotiate. It would be much better if we sat down and negotiated before the war, before hundreds of thousands of people get killed. Governments have a responsibility to stop such disastrous events taking place——
    Mr. Arnold: What about the Kuwaiti victims of murder, pillage and rape?
    Mrs. Mahon: Conservative members who are heckling also have a responsibility, because they will not be returning in body bags or occupying mortuary wards in Plymouth or anywhere else, or adding to the queues in the national health service. I hope to God that the Government are not so desperate to be re-elected that they put their political survival before the lives of people in this country.
    7.59 pm
    Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I have a warm welcome for the paragraph in the Queen's Speech which stresses the Government's determination to
    "continue to work with our Community partners … and … contribute constructively to the inter-governmental conferences on Economic and Monetary Union and Community institutions",
    because this country always has been and always will be part of Europe. More often than we should care to think about our involvement in Europe has been with arms and instruments of death. Now, thanks to the vision of a great Conservative Prime Minister of 50 years ago and to the political skills of some great European politicians, we have the finest chance ever to ensure that never again will our involvement in Europe be as an enemy of one European country or another.
    That was part of the vision which swept us to power in 1979 and which gave us not only a majority of British Members of the European Parliament but a right-of-centre majority in that Parliament. It was that vision which impelled us into the Single European Act so that progress
    396
    towards a more effective European Community could be accelerated. And it is that vision that we should be idiotic to renounce.
    Yet suddenly we seem to falter. We fought a campaign in the last European elections which for the first time suggested that the Conservative party was in doubt about our future in Europe—and we paid the price. We lost our majority in Europe and we now have to live with the socialist consequences of that defeat.
    It is worse than that, however. In the early years of this Government we had close relations with the Christian Democrat majority; now we do not. Then we could count most of the time on the support of many other countries; now we cannot. I believe that that is because of an uncharacteristic attack of pessimism at the highest levels.
    I hate the continual repetition of the idea that we cannot compete with the Germans or the French. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister paid tribute to the Nissan factory the other day, she said:
    "It is a combination of British workmanship and Japanese management which is producing excellent cars".—[Official Report, 30 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 866.]
    That struck a chill in my heart, for it is a recipe for a Third world economy if ever I heard one. We know that British management with British workers can take on and heat the world, and that is what we need to ensure in future.
    I share the Government's determination to mould the European Community to a shape with which we can be comfortable, but we need to examine carefully how we do that. I do not believe that we can do it by putting forward excellent policies in a tone of voice that leaves us with no one else in our lobby. We cannot do it by attacking the European Commission either. It is the Council of Ministers which takes decisions, serviced by committees that meet in secret and are effectively accountable to no one.
    I welcome the belated moves being made in this House to give us a better chance to advise Ministers before they go to a Council meeting and to scrutinise more easily the European Community's proposals, but I deeply regret the continuing failure to make effective the links between us and our Members of the European Parliament. We are the only EC member which treats our Members of the European Parliament as aliens from another planet. That is why I welcomed the calling of the assizes under my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).
    The Council of Ministers should be able to be called to account, and that must be by the European Parliament; and its committees should be open to scrutiny and called to account both by the European Parliament and by this House. Above all, we need the optimism to believe that Britain can compete and succeed in a wider Europe. We should have more British candidates coming forward for the European civil service, not fewer as is happening now. We should recognise the costs of being lukewarm about Europe and we should embrace with enthusiasm the opportunities that it can provide. We need to change our tactics to secure our objectives and we need to do so soon.
    One of the problems about the European debate is the confusion about what is meant by sovereignty and citizenship. Lately, a report was published by a commission under the patronage of Mr. Speaker. Its topic was citizenship. It was a large commission—with hindsight, probably too large—and it set itself a difficult

    397
    task: to see how citizenship might be redefined and encouraged. The commission discovered much that was vital to the country and to this debate.
    We found that young people want to know much more about what it means to be a citizen. We found that judges, Members of Parliament, civil servants, teachers and many others often have little or no idea about the effects on citizenship of the many international agreements that we have signed since the war. The international charter on human rights, the United Nations charter on the rights of the child and many other charters have made significant changes to the status of British citizens. The report urges action to ensure that those changes are widely understood. That would reduce enormously the number of occasions on which we are taken to European courts, because we would know what we were talking about.
    The commission also made a series of recommendations to make it possible for every British citizen, starting with the young, to contribute through voluntary work to the society in which he lives. One of the themes of this debate is alienation—the isolation of one person from another, or one group from another; the isolation that persuades thousands of young people that it does not matter if they prey on other members of society; or which encourages groups to dismiss or harass others because of the colour of their skin or their accent or religion. There is also the isolation of parents who seem so turned in on themselves that they can abuse their own children.
    How can we change all this? It is not a matter of penalties or of prisons. They play a necessary part in the framework of society, but if we are to change things we have to break down the barriers between our citizens which have been erected by ignorance and prejudice. By far the best way to break them down is to give our citizens, especially the young, the chance to serve others so that they can see for themselves what other people are really like. That way they can build up their self-confidence in dealing with other people and we can show them how to work together in a team. Isolation, ignorance and fear breed anti-social behaviour, and becoming involved in what my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor called active citizenship is good for the volunteer, good for the cause in which he or she works and good for society.
    I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to take seriously Mr. Speaker's commission's plea that a national debate be begun on citizenship and on active citizenship. I should also like to hope that the other measures to be laid before us will include charity law reform. A satisfactory system of protecting an ever more generous public against the possibility of fraud is long overdue and could be brought forward in a Bill to reform charitable law.
    I very much agree with hon. Members who have said that we need a much more open society. We have become increasingly nervous of opening up the documents on which we construct our debates to public scrutiny, and that is demeaning to the public and extremely bad for those who have to make policy. I hope that we can become much less paranoid about documents; if they were open to the public, there would be fewer leaks, and we could conduct public debates in a better way.
    Finally, as the Member for Mid-Kent, I cannot leave the Queen's Speech in which so much money has been given to transport without mentioning the high-speed
    398
    train. I was greatly encouraged by a distinguished article in The Times on Saturday by Professor Peter Hall in favour of the eastern approach to London. It is becoming increasingly clear that British Rail has totally misunderstood the arguments about freight and that Kent county council is beginning to understand the importance of those arguments. It is manifest that British Rail, even with the Government's present generosity, is highly unlikely to be able to make its existing proposal viable.
    I am optimistic that, over the next two or three years, the penny will drop and that we shall find ourselves with a four-track railway capable of carrying continental freight by a method that will preserve not only the roads of Kent but those in the rest of the country from the vast inroads of heavy lorries. I look forward to the successful conclusion of a campaign that has occupied me and many of my colleagues for far too long.
    8.10 pm
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Before making the speech that I told the Home Secretary about in an intervention, I should like to refer to the speech by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). The right hon. Gentleman spoke warmly about the election as President of the Irish Republic of Mary Robinson. Mary Robinson has made overtures to Northern Ireland and has said that she is willing to meet people from both communities and to extend the hand of friendship from the Republic to Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman did not reject that hand. That is important for future developments in Ireland and offers the possibility of peace and progress in both parts of the island.
    The theme of the debate is rights, freedoms and responsibilities and that, too, is relevant to Ireland. Healthy rights and freedoms and the widespread taking up by society of its collective responsibilities are characteristics of a full democracy. Underpinning a full democracy is a universal franchise. Such a franchise is no guarantee of democracy, because some of the civil liberties that we have been discussing, the attitudes of society and the right to formulate and to express opinion relevant to the discussion that we had on broadcasting are all very important. However, the starting point is that everyone should have a vote. That is why the Chartists fought so strongly for the vote in the 19th century. They achieved it for men and at the beginning of the 20th century the suffragettes achieved it for women.
    We came to recognise that full franchise is a birthright and we had to overcome technical difficulties to ensure that everyone was on the electoral register. If we remove that we shall take away one of the major justifying principles for the rule of law. I am not saying that the rule of law should not operate if democracy is imperfect, but that it should be furthered as democracy itself is furthered. Specific sets of circumstances are liable to arise under which the laws passed in societies without a full franchise strongly impinge on minorities which are unable to do anything about it through the exercise of the franchise. In such cases their protests may not always be kept fully within the rule of law but become intemperate and unjust, as are the actions of terrorists in Northern Ireland.
    In Britain there is a general belief that we have finally guaranteed electoral rights and that the latest full expression of it is codified in the Representation of the

    399
    People Act 1985. But that overlooks the impact of the operation of the poll tax, which in this context can be looked upon not just as a poll tax per head, but as having to do with electoral registration and voting. Because of the operation of the poll tax, more than 600,000 people in England, Scotland and Wales are currently missing from the electoral register. That becomes evident when we look at the number of 18-year-olds estimated to be in the population. Such a disparity did not occur before the introduction of poll tax. It does not occur in Northern Ireland which does not have the poll tax.
    In the Finchley constituency over the past two years, 8·5 per cent. of people have disappeared from the electoral register. I shall later argue that the Finchley model is being furthered by the Home Office in circulars that it is sending out to electoral returning officers. In what could still be an election year, the Gracious Speech should have included a promise to restore a full franchise on which the rest of the rights and freedoms depend.
    It was evident from the start that the poll tax would undermine electoral registration. The very notion of accountability talked about by the Government showed that there was a link between the poll tax and registering to vote, not merely making use of the right to vote. Electoral registration numbers first started to fall in Scotland when the poll tax was introduced there and they later began to fall in England and Wales. It is likely to be a serious factor when the figures for the current registration are published in the provisional registers which are due at the end of November.
    The principle of the poll tax and electoral registration being linked is clear. When the poll tax register is short of the people who hide in desperation because they cannot pay, it will be topped up following an examination of the electoral register. The two matters are closely connected and in many cases solidly interlinked.
    We are beginning to see not just the principle of that operation but some empirical evidence that my argument is correct. In legislation, such things will occasionally pop through, sometimes almost unnoticed by the House. In the previous Session, the House passed the Caldey Island Act 1990. It was discovered that some monks and other inhabitants of Caldey Island were not correctly enfranchised and not paying their poll tax. Section I enfranchises the residents of Caldey Island and section 2 makes them pay their poll tax. That seems to he a recognition that there is some similarity between the two problems that have arisen. It came out in that minor legislation which, however, was important for the citizens of Caldey Island.
    Home Office circular RPA 347 of 10 August begins to show something of the connection between the electoral register and the poll tax register. The circular contains instructions from the Home Office to electoral returning officers and paragraph 25 states:
    "Where a person whose name was on the previous electoral register does not respond to canvass, and his name does not appear on the community charges register, it is recommended that the name should not be carried forward."
    In some cases, a person could be entitled to be on the electoral register and be on a poll tax register in a different constituency. An example is students who are resident elsewhere. If they have inadvertently left their names off the electoral register, they will disappear fairly quickly, because their names will not be on the poll tax register either.
    400
    On 23 October this year, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) asked the Prime Minister:
    "Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now a case for turning the poll tax into exactly that—for taking the vote away from people who have not paid their community charge, and giving it back to them only when they have done so?"—[Official Report, 23 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 187.]
    That astonishing remark was—even more astonishingly—supported by other hon. Members in an amendment to an early-day motion that I presented. They appear not to have appreciated the significance of what had been said: that people must pay a tax to be able to vote.
    I am reminded of the recent election in Chile. To register on the electoral roll, people had to pay up to a month's salary on what resembled a British employment scheme. If such a tax were imposed in this country, we could find it obnoxious; having looked up our constitutional theory, we would argue strongly against it. Yet the poll tax provisions are very similar. Increasingly, those who are not on the poll tax register will not appear on the electoral register either.
    Mrs. Mahon: I, too, was in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) made his suggestion to the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend, like me, will have observed in the short time for which we have both been Members of Parliament that Back-Benchers often fly kites for the Prime Minister. Some months later, a Bill is presented that takes up the Back Bencher's suggestion, no matter how outrageous it may be.
    Mr. Barnes: The significant feature of the kite flown by the hon. Member for Colne Valley was the fact that the Prime Minister did not promptly reject it, arguing—with a natural adherence to the democratic principles in which she is supposed to believe—that it flew in the face of the libertarian tenets that should lie at the core of a proud defence of the franchise; especially in a constituency such as Colne Valley, which has a tradition of liberal radicalism and democratic socialism.
    The most important item of empirical evidence to support my argument is that which I cited earlier—the number of names that are missing from the electoral register. These things are difficult to judge, but one way of judging them is to compare the number of names on the register with the estimated number of people aged over 18. Until 1987, there was at least a rough and ready connection between the two, but after that the names start to disappear. It seems that some 1·5 per cent. of the electorate are missing from the current electoral register—at least 600,000 people.
    It may be far worse than that, however. For some time, I have been trying to discover—by means of parliamentary questions—what is happening in Finchley, and whether the loss of 8·5 per cent. of the electorate is the end of the story. Have any more names disappeared? We may find out shortly. I shall signal a punch, so that the Prime Minister will not have a surprise on Thursday; when I ask my question, the state of the electoral register will not be far from my mind.
    There are other blocks to electoral registration. For instance, the selling of the register for commercial purposes is considered as serious as any other factor, as is shown by the number of letters that I have received from people who read my recent letter to The Times. Some people do not want their names to appear on the register, fearing that they will be flooded with junk mail from

    401
    various organisations. The only way in which they can escape the problem is by withholding their names from the register.
    People should not do that, of course, and I urge everyone who writes to me to maintain the basic rights without which it will be impossible for them to change the position. If they want to get rid of the poll tax, they will need the franchise. Some are so desperate, however, that they dispense with those rights, because they know that the time when they can change the position is all too far ahead. We should be digging out the principles established by the Chartists and the suffragettes which justified the militant activities that they undertook—principles that fly in the face of the Home Secretary's suggestion that the rule of law is a neat line, over which no one must ever venture. If the principle of the electoral register is being undermined, surely different possibilities may present themselves.
    We spend a miserly amount on encouraging enfranchisement, compared with what is spent on general Government publicity. In 1989, £320,000 0·31 per cent. of expenditure—went on encouraging people to take up their electoral rights, while Abbey National alone spent £6·5 million on encouraging people to vote in a plc election. It could not tell them which way to vote, of course, although what it wanted was obvious; nevertheless, it spent all that money encouraging them to use their enfranchisement rights within a single company. Similarly, we spend a fortune publicising the electricity privatisation. Where is the equivalent of "Frank N. Stein" and his cuddly monster to encourage people to take up the most basic right in a democratic society?
    If it were purely random, the loss of franchise would have no impact on the outcome of elections. It would be serious enough for the right of individuals to have their say to be removed, but if, say, every 10th person happened to be missing from the register, the political consequences might not be too alarming, and matters could probably be put right afterwards. The people whose names are missing, however, are those who cannot pay the poll tax—people who are frightened of it, and who therefore have the strongest objection to its imposition. They would not vote Conservative if they had a vote. There are civil libertarians, bothered about the possibility of commercial organisations having access to their names and addresses. They cannot be seen sitting in solid ranks on the Conservative Benches. It is therefore to the Government's advantage to push through measures that result in a fiddling of the franchise.
    Mrs. Wise: Is not the temptation for young people to opt out of the franchise particularly damaging? Is it not likely to lead to a lifetime of hostility, and a sense of alienation from the democratic process?
    Mr. Barnes: According to the evidence that I have obtained from the Library, the loss of voting rights is most serious among "attainers"—those coming up to the age of 18. If people are missing from the electoral register, it is theoretically possible to refer to the previous register to find them, but attainers will not be on any previous register. The figures show that in England, Scotland and Wales the loss of names is far greater in that age group.
    In Northern Ireland, which does not have the poll tax, more attainers than ever are now registered. The Northern
    402
    Ireland franchise is highly efficient and democratic. Of course, the problem in Northern Ireland is that the population has nothing much on which to vote. They do not have the right major political parties about which to make a choice. They do not have a Bill of Rights and they do not have the right provisions to ensure that a democracy is properly run. But at least they are on the starting block, whereas in England, Scotland and Wales the starting block is being chopped from under the population.
    I strongly opposed the extension of the vote to expatriates, some of whom left this country up to 20 years ago. Some of them were only babes in arms—yet they will have a vote that will give them a say in the running of this country. Those votes will be distributed to different areas under a system that will be wide open to abuse. Instructions have been sent to electoral returning officers by the Home Office. Luckily, despite all the efforts of "Conservatives Abroad" trying to persuade people to register, not many have yet done so. Nevertheless, the position must be closely monitored as potentially some 3 million people could be included on electoral registers under that system.
    Parliament should wake up to that fraud. It is a "grab-what-you-can" attitude, with none of the usual principles of democracy. If Parliament accepts that, we can only appeal beyond the Chamber to the public to take action, be vigilant and put matters right. They must protest and pressurise about the decline in the franchise. When they have the opportunity to vote, even with a shrinking electorate, they must use that vote to change the system and restore the franchise. Conservative Members, whose Government have introduced these measures, have a special responsibility to examine their consciences. They were elected on a full franchise, and they should stand again on a full franchise.
    The fact that, currently, only 1·5 to 2·5 per cent. are affected does not alter the position, because in the British electoral system that could have a significant impact on the results. Is it not true that the Prime Minister's main hope for holding on to Finchley is that the franchise has been shifted and fiddled so much that she might just be re-elected? It is disgraceful.
    The long march to democracy, which we thought had gone much of the way, has now been halted and, in some ways, put into reverse. When I was elected in 1987, I did not dream that I would have to stand up in this Chamber, time and again, and press for one person, one vote. This is the first time that I have done so in the presence of the Home Secretary, but I have done it many times in the presence of his junior Ministers. There are those who believe in one person, one vote, one value, and they argue for proportional representation. Not many of them are here tonight—indeed, there is no one on the Liberal-Democrat Benches. If they believe in one person, one vote, one value, they should argue for a full return to the franchise. We cannot have one value if everybody does not have the right to exercise his vote.
    The loss of 1·5 per cent. of the electorate is much more damaging under a first-past-the-post system than it would be under a proportional representation system. One reason why I am becoming more sympathetic to proportional representation is that the fiddling that could occur under that system would have less significance. However, I remain opposed to certain aspects of

    403
    proportional representation, such as the single transferable vote in a multi-member constituency. We must stand up for democracy. I hope that the Home Secretary listens carefully to what we say and responds to it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) referred to the Gulf crisis. I did not manage to speak in our previous debates on that matter, even though I have a great interest in what happens in Iraq. Some considerable time ago, between 1954 and 1956, I did my national service in Iraq. I worked with the Iraq state railway. I was stationed in Basra in the south of Iraq, an area which has been prominent in the moves against Kuwait. Certain aspects of Iraq today are similar to those prevalent in 1954 to 1956. I wish to relate two incidents that had a major impact on my political opinions and views on the current position in the Gulf.
    Shortly after arriving in Iraq, I was moved by train from my camp at Habbaniyah to Basra. I travelled on the old Berlin to Baghdad railway, which had been extended to Basra. The train travelled slowly, and on the outskirts of Baghdad I saw the mud huts, the mud streets, the open sewers, the flies and the general deprivation. It was quite a shock to an 18-year-old; the reality is far different from the pictures one sees on television. It appeared to be mediaeval and biblical.
    After a bloody coup in Iraq involving the then President Kassem and the death of King Faisal, there was an improvement in the suburbs. Brick houses were built and electricity and proper sewers were installed. Despite all the problems with Kassem's regime, he at least did something about providing housing for the working class and the peasantry of Iraq. I understand that fresh suburbs with mud huts and all that goes with them have now re-emerged around Baghdad because Saddam Hussein has used his financial resources only to extend his military hardware and to develop his empire. The Iraqi people and the people of the middle east generally, with the exception of the favoured few, need decent social provisions and the democracy that should go with it.
    I left Iraq in the middle of the Suez crisis. I wondered whether I would be drawn into it. I remember listening to the BBC overseas network on the camp radio. It said that there were no British troops in Iraq, only a handful of military advisers. In fact, there were 3,000 troops as well as some modern aeroplanes. Obviously, there was a danger that we would be drawn into the Suez conflict. That conflict involved collusion between the United Kingdom, France and Israel and showed me the incorrectness of our imperialist interference in that area. During King Faisal's period, Crown territory at Shaiber, Habbaniyah and Basra was returned to the Iraqi Government. It appeared that we were finally pulling out.
    However, we are now fully involved. The lessons from those two experiences are that it would be disastrous if American, British and French troops were to move into Kuwait, even if it were a quick strike like the six-day war by the Israelis and there were a quick military victory. The consequences would be horrendous for the middle east. Governments would collapse left, right and centre. The Jordanian Government would fall into the arms of Saddam Hussein, war would break out with Israel and the middle east would be open to more undemocratic forces, as the Muslim brotherhood and others would bound forth.
    We must seek to stop that. If action is to be taken in the middle east, it must be with the agreement of the international community and under United Nations
    404
    control. I recognise that the presence of troops can aid the process of economic sanctions, but they can have the terrible consequence of leading to bloody conflict.
    Mrs. Mahon: Like my hon. Friend, I wanted to speak in the two-day debate on the Gulf, but was excluded, it would seem, purely on the basis that I am female. Does my hon. Friend accept that people who are closely connected with the hostages and those who have returned also want negotiations and some settlement without armed conflict? All those who have returned, almost to a person, have said that they very much regretted the Prime Minister's warlike rhetoric.
    Mr. Barnes: Public opinion is changing. Minds are being concentrated on the possibility of our troops dying. The hostages have been used outrageously by Saddam Hussein. His regime is evil and many of the other things that are said about it are correct, although if it fell in the circumstances that I have described, a decent, new democratic regime may not blossom forth.
    We need more debate and discussion on the issue. I am sorry that hon. Members have not had an opportunity, apart from the two-day debate, to discuss this fully arid thoroughly, but instead have had to pinch time out of a debate about freedoms and democracy. As many hon. Members as possible should use the Chamber to express their views on the major issue of the hour, and I hope that we shall get some response.
    8.43 pm
    Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the robust fashion in which he articulated the rights, freedoms and responsibilities that Conservative Members believe in.
    The subject that we are discussing is at the core of the differences between both sides of the Chamber. The Opposition have a different view from Conservative Members on the relationship between the state and the individual. I warmly welcome all the proposals in the Queen's Speech, including the War Crimes Bill.
    Several Opposition Members felt that they had to refer to the leader of our party. On Wednesday, the Leader of the Opposition made what I thought would be a major speech. For five minutes he held the House, but for the rest of the time he was absolutely atrocious, resorting to personal abuse of Conservative Members and giving absolutely no detail about policy. This time last year, I said that the Opposition could not get away for another year without articulating their policies. I admit that I was completely wrong. Whatever the issue, the Opposition's answer is to spend more money. How they will create the wealth to sustain the extra spending, we are yet to hear.
    Labour Members had the cheek to speak of inflation and interest rates. When they shared Government with the Liberal party, they were not concerned about interest rates or the rate of inflation, but now they have the cheek to lecture us.
    Labour has tabled three amendments to the Address. The first deals with education. Where was Labour's support for freedom and choice in education when Shirley Williams was Secretary of State? I certainly do not recall it.
    The second amendment deals with Europe. The Labour party has the cheek to lecture Conservative Members

    405
    about Europe. In 1962, it was in favour of Europe, but in 1964 it opposed it. In 1966, it was in favour of Europe, but in 1971 it opposed it. In 1975, it was in favour of Europe, but in 1983 it opposed it. Surprise, surprise, in 1990 it is in favour of Europe. A cynic would say that it cuts its cloth to suit the way in which it believes people are thinking. I am a cynic, and I believe that it is just talking on Europe because it thinks that there will be short-term political gain in doing so. The Government legislate not according to short-term popularity but according to what we think is in the long-term interests of Britain. I believe that the nation will continue to support us in our endeavours.
    This has been a good few weeks for the constituency of Basildon. First, I was delighted that the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for Housing and Planning announced that the pilot scheme for changing rents into mortgages would be held in Basildon. The scheme will give many constituents the opportunity to fulfil their lifetime ambition of owning their home. Again, we see the duplicity of the Opposition on home ownership. Labour and Liberals voted against every word and line of the legislation on home ownership. When in 1979 and 1983 they realised that it was popular, they changed their mind. As interest rates have increased, they do not think that home ownership is such a good thing. We are consistent because we believe in home ownership.
    Secondly, Basildon has the first grant-maintained school in Essex, Chalvedon school. That is giving parents an opportunity to take full advantage of the direct funding of the Government. Thirdly, the local Labour party set up area management committees, which are supposed to listen to the views of the people and act accordingly. On their agenda was the proposed development of a Tesco superstore. More than 200 people turned up at the meeting; 197 were against the proposal and three were for it. What did the democratic Labour party do? It approved the plan for a Tesco superstore in Basildon. I am delighted that this democratic Government, through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, has decided to call in the plan.
    Fourthly, we were delighted with the local government finance statement. Last year, Basildon district council was 196 per cent. above the standard spending assessment—twice as much as any other local authority. The council now tells us that it has the finance to pay only the interest charges on the debt that it has accumulated and that it can meet the cost only of administering the community charge. I fully support the community charge. It is reprehensible that any hon. Member should decide not to pay it.
    Fifthly, we have the "I love Basildon" campaign, which has not cost the charge payer any money. It is about telling the good residents of Basildon that we have created a fine town and that we wish it to remain litter-free, graffiti-free and vandal-free. I am delighted that, last week, the Princess of Wales came to Basildon to open part of St. Luke's hospice. Within six years, local residents have raised more than £800,000 through jumble sales and tombolas. The Princess of Wales brought joy to many of my constituents. At the end of her visit, she launched the "I Love Basildon" song, which is about our town. We invited local residents to compose the tune and perform it. It is performed by the guides and the profits from the
    406
    record will go towards St. Luke's hospice. We were delighted that the Princess of Wales launched the song, and I very much hope that it will become a No. 1 hit.
    In deference to my three colleagues who are waiting to speak, I shall move on quickly. I warmly welcome all the proposals in the Gracious Speech, but especially that concerning parental responsibility. It is sad that 15 is the peak age of offending. Many of the children have parents who are in difficulty. I fully understand that and recognise why the behaviour of those children is not exactly as we should wish it to be, but I cannot accept that every delinquent child comes from a broken home.
    All of us as Members of Parliament have people who attend our surgeries—often they are elderly people—complaining about disturbances outside their flats or houses caused by young people. All those children have parents. It is not good enough to send one's children out to play outside other people's homes. With no cost to the charge payer or the ratepayer, every Member of Parliament is beholden, on a bipartisan basis, to encourage more parental responsibility.
    I welcome the proposals, especially those dealing with children between 10 and 15, in the Criminal Justice Bill. I welcome the proposals that will require courts to order parents to attend court unless it is unreasonable to do so. When young people are convicted of a criminal offence and the courts decide to impose a fine or make an order for compensation of costs, the courts must order the young people's parents to pay, unless it would be unreasonable to do so. I welcome the proposals in the Bill to strengthen the impact of that order. The Bill will make it beyond doubt that, in deciding upon the level of payments to be made, courts must take account of the parents' means and not just the means of their children. It will make it clear that, in assessing the amount of compensation or a fine, the courts will not be bound by the juvenile's means.
    I welcome the extension of community service orders to cover 16 and 17-year-olds. I congratulate the Home Office team on deciding that it will no longer be necessary to keep the sentence of detention in a young offenders' institution for girls under 18. That sensible package will be applauded throughout the country.
    The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned a constituent, Terry Marsh. He lives in Basildon and my remarks are certainly not made at his behest. He welcomes the fact that British justice has now seen that he has been cleared. But Terry Marsh was in detention for 10 months, which is a long period, and several people have asked how that case came to court on the basis of the evidence provided. I applaud all the local police in Basildon. When I became a Member eight years ago, there was one police station. There are now three—in Pitsea, Laindon and Basildon—and they are doing a magnificent job. In three weeks' time, the Lord Chancellor will come to Basildon to open a new magistrates court. If all Members of Parliament, regardless of their political party, supported the work of our police force, crime prevention and detection would be much more effective.
    Our rights, freedoms and responsibilities will always be preserved by the Conservative party and the Conservative Government, but from what I have heard in the debate, they will certainly not be preserved by the Labour party. On Europe, the Conservative party is on the side of the

    407
    angels. Eastern bloc countries, which we would welcome to the EC, have rejected socialism. I believe that the British people will continue to do likewise.
    8.56 pm
    Mr. William Hague: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. I shall try to be brief so that my two hon. Friends who wish to participate have time to speak. I would say to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that in this debate on rights, freedoms and responsibilities, many of us would regard it as among our first responsibilities as Members of Parliament to ensure that we pay our Taxes. Whatever side we are on—whether as Labour Members who disagree with the community charge or as Conservative Members who disagreed with the high rates of taxation suffered by the whole country under a Labour Government—we, above all people, should pay our taxes.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hague: I am afraid that I shall not give way because the hon. Gentleman had half an hour on this subject, which is more time than is available for three of us on the Conservative Benches. No doubt we shall hear many more half-hours of speeches from him on this subject.
    I should like to support two measures promised in the Gracious Speech that should strengthen the sense of individual responsibility throughout the country—one is the Criminal Justice Bill and the other is the road traffic legislation, which I know is not within the direct responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister, but I shall refer to some aspects that relate to Home Office matters. Those matters were debated on Friday.
    I warmly support those Bills, but I wish to draw attention to the difficulties that we face in ensuring that certain groups of young people live up to the responsibilities that the law places on them, and to point out that, although the measures proposed will help to combat the problems of under-age drinking and driving and the general incidence of teenage crime, still more action may need to be taken in future.
    The road traffic Bill includes some welcome provisions. We have probably all been visited in our surgeries by the relatives of people who have been killed by drunken drivers—drivers who have subsequently received what seemed to be derisory fines and penalties. A prison sentence of up to five years is an appropriate penalty and I hope that it will be used to the full by the courts. There is a case for considering still longer periods for which to withdraw a person's driving licence, and the provision for a new test to be taken before a licence is reissued is an excellent idea.
    I suspect that the considerable problem of under-age drinking when driving will remain. That is because in many licensed premises it is fairly easy for people under the age of 18 to obtain alcohol, just as it is easy for those under the age of 16 to obtain cigarettes elsewhere. It may seem churlish to criticise those involved, but when the wide availability of alcohol is combined with a recently passed driving test, the consequences can he terrible.
    I raise the subject for a constituency reason. My constituents in Wensleydale in north Yorkshire have recently been shocked by a series of road accidents associated with under-age drinking and driving in which
    408
    16 and 17-year-olds have suffered horrific injuries. For a while, victims' friends and local communities may reflect on those matters and act more carefully, but after a few months, all is forgotten and the same thing is likely to happen again. There is a particular problem in rural areas, where alternative forms of entertainment are sparse, where policy resources are stretched and where roads are unlit and dangerous in winter.
    I should be the first to accept that it is not easy for us in the House to protect people from the consequences of their own actions, but I think that we can do more to help in the future. The measures announced in the Gracious Speech will help by making far more serious the personal consequences of drink-driving, but we also need a stronger effort in many schools and, possibly by Government Departments, to combat under-age drinking and driving. Over the years, campaigns on smoking, drugs and AIDS have succeeded in making an impact on people in their late teens. It may be time to give more attention in public health campaigns to alcohol and, in particular, to its connection with road accidents involving young people.
    Some of my constituents, including many pub landlords, believe that the answer to the problem lies in some form of identity card. The landlords argue that they frequently serve alcohol to 16 and 17-year-olds because many of them look 18 and because they have no means of knowing for sure how old they are. I suspect that there will be many years of debate in the House before any decision is made to introduce national identity cards, but the potential for helping with under-age drinking is definitely one argument in favour.
    The other measure in the Gracious Speech that should lead to an improved sense of responsibility is the Criminal Justice Bill, although I have some reservations about the progress that we are likely to make in reducing crime among the teenage population. There is no doubt that many of the provisions of the Bill will help. They include the doubling of the number of hours of community service that may be imposed on 16-year-olds and the general use of community service orders—for many young offenders an option far superior to prison, which clearly does not do many people a great deal of good and does not turn them away from crime.
    Curfew orders, fines more related to the ability to pay and the increased power of courts to hold parents responsible for the actions of their children are undoubtedly good ideas, as is the attempt to ensure that prison sentences are for the most serious crimes while other measures, such as fines and community service orders, are deployed against more petty offenders.
    I am not sure, however, that those measures will be sufficient in the long term to cope with a small class of persistent offenders in the teenage population who, in recent years, have blackened the reputation of their generation and undermined public confidence in the ability of the police to ensure that law and order are maintained.
    My constituents and others in the north of England, including police officers, tell me that, in some areas, more than half the crimes are committed by people under the age of 17 and that those in that age group are particularly heavily involved in the theft of cars. In one area, I have heard about gangs of an average age of 16 who go out to steal cars each evening. Having stolen a car—usually of the more sporty, high-powered variety—they don ski masks and cruise past the police station blowing the horn and inviting pursuit. We are being naively optimistic if we

    409
    think that restraint will necessarily be imposed by parents. I am told that, in that same area, parents of children under the age of 17 send their children to break the windows or steal the car tyres of people against whom they hold a grudge. Perhaps the provisions off the Criminal Justice Bill will help to deal with that.
    There is a danger that a sort of professional criminal class will develop among the teenage population. I accept that custody is not necessarily the answer to that either. In many instances, young people can immediately produce a business card with the details of their solicitor when caught. Public confidence in the rule of law is reduced because of the difficulties that the police have in catching people who commit those perhaps petty but often repeated crimes. The real danger to public confidence sometimes arises when such persistent offenders are caught.
    As one of my constituents wrote to ask me, what are we to do when persistent young offenders who are known to be such in their areas are not remanded or ever taken into custody even after many warnings and fines that are then followed by more offences? I absolutely agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). He drew attention to the continuing role for deterrence. We sometimes forget about that. One of my constituents wanted to know what is to be done when a young offender is to appear in court, and knowing that he has nothing to lose because new offences committed since the notice of the intended prosecution will be ignored, embarks on a so-called crime spree. My hon. Friend the Minister may tell me that such things do not happen very often. However, many people believe that they do happen and that belief alone damages confidence in the courts and in the police.
    While I congratulate the Home Office on its proposals, how confident are my colleagues in the Home Office that their planned changes will not make it even easier for young offenders to seem to get off lightly even after a long string of offences? The penalties imposed in those cases must be seen to bite. We must ensure that community service orders are sufficiently long, curfew orders sufficiently strict and parental fines sufficiently heavy to make an impact on that group of young people. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to assure us that the effect of the combination of those measures will be monitored and carefully researched and that the Government will be ready to tighten the measures further if the need arises in future.
    9.5 pm
    Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) in his researchers. He might care to visit Massachusetts and consider the experiment carried out there many years ago which reduced juvenile crime and recidivism greatly simply by acknowledging that some juveniles are delinquent and that they should be taken out of the system at a very early age and then rehabilitated back into the system. However, that requires money and investment.
    The new Criminal Justice Bill lacks any provision to deal with a growing scandal about which I have spoken to the Minister privately—the young people who kill
    410
    themselves in our prisons. Inquests are held week in and week out. Prison suicides are increasing. We must ask ourselves why that is happening.
    The press releases issued after the Queen's Speech announced with pride that the prison building programme was to have three of its proposed sites chopped out—one at Fazakerley, one in mid-Staffordshire and one elsewhere. It was stated that there would be enough room within the present prison system. We have the most disgraceful prisons in Europe. The conditions are appalling; people kill themselves there. But nothing is being done about it.
    There is only one way to deal with the Armleys of this world, and that is to bulldoze them. If we are to have prisons, they should be used intelligently and, for goodness sake, they should be made hygienic. At least then we might begin to rehabilitate people instead of turning them from petty criminals into potentially professional villains who can only harm society.
    If a little common sense is used and we invest in ascertaining the potential delinquents at an early age and try to rehabilitate them, and if we then find that there are people whom we must send to prison—I am not soft on crime and punishment—at least we will send them into humane conditions and we might rehabilitate them. We might at least put them somewhere where they can learn a trade or become educated and are not locked up 23 hours a day idling the hours away, spending their time talking to a cellmate and learning how to do the job better next time.
    We delude ourselves by playing the endless turne of making sentences longer and then trying a new kind of punishment such as keeping people contained in their houses. That is a load of garbage. We already know that the tagging system cannot work. The tags go off as a result of interference from all kinds of external sources.
    There is just one thing missing from the Queen's Speech. What do the Government intend to do to recreate a manufacturing base in this country? They will not encourage industry with high interest rates. They might have fallen a point and they might fall a couple of points more as we approach election day, but what are the Government going to do? What will they do to encourage inward investment instead of allowing capital to flow out like water through a sieve, as has happened for the past 12 years?
    Perhaps the Minister of State might indulge me with the answer to one question that has baffled me for the past two months since I read it in a Dublin newspaper. How is it that the Republic of Eire, without vast oil resources or the hundreds of billions of pounds that we have had to throw away in the past 10 years, with an agriculture-based economy, with a migrant work force, and with no industrial base and skills, can arrive in October this year at an inflation rate of 2·8 per cent. while we, with all that oil money, landed up with an inflation rate of 10·7 per cent.? Could it have helped our economy not to have had the oil and, for once, to have learnt something from the Irish?
    9.9 pm
    Mr. David Nicholson: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, the police and all those involved in the arrests and the discoveries in north-west London earlier today. It is the breakthrough for which we have been waiting for several months. We are delighted, and we hope that it leads to convictions.

    411
    There are many Bills in the Gracious Speech that I would welcome, but first I single out two rather complex Bills for which we have been waiting for some time: first, to revise the planning system and, secondly, to improve the assessment, collection and enforcement of maintenance payments—verymuch the theme of this debate. Two nuggets that I also welcome are the provision of a second Severn crossing in the south-west, which will help my constituents and industry near my constituency, and, at long last, the implementation of the Home report to reform procedures for street works so as to ensure that utilities dig up the roads in a consistent and co-ordinated way.
    With regard to crime and related matters, I welcome the Criminal Justice Bill. I also welcome a piece of legislation for which I believe the Department of Transport is responsible, to toughen the penalty system for drink drivers who kill. In my constituency much concern was caused by the tragic death of a teenager, Joanne Cruwys, and the rather paltry sentence that was meted out to the man who, while very drunk, killed her. That matter was referred, under legislation that the House passed some years ago, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to the Court of Appeal. As a newspaper article stated last week, the gaol term and the ban from driving were extended. I welcome that and I look forward to legislation to ensure that we do not have to go through such a palaver and that parents and families do not have to go through the agony of seeing such matters prolonged.
    As we implement what is contained in this commendable Queen's Speech we shall also be preparing our programme for the next Parliament. This Parliament has seen legislative revolutions in many aspects of our national life. Some of the measures that we have passed still await full implementation—for example, electricity privatisation and national health service reform. The jury on those matters is still out.
    My constituents, like many others in the west country, are suspicious of drastic, rapid and frequent changes. They are not always carried along by rhetoric. They want to now thke bottom line—"How much will it cost me?" That is a good Tory response to any legislation, and thousands of my constituents are good old-fashioned Tories, although they are not entirely happy at present. For example, they require more persuasion on the issue of NHS trusts. I note from the local press that my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) agrees with my caution on that subject.
    Similarly, my constituents have been slower than people elsewhere to introduce grant-maintained schools. I am not against grant-maintained schools, but we need to proceed with caution, certainly in my area. I therefore welcome the assurances, as reported in the press this morning, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on education vouchers.
    The watchword for the next Parliament and for my party must be steady progress and improvements in public services, standards, quality, value for money and equity, and more caution towards administrative and structural upheaval—in other words, positive and constructive consolidation. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will bear those words of caution in mind if they are called upon in the next few weeks, with whatever attendant reluctance or risk, to use their own rights, freedoms and responsibilities.
    9.14 pm
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: In the brief time available to me, I should like to express my support for the War Crimes Bill because British justice and British honour are involved. We have unwittingly provided sanctuary to the people accused of terrible crimes. Now that that is known, we cannot leave it there. These crimes were crimes then. We are asking that those people be subject to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the courts of this land like any other British residents. That is all that is being asked of the House and Parliament. I hope that this tirne we shall see the legislation through on to the statute book.
    We have heard much in recent days about an impending Labour Government, and many people outside wonder what such a Government would be about. But why study the crystal ball when you can read the book? The Labour party is in power in town and county halls throughout the country. Its track record is open to study in Liverpool, Brent and Ealing, where it was chucked out by its enraged charge payers last May, and in Haringey, Lambeth and Greenwich.
    With records like that, in supposedly reformed moderate Labour councils, no wonder the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has been so energetically laying down a smoke screen in recent days. We should blow away that smoke screen and look at some facts and figures.
    First, Labour claims that there is no difference between the amount of community charge levied in Conservative and in Labour-controlled councils. In a press release from the Labour party on 18 April, we were told that the average poll tax in Conservative and Labour councils hardly differed. Let us look at those facts. Hon. Members need only go to the Library to get the facts for the average community charge for areas that are either Conservative unitary authorities, London or metropolitan boroughs, or which are under Conservative shire county and district councils. There are 95 such authorities, and the community charge in them averages £333. In the Labour-controlled areas—sadly, there are 73—local people suffer an average community charge of £384——
    Mr. John Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the poll tax is a fair tax?
    Mr. Arnold: Well, £51 may not be a lot of money to the hon. Gentleman who yelled out, but it is certainly a lot of money to most of the people who have to pay it.
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman voted for it.
    Mr. Arnold: Well, those figures mask the reality. We forget the impact of the safety net all too easily. That is the system whereby residents of prudent Conservative authorities are obliged to subsidise the residents of wasteful Labour authorities. If we were to strip away the surcharges and handouts, we would find that the Labour party's arithmetical inexactitude is almost a case for reference to the Advertising Standards Authority. Having done that, we find that totally Conservative areas have an average community charge of £305, compared with the rip-off in totally Labour areas of £412—[Laughter.] Opposition Members may think that this is a laughing matter, but a differential of no less than £107 per head for the privilege of voting Labour has a devilish impact on the charge payers of those areas.

    413
    Let us look at those rip-offs. Were it not for the generosity of the Government's safety net, people in the London borough of Greenwich would be paying £620. As it is, the rest of us are subsidising Greenwich residents to the tune of £212 per head—just because Greenwich has a traditionally wasteful Labour council. Lambeth's real rip-off is £575, not the £548 that it has tried to levy on local people. Haringey's is £573. Southwark would have to charge £550 were it not for our subsidy of £160. I could go on and on. I represent the people of Gravesham and I resent the fact that each of my constituents has had to pay £15 towards those spendthrift Labour councils.
    One could call those figures a competence test and Labour councils would be found wanting. But how about the incompetence test? That is best measured by the level of contributions in the collection account. This year, inevitably, an estimate has had to be made, but next year the figures will be based on the actual record. That track record is already becoming evident. By August, in Conservative collecting authorities 83 per cent. of people had paid. In Labour authorities the figure was only 74 per cent. By the end of October the figures had become even clearer. In a study by The Guardian, the worst four collectors were all Labour controlled. In Hackney, 44 per cent. have paid nothing. In Liverpool, 42 per cent. of charge payers have paid nothing. In Lambeth, the figure is 40 per cent. Indeed, Lambeth has still not collected the rates from the previous system and has not closed its accounts since 1984–85. In Nottingham, 30 per cent. have not paid. That is not particularly surprising as Labour councillors, and indeed Labour Members of Parliament, give little encouragement to pay and put strongly the counter-arguments to paying the community charge. Thirty hon. Members backed the campaign of non-payment, as did many dozens, if not hundreds, of Labour councillors around the country.
    In Gravesham, the leading Labour councillor, Tina Deadman, is leading a non-payment campaign. She is prepared to use council services but leaves it to other, less well-off people in the borough to pick up the bill. I thought that the Labour party was moderate and sanitised in this day and age. It is high time that it expelled Councillor Deadman and her like for her defiance of the law and lack of consideration for poorer constituents.
    Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of councils have got on with collection. The figures now show that over 90 per cent. of people are paying. That is not dissimilar to the proportion who previously paid the rates. Some effective Conservative authorities are doing far better. Medina, which is a newly Conservative-controlled council on the Isle of Wight, has already collected from 96 per cent. of its charge payers. Gravesham has collected 93 per cent.
    I could go through a litany of Conservative councils which are getting on with collection. Those figures will be reflected in the contributions next year to the collection account and chickens will come home well and truly to roost. Labour councils which have been least efficient or unco-operative in collecting their community charge will pass on that charge to their charge payers, who will know what to think.
    One of the claimed virtues of the community charge was that the actual charge would be comprehensible to the
    414
    electorate—an actual poundage figure. It would reveal the comparative performance of councils. That is now happening and there is no wonder at the frenetic activity of Labour Members.
    9.22 pm
    Ms. Jo Richardson: I do not know what the Home Secretary was worried about when he opened the debate this afternoon. He castigated us for choosing yet again—I admit it—the title of the debate. He was wrong to do so, because the House needs the opportunity that we provided by selecting this range of subjects to consider matters which may or may not be in the Queen's Speech but which some hon. Members wish had been included. Hon. Members needed an opportunity to give their views on rights, responsibilities and freedoms and show the House what they meant by them. Indeed, we heard some contrasting speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Our discussions ranged from mid-Kent and transport there, to Iraq and the national health service. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) referred to the speech that she gave two years ago as an alternative Queen's Speech for women. It has all been interesting and enthusiastic stuff, which the Home Secretary should welcome.
    The Tories have a negative concept of the term "freedom", which is presumably why they do not want to talk about it. They believe that, if the state does nothing to help and support people, somehow that increases each individual's freedom of movement. They emphasise individual responsibility, but fail to emphasise the individual's rights. That concept is a complete mystery to those of our constituents who are, for example, waiting for hip operations. It is no freedom for them to have to hang about for two or three years because the health service is not sufficiently responsive to provide a bed.
    We in the Labour party have a positive concept of freedom. It emphasises individual choice and accepts that the Government have a role in providing the means which allow people to exercise that choice. It is nonsense to say that women with children are free to choose their work, if there is no child care available. That notion of choice is an empty piece of rhetoric.
    One important aspect of this Session's legislation which epitomises those differences is presented in the White Paper "Children Come First". It places a strong emphasis on a father's responsibility to support his children financially. Although the Government have had many opportunities to do so, they do not recognise any corresponding rights which fathers could be accorded to encourage them to care for their children.
    Why, for example, have the Government so consistently blocked the EC directive on parental rights which would open up opportunities for fathers to take leave from work to care for their children in the early stages of life? It is a good right, which would elicit a greater sense of responsibility from fathers. Instead, fathers are constantly labelled and stigmatised as merely breadwinners.
    I support the idea of fathers paying maintenance for their children. I am sure that we have ail had many letters from women constituents who want to know where their husbands are and will welcome this provision. I am sure that everyone will. However, I do not endorse the idea that fathers should be viewed solely as breadwinners. They

    415
    have or should have responsibilities for caring, too. How much more warmly I could have welcomed these proposals, if they had included a father's right to paternity leave on the birth of child, as the Labour party proposes.
    When the Secretary of State for Social Security made his statement to the House he said:
    "the welfare of children is the prime consideration."—[Official Report, 29 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 729.]
    Yet the most important factor undermining the welfare of children in a separated or divorced family is the poverty of the mother and children living on benefit. We must look carefully at the concept of maintenance to ensure that we are not confirming women in that position.
    It is hard to come to terms with the idea that there must be parental responsibility for a child's actions, but I understand what the Secretary of State is saying. Yet what is the position of a mother who has been left by her husband or who has left her husband and has the double responsibility of being both parents and of following her children to court to see that they are all right? We must consider that double responsibility.
    Central to the Tory notion of freedom is the free market, yet in so many areas of life that market fails to provide. It does not deliver training, child care or employment rights. It is that same free market morality that has helped to turn Britain into a bitterly divided nation. This is the first post-war Government to have turned the morality of Robin Hood on its head as they rob the poor to give to the rich.
    Another important area of rights are those that a woman should have when she is expecting a baby. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) talked about the national health service, based on her expertise. Women have a right to expect good quality pre-natal and post-natal care and they should not have to worry about losing their jobs. They should also not have to worry about finding a hospital bed when the time comes to have the baby, but that is happening in my health authority.
    Maternity rights should be available for all working women—the basic provision in every Community country. The extension of maternity rights to all working women would be a practical and equitable measure that would deliver real equal opportunities and social justice to many more women. I hope that the Government will support the proposed European directive that will guarantee women those rights. Sadly, nothing in the Government's track record gives me much cause for hope.
    The Government claim to have improved life for women, but let us look at the record on independent taxation. The introduction of independent taxation was much vaunted and women thought that they would at last have independence in taxation, with the ability to fill in their own forms. Women should, of course, have the right to be taxed independently and equally, but the Government have a responsibility to ensure that that happens. Independent taxation has not meant equal taxation. A married couple might earn exactly the same amount of money, but the woman still pays more tax. In all but exceptional circumstances, the married couple's tax allowance goes to the husband, which hardly represents a major advance for women.
    The Conservative party's much vaunted ministerial group on women's issues has been a loud-mouthed, do-nothing group, which has failed to advance women's rights one iota. The five-point plan on child care has not led to the creation of even one more nursery place. That
    416
    group is nothing more than a cynical piece of self-promotion and a sorry substitute for real action. The plain fact is that the United Kingdom is still at the bottom of the league in the provision of child care.
    The appointment of a woman Minister to be chair—I know that she does not like to be called chairman—of the ministerial group will do no more to advance women's rights than the sorry track record of the Conservative woman Prime Minister. In last year's debate, the then chair of that group—still a member of it, as I understand it—claimed that he had improved opportunities for women in public life. I suggest that he should have started by putting his own house in order, because 96 per cent. of the cleaners employed by the Home Office are women, but only 2 per cent. of the professional and technical officers. That is something of a contrast. I hope that the Minister, now she has taken up her abode at the Home Office, will look to that. There were considerable opportunities for the ministerial group to implement some equal opportunity strategies—I hope that they will take those opportunities now.
    I recently conducted an exercise on the visibility of women in the top ranks of the police throughout England and Wales. I hope that the hon. Lady will look at it—it is a sorry picture. It is shame that there are not more chief officers, superintendents, assistant superintendents and deputies, and that women are to be found only as constables and up to the level of sergeant. Women can have little confidence in the police when they see little reflection of themselves in the force.
    Today, I attended an interesting conference across the road in the Queen Elizabeth suite, organised by the National Federation of Women's Institutes, which is not exactly a Labour organisation. Its members call it the sleeping giant. There were 800 women at the conference, and I wish all the hon. Members present had been there to hear them, because they had plenty to say about their position in society and the rights of which they fear they are deprived. They began to ask the panel what would happen when the sleeping giant woke up and made a few waves. I wanted to bring them all over here to make a few waves this evening, so that male Conservative Members could hear what those women were saying.
    I brought the women to their feet when I said that the Lord Chancellor had recently stated that he hoped that there would be more blacks and women as judges, not this year, next year or the 1990s, but the next century. The women wanted to know why their talents and aspirations were so hidden and barrier-ridden that they had to wait until many of the subjects that the women's institutes had been discussing over the years are properly aired in the courts, and taken notice of and there are more women judges to help in that.
    The general thrust of this debate has been about rights. We are interested and concerned to hear what the Minister has to say in response. I have made a short summing-up speech because there have been so many speakers this evening. The Conservative vision of rights, responsibilities and freedoms is certainly not the same as the Labour one. We have a vision that is coming across to people in this country, who know that it can become a reality, but they know, and they cannot wait for it, that that reality will come only with a Labour Government.
    9.38 pm
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): It is a pleasure for me to be here this evening to answer this interesting, wide-ranging debate in which there have been 19 speeches from Back-Benchers ranging across a series of issues, including the environment, health, education, the family, the citizen, urban life and the wider concerns of Europe and even the Gulf. All those have been within the context of this evening's topic—rights, freedoms and responsibilities. I shall do my best to respond to the points that have been made, but I hope that the House will be as indulgent as it usually is if I miss some of them.
    The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) gave me some comfort for some of the time during some of his speech. He will not be surprised to learn that I was less happy with some of his other sentiments. The right hon. Gentleman said that crime prevention was the focal point of the policies of his party, and he dismissed the record of the Government, so I shall reiterate a little of what we have done in this area.
    Crime prevention is and will continue to be an essential element in our response to crime. In recent years there have been substantial gains in this area, locally and nationally. The growth of neighbourhood watch schemes, driven by the desire of members of the public to tackle crime, has been phenomenal. There are now more than 81,000 such schemes in England and Wales. In many parts of the country police and local agencies are coming together to work in collaboration to tackle crime in creative and innovative ways. The right hon. Gentleman must understand that tackling crime is not merely a matter of Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box waving an imaginary wand over crime. Crime prevention has to do with collaboration between those working on the ground and citizens.
    Centrally, we have fostered this development and given it direction—most recently in the issue of a new circular and booklet containing guidance on best practice to all the relevant local services. The crime prevention handbook for the public, "Practical ways to crack crime", has been distributed to more than 4 million households, and demand for it continues.
    Our safer cities programme, which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook mentioned, has established 16 projects across the country supporting more than 700 crime prevention schemes. Central Government are supporting safer cities by meeting the cost of the salaries of the co-ordinating staff and through grant funding. Many of us spend much of our time visiting those centres to see the important work being done to prevent crime in our inner cities and urban areas.
    The right hon. Gentleman also promised that, were there ever to be a Labour Government, he would set about creating crime prevention schemes that would be led by local authorities, in partnership, no doubt, with central Government. But I expect that that would cost central Government, or at least community charge payers, some money. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has informed the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer about this commitment to extra expenditure by a future Labour Government.
    The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of his commitment to the recommendations in the Calcutt report. I am glad to confirm that my right hon. and learned
    418
    Friend will accept those recommendations and is examining the statutory framework for that and for including the sort of example—the taking of a photograph—that the right hon. Gentleman gave. I also want to explain to him the reasons for the inclusion in the Taylor report of the offence of running on to a pitch—something about which the right hon. Gentleman expressed some anxiety. He will recall that there is a proposal in the Taylor report to remove the fences round pitches. If they are removed, the offence of running on to the pitch would be a sensible precaution to take for security reasons——
    Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Lady will recall that I said that I had some sympathy with this idea and would look at the Bill; but is running on to the pitch to be prohibited at all forms of public sport?
    Mrs. Rumbold: No, we are talking purely about the Taylor recommendations for football.
    Turning to the Criminal Justice Bill, the right hon. Gentleman asked about one or two incidents. He also asked about our aim to get cases from magistrates courts to the Crown courts on committal within 112 days. At present, only London and eight counties still operate outside this limit and we are hoping that an announcement on the final phase of custody time limits will be made before the end of the year.
    The right hon. Gentleman also suggested the introduction of sentencing councils. I draw his attention to the fact that several people have called for the establishment of such councils as a means of securing greater consistency in the sentencing of offenders. The Government are not persuaded of the need for that. The courts will continue to benefit from the guidance issued by the Court of Appeal and the training provided by the Judicial Studies Board. In addition, they will have in the Bill our proposed statutory framework for sentencing. One of its main aims is to promote a more consistent approach to sentencing.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What are the Government doing about remand prisoners in police stations in the Greater Manchester area? When I raised this issue, the Home Secretary nodded his concern. First, it is totally inappropriate for prisoners to be kept for long periods in police stations. Secondly, it is a large cost for the Greater Manchester police authority.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary nodded his head when the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made that point. One reason for remand prisoners being kept in police cells in the north of England is that the Prison Officers Association refuses to open the wings in Strangeways. Those wings are now ready to accommodate people and could perfectly well take them in. That would save the police force the unacceptable costs to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention and would remove the unacceptable conditions in which people are held. I urge the hon. Gentleman to take up the matter with the Prison Officers Association.
    I can tell the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that the purpose of the Criminal Justice Bill is to achieve the correct and appropriate sentencing of offenders and thereby offer a positive response to crime. It is not intended to empty our prisons, however desirable that might be.

    419
    The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said that she supported the provisions for the maintenance of children whose fathers have abdicated their responsibilities. The provisions are even-handed and will apply not only to fathers but to mothers if necessary.
    Ms. Richardson: Fewer mothers leave their kids
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Lady is correct. However, she and many people would quickly accuse the Government of not being even-handed if we did not apply our maintenance provisions to both men and women. The hon. Lady condemned the Government for our policy on maternity leave. It is important to remind her that Britain has a longer period of maternity leave than any of our European partners. It is true that we do not pay some of the women for as long as some of our European partners, but much time off is allowed for women to have children.
    It is important to refute what the hon. Lady said about my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten). He is no longer a member of the ministerial group on women's issues. He has handed that responsibility to me. I strongly refute the accusation that that group has not conducted itself and its business very stringently. It has worked hard to produce its five-point plan on child care. Some of those measures are beginning to take effect and more will take effect in future.
    The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that the simple test of writing something down and declaring it does not necessarily make it happen. Policies take time to work and I am confident that time will show an improvement. The five-point plan was issued just a year ago.
    Ms. Richardson: My understanding is that the ministerial group has discussed only two subjects apart from child care. One is domestic violence, which I gather the group is against, and the other is rape in marriage. I and women in Britain wish that the Government would put some effort into making those two crimes totally unacceptable.
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for telling me what the group has discussed. She is right: we have discussed violence and matters concerning rape, and I can tell her that things are definitely happening on that score. She also challenged me to say what else the ministerial group had said. As she may remember, it was set up in response to a call; my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was the first person to establish such a group to examine forward-looking strategies. That was an extremely important move. A number of issues have been raised, which the group is currently studying. We are now examining the question of employment for women—I know that the hon. Lady will be interested in that.
    I noted the comments made by the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), to which I shall refer later.
    I was interested to hear of the experiences of the hon. Member for Barking today at the National Federation of Womens' Institutes. I would have enjoyed visiting the organisation myself, but was unable to go. As she knows, many women are currently on the ladder and on the way to the very top. We do not ask—as some expect us to—that we should come out of school or university and be made judges immediately; we do not ask for a Ministry for women, or for special concessions. We do not want
    420
    positive discrimination in our favour. However, we do want our abilities, freedoms and rights to be acknowledged so that we can make our way equally and fairly alongside men on the road to success.
    Mr. John Evans: Very slowly.
    Mrs. Rumbold: I can refute what the hon. Gentleman says—from a sedentary position. We are making progress faster and faster as time goes on. That is because of the desire of women: that is what women wish to do. Women will continue to be more successful than they would if they were subjected to positive discrimination, which is both paternalistic and patronising.
    I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) on coming out of his seven-year silence. It is an awesome return from a sentence, but, as we expected, he made a real contribution. I was delighted to hear his views on the importance of the family to children's early years. I entirely endorse what he said, especially his views about the importance to children of having warm and caring experiences in their early years within their families. Like him, I did not receive a telephone call over the weekend. I am very upset about that, as I share his views on that difficulty.
    The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) gave us sombre words of warning. I fully endorse his views: men and women everywhere must know that they have the right to live free from fear.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) referred to Northern Ireland and to the horrors of terrorism. Of all the rights, responsibilities and freedoms that we have, assuredly the freedom from acts of terrorism is one with which all hon. Members would agree. Opposition Members must be enjoined to think carefully and hard before abandoning efforts taken by the Government to protect us all. Whether we are Members of Parliament or members of the public, we are all innocent victims in the face of terrorism.
    I must also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who spoke about the war crimes Bill. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has noted his views. My right hon. Friend also expressed concern about the deterrent set out in the White Paper governing the framework of the Criminal Justice Bill. The intention is to have purposeful and demanding sentencing—whether non-custodial or not—to command the respect of the public. I am sure that he will agree that without that confidence no rule of law can be upheld. As he rightly said when referring to asylum and to the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees the Government are obliged to let into the country anyone who claims asylum at an airport or sea port. The Government also have an obligation to maintain proper immigration control in the face of the huge migratory pressures in the world today.
    I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows that it is riot a matter that affects the United Kingdom alone; it concerns the whole of Europe. We are worried about the greatly increasing numbers and the clear misuse of the asylum procedures. We are urgently reviewing the impact on immigration control and the Government's obligations towards asylum seekers and the arrangements for processing individual cases. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be reassured by that.

    421
    The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) will be glad to know that we have abolished detention for 14-year-olds, about which he was concerned. I understand that concern, as I understand the concern of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) about suicides in prisons. I deprecate those occurrences, and I hope that we will be taking urgent action. It is an important and serious issue that must attract the Government's urgent attention. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North also mentioned Red Bank school. The points that he raised are mainly matters for the Department of Health, and I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to them when I have an opportunity to do so.
    The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) spoke about women and work. She has already heard my views on the way in which I hope women will want to pursue their careers to the top of every available ladder. She suggested that women working part time had a bad deal. Some 60 per cent. of women in the United Kingdom are in work, which is one of the highest proportions of women working anywhere in Europe. One reason why part-time work is so successful is that that is what women want. It is important to encourage employers, large and small, to improve the conditions and the opportunties for women to work part time or flexible hours if they find that satisfactory.
    Mrs. Wise: We are in favour of part-time work for women who want it, but there is no reason why it should be for rotten wages and in rotten conditions, without the worker having any control. Why will not the Minister agree to the EEC directive on that?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Lady must study the equal opportunities and equal pay legislation. It is nonsense to make the remarks that she did. If she wants to take issue
    422
    with that, she must raise the matter with the Equal Opportunities Commission. She can use the provisions under the Equal Pay Act 1970 to ensure that nothing discriminates against women. The EC proposals would result in a large number of women in the United Kingdom no longer having the opportunity to work. If that is what the Opposition want, I urge them to take care because it is not what the women want and it is not what they will vote for.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) referred to the war crimes Bill and mentioned his views on education, with which I am well acquainted. I agree with his wish for many improvements in educational opportunities and in other areas.
    The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is not in his place. He complained about the length of time allowed for his speech. He should learn the lesson that those of us who served in local government learned—that one can make a good speech in five minutes, but nothing like such a good speech in 10 or 20 minutes.
    I listened carefully to the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) on the importance of family centres. I was moved by his views on the War Crimes Bill. No one who heard him could doubt his sincerity and the depth of his opposition to the measure. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will have noted his views.
    I have some concerns about what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was saying about the defence of our freedoms and how we should handle our affairs in the Gulf. I hope that he shares the view of all hon. Members that we must, whatever else we do, unite with our world colleagues in ensuring that the infringement of Kuwait by an invader is not allowed. It is important that we take action, as we are all declared to do.
    It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Photocopy Companies (Pricing Policy)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The photocopier is as much a part of business in the 1990s a s the telephone. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for granting me the opportunity of presenting the House with details of an unscrupulous scheme that is costing British businesses and the public millions of pounds. It is fuelling inflation and therefore harming the economy. Unless action is taken to stop it, it will financially cripple photocopier users and drive honest companies selling photocopiers out of business. It affects not only small and large businesses but health boards, charities, voluntary organisations and education establishments—in short, everyone who requires a photocopier.
  Anyone who wants a photocopier has a choice of acquiring and financing it in three ways. First, people can buy it outright and pay between 1 p and 2p a copy for supplies such as toner and parts. A tamper-proof meter is built into the machine and records a monthly or quarterly leasing charge. That is similar to running up miles on a lease car. Secondly, they can lease the equipment, paying a monthly or quarterly leasing charge, which is similar to buying goods on hire purchase, and then paying for toner and parts on the same per copy basis that I outlined.
  The third method is to roll together all the leasing or rental costs with the cost of toner, supplies and parts and to work out an all-inclusive per copy cost. That is commonly called copyplan or serviceplan. That third method of paying for photocopies has been the source of so much abuse, and I am asking the Minister to have his Department investigate it.
  In April, the magazine What to Buy for Business exposed the copy plan of the Southern Business Group. However, I want to focus the Minister's attention on some of the victims of another company—Eurocopy plc.
  Eurocopy's copyplan, serviceplan and rental agreements are among the most restrictive and expensive ways of financing a copier. I have spoken to many charities, businesses and organisations such as health boards that have been duped by Eurocopy. Their losses total millions of pounds. The service plan, rental plan and copy plan operated by Eurocopy is evil. Although there is nothing dishonest about comprehensive per copy arrangements, Eurocopy has used such contracts to amass vast profits from dishonest sales practices. To paraphrase the words of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the unacceptable face of capitalism has given birth to the unacceptable face of copiers.
  Like others in the copying business, Eurocopy realises that the secret of making money from photocopiers lies not in selling 10 copiers and making a modest profit on each copier but in selling one copier and making the biggest possible profit on that machine. A profit of £40,000 on a £2,000 copier is routine for Eurocopy's sales force, and members of the sales staff are frequently paid £100,000 on the basis of selling 25 copy agreements a year.
  Here is how it is done. A service plan, which sounds like an innocuous agreement to service the machines, is not what it seems; it is often a leasing agreement and frequently is imposed on equipment that the customer already owns. Nowhere is "lease" mentioned. The
  424
  customer is asked to estimate the number of copies that will be used each month and is then told by Eurocopy sales staff that the contract runs for 18 months and that the equipment is guaranteed for seven years. In fact, the small print on the Eurocopy contract legally binds the buyer to an eight-year contract because of a compulsory one-year additional termination clause. There is a six-year version of that, too.
  However, the eight-year commitment to spend tens and even hundreds of thousands of pounds on Eurocopy's equipment is only the beginning of the customer's nightmare. After 18 months, the customer frequently has to pay for all servicing, parts and toner, which can add £500 a year to the bill for a modest machine. Then there is the annual price hike of 15 per cent. on almost every contract.
  On 14 July, the Eurocopy group legal director, Mr. Colin Gilbert, sent me the company's latest rental agreement for the wholly owned subsidiary, Purdie arid Kirkpatrick. Buried in the small print of no fewer than 28 subclauses is the annual permissable increase of 15 per cent. It is not displayed on the front of the agreement, the part that the customer signs. I want the Minister's Department to investigate the highly inflationary aspects of Eurocopy and other companies' contracts.
  It is company policy to add 15 per cent. every year on all costs, including any lease payments. Since the lease costs are fixed at the beginning of the contract, Eurocopy and Purdie and Kirkpatrick can pocket the difference. In fact, Eurocopy leases are set at far higher rates than the standard market rate but, because the leasing costs are buried in the per copy cost, the customer is not aware of the rate that he or she is paying.
  More fine print in another contract allows Eurocopy to add 9 per cent. to all bills every six months for the duration of an eight-year contract, so the Eurocopy client finds himself tied to an eight-year contract, not an 18-month one. He finds his costs rising by 15 per cent. or more every year, doubling during the course of the contract. Finally, Eurocopy starts charging him for all supplies after the first 18 months, even though the customer thinks that he has already paid for them. The form that the client signs is designed to mislead. The 18-month trip, after which all costs of toner, supplies and parts are heaped on the back of the hapless customer, is not called a "free supplies period". No, it appears on the Eurocopy form as an "equipment changeover option", and the Eurocopy sales force is thus able to mislead customers into believing that they have an 18-month contract.
  I pay tribute to Gareth David of The Sunday Times, to David Cameron and Peter Woodifield of The Scotsman and Alan MacDermaid of the Glasgow Herald for their sterling investigative journalism on this matter of public concern. I have read with worry the statements in the press of Eurocopy. They have implied that only a handful of customers of recently acquired companies have complaints and that they are being treated sympathetically. They are wrong on all counts. Up to half of all Eurocopy customers are on serviceplan-type agreements, although many do not realise that a bombshell will drop on their bank accounts after 18 months.
  Far from being treated sympathetically, Eurocopy customers are at best resigned to new long-term contracts at rates far higher than those originally signed for. As the company is expanding by taking over existing photocopying business, it is acquiring lists of new customers all the

  425
  time. In south Wales, it recently took over two photocopy companies. In the past three months, the Eurocopy sales force has been going round stating that its members have taken over the servicing agreements and require a signature for the routine transfer of the paperwork. Firms have then found that the office junior has signed a six-year contract, with built-in price rises soaring above inflation. Those contracts are legally binding. Without help from the Minister's Department, firms will find their expansion plans blighted as Eurocopy sucks out ever-increasing amounts of their profits.
  It is worth looking at the history and evolution of copyplan. In two short years, that contract has been refined and modified to ensure the Eurocopy has always kept one step ahead of its potential customers. The original copyplan rolled up all costs and divided them into the number of copies so that the customer received a monthly or quarterly billing on the basis of the number of copies produced. The contract was drafted legally to bind the customer to paying for a minimum number of copies over a fixed period—as long as seven years—whether he actually used them or not. The company then modified the contract to insert the "initial term" or "termination" clause, which obliged the customer to pay for the service for a whole year after the expiry of the original contract.
  Then copyplan changed its name to serviceplan. The sales force simply walked into offices and said, "This is a service agreement." No mention was made of leasing or ownership of equipment, and some firms signed over the photocopier that they owned outright without realising it. A further modification to the contract inserted an 18-month equipment change option. That allowed sales staff to pretend to customers that the contract was of only 18 months', as opposed to eight years', duration. It also meant that Eurocopy could start charging for all toner and parts on an additional per copy basis after 18 months. Finally, it allowed the companies' sales force to visit the hapless victims when bills started soaring at 18 months, and to offer to reduce those soaring costs in return for a further eight-year contract.
  Those are the basic ingredients of the Eurocopy contracts and those of its subsidiaries, Equipu in England and Wales and Purdie and Kirkpatrick in Scotland. The scheme has been so successful in Scotland that it is known in the trade as the "Glasgow rip-off" or the "Glasgow stitch-up". It is important for the Minister to note that other photocopier and office supply companies are enforcing similar contracts. They are not illegal, but they should be.
  Mr. Cyril Gay, Eurocopy's managing director, contends that his firm inherited all its problems from Equipu. That is not the case. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) has a letter from his county council, which he has passed to me. It warns that schools operating local management schemes have also fallen victim to Eurocopy. The letter states that, after Equipu was taken over by Eurocopy, there was a mass resignation of salesmen who were unwilling to adopt the practices dictated by the new company.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) has a letter relating to a photocopier worth £4,000, which was installed in a local school. In September this year, the school was paying £5,769 a year for the machine
  426
  including £585 for supplies. By the end of a seven-year period, the school will be paying more than £14,000 a year. The machine will not even last another five years. The senior staff member had a visit from Mr. Gay's "sympathetic" staff to discuss the contract. His letter sums it up:
  "These people are bandits who say that it would cost £46,000 to buy out of the agreement. They should be put out of business."
  The firm involved is WDC Office Systems and Supplies Ltd. It is a member of the Eurocopy group, just like Purdie and Kirkpatrick, Equipu, Impress Office Machines Ltd. and Copy Consultants.
  The leading British charity representing Britain overseas had a visit from Purdie and Kirkpatrick. Its director writes:
  "I too fell victim to the misrepresentations and sharp business practice of this firm, which resulted in a substantial loss"—
  to his organisation—
  "and for me very serious damage to an otherwise unblemished 25 year career record."
  Other staff have not been as fortunate. Lothian health board had a visit from Purdie and Kirkpatrick. It was signed up for 11 machines, at terms so crippling that three members of staff lost their jobs, and the bill for the machines is adding to Lothian's multi-million pound deficit, to the detriment of patient care. The Greater Glasgow health board is another victim, as is Grampian health board. In a memo dated 18 May, the chief internal auditor of Grampian states:
  "officers inexperienced in procurement had been persuaded to sign agreements for up to 8 years at charges which can only be described as extortionate."
  The memo continues:
  "The companies involved are all members of the same group and include Equipu Finance plc, Eurocopy plc, Purdie and Kirkpatrick Limited and Impress Office Machines Ltd."
  It appears that the only experience that the Eurocopy sales staff require of their customers is the ability to sign their name. It does not matter how junior they are. It is left to the Eurocopy lawyers to demonstrate that the signature of almost any employee is legally binding.
  Mr. Gay has told his shareholders and the press that he inherited the problem. He has not. He has said that it affects only very few customers. It does not. I have seen the minutes of a board meeting of Mr. Gay's company held on 5 March this year. Mr. Gay was at the meeting and was told "Complaint levels are high." His fellow director, Mr. McCall, outlined the problem:
  "Our customers costs have always risen as each upgrade occurred but nothing like the 200 per cent. to 300 per cent. that will impact the figures now."
  The minutes continued to the effect that that
  "can only lead to more questions being asked."
  The minutes note that the company was receiving so many complaints that the firm's solicitor, Mr. Joe d'Inverno, could not cope.
  On the question of leasing companies being given invoices vastly in excess of the equipment's value, Mr. Gay was told at the meeting:
  "Invoice values are now at a level where a leasing company would think twice about accepting the deal."
  What is the company's solution? It is not the withdrawal of its contracts that are designed to mislead or an offer to help the unwitting customers who find themselves plunged into debt. Instead the minutes record the action to be

  427
  taken: another lawyer is to be employed to handle clients who complain. The minutes also record the problems of recording the profits. They note:
  "With provisions and massaging the accounts we can show any figures, but everything is short-term, with no plans for the long-term."
  The sad thing about the minutes is the lack of concern for the organisations, charities, health boards and businesses that have fallen foul of those methods. There is no compassion or contrition. The minutes record:
  "We would continue to operate under the principle of maximising today's profit."
  Eurocopy has acquired a number of other companies and that gives its sales force the chance to go in and sign up unsuspecting clients, as is happening now in south Wales and throughout England and Scotland. The salesmen are peddling the various Eurocopy customer plans with six or eight-year contracts, 18-month triggers and highly inflationary six-monthly or annual cost hikes.
  It would not be such a problem if Eurocopy was the only firm using such methods. Unfortunately, it has already spawned a host of imitators in the sale of office equipment. On 12 September the Director General of Fair Trading announced that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would be examining allegedly monopolistic practices in relation to the supply of toners and parts. I welcome that investigation, but I fear that it will not get to the heart of the problem that I have described.
  We need firm action from the Government. First, the scope of the MMC's present inquiry should be extended to cover all practices relating to misleading copyplan agreements. The Department of Trade and Industry should investigate the activities of the Eurocopy group and other businesses adopting similar practices and the Minister should invite evidence from people who feel that they have been the victims of unfair contracts, whether legally binding or not. The Department should ensure that all such existing contracts are renegotiated and it should prepare legislation to void existing contracts if the photocopying firms fail to co-operate. The Minister should publish the findings of his and other Government Departments on the claiming of regional development grants by the Eurocopy group and its satellite companies.
  The Office of Fair Trading and the DTI should draw up a fair contract that is transparent and sets out clearly all the costs over the whole duration of the contract, and that model contract should be binding.
  Finally, I am concerned at the role of leasing companies in the matter. It appears that Lloyds Bowmaker, Anglo Leasing and others have been providing two leases on the same piece of equipment and recognising leases for vastly inflated sums—far more than the worth of the equipment or its life span.
  I hope that organisations affected by unfair contracts will write to me and to the Minister. In short, we need firm action now by the DTI to protect businesses, public services, charities and the public. I hope that the Minister can guarantee that action will be taken without delay.
  10.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) has said. I shall ensure
  428
  that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry arid Consumer Affairs sees the record of this debate, as some of it will be of interest to him.
  I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not yet sent me any evidence of the malpractices he has described. It would have been more usual and more helpful had he sent his evidence in confidence to me at the Department before raising the matter on the Floor of the House. It is also a pity that he has seen fit to mention by name certain companies, one of which is still traded on the stock market, before submitting evidence to the appropriate authorities. Nonetheless, I will do my best to answer the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I will, of course, with my Department look carefully at the record of what he said when it is available.
  The law already affords considerable protections against the sort of malpractices that have been described. Many of the contracts we are discussing were placed with companies. The direct protection of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, in particular in respect of cooling-off periods, is therefore unlikely to apply. But that does not make that Act entirely irrelevant. A licence under the Act is required by any person or company wishing to carry on a consumer hire business. A company may have its licence suspended or revoked by the Director General of Fair Trading if he believes that that company is not fit to engage in the activities covered by the licence.
  The director general is already considering the allegations that have been made regarding certain types of photocopier leasing contracts, and he is seeking further information from trading standards departments arid other sources. I am sure that he would be interested to see any further evidence that may be produced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South. I shall ensure that he, too, sees the record of proceedings this evening.
  I make it clear that I am willing to consider any evidence that the hon. Gentleman may have which might warrant an inquiry under the Companies Acts. I have received no evidence so far, but if the hon. Gentleman provides any evidence, I will look very carefully at it. But, for reasons of confidentiality, I will not be able to confirm whether we or any other authority are conducting an investigation.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand why that is. Most of the investigations that my Department carries out or other authorities sometimes carry out are done on a confidential basis, because we need to use the confidentiality provision to see whether allegations are well-based. It would not be fair to conduct publicly an investigation into a company or companies where the allegations turned out to be not soundly based. It takes a long time to clear a name, and damage is done in the meantime.
  There are, of course, remedies in law for misrepresentation. Under English law—I think that Scots law has a broadly similar effect—misrepresentation may constitute an actionable tort in certain circumstances as well as providing grounds for relief in the law of contract. If the misrepresentation if fraudulent and a person has entered into a contract as a result of it, that person may rescind the contract, or claim damages, or both. He may also plead misrepresentation in defence if the other party seeks to enforce the contract.
  In certain circumstances, fraudulent misrepresentation may amount to a criminal offence. If a misrepresentation is negligent, that too can be pleaded as a cause of action or

  429
  a defence. Whether any particular company has indulged in fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation would be a matter for the courts, but it is something that the hon. Gentleman should consider when advising those who come to see him.
  I understand that the company that was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman may be involved in actions pending before the Scottish courts. Those matters are therefore sub judice, and I am afraid that I cannot comment further on them in view of that.
  Substantial safeguards therefore already exist against disreputable selling practices. We should remember that we are not dealing here with the uninformed consumer. We are mainly dealing with professional businesses and large organisations—people who should reasonably be expected to know what they are doing when they enter into contracts. The hon. Gentleman may reply that, in this case, he believes that they were misled. If that was so, as I have tried to indicate, those who signed a contract as a result of misrepresentation have a remedy at law.
  In certain circumstances, where a very junior employee is asked to sign a document on behalf of a business or organisation, that business may not be bound by the transaction, because the junior employee may have had no authority to act.
  Meanwhile, the working of the market has already begun to remedy the situation. For example, the activities of the Southern Business Group, as mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, were very thoroughly analysed by the magazine What to Buy for Business in April of this year. Four months later, that same magazine reported that the management of the Southern Business Group had changed most, if not all, of the practices that had been causing problems, and that many of the companies that had complained had obtained redress. I am sure that we all welcome and approve of that.
  The proposal that questionable sales practices should be banned raises formidable difficulties of definition, interpretation and enforcement, while the suggestion that the Director General of Fair Trading be empowered to impose a code of practice ignores the fact that it is the essence of codes of practice that they are freely entered into and policed by the industry concerned; for them to be anything else would raise quite fundamental questions about the nature of contract law and its enforcement.
  The hon. Gentleman has suggested that we should go even further and dictate specific types of contract. That would have other implications for the development of the marketplace and the offer of services to customers by bona fide businesses, which I suspect that the hon. Gentleman
  430
  has not thought through in their entirety and which could well work to the detriment of many of the consumers of those goods and services.
  I have stated that remedies already exist and I have demonstrated that, as all the serious malpractices that have been described are either illegal or can be made the subject of legal remedy, there is no need for any precipitate change in the law. We are looking at what has taken place and whether the law can be used to right any wrongs that may have been perpetrated.
  As I have said, market forces are already making their contribution to remedying the problem. The business community is now alert to what has been going on—the debate will further help that process—and it seems likely that, in future, the business community will exercise greater care over agreements in respect of photocopying. There is evidence that, in some cases where there have been abuses, the industry is putting its house in order. May that continue to be the case.
  In conclusion, the Director General of Fair Trading and I will, of course, study what the hon. Gentleman has said, and any further evidence that he chooses to send us to see whether we need to take action under companies legislation or the Consumer Credit Act and whether some authority or body needs to be involved.
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: One of the firms that has been mentioned employs 600 people in my constituency. I wish to raise only one point—indeed, there are sub judice aspects to this in which I cannot become involved. If the Minister is going to consider what has been said in this debate, could he possibly consider the views of that firm, and what it can do to give its point of view?
  Mr. Redwood: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the right hon. Gentleman. I am grateful for his contribution and for the permission granted to him by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has already written to me pointing out that there is nothing wrong with the general philosophy of leasing, and stressing that it is up to the purchasers to decide what arrangements suit them best. In normal cases, that is a perfectly good argument. The right hon. Gentleman is welcome to send me anything that he thinks that I and my Department should consider before making any decisions.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Fraud (Prosecution)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the arrangements for prosecuting persons for fraud.

  The Solicitor-General
  The majority of fraud prosecutions in England and Wales are the responsibility of either the Serious Fraud Office or the Crown prosecution service. Both departments operate under my superintendence.

  Judges
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the appointment of judges.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Lord Chancellor seeks, for each judicial post, the candidate who appears to him to be the best qualified to fill it and perform its duties, regardless of sex, ethnic origin, political affiliation, or religion. Copies of a speech made by the Lord Chancellor on this subject, and copies of a booklet entitled "Judicial Appointments: The Lord Chancellor's Policies and Procedures" will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Incitement to Violence
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received concerning laws against incitement to violence on personal, racial or religious grounds; and if he will make a statement.

  The Solicitor-General
  Prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred require the consent of the Attorney-General and he frequently receives representations in relation to individual cases. Changes to the law are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

  NHS Infected Blood
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Attorney-General how many legal aid certificates have been issued to people who have lodged claims for damages for contracting HIV through national health service infected blood or blood products; and how much has already been paid out under those certificates.

  The Solicitor-General
  A total of 727 certificates have been issued, as at 8 November 1990. To date £708,088 has been paid under these certificates.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Serious Fraud Office gives advance notice to the press and media of a proposed search in premises of a company.

  The Attorney-General
  No.
  34
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General what information he has as to how many employees of the Serious Fraud Office are of Greek Cypriot origin.

  The Attorney-General
  One employee within the Serious Fraud Office has ethnic origins within the Greek Cypriot community. That employee is not involved in the investigation into the affairs of Polly Peck International plc.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Serious Fraud Office gave notice to the press and media of its search of the premises of Polly Peck International at Berkeley square, London on Tuesday 30 October.

  The Attorney-General
  No prior notice was given. Since the fact of the investigation was already in the public domain and the matter was one of substantial public interest, a short factual press notice was issued after the event.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Serious Fraud Office normally requests the support of the police when it proposes to raid the offices of companies.

  The Attorney-General
  Section 2(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 requires that a search warrant issued on the application of the Serious Fraud Office should be directed to the police who are then responsible for its execution. The police should be accompanied by a member of the Serious Fraud Office or other appropriate person in accordance with section 2(6) and (7) of the 1987 Act.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Serious Fraud Office had the full co-operation of the administrators of Polly Peck International on Tuesday 30 October; and why it requested the support of the Metropolitan police to carry out its raid of the company's office at Berkeley square on that date.

  The Attorney-General
  The Serious Fraud Office enjoys the co-operation of the administrators of Polly Peck International plc. The warrant in respect of the offices of Polly Peck International plc was directed to the Metropolitan police in accordance with the procedure set out in my earlier answer to the right hon. Gentleman.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General how many persons are employed by the Serious Fraud Office.

  The Attorney-General
  A total of 132 people are currently employed by the Serious Fraud Office including temporary staff.

  Public Transport Disasters
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent discussions he has had concerning the administration of the existing laws relating to corporate and individual liability following the public transport disasters; and if he will make a statement.

  The Solicitor-General
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I have discussed questions relating to criminal liability with the Director of Public Prosecutions and others, in connection with the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  MV Gur Mariner
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about his continuing inquiries into possible breaches of United Kingdom export licensing controls in relation to MV Gur Mariner and military-related exports to Iraq.

  Mr. Ryder
  An examination of cargo recently offloaded from the MV Gur Mariner at Vlissingen, Holland has been completed by the Dutch authorities. Nothing that would justify criminal proceedings in respect of export licensing restrictions in the United Kingdom has been established.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what efforts have been made on the question of Sunday trading to reach possible grounds for compromise between the various factions involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government continue to meet interested parties and encourage the development of common ground. There remain wide differences of view and no proposal for reform of the law has yet emerged with widespread support from the differing interests.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b) women who were being held in police cells in England and Wales on 1 November.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 1 November there were 1,044 male and no female prisoners held in police cells in England and Wales.

  Year

  Cases of Complaints about Prison Conditions

  Cases of Complaints about Prison Procedures

  Findings of the Commission

  Findings of the Committee of Ministers

  Findings of the Court

  1979

  1

  1 Violation

  1980

  3

  1 Inadmissable

  1 Violation

  1 Struck off

  1981

  6

  1 Friendly

  settlement

  5 Inadmissable or

  struck off

  1982

  3

  2 Inadmissable

  1 Violation

  1983

  3

  1 Friendly

  settlement

  2 struck off

  1984

  1

  Inadmissable

  1985

  4

  2 Inadmissable

  1 Violation

  1 Violation

  1986

  5

  1 Withdrawn

  1 Violation

  2 Violations

  1 Friendly

  settlement

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Category A Prisoners
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the proportion of prisoners retained under high security category A, according to age, sex, all-crime, for each of the years since 1975.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A full breakdown in the form requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The numbers of sentenced prisoners confirmed in category A at 30 September in each of the years requested are as follows:

  Year

  Adult male

  Female

  Young offender

  Total

  1975

  235

  3

  4

  242

  1976

  238

  5

  2

  245

  1977

  252

  5

  —

  257

  1978

  241

  5

  —

  246

  1979

  249

  6

  —

  255

  1980

  267

  7

  2

  276

  1981

  257

  6

  2

  265

  1982

  254

  4

  2

  260

  1983

  269

  3

  4

  276

  1984

  285

  3

  3

  291

  1985

  309

  1

  4

  314

  1986

  319

  4

  4

  327

  1987

  356

  3

  11

  370

  1988

  405

  3

  7

  415

  1989

  413

  4

  4

  421

  1990

  405

  2

  8

  415

  Prisoners (European Appeals)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will supply the number of appeals that have been received by the European Commission and Court of Human Rights from British prisoners for each year since 1979, the reason for them and the result of the appeal.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Of those cases which the Commission has decided to refer to the Government for observations, the following is the information available in respect of complaints about the prison system in England and Wales.
  37

  Year

  Cases of Complaints about Prison Conditions

  Cases of Complaints about Prison Procedures

  Findings of the Commission

  Findings of the Committee of Ministers

  Findings of the Court

  1989

  1

  7

  5 Pending

  1 Withdrawn

  1 Struck off

  1 Inadmissable

  1990

  1

  Pending

  Prisoners
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current prison population as a proportion of adults imprisoned per 100,000 of the population in each European Community member state.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The latest available information, for 1 September 1988, was published by the Council of Europe in table 1 of "Prison Information Bulletin No. 12", a copy of which is in the Library. The prison population per 100,000 inhabitants in England and Wales has subsequently fallen to 90 on 30 September 1990.

  An article on "International comparisons of prison populations" by Collier and Tarling (Home Office Research Bulletin No. 23 pages 48 to 54) showed that the figures for different countries are unlikely to be strictly comparable, because the definitions of prisons and prisoners vary from one country to another, reflecting different legal and administrative systems. Examples of differences in the definitions are the inclusions or exclusions in a country's figures of juvenile offenders and mentally disordered offenders.

  Applications for asylum in the United Kingdom by Ghanaian citizens, and decisions

  Decisions1

  Applications received

  Granted asylum

  Granted exceptional leave

  Refused asylum or exceptional leave

  1981

  13

  5

  —

  3

  1982

  407

  —

  12

  28

  1983

  689

  199

  126

  199

  1984

  337

  73

  59

  157

  1985

  175

  89

  48

  252

  1986

  220

  72

  49

  40

  1987

  153

  47

  115

  107

  1988

  170

  39

  113

  58

  19892

  340

  45

  125

  25

  19902 (1 January to 30 September)

  800

  —3

  —3

  —3

  1 Decisions in a particular year do not necessarily relate to applications made in that year.

  2 Provisional figures.

  3 Reliable figures for 1990 are not yet available because of delays in recording.

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the Animal Procedures Committee(a) have in the past held arid (b) currently hold licences to conduct animal experiments; and if he will list them.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Under section 19(3) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, at least half the members of the Animal Procedures Committee are persons who neither hold, nor within the previous six years have held, any licence under the Act or under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 and the current membership of the committee

  Postal and Proxy Voting
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the Government have spent in the last year promoting the use of postal and proxy voting among(a) the sick and disabled and (b) those whose occupation means they are unable to vote in person.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Advertising on postal and proxy voting is undertaken only in the period leading up to a general election.

  Asylum
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications he has received from Ghanaians in each year since 1981 for political asylum and in each year how many have been(a) granted asylum, (b) refused and (c) are still pending.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on applications and decisions is given in the following table. An estimated 1,290 asylum applications by Ghanaian citizens were recorded as awaiting a decision on 30 September 1990: however, this figure is a maximum which overstates the position because of under-recording of decisions made earlier.

  conforms with this requirement. For some time, following attacks against researchers and their families, it has been our practice not to reveal the names of individual licence holders.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to achieve a reduction in the number of experiments under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  As figure 5 of the "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 1989" (Cm.
  39
  1152)—a copy of which is in the Library—shows, the number of experiments on living animals declined steadily for 10 years or more and has continued to do so since 1987, when the strict controls of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 came into force.

  Ethiopian Children
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many minors from Ethiopia with no support accommodation in the United Kingdom have been refused entry at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, respectively, during the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No Ethiopian children have been refused entry at either Heathrow or Gatwick airports during the year ending 30 September 1990.

  Ticket Touts
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to make ticket touting a criminal offence.

  Mr. John Patten
  We expect to make relevant announcements in relation to football very shortly.

  Electoral Registration
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those newspapers, magazines, and periodicals in which the Government have placed advertisements aimed at encouraging electoral registration among ethnic minorities in the last year.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Home Office electoral registration advertising campaign aimed at United Kingdom residents this year was a national poster site campaign; no advertisements were placed in newspapers or periodicals.

  Maintenance Arrears
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to seek to increase the powers currently available to courts for the recovery of arrears of maintenance for wives and children.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Maintenance Enforcement Bill, which was published on 8 November, will improve the collection and enforcement of maintenance in the magistrates courts, the county courts and the High Court. The Bill gives the courts power to specify the method of payment when making, varying or enforcing a maintenance order. This should help to ensure that maintenance payments are paid regularly and reduce the number of enforcement actions.

  Courts will have the power to order payment by standing order direct to the maintenance creditor or make

  Number of persons exempt from community charges at 1 June 1990

  West Midlands

  Coventry

  Dudley

  Solihull

  Walsall

  Wolverhampton

  Severely mentally impared

  768

  517

  168

  436

  557

  In hospital or home1

  2,141

  1,689

  850

  n/a

  1,554

  Aged 18 or 192

  1,880

  1,190

  1,200

  771

  760

  Other3

  29

  61

  19

  44

  121

  40
  an attachment of earnings order irrespective of whether the maintenace debtor has defaulted on his payments. In addition, the Bill allows a maintenance creditor to give a standing authority to the justices' clerk, when maintenance is paid to or through a magistrates court, authorising the clerk to take enforcement action.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the distribution of changes in the percentage of net income paid in(a) domestic rates in 1989–90 and (b) community charge in 1990–91.

  Mr. Key
  An analysis showing the distributional impact of the community charge was placed in the Library on 15 February. This showed that three out of five households would pay less with the community charge than they would have paid had rates continued.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to compensate local authorities which use their discretionary powers to waive the standard community charge for people whose repossessed former home remains unsold while they are liable to the community charge at their new address.

  Mr. Key
  The method of distributing grant to local authorities does not take account of the potential for raising income through standard community charges. There is, therefore, no case for compensating local authorities if this income is reduced as a result of the proposed changes in the maximum level of the standard charge which can be levied in certain cases, or if local authorities exercise their discretion to waive charges for certain categories.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to treat overnight visitors as the equivalent of ordinary residents when calculating the standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Key
  For 1991–92 standard spending assessments my right hon. Friend proposes to treat two overnight visitors as the equivalent of one ordinary resident, for the period of their stay.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, following the reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), 24 October, column 234, he will similarly list for each authority in the West Midlands county, and for Warwickshire, the numbers of people exempt from the poll tax.

  Mr. Key
  Available information returned by local authorities is as follows:
  41

  Warwickshire

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  Rugby

  Stratford on Avon

  Warwick

  Severely mentally impared

  247

  131

  245

  186

  In hospital or home1

  488

  632

  246

  991

  Aged 18 or 192

  340

  252

  540

  960

  Other3

  15

  31

  23

  52

  1 Patients whose main residence is an NHS hospital or people whose sole or main residence is in a residential care home, a nursing home, a mental nursing home, a private hospital, or a hostel providing a substantial level of care, and who are also being treated or cared for in such an institution.

  2 Aged 18 who attach child benefit because they are still at school, or aged 18 or 19 and on a course of further, but not higher, education.

  3 People in detention, members of visiting forces, international headquarters and defense organisations and their dependents, including diplomats. Members of religious communities. Residential care workers employed at a very low salary, and full-time students whose term time address is in Scotland or Northern Ireland. These categories have been combined because of the small numbers involved.

  n/a=Not available.

  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his proposal to increase(a) the proportion of community charge benefit paid by district councils by 60 per cent. and (b) the percentage paid by district councils in respect of rent relief for tenants with low incomes, is intended to increase the amount of community charge which district councils have to levy compared with what would be levied without those charges; and what he estimates the effect of these measures will be, per community charge payer, in the following district council areas: Mid Devon district council, East Devon district council and Teignbridge district council.

  Mr. Key
  The reduction in the rate of subsidy for community charge benefit and some housing benefit cases from 97 to 95 per cent. was taken into account in the Government's proposals for the local authority finance settlement. The standard spending assessment for Mid Devon, East Devon, and Teignbridge district councils are provisionally estimated to rise by 28, 29 and 31 per cent. respectively to reflect, inter alia, the reduction in subsidy. There should therefore be virtually no impact on community charges.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list those local authorities in England which have sought an attachment of earnings for the recovery of the community charge before employing bailiffs to carry out the task;

  (2) if he will list those local authorities in England which have taken registered community charge payers to court for non-payment.

  Mr. Key
  The Department does not have this information.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update the answer given to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on 15 February,Official Report, column 404, using actual rather than projected figures for the community charge.

  Mr. Key
  The analyses already provided offer the most valid illustration of the distributional effects of the introduction of the community charge system. Use of actual community charges would not provide a proper comparison with 1989–90 rates, since increases in local authority spending mean that the community charge is raising 30 per cent. more revenue than was raised by domestic rates.

  Local Authority Allowances
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, with regard to members' allowances under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, what plans he has to consult the local authority associations and other interested parties, on the practical implementation of the scheme after it has been in operation for six months.

  Mr. Portillo
  As I told the hon. Member on 26 July 1990, I intend to arrange for a review of the new system of councillors' allowances when that system has been in operation for about a year. Since the system has not yet been brought into operation, it is premature now to plan the review.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government propose to review councillors' travel and subsistence allowances under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Portillo
  Councillors' travelling and subsistence allowances are governed by the Local Government Act 1972. The amounts are in the discretion of the local authorities within maxima prescribed by the Government. These maxima were last increased with effect from 1 January 1990. I shall shortly be carrying out a further review.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the new system of members' allowances under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 will be introduced; and whether the quantum available to local authorities will be uplifted to take account of current levels of inflation.

  Mr. Portillo
  The new system of members' allowances will be introduced when we have resolved the technical problem that has been discovered. The regulations limiting the maximum amounts payable will take account of all the relevant factors up to the date at which they are made.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, with regard to members' allowances under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, when the new scheme will be implemented.

  Mr. Portillo
  When we make the regulations under section 18 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, we shall take into account the representations from local authority associations that the new system of allowances should come into effect no earlier than 1 April 1991.

  Local Authorities (Complaints)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list those allegations of anti-competitive behaviour against local authorities under the Local Government Act 1988 which his Department has received, detailing the initial date of complaint, the originator of the complaint, the subject of the complaint, that is, which local authority, and the nature of the complaints, on which the Secretary of State is currently considering futher action;

  (2) if he will list the number, and nature, of complaints made by private contractors, or others, to his Department with regard to alleged anti-competitive behaviour on the part of local authorities in the awarding of contracts; and if he will list which authorities, and when, were the subjects of those complaints.

  Mr. Portillo
  These questions could be answered only at disproportionate expense.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the date, for each respective local authority, on which he received the initial complaint of alleged anti-competitive behaviour against the local authorities listed in his answer of 31 October,Official Report, columns 543–44.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is as follows:

  Bristol city: 8 May 1989

  London borough of Hillingdon: 12 May 1989

  Metropolitan borough of Knowsley: 19 May 1989

  Borough of Charnwood: 20 June 1989

  Metropolitan borough of Wolverhampton: 11 May 1989

  Braintree district: 13 April 1989

  Eden district: 4 August 1989

  East Lindsey district: 13 November 1989

  Birmingham city: March 1989

  York city: 3 August 1989

  Liverpool city: 31 May 1989

  Metropolitan borough of Bury: 18 December 1989

  *Humberside county: 15 September 1989

  *London borough of Camden: 2 October 1989

  Borough of Woodspring: 21 December 1989

  Leicester city: 27 February 1990

  Metropolitan borough of Doncaster: 19 February 1990

  Borough of Thurrock: 16 March 1990

  In each case the date given is the date of the earliest complaint related to the matter which was the subject of the section 13 notice. In the two asterisked cases the complaint was not of anti-competitive behaviour but rather of financial failure under section 10 Humberside and Camden and a failure to comply with the detailed specification of the work under Section 7(8)—Camden—of the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department, as a matter of procedure, notified those local authorities against which he has received complaints of anti-competitive behaviour under the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department notifies the local authority concerned in all cases where my right hon. Friend investigates a complaint that a local authority has failed to comply with the requirements of part I of the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number and nature of complaints made by private contractors or others to his Department with regard to alleged anti-competitive behaviour on the basis of a direct services organisation or 44
  direct labour organisation not meeting the terms of the contract awarded to it by the local authority; and if he will list which authorities, and when, were the subject of those complaints.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is as follows:

  London borough of Camden: failure to comply with detailed specification under section 7(8) of the Local Government Act 1988: complaint made in October 1989.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of complaints of alleged anti-competitive behaviour received by his Department, initiated by the organisation Public and Local Service Efficiency Campaign; and which local authorities were the subject of complaints by PULSE.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is our policy not to reveal the identity of the originators of complaints about failures by local authorities to comply with the requirements of part I of the Local Government Act 1988.

  District Councils
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate for district councils achieving full local plans coverage by the end of 1992; and if he will make a statatement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information is not fully up to date. I hope shortly to have the results of a survey of local authorities' intentions which was recently carried out by the District Planning Officers Society.

  Local Government Standing Orders
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will indicate how long after the proposed implementation date of 1 October 1990 the standing orders under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 are likely to come into force;

  (2) if he will indicate the timetable for further consultation on the draft care standing orders under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Portillo
  We are still considering representations from the local authority associations.

  Planning Gain
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he gives to those local authorities which wish to include planning gain policies in their local plans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend has advised local planning authorities in planning policy guidance note 15 that, where appropriate, detailed development plans should specify the policies that the authority proposes to implement by means of planning agreements. Such policies should have regard to our general guidance on the proper scope of planning agreements.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the implications of the downturn of the property market on the resources of urban development corporations and on the financial difficulties faced by urban development corporations as a result of falling land prices and rising infrastructure costs.
  45
  Mr. Portillo
  Urban development corporations are well placed to respond flexibly to changing economic conditions and are continuing to act positively to maximise development opportunities. The Government's firm commitment to their work is reflected in our spending programmes for the years ahead.

  Local Plans
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received over the problems and constraints resulting from the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and the community charge on the completing of local plans by councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have received no representations on this matter.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he gives to local authorities that wish to obtain a district wide coverage of their local plans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert Atkins
  My right hon. Friend has urged district planning authorities in planning policy guidance note 12 to extend the coverage of local plans. Last year's White Paper—Cm. 569—indicated the Government's intention in the forthcoming planning Bill to impose a duty on authorities to secure districtwide coverage of plans. Transitional arrangements will ensure that work on revising and updating current plans will not be wasted.

  Deemed Planning Permission
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what planning powers he holds in respect of county councils that award themselves deemed planning permission in contravention of their own structure plans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Town and Country Planning (Development Plans) (England) Direction 1981 requires local planning authorities to report to my right hon. Friend any development proposal that would materially conflict with or prejudice the implementation of the development plan. My right hon. Friend may then require the proposal to be referred to him for decision.

  Teacher numbers

  January each year

  Actual (thousands)

  Full-lime equivalent (thousands)

  Pupil numbers Full-time equivalent (thousands)

  Overall pupil/teacher ratio

  19601

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1970

  347·8

  328·7

  7,514·9

  22·9

  1980

  455·7

  438·1

  8,183·2

  18·7

  1989

  421·0

  397·4

  6,761·7

  17·0

  19902

  424·6

  398·5

  —

  —

  1 Not readily available.

  2 Data on pupil numbers are not yet available.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money was budgeted for student loans expenditure in the current financial year; and how much money which was budgeted for student loans has been reallocated to other expenditure.
  46
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced on 25 July the Government's intention to require local authorities to report to him or to the Secretary of State for Wales any development proposals by local authorities on their land that would conflict with the development plan, to enable them to consider calling in the proposal for their own decision.

  Sheffield Development Corporation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to whom the Sheffield development corporation is accountable; who appoints the board members; who is responsible for monitoring their attendance and performance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Urban development corporations are accountable to the Secretary of State and Parliament. The Secretary of State appoints board members. The arrangements for board meetings are for the corporations to determine.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Special Needs Education
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the provision of special needs education in west Cumbria.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Cumbria, including west Cumbria, is reviewing its provision for special educational needs, but no proposals are currently before the Secretary of State.

  Teachers
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of teachers employed by local education authorities in 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990, or the latest date available in actual and full-time equivalent terms and the number of children being educated by the local education authorities for each of the above dates and the teacher/pupil ratio in each case.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information requested for local education authority maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools is given in the table.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  There has been no change in the approved estimates provision for 1990–91 of a total of £147·6 million for student loans, shared between the Department of Education and Science, the Scottish Education Department and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Council Documents
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the titles and origins of the published documents submitted to the European Council in Rome which are now deposited, together with a note concerning their location.

  The Prime Minister
  A complete version of COM (90) 600, the Commission's opinion on political union, was deposited in the House on 6 November. In accordance with normal practice, copies were sent to the Vote Office, to the Library and to the clerk to the Select Committee on European Legislation.

  Dog Registration (Vote)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the Ministers and civil servants who were recalled from overseas in order to be available for a vote on dog registration; and what was the cost to public funds.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. and hon. Friends were in this country to vote on the Environmental Protection Bill to ensure that an important part of the Government's legislative programme was completed. Questions relating to costs should be addressed to the appropriate Departments.

  Dolphins
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make representations to the Japanese Government in respect of their practice of allowing the mass slaughter of dolphins on their beaches.

  The Prime Minister
  The British embassy in Tokyo has made clear to the Japanese authorities our strong concern over the death of nearly 600 dolphins on the beach at Miiraku on 4 November, and has asked to be informed of the result of any further inquiries into this incident.

  Ministerial salaries since 1970

  Prime Minister

  Cabinet Minister

  Minister of State

  Parliamentary Under Secretary

  Commons

  Lords

  Commons

  Lords

  Commons

  Lords

  1 April 1965

  14,000

  8,500

  5,625

  3,750

  1 April 1972

  20,000

  13,000

  7,500

  5,500

  8 May 19751

  20,000

  13,000

  7,500

  5,500

  30 June 1976

  20,000

  13,000

  7,500

  5,500

  25,812

  30 June 1977

  20,000

  13,000

  7,500

  5,500

  6,020

  31 July 1978

  22,000

  14,300

  8,250

  38,822

  6,050

  6,622

  26 July 1979

  433,000

  19,660

  12,625

  12,911

  9,525

  9,811

  28 July 1980

  34,650

  23,500

  16,250

  16,400

  12,350

  12,500

  13 June 1981

  36,725

  27,825

  19,750

  23,275

  15,100

  18,600

  23 June 1982

  38,200

  28,950

  20,575

  24,200

  15,700

  19,350

  27 July 1983

  38,987

  29,367

  530,110

  20,867

  25,350

  15,917

  20,390

  1 January 1984

  40,424

  30,304

  31,680

  21,364

  26,670

  16,154

  21,450

  1 January 1985

  41,891

  31,271

  32,260

  21,881

  28,000

  16,411

  22,520

  1 January 1986

  43,328

  32,208

  34,820

  22,378

  29,320

  16,648

  23,580

  1 January 1987

  44,775

  33,145

  36,390

  22,875

  30,640

  16,885

  24,640

  1 January 1988

  45,787

  34,157

  40,438

  23,887

  34,688

  17,897

  28,688

  I January 1989

  46,109

  34,479

  41,997

  24,209

  37,047

  18,219

  30,647

  1 January 1990

  46,750

  35,120

  44,591

  24,850

  39,641

  18,860

  33,241

  1 In 1975 all Ministers chose to forgo any increase in their Ministerial salary.

  2 In 1976, only Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in the Lords received an increase in their Ministerial salary.

  3 In 1978 a similar differential to 2 was implemented for Ministers of State.

  4 In 1979 the Prime Minister chose to forgo any increase and from 1980 she has accepted the same salary as her Cabinet colleagues in the Commons.

  5 Since 1983 Cabinet Ministers in the Lords have received a higher salary than their Commons counterparts.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Pay
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will give the basic salary, and dates on which it applied, for hon. Members' pay and Ministers' pay, including the Prime Minister, for the period 1 January 1970 until the present.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The information requested is as follows:

  Parliamentary salaries since 1970

  Full Parliamentary salary

  Reduced Parliamentary salary

  £

  £

  16 October

  3,250

  1,250

  1 January 1972

  4,500

  3,000

  13 June 1976

  5,750

  13,000–3,700

  13 June 1976

  6,062

  3,000–4,012

  13 June 1977

  6,270

  3,208–4,222

  13 June 1978

  6,897

  3,529–4,642

  13 June 1979

  9,450

  5,265–5,820

  13 June 1980

  10,725

  6,130–6,410

  13 June 1981

  13,150

  7,670

  13 June 1982

  14,510

  8,460

  13 June 1983

  15,308

  9,543

  1 January 1984

  16,106

  10,626

  1 January 1985

  16,904

  11,709

  1 January 1986

  17,702

  12,792

  1 January 1987

  18,500

  13,875

  1 January 1988

  22,548

  16,911

  1 January 1989

  24,107

  18,148

  1 January 1990

  26,701

  20,101

  1 Between 1975 and 1980, Ministers received differing amounts of reduced Parliamentary salary according to their office.

  Late Sittings
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many times the House of Commons sat beyond midnight(a) in Session 1988–89 and (b) in Session 1989–90.

  Mr. MacGregor
  In Session 1988–89 the House sat beyond midnight 77 times; in Session 1989–90, it was 60 times.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Defence Exports
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of total visible exports was accounted for by defence exports in 1989.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In 1989 approximately 2·6 per cent. of United Kingdom total visible exports were accounted for by items falling under those customs tariff headings which have been identified by the Ministry of Defence as covering purely military equipment.

WALES

  Leybucht Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library an English language translation of the European Court of Justice report on the preliminary hearing of the Leybucht bay case heard at Luxembourg on 16 October.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A copy will be placed in the Library as soon as it is available.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff are to be sent as observers to the hearing on 5 December at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg in the case of European Commission ν. Federal Republic of Germany regarding Leybucht bay.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of his(a) legal, (b) planning and (c) other staff went as observers to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg on 16 October regarding the Leybucht bay case.

  Mr. David Hunt
  One member of my legal division.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost to public funds of sending legal representation from his Department to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg on 16 October to observe the case of the European Commission ν. the German Federal Republic re contravention of the EC wild birds conservation directive at Leybucht bay.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A total of £376.

  Cardiff Bay Barage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish or place in the Library a copy of the report to him by Mr. Roy Stoner of the university of 50
  Southampton institute of groundwater studies on the adequacy of the terms of reference of the hydrotechnical study of the groundwater effects of the proposed Cardiff bay barrage and his reply.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have placed a copy in the Library of the House.

  Marginal Land
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the European Community Commission in Brussels concerning the designation of further areas of marginal land in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government submitted an application to the European Commission in June 1989 to extend the less-favoured areas in the United Kingdom. We are still awaiting a formal decision by the Commission.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if any north Wales sheep farmers are still being compensated for the fall-out effect of the Chernobyl disaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Those producers who farm in the restricted areas continue to benefit from compensation measures.

  Toxic Waste, Pontlottyn
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will investigate the release of toxic waste to the environment at the Euromet Chemicals recycling plant at Pontlottyn, on 29 October; and what risks were posed to the local population and the work force by these toxic fumes.

  Mr. Grist
  The operation of the site is not subject to control by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; it is the responsibility of the regulatory authorities—the Rhymney Valley district council, the Health and Safety Executive and the National Rivers Authority—to determine the existence and extent of any hazard posed by the operation of the Euromet site to water, public health and local amenity. HMIP's advice is available to these agencies on request.

  I am advised, following investigations and remedial work undertaken to date by the district council and the Health and Safety Executive, that the site is in a stable condition with regard to risk of further incident similar to that of 28 October. If, during the further investigations and work on site, any immediate hazard is identified appropriate action will be taken.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards establishing the European bank for reconstruction and development following the recent London conference of prospective members.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Good progress was made at the October conference on draft operating regulations, rules of
  51
  procedure and the framework for a business plan. The next conference is in January, after the missions to eastern Europe by the president-designate and his team. The new bank has good temporary headquarters in London, and negotiations are in hand for a long-term headquarters building. I hope that the bank will start operations next spring.

  UN Relief and Works Agency
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Llewellyn Davis report on UNRWA commissioned by his Department.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I was pleased to fund a major feasibility study commissioned by the UNRWA and carried out by Llewellyn-Davies Planning Ltd. on improvements to shelter and services in refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza. The report was presented to the UNRWA in March 1990. We await its detailed response.

  Timber Industries
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds have been allocated by the Government to promote sustainable timber industries in tropical rain forest regions during 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The ODA currently expects to spend about £400,000 in 1990–91 and about £490,000 in 1991–92 on such projects in Honduras, Papua New Guinea, the Solomons and Vanuatu. The Commonwealth Development Corporation also has investment commitments to projects in seven countries.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources have now been made available by the United Kingdom, as part of the international relief effort, to assist those refugees fleeing from Iraq and Kuwait.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government have provided almost £11 million to help developing country nationals fleeing from Iraq and Kuwait. Of this, £2 million was contributed to the international airlift and £750,000 to provide relief in the camps in Jordan. The balance is the United Kingdom share of European Community emergency programmes. British voluntary agencies and airlines also responded quickly and generously to the relief effort.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to increase aid to Cambodia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government are supporting the humanitarian activities of British non-governmental organisations and United Nations agencies, which are helping displaced persons within Cambodia. We are ready to consider with other donors how Cambodia's need for help with repatriation, reconstruction and development might best be met in the context of a comprehensive political settlement.
  52
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what circumstances Her Majesty's Government will fund development programmes in Cambodia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government are ready to consider with other donors, initially in a reconvened Paris international conference on Cambodia, how refugee repatriation, development and reconstruction needs might best be met when a comprehensive political settlement is implemented.

  Eastern Europe (Economic Growth)
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement detailing the extent of financial aid to be given to each country of eastern Europe to support their policy of economic growth through privatisation and the creation of enterprise economies.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Expenditure on the know-how funds for Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1990–91 will be £15 million. As announced on 8 November, provision for know-how fund activities overall in 1991–92 will be £30 million. For the specific purposes of privatisation and small business creation we have so far committed £2·1 million for Poland, £0·6 million for Hungary and £0·5 million for Czechoslovakia, but this is only part of the total assistance committed for the banking, finance, accountancy and management training sectors which all serve to underpin the policy of economic growth through privatisation and the creation of enterprise economies.

  AIDS
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the 10 World Health Organisation co-ordinated national AIDS control programmes in Africa and the Caribbean to which the Overseas Development Administration has provided bilateral assistance.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Overseas Development Administration has pledged support for 15 WHO co-ordinated AIDS control programmes in Africa and the Caribbean. The countries are(a) in Africa—Botswana, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe and (b) in the Caribbean—Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos islands. The ODA is also supporting the regional AIDS control programme of CAREC—the Caribbean Epidemiology Centre. Total ODA spending to date amounts to £7·18 million.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money the Overseas Development Administration has contributed to(a) the World Health Organisation's global programme on AIDS and (b) the International Planned Parenthood Federation's AIDS work in each year since their inception.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Overseas Development Administration has made the following contributions to the World Health Organisation's global programme on AIDS:1986 £250,000; 1987 £3 million; 1988 £4·5 million; 1989 £4·53 million; 1990 £4·55 million—a total of £16·83 million.
  53
  Since its inception in 1987, grants of £1·985 million have been made to the AIDS unit of the International Planned Parenthood Federation as follows:
  1987–88 £300,000; 1988–89 £685,000; 1989–90 £500,000 and 1990–91 £500,000.

  South Africa
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many development projects are currently funded by the United Kingdom in the black townships and camps of South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have provided assistance so far this financial year to more than 260 community development projects in deprived urban and rural areas throughout South Africa. This is part of a substantial and growing programme of support for black South Africans. Total expenditure in 1990–91, including our share of the cost of European Community assistance, will come to about £12 million.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Callstream Gulf Advice Line
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total revenue generated by the Callstream Gulf advice line; and how much of this has accrued(a) to his Department and (b) to British Telecom plc.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's share of the tariff for the 0898 service was £8,136. It is not the policy of British Telecom to divulge details of its share of revenue accruing from individual agreements.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total number of calls made to the Callstream Gulf advice line to date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A total of 38,699 calls was received between 8 August when the 0898 number was introduced and 3 October when it was discontinued and replaced by a freefone facility.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what purpose the proceeds of the Callstream Gulf advice line will be employed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The proceeds from the 0898 service will go to pay the accommodation costs of the Gulf Support Group. Any funds remaining will go towards a good cause connected with the Gulf crisis.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of Stare for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subject matter is to be included in the comprehensive political settlement to be agreed by the Supreme National Council under the United Nations framework plan for Cambodia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A reconvened Paris international conference on Cambodia, in which the Supreme National Council will participate, will agree a comprehensive political settlement on the basis of the New York 54
  framework drawn up by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. This comprises transitional arrangements for the administration of Cambodia during the pre-electoral period; military arrangements during the transitional period; elections under United Nations auspices; human rights protection; and international guarantees.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what conditions the Paris international conference on Cambodia will be reconvened; and what its agenda will be.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Paris international conference on Cambodia will be reconvened at ministerial level once the conference's co-ordinating committee has finalised a draft agreement. Its purpose will be to adopt the final agreement of a comprehensive political settlement.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts the Government are taking to prevent arms from being supplied to the warring factions in Cambodia, and in particular the Khmer Rouge.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The cessation of outside arms supplies to all the Cambodian parties is vital for peace. It forms an essential part of the framework for a comprehensive political settlement which all the Cambodian parties have accepted in its entirety and the United Nations General Assembly has unanimously endorsed. We are working continually, with other interested parties, for the implementation of the framework. There is no Government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with the Khmer Rouge forces.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is available about the supply of Chinese weapons, particularly tanks, to the Khmer Rouge.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are aware that China provides a variety of military hardware to the Cambodian resistance. We understand that the Khmer Rouge has acquired a number of tanks.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) Hans Dietrich Genscher and (b) Gianni de Michelis about the visit to Iraq of Willy Brandt.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has explained to the German and Italian Foreign Ministers our view that the proposal for Mr. Brandt and other European politicians to visit Iraq under United Nations auspices would be contrary to the conclusions reached in Rome at the European Council.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has given to the Falkland islands request to declare a continental shelf around the islands to sell licences for the exploration of oil and other minerals.
  55
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 31 October at column 567.

HEALTH

  Kidney Dialysis
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in the North Western health authority region are currently receiving kidney dialysis treatment(a) in national health service centres and (b) contracted out to private facilities; and at what cost in each category.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to write to Mr. R. B. Martin, the chairman of North Western regional health authority for the information he requires.

  NHS Infected Blood
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will estimate the costs of a full trial of people who are claiming damages for contracting HIV through national health service infected blood or blood products.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is not possible to estimate the costs of such a trial at this stage.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department is negotiating with the solicitors of people who have taken court action claiming damages for contracting HIV through national health service infected blood or blood products.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have not been engaged in such negotiations.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the costs, including legal fees and departmental resources, to the Government so far in the legal case of people who are taking action claiming damages for contracting HIV through national health service infected blood or blood products.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State gave the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 15 October at column 664.

  Methylene Chloride
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been undertaken by his Department, consultants to his Department or in conjunction with other Departments to evaluate the carcinogenic properties of methylene chloride.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department's independent expert advisers have evaluated the available data and have concluded that methylene chloride should not be considered as a human carcinogen.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to introduce a card system under which doctors would be required to report incidents of ill health in which pesticides may be implicated; and if he will make a statement.
  56
  Mr. Dorrell
  Clear-cut cases of poisoning by pesticides are reported to the agricultural inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive. A card system could be useful and a pilot study is being undertaken on behalf of the HSE.

  Medical Negligence
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of court cases in the last five years launched against the health authorities in respect of medical negligence; and of these(a) the number which were settled out of court, (b) the number which were resolved by a final court judgment and (c) the number still outstanding.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Listeria Monocytogenes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on foodstuffs contaminated with listeria monocytogenes, in World Health Organisation categories 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.4, being sold within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The public health laboratory service carries out regular surveys of a variety of foodstuffs including some from the two World Health Organisation categories identified in the question. The results demonstrate that listeria monocytogenes is widely distributed in the environment and that, as the WHO report concludes,"the total elimination of listeria monocytogenes from all food is impractical and may be impossible."

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he is taking to protect(a) AIDS/ARC patients, (b) pregnant women, (c) people with impaired immune systems, (d) elderly persons and (e) new-born babies from contamination by listeria monocytogenes; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what action he is taking to protect (a) AIDS/ARC patients, (b) pregnant women, (c) people with impaired immune systems, (d) elderly persons and (e) new-born babies from contamination by listeria monocytogenes within national health service hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In February 1989 the chief medical officer issued advice to vulnerable groups that they should avoid eating certain types of cheese and to reheat cooked-chilled meals and ready-to-eat poultry until they are piping hot. He issued further advice to vulnerable groups in July and August 1989 about pâte. Copies are in the Library. If anyone is uncertain whether they should follow this advice, they should consult their medical practitioner. The Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which become operative in April 1991, will require more stringent temperature controls of chilled foods in the distribution chain.

  AIDS
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are his Department's criteria for increasing awareness of the AIDS problem for people under 21 years of age;

  (2) how much was spent increasing the awareness of the AIDS problem among people under 21 years of age, in the first six months of the current year;
  57
  (3) if he has any plans to initiate a campaign to counteract the idea of AIDS invulnerability among people under 21 years of age.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The AIDS public education campaign advocates prudence in personal behaviour, while providing young people with the information they need to protect themselves from infection. Government policy is that teaching about HIV and AIDS should be set in the wider context of health and sex education, and should encourage pupils to have due regard for moral considerations and the values of family life. The science order of the national curriculum requires that pupils should understand the need to have a responsible attitude to sexual behaviour.

  The Government have promoted HIV/AIDS awareness in schools through a range of measures, including the designation of HIV and AIDS as a priority issue, the provision of guidance for teachers and a video package for use in schools. In addition, many colleges of further education include HIV/AIDS information in vocational and induction courses. A sum of £7 million has been provided this year to enable local education authorities to provide training for teachers and employ health education co-ordinators, for whom AIDS and HIV is a focal issue.

  Young people aged 16 to 24 are a primary target audience for the Health Education Authority's HIV/AIDS public education programme, which aims to equip young people with the knowledge and understanding to avoid behaviour likely to place them at risk of infection, and to encourage them to act responsibly. The authority has also produced a pack for secondary school teachers, mass media advertising aimed at young people, a campaign aimed at young holiday travellers, and cinema advertising designed to reach young people with messages about personal responsibility. A further TV and cinema campaign is planned for later this year, which will address the issue of personal risk and behaviour. The HEA was allocated £10 million for AIDS work this year.

  The Department of Health has asked health authorities to develop community-based HIV prevention initiatives, using earmarked AIDS allocations. It is expected that up to £20 million will be spent in the current year and this will include initiatives aimed at young people.

  National drug prevention campaigns aimed at young people have emphasised the danger of spreading HIV through sharing injecting equipment. About £2 million a year has been spent on this work.

  Eritrean Refugees
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consultations he has had with the local authority associations about the costs faced by authorities in providing child care services for unaccompanied Eritrean refugee minors; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the London borough of Hillingdon on the cost of providing accommodation for children from Eritrea and adjacent territories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Following a meeting with the local authority associations on 25 September, the Department wrote to the association on 22 October asking for information about the cost faced by authorities,58
  including Hillingdon, in providing child care services for unaccompanied Eritrean children seeking asylum in the United Kingdom. We will consider what action, if any, should be taken when this information is received.

  Listeria Ivanovi
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is currently being carried out by his Department into listeria ivanovi.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There have been no recorded cases in this country of human infection caused by listeria ivanovi, and only a handful of such cases recorded world wide. Listeria ivanovi is known to occur in the environment, although it has been only very rarely found in food. A small proportion of animal infections is caused by this organism. The division of microbiological reagents and quality control at the PHLS central public health laboratory is involved in general research in listeria and routinely tests for listeria ivanovi.

  Listeriosis
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the trend in the incidence of listeriosis among pregnant women since September 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the table compiled by the division of microbiological disease surveillance centre at the PHLS central public health laboratory.

  Confirmed cases of Listeriosis among pregnant women September 1989 to September 1990

  (England and Wales: Reports to CDSC and DMRQC)

  Number of cases

  1989

  September

  4

  October

  1

  November

  3

  December

  4

  1990

  January

  4

  February

  0

  March

  1

  April

  1

  May

  1

  June

  2

  July

  3

  August

  1

  September

  4

  Total

  29

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide statistics showing the incidence of listeriosis by serotype for the last five years of available records.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the table compiled by the division of microbiological reagents and quality control at the PHLS central public health laboratory.
  59

  Serotypes of Listeria monocytogenes from human cases of listeriosis in Britain and Ireland

  Year

  11990

  1989

  1988

  1987

  1986

  Serotype

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  ½

  21

  (37)

  46

  (17)

  65

  (21)

  41

  (17)

  36

  (33)

  4b

  36

  (63)

  170

  (64)

  216

  (70)

  181

  (73)

  66

  (61)

  4bx

  0

  —

  49

  (18)

  27

  (8)

  23

  (9)

  0

  —

  Other

  0

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  6

  (6)

  Total

  57

  —

  266

  —

  309

  —

  248

  —

  108

  —

  1 First six months.

  Speech Therapy
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of speech therapy for children in west Cumbria.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The provision of speech therapy for children in west Cumbria is a matter for the district health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. E. Urquhart, the chairman of that authority, for the information he requires.

  Non-urgent Operations
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the average waiting period within the South West regional health authority area for non-urgent operations relating to hip replacement, hernias, hysterectomy, prostate, cataracts and varicose veins.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information about waiting times is available only by specialty, not by specific condition.

  Romanian Children (Adoption)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for all local authority social services departments information available to him on the current status of applications by couples requiring home study assessments for the adoption of Romanian children.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not available in the form requested. All cases associated with entry clearance applications are kept under review by the Department. We are satisfied that local authorities are seeking to respond to requests in accordance with the Department's recent guidance as set out in CI(90)17, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  HGVS examined at roadside

  Tachograph checks

  Dangerous goods

  (a) as percentage of total HGV fleet

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  1987–88

  228,370

  1(16,921)

  984,015

  n.a.

  —

  51

  1988–89

  322,645

  1(24,301)

  1,375,481

  9,537

  1(45)

  70

  1989–90

  314,343

  1(25,980)

  1,629,881

  10,213

  1(84)

  66

  1 Figures in brackets are prohibitions/prosecutions.

  n.a. Not available.

  The police carry out additional roadside checks. Goods vehicle journeys in the United Kingdom are estimated at 238 million in 1987–88.

  The main thrust of Health and Safety Executive inspection and enforcement policy on dangerous goods is to assess compliance during visits to premises.

  Disabled People (Care Arrangements)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on Act Now's survey of local authorities with regard to the making of payments directly to disabled people for making their own care arrangements, a copy of which has been sent to his Department.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It has been read with interest.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much it would cost, at 1990 prices, to electrify the railway lines between(a) Edinburgh and Glasgow via Polmont, (b) Edinburgh and Glasgow via Shotts and (c) Edinburgh and Aberdeen; and what would be the difference in cost if all three lines were electrified together as one investment project.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the British Railways Board.

  Enforcement Agencies (Checks)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list all defects and contraventions discovered by checks carried out by his Department, the Health and Safety Executive and the police to assess on-the-road compliance with the regulations for the transport of dangerous goods by road during the past three years;

  (2) if he will list the total numbers of roadside checks carried out by his Department, the Health and Safety Executive and the police on lorries during the past three years; and if he will estimate these checks as a percentage of all lorry journeys.

  Mr. Chope
  Details of all such checks carried out by these enforcement agencies are not available. The following information is available:

  Dangerous Goods
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will consider introducing new regulations or amending existing regulations for the transport by road of ammunition, propylene and other potentially explosive substances;
  61
  (2) whether he intends to amend existing regulations or to introduce new regulations on the transport of dangerous substances by road;

  (3) if he will consider amending the regulations that permit the transport of dangerous goods on flat-bed lorries.

  Mr. Chope
  The relevant existing regulations—the Road Traffic (Carriage of Explosives) Regulations 1989, the Dangerous Substances (Conveyance by Road in Road Tankers and Tank Containers) Regulations and the Road Traffic (Carriage of Dangerous Substances in Packages) Regulations—are regularly reviewed by the Health and Safety Commission. They will be updated as necessary.

  New regulations to implement EC directive 89/684/EEC on driver training will be put out to consultation early next year.

  The current regulations already require loads to be stowed safely in a suitable vehicle.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the number of(a) archaeological sites, (b) sites of special scientific interest and (c) areas of outstanding natural beauty which are likely to be (i) lost or (ii) damaged as a consequence of the proposals set out in "Trunk Roads, England into the 1990s"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  It is not possible to make such an estimate in respect of road schemes which are in the early stages of preparation. I assure the hon. Member that all road schemes are designed to avoid unnecessary adverse impact upon the environment and to maximise the environmental gains which result from new roads.

  Minch (Tanker Traffic)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to dissuade tankers from using the Minch, and to prefer routes west of the Minch; and what advice is being provided by the marine pollution control unit.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The deep water route (DWR) to the west of the Hebrides was established by the International Maritime Organisation, at the Government's request, in 1987. The route is clearly marked on charts with a note recommending that, weather permitting, laden tankers of over 10,000 gross registered tonnage should use this route instead of the Minch. It is important that tanker masters retain the freedom to use the more sheltered waters of the Minch in adverse weather conditions.

  A survey last year showed that some laden tankers do not use the DWR even when the weather appears to be suitable. The Government are deeply concerned at this and have asked other Governments, through the International Maritime Organisation, to ensure that mariners are aware of the DWR and to encourage them to use it. My Department has written to the owners of tankers seen using the Minch in good weather to ask for their reasons and to urge them to use the DWR. My Department is preparing a notice to mariners to be issued to the masters of all tankers calling at Sullum Voe, urging them to use the DWR.
  62
  The marine pollution control unit is not responsible for issuing this advice, but, of course, it takes every opportunity to remind oil companies of the sensitivity of the Minch.

  Rail Bridges
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the number of bridges owned by British Rail that presently require structural repairs or underpinning; and if he will estimate the cost;

  (2) what are his Department's criteria for funding structural repairs to bridges, which carry roads over rail, owned by local authorities;

  (3) what are his Department's criteria for funding structural repairs to bridges which carry rail over road, owned by British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  Most road bridges over railways in England belong to British Rail. Responsibility for them is shared by British Rail and the relevant highway authority. Their respective responsibilities are governed by sections 117 and 118 of the Transport Act 1968 and the Railway Bridges (Load-Bearing Standards) England and Wales Order 1972.

  British Rail bridges over roads are solely the responsibility of the board itself.

  It is for British Rail and for highway authorities respectively to determine their own spending priorities for structural maintenance and other work. From 1991–92, local authority expenditure on the structural maintenance of all the bridges which carry their roads will be eligible for transport supplementary grant.

  The Department does not hold details of all the bridges owned by British Rail or of the work that needs to be done to them.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of traffic accidents causing structural damage to British Rail bridges in July, August and September of the current year; and what was the cost.

  Mr. Chope
  The number of reported traffic accidents causing structural damage to British Rail bridges in the current year was as follows:

  Number

  July

  8

  August

  5

  September

  8

  Information on the cost of these incidents is not available.

  Lavatories (Trains)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he has received on the danger to public health of British Rail trains having lavatories which flush directly on to the track; when British Rail first revealed to his Department the 1957 report on this practice; how many trains have since been provided with containers that can be emptied at depots; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The railway inspectorate has received a report from a senior employment medical adviser of the Health and Safety Executive that the risk of contracting disease from deposits on the track is slight. This matter is kept under regular review by the railway industry advisory committee of the Health and Safety Commission.
  63
  Retention tanks are, or will be, fitted to new InterCity stock: mark III sleeper stock, mark IV and mark V stock, which are designed to run at high speeds; to certain Network SouthEast trains, for example, the class 319 which operate through the Thameslink tunnels; and the channel tunnel stock, which will operate both at speed and through tunnel. It is not practicable retrospectively to fit retention tanks to existing stock.

  Prestwick Airport
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the loss of power and subsequent loss of air traffic control service at Atlantic house, Prestwick on Friday 2 November; if he will set up an inquiry into the incident; what action he is taking to ensure there is no recurrence, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The power failure at the Scottish and oceanic air traffic control centre, which occurred at 2.37 pm on 2 November, lasted for eight minutes and resulted in radar data on the height and position of aircraft being unavailable to air traffic controllers at the centre for a period of 13 minutes. Ground-to-air VHF communications links were maintained throughout this period and standard procedures for reverting to a manual mode of operation were immediately activated. The transition to the manual mode of operation was achieved by the controllers professionally and without incident. Safety standards were unimpaired, although some flights were delayed.

  The Civil Aviation Authority has already set up a full inquiry into the incident, whose purpose is to establish beyond doubt the causes of the failure and to take the necessary remedial action to prevent a recurrence.

  Dock Workers
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, in relation to the dock labour scheme, he will list(a) the estimated number of registered dockers who were expected to leave the industry by individual port, given as a percentage of the total of registered dockers as well as the actual figure, (b) the estimated contribution from the Government to the redundancy compensation scheme also by individual scheme port, (c) the actual number of registered dockers who have left the industry to date, by individual port, given as a percentage of the total of registered dockers as well as the actual figure and (d) the actual contribution from the Government to the redundancy compensation scheme also by individual scheme port.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government made no estimate before the compensation scheme was introduced either of the likely number of registered dock workers—RDWs—who would be made redundant or of the Government's contribution to their compensation on a port-by-port basis. The number of former registered dock workers at each scheme port who had been made redundant or had been given notice of redundancy by 9 November 1990, and the Government's contribution towards their compensation, are as follows:
  64

  Ports

  Number of RDWs made redundant

  Percentage of RDWs in port

  Government contribution £

  Aberdeen

  149

  100

  4,921,500

  Ardrossan

  15

  100

  250,500

  Ayr

  14

  100

  215,250

  Barrow

  1

  12

  12,500

  Barry

  65

  100

  1,131,500

  Bristol

  419

  87

  4,019,000

  Blyth

  35

  67

  498,000

  Boston

  59

  68

  1,015,000

  Cardiff

  157

  96

  2,784,000

  Charleston

  1

  100

  12,500

  Clyde

  110

  87

  1,894,000

  Dundee

  95

  100

  3,063,500

  Falmouth

  7

  100

  114,500

  Fleetwood

  44

  100

  741,000

  Forth

  151

  65

  2,500,750

  Fowey

  44

  100

  770,000

  Garston

  108

  100

  2,170,500

  Goole

  135

  82

  1,396,500

  Grimsby and Immingham

  532

  74

  14,283,750

  Great Yarmouth

  101

  100

  2,937,000

  Hull

  572

  85

  9,762,000

  Ipswich

  64

  53

  989,500

  Kings Lynn

  41

  77

  717,500

  Liverpool

  610

  52

  13,124,500

  London

  948

  54

  16,657,800

  Lowestoft

  40

  100

  340,000

  Manchester

  162

  100

  3,435,000

  Medway

  110

  20

  1,905,500

  Newport

  91

  45

  1,439,500

  Par

  28

  100

  484,000

  Penzance

  8

  100

  129,000

  Plymouth

  17

  74

  297,500

  Port Talbot

  6

  14

  105,000

  Seaham

  10

  63

  130,750

  Sharpness

  9

  23

  157,500

  Silloth

  1

  33

  5,500

  Southampton

  458

  67

  7,839,500

  Swansea

  81

  83

  1,335,000

  Sunderland

  31

  100

  524,500

  Tees and Hartlepool

  454

  93

  4,336,125

  Tyne

  63

  54

  1,019,000

  Weymouth

  11

  100

  168,500

  Wisbech

  11

  92

  332,500

  Workington

  10

  63

  143,000

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the full cost of the recent Price Waterhouse survey of care home costs.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The costs of individual studies are not made public as that could breach commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy with regard to the payment of housing benefits to care home residents.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir Geoffrey Finsberg) on 29 October at columns 368–70.

  Child Benefit
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, under the new rules,(a) the first child of any woman, (b) the first child of any man and (c) the first child of a couple who may separately have other children, will be eligible for child benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is proposed that the additional payment of £1 announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his statement on 24 October should go to all families receiving child benefit. It will be paid in respect of a child who, at any given time, is the only, elder or eldest child for whom the family is being paid child benefit. The question whether a child is the first child of a woman, man or couple is not of itself a determining factor. If a couple are getting child benefit for other children in their family, for example, from a previous marriage or marriages it will be the elder or eldest child overall who will qualify for the additional payment.

  Family Credit
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing how many people were provided for by family income supplement/family credit in London, identifying children separately, in 1970, 1980, 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on a local basis has been available only since 1989, and only then in regard to the number of families rather than the number of people provided for. The information is as follows:

  Number of families receiving family credit who, at the time the award was made, were living in the area covered by the London postal districts.

  Number

  April 19891

  11,189

  October 19902

  13,753

  1 Earliest date for which local information is available.

  2 Latest date for which local information is available.

  Sick Pay
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish his latest estimates of the number of employees who will cease to qualify for the higher rate of statutory sick pay as a result of the recently announced changes to the scheme; and if he will show a breakdown of the figures for male and female employees.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  About 3 million employees with earnings between £125 and £185 will no longer be eligible for the higher rate of statutory sick pay—SSP—if they fall sick on or after 6 April 1991. But the number of spells of sickness where the amount of SSP entitlement will be reduced will, of course, be much smaller; it is estimated to be about 600,000 out of an annual total of some 6 million.

  It is estimated that about 60 per cent. of those affected will be women. For the majority of employees, occupational sick pay schemes will make up any difference in SSP entitlement. All employees already receiving the higher rate of SSP at 6 April 1991 will continue to receive that rate until their current period of entitlement ends, regardless of their earnings.

  Those employees currently eligible for the lower rate of SSP, who are mainly in low-paid or part-time
  66
  employment, are generally less likely to be in occupational sick pay schemes. Such employees will have their SSP fully uprated by £4·25 to £43·50 per week.

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained in his uprating statement, the flat rate element of statutory maternity pay—SMP—will no longer move in step with SSP. Instead, at this uprating, SMP will be increased by £5·25 to £44·50 per week, which is £1 above the RPI increase. This will benefit some 260,000 women. Similarly, a further 55,000 mothers to be will benefit from the addition of an extra £1 to the national insurance maternity allowance, taking it from £35·70 to £40·60 per week.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the latest estimates of(a) the number of employees covered by occupational sick pay schemes, expressed also as a percentage of the total work force and to show a breakdown of the figures for male and female employees and (b) the percentage of workers covered by such schemes but who are not eligible for sick pay due to exclusion clauses in operation with a breakdown of the figures for male and female employees.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Out of a total work force of some 22 million it is estimated that 20 million—91 per cent.—work for employers providing occupational sick pay cover. These comprise about 11 million men—90 per cent. of the male work force—and 9 million women—92 per cent. of the female work force. Detailed information about the number of employees who may be excluded from their employers' sick pay scheme is not available, but research shows that half the private sector schemes have no exclusion clauses whatsoever.

  Income Support
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing how many people were provided for by supplementary benefit/ income support in London, identifying children separately, in 1970, 1980, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Pensioners (Transitional Protection)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners received transitional protection in(a) 1988, (b) 1989 and (c) at the latest available date.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of income support claimants who were receiving one of the pensioner premiums and statutory transitional protection shortly after each annual benefit uprating was(a) 710,000 in May 1988, (b) 241,000 in May 1989 and (c) 43,000 in May 1990.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  European Agricultural Fund
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been spent by each EC country on the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund in(a) ecus and (b) pounds sterling since 1985.
  67
  Mr. Gummer
  Contributions by member states to the EC budget are towards the cost of total EC expenditure and not towards any particular element such as the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the amounts spent by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund in(a) the EC and (b) the United Kingdom since 1985 in (i) ecus and (ii) pounds sterling.

  Mr. Gummer
  Expenditure since 1985 by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in total and in the United Kingdom is set in the table.

  Total EAGGF

  Of which United Kingdom

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  1985

  20,465

  12,034

  2,018

  1,187

  1986

  22,911

  14,843

  2,074

  1,344

  1987

  23,876

  17,174

  1,836

  1,321

  1988

  28,830

  19,557

  2,077

  1,409

  1989

  27,225

  17,825

  1,989

  1,302

  Source: EAGGF Guidance and Guarantee Fund Annual Reports.

  Animal Slaughter
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy for animals intended for human consumption to be slaughtered as near to the point of production as possible; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  In its proposals for a Community regulation on the protection of animals in transit the Commission has proposed a limitation of journeys for animals going for slaughter, linked to the maximum intervals between feeding and watering which would be established for each species. I support this general approach, but we will wish to ensure that the arrangements are practicable and enforceable.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has in repect of the numbers of animals intended for human consumption which are(a) slaughtered at point of production, (b) slaughtered within a 50-mile radius of production, (c) slaughtered within the United Kingdom other than those listed in (a) and (b) above and (d) exported live, giving separate information for (i) cattle, (ii) sheep and (iii) pigs if possible.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the slaughtering of animals in relation to their point of production is not available. Statistics on the number of animals slaughtered in this country or exported live for meat purposes are as follows.

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Pigs

  1 Great Britain slaughterings:

  1989

  2,967,000

  18,852,000

  13,414,000

  January to September

  1990

  2,151,000

  13,643,000

  9,616,000

  2 Great Britain exports for slaughter or further fattening:

  1989

  304,279

  491,892

  24

  January to September

  1990

  224,230

  335,647

  Nil

  68
  Note: Great Britain figures are given as it is assumed that in question (d) the hon. Member is interested in exports to continental Europe rather than trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

  Source: MAFF statistics.

  1 Monthly estimates of Great Britain slaughterings.

  2 Returns from Portal offices in Great Britain.

  North Sea (Dumping)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the implications for the marine environment of the North sea of the dumping by oil companies of radioactive waste from oil rigs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Authorisation for the disposal of radioactive materials from oil rigs in the North sea arising from drilling operations are issued by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment and by the Scottish Office on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  The Ministry has undertaken some assessments for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution relating to disposals. The concentrations of activity involved were not of radiological significance for the marine environment.

  Sewage Sludge
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department will amend the terms of the licences to dump sewage sludge granted to Welsh Water plc and Wessex Water plc when they are next reviewed to provide that the dumping must take place to the north-west of Lundy Island; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  We have no plans to do so. Disposal sites are very carefully selected and monitored and the site used by Wessex Water and Welsh Water is considered to be the most suitable. The site is swept by strong currents which carry the material away from the north Devon coastline. It is also subject to less commercial offshore fishing than sites to the north-west of Lundy island. There is no evidence of adverse effect on the marine environment or to the coastline from use of this site.

  Regional Food
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on supporting speciality regional food production for the national export market.

  Mr. Curry
  The services of Food From Britain are available to speciality food producers to help them to exploit the growing demand for British regional products. In particular, FFB is able to help producers to contact potential trade buyers of their products. FFB also operates on behalf of this Department the speciality food group grant scheme under which assistance is available over three years for groups employing marketing development staff.

  Soft Drinks (Labelling)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to increase labelling requirements in respect of soft drinks which claim to provide strength, energy and sporting prowess to the consumer.
  69
  Mr. Maclean
  The Food Advisory Committee is currently considering the question of claims as part of the review of food labelling which I announced on 15 November 1989. I expect to receive its report at the end of the year. Any proposals for further legislative controls will be the subject of wide consultation with interested parties before any new draft regulations are introduced.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made an assessment of the environmental implications resulting from the increase in crop acreage and total pesticide treated area between 1970 and 1989; if he will make it his policy to institute a programme to decrease the acreage subject to pesticide spraying; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Advisory Committee on Pesticides, through its environmental panel, monitors continuously the impact of pesticides, particularly on wildlife. The results are published annually and show that the procedures involved in registration of crop protection chemicals have largely eliminated adverse effects from approved uses.

  The Government have set out their policy on pesticides in the environment White Paper. The first of its governing principles is that the amounts of pesticide used should be limited to the minimum necessary for the effective control of pests compatible with the protection of human health and the environment. This Department is spending over £20 million per year on research into pests and pesticides, particularly aimed at reducing their usage. The tonnage of pesticidal active ingredients has actually dropped by 17 per cent. over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now require foodstuffs which may contain pesticide residues to be labelled as such.

  Mr. Maclean
  The labelling of foodstuffs treated with pesticides is being considered by the Food Advisory Committee as part of a review of food labelling which is expected to be concluded by the end of the year. EC Agriculture Ministers will discuss on 27 November a proposal for compulsory labelling of fruit and vegetables treated post-harvest, but are likely to recommend further preparatory work by the Commission.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made a recent estimate of the quantities of pesticide residues present within the flesh of fruit; what steps he has taken to measure these quantities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department's central science laboratories are currently studying the distribution of residues between flesh and peel of apples treated with common pesticides. The results of this work will be published.

EMPLOYMENT

  Premises Inspection
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what provisions he has made to provide local authorities with adequate funding to ensure they are 70
  financially able to carry out the inspection of those premises the responsibility for which was recently transferred from the Health and Safety Executive to local authorities; whether the budget of the Health and Safety Executive has been reassessed in the light of the transfer of this responsibility; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list by region, county, district or other convenient division the number of premises, the responsibility for inspection of which has now been transferred from the Health and Safety Executive to local authorities; and what steps he is taking to ensure local authorities are fully aware of their new responsibilities and are carrying them out.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1989 resulted in net transfer of enforcement responsibility for an estimated 120,000 premises to the 461 local authorities enforcing health and safety legislation in Great Britain. Information on the regional distribution of those premises is not available.

  The regulations were the subject of extensive consultations and local authority associations gave assurances that the new responsibilities could be accommodated through greater use of priority planning systems which determine frequency of inspections. The HSE's resources are reviewed annually as part of the public expenditure survey and full account is taken of changing responsibilities.

  Local authorities throughout the country have been made fully aware of their new responsibilities through local briefings and enforcement guidance to inspectors.

  EC Asbestos Directive
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the European Commission proposal for a Council directive amending directive 83/477/EEC on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to asbestos at work (COM(90)184 final); and when he expects the new directive to be implemented.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government fully welcome the Commission's proposals to strengthen the provisions of the 1983 directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work, and have actively supported the proposals during examination in the Council's social questions 'working group. It is expected that the draft directive will be considered at the Social Affairs Council on 26 November. It is likely that member states will need to implement the amending directive by 31 December 1992.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many sittings of part-time chairmen of industrial tribunals took place in the last quarter for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  In the quarter ended 30 September, part-time chairmen of industrial tribunals undertook 493 session days in England and Wales and 89 in Scotland.

  Pig Farms
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has of number of the workers in the intensive pig farming business who suffer from chest complaints; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Studies by the Health and Safety Executive and others suggest that workers in intensive pig rearing houses have a higher prevalence of a range of respiratory symptoms than the general population. The Health and Safety Executive is currently analysing the available data and I will write to the hon. Member once I can give a more definitive reply.

SCOTLAND

  Speedlink
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate how much additional freight would have to be transported by road each year in Scotland if British Rail closes its Speedlink operation; and how many more lorry movements would be involved.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to ensure the continuation of adequate freight services in Scotland in the light of the current review of Speedlink services by British Rail.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend will consider all the implications for Scotland of any proposals which British Rail put to the Government following the review of its Speedlink services.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he made to British Rail prior to the meeting of the British Rail board on 1 November concerning the future of Speedlink services and the desirability of retaining first-class freight services in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend met the chairman of British Rail, Sir Bob Reid, on 31 October 1990. A number of topics were discussed, including BR's present review of its Speedlink services.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings he has had with ScotRail management this year to discuss electrification of the railway lines between(a) Edinburgh and Glasgow via Polmont, (b) Edinburgh and Glasgow via Shotts and (c) Edinburgh and Aberdeen.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I meet the chairman and other board members and senior management of British Rail and ScotRail from time to time. Contacts at official level also take place frequently. Discussions at such meetings cover a wide range of topics concerning rail services in Scotland, including electrification.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received in favour of 72
  electrifying the railway lines between (a) Edinburgh and Glasgow via Polmont, (b) Edinburgh and Glasgow via Shotts and (c) Edinburgh and Aberdeen.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations in 1990 from a number of organisations and individuals, including Members of Parliament, supporting further electrification of the railway network in Scotland. Decisions whether to invest in electrification schemes are, however, for British Rail working within the guidelines set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Ayr Road Route
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from hon. Members concerning the Ayr road route A77; and what reply he has given.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have received representations concerning the A77 Ayr road route from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). I shall reply to them in due course.

ENERGY

  Piper Alpha Inquiry
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on representations which he has received since the publication of the report on the Piper Alpha inquiry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made earlier today.

  Energy Efficiency Office
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what range of programmes the Energy Efficiency Office has in place; whether any new initiatives are planned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Energy Efficiency Office continues to offer a range of effective programmes designed to encourage the adoption of cost-effective energy efficiency measures in the home, industry and commerce.

  In the coming months the EEO will be introducing the home energy efficiency scheme, which will provide assistance towards the cost of basic energy efficiency measures and advice to those on low incomes, and carrying forward a number of further initiatives that were announced in the White Paper on the environment.

  United Kingdom Continental Shelf
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the rate of capital investment in the United Kingdom continental shelf in the first quarter of 1990.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Capital investment in the first quarter of 1990 was £742 million, a massive increase of 46 per cent. on the corresponding quarter of 1989.

  Lead-free Petrol
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the level of sales of lead-free petrol.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Currently about 36 per cent. of petrol sold is unleaded.

  Tidal Barrages
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much support his Department is giving to environmental work relating to tidal barrages.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department has so far allocated about £1·8 million towards general environmental work relating to tidal energy barrages.

  Further funding for studies on the Severn and Mersey barrage projects was announced in the summer. This included contributions for environmental work of £456,000 and £360,000, respectively, from my Department.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what measures will be taken to assist in the feasibility studies for the construction of a Severn barrage or a Mersey barrage; and how much electricity each of these would generate.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department is making funds available of £0·46 million and £1·5 million for feasibility studies of tidal energy barrages on the Severn and Mersey estuaries respectively. It has been estimated that the barrage will provide approximately 8 per cent. of the present electricity requirements of England and Wales.

  British Coal (Output)
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was British Coal's output per man year in 1989–90; what was the level in 1979–80; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Energy what was British Coal's output per man year in 1989–90; what was the level in 1979–80; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  British Coal's output per man year was 1,080 tonnes in 1989–90, compared with 470 tonnes in 1979–80, an improvement of nearly 130 per cent.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress to diversify the work of the Atomic Energy Authority at Dounreay.

  Mr. Baldry
  Dounreay has succeeded in attracting promising offshore oil work and is conducting a study, worth around £150,000, funded by the Department of Energy and others into the potential wind energy resource in Caithness and north Sutherland.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received any representations regarding opencast mining being carried out under interim development orders.
  74
  Mr. Baldry
  I have received no representations. Questions relating to planning matters are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Offshore Oil Employees
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on blacklisting of offshore oil employees by oil companies and contractors.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (M r. Sillars) earlier today.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Good progress continues to be made. The Government are on target for the flotation of the 12 regional electricity companies in early December and more than 6 million people have registered with the electricity share information office.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what risks are the electricity privatisation underwriters being given to carry and what risks have the Government agreed to accept.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The underwriters of the sale of the 12 regional electricity companies will be expected to carry the same risks as underwriters have carried in recent privatisations except that in the event of an outbreak of hostilities in the middle east there will be arrangements under which the offer can be terminated.

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the president of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers to discuss the future of the coal industry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the president of the UDM from time to time when we discuss all aspects of the coal industry of current interest.

  Pensioners' Homes
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the proportion of pensioners' homes lacking basic draughtproofing or insulation.

  Mr. Baldry
  Surveys indicate that of those households where the housewife is aged 65 or over, around 10 per cent. have no loft insulation and some 70 per cent. lack draughtproofing.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total spent on staff training by the electricity supply industry in each year since 1984–85 at constant prices.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This is a matter for the industry.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many apprentices were taken on by the area electricity boards and the Central Electricity Generating Board, respectively, in each year since 1984–85.
  75
  Mr. Wakeham
  This is a matter for the regional electricity companies and the successor companies to the CEGB.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had about the establishment of a futures market for electricity.

  Mr. Wakeham
  None, but officials have met representatives from the London futures and options exchange to discuss their ideas relating to the establishment of a futures market for electricity.

  Nuclear-generated Electricity
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will now require a reassessment of the price of 5·7 per kWh in respect of nuclear-generated electricity, as submitted by Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear as part of the application to the European Commission seeking approval of the section 33 (Electricity Act 1989) levy regulation order in February 1990, in the light of the losses announced by Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear; and if he will make a full statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  No.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy in respect of the submission by his Department of an application to the European Commission seeking approval of the section 33 (Electricity Act 1989) levy regulation order, in February 1990(a) on what date was the price submitted by Nuclear Electric of 5·7p/kWh determined and (b) what input his Department had in determining the price of 5·7p/kWh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government oversaw the negotiation of the contracts between Nuclear Electric and the regional electricity companies. Details of those negotiations and discussions with the European Commission are confidential.

  Fuel Choice
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on public sector fuel choice.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government believe that decisions on fuel choice should be based on commercial criteria, and that no individual fuel should be give preference over others in the appraisal of future public sector projects. The terms of the statement made to the House on 12 April 1965,Official Report, columns 959–60, by the then Minister for Power, which favoured the choice of solid fuel in public buildings, will therefore no longer apply.

  Vectis Energy Systems
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received from Vectis Energy Systems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Vectis Energy Systems has recently suggested to my Department that the criteria by which Nuclear Electric plc was able to contract within the non-fossil fuel obligation were less demanding than those applied to renewables operators seeking to contract within 76
  the obligation. However, I can assure the hon. Member that the Secretary of State took all relevant matters into account before certifying the contracts between the 12 regional electricity companies and Nuclear Electric plc as meeting the requirements of the legislation.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many applications he has received to date submitting schemes for inclusion in the renewable tranche of the non-fossil fuel obligation; and what is the total generating capacity of these schemes.

  Mr. Baldry
  In fulfilment of the initial order setting a non-fossil fuel obligation in respect of renewable sources of electricity generating capacity, the 12 regional electricity companies have contracted for 75 projects with an installed capacity that will build up to some 170 MW. My right hon. Friend intends to bring forward the first additional renewables tranche next year.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many, and what percentage, of those applicants who have submitted schemes for inclusion in the renewable tranche of the non-fossil fuel obligation have written to express reservations about the operation of the non-fossil fuel obligation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  In consultation with OFFER and the 12 regional electricity companies, my Department is currently reviewing the procedures for making orders setting a non-fossil fuel obligation in respect of renewable sources of electricity generating capacity, in the light of experience gained in making the initial renewables order. In this context comments have been invited from a number of organisations. The conclusions of this review will be taken into account in making the arrangements for the first additional order, about which my right hon. Friend proposes to make an announcement by the end of this year.

  Hydro-electric Power
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what range of prices are being offered to private hydro-electricity generators in Wales, the north of England and the south of England.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a commercial matter for the electricity industry.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what capacity of hydro-electric power is installed at present in Wales, the north of England and the south of England; and what are his plans to encourage further generation by this means.

  Mr. Baldry
  The total declared net capacity of hydro-electric schemes connected to the grid in England and Wales is 110 MW as at 31 March 1990. This figure excludes pumped storage schemes. Very small schemes may account for a further capacity of about 10 MW. Further hydro-electric generation in England and Wales is being encouraged by the following means:

  1. The Water Act 1989 abolishes water abstraction charges for small schemes of under 5 MW—effective 1 April 1990.

  2. From 1990, independent commercial water power electricity generators will be rated on the same "formula" basis as the successors of the Central Electricity Generating Board.

  77

  3. My Department has made provision for assistance with the funding of feasibility studies for small hydro-electric schemes, as part of a continuing programme of research, development and demonstration.

  4. A total of 26 hydro-electric schemes were included in the first tranche of renewable energy projects under the non-fossil fuel obligation—NFFO. These were given approval by the Director General of Electricity Supply on 3 October.

  5. It is planned to make available over the next few years further tranches of capacity for renewables-sourced electricity generation under the NFFO. At least another 600 MW will be made available. The next order under the NFFO will be made next year.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give for each regional electricity company the maximum permitted domestic tariff increases in this and the next financial year, respectively.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Prices are a matter for the regional electricity companies subject to their statutory and licence requirements. It is for the Director General of Electricity Supply to monitor and enforce licence conditions.

  Progressive Dividend Policy
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what criteria his Department uses to define progressive dividend policy.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The dividend policy statements included in a prospectus are a matter for the directors of the company.

  Regional Electricity Companies
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the property asset value of each regional electricity company is represented by their retail shop chain.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy why the net assets of the National Grid Company were allocated between each regional electricity company on the basis of the net assets according to the current cost accounting convention of both the National Grid Company and each regional electricity company.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The allocation of NGC net assets by reference to the current cost assets of the regional electricity companies was felt to be a fair and acceptable allocation method.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total estimated cost of the 12·5 per cent. bonus to be paid to some directors of regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's estimate of the extent to which regional electricity company directors' salaries are below private sector rates.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It will be for the companies to consider this after privatisation.
  78
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when in October the National Grid Company issued a property clawback debenture to him.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The debenture was issued on 2 November 1990.

  Salter's Duck
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his departmental figures relating to grant for the wave power device known as Salter's duck.

  Mr. Moynihan
  A major programme of wave energy research and development funded by the Department of Energy was carried out from 1974 to 1983 and cost approximately £15·5 million. Including follow on work after the main programme ended support provided for the Salter duck amounted to £1·8 million.

  The research programme is described in ETSU R26, published in March 1985. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The Department is now updating its earlier wave energy studies and a review is in hand to examine the prospects for wave energy across the whole range from shoreline to large-scale offshore devices. Two progress reports have already been circulated for comment to the wave research and development community and also have been placed in the Library of the House.

  It is intended that an interim report will be published early in 1991 and a final report published later that year. The interim report will address offshore wave energy including progress on the assessment of Professor Salter's device.

  Energy Expenditure
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total expenditure on energy in the United Kingdom by end users in 1989; what proportion of that expenditure was tax; and what proportion of that expenditure was gross domestic product.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The figures for 1989 are shown in the table. Corresponding figures for 1986 to 1988 are also given, as there have been revisions to the data since the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 26 July 1989.

  Year

  Expenditure on energy by final users (£ million)

  Tax as a proportion of expenditure on energy1 (per cent.)

  Energy expenditure as a proportion of GDP2 (per cent.)

  1986

  37,860

  22·6

  9·9

  1987

  38,525

  23·5

  9·1

  1988

  39,015

  24·8

  8·3

  1989

  42,150

  24·6

  8·2

  1 Taxes—duty and VAT—on petroleum products. No other fuels were subject to tax in the years shown.

  2 Calculated using the average measure of GDP at current market prices.

  Source: Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics and Central Statistical Office figures for GDP.

  Flow Charts
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the energy flow chart scheduled for publication in mid-1990 to which his answer of 24 July 1989,Official Report, columns 578–79, referred has been produced; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The chart of "United Kingdom Energy Flows 1989" was published on 26 July 1990, with the "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1990". A copy of the Digest, including a copy of the flow chart, was provided to the Library of the House following publication.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will report on the progress of the interdepartmental ministerial committee on energy efficiency.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The committee met on 17 October. Its aims are to raise the profile of energy efficiency, to encourage an energy efficient lifestyle at home, at work and in travel and to set an example in the public sector. The committee has published the first annual report of the campaign to improve energy efficiency on the Government estate and all Ministers have agreed to promote energy efficiency in their many contacts with local authorities, industry and commerce. The committee will provide a forum for bringing to people's attention both the steps Government are taking and the steps they themselves can take to improve energy efficiency.

DEFENCE

  RAF Aircraft
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will introduce a research programme to examine the use of radar absorbent material on aircraft operated by the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is not our policy to give details of current or future research programmes.

  RAF Kemble
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current number of(a) service and (b) civilian personnel stationed at RAF Kemble.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently two RAF officers, 19 United States Air Force personnel, 62 United States Department of Defence civilian employees and 422 civilians directly employed by the Ministry of Defence at RAF Kemble. A further 30 staff are employed by the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations have taken place with the relevant local authorities regarding his Department's civilian employees currently working at RAF Kemble.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence is in contact with North Wiltshire and Cotswold district councils on the issues arising from the United States decision to withdraw from RAF Kemble, including the position of the Department's employees on the station.
  80
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations have taken place with the United States Government regarding the future uses of RAF Kemble.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Following the announcement on 18 September of the United States Air Force's intention to withdraw from RAF Kemble in 1992, the Ministry of Defence is considering possible future uses for the site.

  Portland Naval Base
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what consideration has been given to(a) closing down and (b) reducing the size of Portland naval base as a result of the "Options for Change" study;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future of Portland naval base:

  (3) what assessment has been made of the future strategic requirements for the capabilities of Portland naval base.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Our assessment of the continued requirement for the Portland naval base, as with all other parts of the naval estate, will depend on forthcoming decisions on the future support and management of the RN as part of the work on "Options for Change". The Government will announce their intentions as soon as these considerations are completed.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current number of(a) service and (b) civilian personnel stationed at Portland naval base.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently 506 service personnel and 710 civilians employed at the Portland naval base complex, which includes the naval air station HMS Osprey.

  Overseas Voters
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to inform the wives of service men living outside the United Kingdom of their right to a postal vote; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Representation of the People Act gives service personnel and their spouse living overseas the right to a proxy vote but not to a postal vote. Spouses living overseas are informed of their right to a proxy vote in a number of ways.

  Royal Navy Equipment Exhibition
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when and where the next Royal Navy equipment exhibition will be held; and on what dates it will be open to(a) all overseas customers, (b) the press and (c) the general public.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The next Royal Navy equipment exhibition will be held at Whale island, Portsmouth on 1 to 6 September 1991. Sunday 1 September will be the press day. VIPs and overseas guests will attend on 2 to 4 September. The remaining two days are trade days, although overseas customers will still be welcome. The exhibition is not open to members of the public.

ENVIRONMENT

  Waste Materials (Imports)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the extent of the importation of waste materials for the United Kingdom during the 1988–89 year by major subject heading; and if he will divide this data as to whether they are toxic or other waste.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Information on the importation of hazardous waste into England by type of waste has been collated since the introduction of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations in October 1988. No information is collated on imports of non-hazardous waste.

  The provision of similar information for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland respectively.

  The following table shows the imports of hazardous waste for the period 1 October 1988 to 31 March 1989.

  Waste types

  Tonnes imported

  Aerosol

  6·5

  AZO dyes

  1·2

  Battery waste

  4·5

  Carbon/charcoal waste

  21·8

  Celite waste

  64·8

  Cellulose waste

  3·2

  Chlorinated solvents

  46·0

  Chrome residues

  3·9

  Copper sulphate

  0·5

  Cyanide waste

  0·2

  Detergent/soap waste

  49·2

  Distillation residue

  596·4

  Filter cake

  1,710·6

  Fluegas/furnace soot

  789·5

  Fly-ash

  201·0

  Glass powder waste

  1·4

  Glue waste

  35·2

  Clycerine waste

  32·0

  Graphite waste

  11·6

  Hydroxide sludge

  384·6

  Industrial ink waste

  238·1

  Inorganic waste

  18·9

  Iron Hydroxide/oxides

  139·7

  Laboratory waste

  8·6

  Latex rubber waste

  26·2

  Miscellaneous waste

  76·8

  Miscellaneous chemical waste

  254·6

  Nerol (Toluene waste)

  34·0

  Nickel compounds

  8·6

  Nickel baths sludge

  0·5

  Non-ferrous metal scrap

  21·8

  Oil/wax/grease/fats/paint

  45·0

  Organic halogenated waste

  0·1

  Organic waste (mix)

  54·8

  Paint waste

  2,118·5

  PolychloroBiphenyl (PCB)

  190·7

  PCB/transformers carcass

  14·4

  Pesticides

  5·0

  Pharmaceutical waste

  9·0

  Phosphoric acid

  120·0

  Photocopying liquids

  0·4

  Polyester waste

  3·4

  Polymer waste (PVC)

  4·6

  Polyurethane waste

  49·3

  Printing waste

  9·6

  Resin waste

  51·5

  Sludge waste

  52·6

  Sodium chloride

  16·1

  82

  Waste types

  Tonnes imported

  Sodium benzosulfonate

  29·6

  Sulphuric acid

  6·0

  Factory sweeping

  111·8

  Tar-residue/liquid

  0·2

  Vanadium catalyst

  51·9

  Varnish waste

  0·3

  Zinc salts/waste

  25·4

  Totals

  7,762·1

  Pesticides
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to prevent the contamination of groundwater supplies by pesticides; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department announced in a consultation paper on 31 October the Government's proposals for a national classification scheme for dangerous substances, including pesticides, which must be prevented from entering or must be limited before reaching groundwater. Department of the Environment circular 20/90 issued on the same day describes the steps to be taken by controlling authorities in respect of these dangerous substances.

  The Government are advised on the use of pesticides by the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP). Only pesticides approved by Ministers may be used. The ACP's current review programme of pesticides was announced on 1 November and one of the matters that it will take into consideration is the potential for pesticides to leach into groundwater.

  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Health and Safety Commission, and my Department prepared jointly a code of practice for the safe use of pesticides on farms and holdings which was issued last May.

  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made an assessment of the possible application of part I of the Environmental Protection Act for coal-fired power stations; whether the BATNEEC—best available technique not entailing excessive cost—provisions will require the fitting of flue gas desulphurisation equipment to such stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The requirements of the Government's plan for implementing the large combustion plants directive, to be made under part I of the Environmental Protection Acts, will lead to the retrofitting of flue gas desulphurisation to three major coal-fired power stations. The Government will also lay regulations setting tight emission standards for new plants.

  The chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will shortly be issuing for consultation draft guidance on techniques for controlling emissions from large combustion plants.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what procedures exist for the reclassification of high-level nuclear waste as intermediate-level waste;
  83
  what is his best estimate of the length of time required to pass before such reclassification is scientifically justified; who is empowered to take such a decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No procedures exist for the reclassification of high-level radioactive waste as intermeddiate-level radioactive waste. The Radioactive Substances Act 1960 requires that radioactive waste must be authorised by the appropriate regulatory authorities for disposal. They will specify the means of disposal. Further information on the Government's policy for the 84
  management of radioactive waste is set out in the Government's recent Environment White Paper, "This Common Inheritance".

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been conducted into the technical feasibility of disposing of the nuclear waste which is currently defined as high-level waste in the deep repository which is currently planned for intermediate-level waste disposal; and what research is planned.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No such research is planned as there are no proposals to dispose of high-level radioactive waste in any repository for intermediate-level radioactive waste.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Satellite Broadcasting
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether and how they propose (a) to ensure that no non-EC national controls 50 per cent. of a British satellite service and (b) to prevent any newspaper proprietor from owning more than 20 per cent. of a British television franchise.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, under the Broadcasting Act of 1981 and under Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990, which comes into force on 1st January 1991, non-European Community nationals are prohibited from controlling a domestic satellite service. Schedule 2 also limits newspaper interests in a Channel 3 or Channel 5 licence to 20 per cent. We intend to make supplementary rules also limiting newspaper interests in domestic satellite services to 20 per cent.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer, although I am not quite clear where it will leave Mr. Murdoch. Perhaps I may ask him this precise question. Exactly when did the Government know of the proposed merger between Sky and BSB? Were the relevant Minister, the Home Secretary in regard to the broadcasting industry, and the relevant authority, the IBA, informed at the time?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, at four o'clock on Friday afternoon officials were told that it was likely that an announcement would be made affecting BSB and Sky. At nine o'clock on that evening both BBC News and Sky News said that the two companies were merging. I understand that at three-thirty in the morning of Saturday the legal deal was signed. At ten o'clock on the Saturday my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State spoke to Mr. Andrew Knight, chairman of News International. I think I am right in saying that the IBA was not consulted in advance; but that of course is a matter between the IBA, Sky and BSB.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, does the Minister deny the statements made in the newspapers that the Prime Minister and 10 Downing Street were alerted to this matter several days before, on Monday, 29th October?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, what I said to the noble Lord was that my officials were informed formally at four o'clock on Friday. I understand that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had a conversation about a number of matters with Mr. Murdoch earlier; that he said that the companies were in difficulties and that the possibility of a merger was in the offing. But that was only a matter of informative conversation and not an official indication.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what he has just said raises very serious issues indeed? Does he not recognise that the Prime Minister was informed of this impending merger, with all its implications, while the Broadcasting Bill was still before Parliament? Had Parliament been aware of this and not been kept in deliberate ignorance, the decisions that we took might well have been different. Is it not too serious a matter to be dealt with simply by Question and Answer across the Floor of the House? Should not the Government make time available for the matter to he debated properly?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am merely responding to a Question that was put down. If the noble Lord considers that there ought to be another method of dealing with the situation, he is entitled to take such action as he wishes.
With respect, I believe that the noble Lord is mistaken. This was a conversation—as I understand it; I was not privy to it—between Mr. Murdoch and the Prime Minister on a number of questions in which he indicated that Sky and BSB were both in difficulties and that there might at some juncture have to be some form of merger. It was not an indication that a merger was imminent. If I may say so, the noble Lord is also mistaken on this. The Broadcasting Act 1990 does not as yet affect the merger which has just taken place.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that the action proposed is a take-over by Sky rather than a merger? Does he also agree that it must result in less competition, less choice and lower quality television for British viewers, which is contrary to the Government's intentions as stated in the White Paper and in the Broadcasting Act 1990? Was the Prime Minister aware of that when she obviously gave her blessing to Mr. Murdoch?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness really is putting words into the mouth of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. She never said anything about a blessing. She was informed as a matter of conversation that the two companies were in difficulty. I believe that the noble Baroness is mistaken. It shows what a highly speculative business satellite broadcasting is, and if, as the noble Baroness states, it will result in less choice, it would have resulted in even less choice had both companies gone bust. I am bound to point out to her that Schedule 11 to the Broadcasting Act 1990 permits the existing DBS contracts to be replaced by a licence in 1993. The Broadcasting Act 1990 does not affect that.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I must return to part of the question to which the Minister did not reply. Having read the papers and the reports on the matter, and the acknowledgment from 10 Downing Street that the subject was discussed with the Prime Minister, is it right for anyone to draw the conclusion that if the Prime Minister had objected there would not have been an announcement some days later and that action would have been taken by the relevant Ministers who were not informed?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness can read what she likes into newspaper reports but I doubt whether the reporters were present at the conversation. I was not and therefore I cannot comment on that issue. The merger took place under the auspices of the Broadcasting Act 1981 and not the Broadcasting Act 1990, and therefore the companies were entitled to do what they did. The 1990 Act will begin to bite only in 1993.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is the Minister aware that the entire matter has grave implications? Can he say whether the meeting at 10 Downing Street took place at the request of Mr. Murdoch in order to discuss matters about which the Prime Minister had been given proper prior notice? In view of the substance of the conversation, will the Minister say whether anyone from his department was present to advise the Prime Minister, especially in view of the fact that the Broadcasting Bill was then going through this House? I realise that the Minister may be in a difficult position, but it may help the Government if he can clarify the situation so that there is no doubt.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the answer to the first of the noble Lord's questions is no and the answer to his second question is no.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is the Minister ready to let the House know whether the Prime Minister, having had the formal or informal information from Mr. Murdoch about a matter of great public interest and about a Bill which Parliament had been discussing for more than a year, passed on the information to her colleague the Home Secretary?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my understanding is that the subject arose during the course of a conversation about a number of matters. When officially there was a likelihood of a merger, Sky Television got in touch with my right honourable friend.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the merger of the two companies is most important and beneficial and that it was wrong that many shareholders' funds were being lost through unnecessary competition? Does he further agree that what has happened is in the best interests of the public, the investors and all those who wish to see good television?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments, with which I agree. It is important to remember that the venture was highly speculative and that both companies were running into trouble. If both companies had been allowed to go bust there would have been a loss of 1,000 jobs.
I commend to your Lordships the remark made by Mr. Andrew Knight in a letter to The Times published today. He said:
"As for Mr. Murdoch's television interest, he now controls just half of a deadlocked company, heavily in debt, whose programmes will be subject to regulatory control, and whose viewing audience is at best 3 per cent. of that controlled by the BBC and ITV".
I do not believe that to be a coveted monopoly.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister clarify his comment that if any organisation threatens the Government that it may be going bust it will be given licence to thwart the desire of Parliament and, if necessary, to get round the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is mistaken. Perhaps I may explain the matter as succinctly as possible. At present the two companies are contractors to the Independent Broadcasting Authority. Under the Broadcasting Act 1981 they are permitted to merge provided that they have the approval of the IBA. That issue is governed by questions such as whether the company should be controlled by another company based outside the European Community and whether there should be newspaper interests which have had or will lead to results that could be contrary to the public interest. That is what the IBA must decide and what it is now deciding. The fact that the Broadcasting Bill 1990 has gone through Parliament does not affect this merger at this time, but it will when the company becomes a licensee in 1993.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, are not the public policy implications of the merger currently under consideration by the IBA? Will they not again come under public consideration by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and probably by the licensing authority when it comes into effect? Furthermore, is it not wise not to fish in troubled waters in the meantime?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in answer to that extraordinary unparliamentary guffawing noise from the Opposition, I can say only that the observation made by my noble and learned friend, particularly the latter part, was extremely apposite. It would be bad to fish in troubled waters—not that the waters are particularly troubled for the Government—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the IBA is considering this matter, as is the Office of Fair Trading.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, for a long time it has seemed probable that Sky and BSB would be driven into a reluctant merger. Did the Government frame the legislation so as to make the conditions of the two companies incompatible in order to deter that or did they not notice that point which would arise, if not now, then in 1993?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Government framed the legislation particularly to deal with domestic satellite broadcasting, which has five frequencies which are internationally allocated to the United Kingdom, and non-domestic satellite services, which are totally different and which can number up to 30 or even 40 different services. In the Broadcasting Act the Government sought to set the scene aright so that those companies which wished to participate could do so.

Electricity Industry: Wage Settlement
2.51 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their attitude to the next wage settlement in the electricity industry.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the wage settlement is a matter for the electricity industry.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that is hardly an answer to the Question. I am asking what is the Government's attitude. Is it not the case that over the previous two years the wage settlement in the electricity industry has been well above the inflation rate? Is the noble Lord aware that it is expected that in the next agreement it will again be well above the inflation rate? Is that not connected directly with the Government's desire to privatise the electricity industry and avoid trouble while that privatisation is being conducted?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, with respect, I did answer the Question. This matter is for the electricity industry. Of course general levels of pay are of interest to the Government, but negotiations are squarely a matter for the industry.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that as a former employee of the electricity supply industry and having had quite a lot to do with the negotiating process in that industry, in my view wages and salaries in that industry—and I hope the noble Lord will agree with this—are certainly a matter for discussion and decision between the trade unions and the management of that industry?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I defer to the noble Lord's experience in the matter. However, I do not see that that has a bearing on the Government's attitude towards pay and negotiations.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case that the electricity industry is about to be privatised on the market? Is it not the case that it would be extremely damaging in the event of a flotation that there should be any form of industrial dispute? Does the no ale Lord seriously believe that that is not a consideration which the management of the industry bears in mind when settling wages?
Lordl Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I accept that any dispute is damaging but, as matters stand, it is beyond the Government to take part in those negotiations. It is a matter for the industry.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am not suggesting that the Government are going to take part in a settlement. I ask again what is the Government's attitude. They have expressed their attitude towards wage settlements in a large number of industries. They have expressed their attitude towards wage settlements generally and have urged settlements to be kept below the level of inflation. What is their attitude towards a settlement in the electricity industry in view of the fact that that is very clearly linked directly to the privatisation of that industry?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I could not have been clearer than I was in my original Answer. The wage settlement is a matter for the electricity industry and, therefore, the Government are distanced from those negotiations.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Question relates to the Government's attitude. Arc we to understand from the noble Lord's reply that the Government have no attitude whatever towards this industry and that this is a matter for the electricity industry?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's remark. As I say, the Government have an attitude towards pay negotiations which is well known to the noble Lord.

Soviet Army: Numerical Strength
2.55 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their latest estimate of the numerical strength of the Russian Army, the number of nuclear missiles and the tonnage of material usable for chemical warfare possessed by Russia; and whether these figures represent an increase or a decrease on comparable figures for five and two years ago respectively.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, our latest estimate of the current numerical size of the Soviet Army is 2.2 million; namely, a 20 per cent. reduction over the past five years. The number of Soviet strategic nuclear missiles is currently assessed at 1,398 intercontinental ballistic missiles and 924 sea launched ballistic missiles. These figures show little change since 1985. Finally, we continue to assess that the Soviet stockpile of chemical warfare agents is several times greater than the figure of 50,000 tonnes declared by the Soviets themselves in 1987.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for those somewhat disturbing figures, is not the inevitable conclusion that this country and its allies should be very cautious indeed about believing that this is an opportune occasion for a peace dividend?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. Even disregarding Eastern European nations, there is no doubt that the Soviet Union alone retains a considerable advantage over NATO. That is why under our Options for Change: A Study, we are pursuing a policy of both caution and realism. The details of that are being worked on at present.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while noting what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, is the Minister aware that we welcome the signing of the CFE treaty on 19th November? Taking account of the great changes in Europe, notably the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, is there not a case for proceeding with urgency towards a second CFE treaty?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords welcome the signing of the CFE treaty in

117
Paris on 19th November which, as your Lordships will know, is next Monday. Furthermore, it is very much hoped that there will be follow-on negotiations almost immediately after that, mostly concerning manpower reduction levels.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while acknowledging that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has asked a vitally serious Question, will the Minister acknowledge that in addition to the points made by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, in the past few months there have been statements by Mr. Gorbachev which are encouraging? Would it not be possible for our Government and our allies to make a direct approach to Mr. Gorbachev to make a reality of his suggestions as well as our suggestions?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this Government in line with all NATO governments are continually striving to have and, indeed, are being successful in having negotiations with Mr. Gorbachev, such as the CFE negotiations and the CSBM negotiations.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will her Majesty's Government make it clear to Mr. Gorbachev that his peaceful intentions would carry a great deal of weight if he did not continue to impose on the struggling Russian economy that enormous defence expenditure for which no explanation has yet been given?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand very well the point made by my noble friend. Indeed, that point is being stressed to Mr. Gorbachev as frequently as possible in line with negotiations now taking place and future negotiations.

Kuwait: Population Structure
2.58 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is the case that only 28 per cent. of the inhabitants of Kuwait are Kuwaitis, and if so whether this is being taken into account in deciding whether or not to launch a military attack.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, according to Kuwaiti statistics 28 per cent. of the inhabitants of Kuwait before the invasion were Kuwaitis. Since the Iraqi invasion thousands of Iraqi servicemen and civilians have entered the country and tens of thousands of Kuwaiti citizens have fled. The actual population of Kuwait now, and the proportion of Kuwaiti nationals, is not known.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not a most unusual situation in any country in which, to say the least of it, the majority of the people living in the country are not nationals of that country? Is it not the case, as is suggested in my Question, that that consideration must affect the question of whether it is possible to launch a successful military attack?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think what the noble Lord said in the latter part of his Question necessarily follows. The point is that before the invasion of Kuwait, the Kuwaitis were able to
118
decide who lived in their country. They have now been invaded by Iraq and have no means of stopping the Iraqis coming in.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a growing feeling in this country, especially among the Churches, that the evil which could be released by offensive operations further than those already undertaken with forced sanctions would be much greater than the peaceful pursuance of sanctions?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not certain that I detect the growing feeling to which the right reverend Prelate refers. Having read an article in one newspaper this morning, I am not even sure that it is a view universally held within the Church. The point is that Iraq must be made to leave Kuwait. It must be made to comply with the relevant Security Council resolutions which provide for unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his last reply will certainly meet with a happy response from this side of the House? It does not matter a tuppenny damn who are Iraqis and who are not. Saddam Hussein has no right to walk into an undefended country like Kuwait and tear it apart.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. Fortunately that is what the United Nations decided in many resolutions passed since the illegal invasion.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not a fact that the total obliteration, without the smallest justification, of a recognised member of the United Nations by another, if it were allowed to pass without resistance, would bring the whole fabric of international law into disrepute? Would not the Churches be a great deal more respected in this country if they realised the clear moral and legal implications of what has happened?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree with what my noble and learned friend said. I cannot answer for the Churches. As I said in an earlier answer, I do not believe it is a view universally held by the Church. However, Kuwait must be freed of the Iraqi presence.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, while we are all agreed that the Iraqis must be forced to withdraw from Kuwait, the Question sought to point out the difficulties of bringing that about by military attack. It was intended to suggest to the Government that they should persist with sanctions and other means rather than begin a military attack, the consequences of which might be much worse than is now appreciated.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, obviously sanctions must be allowed time to work. Nobody has ever said otherwise. However, your Lordships will have an opportunity to debate this matter in full tomorrow afternoon. I answered the point raised by the noble Lord in his Question. Further debate would be better in the context of a full debate tomorrow.
Lord Annan: My Lords, are not the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and the right reverend Prelate very like those heard at the time before. Munich?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, although Munich was before my time, from all that I have read there seems to be a distinct similarity.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the Minister, in the light of the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that the statement by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, as a sinner who repented from his posture at the time of Munich is greatly welcomed on this side of the House.

Education (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to extend eligibility for maintained status under the Education Reform Act 1988 to certain independent schools, and amend the procedure for approval of proposals for the establishment and alteration of voluntary aided schools under Section 13 of the Education Act 1980. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Cox.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Motion, 15th November
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The purpose of this Motion is to allow the Motion in the name of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York on Thursday this week to be taken as a consolidated debate with the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Middleton. I stress that, following agreement between the usual channels, the debate on those two Motions will be a single debate and thereafter the Second Reading of the Census (Confidentiality) Bill will be taken. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Thursday next for the purpose of taking the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Archbishop of York before the Second Reading of the Census (Confidentiality) Bill [H.L.].—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
These are four Commons Bills which reached this House in the last Session. Your Lordships may recall that a Motion of mine was agreed to carry them over at the end of the last Session. Unfortunately another place did not agree. The Motion today seeks to revive the four Bills in this Session. If it is accepted, it will give another place a chance to reconsider the position. I beg to move.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bills, which were brought from the Commons in the last Session of Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent, shall notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House have leave to proceed with the Bills in the present Session, and the petitions for the Bills shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That, if the Bills are brought from the Commons in the present Session, the agent for the Bills shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bills are the same in every respect as the Bills which were brought from the Commons in the last Session;
That the proceedings on such Bills shall in the present Session be pro forma only, in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the last Session and that no new fees be charged to such stages.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by Lord Kimball—namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
3.6 pm
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am very glad that the House is having this opportunity so early in the new Session to debate the subjects of transport and

121
the environment. It is timely to debate them so soon after the publication of the Government's White Paper on the Environment, This Common Inheritance. For my own part, I am particularly glad to have this opportunity to explain the Government's transport policy, and especially how it links into the Government's policies on the environment, with which my noble friend Lady Blatch will deal in greater detail later.
The Government are pursuing a balanced transport strategy. We do not seek to determine which form of transport people should use. We believe that ordinary people are the best judges of the form of transport that is most suitable for them. Therefore, we want to give people greater choice, and so we are seeking to improve all forms of transport so that each can make its proper contribution to a safer, more environmentally sensitive and more efficient transport system.
We are bringing about improvements, both through investment and through liberalising transport services. In aviation, the Civil Aviation Authority is investing heavily in improved air traffic control facilities. The United Kingdom Government have been in the vanguard in pressing for liberalisation both in Europe and further afield. We have enjoyed considerable success in removing layers of pointless regulations and replacing them with arrangements within which airlines can compete fairly.
I should now like to speak at slightly greater length about land transport. In pursuit of the Government's balanced transport policy, we are investing in the strengths of both road and rail. A year ago we announced a step change in the level of investment in both roads and railways. This year, as announced in the Autumn Statement by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, we have made further increases, especially in the railways.
British Rail will be investing more than £4 billion over the next three years, its highest level for 30 years, and 58 per cent. more in real terms than in the previous three years. It has been suggested in some quarters that this increase is all very well but that it is on top of historically low levels of investment. I must point out that that is totally incorrect. Railway investment in the last three years has been at a higher level, in real terms, than at any time since the war, apart from the great modernisation between the mid-1950s and the mid-1960s.
It is on top of those already high levels that there will now be this further large increase. British Rail will be able to go ahead with its ambitious programme of investment in Channel Tunnel services, in new trains for South-East commuters, in further new rolling stock for InterCity and provincial services, and in the modernisation of the trainload freight business. A total of over 1,500 new passenger coaches will be delivered during the next three years. The settlement also provides British Rail with £330 million for specific safety measures—all that it asked for.
The settlement will allow London Transport to invest up to £3 billion over the next three years, an
122
increase on the previous three of over 90 per cent. in real terms. The Government will be providing £2.5 billion in grant over that period. The highlights of LT's investment programme include East-West Crossrail, linking Paddington to Liverpool Street, the Jubilee Line extension to Stratford via Docklands and Greenwich; the complete modernisation of the Central Line with new trains and signalling; reconstruction of Angel station; and refurbishment of trains. London Underground will invest approaching £400 milion in further safety improvements over the three-year period.
Improving the road network to meet the needs of the economy, by providing good communications within the country and with the Continent of Europe, remains a major government priority. Investment in trunk roads and motorways will rise to £5.6 billion over the next three years, an increase of about 25 per cent. in real terms compared with the previous three years.
This year's settlement will provide additional resources to help us to make better, more efficient use of our existing network. The additional funds will allow a fast start to be made on motorway widening. This method of increasing road capacity can in most cases be carried out more quickly than building new roads and with less impact on the countryside. We shall be able to get ahead with red routes to ease the flow of traffic in London. We shall be putting more money into developing driver information systems which will tell motorists about the road conditions ahead and alternative routes to take. Work will also continue on bypasses and relief roads. There are over 150 projects in our current programme.
The Government, in their commitment to providing an efficient transport infrastructure, also recognise that those whose homes are affected should be treated as generously as possible. Improvements to compensation are proposed in the Planning and Compensation Bill
Before I leave the subject of transport infrastructure I should like to say just a few words about our ports. The Government will be introducing a Trust Ports Bill to enable trust ports to draw up schemes for privatisation without having to go through the cumbersome process of each promoting a private Bill. The Bill will enable the ports to enhance their development prospects through access to share capital and to diversify their businesses. It will also stimulate the development of land.
The Bill will give the trust ports the chance to share in the opportunities open to the already privatised ABP and to take maximum advantage of the abolition of the Dock Labour Scheme. Ports are, and will continue to be, a vital link between every region of Britain and the Continent of Europe.
We must recognise that as a nation we are now and have been for some time heavily dependent on road transport. Over 90 per cent. of passenger traffic and over 80 per cent. of goods lifted go by road. Road traffic has risen dramatically. For example, the average daily flow of vehicles on all roads in Great

123
Britain has increased by almost 50 per cent. since 1979 That is mainly the result of prosperity. As people have become more prosperous under this Government, their mobility has improved and their desire to travel has increased. Road traffic is expected to grow further, not least because there is still great scope for higher car ownership in this country. We are still well below other developed Western countries in the car ownership league.
However, although road transport has many advantages, it affects the environment locally, regionally and globally. At local level it creates noise and Dollution. It can also sever communities by making it difficult for people to cross the street. Regionally, road traffic contributes to acid rain and low-level ozone. At the global level, it contributes to the accumulation of carbon dioxide—one of the major greenhouse gases about which there is now widespread international concern. The Government are certainly not complacent about those environmental effects. We are committed to civilising road transport and we are doing so through a package of measures. Let me now explain the main elements of that package.
First, we want to encourage attractive and efficient public transport so that people have an alternative to using cars. Public transport of all kinds must attract passengers through quality, reliability and good marketing. Public transport has a particularly important role in urban areas, where there are large flows of people travelling in a similar direction. I have already mentioned our support for the current massive investment in rail.
Some people would have us believe that if only there were more and better rail services road traffic could be significantly reduced. In fact, it is quite unrealistic to expect a major national shift from road to rail because people prize highly the convenience and flexibility of road transport and because the sheer scale of the shift required would be so massive. At present rail accounts for only about 6 or 7 per cent. of passenger traffic in Great Britain. Even a 50 per cent. increase in rail traffic would reduce road traffic by less than 5 per cent.—less than one year's growth in road traffic, as recently experienced.
Nevertheless, the Government certainly want to see the railways playing as full a part as possible. The completion of the Channel Tunnel presents the railways with a new opportunity; and British Rail has published its plans for through international services to serve both passengers and freight. For passengers, the railways will become much more competitive with the airlines, particularly over the relatively short distances between London, Paris and Brussels. For freight, the much greater length of through haul made possible by the tunnel will again improve rail's competitive position. Initially, BR expects to carry 6 million tonnes of freight a year through the tunnel.
In some urban areas investment in light rail schemes may make good sense. Light rail vehicles can penetrate urban centres more extensively than heavy rail. They arc able to carry more people than buses, and more quickly where they are segregated from other traffic. Light rail may thus help to attract people
124
away from cars. The Government are prepared to consider grant for light rail in appropriate cases. For the Manchester Metrolink we are paying a grant of about 50 per cent. towards the estimated cost of £120 million.
For many communities bus services will continue to offer the main means of public transport. Buses have the advantages of being much cheaper and more flexible than rail. The Government's policy of deregulation has encouraged the exploitation of these advantages and has led to an 18 per cent. increase in bus mileage. The Government are now particularly keen to work with the bus industry and local authorities to find ways, through better traffic management, of helping buses to provide faster and more reliable services. In London, the proposals in the forthcoming Road Traffic Bill for a red route scheme will benefit buses through the introduction of bus lanes and traffic signal priorities.
The second main element in the Government's package of measures to civilise road transport is our effort to relieve traffic congestion. Unreliable journey times impose extra costs; and stop-start traffic is much more polluting than traffic moving freely. In some cases the best solution will be to build a bypass. We have provided, since 1979, over 100 trunk road bypasses which have provided much needed relief to local communities.
Many more bypasses are planned, along with our major programme to widen the most heavily congested motorways. However, the Government will not provide, or encourage local authorities to provide, more road capacity simply to facilitate more car commuting into already congested urban areas. In urban areas traffic congestion can often be relieved by better traffic management, which can also help to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists as well as public transport. I have already mentioned our red route proposals for London. These will involve severe restrictions on parking, stopping and unloading on the selected priority routes within the capital. The measures proposed on those routes will be aimed specifically at helping people and goods to move more easily, reliably and safely throughout London. In most urban areas, traffic management is the responsibility of the local authorities, but the Government are helping by sponsoring research and by issuing guidance.
On Thursday of last week, your Lordships gave a First Reading to the New Roads and Street Works Bill. It is designed, first, to facilitate privately funded roads and, secondly, to make utilities fully responsible for their street works, improve the speed and quality of their repairs to the road surface and enable local highway authorities to co-ordinate both their own and utility street works so as to reduce the disruption they cause. It is part of a package of transport legislation, the most comprehensive for many years, which shows the Government's determination to deal with road congestion and road safety and to diversify the ways in which transport infrastructure is provided. We shall

125
be debating that Bill very soon and I therefore propose to say nothing further to your Lordships at the present time.
The third way in which we are civilising road traffic is by reducing vehicle emissions and noise through fiscal and regulatory action. We have introduced regulations to reduce the maximum permitted lead content of leaded petrol by two-thirds. We have encouraged the use of unleaded petrol through the favourable rate of duty. Unleaded petrol now accounts for well over a third of all the petrol sold in this country; and that proportion will rise steadily because from 1st October effectively all newly manufactured cars must be able to run on unleaded fuel.
Regulations have been introduced to control other vehicle emissions and noise. By the end of 1992, virtually all new cars will have to be fitted with catalytic converters. That will mean a dramatic reduction in emissions of local and regional pollutants from road transport. We are now pressing the EC to adopt the strictest practicable emission standards for goods vehicles and buses. The noise a new lorry is permitted to make now is roughly half the level permitted in 1980. And we shall be looking for further progress as the Community considers another round of tightening the limits next year.
Fourthly, and very importantly, we are seeking to encourage greater economy in the use of fuel. Unfortunately, there is no means to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, other than by burning less fuel. To a large extent, it is up to individual motorists to adopt a more responsible attitude. They can choose more economical cars. Before starting each car journey they can consider whether it is really necessary to use the car. Perhaps they could walk, or cycle, or use public transport instead. If they must drive, they should do so in a responsible fashion. Drivers can reduce fuel consumption by up to 15 per cent. simply by adopting better driving habits such as smoother acceleration. The Government warmly welcome the guidance which the AA and the RAC have prepared to encourage such improvements. And the Government are also preparing better guidance for motorists.
We are also proposing to introduce an emissions check into the MoT test to encourage motorists to keep their engines in tune. In the Road Traffic Bill, we are proposing measures to improve the enforcement of speed limits which will bring benefits in terms of fuel economy as well as road safety. The Government will consider whether it would be appropriate to encourage greater fuel economy through changes in the taxation of fuel and vehicles.
I should like to turn now to another area where we have taken account of environmental concerns; namely, aircraft noise. There are various well-established noise abatement measures in place at major airports, such as noise preferential routes, restrictions on night flights and noise insulation grant schemes. I should like to take the opportunity of this debate to refer to two recent developments.
126
As announced in the White Paper on the environment, we are reviewing the current arrangements for dealing with aircraft noise, particularly with regard to small airfields, to ensure that they afford sufficient protection for local people. In addition, we will be examining whether there is a need for action to limit the temporary use of land for helicopter take-offs and landings.
I am pleased to announce to the House that only a fortnight ago agreement was reached in the international civil aviation organisation on a framework of phasing out those aircraft which do not meet the latest internationally agreed noise standards. The United Kingdom has been a driving force in securing this major advance towards an improved noise climate.
Your Lordships may recall that the Government recently implemented a ban on the addition to the UK register of these older aircraft, known as Chapter 2 types. Phasing them out over the period 1995–2005 will substantially reduce community noise disturbance. The necessary legislation will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity and well in advance of the operative date.
I have spoken at some length about the contribution of transport to economic growth and how transport can contribute to the Government's environmental objectives. I should like to say, finally, just a few words about transport safety. Safety on all forms of transport is the top priority. I have already mentioned the very large sums being invested on specific safety projects by both British Rail and London Transport.
On the roads, our target is a reduction in casualties of one third by the year 2000. In the Road Traffic Bill we shall be bringing forward major reforms of road traffic law in the light of the North Report's recommendations. The Bill is designed to improve the contribution which the law makes to road safety, through its influence on driver behaviour.
This Government are investing record sums in transport, to improve the infrastructure in all forms of transport and to improve public transport services. We are bringing forward a wide range of measures to civilise road transport and to improve the environment. And we shall be introducing in this Session the most comprehensive package of transport legislation for many years to enable us to improve road safety, to make better use of the existing roads network and to increase the scope for the private sector to contribute towards providing new roads and developing the trust ports.
3.25 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not respond to the particular points that he has been making about transport and instead revert to the subjects for debate this afternoon as they appear on the Order Paper. My noble friend Lord Underhill will be responding on the transport side at the conclusion of this debate.
I hope that the House will also forgive me if I treat the environment rather more widely than it is treated

127
in the gracious Speech. I do so for two reasons. The first is that the Queen's Speech is modest to the point of invisibility about environmental issues. The only major legislation proposed on the local government and planning front is a Planning and Compensation Bill which, I understand, is to have its First Reading this week. We shall be debating that in a couple of weeks' time. Perhaps it would be better if our detailed discussion of that Bill were postponed until then although it would be very helpful to have an introduction to its provisions from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, when she replies to the debate.
The other reason is that the debate has now gone very much wider than the modest legislative plans of this Government. They are facing either the last full Session of Parliament or the last Session of all. What is proposed in legislative terms is not critical to political debate in this country. What is critical now is the policies of the next Labour Government which will be in power in the 1990s. Therefore, I propose to refer to those policies rather than indulge in attacks on the dying phase of the present government.
I wish to concentrate on two particular aspects of environmental policy. The first is the environmental issue as raised by the Government's White Paper published in September. The second is the particular issue of local government. I hasten to say that I shall not be attempting to cover all of the ground on any of these issues. My noble friend Lady Nicol will have something to say about the environment and my noble friend Lady Hollis will have things to say about local government and its finance. My noble friend Lord Dean will be making a contribution from the depths of his very extensive knowledge of housing policy.
I wish to speak in more general terms about the Government White Paper and to consider to what extent, if at all, it is adequate to the needs of this country and of the world as a whole. My right honourable friend Gerald Kaufman described the 1983 Labour election manifesto as the longest suicide note in history. The kindest way to describe the Government's environmental White Paper is as the longest, most beautifully produced and the most recyclable damp squib ever produced by this Government and possibly by any government. Each time one looks at the policies where there is a clear need for a policy commitment, one finds a withdrawal. One finds a qualification and an "if" or a "but" rather than any real commitment to action.
The most obvious example is global warming. This country has already been completely isolated on many occasions, and most recently last month, concerning targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases in order to prevent what is now universally acknowledged to be the very real threat of global warming. It is agreed by virtually every major developed country that if we are to bring down the rate of increase in global warming, let alone to freeze or to reduce global warming, we must have a complete freeze on emissions of greenhouse gases by, at the latest, the year 2000, and a reduction thereafter. What do the Government say? They say that there will be a freeze by the year 2005 but only if other countries adopt the same policy.
128
There is not even a clear commitment to a freeze by the year 2005 let alone by the year 2000, which is an almost universally recognised international objective and which is indeed the objective and the commitment of the Labour Party.
Let us look at the whole issue of how to encourage green behaviour, if I may put it that way, or environmentally friendly behaviour by government and by business. Here the White Paper is almost entirely silent. The only positive proposal is one which has already been blown sky high—the proposal that there should be in each ministry concerned with environmental matters a nominated minister. It is significant, is it not, that the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Energy have nominated themselves as being the Ministers to be concerned with the environment. In other words, they want to be absolutely sure that they will not be outranked in a Cabinet committee by the Secretary of State for the Environment and that they can go their own sweet way without let or hindrance.
The Labour Party's proposals, on the other hand, provide for an effective environmental unit in each department; in other words, an effective executive influence on the policies of these departments. We provide for an independent Environmental Protection Agency rather along the lines of the Health and Safety Executive. We propose that there should be a European environmental audit rather like the Valdez principles which your Lordships agreed only last month should be included in the Environmental Protection Act. We propose that there should be improved environmental statistics to help government and business to achieve universally recognised environmental objectives.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, would it not be fair to acknowledge that the fact that the chief Minister in that department takes on the role himself is proof that the Government attach some importance to the matter, and not the other way round, as the noble Lord appears to suggest?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I may be more cynical than the noble Lord but I rather think that the reverse is the case. I think that they are there to hold their corner and to make sure that they are not outnumbered or outranked in any Cabinet committee. I could be wrong, and it might be that with different people there could be different results. But I do not think so.
It is well recognised by many noble Lords that Europe is a central force for improving environmental quality. All the White Paper proposes is strong monitoring of compliance with European directives. The Labour Party proposes that there should be majority voting on environmental directives to increase their effectiveness against those who might be recalcitrant. We support the European Community Environmental Charter and we support the European Community Enforcement Agency. That is a very much more positive approach to environmental issues than that taken by the White Paper.

129
I turn now to energy, which is one of the most important elements of environmental policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, recognised in his opening speech. What does the White Paper say? It says that the Government will encourage energy labelling, although we now understand from their intervention in European negotiations that they propose that there should be energy labelling only for good appliances and that there should not be any compulsion for less good appliances, which I should have thought was absolutely essential if energy labelling is to mean anything. They say that they will monitor energy efficiency standards in new buildings. They do not say that they will impose higher energy efficiency standards in new buildings but that they will monitor the energy efficiency standards that now exist.
They also say that the work of the Energy Efficiency Office will be expanded. That is literally true, but it is not true in real terms. What has happened is that the Energy Efficiency Office has been given responsibility for the Department of Employment scheme for energy efficiency in low-cost housing. Inevitably, the budget which used to be with the Department of Employment is now with the Energy Efficiency Office. That is the only increase in the real budget of the Energy Efficiency Office. The budget for the Energy Efficiency Office, taking aside that transfer of functions, stands at £15 million, which is therefore a reduction of 10 per cent. in real terms. How the Government can seriously say that they are encouraging energy efficiency measures when they are cutting the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office by 10 per cent. in real terms is beyond belief.
The Labour Party, on the other hand, says that we must have mandatory energy labelling and that it should cover bad appliances as well as good appliances. We say that there should be a continuing improvement in building standards. That is certainly technically possible and there is no reason why the Government should not support it. We say that there should be particular government support through local authority capital spending where it is environmentally friendly. We say that an Energy Efficiency Agency should be given the resources to do the job, resources which are patently being denied to the Energy Efficiency Office as things stand.
I shall say only a few words about transport. I do so for completeness although my noble friend will cover this subject. It is interesting that all the White Paper says about transport policy is that the Government will continue with the £12 billion roads programme and will consider whether further changes to fuel and vehicle taxes are needed to encourage greater fuel economy. One could hardly have a less firm commitment than that. Our policy would be to review the roads programme with environmental considerations in mind, which hitherto has clearly not been the case; to encourage and allow pilot schemes for road pricing; to tax large cars more heavily; to provide greater investment in rail infrastructure; and
130
to boost public transport. That is a very much more effective programme of environmental improvements than that proposed in the White Paper.
I turn to the issue of waste. After all, your Lordships spent many long hours during the last Session debating the Environmental Protection Bill. Here again the White Paper is fatally cautious in its approach to what could be done regarding waste disposal both at home and world wide. It refers to an objective that developed countries should be self-sufficient in due course in their own waste disposal. That is not what is required. What is required is global control of toxic waste and an end to the commercial trade in toxic waste. That is what the Labour Party is committed to. We have to have a national waste strategy which enables us to deal with dangerous polluting wastes in the most effective way. To that extent a greater role must be given to local authorities, which are already deeply concerned in these matters and have the expertise to deal with them.
I shall pass very briefly over the issue of water because that matter can be dealt with by other people. I shall just look at the difference, when we turn to the issue of dumping at sea, between the Government's commitment to aim to stop dumping at sea and the Labour Party's commitment to stop dumping at sea. That is typical of the difference in approach which is to be found throughout the White Paper, throughout our response to it and throughout our response to these substantive issues.
The White Paper says almost nothing on food and agriculture. There is no reference to the opportunity which is now available to replace the common agricultural policy, or large parts of it, with green premiums which would provide income for farmers and yet would stop the production of foodstuffs which are far too expensive and which put up food prices in this country and throughout Europe.
When I turn to deal with the countryside, I risk treading on the ground of my noble friend Lady Nicol. However, it is a commitment of the Labour Party—and I should say this from the Dispatch Box—to carry out the commitment which the Conservative Party had in its last manifesto; namely, to implement the policies of the Common Lands Forum and to encourage the possibility of opening up rights of way where they exist and where they have been extinguished.
Therefore, when we look at the Government's environmental White Paper, we find it in every respect defective, silent and timid. Moreover, in comparison with the policies which are necessary and which will he the policies of the next Labour government, we find the Government's approach to be wholly inadequate.
I should like now to deal with the question of local government. I do so not so much because there is any particular reference to it in the gracious Speech—and certainly not to go into detail on the issue of the poll tax; others are far more qualified to talk about it than I am—but because even the very small Planning and Compensation Bill which we are now promised, although much of it is perfectly welcome, is evidence

131
of the continuing determination of this Government to centralise everything that they can lay their hands upon. It is rather like the old army saying, "If it does not move, paint it", except that this Government would say, "If it does move, centralise it and bring it under the control of Marsham Street". There is nothing wrong with the Bill's improved provisions for enforcement and compensation for those affected by compulsory purchase orders. I do not think that there is anything wrong with the proposal for simplified planning zones. However, on every issue where there is any real choice to be made between the powers of local authorities and those of central government, the Bill will take the side of central government.
Let us look at the issue of controls over planning gain, over what used to be called Section 52 agreements. What is happening is that the determination or planning gain is no longer being left to local authorities which, after all, reflect the views of local people who are affected not only by planning policy but also by the resources available to the local authority. No, this is now to be the sphere of the Secretary of State.
Let us also look at the question of disposal of vacant land which in these straitened times has become a very important source of revenue for local authorities. It is now proposed that the Secretary of State shall have the power to order the disposal of named pieces of land to named individuals, if necessary below the market price. Moreover, there appear to be provisions for wholesale disposal of vacant land. I suggest to your Lordships that that is yet another example of unnecessary and undesirable centralisation. I could go on in this respect. There is no provision in the planning Bill for the territory of the urban development corporations to be included in plans as they should be if a comprehensive structure plan is to be effective and complete. In my view these are all symptoms of the determination of the Government, who have become more powerful as the years have passed, to centralise everything in sight and discourage all the ideas of pluralism and local democracy which I thought were dear to the hearts of the people of this country.
I know it is true that all oppositions are decentralisers and all governments are centralisers. I am perfectly well aware of that fact. If anyone wished to look back, I have no doubt that they would find examples of Labour governments acting in a high-handed way in relation to local authorities. Moreover, if there were ever Liberal governments, I am sure that they would do the same. For example, a Liberal government might like to do something about Tower Hamlets; that is, if they knew how to control it.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I thought that the complaint by the Labour Party was that Tower Hamlets had decentralised control within Tower Hamlets and that in fact it worked on a very decentralised system.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rather think that the compliance complaints about Tower
132
Hamlets are closer to the sphere of the criminal law than they are to the issues of decentralisation. However—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with all due respect, I think that that remark ought to be withdrawn. To suggest that my friends in Tower Hamlets are somehow at odds with the criminal law is not a proper remark to make in this House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that there are matters which will go before an election court and the truth or otherwise of the noble Lord's observations will be seen in court. Neither he nor I will have any influence upon them. That is perhaps the best conclusion of all.
However, if we are looking at the way we want our society to progress and if we want our society to reflect technological and social change, we must break ourselves of the habit of seeking to control everything from Whitehall and Marsham Street; in other words, from the centre. Of course that is a very difficult thing to do. It is very difficult to tell local authorities—as we would wish to do—that they must have minimum standards. If I object to this Government saying that local people cannot spend money on that which they want to spend it on—and I do object to that—it follows that I must allow certain things to happen. For example, in Sussex, which does not really have any nursery schools, I must allow its local authorities not to have such schools. That is their choice and although I think it is wrong, we should not be imposing minimum standards if we object to the idea of imposing maximum standards. That is the extent to which all of us, whether in Government or Opposition, must recognise the values of a plural society and the values of decentralisation and decision-making.
Everything we have learned about government over the past 20 or 30 years has led us to recognise the fact that big is not beautiful and that the analogy which was made in local government in the 1960s and 1970s with big business, where you needed to have large-scale units for efficiency and for a wide range of services, is no longer true. The nature of management and of local government has changed. The sooner we recognise that change, the sooner we shall provide a society in which people feel that they are involved in their local community. They will then want to vote in local elections and take part in local democracy. To that extent, the changes of the kind that have been introduced over the years by this Government are not only irrelevant, they are actually damaging. I leave noble Lords with that thought because I believe it to be the crux of the difference between the approach of the Labour Party and the approach which this Government have increasingly adopted over the past 11 years.
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, as has been said, we spent an enormous amount of time in the last Session of Parliament discussing and trying to amend the Environmental Protection Bill. Many noble Lords in this House attempted to improve that

133
Bill by moving amendments and putting forward suggestions for the Government to consider. On the whole, the answers which we were given were either that the amendment was not appropriate for that Bill or that we should wait for the publication of the White Paper.
We have now seen the White Paper and, as has already been said, it is full of good intentions. It outlines the situation as the Government see it, but it is completely lacking in suggestions as to how we might put the matter right. I looked forward to the opportunity in the Queen's Speech for the Government to legislate in respect of some of the problems with which we are faced. But, as has been said, we have had a Queen's Speech which is not really full of legislation. It would have been an opportunity to do something about a problem which is perhaps the greatest one we have; namely, our own environment and the future of our planet.
However, there was nothing much in the Queen's Speech, except, I believe, for four Bills on transport upon which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, spent quite some time in his opening speech. If I understood it correctly, there is very little in what is proposed—I know that my noble friend Lord Tordoff will speak on this subject at the end of the debate—which stops and prevents carbon dioxide emissions. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, admitted that that is one of the big problems. He suggested that we should encourage better driving habits. That is true, but we cannot solve the problem merely by hoping that people will acquire better driving habits.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned tax incentives to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We are generally agreed that the bigger the car the greater the emissions of carbon dioxide. What is wrong with having a differential tax system for motor cars? In other words, one pays more tax if one drives a large car and less if one drives a small one. It is not a new idea. We had such a system. When I first came to live in this country one paid a great deal to drive a big motor car but only a little to drive a small Morris. I cannot see why that should not be one way of attempting to control carbon dioxide emissions from motor cars.
The only other point relating to the environment that I can find in the Queen's Speech is the creation of a natural heritage agency for Scotland. On the Second Reading of the Environmental Protection Bill on 18th May many noble Lords said, when discussing Part VII, that they could not understand why, if it was right to merge the two bodies in Scotland, it was not right to merge them in England. In that debate the Government admitted that in a year or two we should do the same in England. I am still convinced that it is wrong to put that issue on one side now so that we shall have to have a second lot of legislation and upheaval instead of dealing with England in the same way as Scotland.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, there is nothing in the Queen's Speech which reflects the Prime Minister's special interest in global warming
134
and ozone depletion. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh: I was devastated that in Geneva the Prime Minister was unable to agree with our Community partners that 2000 should he the date by which to stabilise CO2 emissions. The Government continue to insist that 2005 is the earliest date that that can happen. We are again lagging behind our European partners. We all regret what the United States is doing with regard to this question. I am a little nervous that this country, with what it claims is its special relationship with the United States, may be hoping that that will stop us from having to take unpalatable decisions. That is not right. We should be able to do what our Community partners are hoping to do.
Your Lordships would be surprised if I did not say that I was disappointed that there was nothing about CFCs in the Queen's Speech. As my Private Member's Bill passed through the House, I had hoped that the Government might be prepared to accept some of the proposals that it contained.
The Queen's Speech was deficient in another way, and that is a great tragedy. As was discussed on Report on the Environmental Protection Bill, one of the best ways to stop polluting our environment is to minimise our use of energy. There is no doubt that we could reduce the need to produce more energy if we became more efficient users of our planet's limited resources. I introduced on Report an amendment relating to energy conservation. It included insulation, combined heat and power and energy-efficient light bulbs. That amendment reflected, word for word, what was contained in the Government's White Paper. It was not accepted by the Government, but I should have thought that the topic was one that the Government might have included in the Queen's Speech for this Session. It is completely in line with proposals contained in the White Paper.
The Government's reply to that amendment was that it was unnecessary because it was all contained in the White Paper; but governments do not govern through White Papers. They govern by Acts of Parliament to ensure that local authorities and private individuals conform to a set of standards. It is not enough glibly to say, "It is in the White Paper". Legislation is needed to enforce such requirements.
We who are alive today have a great responsibility to ensure that we do not do more damage to the environment than we have already done. We must ensure that the environment that we pass on to future generations is in the same or better condition than that which we inherited.
3.57 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, in a way it was encouraging to realise that the Queen's Speech proposed, for this Session at any rate, no major local government Bill, because over the past 10 years local authorities have been under consistent and relentless attack from central government. However, would it not have been nice, in what is perhaps the last Session of this Parliament, to have seen a change of heart by the Government and to have had just one more Bill

135
which might have given local authorities the power to do anything that was in the interests of their area so long as it was lawful?
I am talking about a power of general competence; that is, the power to act and undertake any activities not specifically prohibited. If local authorities had such a power, they would be able to run their services in a much more innovative way. They would not have to hunt for statutory authorisation to take action, and they would not be in fear of legal challenges. The whole climate within which councils operate would change dramatically.
Concern for the environment is a well established local government principle, but there is still a need to build up awareness of the indirect effect of our actions, both locally and nationally. All economic decisions have an environmental impact whether they relate to new power stations, new large scale developments or even the raising of interest rates or increasing the level of external debt.
We say that we believe that the polluter should pay, and it environmental protection legislation relating to industrialists using high technology in their manufacturing processes there has been the incentive to adopt the cleanest available technology because the law says they must do so. What incentives are the Government offering industrialists to encourage them to go further and to develop even cleaner technology? If charges were to be made for pollution, industrialists, with all their knowledge and resources, would find ways of cleaning up processes which cause pollution. We could even have a pollution tax which, if it were successful, would not raise revenue but would encourage people to act. By taxing dirty technology and products, the economy could be transformed and could become much more environmentally friendly. In effect, we should be starting to make the market work for the environment.
I welcome the new planning legislation for tighter and speedier planning enforcement procedures. Town and country planning has always been concerned with amenities. We need to extend the protection afforded to the habitat, to the SSSIs and AONBs, and I welcome the proposal for the new Midlands forest. But planning needs to look more to greening our urban areas and to meeting the challenge of the changing rural economy.
Our social and economic policies must ensure that the countryside does not suffer from adverse change. Many parts of our country have lost much in recent years because of changes in agriculture. The opportunities now created by reduction in the demand for land ought to be used to create better amenities for all. The countryside is a living environment but it is also a place where the decline in work opportunities causes not only personal hardship but also a downgrading of the countryside.
I welcome the decision also to retain the county structure plans for effective strategic planning. Through those plans we can hope to see a pattern of new settlements which might minimise the need for travel, particularly by private car. We can protect the
136
open spaces in our towns and villages and refuse developments which adversely affect the SSSIs, the national nature reserves and other sites. We can require all new industrial development to incorporate waste treatment facilities. We would also be able to check on mineral workings and their impact on the environment.
I should like to have seen more emphasis on housing. Yes, more money has been made available for housing associations and the problems of homelessness; but not enough to provide sufficient low cost, affordable housing to rent and buy. Nowhere is this more important than in the rural areas where local authorities and local estates have been selling off many properties. If the local country people cannot afford the available accommodation, then strong communities cannot be maintained. We will not maintain strong, rural communities if the village shops have to close because of the impact of the uniform business rate and if public transport becomes less and less, and even non-existent.
I have a friend in the Lake District. No public transport passes nearer than five miles from his village. Although he is only in his forties, he has suffered a severe stroke which has left him with little sight and a weak arm and leg. He can no longer drive his car or even walk safely along the country roads because he cannot see the traffic coming. I advised him to apply for a mobility allowance, to help to keep the family car on the road and perhaps to provide an occasional outing away from home. He applied; he went for a medical and was told that he was not eligible because his disability did not prevent him getting on to public transport. That is fine if there is public transport, but not so good if one has to walk five miles to the main road and back to catch an infrequent bus either to Keswick or Penrith. Perhaps some flexibility in situations like this could be looked at in the improvements proposed for disabled persons. Transport needs to be much more flexible in the rural areas than in the towns. It should be geared to the needs of particular groups and for particular purposes.
We have to accept that the UK economy is probably road-based at the moment. Better roads will significantly reduce pollution if they remove congestion. However, we also have to accept that the United Kingdom is on the periphery of Europe. The other regions of the United Kingdom also need good road links to the growing markets of the South East and mainland Europe.
All new public transport facilities ought to be planned with the disabled and the elderly in mind. All new buses and coaches and all new railway coaches should provide standards of access and mobility to enable the disabled and the elderly to enjoy the same lifestyle benefits that the rest of the community are able to enjoy.
The toll road proposals are interesting but I suspect that they will be on a very minor scale and are no panacea for our problems. I hope that the Government will also look at road pricing because I believe that a consistent system of road pricing would

137
be better. It would finance road maintenance, which is one of the big problems today. I shall be interested in the development of the toll roads, but I am reminded that the original turnpikes were toll roads and they did not last that long.
I welcome the proposal for increased expenditure on public transport. We need more bus lanes and more cycle ways; we need to do something about single occupancy of private cars, which should be restricted to slower lanes, as in parts of the United States. We need more use of park-and-ride facilities and more effective policing of bus lanes and parking in our busy urban streets.
I conclude by referring back to housing. The Building Employers Confederation recently issued a gloomy report on house building. In 1989, 71 per cent. of its members were working at full capacity. Now only 23 per cent. are at full capacity; most of them are working at two-thirds or three-quarters of their capacity. The restriction of local authority spending on building houses for rent, the high interest rates and inflation all work against help for the tens of thousands of homeless persons living in bed-and-breakfast hotels or sleeping in doorways. It seems to me inconceivable that we have so much need of affordable housing and yet we have building operatives unemployed. At a national level, employment in the building industry fell this year by 50,000. It is expected to fall by a further 50,000 in 1991.
In the Autumn Statement a considerable sum was allocated towards the relief of homelessness. I hope that that money will be spent quickly. Labour and building materials are readily available, so please will the Government urge the authorities concerned to do something quickly to help the homeless and the depressed construction industry?
4.7 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, as I follow three interesting speeches on the environment and I wish to say a few words about transport, I realise that my speech does not key in as well as I should like with what has gone before. I sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, about the need to preserve village life by maintaining the single village shop. That is all we have in my village; it is next to the village school and it is vital in order to keep the village going. My word, we certainly try hard there to do that. The noble Baroness mentioned other matters which I shall not follow up since my speech concerns transport.
I begin by congratulating my noble friend the Minister on his major programme of transport legislation. I especially liked his concluding observation on his intention to civilise road transport. I agree with him, but he has quite a long way to go. In my experience of 40 years in this House and in another place, four transport Bills in one Session is a record. I particularly congratulate my noble friend on getting our old friend the street works Bill in. I am sure it will receive a welcome from the noble Lord, Lord
138
Underhill. If ever there was a Cinderella, it is that Bill, which was first proposed for legislation, I believe, 50 years ago.
Every Minister has looked at the legislation and decided that there were not many votes in it. Therefore it has always gone to the bottom of the list. In fact, it is a very important Bill and I congratulate my noble friend on bringing it forward. I look forward to debating it and supporting him as he takes the Bill through the House in the near future. My noble friend's proven track record in the world of transport will be especially valuable in dealing with this heavy programme.
As my noble friend said, transport is a major element in the lives of all of us today. It has a major influence on the cost of everything that we buy. Comfort is a major factor in every journey that we make. I speak as a daily commuter on British Rail and London Underground. I hope that some of the 1,500 new trains which are to come into service will be used on the Portsmouth line, but I have not seen any of them yet.
The Government's investment programme for transport—road, rail and civil aviation—amounts to £16 billion. That is a tremendous sum. It is substantial by any standard and it will provide many valuable improvements. Even so, we have to expect a staggering increase in road traffic movements over the next generation, of the order of 100 per cent. There will be greater use of vehicles and there will be more vehicles. Therefore, irrespective of the very heavy expenditure which my noble friend is to provide, the utmost increase in capacity that we can provide cannot meet our needs. As well as hard cash, more hard thinking is needed to develop the best solutions.
I should like to offer my noble friend two thoughts in that context, one of which he has partially taken on board. The first concerns the greater application of scientific traffic management such as the admirable prototype which my noble friend is to introduce in the Road Traffic Bill for the London traffic management scheme. However, for the general development of traffic management more traffic engineers are required, by which I mean engineers who study the movement of traffic, which is not the same discipline as that of engineers who build roads to carry traffic —county surveyors please note.
We can learn from the United States, where there are eight times as many motor cars as there are here, although it is true that it is a bigger country; but nevertheless it manages to keep the traffic moving very well. Every American city of any size has a traffic commissioner and a team of traffic engineers continually studying traffic movement and working out methods of improvement, including tough disciplines which are enforced stringently. In London there is a team of traffic engineers, but it is split. with half coming under the Department of Transport and half under the Metropolitan Police. It is a great credit to the officials working in those two separate teams that the system works at all. It is an illogical split, presumably a product of history from the days when traffic intersections were controlled by policemen

139
wearing white gloves. The officials have produced the London traffic management scheme and deserve great credit for it. I believe that it promises a significant improvement in the movement of London traffic.
Over the country as a whole it is a rare exception for a city to employ a team of traffic engineers. It is common form for the county or city surveyor to be responsible, and usually he knows more about building roads than managing traffic on them. Here, I welcome the observation by my noble friend the Minister that his department is advising towns on traffic problems. I know that his officials have been advising Guildford, but those who have tried to motor through Guildford will know that the advice has not penetrated very far yet. More than advice is needed. With a few honourable exceptions—Birmingham is outstanding—city and county engineers are not interested in traffic engineering.
Years ago, when I was Parliamentary Secretary for Transport in the 1950s, I visited the United States to make a brief study of traffic management in that country. I learnt that the Americans had developed the applied science of traffic engineering which they had successfully applied to their urban traffic movement. All cities of any size in the United States had a traffic commissioner and a team of traffic engineers. The benefit to their traffic movement was obvious. I returned to England with a clear intention to introduce traffic engineering here.
When I consulted MoT officials they informed me that my plan was stillborn. There were no traffic engineers and no university offered a course in traffic engineering. I was astonished. However, two universities—one of which was Birmingham—wished to set up postgraduate courses in traffic engineering, which would mature in the next five years. However, I learnt that a course could be started immediately if I could raise £150,000 privately to finance the first few years before the UGC took it on. The motor industry, the oil industry and the insurance industry rallied round splendidly. I raised the £150,000 and the money was delivered to Birmingham, which set up a postgraduate school. It was running within 18 months under a splendid character called Professor Kolbuszewski, who ran it with great success and trained a number of valuable traffic engineers.
Picture my horror and disappointment when, two years ago, I learnt that Birmingham University was closing down its postgraduate school of traffic engineering. No clear reason was given, but it appeared to be a lack of funds and lack of demand for students. It is devastating that now, when traffic problems bedevil us every day—and heaven knows what they cost us—we should be losing one of the few schools of traffic engineering in the country just when we most need traffic engineers. Words fail me.
I mention that sad affair to illustrate the general indifference throughout local authorities and the ignorance and indifference in my noble friend's own department. Traditionally the attitude has been that we did not need it. My word, we need it today! I welcome the fact that my noble friend said that he was helping some cities. They certainly need that help. I
140
urge my noble friend to take on board the message that there is an acute need to look at the universities. I believe that Newcastle still offers a postgraduate degree. Is there any other? We need far more. Every town in the country and every county highway authority needs traffic engineers to apply the science of the movement of traffic to make the best use of their roads.
I repeat that I welcome what is being done in London. That is a splendid prototype which I hope will be followed in the rest of the country. I congratulate my noble friend on that initiative.
My second point concerns road pricing. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will have something to say on the subject, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, mentioned it. Road pricing is one of the management techniques which can be applied to urban traffic to improve traffic movement. It is my belief that the natural growth in traffic over the next few years will swamp us. We shall have to introduce disciplines of that kind.
My idea in this respect is fairly simple. I believe that there is very little experience of road pricing. Singapore has apparently tried it, but I suspect that the form of government in Singapore is different and the scheme could not necessarily be applied here. Nevertheless, there are lessons to he learnt from studying what has been done in Singapore. The gleam of hope comes from Cambridge, and I see the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, sitting there. Apparently they wish to set up a scheme of road pricing in Cambridge. What splendid people. Good luck to them. It is going to be uncomfortable and it is going to be painful. It is frightfully difficult to get a scheme that will be fair to rich and poor alike, but nevertheless I am sure that we shall need to do it.
If my noble friend could get an important city like Cambridge to set up a scheme and try it out, it could be carefully designed with all the help that he could give it. It could be carefully monitored to see how it worked, so that after a few years it would be possible to say what is the best way of setting up road pricing schemes for cities. I am sure that we shall want to do it within the next few years, however much we may spend on the many improvements that my noble friend is making. This really would show us the way. If the benefits were achieved, then the Government could legislate for general application.
All this would take some years. It would take five years for Cambridge to set up a scheme and have it working for enough time to see that it worked all right. By the end of that time—five years—I should think that the worsening traffic jams would make every town in the country say, "Let us have a road pricing scheme". But in all seriousness I say to my noble friend that this is something we need to learn about. It is full of problems, but for heaven's sake let us get splendid Cambridge set up with its scheme to show us how it might work. I conclude by congratulating my noble friend on his immense transport programme and I give my best wishes for its progress.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, so now we know. After all the hype, all the rhetoric, all the months of labour, we find in the gracious Speech the one tiny sentence:
"My Government will promote further international co-operation on environmental issues."
And that is all we are going to get. It bears out what my noble friend Lord McIntosh said during the debate on the Environmental Protection Bill that there will be no more legislation on the environment during this Parliament.
Within a few days of the gracious Speech being given to us it was the inter-governmental panel on climate change, the leading 600 scientists in the world, who were warning humanity that if we are to prevent the increase in global warming which has already started and which is already taking place then it would be necessary to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. They proposed that there should be a cut of 20 per cent. by the year 2005. They warned us that if the rise in carbon dioxide emissions and its accompanying global warming continued as it has already started, then within the next quarter to half a century we shall see the seas rise, storms increasing and increasing in severity, floods, drought, famine and the mass movement of peoples escaping from their destroyed environment. Every human being living, and generations yet unborn, will be affected by this forecast and the prospect of this catastrophe. What do this Government do to meet that challenge? They will continue to co-operate internationally.
In the transport Bills, the Bills on the use of roads and cars, is there anything there connected with the reduction or even the stabilisation of carbon dioxide emissions? Is there anything said about catalytic converters? The Government have been rich in words, in rhetoric. Those words need to be tested by their performance. For example, the White Paper that we have awaited for so long includes only one really new proposal—the emphasis on energy conservation. It was promised that the Government would step up the work of the Energy Efficiency Office.
Only last week the Prime Minister in Geneva was promising ambitious programmes to promote energy efficiency. Rhetoric, my Lords. What was the performance? As my noble friend Lord McIntosh has already pointed out, in the Autumn Statement last week the energy efficiency budget, the conservation budget, was in real terms cut by 10 per cent. because of inflation and because of the additional burdens that it has to carry. How does that measure up either to the promises in the White Paper or by the Prime Minister in Geneva? It is to be £.15 million this year; a cut in real terms by 10 per cent. I wonder whether the noble Baroness who is to wind up will answer that point?
Again the White Paper referred to the Government pressing the European Community for
"minimum energy efficiency standards to be set for a range of appliances."
142
That was the rhetoric in the White Paper. And yet it was only last week that the government representatives were opposing the European Community's proposals on energy saving standards for domestic appliances. Rhetoric and performance. How can they be equated?
I understand that California had perhaps the most imaginative environmental scheme that has yet seen the light of day politically. But I understand that unfortunately it has been defeated, and that the main agents in that defeat were Shell, ICI, and BP, who contributed massive amounts to fight that environmental Bill. It makes one wonder whether the same kind of commercial pressures have been applied here in this country.
Above all in this contrast between rhetoric and performance, between promise and action, we come to the second world climate conference held last week. Britain was the only one of the European Community members to stand out against the agreed target of stabilising carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000. Why? I believe because they are frightened of the effect on electricity privatisation; on the cost in connection with the power stations plus, of course, their fears of the coming general election.
How is it that, when the Prime Minister can tour the world and make these rousing speeches about the environment, it is her Government that opposes the European Community's target of the year 2000, when the West Germans have promised to cut their carbon dioxide emissions by 25 per cent.—cut them, not stabilise them—by the year 2005? That is the year by which the British Government say that they can stabilise emissions. The Netherlands has promised a 5 per cent. cut by the year 2005. The GDR has promised a 20 per cent. cut. Whether or not it will be able to achieve it is a different matter, but that is its target. Britain is lagging behind and is relying upon the other poor members of the EC to make up the leeway in order to achieve the EC target by the year 2000.
I should like to ask another question of the noble Baroness. The British Government continually state that they are pledged to stabilise carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000. Does that statement include their previous reservation that the pledge is conditional upon other nations making a firm commitment, or are the British Government sufficiently courageous to say that they will go ahead regardless of others?
At the end of the week the agreement was signed in Geneva, but it was signed without targets. It is to be welcomed that the Japanese came into the picture and that there is to be participation by the United States of America and the Soviet Union when negotiations commence next February. The fact that no targets were laid down shows that the politicians are defying the advice of the scientists—and this time there is no doubt about the unanimity of scientific opinion.
In the final agreement, what was said about the important use of renewable energy in order to reduce the greenhouse gases; for example, wind, solar, hydro-electric and wave energy? What part did the

143
British Government play in introducing those elemenis into the conference? Their record on renewable energy does not bear examination, particularly when one considers the way in which the prospect of using wave energy was virtually destroyed in 1982.
It is puzzling why the Government find so much difficulty in producing a positive policy. They appointed Professor Pearce to produce a report on pricing carbon and pricing roads. What have they done with it? One does not have to agree with everything that the Professor states, but as far as I know the Government have made no response whatever to the report. Professor Pearce is supposed to be the adviser to the Secretary of State for the Environment. This issue is not as tremendous as is often pointed out, and indeed as the Government often try to point out in order to demonstrate that they are doing something marvellous in stabilising carbon dioxide emissions.
In the United Kingdom the per capita emissions of carbon dioxide were only 10.5 per cent. higher in 1988 than in 1950. In recent years there has been a drop in emissions caused by the increasing use of natural gas. We are possibly totally stable in regard to emissions and we have achieved that without trying or planning. Would it be impossible to increase the drop by 20 per cent. through positive action by the year 2000?
At this point self-interest merges with environmental interest. Environmental considerations are not a burden on industry. There may be some initial expense but many industries have found that they cut costs by reducing the use of energy. If one reads the booklet produced last week under the patronage of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, Your Business and the Envirorment, one sees that companies like IBM, Marks and Spencer and even St. Thomas's Hospital are saving money by the introduction of energy consenation. The one thing that business in this country has refused to implement, whereas it has been done very successfully in West Germany, is the concept of environmental audit. The audit has shown that in many West German companies like AEG there is an incentive to protect the environment within the industry.
However well the business world conducts itself (and we are way behind the business practice of continental companies), intervention is essential. At that point our party parts company with the Government—or does it? I wonder, because last week the Secretary of State, Christopher Patten, had this to say:
"I don't pretend for one moment that it is enough to use market forces. Invisible hands are all very well but they need some direction".
If that is Mr. Patten's philosophy, he would be very welcome as a member in the Labour Party because that is the central issue of division between our two parties. We believe that intervention is essential in order to protect our planet—intervention wherever possible with industry. It is being done on the Continent and some companies in this country are trying to achieve the same ends. They are also
144
pleading for legislation to help them. Due to the obsession with market forces and non-intervention on the other side, they have so far failed. However, if the Secretary of State has been converted to that way of thinking, perhaps there is hope for the future.
Finally but by no means least, we must never forget that we are living in a privileged society which is being subsidised by the poor of the world. We live in a society which uses 70 per cent. of the energy used throughout the world, although we have only a quarter of the world's population. The remaining 30 per cent. is all that is available to three-quarters of the world's population. We should also remember that we have caused the pollution of this planet. From the time of the Industrial Revolution we have been endangering its future as a habitat for the human being. The three-quarters of the world's population that is today living in poverty is demanding better standards of living, standards that will at least sustain life. That part of the population is rapidly increasing. The population of the world is 5 billion and by the end of the century it will be 6 billion. The extra demands upon energy and resources will be a tremendous menace to the future of humanity. We have a responsibility to meet that situation.
What are the Government doing in terms of giving aid to developing countries so that they can develop, not in our dirty way, but in more modern, environmentally benign ways? What arc the Government doing to help provide the technology that alone can prevent this massive disaster which now faces us? These people have a right to live, and to live decently. To do so they have to effect a revolution in their economic world. Unless they are given better help and the opportunity to do so, the whole of the planet is in danger.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like to start by complaining to the Leader of the House and the usual channels about the format of our debates on the Queen's Speech. I think that they might split the subjects up a little better. I know that transport has much to do with pollution but the two do not really go together. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, made an excellent speech full of technical points about what will be done. It is ridiculous that the poor chap has then to listen to the remainder of the debate; and for the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to reply on a different subject. That does not appear logical. It should not be beyond the wit of the usual channels perhaps to split the subject into two. We could then hear from Ministers who know something about the subject. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is enormously knowledgeable. She is learning fast on agriculture from me, I understand. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is listening throughout the debate, looking nearly interested. If the subject were split she could reply on agriculture - a subject about which she knows a great deal.
I hear constant complaints too about defence and foreign affairs being lumped together. The speeches become mixed up. Although defence, or war, was supposed to be an extension of foreign affairs, it does

145
not appear to me always to be a tight debate. I therefore hope that the usual channels—including my noble friend who sits in front of me—will take note. Perhaps we could spend more time on the gracious Speech with a less mixed-up approach.
Agriculture is coupled with the environment debate. I am not sure whether that is a compliment —it certainly has a great deal to do with the environment—or whether it is an insult that it is not in the economic section because it is of enormous importance to the well-being of this country, especially in view of the enormous deficit in our foreign trade at the present time. However, although agriculture is placed with environment, I shall take the matter out of the realms of the ducks and daisies, which appear to be the main subject of the environmentalists' concern, and move into the realms of agriculture and the people on the land who have a great deal to do with the environment.
The world about which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has been so eloquently extolling, suffers from industrial pollution and from population expansion. I know from my work in the Council of Europe that the Government are not doing nearly enough to help the United Nations to fund population control. In Mexico and Sri Lanka such measures have been most successful in controlling population.
The gracious Speech states that the Government will strive to perfect the performance of the CAP and to push forward the negotiations on GATT. Those of course are of tremendous importance. The Americans have put forward proposals of a radical nature on agriculture. However, I suspect that their proposals are more concerned with regaining their dominant place in the world than in not protecting their own farmers as their subsidies are in excess of the subsidies spent per head in Europe on farming.
We must accept that Europe has a perfect right to feed herself. What she has no right to do is to subsidise production and to export it on to the world markets to the ruination of a great many primary producers in the developing countries and the very competent producers in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere.
A noble Lord: Hear, hear!"
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I do not believe that it would be right to do that. However, I hope that I shall receive a "hear, hear" that Europe has a right to feed herself and to export a sensible proportion. There would obviously be a carry-over in bad times —because we shall have bad years as well as good. The common agricultural policy is in a mess because for years the Council of Agriculture Ministers for political reasons did not listen to the proposals of the Commission. It allowed prices and production to rise to an extent which has led us into the present surplus position and the enormous expense from which we suffer today in Europe, and in this country, because of the large amount spent mostly on export subsidies to remove the surpluses and to dump them on the world market.
146
Despite that, the curious paradox is that farmers as a whole are in a very bad way. Extraordinary changes are taking place all over the country. When I went to farm at Benshie 45 years ago, I put in a day, and we had 12 full-time men on the farm, quite apart from the casuals for the fruit and so on. Today I believe that there are three men on that farm. On Saturday while out shooting I met an enormously efficient young man who was farming 600 acres with one man. I reckon that he will survive. But what an extraordinary change has taken place the countryside when one considers such figures.
I speak anecdotally, but some interesting surveys have been carried out. A survey on full-time farms was carried out in two parishes in Lincolnshire. I cannot give the exact origins. There were 13 full-time farms in 1970; in 1990 there were five. That is an enormous drop of over 60 per cent. In over 282 farms in 16 parishes, 35 per cent. lost their independent full-time status in 20 years. That makes an enormous difference to the environment in those parishes.
I do not speak in a nasty way, although it may appear so. I am all for the environmentalists but I believe that they have some things wrong. In the Guardian—a paper much read by the other side, I dare say—it states that many farmers are now on the knife-edge of economic survival in sharp contrast to the big cereal farmers whose incomes continue to rise. That is absolute and total rubbish.
I spoke to a most distinguished economist in the farming business, Mr. Murphy from Cambridge University, and I now have the figures from 1978 to 1988. In relation to mixed cropping, the figures showing real income per hectare are £246, £251, £189, £152, £200 and £326. The figures for 1984 onwards are £145, £62, £160, £26 and £31. They relate to East Anglia, an area of large farms, and they show clearly that the industry is in a precarious state.
A number of farmers who are competent and fully capitalised and who are not borrowing large sums of money will continue to make money. If the situation continues they will be able to take over the smaller farms at lower prices. There will be opportunities for people who are competent and who have money. However, that will be no good for the environment and the countryside. We cannot support small farmers with up to 200 acres. They cannot make the kind of living that they have a right to expect, given the prices that we can afford or that should exist given the great advances in agriculture.
As regards the environment and agriculture, the Government must be more definite about their policies. It is true that a small experiment in organic farming is taking place in Scotland. The Government's set-aside schemes are alleviating the surpluses a little in various districts. However, none of them will touch the heart of the problem. In any common agricultural policy there must be a bottom in the market. The myriads of primary producers in agriculture are subject to the ebb and flow to a ridiculous extent. A figure that I constantly quote is that a 5 per cent. surplus can produce a 50 per cent. drop in price.

147
The Government must now make a definite promise. It is curious that the Minister of Agriculture has said that he will stand by the farmers and will not let them down while at the same time backing a 30 per cent. cut from 1986. That is only a bargaining figure. If the GATT negotiations are to succeed it is likely that the figure will be higher. It may well be that with competence the larger and well-capitalised farmers will be able to withstand such a cut. However, the small farmer, the social backbone of the countryside, will be unable to do so. The Government must put forward a definite set-aside scheme for extensive or organic farming. At the same time there must be a proper standard of marketing for such produce. There is a large market, although it is not major.
In regard to the environment, the Government must support the hill farmers. The hill farming subsidies per head must be retained and adjusted. They must take account of the admirable income which can be obtained by reducing the number of sheep, planting heather and then providing grouse shooting for people who are foolish or good enough to pay the prices. That provides a great deal of extra income for the countryside.
The Government must also do something about housing in the countryside. Throughout Scotland, there are instances of people coming up from the South to buy houses at prices which local people cannot afford. Government policy and the sale of council houses has not helped the situation one bit. I hope that the Government will support Scottish Homes by providing sufficient money to ensure that rural housing is affordable by people who live and work in the countryside. I know of nothing more devastating than a rural area that is populated by people who have no interest in it.
Not only must the Government provide a subsidy of 50 per cent. towards the upkeep of the walls on hill farms, but they must also provide a subsidy for the planting of hedges and trees. That takes land out of cereal production, for example, and puts it into a product that we need; that is, timber. However, it must be made profitable for the farmer to do so. For instance, if I am making money in farming I am willing to spend 50 per cent. of the cost of erecting something that is pretty or on planting a wood. However, if like many small farmers I am not making money I need 100 per cent. cost and something for my labour if I am to produce environmental improvements.
I could go on and on about the number of steps that could be taken, but the Government know them all. I say only that they must be more serious about them; otherwise we shall have a farming desert in the countryside. A great deal of land will be farmed in a most extraordinarily efficient and competent manner but there will not be in the countryside the people who make it what it is. The farmers do not want feather bedding but the Government must watch that they do not throw the baby out with the bath water when making the proposed cuts in GATT.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the fact that one Angus man follows another is not necessarily down to the usual channels. No one could have described rural depopulation and the plight that affects us all in Angus better than my noble neighbour, Lord Mackie. I pay tribute to what he has done in Angus. It will come as no surprise to your Lordships that on Friday night the Kerriemuir and District Agricultural Association decided that next year's show will he held on the farm that for the past 45 years and until recently was run by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. That is an indication of his stewardship and the way in which he left Benshie farm. I shall not speak today about farming but will leave that to experts such as the noble Lord.
The gracious Speech contained a phrase which interested and concerned me. It stated:
"My Government will promote improved efficiency and safety in transport".
I had cause to remember those valuable words as I tried to cross the road outside my office this afternoon. I was tempted to think of two types of Peers—the quick and the dead. I remain among the first. I ask whether the Minister can encourage us in one of my long-standing enthusiasms and passions; it is the railways. I declare an interest because in my youth I was a great railway enthusiast at Forfar station. It is in desuetude because there has been no passenger service from the station for 23 years. The only indications that there ever was a station are the remarks made every other Saturday at Station Park, the home of Forfar Athletic football team. I believe that at the moment the station is due to be turned into an upmarket housing estate.
Also, over the years, I have been a great user of railways. Indeed, anybody who lives in our particular region of Scotland needs to use railways. Occasionally we can use air transport to reach your Lordships' House but railways are the standby transport for many of us in rural districts and, above all, over long distances.
When I used to return from Scotland to school in England, that was a major excursion. To go from Dundee, which was then the main station, on the east coast route to London used to take 10 hours. That was in the 1950s. That journey can now be done six, seven, eight or even 10 times a day in six hours or not much more than that. That shows the massive improvement in technology. Let us never forget that that six-hour journey is completed over the same railway track which existed in the 1950s and, indeed, in Victorian times, because, with minor adjustments, it is the same railway track which was constructed by the Great Northern Railway, the North British Railway and the North Eastern Railway all along the east coast route.
That aspect of British Rail and its operations emerges very clearly when one makes the comparison with some of our Continental cousins. The TGV in France and the intercity express system in Germany are thoroughly modern and very impressive, though Germany will soon have to take account of what was

149
the Reichsbahn in East Germany. Nevertheless, both those major operations are rather different from British Rail.
The TGV system in France is held up as a great example of swiftness and modernity in rail transport. Indeed, the new system which is to be opened towards Nantes, the TGV Atlantique, is a most important prospect. However, the TGV which extends south to Lyons and as far as Marseilles runs over completely new track. My holiday in the south of France this summer was enlivened each morning by reading of massive protests in Provence about the construction of a new line to carry the TGV directly towards Nice, avoiding Marseilles. The protests in Provence made anything that has happened so far in Kent seem like a child's teaparty.
In Germany there is no new TGV-type track. The train has its core route between Cologne and Basle along the Rhine. I referred to this in a debate earlier this year. Germany has exactly the same problem as us in not being able to carve out completely new track for a TGV-type train. One has to try to make use of existing track. That is what British Rail has done with outstanding success.
There was a reorganisation of operations in 1982 and the core of the publicity is concentrated on what is called "intercity". That means mainly high speed trains using increasingly high technology. One or two interesting comparisons as regards figures have been produced recently. British Rail's total costs are about £1.50 per train kilometre, whereas in Germany the cost is nearly £6 and in France it is £6.70. Those are the costs per kilometre for a train travelling along existing track. Operating costs show a similar and increasing efficiency on the part of British Rail. Those sets of figures provide a very valuable lesson for our European cousins. I understand that managers from Europe come across to take lessons from British Rail in efficiency and value for money.
We read a great deal about the Channel Tunnel. Earlier this year British Rail announced a new scheme called InterCity 250. I am given to understand that 225 and 250 kph are the cruising speeds of the trains. I believe that 250 kilometres per hour is equivalent to something in the region of 150 miles per hour. That is the speed at which trains will be expected to cruise. The InterCity 250 programme will enable trains to travel from Manchester to London in less than two hours. It will also enable international trains to link Manchester, Liverpool and London with Paris and Brussels, operating by 1993 on what was the old London and North Western route. The old LNWR route, which will be combined with the old east coast route main line, was constructed in the mid nineteenth century and onwards, with one or two minor adjustments. Here we have not had the major operations which one has seen undertaken in France in order to cope with the TGV and its very high speeds. The InterCity 225–225 kilometres per hour is approximately 140 miles per hour—will reduce the journey time between London and Edinburgh to under four hours. I believe that that record, which
150
belongs to British Rail, is second to none. That underlines the robust comments of my noble friend the Minister at the outset of his remarks.
My noble friend mentioned the £4 billion investment which is to be made by British Rail over the next three years, not just in new trains but also in safety. That is far more important, especially in the eyes of my noble friend Lord Nugent. That investment will also help to provide improved and more comfortable stations. Of course in trains, as opposed to on the roads, speed is delightful. However, even in trains speed must be linked to safety. Therefore, it is gratifying that £70 million is to be spent this year and £330 million over the next three years to upgrade every aspect of British Rail's operation so that the speed which all of us will enjoy will be linked to the very highest standards of safety.
The Minister also referred to provincial services. In my youth those used to provide many hours of fascination for me. Sadly, provincial services on British Rail have less and less to do with glamour and individuality and far more to do with reliability, efficiency and value for money. One can no longer spend hours at Forfar station watching the many different locomotives: Forfar station no longer exists and at Dundee the aptly named Sprinters and more recently the 158 series of express trains have been introduced. I have an excellent brochure which I obtained from British Rail called Speeding into the 90's. I believe that my noble friend's department may choose a less controversial motto because, if we try that on our rubber tyres, it could involve us in a clash with the criminal courts. However, speeding into the 90s could be a very valuable motto for British Rail with the Type 158.
I have ridden on two of the Type 158 routes. There are many advantages over the old type of stock, but the particular motto which seems appropriate is mnltum in parvo. It is far easier for me to get into some of the seats, even the first class ones, than it would be for my noble neighbour Lord Mackie. Space is at a premium. I found that the 158 was akin to being on an aeroplane. I tried to remove one of the plastic trays and everything fell into my lap. However, the speed and comfort of one's journey is more than reasonable and I hope and believe the reliability will also be increased.
I have one minor gripe which I do not believe will necessarily concern my noble friend. The Dundee Courier on Saturday indicated that there is a fascinating problem with the Type 158. Your Lordships may be aware, although this has not happened over the past three winters, that in Scotland as well as large parts of England snow occasionally falls in winter. I understand that the Type 158 is not able to operate at full efficiency—and indeed it is feared it may not be able to operate at all—in falls of snow over six inches, or 15 centimetres, deep. In Scotland, with its routes to Aberdeen and Inverness, let alone between Edinburgh and Glasgow, falls of snow of that depth are commonplace in winter. That does not take into consideration the new service sampled by my noble friend Lord Mountevans and me

151
over the old London and South-Western route, Waterloo to Exeter. That route also experiences harsh winters. I hope British Rail will consult the Dundee Courier report. We will pray for a mild winter, and hope to see efficient snow ploughs fixed to he front of the Type 158 so that it will be able to operate in the form and with the reliability that British Rail seek.
I note the encouraging remarks and figures given by my noble friend. I congratulate him upon all that he and his department have done to help British Rail. Investment in new equipment, new track, new signals and the prospects for InterCity 225 and 250 are marvellous. However, I do not believe any of us should forget that it is the immense talent, enthusiasm and dedication of everyone who works in British Rail, from the chairman to the station manager in the Kyle of Lochalsh, Wick, Thurso and Mallaig—all of those far flung areas in Scotland—which contribute to a network that is already second to none. With the figures, comments and encouragement given by my noble friend and his right honourable friend. British Rail can go a long way to fulfil what is set out in the gracious Speech.
5.12 p.m
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, before I turn to the environmental matter which most concerns me I should like to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. He was kind enough to refer to the traffic scheme proposed for Cambridge. I hate to disappoint the noble Lord but that particular traffic scheme caused a public outcry. I believe a lot of it is about to be dropped.
That scheme included banning cycles from the centre of Cambridge city. It is a small city which at the last count had 60,000 cycles in regular use. Anyone who has been there in the morning when the students are changing lecture rooms, and have only a few minutes in which to do so, would realise the dismay caused by that particular part of the proposal. Therefore, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that we need traffic engineers, but we need sensible ones with sensitivity to the local conditions, otherwise they will get nowhere.
I turn to the environment part of the gracious Speech, which is the part with which I am most concerned. When my noble friend Lord Cledwyn moved the adjournment of the debate on the gracious Speech, he observed that the forthcoming programme appeared to be less burdensome than previous years—those were his words. We all welcome that. However, there was one notable omission from the programme, a Bill for which many of us have been waiting and which many of us would not have found the least bit burdensome. I refer to the long promised legislation to safeguard common land. It will come as no surprise to the noble Baroness who is to wind up that I raise this matter.
I should like to give the story so far. In 1958 the Royal Commission on Common Land published its report and made a number of recommendations to safeguard common land and improve public access to it. A necessary first step to its recommendations was to
152
compile registers of all common lands. That led to the passing of the Commons Registration Act 1965. Since then successive governments have expressed sympathy with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, but very little has happened.
In 1975 the Department of the Environment set up an inter-departmental working group to make preparations for the next stage of legislation. That report was completed in 1978 and led to wide consultations with interested parties. The registration Act 1965, to which I referred, proved defective in practice. There was concern regarding the lack of progress on further legislation. In June 1983 the Open Spaces Society convened a national conference on the subject under the chairmanship of Sir John Cripps. Arising from that conference was the suggestion that interested parties should be brought together to consider how to make progress. In the autumn of 1983 the Countryside Commission set up the Common Land Forum.
The forum first met in January 1984 and produced its report in May 1986. The forum membership was widely based. It included local authorities, conservation bodies, the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers Union, to mention just a few. In addition, over 150 papers were submitted by other individuals and organisations, including the organisation for game conservancy. Following the report of the forum some grouse moor owners felt that their interests had not been fully taken into account and formed the Moorlands Association to resist the recommendations in the report which they felt were detrimental to their operations.
Long and difficult discussions ensued—I put that mildly. Nevertheless, in the Conservative manifesto of May 1987 we find these words,
"We will legislate to safeguard common land on the basis of the Common Land Forum".
Since that time repeated Questions, both here and in another place, resulted in assurances that legislation was intended. I have found 15 such assurances and I am still counting.
We are now debating what could well be the last gracious Speech of this Government's tenure, and there is still no sign of the promised legislation. I am informed that the main stumbling block is the Moorland Association's resistance to unrestricted access on foot to grouse moors. I understand the depth of feeling on the part of both those who ask for access and those who resist it. But while the arguments are raging commons are being lost; once lost they can never be regained.
I plead with the Minister to put the disputed issues on hold and to bring in a short Bill to safeguard our remaining commons before it is too late. There is wide agreement on the need to safeguard what is left of our common land. At one time we had 1.5 million acres. That has now diminished to 1.3 million acres and diminishes further month by month.
As privatisation progresses, such as the privatisation of the water industry where publicly owned land was removed from public ownership and where access

153
therefore immediately became more difficult—other measures are in the pipeline which have the same effect —the remaining common land becomes more precious than ever. It is more important than ever that we should have access to it.
I hope that the Minister will feel able to offer some encouragement that the last phrase of the gracious Speech,
"Other measures will be laid before you"
will include that short Bill which will save what is left of our common land.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I have the great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, with her wide experience on environmental matters. I am sure that the noble Lady will not be upset if I do not follow her down that path; she knows more about that than I, and I shall stick to my own personal subject.
I most warmly welcome the gracious Speech which Her Majesty addressed to both Houses of Parliament last week, and in particular the paragraph beginning,
"My Government will promote improved efficiency and safety in transport",
as well as the other measures proposed.
Noble Lords will recall that I had the privilege of introducing a debate on "Road Users and the Law" in April of last year. That was in response to the excellent report of Dr. Peter North into the road traffic law review. That was welcomed unanimously, and at last we shall be putting it into law. I said then and repeat now that when the Bill is passed by both Houses it will have a significant effect on the campaign to reduce road accidents, and the target for a one-third reduction in road casualties by the year 2000 should be accomplished.
The latest accident statistics, published the week before last, regrettably show an upward trend in one or two areas. This is particularly so for total casualties, which are up 6 per cent. on the previous year—the highest for 11 years. On the plus side, the drink-driving statistics show a downward trend. Nevertheless, the figure of 840 deaths is far too high. Total road accidents still account for 14 deaths and 1,000 injuries on the roads every day.
We shall need to look carefully at the proposals when they come before us. Apart from the items given in the press over the past few days such as a dangerous driving offence replacing the reckless driving offence and the new offence of driving badly, both of which I welcome, I am pleased with the proposal for drivers to be convicted of speeding or traffic light offences on evidence obtained by the use of a video camera. Traffic light offences in London are appalling. Every day all types of vehicles blatantly break the law, and that can be extremely dangerous.
I also hope that provision will be made for the strengthening of MoT regulations. To my mind there are far too many vehicles on the road which clearly should not be there. I hope that provision will be made
154
to cover lane discipline on motorways as well as lane speeds. We must cater for the vehicles travelling at very slow speeds, usually in the middle lane. Both areas need to be addressed and I look forward to seeing the Bill when it comes to us from another place. I shall give the Bill my full support as it is a measure that is long overdue.
In the Autumn Statement last week I was pleased to see the increased commitment by Her Majesty's Government to easing congestion and providing high quality, safer transport. A rise to nearly £16 billion is proposed over the next three years an increase of £1.5 billion on last year—with a rise of 25 per cent. in real terms for trunk roads and motorways, thus allowing for a much faster start to be made on motorway widening.
I hope that the M.1 will be at the top of the list of priorities. Noble Lords will know that the northbound section from the M.25 to Northampton is extremely congested due to the weight of traffic. It is so bad that traffic comes to a complete halt. In the main that is due to the heavy lorries grinding their way up the hills. Much time and money could be saved if this section of the M.1 had a better traffic flow.
I would also include the M.4 as an urgent priority. It may interest your Lordships to learn that last Friday, leaving at 2.30 p.m., it took me five hours to get to Bristol—a distance of about 120 miles. I believe that the delay was due more than anything else to traffic management in a contraflow section.
I was also pleased to see in the Autumn Statement that £7 million is to be spent on publicity campaigns to improve road safety and that an additional £10 million will be provided over the next three years for further safety campaigns directed at children. Although I am no longer president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, we have long campaigned for safety to be taught in schools, so this will go a long way towards meeting some of our requirements.
I also warmly welcome the proposals to go ahead with the red routes in London. We all know that London is slowly grinding to a halt and I am sure that if this proposal is enforced, together with other proposals, the traffic flow in London will be greatly improved. To work and to be a success all the new legislation will have to be enforced so I hope that funds and people will be made available for that purpose; otherwise we shall be wasting our time. In regard to the red routes, I hope that provision will be made for emergency repairs whereby contractors' vehicles can get near to an emergency but not disrupt the flow of traffic.
Another measure which I also welcome is the New Roads and Street Works Bill. This Bill has taken a long time to come forward but I know that the Utilities Group and the highways authorities have jointly developed a number of codes of practice which will form the basis of the Bill. I shall say no more on that subject as we shall be discussing the Bill in greater detail in 10 days' time.

155
All the measures announced in the gracious Speech, together with the increased funding, should go a long way towards making our roads much safer and less congested for road users. I congratulate my noble friend.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Brougham, in the problems that he had last Friday on the M.4. I believe the delay was due to a lorry crashing and burning out on a contraflow section. It will give the noble Lord no pleasure to learn that that same accident not only caused a 25-mile tailback on the M.4 but completely seized up the traffic in Reading and Newbury for the whole of Friday evening—indeed, until very late in the evening. Therefore, it is clear that measures must be taken to avoid such accidents occurring and during the course of my speech I shall put forward some suggestions which I hope will achieve that.
It was, and always is, a great pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. He is so reasonable. He puts everything so nicely. Indeed, on this occasion even his message was to some extent acceptable on all sides of the House. Therefore, I can tell him that I enjoyed his speech and that I welcomed it. However, the fact is that we are now suffering from the results of many years of neglect. I remember in the late 1950s and earl y 1960s we had the phrase "private affluence and public squalor". Now of course we have squalor in both areas. However, it is the public squalor that is causing considerable difficulty in so many of our services, particularly transport.
Over the past 10 years we have had the enormous bonus of North Sea oil. We have had £80,000 million of revenue from North Sea oil, but during the whole of that period, when we should have been building up and improving our infrastructure, we have failed to do so. Therefore, there is so much more to be done to make good that neglect.
I have already said that the latest announcements of increases in road and rail transport expenditure are to be welcomed, but I have to say, and repeat, that it is too little and far too late. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that I enjoyed the noble Lord's speech, we see the Government's continuing failure fully to realise that, short of road pricing—there are many difficulties about that; and I say that advisedly to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and to my noble friend Lord McIntosh —an enormous improvement in public transport of all forms is the only answer to the massive traffic congestion that is throttling our major towns and cities. That congestion is adding to health dangers, especially for people living on main roads.
The projected increase in car ownership by the year 2006 shows a minimum of 28.3 million cars on the road compared with the present 20 million. Some estimates go so far as to project a doubling in car ownership to 40 million by the year 2006. Clearly such an increase in traffic cannot be accommodated without enormous damage to the environment and to our quality of life and at a crippling cost to public funds. Therefore, we must seek to ensure that such as
156
scenario is avoided. To achieve that, road transport will have to become much dearer in real terms and public transport much cheaper and more readily available. In addition, older cars which cannot meet safety and environmental standards should be phased out over a shorter timescale than at present. That is not going to be popular but it is one of the options that will have to be considered.
I now come to the railways. I have had some awful experiences with railways, having represented Swindon. I saw the closure of the Swindon railway workshops. The following week its products were required but the workshops had been wilfully closed down. When I first became the Member of Parliament for Swindon I had complaints from places like Faringdon that there were heavy transporter vehicles taking body shells from Pressed Steel Fisher in Swindon to Longbridge. I was most incensed about it. I contacted the firm and asked why it did not send the body shells by rail. The company said that it would love to but British Rail would not accept the traffic. Who would credit that British Rail would not accept the traffic, although there were sidings at Pressed Steel Fisher in Swindon and at Longbridge? Eventually the company did send the bodies by rail but only because of my intervention at the highest possible level.
It may be that that kind of thinking is still prevalent in British Rail. There is still a failure to understand and to get to grips with the needs of travellers. There have been enormous fare increases and cuts in the frequency and quality of services. Countless numbers of people have been driven back to using their cars, hence the greater congestion in London and the desire of 50 per cent. of the people to get out of London in order to live elsewhere. The British Railways Board still does not seem to understand that travellers are customers who are buying something from British Rail. They deserve to be treated like customers and should be encouraged and respected. There is a failure by British Rail to grasp the opportunities that exist to move freight.
The railways and the Government should realise that every heavy lorry displaced is a bonus to other travellers on the roads and reduces congestion in our towns and cities. The railways have an enormous advantage which does not seem to be understood by British Rail. If one goes to see the chairman one is told that 80 per cent. of the traffic must be carried by road. However, 1 per cent. extra carried by rail would make an enormous difference. For example, most large towns and cities have a railway station in the centre. Properly organised, it would be possible to use town centre railway stations and yards to receive the goods for supplying the shops. That in turn would virtually eliminate monster 40-tonne vehicles from town centres and approach roads. They do enormous damage not only to the environment and people's lives but to the roads themselves.
I now turn to the measures to improve traffic management. These are often frustrated not only by road engineers. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. The road engineers pore over computer programs and out-of-date maps. They never get out

157
by the side of the road to see what is happening to the traffic. They do not seem to realise that there is congestion when they say there is none and that there is no congestion when they say that there is. I agree absolutely with the noble Lord. He has described the situation absolutely spot on.
The problems of traffic management are often aggravated by quarrelling local authorities and the conflicting policies followed within the local authorities themselves. I live in Reading. On the one hand, the local authority, is urging the county council, which is the highways authority, to take measures to reduce the number of cars coming into the town centre. That is absolutely right and I agree with it. On the other hand, in connection with another development it is planned to increase the number of car-parking spaces by 2000. What can be sillier than to tell people on the one hand that fewer cars are wanted in the town centre and, on the other, to make plans to accommodate extra cars?
The local authorities need to understand exactly what they are doing. The pricing policy in Reading and in many other towns is in favour of bringing in the car. It is half as expensive to bring in a car as it is to travel into the town centre by public transport. If public transport is to be encouraged, the reverse has to be the situation. Public transport has to be cheaper and as convenient as coming in by car.
We have heard about red routes, dangerous driving, speeding and so forth. I support all these measures because they are absolutely right. However, they will be completely useless unless they are properly and rigidly enforced. At the present time the great problem is that the measures we already have are not rigidly enforced. One has only to travel along a motorway to see heavy lorries speeding along at 80 and 90 miles an hour only a few yards behind private cars to know that the existing regulations are not being enforced.
I believe that before anyone is allowed behind the wheel of a heavy lorry he should be given intelligence and psychological tests. The behaviour of drivers on our motorways and other roads is frightening and should be dealt with. I have considerable sympathy with the police. They have had duties imposed on them by government, this House and another place which are far beyond their capacity. The police say that they cannot enforce various measures.
I have another experience concerning Reading. There is a need for a peak hour bus lane. However, because the police say that they cannot enforce it, the local authority is now proposing a 24-hour bus lane. We have reached a situation where local authorities are imposing regulations that are 10 times more draconian than they need be because the police say that they cannot enforce the lesser measures. Something has to be done about that. All kinds of regulations are blatantly ignored; we see that happening every day.
I make a suggestion which is not new. However, it is time to take it seriously. The normal police force simply cannot cope with the load of criminal work and
158
traffic enforcement work as well. We have reached a stage where we need separate traffic police. I know that there are arguments against that and I know of the problems involved. But it is time that we examined this measure as a serious proposition. A traffic police force would not only enforce the law but advise and educate as well. I should like to hear from the Government that they believe that this is a proposition which deserves examination in the months and perhaps years ahead. I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords on this side of the House when I say that so long as the Government bring forward decent measures for dealing with the present traffic nightmare they will certainly get our support.
5.40 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest in that I am in receipt of a small pension from British Rail. Noble Lords will probably realise by now that when the subject of the railways comes up I tend to defend British Rail. I am not quite sure that I shall do so today. I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, because I agreed with almost everything he said. I should like to commiserate with him on one point. He said that he lives in Reading. I once tried to shop in Reading. I inquired my way there three times but each time I became lost. I gave it up and have never been back. Indeed I never intend to go back there unless I absolutely have to.
I too enjoyed the Minister's speech. However, I felt that he saw the future of transport and of the environment through rose-coloured spectacles, which is possibly better than the way the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, sees it. He seems to be building castles in the air about a future Labour government but I believe that they are castles made of sand.
I shall speak mainly on transport but I shall refer to the environment where it affects transport. I should like to mention Red Star. I cannot understand why people use private delivery vans for getting goods quickly around the country when, as the noble Lord said, most towns have central stations where people can take their goods. They can then be sent quickly and fairly inexpensively to their destination by Red Star.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that he has seen heavy goods vehicles driving on the motorway at between 80 and 90 miles an hour. I do not believe that the average heavy goods vehicle can travel at those speeds. I am talking about heavy goods vehicles whose drivers require an HGV licence. In my experience the drivers certainly have brains. If one gives them a little room they are almost without exception courteous and very safe drivers. Coaches and light vans are driven in a terrible way. Their drivers are absolute shockers. But I travel a good deal on motorways and I have never seen a heavy goods vehicle travelling at the speeds mentioned by the noble Lord.
I agree with the noble Lord 100 per cent. about the need for traffic police. It is the obvious answer. I shall refer later in my speech to the number of times the law

159
is disregarded by the public and by the police. It is obvious that what we require is a dedicated traffic police force.
I travel almost every day on what is now Network SouthEast. I use the Basingstoke service from Fleet. Our trains almost always arrive on time. This morning of course the train was five minutes late. We normally arrive on time and we seldom have cancellations. It is a very good service. The rolling stock is old. If one travels first-class one sometimes finds that there are no light bulbs, that the seat covers are torn and that there are no ash trays in the one and only smoking compartment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Earl referred to the fact that there is only one smoking compartment on his train. I sympathise with him. I believe that there ought to be far more smoking carriages as smokers represent 33 per cent. of the population.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I meant to say that there is a single smoking compartment in first-class and one in ordinary class.
When I travel into London the trains are normally fairly empty. Nearly always there is a ticket collector on the train. Coming back in the evening the first-class smoking compartment will more often than not be full. When we reach the first stop, almost all the other passengers leap out. One can guarantee that very few if any of those passengers have first-class tickets but they know that there are no ticket collectors. Once or twice in the next few months I should like to see British Rail putting a ticket inspector in each of the first-class compartments leaving Waterloo. British Rail would increase its revenue and it might frighten off quite a few people and stop them travelling first-class with a second-class ticket.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said that everyone admires French railways but that people think our railways are terrible. I do not think that is true. Southern. Region is the most highly utilised railway system in the world and has the lowest subsidy. In future, trains will come from all over Europe at high speed. They will go through the Channel Tunnel and for the most part will be fed into the existing track network on Southern Region. If that happens, high-speed trains will be tangled up with commuter traffic and they will creep into London. If we are to have dedicated toll roads, a matter we shall discuss on 20th November, why cannot we have a dedicated twin track from the port into London? Private enterprise could pay for it and could run all the channel traffic. Everyone would benefit.
I use the Underground every day. What appalls me is not the standard of service but the graffiti. It is obvious that nearly all the graffiti on the outside of the trains is rut there in depots. Those who put it there do not do so from platforms. That would be dangerous and would be rather easy to spot. I suggest that the British Transport Police should have watchmen at their depots.
We now have automatic ticket barriers, which seem to be working very well. If one has not paid one's fare
160
or one does not have the right fare, the gates will not open and one has therefore to buy a ticket. I should like to know what increase in revenue per thousand passengers has been produced as a result of the money going to the Underground and not into the pockets of ticket collectors.
Lord Tordoff: Oh!
Earl Attlee: My Lords, perhaps I should say a high proportion of the fares collected goes into the pockets of ticket collectors.
A report appeared in the press the other day which stated that some new H-registration vehicles failed an exhaust emission test. If that can happen to brand new cars, I hate to think what is happening in respect of the majority of other cars. My own car dates back to 1980. I had it converted so that it would run on green petrol. It has recently passed its MoT. However, you have only to look at some of the cars on the roads in London today to see what is happening. I come from North Hampshire, where I have thousands of acres of Ministry of Defence land with its clean air, but when you come into London and breathe the air it really stinks.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned bus lanes. If noble Lords go outside the House and turn left at a time when the bus lanes are in operation, they will seldom see a bus there; but they will see any number of private cars. However, the police do nothing about the situation.
I should like now to deal with speeding on the motorways, but not by HGVs. I know that the A.3 is not a motorway, but it has three lanes each way. When I was travelling on that road yesterday I saw a motor cyclist approaching. As he went past I estimated his speed to be about 120 mph. Obviously the driver in a police car parked on the hard shoulder had similar thoughts. The police car took off. The motor cyclist saw the flashing lights and promptly took the next slip road. I saw him hurtling around a corner to the left, with the police car vainly trying to keep up with him.
On another occasion on the same road I was overtaken by a Porsche which was obviously doing well over the ton. However, the police managed to catch that one. When I caught up with them, the driver was being dealt with. There is an increasing disregard for the law on the roads. People are always jumping the traffic lights. For example, if you wait for the lights to turn green the chances are that someone in the car behind you will flash his lights or honk his horn. Drivers cross the red lights, not just as the lights are changing. They do so deliberately. It is dangerous and there are accidents.
If you drive along the roads today you notice cars which have only one brake light or otherwise are without their full complement of lights. In my experience modern Volvos, which have their lights on all the time and therefore overuse the light bulbs, are among the worst offenders. If you are travelling along a road in the dark and you see one brake light, you are entitled to think that a motor cycle is ahead of you, but possibly when it is too late you may find that it is not.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I feel I must speak up on behalf of the police. Last week I urged my driver to move into the bus lane outside the House because I did not want to be late for my train at Liverpool Street station. He did as he was told. However, he was caught by a policeman when he turned the corner in Parliament Square. I wonder whether I was unlucky or whether the noble Earl is especially lucky in this respect.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I must tell the noble Baroness that I do not travel in the bus lane and therefore I do not need to be lucky. In my experience, her driver was unlucky. In any event, he should have pointed out to her that if he did as he was told he would be breaking the law. However, it is easy to say that when one has not been caught.
I turn now to the deregulation of buses. As noble Lords will no doubt recall, when this matter was discussed in your Lordships' House my noble friend Lord Tordoff and myself, among others, pointed out what would happen if buses were deregulated. What we claimed would happen has in fact happened. According to a recent report there has been a 16 per cent. reduction in bus services in some areas and a 6.5 per cent. reduction in the shires. There are no timetables. People do not know where the buses start from or when they run. Moreover, buses in the city tend to operate in packs during the rush hour. They do not connect with the trains. The situation is abysmal. We said that such things would happen and they have happened. God help us!
I am nearing the conclusion of my speech, but I should just like to mention London taxis. When I travel by taxi I always try to talk to the drivers. I ask them about the traffic congestion in London. They always say the same thing. I shall try to paraphrase what they say. They say, "Well, guy, there is one simple answer: it is parking. If you stopped illegal parking in narrow streets, and where people should not park, the traffic would run very much easier". I believe that to be true.
Taxi drivers have also suggested that new rules should be introduced to cover cabbies which would ensure that, when they pass the knowledge test and receive a licence, they work out in the provinces for a given period of time before being allowed to ply for hire in London. The cabbies think that is a good idea. I do not believe that it is a matter of greed because, as everyone knows, when you try to find a cab there are never quite enough of them available.
I believe that the Government's proposals for transport are good, hut, as I said when I started, I wish that they would take off their rose-tinted glasses.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, as my noble friend on the Front Bench indicated, I shall speak mostly on the issue of housing. However, I cannot resist pausing for a moment in order to say something about transport, although much has been said today about that as regards both the railways and the roads. I travel down to London each week by InterCity.
162
However, for two or three weeks now there has been no InterCity service available from Manchester: it is not the first time that has happened. It seems that every time re-rostering is introduced, an industrial dispute takes place and the poor bloody travellers, as we call them, are left waiting on the station platform, twiddling their thumbs in an effort to get down to London.
I do not wish to become involved in an industrial dispute as I understand that there is a possibility that the present dispute may have been settled today. However, if we want to encourage people to use the railways and keep them off the motorways, that type of nonsense must come to an end. Someone needs kicking up the backside. People are becoming sick and tired of the situation and of having to make alternative arrangements.
I turn now to the question of housing. Some noble Lords may remember that in the debate last year I spoke on the same subject. If you are talking about the environment, I believe that housing is one of the most important parts of a person's environment—if not the most important part—because if people have homes they live in them. Of course, there are many who do not have homes.
In the debate last year I indicated some of the immense problems with which we are faced as a nation. I believe that if a child has the bad luck to be housed very poorly, it usually happens in an area where education is also not too good. Therefore, children suffer from the start with deprivation in two aspects of life. It is very difficult for children, even if they are bright and intelligent, to make the best of their abilities when the first six or seven years of their life are spent in such an environment. In my opinion it scars the future of such children and leaves them with scars that cannot be totally removed.
Last year I quoted some figures, and at the risk of being repetitive I have to say that I believe they should be quoted again. Half a million fewer houses are being built by local authorities than would have been built if the system existing in 1979 had continued. By this year there would have been nearly 600,000 more houses available for letting in the public sector.
I quoted figures last year, not from political organisations but from charitable organisations grappling with the problem. They do not relate to homelessness, because that is still growing inexorably. It was calculated more than 12 months ago that 10,000 people were sleeping rough in the City of London. One can scale that down for other major cities, depending upon the size of the city. It was calculated that at the then rate of expansion in the numbers of people sleeping in cardboard boxes and doorways, London would be faced with a situation similar to that of New York with 30,000 people sleeping on the streets.
That may sound daft, but during the time that I have been a Member of another place and of your Lordships' House, I have seen things happening in London that I never thought would happen. One has only to walk along the Strand and other similar areas. The problem is with us and it is worsening. Major

163
cities such as Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and Birmingham now have nearer 30,000 rather than 20,000 families on their housing waiting lists. That does not reflect the numbers of single young people who have nowhere to go. That is the present dimension of the problem.
What is the latest information? Only this morning I received a publication from the Institute of Housing. It is one that I receive regularly as no doubt do other Members of your Lordships' House. It contains details of a report for the London Housing Associations Council which states:
"Current policies will condemn nearly half a million London households to homelessness, bed and breakfast hotels, temporary and otherwise unacceptable accommodation by 1995. The report's authors calculate that by 1995 there will be a total of 645,000 households in housing need in the capital unable to rent privately or buy. Over the same period, total lord authority and housing associations new lettings in the capital will be only 223,400, the report estimates. This leaves a shortfall of 421,600 so-called rented units".
That is the progress we are making: we are going backwards by any yardstick one chooses to use.
That report calls for an input of £33 billion to deal with the problem which it says is far too big for the local authorities, housing associations (charitable or otherwise) or the private rented sector to hope to deal with. That illustrates the dimension of the problem. I hope that we will hear something from the Government shortly about how they intend to deal with the situation. The local authorities have ample funds available, but unfortunately to a great degree they are locked in. They are denied the use of them. The last figure I saw relating to receipts from the sale of council houses alone was between £2 billion and £3 billion. The maximum that the local authorities are allowed to use in any one year is 20 per cent.. I do not understand the logic of not unlocking that money and using it 10 build houses.
Any section of the media one cares to look at—for example, trade journals or the business section of the press —claims that the building industry is in one hell of a mess. There is talk of 100,000 redundancies in the next 12 months. If we are to provide the structure to enable our people to live in a wholesome environment, the most potent tool is a highly skilled, large and efficient building sector. If the projection for the near future is that 100,000 people will become unemployed in the building sector in the next 12 months, the prospect is bleak.
I want to know what the Government intend doing about the housing programme. Under the leadership of the present Prime Minister we have had almost as many—may be more—Ministers of Housing as we have had Foreign Secretaries and Chancellors of the Exchequers. The Minister has brought in a little extra money—a couple of hundred million pounds. One may say that that is a great deal of money, but it is peanuts compared to what has been taken away since 1979. It is like the burglar who puts back in the till a little of the money that he had taken on a previous occasion.
The Minister made a press statement on 23rd October. I understand that he made the original
164
statement at the Conservative Party conference. He announced that tenants of new town houses were to be allowed to buy on a rental basis. It is a complex statement, and I received it only today. It means that such people will be able to continue to pay rent. They will receive some price reduction but not the full discount that someone buying outright will receive. The Government of course are the Government for all sections of the community, or so they say. But the scheme is open only to people who pay the full rent. In other words, if someone receives the smallest help from the public purse towards housing himself and his family, such a person is disbarred from that scheme; and that is the scheme of a government who wanted to throw open housing to everyone. I do not know whether that scheme will have to come before another place and your Lordships' House before it is introduced. It is one which will require some study.
I mentioned the building industry earlier. I sometimes wonder why it is always to the fore with its contributions towards the Conservative Party election fund and in keeping the Conservative Party going. I do not know whether it is on the basis that people may become ennobled or knighted. It cannot be on the basis of any economic benefit that the industry will receive from the Government. I have always been interested in building and so for many years I have been invited to the Building Employers Confederation annual dinner. Each year I have listened to a succession of Cabinet Ministers from this Government. Most of them have now gone. I have listened to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Lawson; Mr. Biffin when he was Leader of the House; the present Chancellor; and the right honourable Cecil Parkinson. The same speech was used every year. It was, "How marvellously we are doing, and how well the Government are doing for the building industry". The fawning was nauseating. No reason was ever given why those Ministers should make such speeches. My noble friend and colleague Lord Stoddart, who has left the Chamber, referred to this matter as I did in a Question a few weeks ago, concerning the new money that has been made available to the Government which no other Chancellor of the Exchequer has previously had. I am talking about North Sea oil revenue and privatisation. As I understand it, it has put nearly £100 billion in the coffers of the Government since 1979.
The interesting point to put to the Government is: why is housing in such a mess? On the last Local Government and Housing Bill in this House my noble friend and colleague on our Front Bench, Lord McIntosh, and I pressed the Government strongly about the situation of homeless people. The Government made it quite clear that they would be catered for by the private rented sector because the new Act would make it so attractive for private owners of property that they could not refuse to rent to people. That did not happen. It has never happened, it will not happen and it is a total failure. More people are being made homeless; there are more people without adequate accommodation.

165
Lastly, I wish to turn to something mentioned today by my noble friend and colleague Lady Nicol. Public open space land which ought to be kept for the public has been taken into private ownership. I shall cite a particular case. The area in which I spent most of my life was East Manchester. A wonderful part of it started in Gorton, a strict working-class area, in Debdale Park. The area crossed the borders into Denton and was owned by the old waterworks department of Manchester City Council. There were three or four beautiful reservoirs, surrounded by adequate land, and parts of it became known as a famous walk through. It was a beautiful area. Only a few weeks ago I took my two grandsons through Debdale Park. I do not live in Manchester now but the way the park has been kept is a credit to the city. During the passage of the Bill to privatise the water industry I recall my noble friends Lord McIntosh and Lord Graham warning the Government of the consequences of privatising that industry and what the purchasers would do with the land.
Surprise, surprise: the predators who bought that chunk of privatised land committed daylight robbery. Let me make the point once again that it was originally paid for out of public funds, mainly by the original ratepayers in Manchester—this was started by a Tory-controlled council. The land was taken from the people without one penny in compensation. It was daylight robbery legalised by another place and this House. The people who have got hold of it now have a marvellous free development scheme which will take up all this beautiful land. "Oh, well", they say, "we will compensate and give you somewhere else. You will have to go where we shift you".
I have to tell the Minister that if this scheme proceeds and comes to the Secretary of State for final adjudication, if there is a possible compulsory purchase with a public inquiry, the people of the area and further afield who find it the only recreation area within reach will be absolutely outraged. The Government cannot say that they were not warned. The predators in the water industry do just this sort of thing. This is the first example. I hope that when the matter comes to the Government they will say no as quickly as possible.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I regret that the gracious Speech contained no mention of local government finance. As your Lordships will know, local government finance is now composed of the poll tax, the uniform business rate and the revenue support grant, a new financial map designed to increase local accountability.
The poll tax has turned out to be divisive, regressive, expensive and, with its transitional arrangements and safety nets, opaque. Even those who gain by it think it unfair. However, we cannot today hope to change the present Government's views on this. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh rightly said, it awaits a change of government. However, there is one aspect that we may ask the Government to review, even now.
166
At the core of the poll tax is the insistence that every voter must pay at least 20 per cent. In an authority like mine, 25 per cent. of the population—students, the young unemployed, women carers, the elderly and infirm and single parents—are required to pay that 20 per cent. Collecting it from the quarter of the population accounts for well over one-third of our soaring poll tax costs, to provide just 5 per cent. of poll tax income.
To put it another way, if we take the figure of £1.15 built into income support and note that some people need to pay weekly or fortnightly, from that £1.15, 43p will go on the giro payment and 30p on back-up administration, leaving 40p for services; that is, if the young mobile do not move. However, as the Audit Commission shows, up to 50 per cent. will move in a year. As the housing market improves, the number will increase. The six compulsory letters that it takes to register a change of address—all required by the Government—at £2 or £3 per time wipe out that 40p.
If the tenant does not tell us, as is likely, and we have to re-canvass, we get into losses. If we have to chase arrears on a couple of payments, as is highly likely, those losses mount. That is to say nothing of second moves, court hearings and liability orders. The Audit Commission estimates that there will be 3 to 4 million court hearings next year, and rising. In other words, the more dutiful local authorities are in pursuing the 20 per cent. payers, the more money they are likely to lose. The burden therefore falls on other poll tax payers. I ask noble Lords, is this sensible?
Every local authority treasurer I know wishes to abolish the 20 per cent. minimum payment, removing at a stroke one-third or more of our paperwork. It would reduce harassment, probably be financially neutral and make a modest and much needed gesture towards equity. Can we hope that the Government will reflect on this?
The second element in local authority finance is the uniform business rate. For next year the Government have raised the poundage by 10.9 per cent. in line with inflation, but the yield will be up by 20 per cent.—from £10.4 billion to £12.4 billion—at a time of penal interest rates and growing recession. That is a burden that no local authority sensitive to its business community would have dreamt of imposing. The UBR is paid in on a national poundage and out on a population basis. The North rightly gains, but what about elsewhere? If we separate UBR from aggregate Exchequer finance, we find that the inner London boroughs pay in more than they did under local business rates and get out far less.
Who are the gainers?—the prosperous rural districts of Surrey, Sussex, Kent, Hampshire, Essex and Cambridgeshire, not the most obvious recipients of regional aid. Behind that, however, is a deeper problem presented by UBR. In the past, Labour cities like my own worked in close partnership with local business. On its behalf, we invested in a local regional airport, in starter units, in training schemes for young people and in key worker accommodation, not just for the jobs but for the long-term wealth, rateable values and revenues that would flow to our city over time.

167
That has gone. Whether or not we aid our business community now makes no difference to the UBR we receive. Why, then, should local authorities bother? Why should we ask local poll tax payers to fund aid to industry when the net result is not a benefit to the local authority but an increase in poll tax? I should have expected this Government above all to have sought to bind local authorities to their local economic communities, to strengthen that partnership. UBR has severed it. Is that sensible?
I turn, thirdly, to central government grant and capping. In 1981–1982 central government contributed 59 per cent. to relevant local expenditure. By 1989–90, the last year of rates, that had fallen to 43 per cent. I remind your Lordships that had that contribution kept its value local rates would have risen by less than inflation in the 1980s. Rates rose to compensate for the withdrawal of government grant and local authorities then found themselves "fingered" when they sought to make good that shortfall. For next year the equivalent figure is lower still, 35 per cent., equivalent to another £84 on the average poll tax bill.
With the latest poll tax capping statement of a week or so ago I suggest that local accountability has vanished. Any authority that spends more than its standard spending assessment and 9 per cent. over last year's budget may be capped. However, 84 per cent. of all local authorities, including nearly three-quarters of all Conservative authorities, last year spent more than their standard spending assessment. The increase this year in SSAs for districts is less than the increase last year in their SSA spending. The 9 per cent. is less than inflation. The Government's capping criteria assume 100 per cent. collection—although, according to the Audit Commission, the poll tax figures so far suggest that it will be less than 90 per cent. or another £20 on poll tax bills. Local authorities have had new duties imposed on them concerning food, litter and dogs and face additional costs such as the teachers' pay settlement and the increased cost of housing benefit. The criteria for capping under-estimate inflation, over-estimate collection and ignore new duties and new costs. It is clear, therefore, that local authorities up and down this land face universal capping. They are not volunteering for it but they face it.
Does educating and training a youngster, employing the construction workers referred to so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Dean, or mending a road really damage our national health, wealth and wellbeing? As Dr. David King, a recent economic adviser to the Government, has pointed out, central government justifies their cuts and their cappings by alleging that tax-raising powers threaten national economic prosperity. However, as Dr. King points out, the OECD figures for 1985 suggest precisely the opposite. They show that the eight most prosperous countries by GNP give local government considerable tax-raising powers while the eight poorest, from Turkey to the UK, give very little. We might ponder on that, my Lords.
More damaging still, however, universal capping gives the Secretary of State the majority vote in every
168
council in this country. The only choice the local authority has is to do what the Government want and to have what the Government choose. So why have local government? As my noble friend Lord McIntosh said in his opening remarks, we have it because local communities, as your Lordships well know, have different needs, different problems and different aspirations. Local government is about that local difference. Capping denies its very essence.
This summer I was privileged to work in Bulgaria with MPs and presidential advisers as they invented local government in that country. Bulgaria is a country where, in the absence of voluntary organisations and local government, the sense of citizenship is somewhat fragile, represented by tacit membership of the CP. Bulgaria is rebuilding itself and doing so, in part, by inventing local government. It is recognised that the sense of active citizenship it confers, the moral adulthood it presumes, the local diversity it recognises and the local accountability it cherishes are all essential to healthy democracy. What Bulgaria is learning we seem to be throwing away.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, we were told in the gracious Speech that Her Majesty's Government would promote improved efficiency and safety in public transport. We were also given a legislative programme. Since that speech there has been the Autumn Statement. That gives those of us who are speaking in this debate a great advantage because it announced record levels of investment in road and rail. In addition, we have heard my noble friend's speech this afternoon amplifying Her Majesty's Government's plans. It will come as no surprise to noble Lords who have heard me declare my interest over the years if I concentrate on the public transport elements of today's debate.
In the course of my station judging itinerary I looked not only at stations but also at trains in order to develop a yardstick for measuring how British Rail was performing in the autumn of 1990. In terms of the targets that the Secretary of State set, one first of all looks at reliability: does the train run? Of the 90 or so trains that I used every train ran. One also considers punctuality. Of those trains, 85 were on time or within two minutes of the scheduled time. Some were early, only three were badly late, and the worst delay that I suffered was on a Highland Omnibuses bus. They were also clean, in spite of the great British public's ability to leave litter behind.
I also set other objectives, which the Secretary of State probably feels are not of such importance. I looked to see whether the advertised catering was available. It was always provided. I considered the use of public address systems, which is particularly important to blind passengers who cannot read station names or posters. Where a public address system was provided it was regularly used. That is a great improvement.
Lastly, I looked at the question of revenue protection. If, as British Rail says, it is losing £50 million per annum from fare dodging it is of

169
paramount importance that tickets are checked regularly, particularly on trains. With the exception of two-mile or three-mile journeys in metropolitan areas, I am happy to say that tickets were checked very regularly. British Rail staff appear to be concentrating on that: the message has got through. It is good that that message has got through because if a fare dodger gets away with it, it is we as fare payers, taxpayers or poll tax payers who end up paying the difference.
Lastly, there was scarcely a journey that I made or a station that I judged which did not show evidence of recent investment or investment in progress. I cannot say that stations showed evidence of investment that was to come because I might be shooting myself in the foot. There is a vast amount of investment in the railways. That is good. The investment planned, which my noble friend reminded us is running at record levels, seems to me to be about right.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, en passant asked for higher levels of investment. However, we should be very careful before we go down that track. Sir Robert Reid, the former Chairman of British Rail, said in the spring that British Rail could not supervise higher levels of investment, a statement which so far as I know has not been denied publicly by his successor.
There is the question of safety and the implications of the Clapham and King's Cross reports and the calls for additional spending on safety. Safety was regarded as paramount by both the Sir Roberts. It is regarded as paramount by almost everybody in public transport. The noble Lord, Lord King, has said that safety is paramount; Michael Bishop has said that safety is paramount. We must make sure when we invest in safety that we go forward with a degree of knowledge behind us, almost prudence, so that we achieve that utter safety that we all wish to see on rail.
We need especially to take account of the human factor. What brings this to mind is that after each recent accident the unions have been quick to persuade, and the media have been quick to be persuaded, that we need more expenditure, greatly increased expenditure, on safety. But Purley was a human factor accident. Bellgrove was a human factor accident. Stafford was a human factor accident. Reading was a human factor accident. They were all, I believe, cases of drivers, for whatever reason, running through red lights.
I am aware that British Rail is, with the unions, looking hard at this. I have a great friend who is what might be called British Rail's divisional surgeon for the Southampton area, and he is spending a lot of his time looking into this to try to get to the bottom of why it happens. He is having to establish why people run red lights—and after all motorists run red lights far more than trains run red lights. A red traffic light in this country nowadays, despite what the Highway Code says, is regarded almost as advisory rather than mandatory. You have only to stand at the crossroads at the end of Bridge Street to see just how frequently that happens.
170
We must get to the root of the problem and then find out what mechanical or technical means we can adapt and practise to protect drivers and to protect passengers. When we have sorted that out, we must welcome the fact that Her Majesty's Government have given both British Rail and London Regional Transport all the spending authority they need for safety investment. But I hope that that investment is not committed until we have got to the root of the problem.
The third reason why we should be prudent in our investment strategy with regard to British Rail, London Transport and the many light railways that I welcome in our provincial cities is the fact that British Rail, London Transport and the light railway undertakings are only commissioners of investment work. We must make sure that the supplier side of the equation, which will be largely produced by the private sector, is in place.
Those of us who remember the 1955 and subsequent year investment plan will also know that many of the suppliers, for example, of rolling stock are no longer trading. Let us look at the North British Railway Company at Springburn in Glasgow and also at St. Rollox; the Birmingham Railway Carriage and Wagon Company in Birmingham; BTH and English Electric, who flanked me when I was at school at Rugby. English Electric is still trading but those two other manufacturing points have closed down. Gloucester Railway Carriage and Wagon is no longer in the supply of rolling stock. It is only in the repair business. Metropolitan Vickers has also gone. Before we call for more investment we must remember the supply constraint. This is not only in terms of the rolling stock but also in terms of civil engineering ability, and not least—and I come back to safety—in terms of signalling.
We must also look at the quality of life, because if we look forward five or six years under present plans, and subject to private legislation to come before your Lordships' House, we would in inner London have Crossrail, which I utterly welcome; the east-west link from Paddington to Liverpool Street. Either that or the Channel Tunnel rail link could be the 20th century version of the Forth Bridge—a really major railway achievement.
I hope that we shall have King's Cross International. We have the Jubilee Line extension going on. We have London Regional Transport's station reconstructions at Victoria, at Angel, at London Bridge, at Holborn and at Oxford Circus, together—and let us not forget this—with all the roadworks that go on and are mentioned elsewhere in the Queen's Speech.
Should we really be asking for more investment, higher investment levels, or should we, as I believe, make sure that investment levels take account of the industry's ability to supply, of our own day-to-day requirements in life and of, dare I say it, proper planning? I understand that the British Rail and LRT investment programmes will no longer be year to year but will become more a 10-year view, like the building of warships. I think that this is highly welcome.

171
The gracious Speech lists four transport Bills of nationwide importance. There is no Lord Parry in his seat so I can ignore the Severn Bridge. One is to encourage privately financed roads, which is to be utterly welcomed provided that the terms and conditions encourage such projects. I hope that we have all learnt from the shambles, for want of a better word, of the attempt to build a private rail link from the Channel Tunnel to London. Not only the authorisation framework must be right but the rates of return must be reasonable and attractive too. They do not have to be reckless, hut they must be reasonably attractive.
I think we shall all benefit from the street works Bill. The trust ports Bill—a reform Bill, if I can call it that —I find very welcome. From time to time, because I flirt with transport in your Lordships' House, I get briefings, unsolicited mail and assorted other things from ports praying for this. I am reminded in a way of the series of marriage enablement Acts that we used to have in the early 1980s, when certain people, if they wished to marry within the bounds of consanguinity, had to get a Bill through both Houses of Parliament. It seems to me that an umbrella Bill giving the trust ports the right to do this, rather than a whole succession of Private Bills, is a welcome step.
It is additionally welcome since the new powers the trust ports will get, particularly in terms of their ability to raise funds, could tie in with the toll roads Bill. They could invest in infrastructure so that, for example, my friends in Dover who are always complaining about the access road could, if they so wished, get into bed with a civil engineering contractor and build the road that they have always sought, and charge tolls on it. Why not?
As for the road traffic Bill, first I have to echo—I think we all do—what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said. It is no good legislating without enforcement. It really is not. I have mentioned the street corner out here where traffic offences are committed at the rate of one a minute. When you come into this Palace you feel utterly secure. There are plenty of police. But there are no police watching that crossroads so far as I can see. The television cameras that hang from the Treasury building which could be used to spot offenders are so far as I know not used. I have to ask why not?
We must address the problem that every month the death toll on our roads, although not widely publicised, matches 12 or 13 Clapham Junction disasters. Therefore, if I can go back to what I was saying a few minutes earlier, we need the greater enforcement of mandatory versus advisory. We need greater enforcement, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, and we need to change the attitudes of many motorists.
Those of us who are interested in transport will be busy this Session not only on the legislative programme but also on the great tranche of Private Bills that are still to come before us. Our thoughts must be influenced by the investment regime, and that is one on which I congratulate the Government. We
172
must also obviously be influenced by legislative proposals as yet unread. We have not seen the Bills. But may I ask that one of these, the road traffic Bill, takes account of bridge bashing?
This is a subject close to my heart, as those who were here on 17th January will remember. An over-high vehicle hits a railway bridge. You get, as we did in our local paper in the New Forest last Saturday, the report of an incident where the driver says, after he has hit the bridge and closed the railway for two hours, that he did not know how low the bridge was. Yet at the road junction there was a sign to warn him of the bridge and its height. Before he gets to the bridge there is a second sign. When he gets to the bridge the height is actually mounted on the bridge. It was not a matter of him not knowing the height of the bridge. It was—and I find this frightening—that he did not know how high his vehicle was.
As I say, the result is a bashed bridge, a distorted track and a potentially fatal accident. We had one up in Aberdeen around 1975, but it has probably long since been forgotten. The Government are aware of the problem. British Rail and the Railways Inspectorate are aware of the problem. I was delighted to be told by the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, in answer to my Unstarred Question last January that the Government had totally taken on board the recommendations of the working party.
I should like to ask my noble friend who is to reply when we shall see action upon those recommendations.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, as usual I am made aware of the fact that it is my turn to speak because the television cameras have gone off and the lights have gone down. That always occurs in relation to a transport debate.
Before winding up on this debate I should like to draw attention to the fact that this is the last occasion on which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will be speaking from the Labour Party Front Bench as its transport spokesman. Those of us who have taken part in many transport debates over the years would, I am sure, not wish this moment to pass without offering our thanks to the noble Lord for the enormous help that he has given to your Lordships' House in those many long hours of discussion. He is always better informed than anybody else. He always prepares meticulously everything that he is going to say. He reaches parts of Bills that less assiduous people never reach and, consequently, reveals flaws that other people never find. He is unfailingly calm, courteous and constructive in his criticism. I salute him for the job that he has done.
In winding up, it is not easy to cover the wide range of subjects included in today's debate. I have some sympathy with the complaint of my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie concerning the structure of this kind of debate. The truth is that we could easily take a fortnight to debate the gracious Speech, dealing with each subject separately. However, compromises must be made.

173
I am pleased that the subjects of environment and transport have been taken together because they impact very strongly upon each other. In transport debates we do not always consider the impact of transport on the wider environmental picture. Indeed, I wish that the Government would take a more comprehensive view of the matter, because there is a need to study transport in relation to land use planning as well as the ecological impact of various means of transport, both public and private.
There is a massive range of issues on the agenda today. However, the worrying aspect is not the items contained in the gracious Speech but those that have been omitted from it. There may be very good political reasons for that fact, but I believe that it demonstrates the Government's refusal to tackle the fundamental and basic problems in the areas of environment and transport, and none more so than in the field of housing, about which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, went into some detail. I agree with what he stated. Homelessness is increasing, but where is the sign that the Government see the need to relax the restriction on local authority use of capital resources to build accommodation for rent? Where is there some recognition that private rented accommodation is not —and I believe will not—solving the housing problem? Where is there some retreat from the dogmatic proposition that the trickle-down system will assist the poor: that if one puts plenty of money into the top of society, it will trickle down and the people at the bottom will benefit? That theory was exploded a hundred years ago. It is not surprising that it is failing to work today.
We understand that the Government have come up with a method of solving homelessness. It relates very much to the way in which the Government have solved the problem of unemployment. In other words, they are going to redefine homelessness and tinker with the statistics. I hope that that rumour is not true, but I fear that it may be. That method will not put a single extra roof over a single homeless head.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, stated, the London Housing Association Council has produced a report showing that an extra 422,000 affordable homes will be required in the next five years. That is a horrendous figure. Where in the gracious Speech are the radical proposals for tackling that terrible problem? There are none that I can see. It may be that the light is dawning and that is why the Government have not produced a solution this year. It may be that they realise that their dogmatism is wearing a little thin and that free operation of market forces does not produce answers in every case. If that is the reason for the gaps in the gracious Speech, we must be grateful, but we fear that that is not the case.
Despite the excellent exposition by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, the transport proposals show an equal lack of coherence. At the moment our roads are overwhelmed by private vehicles and our public passenger transport system is in steep decline. There is no discernible strategy. When I put a question to a member of the Government Front Bench last year I
174
was told that of course the Government have a strategy for roads and that British Rail has a strategy for rail. It is that discontinuity which makes me feel that the Government have not understood the problem. The difficulty is contained in the opening words of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. He stated that it is important that ordinary people should have choice, and that that was the basis of the Government's policy-making. He also stated that the Government are not complacent about the vast increase in the use of private cars. Those statements do not hang together. If there is to be uncontrolled, unfettered choice of transport, then people will tend to use the private car if there is no restriction upon its use. The private car is very attractive. You can get into your car, if you have one, at your front door and go to your destination in one bound. It is much more difficult to do so with public transport. However, the environmental and social costs of doing so are something that society can no longer afford, and that is why the interface must be better managed.
One broadly welcomes the gracious Speech. I am sure that the noble Lord on the Labour Front Bench will be only too pleased to welcome the Horne Report, although it will take him some time to look through its many pages. I regret that it has been coupled with the Bill on private roads, which will undoubtedly be contentious. I am somewhat agnostic on the subject of private roads but I shall read the Bill very carefully to see what safeguards are built into it. There are clear dangers from an environmental point of view that private road builders may find themselves in a privileged position in relation to environmental problems and planning consents. There are other dangers such as one finds in France. The motorways there are delightful and one can go miles and miles without seeing a car. They are toll roads. They do not contribute much to the reduction of congestion in places like Lyons and the major centres of population in France, bearing in mind that France is a much bigger country than ours and has some very good secondary roads.
I do not take a position on the privatisation of trust ports. We do not have a dogmatic view but should like to study the matter.
The noble Lords, Lord Brougham and Vaux and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, stated that the road safety provisions would have wide support across the House, but the important point is that there should be enforcement of the regulations in relation to traffic safety, speeding and the laws which are widely broken at the moment.
The second Severn crossing is to be welcomed. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, the leader of the Labour Bench will be only too pleased to welcome extra transport going into South Wales, but I wonder whether it is the best investment and whether the electrification of the railway line to South Wales might not be a higher priority, as might the electrification of the line to the South West of England.
I refer to a somewhat parochial problem, and I am not ashamed to do so. There will be no freight terminals in the West Country beyond Bristol. Rather

175
than building new freight terminals in Plymouth, which are needed to try to bolster industry in Devon and Cornwall, there is a movement away from supporting freight traffic in the South West.
Noble Lords may be aware that British Rail is intending to scrap its Speedlink system into the South West. I received a letter by Mr. Tanner, chief executive of the Somerset County Council, from the South West Regional Planning Conference. It states:
"In view of our geography, communications through the length of the South West are of paramount economic importance. The availability of rail services is critical to the success of directing a structured distribution of future growth if a high quality environment is to be sustained. If Speedlink is withdrawn, many more heavy goods vehicles will help congest our major roads and use unsuitable minor roads".
I give an illustration. Taunton Cider at present uses Speedlink. It would be willing to pay more than it does at present if that would keep the link in existence. However, it has not been consulted on the subject. If Speedlink is taken away from that body it would put, in an average year, another 2,000 38-tonne vehicles on the roads around Somerset, in particular around Norton Fitzwarren which is congested already. That cannot be in the interests of the community as a whole.
I do not blame British Rail because its remit is to produce a return on investment. I blame the Government for not being able to take a broader view so that a decision is taken not just on the simple question of a return by British Rail but on the total cost benefit to the whole community. I use that as an illustration of the fact that there seems to be a discontinuity in the way that the Government approach such problems. There is no sign of electrification for the South West or of freight terminals further into the West Country,
What is absent from the gracious Speech is a greater concern for the environment. It is such absence, rather than the content of the Speech, to which I take exception. Much technical tinkering is no doubt necessary and welcome. However, there is no sign of policies to tackle fundamental problems of housing, local government, agriculture, transport and the environment or any understanding that there is an interaction between all those aspects. It is a non-programme from a Government that has merrily sailed up a creek from which they see no way out. Perhaps, the real explanation for the gaps in the Queen's Speech is that the crew are mutinying, and that the passengers have a total contempt for the captain and are anxious to get off before we all run aground.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, perhaps I may start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his kind remarks about my position. I have been spokesman on transport from this Dispatch Box for the past 10 years. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis will be taking on these responsibilities. However, I am pleased to say that so important is the question of transport for the economic life of the country and for the environment of people that I shall be acting as deputy to my noble friend on transport matters.
176
It is not my intention to deal with the question of public transport or general transport issues. Over the past 18 months we have had a number of major debates on various transport issues. It will be generally agreed by those who sat through those debates that there is widespread dissatisfaction with Britain's transport. Our debates showed that there was a general concern about transport infrastructure, inadequate levels of investment, and serious traffic congestion in many parts of the country, in particular in the London area.
The gracious Speech made it clear that there will be four transport Bills this Session. However, I share the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the one thing that is missing from the four transport Bills is specific proposals to deal with the co-ordination of transport development and integration of transport policies. Matters are being dealt with on a piecemeal basis. There is no worked out plan. The question may be asked: What does your party propose? I refer noble Lords to a 25-page printed document which has been widely circulated. It sets out the Labour Party's policy on transport matters.
In October the press carried reports from British Rail sources that BR had been forced to shelve some £1.5 billion of investments aimed at greatly improving two of the busiest rail lines. Since the Autumn Statement it has been said that the investment was less than that requested by BR and because of the serious uncertainty BR will not publish its annual corporate plan. Perhaps the noble Baroness who is to reply will indicate whether that is the position, and give the Government's comment about it.
On 8th November—the day after the gracious Speech—the Secretary of State commented that BR's investment, together with operating losses, will be financed from borrowings, grant and property sales. That would appear to confirm that the Government are creating the impression that they wholly fund that investment. But for the most part it is internally generated. A great deal is generated from fare levels above the inflation rate. It appears that it has been government policy to minimise the public service obligation subsidy to ensure that the transport users —as the main beneficial investors in public transport —should pay through higher fares. We understand that the PSO grant to BR is to be reduced from about £500 million to £345 million over the next three-year period; and that it remains the Government's intention completely to phase out its PSO grant to Network SouthEast by 1993. That surely will present severe problems for the provincial rail services, in particular those covering rural areas and to commuters in Network SouthEast.
Before proceeding further, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness who will reply to check one point. I raise the matter now; if she does not have the information perhaps she can obtain it. On 5th November the Guardian carried a report that the Government are considering selling off some local authority-owned airports, including Manchester, East Midlands and Birmingham. The report stated that the Department of Transport has confirmed that a

177
decision will be taken after a study by Ministers into the development of the 15 largest airports since they became local authority-controlled companies as a result of the 1986 legislation. I am sure that the House, and those outside the House, would like to know whether that is the position and what the Government propose to do.
In the very interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, if I heard correctly, he implied that there will be adequate funding, investments, or external financing, for BR to do all it wishes in connection with the fast rail link and the rail network generally in connection with the tunnel. Unless the Government have changed their view—which I hope they have—I gather that no public money will be available in connection with Channel developments or the fast link. We shall be interested to know whether the Government have changed their view; they too may be gratified.
It has also been reported that London Underground expects a loss of £120 million during the current financial year. It has been stated that all managers have been sent a list of emergency cuts which London Underground's managing director has admitted may lead to station closures and train cancellations. We understand that London Regional Transport has commented that next year's £650 million external finance limit is less than was requested. Is that correct and what effect will it have, despite the statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, in his opening speech?
We also understand that during the past few days a report has been published by the Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association, the Labour-controlled Association of London Authorities and the planning and advisory committee in London. It states that, if we are to solve the problems in London, there must be far greater investment in London Underground and British Rail than is proposed by the Government. There must be a heavy expenditure every year for the next 10 years. The Government may have received the report only recently but I wish to know whether we shall have a statement on the Government's response to it.
Furthermore, can the Minister say what finance is planned for expenditure on our road system? What effect will that have on the Government's proposed road programme? Will the proposal for new roads in the Bill that is to come before us have an effect on that road programme? Will those roads be additional to the programme or will they substitute for some of the proposals in the programme?
The environment White Paper also states:
"The Government will, where appropriate, encourage the provision and use of public transport".
We have not yet heard how the Government propose to implement that statement. What are their proposals?
I wish to refer to a report of a study carried out by the National Consumer Council. It states that the standard of deregulated bus services has deteriorated
178
sharply since deregulation began four years ago. That confirms that bus journeys have decreased by 16 per cent. in the areas of passenger transport executives and by 6 per cent. in the shire counties. It is not good enough for the Minister to refer to increased bus mileage; it is the number of passengers carried by buses which is important.
The NCC spokesman said that the report paints a sad picture. The report comments that schedules are being changed without notice, half the bus stops do not display a timetable and bus operators fail to co-operate with each other on timings and frequencies of journeys. Have the Government considered the report and, if so, what do they propose to do? I am doing my best to travel by public transport. However, I find that difficult, particularly when going home on the London Underground. Not only are three trains one after another going to the wrong place but they are so crowded that my doctor would not be impressed by my travelling on them. In addition I try to travel to my underground station by bus but I am always worried that the half hour service will be changed to an hourly service because a bus has been taken out of service. Those buses have been tendered out to another company by London Regional Transport.
We on this side of the House welcome the proposals in the Horne Report to replace the outdated Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, this is a big Bill and we received it only the other day. There are 156 clauses and 9 schedules and it is to receive its Second Reading shortly. I sympathise with the view that it is unfortunate that the Bill covers not only street works, on which there is a general consensus of opinion, but also new road projects with private sector finance—something about which there is bound to be a considerable amount of controversy.
Considerable consensus on street works legislation has been reached by the public utilities through their public utilities group and by the local highway authorities through their national association. The public utilities and highway authorities have worked closely to prepare for this legislation. They set up the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee, which, with six sub-committees, has agreed a package of measures including codes of practice. It is interesting to note that the public utilities and local authority briefings emphasise the consensus achieved: somehow we should maintain the balance during consideration of the Bill.
I note that a number of clauses deal with the charges that are to be made on utilities for the occupation of road space. The local authorities have said that they would like confirmation that the provision will be an enabling power to be used only if other provisions in the package appear not to be working. It would be helpful to have the Government's views on that matter before the Second Reading debate. It will also be helpful if the Government will say that they are prepared to insert

179
in the Bill provisions for highway authority direct labour organisations to tender for utility work. That was the position as regards the 1950 street works Act.
Parts I and II of the Bill relate to new roads to be provided through private sector finance. My party is not opposed to joint projects using public and private sector finance. For instance, we welcome collaboration on rapid transport systems. We also support the arrangements for the new Dartford bridge. However, provisions in the Bill will need the most careful consideration. The involvement of highway and planning authorities, and the public transport authorities where they exist, must be safeguarded. There must be a good degree of accountability to democratic bodies.
Is it not possible to comment firmly on the proposed Bill on road traffic and parking? We await details of the provisions but the intentions appear to be welcome. I am pleased that the Bill is to deal further with drinking and driving. The fact sheet issued recently by the department setting out the serious nature of the matter will be extremely helpful. I understand that the Bill will contain no provision for random breath testing. Although the idea of random breath testing was dismissed by the Association of Chief Police Officers, a survey shows that the public overwhelmingly support it. I hope that the matter will be further considered, with the provision that, if we proceed with random testing, the results will be properly recorded and monitored.
We debated in detail the North Report when discussing road users and the law in April last year. Many noble Lords made the point which was emphasised today by my noble friend Lord Stoddart that there is little value in having good laws if they are not properly enforced. We must consider that. I am not suggesting that we abolish the laws but we must do something about further enforcement of the good laws that we pass.
I understand that the Bill will include provisions for parking controls and traffic management in London. If that is so, why cannot such provision be available in other parts of the country? The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, referred to the position of a London traffic director who is to have particular responsibility for the red route network. We have not yet seen the Bill but it appears from reports that have been issued that the director will be a non-accountable individual who will work without any reference to consultation with elected authorities. Perhaps the noble Baroness will comment on that when she replies.
It is also stated that the Bill will give further parking responsibility to traffic wardens, including their deployment on red routes. What steps will be taken to ensure that that responsibility will not deplete the resources available for dealing with illegal parking on yellow lines elsewhere, outside the red routes?
It is also understood that the Bill proposes to transfer responsibility for permitted parking at meters or residents' bays to the boroughs in London. There is anxiety that that could lead to appointed council officers and traffic wardens both dealing with parking
180
enforcement in the same area or even in the same street. Why should not all parking enforcement be passed to the boroughs where they wish to take on that responsibility? Also, why should not similar powers be given in other parts of the country?
My very last point is on the question of trust ports. At this stage we have not yet seen the Bill, but in a debate in the other place the Minister explained that trust ports are not owned or run by a company, local authority or nationalised industry. He added that there are no shareholders. If that is the position, who will receive the proceeds of any sale? Are we to have a situation similar to that which existed with the TSB flotation?
7.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I begin by echoing the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, when he expressed his sadness that we were listening for the last time to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in his capacity as spokesman for transport on the Opposition Front Benches.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say that because I do not believe it. I believe that my noble friend will be back.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome that statement. I was referring to the noble Lord's official position. I am sure that we shall hear more from him.
I begin by saying how pleased I am by the welcome extended by a number of noble Lords to so much of our work on transport and the environment. In particular, I mention the welcome for many of our White Paper initiatives by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the welcome throughout the House for the transport Bills in the gracious Speech. I am grateful also for the welcome as regards the high level of transport investment. On coming to the Dispatch Box it is very pleasing to receive plaudits as well as brickbats. That is a welcome tradition in this House. Of course I shall address many of the brickbats in my speech.
My noble friend Lord Brabazon began the debate by describing the Government's action on transport and the way in which we are working to mitigate its environmental impact. I had intended to wind up this debate in similar terms. Alas, as the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Tordoff, found, the subject of the debate has been much broader. However, I consider the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to be appropriate. We could discuss the gracious Speech for many weeks and still not cover all topics.
First, I should like to say a few words about our Planning and Compensation Bill. I hope to reassure those who feel that we are not legislating sufficiently on environmental concerns. Although the planning system is well established, aspects of it require improvement. We need to ensure that it operates quickly and efficiently. Development proposals must be properly considered without causing unnecessary delay.

181
The Planning and Compensation Bill announced in the gracious Speech will address the main problems which have arisen in the operation of the planning system. It will simplify the provisions relating to the making and adoption of structure and local plans. It will provide for all district council areas to be covered by local plans, which will help to provide greater certainty as to what development is acceptable in particular areas.
The Bill will also strengthen the enforcement powers of local planning authorities and simplify enforcement procedures. That will help to ensure that unacceptable development is not permitted by default. The Bill will also introduce a number of changes designed to make the development and control of provisions operate more efficiently and fairly. Many of the changes have been foreshadowed in consultation papers issued by my department.
Finally, the Bill will make significant improvements to the provisions relating to compulsory purchase and compensation where, after proper consideration of all issues, private property must be taken for transport or other public development. The people involved must be properly recompensed.
I turn now to the individual points raised during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, compared our White Paper to a wet firework, albeit an attractive one. The White Paper has laid solid foundations for a better environment in this country. It is the first comprehensive statement of environmental policy by any government; for example, it has received general recognition from environmental groups on the quality of the policies. It is important not to underestimate the value of that. The Government will be rightly held to those commitments and above all to making the best instruments both in terms of regulation and the market. There are criticisms that the White Paper lacks firm action, but legislation is already flowing from it; for example, the planning legislation this Session. There will be more in European and international fora. The Environmental Protection Act gives us the power to enforce new standards. The Autumn Statement has given proof of the Government's commitment and has made available more funds for the heritage and countryside bodies for environmental work in agriculture and research in renewable energy. I was disappointed that there was not a single mention of heritage during the course of the debate.
The White Paper is the culmination of a year of positive action which saw new commitments on water quality and sea dumping, on which we have firm policies on the global climate and on the new Environmental Protection Act. The White Paper provides a firm framework for future action by government, by business and by individuals. The Government have shown their intention in setting up a new Cabinet committee and with the appointment of environmental ministers in every department.
I noted the cynical comments about the senior positions of those environmental ministers. Would noble Lords have been equally critical if the
182
Secretaries of State had not been represented or had those posts gone to very junior ministers of the Government?
We are committed to encouraging everyone to play their part. The White Paper is the first step and we are looking forward to taking forward measures with the close involvement of environmental groups. The importance of the White Paper is that consideration of the environmental impact of any activity should become second nature, not just for corporations, business, commerce and bureaucracies but for everybody, individuals included.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned his anxiety about the effect of transport on the environment and that there were no firm commitments on that in the White Paper. Again, the White Paper shows that we take it very seriously. My noble friend Lord Brabazon confirmed all of that in his opening speech. I have also read the Labour Party's strategy, An Earthly Chance, very closely and I believe that it is equally vague on many of those aspects.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and many other noble Lords were disappointed that there would be little further environmental protection legislation this Session. I should like to make three points. First, integrated pollution control is a major undertaking. It bears repeating that it is innovative legislation which will provide a model for action in the European Community. It will mean a significant cost for industry, but we are committed to a firm timetable for its implementation. It is quite clear that there were those who were very critical and scoffed almost at the minimal costs on industry. However, the kind of re-tooling and re-equipping which industry must undertake to conform with those regulations will be considerable.
Secondly, the Environmental Protection Act gives us the power to implement standards, including those from the European Community. In a number of areas we are supporting the development of EC directives which will be applicable in UK law. Those include directives on emissions from vehicles, on tropospheric ozone and on waste incineration. We are also taking the lead in international agreements to address other areas of anxiety. Those include our banding commitments under the Montreal Protocol to phase out the use and manufacture of ozone depleting substances. We have all the legislation we need to tackle the major environmental issues.
Thirdly, we should not forget that the environment is more than anxieties about pollution. I have already said that we are introducing significant legislation to improve the operation of the planning system. The planning system is a major feature in the way our environment is shaped. A more effective planning system means better use of land and a better natural and built environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, was concerned about catalytic converters or lower fuel consumption. There will soon be jointly agreed European directives making catalytic converters compulsory by the end of

183
1992. The Road Traffic Bill will help fuel efficiency through better enforcement of speed limits, and other legislation will help to free-up traffic movement.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to his paper, An Earthly Chance. I was somewhat puzzled by his attempt to compare the White Paper unfavourably with his own party's pamphlet. I looked very hard indeed for more positive comment on action and was disappointed.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to his desire for an environmental protection agency. Again, we have talked for many hours in this Chamber about that particular issue. To introduce an agency now, having only just put the Environmental Protection Bill on the statute book, would be precipitate. Those who read the White Paper will appreciate that we have not ruled out the possibility of one day moving and evolving towards the need for an environmental protection agency.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and a number of other noble Lords were concerned about global warming. We are clearly committed to a freeze by the year 2005 as part of the international efforts. There is no fixed consensus in Europe on the year 2000. It is important, first, to obtain a freeze worldwide, as we began at the recent second world climate conference where we were in the vanguard. Reference was made to the Germans and the Dutch. Their targets are still aspirational; there is no sign of full measures yet.
I was surprised by a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. He referred to specific targets which were rather better than the UK targets. He admitted that whether they will achieve them is another matter, they are targets. The United Kingdom is not in the business of providing purely aspirational targets. We want targets that are achievable and that will be delivered.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me. Can she say why at the Geneva conference last week the British Government refused to agree with the rest of the EC members to make the year 2000 the objective for freezing, and to promise that there would be cuts—not just freezing —by the year 2005? Would it not be part of the Government's attempt to put their rhetoric into practice if they agreed on those target dates with the rest of the European Community?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I specifically addressed that point. I would only add that it is not rhetoric. This Government made a firm target and will deliver that target. We are comparing a real target that is achievable with aspirational targets which have no backing.
Another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is the extra £4 million mentioned in the Autumn Statement for research on renewables. The White Paper contained eight full pages on market instruments concerning the work of Professor Pearce. There is no country which actually has a carbon tax. We believe that 2005 is the soundest target for our circumstances. Major dislocation and the costs to
184
industry must not be underestimated. I believe they were seriously underestimated by a number of noble Lords in the course of the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned the European Community and the environment. Again, there is strong support in the White Paper, and we fully support a new European environmental agency. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said that we need to hand on a better environment to our young people, and was also concerned about the phasing out of CFCs. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that we need to ensure that we bequeath a quality environment to future generations. That is the keystone of the White Paper. I hope that during the coming year the noble Baroness will be surprised by the amount achieved using existing powers to address the various points she raised, including achievement of CFC controls.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, was concerned with preserving the countryside. I was pleased by the welcome that the noble Baroness gave to many of the White Paper policies. I hope that she will be pleased to see the increase in environmental schemes proposed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food included in the Autumn Statement; an extra £26 million on improving hill livestock compensation; the extension of the beef and sheep extensification scheme to a national scheme; around £6 million to be spent over the next three years, and a new pilot scheme to encourage the switch to organic farming.
The noble Lords, Lord Hatch and Lord Mackie of Benshie, were concerned about overseas aid. There is a programme of £50 million on energy efficiency in industry and forestry; £160 million to be spent on 150 schemes world-wide to deal with population growth; £17.3 million to be spent on planned parenthood and, in July 1990, there was the international agreement on debt-for-nature swaps. A considerable amount is taking place, although there will be noble Lords who will disagree regarding the degree to which it is occurring.
The noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Hatch, and others mentioned energy efficiency and the labelling scheme. Both referred to the Government's opposition to energy labelling in the European Community. I suspect that that was based on an article in yesterday's Observer. The article was misleading. The United Kingdom will continue to press—I emphasise "will continue"—and is pressing for an agreed labelling scheme. There are no Commission proposals; and it is because there are no Commission proposals that we intend and suggested that what we do is at least to award labelling to those appliances which meet the set standards. That is hardly a backward step. We are on record as a Government as saying that if an eco-labelling scheme is not agreed, then the Government will press for a UK scheme.
The Energy Efficiency Office's funding for core activities increased. In addition to the transfer of funding for insulation schemes, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, referred, a total of £42 million has been provided in the budget for next year.

185
My noble friend Lord Nugent made a very important point regarding traffic management. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, I am aware of the Cambridge county scheme. I understand the enthusiasm of my noble friend for any scheme that furthers the interest of traffic management. However, the noble Baroness illustrated perfectly in this Chamber the difficulties faced by local authorities, or indeed those at any level of government, who are grappling with very real problems. We must watch Cambridge with interest, and I shall be doing so very closely indeed.
My noble friend also expressed concern and disappointment regarding the closure of engineering courses, in particular at Birmingham University. We are sorry that such a course should close. But I am also able to say that the Department of Transport is actively recruiting civil engineer graduates. Last year it reinstituted an in-house training scheme so that recruits could reach chartered status.
Concern was also expressed regarding fiscal policy. Fiscal policy is not a matter for this debate, nor for this Chamber. It is very much a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and for Budget time. However, there has been a switch of policy from vehicle excise duty to petrol, which will have the effect of inducing people to think carefully about the journeys that they make.
My noble friend Lord Brabazon mentioned many other measures; for example, extending the MoT test to cover emissions and measures to enforce speed limits.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is concerned about the extra fares collected on the Underground following the introduction of automatic ticket barriers. A recent survey by London Underground shows that the introduction of automatic ticket barriers in central London has reduced fraud losses from 6 per cent. to 4 per cent. and saved the Underground an amazing £11 million in one full year.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, were concerned about enforcement, particularly in regard to speeding. Again, I have to emphasise that my noble friend Lord Brabazon referred to the introduction of technology as well as manpower. The important point is that measures need to be introduced to increase and to reinforce the enforcement of the law. It may not be the most popular thing to say, but we also intend to enhance the powers available to traffic wardens, who will be able to authorise wheel clamping and the removal of vehicles. They will also be able to impose endorsable fixed penalties on stationary vehicles. I am not sure that all noble Lords will welcome that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, raised a number of matters —rural public transport, public transport and the disabled, road pricing and car sharing. As regards the development of a thriving and competitive bus industry, organised to meet customers' needs, we believe that bus deregulation has led to an increase in bus mileage of about 18 per cent.
186
across the country. That in itself has increased choice. Eighty-four per cent. of the vehicles are run by operators on a commercial basis. For example, the introduction in many rural areas of minibuses—which represent 11 per cent. of all public service vehicles—is also helping to provide fast and efficient services where bigger buses are often not able to travel.
New public service vehicles designed with the disabled in mind are improving as new stock is replaced. Again, there is the difficulty of existing rolling stock not being converted, but it is an important point of which we have taken notice.
It may be necessary eventually to consider road pricing but it has not been tried in any major cities. We have just mentioned one brave and courageous scheme which may or may not get off the ground. We shall have to watch this space.
The Government welcome car-sharing schemes. In the early 1980s we took action to remove legal obstacles to such schemes. My noble friend mentioned the American experience. I have to say, somewhat cynically, that I found during my only visit to America that the traffic in Washington at peak hours was unbelievable. However, America has the luxury of space and is able to afford whole lanes that are devoted to full-occupancy car travelling. It is a marvellous idea but I suspect that space is a particular problem in this country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is concerned about low-cost housing for rural areas. She referred to the urgent need for such housing, and the Government recognise that need. For example, last year we issued planning guidance which encourages release for low-cost housing of small sites which would not ordinarily be released for housing. That initiative was widely welcomed. The message will shortly be consolidated and extended in a new policy planning guidance note which will go out to local authorities. The Government are also making resources available for an increased rural housing programme. Last week's Autumn Statement indicated that the Housing Corporation provision for gross capital expenditure will rise to over £22 billion in 1993–94. That represents an increase of £250 million on the previous figure for 1992–93 and a doubling of expenditure compared with last year.
There will also be a new rural allocation of £50 million in 1991–92 to enable local authorities to support housing association schemes for low-cost housing in rural areas. That is on top of existing commitments. There will be further negotiations with the Housing Corporation over the target level of provision to be achieved by this programme in terms of numbers of houses. I believe that shows that the Government take very seriously indeed the subject of low-cost housing in rural areas.
Finally, in her very interesting speech the noble Baroness referred to local authority general powers. It is a general presumption of English law that when Parliament sets up a public authority it also determines the extent of the authority's powers. The presumption also applies to local authorities, which

187
are therefore limited to discharging the functions Parliament has given them. Where appropriate, those functions are given in very wide terms. For example, the Local Government and Housing Act of last year gave local authorities power to take such steps as they consider desirable to promote their local economy, subject only to certain limitations set out in regulations. There seems to be no need to recast the powers of local authorities in a form that is alien to the English system by giving them some general, unlimited power.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the planning Bill and the tendency to centralise. His claim that the Bill is a centralising measure is not supported by the examples that he gave. The Bill will strengthen the powers of local authorities in important respects. For example, we shall be honouring our White Paper commitment to allow county councils to adopt their own structure plans instead of having to submit them for the Secretary of State's approval. That is the opposite of a centralising measure. I agree with the noble Lord that we should await publication of the Bill before we discuss the proposals in detail.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, certainly put me on notice that the question of common land would be raised. I knew in almost the dying phrases of the gracious Speech that the matter would be debated today. Comprehensive legislation on common land has been delayed while extensive efforts have been made to reach agreement on the central issues of the management of, and access to, common land. We are disappointed that it has not been possible to achieve that but we believe that it would not be sensible to legislate without some further resolution of these issues. The Government are committed to improving public access to the countryside, but for common land that can only be achieved in the context of better management arrangements which take full account of the proper interests of owners and commoners, and also other important factors.
We are satisfied that the policy set out in the statement which we issued in July will meet the legitimate interests of all concerned. We are reviewing the posit ion in the light of reaction received and will be consulting widely in seeking a resolution. However, I can say that the aim of our policy is to safeguard the status of common land and to strengthen the ways in which we protect and use it.
I welcome the support from my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux for the measures proposed in the transport Bills. I hope he will take part in our debates. I welcome the comments of my noble friend Lord Lyell. I got quite excited because I thought we were going to talk about trains again. My noble friend was very supportive and what he said underlined the achievements of the Government's policies towards the railways and in encouraging greater efficiency.
I believe I have covered most of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, in regard to housing. I put two rhetorical questions to him. Is he saying that he is against the rents for mortgages scheme; or, as I picked up during the debate, is he arguing that the scheme needs even further extension?
188
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, surprised me beyond measure in saying that no local government would increase the yield from business beyond the rate of inflation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the Government having levied the rate of inflation of 10.9 per cent. on the business community. I believe she said that would yield an extra £2 billion.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to explain. I said that the percentage increase in poundage was 10.9 per cent. but that that would generate a 20 per cent. increase in yield from £10.4 billion to £12.4 billion in one year. That is a burden about which local industry and commerce is complaining and which no local authority sensitive to its business community at these times of high interest rates would seek to raise—that is, a 20 per cent. increase in yield.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the figures given by the noble Baroness are wrong. There has been no further revaluation of business and therefore the poundage will yield the same amount. The only element of difference will be the number of new businesses, which will be netted off by any businesses that go out of the system. The record books are positively littered with local authorities, including the local authority of the noble Baroness, that have taken very much more from businesses than the level of inflation. The best example that I can bring to mind immediately is that of my own local authority. In one year it levied a 33 per cent. rate increase on local business which took the business yield from £40 million to £60 million overnight. Under the present arrangements that the Government have put on the statute book that can never happen.
I now turn to the average increases on spending assessments this year for the classes of authorities. For shire districts, the SSAs have increased on average by 28.2 per cent.; shire counties by 18.3 per cent.; metropolitan areas by 18.4 per cent.; and London by 19.7 per cent. The noble Baroness was arguing about the way in which local authorities spent over their SSAs last year and asked us to take that into account. Budgets were taken into account. Those are increases which by anyone's standards are very generous.
The issue that virtually all should contribute something to their local authority finances was also raised by the noble Baroness. That is a philosophical difference between the noble Baroness and the Government. The Government believe that everybody should pay. The poorest in the land are given the wherewithal to meet the 20 per cent. contribution. The uniform business rate and revaluation will give a yield of £870 million a year. That will shift the burden from the South to the North, but it has not increased the burden overall in real terms. As I said earlier, next year's poundage has risen with the rate of inflation. Defending against excess spending, with the introduction of capping and all the safety nets and interregnum arrangements in place, is the right of government.
I now turn to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Mountevans. I welcome what he said

189
about the measures to come before the House later this year. Knocking British Rail is an easy sport and it is very often an armchair one. Nothing is perfect and we all know that there is more to do. There is a discernible improvement in what British Rail is doing. The investment is colossal. It is the greatest ever. During the next three years over £4 billion will be spent. That is the highest expenditure on British Rail for 30 years. Rolling stock is being replaced. There is a discernible improvement at many of our stations.
I had not heard of bridge bashing until today's debate. Ministers are deeply concerned about it. I understand that a working party has already produced a series of recommendations. The implementation of those measures is already in hand. They include simple measures such as putting a note of a lorry's height in the driver's cab.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was concerned about the cancellation of SpeedLink. I understand the anxiety about the possible environmental and economic implications of a reduction in railfreight services. It is worth noting that SpeedLink accounts for only 0.1 per cent. of UK freight tonnage. In general, the environmental effects of any changes that British Rail proposes should be very limited, especially if it can retain much of the traffic. One hopes that people will consider converting to the trainload or the inter-modal operation.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was also concerned about the interaction between land use planning and transport. The Government recognise the close relationship between land use patterns and travel demands. The White Paper has made it clear that we shall be carrying out a study to establish how travel demand might be reduced through planning policies. The intention would be to produce general guidance which will inform individual planning decisions and local and strategic plans.
I lost count of the number of specific questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I hope he will forgive me if I say that there is to be a Second Reading speech very soon. My noble friend will then deal with many of the questions that he posed. If we both miss some out we shall certainly write to him.
The expenditure on toll roads will be additional expenditure to the roads programme. The noble Lord also referred to airports. The recent press reports are speculative.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, was concerned about the water authorities' land. The Water Act includes provisions under which the Secretary of State's consent is required for the disposal of land which is surplus to operational requirements. I obviously cannot comment on any specific piece of land. We have noted the noble Lord's comments. The Secretary of State will have to consider the matter when it comes before him.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, my point was not disposing of the land but bringing redevelopment to what is now very attractive land used as a public amenity. That was the point I was making.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe the matter has to come before the Secretary of State. He will consider it.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, drew attention to two related problems about homelessness, including the problems of those living rough on our streets. It was a pity that, rather than drawing on one selected press notice in the name of my colleague, the Minister of State for Housing, the noble Lord failed to give credit for the large sums added to public expenditure for the next three years to meet some of the problems that he mentioned. In addition, he did not have the advantage of knowing about today's statement made by the Minister of more housing and estate action. The general message is that resources are to be better targeted on the needy. I believe that I gave many of the specific statistics to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman.
The Government fully recognise the importance of a good environment and good transport. We are committed to both. In transport we want to encourage high quality and efficiency which will provide an attractive alternative to the use of the car. Investment in public transport is already at a very high level. It is now set to go substantially higher. We wish to relieve traffic congestion because stop-start traffic is highly polluting as well as economically wasteful. The Government are tackling this through building bypasses, improving traffic management systems, including our plans for red routes, and through our proposals for the reform of utility streetworks. We are reducing vehicle emissions through both regulatory and fiscal means. We are seeking to encourage economy in the use of fuel, for which there is considerable potential.
With the environment we are at the close of a year of immense activity and achievement. That included the carrying through of the Water Act, the setting up of the NRA, £28 billion of investment to clean our waters, worldwide action on the ozone layer and global warming, the innovative Environmental Protection Act, introducing IPC and giving a lead to Europe. The environment White Paper has been the clearest ever commitment by any government to environmental action. In both environment and transport our record is stronger than that of any other government. I very much look forward to detailed and continuing debate on these issues. We shall welcome all these Bills in this Session of Parliament.
Viscount Long: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(Viscount Long.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.

Standard Life Assurance Company Bill [H.L.]
Presented; read a first time; read a second time pro forma, and reported from the Committees.
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 5) Bill [H.L.]
Presented; read a first time; read a second time pro forma, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Australia and Menley & James, Australia Bill [H.L.]
Presented; read a first time; passed through all remaining stages pro forma, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  BATTERSEA POWER STATION
  BATTERSEA POWER STATION