Sitting of 15 October 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  WRIT ISSUED DURING THE ADJOURNMENT
  MR. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had issued, during the Adjournment, a warrant for a new writ for the borough constituency of Eastbourne in the room of Ian Reginald Edward Gow, Esq, deceased.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Social Fund
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of income support claimants aged under 60 years are repaying social fund loans by deductions from their benefit payments.
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of income support claimants aged under 60 years are repaying social fund loans by deductions from their benefit payments.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): At the end of August this year 384,207 social fund loans were being recovered from income support recipients aged under 60, representing 13·3 per cent. of income support recipients in that age group.
    Mr. Wareing: Now that the Government have succeeded in their objective of further impoverishing the poor, is not it time that they began to listen to their Social Security Advisory Committee which, in its seventh report, said that in no way was the social fund curing or assisting in alleviating poverty for the very poorest people? Will the Minister give an assurance that he will immediately implement the recommendation that loans for capital items should not have to be repaid, and that he will take steps to ensure that loans that are provided are repaid at a level at which poor people are not driven to go to commercial moneylenders?
    Mr. Scott: I would accept neither that there has been an increase in poverty in this country in the past 10 years, nor that the social fund is not doing an important and sensitive job in meeting need where it needs to be met. Some 2·4 million loans are now being given at a cost of about £334 million and half a million grants at a cost of £131 million. They have been targeted on those who need help most.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that persons who applied for capital allocations under the single payment scheme year after year are not doing exactly the same for the same items
    908
    under the present system? Does he recall an occasion when one of my constituents applied for over £600-worth of capital items, which she got, and the following year applied for identical items, which she did not get? What happens now? Can people now get loans for the same items, and is a careful record kept?
    Mr. Scott: We keep careful records on each claimant's patterns of applications for loans. After a year, there might be a renewed need for a particular item, but we seek to counter abuse as actively as possible.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the Minister of State aware that people come to my surgery who have been denied a social fund loan, not on the basis that they have no need, but because the Department's calculation is that they could not repay it. The need does not disappear. Those people then have to go to private moneylenders, where the minimum rate at the moment is 75 per cent. How can the right hon. Gentleman justify that?
    Mr. Scott: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman has a number of constituents in that position, as about 1·6 per cent. of cases are turned down on the basis that the claimant is unable to repay the loan. In those circumstances, it would be wrong for us to give a loan to the applicant. Alternative sources of funds are suggested to those claimants and they are offered advice on how to manage their affairs.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Has the Minister had time to study the case that I sent to the Secretary of State, about a young lady in Southend-on-Sea who applied for a social fund loan because she was allocated a council house in place of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and was told that that could not be regarded as a priority within the limited budget? When I pointed out that the young lady had just come out of prison, she was given the grant because apparently that is a priority under the guidance given by the Department. While the Secretary of State is considering that case, will the Minister try to ease bureaucracy in the DSS by putting up a notice in every department saying, "If you have been to prison please advise the staff, because that could be to your financial advantage"?
    Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on the particular case that is being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The guidance that is issued by my right hon. Friend is supplemented by guidance on local needs that may exist in a particular area, but the final decision is made by independent social fund officers who can use their discretion and take account of that guidance as they see fit.
    Mr. Meacher: How can a person on income support be expected to get by with deductions on social fund repayments when Matthew Parris, a former Tory Member of Parliament, could not get by for one week on income support, even without social fund repayments? Is not it impossibly difficult for the nearly 500,000 poorest families on social fund deductions, not only to repay their social fund loan, but to pay any housing, electricity, gas and water charge arrears and now also poll tax deductions? Have the Government reached the ultimate absurdity of denying loans to the poorest families who need them most because those families are too poor to repay?
    Mr. Scott: If I may say so without referring back to the alleged experience of our previous colleague, 2·4 million loans have been made at a cost of £334 million. It seems better that that money should go interest free to people who need it than that people should be led into the hands of loan sharks, as was mentioned earlier in this exchange.

    Attendance Allowance
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disabled people in Bradford have had attendance allowance suspended, pending review, over the past year; and how many have had (a) the decision to suspend upheld and (b) their review application upheld and arrears paid.
    Mr. Scott: Attendance allowance is suspended pending a review only if there is reason to suspect that the claimant no longer satisfies the conditions for the benefit. Statistics are not kept on the number of those suspensions, though their numbers are likely to be very small.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Minister accept that it is distressing and worrying for any benefit recipient to have benefit suspended and income cut? Will he give an assurance that his Department is not targeting disabled people in Bradford or elsewhere, because there certainly are suspicions that a cost-cutting exercise is under way and that disabled people are being made the victims of it in an unnecessary and unacceptable way?
    Mr. Scott: That happens rarely, so rarely that we do not collect the statistics. Benefit would be suspended if a claimant returned his order book, if there were a change in his care needs or if a person were in hospital for longer than four weeks or in prison, and therefore was not in need of attendance allowance. Those are the circumstances in which suspension might be considered.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of recipients of attendance allowance and other disability benefits has increased dramatically under this Government in the past 10 years? Can he tell the House what arrangements he proposes to include in the social security Bill in the next Session to ensure that those who apply for benefits have their applications dealt with smoothly and that we reduce the number of appeals?
    Mr. Scott: We shall certainly improve the administration of the new disability allowance, which will subsume the present attendance allowance, and the methods of assessment, with reduced reliance on medical evidence. We shall also substantially lower the benchmark that people need to qualify for the new benefit.
    Mr. Cryer: How can the Minister claim that the incidence of attendance allowances being suspended pending a review is sparse when there are no statistics to demonstrate the case one way or the other? Does he accept that there are far too many cases and that it would be fairer if the benefits were continued pending any review that the Department seeks to invoke? People feel harshly treated and must often make great sacrifices and endure hardship as a result of those reviews, most of which result in the back payments being made.
    Mr. Scott: Obviously, we take account of the experiences of our local offices in deciding whether there is
    910
    a problem in any benefit area. If there appears to be a problem, we move swiftly to tackle it. There is no evidence of such a problem in this instance.

    Personal Pensions
    Mr. Donald Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the numbers who have taken out personal pensions.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): A total of 4·1 million people have so far taken out a personal pension.
    Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for that satisfactory answer. Will she comment on the Labour party's policy? Having frightened pensioners—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a bad habit. In this Session can we stick to the Government's policies at Question Time?
    Mr. Thompson: I am sure that it will not be the Government's policy to frighten potential pensioners as it is the policy of the Labour party.
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is right. The Government's policy is to encourage choice in pensions so that people can remain in SERPS, take out a personal pension or belong to an occupational pension scheme. It would not be the Government's intention to
    "turn the pensions market on its head."
    Mr. Frank Field: As the Government do not believe in bucking the market, will the Minister tell the House why she feels that the proposals need to be subsidised from the national insurance fund? Will she tell the House to what extent the national insurance fund has been raided in an attempt to make the scheme a success?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government of which he was a member also introduced incentives for changes in social security policy. He will also know that the major cost of personal pensions is not the 2 per cent. incentive but the cost of rebates, as it would be for occupational pensions. The incentive represents less than 2 per cent. of the total income of the national insurance fund.
    Mr. Butler: If contracting out of the state system has proved so popular, does my hon. Friend have any plans to extend the principle?
    Mrs. Shephard: I have already said that the Government are in favour of choice in pensions policy and no doubt we shall be looking for ways to extend the principle of choice.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister treat us to a rare moment of honesty on this matter—
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a little harsh. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that phrase?
    Mr. Flynn: I shall withdraw it. I did say "rare". I was not suggesting that the Minister is constantly dishonest.
    Will the Minister admit that this has nothing to do with choice? The Government are trying to shuffle off their responsibility to 4·1 million people, who will find when their pensions are paid, as independent sources have

    911
    shown, that at least 1 million of them have been badly advised and bribed out of a good scheme that has been running for a long time. Will the Government give us an undertaking that all those who have been misled out of the pension scheme will be told when it is in their best interest financially to return to the national insurance scheme?
    Mrs. Shephard: The matter was fully rehearsed during the passage of the Social Security Bill this year, so the hon. Gentleman will know that all those marketing personal pensions must belong to the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation or the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation and have to observe a code of conduct about the best advice that has to be given to the customer. The hon. Gentleman and his party do not like the success of the extension of choice.

    Family Credit
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are now in receipt of family credit.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The number of families receiving family credit has risen in each month during 1990. The latest available information is for the end of July, by which stage the caseload had reached 323,000. That is the highest ever level since the scheme began.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Is it correct that the Government are carrying out a successful campaign to publicise family credit and does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's commitment to the family is well demonstrated by the fact that this year nearly £5,500 million is being paid in social security benefits to low-income families? Is it true that when the Labour party was in power, it cut benefits to families?
    Mrs. Shephard: Family credit certainly represents an important part of the Government's policy for the family. Interestingly, on average the amounts payable in family credit come to £30 a week but over 15 per cent. of family credit recipients receive £50 or more. The advertising campaign increased not only applications but the level of awareness of that worthwhile benefit.
    Mr. Pike: Is the Minister concerned about people who take part-time work and thereby become ineligible for family credit, who would be better off being out of work and claiming benefit and income support? Is not it time that the Government did something to help them?
    Mrs. Shephard: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the cases of certain ancillary workers, of which I am aware. The chief adjudication officer has issued further guidance for those cases and we are considering its effects carefully. It was clearly never our intention that families should find themselves unable to get income support or family credit.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that every family who is receiving family credit is also receiving child allowance? Will she confirm that income support, whether it be family credit, supplementary benefit or other systems, has always taken the child allowance into account? Does she agree that instead of referring to child benefit, we should refer to child allowance, so that we can agree with our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who
    912
    said on 17 March 1981 that the tax and benefits system should always take account of people who have children and that it is a matter not of income support but of child allowance?
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, which was as interesting as one has come to expect from him. All families with children receive child benefit for each child. As for the name of the benefit, I quite like child benefit.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of income support claimants aged under 60 years are repaying social fund loans by deductions from their benefit payments.
    Mr. Scott: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing).
    Mr. Michael: May I refer the Minister to his reply and ask that he listens to his own words? Does he agree that it is outrageous for a Minister to admit that there are people who are getting such a low income from the Government that they cannot afford to repay a loan and that therefore the Government refuse them a loan? Is not it outrageous for him to say that they will get not help but only advice from the Government? Is not he aware that he is talking about the poorest people of our society who want help, not advice from him and his Department?
    Mr. Scott: As I said—perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear my reply—only a tiny percentage of people are refused help on the basis that they are unable to repay a loan. Some people may be refused loans but be given a community care grant instead.
    Mr. McAllion: It has been alleged that the Department is about to issue instructions to the officers who administer the social fund that they must keep within budget next year on pain of disciplinary action. Will the Minister take this opportunity to deny any such possibility being considered by the Department, and does he agree that the only condition that should be applied to social fund applications is whether the applicant needs help from the social fund?
    Mr. Scott: It is the duty of local office managers so to manage their budgets that they stay within them over the year. Last year, we gave extra help to local offices that were under stress, which showed the continuing flexibility of the social fund.

    Maintenance
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on his proposals to ensure that fathers pay maintenance.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I have received correspondence on this subject from one of the major lone-parent organisations, members of the public and other interested parties. We shall shortly publish full details of our proposals in a White Paper.
    Mr. Favell: Any plans that my right hon. Friend has to ensure that fathers recognise their duties to children, whom they helped bring into the word, will be most

    913
    welcome. Does he have any plans to point out to single mothers—mothers who have never been married—the enormous pressures that will be put on them by having children while they are unmarried? Any Member of Parliament hears from teachers, pressure groups, social workers and so on how enormously difficult it is for single mothers.
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's very helpful suggestions range rather wider than my specific remit for social security, but, indeed, our policies on child maintenance range beyond social security. I am concerned that we should have a clear-cut, more workable system to ensure that where maintenance can properly be expected it is paid. That is in the interests of lone parents, whatever the cause of the lone parenthood, and, above all, in the interests of children.
    Ms. Abbott: Is the Minister aware that there is widespread support for the idea that fathers should take responsibility for their families but that there is also widespread fear that the proposals represent a backdoor way of cutting maintenance for single mothers? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no single mother will be worse off as a result of the proposals and of whatever legislation may arise from them than she would otherwise have been?
    Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Lady referred to cutting maintenance. Clearly, the aim of the proposals as a whole is to increase the amount of maintenance that is paid. But perhaps the hon. Lady simply made a verbal slip.
    I cannot attempt today to anticipate all the details of the White Paper that we shall publish, but our aim is to improve the position of lone parents and, not least, to provide them with a better platform on the basis of which they can work if they wish.
    Mrs. Roe: Can my right hon. Friend provide the House with figures to show the proportion of absent parents who are currently providing maintenance?
    Mr. Newton: Yes. I can do that in round figures. Maintenance is paid in about one third of all the cases in which it might be expected. For lone parents on income support, maintenance is paid in slightly less than a quarter of cases. Both figures are too low and one of our aims will be to increase them.
    Ms. Short: Everyone is in favour of fathers maintaining their children. Is the Secretary of State interested only in saving the Treasury money or does he agree with the Labour party that lone parents and their children should be helped to escape from a life of poverty and given a chance to be independent and therefore better off?
    We all know that, under the present Government, increasing numbers of lone parents have been forced to live on benefits—by cuts in child benefit and by the removal of the right to claim the costs of child care when working part time. We need encouragement to fathers to pay maintenance, but surely we also need an increase in child benefit and a chance for lone parents to have access to child care and training so that they can escape from poverty and so that they and their children may be better off.
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady may be mildly surprised to hear me say that somewhere, buried in her question, was a general proposition—about seeking to encourage
    914
    independence and the like—with which I would certainly agree, although I accept that there may turn out to be detailed differences of opinion between the hon. Lady and me about precisely how those objectives are to be achieved. I hope that I shall carry her with me on this, however: the Government have already taken a number of steps to improve the working of the system, even within the existing arrangements—including, most notably, a substantial increase in the earnings disregard for lone parents in respect of housing benefit, which has taken place this very month.
    Mr. Burns: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any proposals that come before the House will take a considerable time to be implemented because of the pressure of parliamentary business? In the meantime, my constituents and those of other hon. Members will suffer severely because their ex-husbands refuse to pay them maintenance and can use delaying tactics in the court—for example, in the provision of the relevant and necessary proof of earnings and so on—and so evade giving any funding for their former families. Is there anything that my right hon. Friend and his Department can do in the meantime to help those ladies who are in genuine financial difficulties as a result of that practice?
    Mr. Newton: I do not think that we can solve these problems entirely without the proposals that we shall be bringing forward, which will obviously take a little time. But there are things that we can do and, indeed, that we are doing. The Social Security Act 1990, which was passed during the summer and of which the relevant provisions are just coming into effect, gives us power to transfer DSS maintenance orders to a claimant who is going off income support and gives the DSS power to enforce a claimant's own maintenance order if that would be helpful. Both those provisions are directed at solving precisely the problems to which my hon. Friend referred.

    Carers
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he will take to investigate the problems of full-time carers.
    Mr. Newton: A report based on research commissioned by the Department into the effectiveness of invalid care allowance as an income-maintenance benefit is expected to be published in the next few months. Our concern to improve the support available to carers, is reflected in a range of Government policies, including the extension of invalid care allowance to married women and the introduction earlier this month of a carers premium in the income-related benefits.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister recognise that without the help of about 1 million full-time carers, the hospitals and social services systems in this country would have collapsed long ago and that, for the most part, all that work goes unrewarded and unrecognised? Does he also recognise that the invalid care allowance is a very limited contribution and the extension to married women was wrung out of the Government by the European Court? Will the Minister now make the extension of a care allowance system to all carers an absolute priority? As a basic minimum, will he offer all full-time carers national

    915
    insurance credits so that they are not disadvantaged for pensions and unemployment benefit when their period of full-time caring ceases?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman may seek to minimise what has been done, but when this Government took office, the number of people receiving invalid care allowance was less than 10,000. It is now well over 100,000 and that is making a substantial contribution. That, together with the other improvements that we have made, including the increased earnings disregard for those on invalid care allowance, which was introduced last April, and the carers premium, which is being introduced this month, show our real concern to help those about whom the hon. Gentleman is also rightly concerned.
    Mr. Conway: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House about the change of provision for those requiring full-time care who are suffering from terminal diseases such as cancer? Will he also pay credit to organisations like the Macmillan nurses, which enable those suffferers to have dignity in their own homes at that stressful time and which very much welcome the changes the Department is making to ensure that help arrives in time and is worth while?
    Mr. Newton: I should very much like to join in that tribute and I met a Macmillan nurse in my constituency on Saturday. The contribution made to the support of carers, which goes well beyond the social security system, is an important and encouraging feature of what is happening in our health and social services.
    With regard to my hon. Friend's first point, I am delighted that we have been able to extend attendance allowance, without the old time limit, to the terminally ill. My hon. Friend might like to know that we expect 6,000 successful awards of invalid care allowance—in other words, a further increase in recipients of that benefit—to follow the extension of attendance allowance.
    Dr. Godman: Will the Minister assure the House that he will do his level best to ensure that applications for that allowance are assessed as quickly as possible? At my surgeries I have found that informal carers have had to wait far too long for the assessment of their applications. Will the Minister look again at the too-harsh criteria by which such applications are assessed by his officials?
    Mr. Newton: I am always looking for ways to improve that and other parts of the social security system. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can give him an unequivocal yes. There is no doubt that delays in processing ICA, partly because of the rapid expansion of the benefit, became longer than we wished and we will continue to do everything possible to reduce them.

    National Insurance
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the number of standard rate taxpayers who would be affected by the abolition of the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions.
    Mr. Newton: If the upper earnings limit for employees' national insurance contributions were removed, about 3·3
    916
    million people would pay more contributions, of whom about 2·1 million would be standard rate taxpayers and about another 500,000 self-employed people, of whom about 200,000 would be standard rate taxpayers, would pay more contributions if the upper profits limit were also removed.
    Mr. Nicholson: I am grateful for that valuable information, which my hon. Friends and I will certainly wish to use in the coming months. Does my right hon. Friend recall a previous occasion when rash and extravagant promises were made to sections of the electorate as bribes by the Labour party and then, once the Labour party had obtained power, those electors paid for those promises in higher inflation and taxation? Does my right hon. Friend believe that the British people will be taken in yet again?
    Mr. Newton: I certainly do not believe that the British people will be taken in by a number of the things that were said in Blackpool 10 days ago and on several other occasions by the hon. Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). It is relevant that the figures that I have just given the House clearly show how spurious was the attempt to pretend that basic rate taxpayers would not face extra bills as a result of Labour party policy.
    Mr. Meacher: As the abolition of the upper earnings limit is intended to finance a desperately needed pension increase, is the Secretary of State ashamed that the 2 million poorest pensioners, who have no income but the state retirement pension or income support, have had a zero increase in their pension in real terms over the past 11 years? Is the right hon. Gentleman or the Prime Minister proud that, since 1979, all tax cuts to the rich have been paid for as a result of the Tory Government's breaking of the uprating link with earnings? Given that the Government have purloined £22 billion owing to pensioners over the past 11 years, is not it about time that the Government gave priority to the poorest pensioners rather than to the richest taxpayers?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has not only a rare talent for hyperbole but a very short memory indeed. It is just a year, almost to the day, since the present Government put £200 million extra public money into increasing premiums in the income support system for older and more disabled pensioners. That is a clear indication of our concern to improve their position.

    Disabled People
    Sir David Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about spending on disabled people since 1979.
    Mr. Scott: Social security help for long-term sick and disabled people has increased in real terms by more than £4 billion since 1978–79 to a total of £8·3 billion in 1989–90. The proposals we outlined in "The Way Ahead", along with the changes announced in October 1989, will add some £300 million by 1993–94 and will give extra help to an estimated 850,000 people.
    Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would be churlish of the House not to acknowledge the improvements that he and his colleagues have made? Does

    917
    he accept also that we have a long way to go before any of us can feel really satisfied that we are doing right by our disabled brethren and sisters? Will my right hon. Friend therefore acknowledge that many hon. Members, including myself for as long as I am in this House, will come back, like Oliver Twist, asking for more for the disabled until we feel that justice is really done?
    Mr. Scott: I certainly agree that there are continuing needs for disabled people, despite the dramatic improvements that have been made over the past 10 years. They are not restricted simply to benefits. We also need a more co-ordinated approach to services for disabled people, improved access to our public buildings, and further efforts to bring technology to the service of people with disabilities.

    Pensioners' Incomes
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the latest trend in pensioners' real incomes since 1979.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the latest available information shows that pensioners' average total net incomes grew by over 31 per cent. in real terms in the Government's first eight years of office.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Does she agree that it is very good news for pensioners? They will now know that, over a long period, the Government have taken seriously the standard of living of pensioners. Does my hon. Friend agree also that people who are just above benefit level are nevertheless living on small amounts of money and that, therefore, it is right that the Government should concentrate help on them and not make promises such as those made by Labour Members which they know that they cannot keep?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is right when he says that there is a need to target help for pensioners, as for other groups. Pensioners with incomes from savings have seen their incomes increase by 130 per cent. Occupational pension income has also gone up, by 77 per cent. in that time. However, the Government are conscious that not all pensioners have been able to benefit from those increases in income, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just drawn the attention of the House to the £200 million package last year which helped 2·6 million pensioners.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May we have an assurance that in next year's uprating of social security benefits and pensions the calculation will be based on this year's September year-on-year retail prices index? May we have an unconditional assurance on that matter from the Dispatch Box?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman knows that the current historical method of calculating upratings ensures that the benefits are protected against price increases over a measured period. In years when inflation falls after the new rates are set pensioners gain—that will be the case this year.

    Benefit Payments
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment has been made of the effect on financial incentives to work of changes over the past five years in social security benefit payments.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: One of the major aims of our policies in social security has been to maintain and, where possible, improve financial incentives to work, and we are constantly monitoring the effects of policy changes in this area.
    Mr. Knapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as a result of our reforms, help is being targeted to where it is most needed and that, in particular, low-paid and wage-earning families cannot be worse off now because they work?
    Mrs. Shepard: I agree. We have reformed the income-related benefits and restructured national insurance. We have also improved earnings disregards. By those means we have virtually eliminated the worst effects of the poverty trap and considerably alleviated the unemployment trap.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Hilda Murrell
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on his actions in relation to the investigation by West Mercia police into the case of Hilda Murrell.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): As I informed the hon. Gentleman on 6 September, the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided that the available evidence in this case is insufficient to sustain a charge of murder against any person and has notified the chief constable of West Mercia accordingly. My own actions have been restricted to answering the hon. Gentleman's questions regarding the matter and writing to him to inform him of the Director's decision.
    Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Attorney-General a careful question of which I have given him notice? In the light of the convictions of Mr. McKenzie in respect of two murders based on his own confessions, why has the decision been taken not to prosecute him for the alleged murder of Hilda Murrell based on his own confession?
    The Attorney-General: Mr. McKenzie was convicted of manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility, not of murder. The convictions are currently the subject of an appeal by Mr. McKenzie and are therefore sub judice. In the Murrell case further lines of inquiry suggested by the Director of Public Prosecutions did not produce evidence warranting the prosecution of Mr. McKenzie.
    Mr. Fraser: Does the insufficiency of the evidence mean that the police are therefore looking for another suspect?
    The Attorney-General: It means that there is no evidence sufficient to warrant a prosecution against anybody and, therefore, the case remains open.

    Government Documents
    Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Attorney-General if there are any plans to review the guidelines to Government Departments for the selection of documents for permanent preservation by the Public Record Office,.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): No, Sir. The guidelines on the selection of public records for permanent preservation are kept under review by the Public Record Office, for which the Lord Chancellor has ministerial responsibility. There are no current plans to make any alterations of substance to the guidelines.
    Mr. Kennedy: May I bring to the attention of the Solicitor-General the written answers from each Government Department that were given to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) earlier this year? With the single exception of the Department of Trade and Industry, those Departments evaded answering directly what percentage of their files were passed on intact to the Public Record Office. The DTI admitted that, in 1989, under 5 per cent. of its files were passed over intact. Surely that suggests, once again, excessive secrecy at the heart of Whitehall. Should not more of those files be made available in their full form for the purpose of future records? Does the Solicitor-General recognise that, contrary to his response to my question, the shortfall in the number of intact files passed on highlights the need for a review of the system?
    The Solicitor-General: I doubt whether that figure conveys the full picture. A large number of such files deal with personal instances, which are simply too numerous to be maintained in the public records. I find it hard to believe that the 5 per cent. figure arises except from the fact that the great majority have to be destroyed after 30 years. The guidelines are updated about every 10 years; they were updated in 1958, 1962, 1971 and 1983, and can be expected to be updated in about three or four years' time.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that I was amazed, if not astounded, when a constituent of mine who had been a prisoner-of-war in 1940–50 years ago—was told that he could not obtain his records for at least another 25 years because of state security? Is it possible that, in the world in which we live, 50 years on is too short a time and everybody has to wait 75 years before they can have the records of what they said then? How can such records in any way affect state security?
    The Solicitor-General: If my hon. Friend looks at "Modern Public Records", the White Paper published in 1982, he will see that it explains the criteria for the selection of such records. Obviously, I do not know the position of my hon. Friend's constituent. It might well be that his records had been destroyed simply on the basis that they were personal.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: No.
    Mr. Skinner: Why do not the Government bring the records really up to date and release the record of the statements and conversations between the ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the Foreign Secretary? Why do not they release those statements today to clear up the arguments that we hear between those two?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman looks fit and well, and I am sure that in 30, 40 or 50 years' time he will enjoy reading those records.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Community Care
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of applications for community care grants were refused in 1988–89, 1989–90 and the first half of 1990–91.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The proportion of community care grants refused in 1988–89 was 48 per cent., in 1989–90 it was 54 per cent. and in the period April to August 1990 it was 55 per cent.
    Mrs. Mahon: I am sure that the House will agree that those are disgusting statistics. Is the Minister aware that those shameful statistics represent people in need who, under the old system, would have been entitled to something? What preparations will be made and what money will be put into the system to meet the needs of the people who will be caught up in the imminent recession?
    Mr. Scott: Only 4·4 per cent. of applications for community care grants were turned down because they were of insufficient priority—the substantial majority were turned down because they did not meet the basic eligibility test for the community care grant system. The statistics that I read out should be seen against the background of an increase of 66 per cent. for applications for community care grants and an increase of 50 per cent. in awards.
    Mr. Dickens: Is not it a fact that the grants have to be examined very closely indeed because the Government are the custodians of taxpayers' money, and taxpayers do not have a bottomless pit of money? Therefore, the Government's policy of directing resources and targeting them closely on where they are needed is right and preserves the taxpayers' rights.
    Mr. Scott: Of course we must be careful and prudent with the taxpayers' money. We also have to be careful to meet need where it exists. Some 500,000 community care grants have been given and effectively targeted since the introduction of the scheme.

    Child Benefit
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy annually to uprate child benefit in line with inflation.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I will continue to carry out my statutory duty by reviewing the rate of child benefit annually and considering its future level in the light of all the relevant circumstances.
    Mr. Wallace: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, which I could scarcely describe as helpful. He knows that this question comes up annually and will not go away, because of the serious way in which inflation has eroded the real value of child benefit over many years. That benefit is well directed to help families, and has almost a 100 per cent. take-up. Given the current rate of inflation,

    921
    will the Secretary of State accept that if the Government are to be true to their claim to be the party that supports the family, we need something much more positive than the answer that he has just given?
    Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows full well the reason for the answer that I gave, precisely because it is this particular time of year. Having been pursued around Bournemouth last week at intervals by people inviting me to speculate on this self-same subject—and, finally, having drawn from one of our most distinguished television political commentators the remark, "It sounds as if even your 'no comment' is off the record"—I do not propose to be drawn further this afternoon.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the numbers of people who will benefit from the measures outlined in "The Way Ahead".
    Mr. Scott: We estimate that some 850,000 people will benefit from the proposals set out in "The Way Ahead" and the interim measures that we announced in October 1989.
    Mr. Paice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that extra number of people, and the extra £300 million to be spent on implementing the proposals—on top of the fact that we have doubled expenditure in real terms on the long-term sick and disabled since 1978–79—demonstrate clearly that this Government are the caring Government, and that those who would say otherwise have failed when they have had the chance to prove it?
    Mr. Scott: Certainly I agree. One of the most interesting statistics—using money at constant prices—shows that the last Labour Government managed to increase spending on the long-term sick and disabled by some £220 million a year; we have increased it by £370 million.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Tropical Forests
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to review the operation of the tropical forestry action plan; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): We have endorsed the strengthening and reform of the tropical forestry action plan—the TFAP—called for by the independent review of the plan commissioned by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation—the FAO. We are working to see reform implemented; a good start was made at the FAO's committee on forestry last month.
    Mr. Wallace: The plan has perhaps been a disappointment, although we recognise that it was set up in good faith and with good objectives. The right hon. Lady has been quoted as saying that she will not let up pressure to change it; will she tell us in which direction she would like the change to move? Does she agree that the
    922
    local pressures for the exploitation of the forests can be abated only if, at the same time, we tackle the fundamental problems of poverty, trade and aid?
    Mrs. Chalker: The local problems of forestry are uppermost in our minds. We seek to tackle sustainable development and the whole question of the poverty of those people living in the forest. As part of the reform we have urged strongly—and I have got my EC colleagues to do likewise—that the forest people should be involved in the plans for forestry. The review called for a greater priority for the tropical forestry action plan within the FAO. The TFAP covers 81 countries, and is far more than the FAO. We have asked for revised guidelines for clearer aims and objectives. We also asked, as did the review, for better collaboration among the co-financing organisations—the World Bank, the FAO and the World Resources Institute. We have asked for increased and more timely resources to strengthen tropical forestry countries' own ability in planning policy expertise and implementation. We now await the meeting in November of officials of the FAO to see those reforms implemented in full.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Are not there more ways than one of assisting the preservation of the tropical rain forest? Should not we be looking beyond merely this action plan to the bilateral work that Britain has been doing in assisting the Latin American countries in the Amazon basin in preserving their rain forests? Will my right hon. Friend commend the project that is now going ahead in Brazil?
    Mrs. Chalker: I most certainly commend that project, and I hope to visit Brazil at the end of this month. Britain now has some 200 projects under way or in preparation at a cost to the aid programme of £160 million—56 of those are through non-governmental organisations concerned with the environment, and 40 are research programmes. There are many ways in which we can help the environment further and my hon. Friend will find them in "Environment and British aid programme" and chapter 4 of "This Common Inheritance".
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the time scale for the reform, particularly as the position is extremely urgent—as the Minister knows—for Sarawak and Sabah and the rest of the islands of Borneo?
    Mrs. Chalker: I hope that the reforms will be in place by early next year. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is some concern—that I share—that the FAO has been resistant to the types of changes that are wanted by all the donor countries. Given that there was such unanimity in the committee on forestry which met in September in Rome—I have put it on the EC development committee's agenda for the beginning of November—I have some hope that we will see fast implementation and then implementation in national forestry programmes, which is what the hon. Gentleman wants.

    Developing Countries
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what fresh measures he is proposing to assist developing countries to deal with environmental problems.
    Mr. Summerson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what fresh measures he is proposing to assist developing countries to deal with environmental problems.
    Mrs. Chalker: We have launched initiatives to develop new bilateral projects and to promote new multilateral measures in relation to environmental concerns such as forestry, energy efficiency, biological diversity, the ozone layer, and climate change.
    Our policies are set out in the White Paper on the environment and in the ODA booklet "The Environment and the British Aid Programme".
    Mr. Paice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opportunity that many of us have recently had to visit countries in eastern Europe demonstrated to us the importance of developing countries assuming a capitalist economic system to meet their environmental imperatives, such as sustainable management of the rain forests? What support is her Department giving to the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge and to its work in supporting our overall objectives?
    Mrs. Chalker: We do indeed support the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. It is supplied jointly by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, the United Nations Environmental Programme, the World Wide Fund for Nature and ourselves. The centre has an important continuous function of collection, analysis, interpretation and dissemination of data, and we have involved it in our tropical managed areas assessment project. On our behalf, it is giving advice to the Government of India on conservation monitoring; it is preparing a manual on centres of plant diversity; it is involved in the biological diversity status report; and it is doing work on the conservation and management of biodiversity.
    The centre is a thoroughly excellent organisation, supported not just by us but by worldwide organisations.
    Mrs. Clywd: What assistance does the Minister propose to give to Cambodia, with its considerable environmental problems, which include landmines that are daily killing and maiming innocent people? Can she tell us whether British forces were in any way involved in training those who laid the mines, as some people allege; and what military and other expertise we can now give the Cambodian men, women and children to de-mine thousands of square miles of their country's land which are virtually unusable because they are unsafe?
    Mrs. Chalker: That has nothing to do with the original question. The hon. Lady will find that I have answered today a question on Cambodia asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). We are indeed concerned, and we are giving additional help to the non-governmental organisations to help civil-war-displaced persons in Cambodia.
    924
    The question that the hon. Lady has asked has nothing to do with me and it contains no fact. It is purely part of her campaign to discredit honourable people, including a very honourable member of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office whom she attacked at the Labour party conference, who cannot answer for himself and about whom she and her hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) have made disgraceful allegations which are untrue.
    Mrs. Clwyd rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.

    Emergency Relief
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on emergency relief aid expended under the United Kingdom's aid programme.
    Mrs. Chalker: Providing immediate and effective humanitarian assistance is one of the key areas of the aid programme. Last year we spent more than £61 million in disaster relief, help for refugees and emergency food aid.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend realise that her answer will be warmly welcomed, and that her warm-hearted response to the problems of these countries is supported by the vast majority of people of this country?
    Mrs. Chalker: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The outlook in Ethiopia for next year is bleak. The FAO and US Agency for International Development crop assessment mission will give donors more detailed reports at the end of next month. Meanwhile, I have just announced 19,000 further tonnes of food aid for Ethiopia through the World Food Programme; a further 5,000 tonnes of cereals to the NGO CARE; £500,000 to the Save the Children Fund for the purchase of trucks and spares for the southern line operation; and £600,000 worth of vegetable oil to the UNHCR for Somalian and Sudanese refugees in Ethiopia. We shall continue to monitor the situation extremely carefully and provide further help. Our total emergency aid for Ethiopia so far this year is more than £16·5 million.

    Population Growth
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the contribution made by United Kingdom aid towards reducing growth in the world's population.
    Mrs. Chalker: Helping to reduce rapid population growth has high priority in our aid programme. I aim to increase the level and quality of all population-related assistance. We will focus bilateral support on a number of countries to improve the quality and delivery of their family planning services and to improve the health, education, income and status of women.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement about the business of the House on Friday. The business for Friday 19 October will be as follows:
A debate on the transitional measures relating to the EC consequences of German unification on a take-note motion. Relevant documents will be shown in the Official Report. [See Written Answers to Questions tomorrow.]
Mr. Derek Foster: I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and also for arranging for the Chancellor to make a statement this afternoon on the exchange rate mechanism.
Since the decision to enter was clearly taken for political reasons, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman use his full authority to drag the Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box in a full debate next week to explain her Government's deep divisions over Europe? Will he arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a full statement on his return on the latest developments in the Gulf crisis and on his consultations about the United Nations' resolutions on the shootings?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall leave the hon. Gentleman's first point to be dealt with on its merits through the usual channels. I appreciate his gratitude for the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement about the exchange rate mechanism immediately following this one. The House will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is currently in the middle east. I shall bring to his attention the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. The question of a statement or a possible statement can most usefully be considered when my right hon. Friend returns to Britain.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that questions on this statement should be confined to the business on Friday.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does not the Leader of the House realise that his statement is totally inadequate? My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) is absolutely right. During the recess, we had one of the most important economic statements in recent years and as this is a quiet week, Friday should have been used for a debate, led by the Prime Minister, in which she could have explained this extremely important decision. More importantly, she could have explained the differences between herself and the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary in their perceptions of the long-term significance of ERM membership. Perhaps, in winding up, the Leader of the House could have explained the difference between himself and all three of them on the long-term implications.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman has got it completely wrong. The less questioning that takes place now about the statement that I have just made, the more quickly the House can get on to discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the statement that he will make on the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. It is idle to pretend that the subject that I have announced for
926
debate on Friday is unimportant. We shall debate transitional measures following the conclusion of the conflict with Germany and German unification. These are important matters and it is right to discuss them on Friday.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: If my right hon. and learned Friend rejects the blandishments of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) and our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not speak, does that mean that we would not have to listen to the Leader of the Opposition? Many of us would be happy with that. If there is an additional gap on Friday and I were to table an early-day motion in support of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's expressed views in 1981 to 1983 on child benefit, would there be time to discuss that? It would be a useful debate.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's enthusiasms are well known, but they do not relate directly to the business of the House on Friday.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the documents that he mentioned relating to Friday's debate constitute some 23 individual proposals, for each of which the Government have provided an explanatory memorandum? Will he further confirm that, if the Select Committee on European Legislation believes that any one of those documents should be considered on its own, those documents will not be deemed to have been dealt with in one debate on Friday?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the hon. Gentleman's close, serious and professional interest in these matters. The documents are summarised in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Cmnd. 1246—the Government's observations on the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on German unification. I know that the Scrutiny Committee will be considering these matters tomorrow, and the precise shape of next Friday's debate may take account of the hon. Gentleman's recommendations, although I cannot promise to meet him in precisely the way that he suggested.
Mr. Tony Banks: Which Ministers will be involved in the debate? Will the Leader of the House use his good offices with Mr. Speaker to ensure that the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewksbury (Mr. Ridley) can play a full part in the debate?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman, as always, has more than one objective in mind. The appropriate Ministers will speak in the debate, no doubt including at the outset a Foreign Office Minister. The question of who else will speak in the debate is entirely a matter for Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement on Friday, or earlier if possible, on the substance of the Central Television programme on Cambodia, which demonstrated beyond challenge that the Government are giving aid and comfort to the Khmer Rouge, including the Pol Pot faction? Is not that small, impoverished country, which threatens nobody, being virtually squeezed out of existence? Is there not the possibility of mass annihilation if Pol Pot and his faction reach the capital, which they are likely to do within the next few months?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is tenacious, but absurd in his continued tenacity. The Government have many times denied the allegations to which he referred, and there is no substance to them.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the two hon. Members who are standing, but I ask them to confine their questions to what is likely to happen on Friday, and not to discuss more general issues.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: It is right and proper that on Friday we should debate the unification of Germany. However, at the risk of sounding excessively parochial, I must stress that the unification of Germany has profound implications for, among others, those who live in our maritime communities. I hope that, on Friday, the appropriate Minister will offer a comment or two on the role that will be played by a grossly enlarged German fishing fleet and the consequences for the interests of our fishing communities.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Certainly, in so far as that issue may emerge from the documents to which I have referred, it will be an appropriate subject for the hon. Gentleman to raise in the debate on Friday.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the Leader of the House admit that the real reason why the Prime Minister will not reply to the debate on Friday, or on any other day, is because the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot guarantee a 10-minute standing ovation before she begins?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I suspect that, if challenged, I could.

Exchange Rate Mechanism
3.38 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major): I should like to make a statement about sterling's entry to the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system, which took effect on Monday, 8 October.
Sterling now has a fixed central rate against each of the other currencies in the ERM. The entry rate is set against the ecu and translates to a central rate against the deutschmark of DM 2·95. That was marginally above the market level when the decision to enter was announced on Friday, 5 October and is a little below the current market rate.
Sterling is able to move by a maximum of 6 per cent. above or below the central rates. Our choice of the wider 6 per cent. margins is intended to allow sterling to settle into the system, and follows recent precedent. In due course, we will move to the narrow band of 2¼ per cent. margins. The terms of entry we have agreed with our partners are those that we sought.
The Government have long made it clear that sterling would enter the exchange rate mechanism during stage 1 of economic and monetary union, which began in July. It has now done do, at the earliest appropriate time. I would like to explain how our decision fits into the Government's wider economic strategy.
It has become abundantly clear that policy is now reducing inflationary pressures in the economy. Monetary growth on all measures has fallen sharply, and the growth of narrow money is within its target range. The growth of demand has slowed. Although the rise in oil prices will continue to feed through for a while, the prospect is for a substantial reduction in inflation over the coming year. That will be so both in absolute terms and in relation to inflation in other European countries. It was for those reasons that we felt able to reduce interest rates by 1 per cent.
A firm exchange rate is a vital part of our policy to maintain tight monetary conditions in order to reduce inflation. As I have repeatedly made clear, membership of the exchange rate machanism will be an additional discipline for the United Kingdom economy. In no sense is it a soft option. Monetary policy will remain tight. I must emphasise that I will not make a further reduction in interest rates until I am sure that it is safe and prudent to do so.
Membership has important implications for British companies and their employees. They must contain their costs. If they fail to do so, they will not be bailed out by a devaluation of the currency. That is the key message for those engaged in pay bargaining this autumn and subsequently.
But in addition to acting as a discipline on costs, membership of the exchange rate mechanism offers significant benefits for British industry. It will help to provide greater stability of exchange rates with our main trading partners and thus the certainty that business needs to plan for the future. It will also make Britain even more attractive for inward investment.
Although entry to the narrow band of the exchange rate mechanism will fulfil our obligations under stage 1 of economic and monetary union, it does not imply any change in our opposition to the imposition of a single currency. In the intergovernmental conference in

929
December, we shall continue to argue against that plan and for the proposals that I first set out in June. As the House knows, they propose an evolutionary and market-based approach, based on the creation of a new European monetary fund and a common currency—the hard ecu.
In summary, the mechanism has a proven record of success over recent years in producing greater stability of exchange rates and lower inflation. The Government believe that Britain too will benefit from membership. The exchange rate mechanism will reinforce our counterinflationary policies, help to provide the stability and certainty that industry needs, and set the right framework for a resumption of soundlybased and non-inflationary growth. I commend entry to the House.
Mr. John Smith: As the Chancellor is aware, the Labour party welcomes the decision that sterling should join the exchange rate mechanism, not least because of the potential benefit that a more stable exchange rate could bring to the process of Britain's much-needed economic recovery. However, it will not of itself lead Britain out of the economic cul-de-sac of high and rising inflation, recession, increasing unemployment and serious balance of payments deficits to which the Government's policies have led.
I want to ask the Chancellor first about the celebrated Madrid conditions into which the Prime Minister entered in June 1989, and which she reported to the House formally on 29 June last year. At that time, the Prime Minister was in no doubt that the rate of inflation was too high for Britain to enter the exchange rate mechanism. In a reply to a question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, she said:
"On the exchange rate mechanism, our promise has been that we would go in when the time was right. I"—
note, "I"—
"put conditions on that and made it much clearer that when those conditions were met we should be able to go in. One condition depends on us, which is that we get inflation well down".
Earlier, she said:
"we must first get our inflation down."—[Official Report, 29 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 1111, 1110.]
Every time that she has been asked since then, the Prime Minister has repeated the condition. In July 1989, inflation was to be "significantly lower". The Chancellor said on 26 March this year:
"we wish to see inflation fall before we enter the mechanism."—[Official Report, 26 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 117.]
Only two weeks ago, the Prime Minister was reported as saying in Switzerland:
"The Madrid conditions won't be changed and they include getting inflation nearer the European average."
The Prime Minister's role is crucial—she invented the Madrid conditions. They were not imposed on her by other members of the European Community. The present Chancellor was not in Madrid when these conditions were suggested by the Prime Minister, and neither was his predecessor, the former Chancellor. It was the Prime Minister herself, assisted by the then Foreign Secretary, who is now Leader of the House, and who accompanied her to the Madrid summit. Sadly, his views do not seem to coincide with those of the Prime Minister or of the present Chancellor.
930
But if the condition is clear—and it could hardly be made more clear—that inflation had to be reduced before we entered the exchange rate mechanism, it is equally clear that it has not been fulfilled. Headline inflation in June 1989 was 8·3 per cent. and is now 10·9 per cent. If we take inflation on the basis that the Chancellor likes to take it—by excluding completely mortgage rates and the poll tax, which is a favourable estimate from the Government's point of view—then, it was 5·8 per cent. and now, it is 7·9 per cent.
I ask the Chancellor to explain why there has been such a humiliating U-turn by the Prime Minister who was the inventor of the Madrid conditions and is now their arch-destroyer. Is it not simply because the Government, due to their appalling mismanagement of our economy, have been forced to concede that they could not achieve the inflation target which they had set for themselves?
Why does not the Chancellor admit this in his statement to the House, on television and elsewhere? Why does not the Prime Minister—whose role is so crucial in this affair that she must take part in the debate which we hope to have in the House—admit it? If our parliamentary accountability is as important as she frequently claims in this context, why is she reluctant to take part in the debate? Is it not because she would find it impossible to justify the abandonment of a commitment that she made to the House on 29 June last year?
Would not the Chancellor have been wiser to admit that our economy is in dire trouble, rather than to pretend, as he did once again today, that all would soon be well and to claim, as he did on Channel 4 television on the day of his announcement, that at that time there was
"an ideal conjunction of events"
Ideal, when inflation was twice as high as that in the rest of the countries in the exchange rate mechanism? Ideal, when the economic consequences of the Gulf crisis are quite unknown? If these conditions were ideal, what were the Government waiting for during all the years when inflation was low and during all the years when there was no Gulf crisis?
Does the Chancellor not understand that nonsense like this not only fuels scepticism in the markets and elsewhere, but fosters downright incredulity about statements by Ministers? Is is not clear that the Government, baulked and cornered by their economic failure, have joined the exchange rate mechanism as a last resort?
Now that Britain has joined, will the Chancellor give us his estimate of the consequences for our economy? I hope that he will answer these questions directly. Given our serious balance of payments problems, is it his judgment that the rate at which we agreed to join is sustainable? What is his estimate of the effect on the balance of payments over the period ahead? Will the balance of payments deficit be progressively reduced? Is he satisfied that the arrangements through the central banks under the Basle-Nyborg agreements will be adequate to sustain the management of a currency as widely traded as sterling? Why did he not seek a strengthening of regional policy in the Community as one means of helping to bridge the gap between countries with more successful economies and countries, such as Britain, which are in difficulties?
Finally, I wish to ask the Chancellor—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Smith: This is an extremely important matter of economic and political policy, and the Government should

931
not complain when they are asked questions by an Opposition whose function it is to do precisely that. The questions that I want to ask the Chancellor flow from how economic policy is to be directed now that we are subject to the disciplines of the ERM.
First, is it not clear that, between now and the next election, responsible economic management will not permit cuts both in interest rates and in personal income tax? To build confidence over the period ahead, will the Chancellor today rule out the possibility of personal income tax cuts before the general election as too wildly irresponsible to be seriously contemplated by any sensible Government? Does he not yet understand that, in the new situation, the supply side policies advocated by this side of the House are even more crucial? Unless we end the debilitating neglect of trading, the collapse of regional policy and the failure to advance new technology—in short, unless we adopt an industrial strategy—is it not clear that we shall not succeed within the ERM, just as we have failed outside it?
Mr. Major: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) for his initial welcome for our decision. We both agree that it is the right decision for the British economy. He spent so much time on the Madrid conditions because he knows that we are right to enter the mechanism. As recently as a few weeks ago, he said:
"We believe that we should enter the ERM at an early date."
The Government agree with him, and we have done so.
Several conditions were set out in Madrid. The first concerned the abolition of exchange controls, which is substantially completed. The second related to the single market, and the majority of the measures are now concluded and more are in hand. The third related to progress on financial services, which is also nearly concluded. The fourth was progress on competition policy, on which the Commission, on this at least is acting firmly. The only remaining condition was the need for inflation convergence, and it is now clear that we are moving away from divergence in inflation to convergence in inflation. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentlemen listen longer, they will learn a little more.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman then asked why we were waiting for a conjunction of events and what they might be. We were waiting essentially for three events: first, the right market conditions and the right market rate, and that we had; secondly, a clear indication that monetary aggregates were coming into line, and that they have; thirdly, signs in the real economy of close and certain disinflation, and that we had. The combination of those factors made this the right time to enter the mechanism.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the consequences for the economy. The first and most certain consequence is that entry of the ERM will reinforce monetary policy and help us push inflation lower, which is our central policy aim. He asked whether the rate was sustainable, and I share his view that that is an important question. I am confident that a central rate of DM2·95 is sustainable, for a series of reasons which I will set out now, if the House will do me the courtesy of listening.
First, DM2·95 is the average inflation-adjusted real rate of the past decade. It is the recent market rate and, as a number of analysts have pointed out, the pound's purchasing power parity—in essence, the rate at which the
932
prices of our goods would be equal to the prices of German goods—is above DM2·95. Three analysts have calculated it specially: one at DM3·30, one at DM3·19 and one at DM2·95. Similarly, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman may know, the International Monetary Fund has released figures that suggest that industry will be competitive at DM2·95.
Mr. Ron Leighton: When has it ever been right?
Mr. Major: When has the hon. Gentleman ever been right?
I understand the concern that underlies the question. The truth is that the trade gap is the result of domestic demand outstripping supply and not an uncompetitive exchange rate. That is the reality of what has happened.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's next question concerned the central banks. I am content that the central bank agreement is satisfactory and I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of that. I did not regard stronger regional policies as necessary or negotiable in my discussions with my partners in Europe.
On the responsibility for future economic management, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the possibility of interest rate cuts and tax cuts. I made clear a few moments ago the position on interest rate cuts. Tax cuts are a matter for the Budget and not before.
Mr. Terence Higgins: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is reported to have said that a remark by Mr. Delors that we joined the ERM in order to slow down EMU is "rather rum". Is that not a good description of Mr. Delors's position, given that we have been in the lead in implementing the single market and that my right hon. Friend's proposals for a hard ecu are a far more practical, effective and better way forward than Mr. Delors's proposals for stages 2 and 3?
Mr. Major: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those remarks. I agree entirely. The hard ecu moves us in the direction of a market-led approach, which I believe is the only sustainable way forward.
Mr. James Molyneaux: As Parliament—both sides of the House of Commons—has rendered itself impotent on these matters, is it not imperative that there should be no further erosion of Britain's position until the electorate have been consulted at a general election?
Mr. Major: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not agree with his underlying premise.
Sir William Clark: Now that the euphoria of the markets has subsided, will my right hon. Friend re-emphasise that joining the ERM is not a soft option, and that it is essential for us to keep tight monetary control? Does he agree that there has been a wide welcome for the fact that we do not agree with a single currency and that at the new meetings the hard ecu suggestion will be put forward?
Mr. Major: I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend's final point, and I confirm it. I think that the euphoria of the markets was overdone both before and immediately after entry and, in some cases, the gloom is

933
now being overdone. Entry into the exchange rate mechanism is an additional discipline to underpin monetary policy. It is that and no more.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Chancellor will be aware that this is one of the most serious decisions affecting the jobs and livelihoods of millions of people in this country. He maintains that he has got the right exchange rate. That view is not shared by the vast majority of experts, academics and others in this country.
I shall ask two questions. First, if it turns out that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong on this vital matter, what powers does he have left to change the exchange rate now that it has been agreed with the ERM? Secondly, now that we are part of the ERM, taking account of all he said about tighter discipline, will he spell out what average increase in earnings in the United Kingdom is compatible with retaining what competitiveness we have already?
Mr. Major: On the final point, it depends on the individual company and the individual company's productivity. On the substantive—[Interruption.] It is the question of averages that has got this country into so much trouble over the past 20 years. On the right hon. Gentleman's central point of jobs and livelihoods, the most important thing for jobs and livelihoods in the future is, first, to obtain a firm downward pressure on inflation and, secondly, to keep it. That is the central reason for entering the exchange rate mechanism.
On whether the rate is sustainable, I set out in some detail the arguments in favour of that a few moments ago. As to what opportunities will arise in the unlikely event of the right hon. Gentleman's next premise being correct, we intend to stay within the bands to which we have committed ourselves. That was the purpose of setting the bands in the first place.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the acid test is to ensure that the British economy is as competitive as possible, and in doing so to remind the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that the views and expressions of Mr. Tuffin, in repudiating any attempt to hold down wages, are a prescription for our not being competitive? Furthermore, does he agree that the views of Mr. Sam Brittan in the Financial Times that he hopes that British monetary policy will be made in Berlin must be repudiated?
Mr. Major: As my hon. Friend says, the wages round is important. Wage settlements above that which is affordable would have a short-term effect on inflation but a far more fundamental effect on the number of jobs in the economy. That, essentially, is the message that employers and employees must grasp when deciding what increases should be. As my hon. Friends know, we have committed ourselves to stay within the bands that we have set and we shall use monetary policy for that purpose.
Mr. Alan Beith: Does the Chancellor recognise that inflation and interest rates would have been lower in this country in the past year if we had been in the exchange rate mechanism a year or more earlier, when Labour opposed it as strongly as the Prime Minister? Will he explain how he and the Prime
934
Minister can continue to talk about tax cuts when the fiscal policy that may need to operate inside the exchange rate mechanism could require him to increase taxes in some circumstances? Does he rule that out? As the Prime Minister's objections to joining the exchange rate mechanism before inflation was down to the level of our partners have been blown away like confetti in a gale, may we hope that her objections to a single currency and a more independent European central bank will go the same way?
Mr. Major: On the last point, I think the hon. Gentleman is unlikely to see that, and I think that he is unlikely to see that among my right hon. and hon. Friends either. On his first proposition, that inflation would have been lower if we had been in the exchange rate mechanism, if the conditions had been there for us to have been in the exchange rate mechanism, the hon. Gentleman might have been right, because the inflationary record of countries within the exchange rate mechanism is better than those not in it. The conditions for entry were not present. A year or so ago, monetary aggregates were not falling and the real economy was not slowing. We were heading for a position where inflation was going up, not down. Clearly, one could not have entered then.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Chancellor recall that, when his predecessor joined informally, we had significant reductions in interest rates and inflation for several months, but a period of regular increases in interest rates to the present savage levels after that period of joy? That was apparently because Britain is almost unique in Europe in having a chronic balance of trade deficit with the EEC. Was not this confirmed by Hoare Govett, which has just published a splendid paper suggesting of the initial good news:
"As with all magic, it is hocus pocus—and would be unlikely to last for more than a year."
If by any chance my right hon. Friend, who has our great respect, and the Government are wrong and such critics are right, what powers are available to the Government to do anything? Can we withdraw from the ERM? Can we realign the currency ourselves; or will we be stuck with a situation in which interest rates go up and down all the time depending on our relationship with the deutschmark?
Mr. Major: With great respect to my hon. Friend, the concerns that he expressed were expressed in a number of countries when they entered the exchange rate mechanism in earlier years, and subsequent events have shown that those concerns were not justified. I reiterate: those countries that have been within the exchange rate mechanism and have kept to the admittedly difficult disciplines of the exchange rate mechanism have had a better inflation record over a period than we have. I wish this country to have that better inflation record—for British industry, British commerce and the British consumer. That is why I believe that it is right for us to enter and why I believe that the move will be successful.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I accept the need for entry, so that we are not excluded from influencing developments within the Community, but is the Chancellor aware that, of itself, entry at an over-valuation will do nothing for our balance of payments, nothing for manufacturing industry, nothing to

935
help us to get more skills in our enterprises and nothing for investment? Is he aware that what he has produced is just a panacea—a panacea of hope and nothing else?
Mr. Major: The right hon. Gentleman's question is based entirely on a false premise. I am the last person who needs telling that entry into the ERM is not a panacea, because it was I who coined that phrase a year ago.
Mr. David Howell: Will my right hon. Friend accept that he took the decision that the pound should enter the ERM with considerable skill, and that he deserves warm congratulations on that, even though we shall have a tough struggle to keep the pound where it is? Entry into the ERM ends a long period during which the pound has been kicked around the exchange rate market like a football, and we should be thankful for that.
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, if the ERM discipline is to work, we shall require much stronger monetary methods and techniques than we have had in the past—techniques of the kind that he and his colleagues were considering back in January? Will he undertake to pursue methods of strengthening our monetary control in this country—including reviewing, and possibly strengthening, the status of our own central monetary authority, the Bank of England?
Mr. Major: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks about our entry into the exchange rate mechanism. We are certainly clear in our minds that we need to ensure that monetary policy is a safe and secure discipline, and I shall certainly continue to do whatever I can to ensure that it is.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Chancellor agree that when he uses the word "discipline" he means "decisions taken elsewhere"? And is it not a fact that a nation entering a fixed or near-rigid exchange rate mechanism with a heavy and persistent balance of trade deficit ceases to be a nation of that characteristic and, in the end, becomes a depressed area of a new economic nation?
Mr. Major: When I use the term "discipline" I mean no devaluation and no constant descent into the easy option. In the 1990s, we cannot afford the easy option and, we are determined not to have it.
Sir Peter Hordern: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on providing a much-needed extra discipline for the control of inflation, and on putting an end to the widespread perception that wage costs could continue to increase for ever and that we could continue to be bailed out by a declining currency? I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on climbing into the driver's cab of that notorious gravy train, the European Commission, with the prospect of putting an end to Mr. Delors's ambitions.
Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments about our entry into the exchange rate mechanism, and I share the views that he has expressed about it. On economic and monetary union, I share my hon. Friend's concern about the destination for which some in the European Community are heading at present. I believe that our proposals represent the right way to proceed, and we shall argue for them very strongly indeed in the intergovernmental conference.
Mr. Leighton: Is the Chancellor aware that pegging sterling at nearly DM3 to the pound is virtually equivalent to signing the death warrant of British manufacturing industry? Is he aware that it is a crazy, stupid and misguided policy? I prophesy that he has it wrong and that the pound will not stay at DM2·95.
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that going into the ERM makes absolutely no sense if we do not want stages 2 and 3 of the Delors plan? I am glad that the Prime Minister is paying attention, because she blusters, huffs and puffs, but in the end always gives way. That is what she has done again.
Mr. Major: I did not notice my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister giving way and accepting the European budget which the Labour party left us in 1979.
With regard to competitiveness, I have a good deal more confidence in British industry than do Opposition Members. I simply do not understand why Opposition Members persistently talk down the capacity of our industry to compete.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the tightening of money since mid-1988 has done a good job—no one can ever say again that high interest rates do not work in bearing down on inflation—and that that is why he took his decision on the ERM last week? Does not my right hon. Friend also agree that the Opposition's policy of trying always to suggest an alternative to high interest rates, such as discredited credit controls, proves again that the Opposition are wrong?
Mr. Major: I entirely agree. Our inflationary problem was substantially the result of the dramatic growth of demand. Monetary policy has brought that growth of demand down and will increasingly bring down inflation.
Dr. David Owen: Can we assume that the Government are opposed only to the imposition of a single currency and that they would go along with an optional single currency? Is not such flexibility over monetary union essential if we are to enlarge, as I think we must, to include Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland? By insisting on a single currency for everyone, we are effectively ensuring that the European Community will remain only a 12-member Community.
Mr. Major: On the second point, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We believe that it is in the longer-term interests of Europe to ensure that the Community of 12 can become a larger Community to admit the increasingly emergent democracies in eastern Europe. We would be wise to do nothing to inhibit their entry at a later stage by decisions taken at an early stage.
An imposed single currency is not only difficult in terms of the concerns of the House of Commons, with which I have full agreement, but also has real econonic dangers for many European nations and we will continue to make those plain. For that reason, we believe that the market-led hard ecu approach is right.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend share my dismay about the fact that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) appeared to judge only one criterion of the level of inflation—the RPI—when a much better guide to the trend is the tightening of monetary aggregates? Will my right hon. Friend take credit for taking sterling into the

937
exchange rate mechanism at the earliest possible time when it was clear that monetary aggregates would lead to declining inflation?
Will he also repeat and underline the fact that, on a purchasing power parity basis, the DM2·95 central rate will not render British industry uncompetitive and that British industry must now take that rate into account when judging future costs and wage rounds?
Mr. Major: On purchasing power parity, my hon. Friend is entirely right. I quoted some figures earlier which are a clear illustration of that. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's earlier remarks.
Mr. Giles Radice: Despite the potential advantages of joining the ERM, is not the trouble with the Government's decision of 5 October the fact that it was taken at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons and at the wrong rate? In view of all the suspicions and concerns of our Community partners, would it not be good for the Government to say that they intend to be a bona fide member of the exchange rate mechanism and that they intend to take a constructive attitude at the intergovernmental conference in November?
Mr. Major: We will take a constructive line at the intergovernmental conference in November, but a constructive line for the future of Europe does not necessarily mean agreeing to each and every plan that may be promoted by one part of the European Community. A constructive line may well mean standing up for British interests and what we see as the long-term interests of Europe. I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that we will do that. We will certainly be bona fide members of the exchange rate mechanism. I made it clear today that, as soon as it is appropriate, we will move to the narrow bands. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view that it was the wrong time to enter. I believe that it was the right time to enter, and that is why I did so.
Mr. Ian Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it was his view that it was appropriate for a first reduction in interest rates to be made which led to his decision to enter the ERM at that time, and not the other way round, as has been generally suggested against his momentous decision? Despite the constraints of the EMS in future, can he assure us that he will do his best not to be pressed into any reductions in interest rates unless and until he judges that they are appropriate in the light of domestic economic and monetary circumstances?
Mr. Major: I certainly confirm the latter point. On the first of the important points that my right hon. Friend made, I think that it was the right time to cut interest rates and to enter the exchange rate mechanism. Indeed, the monetary conditions—first, the fact that narrow money is in its target range; secondly, the fact that broad money growth has fallen every single month since January; and thirdly, the fact that bank lending is now decelerating and the indications that one can see of the flat housing market and other matters in the real economy—were classic signs that interest rates needed to be cut by 1 per cent.
I also felt that it was the right time to enter the mechanism. I also had to bear in mind the fact that, since an interest rate cut was clearly justified, if it had preceded
938
entry, it might have been seen as an attempt to drive the exchange rate down in advance of entry or, alternatively, a signal that we were not going to enter for some time. Both of those would have caused market turbulence. Fortunately, it was the right time to do both, and we did.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Chancellor aware that it ill becomes Conservative Members who apparently cannot survive on £26,500 a year to lecture the workers of this country about the need to accept low wage increases in the present pay round? May I be the third hon. Member to ask the Chancellor—on two or three occasions, he has mentioned devaluing the currency—to spell out to the House and the country what powers are available to correct his own mistake if he has got it wrong? If he refuses to explain that, we can only assume that he has left himself without any power.
Mr. Major: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the requirement to spell out clearly the implications of unaffordable pay increases is clear. If people do not know that avoidably large wage increases will cost jobs, they may then negotiate wage increases that would create unemployment, and nobody wishes to do so.
On the second point, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that we have gone in either at the wrong time or at the wrong rate, and events will bear that out.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the most welcome statement that he has made today. Does he agree that most people in this country, in addition to lower mortgage interest rates, want to be paid and to save in a currency which is strong, stable and valuable? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, having taken the momentous decision to join the exchange rate mechanism, we have taken a most important step towards economic and monetary union from which there can be no turning back?
Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about our entry into the exchange rate mechanism. The exchange rate mechanism will play a significant part in assisting other aspects of policy to bring down the rate of inflation so that savings will have a secure value. I entirely share my hon. Friend's view on that matter. I do not necessarily draw the same conclusion about future developments towards monetary union.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: If it is such a favourable exchange rate, does the Chancellor now expect a favourable balance of trade, particularly with West Germany?
Mr. Major: As I have pointed out on several occasions during the past few moments, the purchasing power parity rate, which is what matters, is more favourable than many other people have yet considered. If the hon. Gentleman will wait and see, events will give him his answer.
Mr. Quentin Davies: I congratulate the Chancellor on his momentous decision. Does he agree that this is the first time since the Labour devaluation in 1967 that British industry faces the disciplines of a regime of credibly stable exchange rates? It is also absolutely clear from this afternoon's proceedings that the Labour party remains at heart a party of

939
devaluationists. The vital thing is for both sides of British industry to take on board the full enormous importance of the changed circumstances that they now face.
Mr. Major: It could not be put more clearly, and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Jim Sillars: Does the Chancellor recall quoting the experiences of other countries entering the ERM? Does he agree that it is a fair parallel to cite the French experience—another weak currency like our own—on entering the ERM? Is it not the case that the French had not only to maintain very high interest rates and introduce credit controls, but to tighten their fiscal policy? Why does the Chancellor think that he can get away with a very loose fiscal policy, when the French had to tighten theirs?
Mr. Major: I think that the hon. Gentleman is overlooking several facts. First, we have a very tight fiscal policy and fiscal surplus, which the French did not; secondly, we have put in place a whole series of supply side improvements, but the French have not; thirdly, they have a socialist Government pursuing socialist policies and we have not.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision 10 days ago has been almost universally welcomed in this country? It is a significant step forward, as is his reminder yet again today that the eventual single currency will be reached by agreement, not imposition, which is, after all, the Community habit and was at the specific request of Heads of Government when they asked Mr. Delors to draw up the plans.
Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support on those matters, which I greatly welcome.
Ms. Clare Short: Is not the truth about the timing and level of our entry to the ERM the short-term interests of the Conservative party? The Chancellor thinks that, via an overvalued exchange rate, he will buy, for a short time, a cut in inflation and the stability to cut interest rates. After the election has been called, we shall see a terrible recession because the exchange rate is overvalued. Surely the danger for the Chancellor is that the markets have read all this, and that therefore the pound will drop in value. He will not get his desired outcome—the cut in interest rates—as the whole strategy will blow up in his face. That will be the price he pays for acting in the interests of the Tory party rather than the British economy.
Mr. Major: The hon. Lady and her party should not judge us by their standards. Entry into the ERM is not about short-term advantages and long-term costs—in reality it is almost precisely the reverse. There will be short-term restrictions on policy in return for the long-term advantage of lower inflation. That is the right way to proceed.
Mr. George Walden: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making it clear in his speeches, notably at the party conference, that the success or otherwise of the ERM ultimately depends on self-discipline within the economy? I note his hope, his appeal and his wish for lower wage rates. Will he also make it
940
clear to the country that there must be no resurgence of the bloated house prices that played such a large part in our inflation in the first place if this policy is to succeed?
Mr. Major: I absolutely share the views that my hon. Friend has expressed. The way in which house prices took off a couple of years ago added significantly to our difficulties—they took off after the election, so they did not help us win—and they represented a considerable complication in policy.
My hon. Friend is entirely right as well in what he says about wage rates, which should apply to management as well as the work force.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will not the Chancellor admit that, despite his brave words, British manufacturing industry is not competitive, at almost DM3 to the pound? If it is not competitive, what will the result be? In the early 1980s, the Government destroyed almost 30 per cent. of British manufacturing industry, now the rest of British industry will also go down the plughole because of the Chancellor's folly, dictated not by reliance on economic strategy but by political expediency.
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman may feel that, but if he does, he is wrong. In addition, I do not agree with his remarks about competitiveness. I reiterate my point that the size of the trade gap—which I have publicly stated I regret—is essentially the result of excess demand over our capacity to supply at home, no lack of competitiveness. That is why our export performance has been so good.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon Friend acknowledge that, necessary and commendable as entry into the ERM may be, there is nevertheless widespread concern in the country that it will inevitably lead not only to economic and monetary union but to a form of single currency and centralised banking control, and of control over our economy and taxation policies that will take away this nation's national sovereignty and replace it with the elements of a European super-federal state? Will he make it absolutely clear that under no circumstances will the Government's policies end at that destination?
Mr. Major: I am happy to tell my hon. and learned Friend that I see no prospect of us moving towards a federal state.
Mr. Graham Allen: Does ERM mean exchange rate mechanism of election rigging manoeuvre? Will the Chancellor explain clearly and simply to the House what mechanism exists to devalue the pound within the ERM?
Mr. Major: I will tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what ERM means—it means an assistance towards low inflation. I am not contemplating devaluation, which is the traditional policy of Opposition parties, not a Conservative Government.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend is of course aware that the belated conversion of the Labour party's Front Bench spokesmen to welcoming membership of the European Community reflects their hope that by doing so they will belong to a socialist Europe. Does he accept that, although many of us welcome the fact that we are being moved closer to Europe, we wish to see a

941
Conservative Europe and welcome his latest manoeuvre because it gives us a voice in the central policies of the European Community?
Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What has become crystal clear during this questioning, to a greater extent than I imagined, is that the Opposition are split on the issue of the exchange rate mechanism. Their Front Bench spokesmen want to go in, but their Back Benchers are already asking how to come out—that is how split they are.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to have regard for the subsequent business, an important debate on financial services and the European market, in which some hon. Members now standing wish to participate. I shall take three more questions from each side and then we must move on.
Ms. Joyce Quin: Is the Chancellor aware that a document that the House will be considering shortly—the Government's official response to the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the EC and financial services—clearly states that ERM entry will be considered only
"when the level of United Kingdom inflation is significantly lower."
In view of that statement, will the Chancellor admit that, for political reasons, the Government have made a complete about-turn?
Mr. Major: That is a very charming attempt, but I will not. The relevant factor is not the historic inflation rate when we were not in the exchange rate mechanism but what the inflation rate will be when we are in the exchange rate mechanism.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that membership of the ERM makes sense to a Government committed to national economic sovereignty only if it is seen not so much as a cosy support system but as a measure of fiscal rectitude equivalent to the old gold standard? In that sense, what hope would there be for any Government who retained membership of the ERM but pursued policies of high spending, borrowing and taxation, and low interest rates, as a Labour Government would? Would not that send the pound not so much floating as crashing through the floorboards?
Mr. Major: That, of course, crisply put by my hon. Friend, is why Opposition Back Benchers hate the idea of the exchange rate mechanism and would never, in practice, have let a Labour Government enter and, in the unlikely event of a Labour Government coming to power, they would seek to bring them out. I hope that the markets and our colleagues in Europe understand that.
Mr. Robert Litherland: The Chancellor puts great emphasis on self-discipline. If
942
voluntary wage restraint did not come up to his expectations, however, would he ever consider a wage freeze?
Mr. Major: I do not think that the experience of wage freezes in the past 20 years—under Governments of both major parties—has been at all satisfactory, and I do not envisage our taking such action. The reason why I set out so clearly the importance of the wage round is that the sooner that it is clearly understood by both sides of industry that it is necessary for wage increases to be only those that are affordable, the less will be the impact in the form of job losses.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the more distasteful aspects of the whole ERM debate has been the way in which Mr. Jacques Delors has been saying that the inevitable next step is a single currency whether Britain likes it or not? Will my right hon. Friend confirm once again that the inevitable next step is no such thing, and that the present Government will not be dictated to by this Brussels bureaucrat?
Mr. Major: I am happy to reiterate to my hon. Friend that we are not at all in favour of stage 3 of the Delors plan, and that we intend to pursue very fiercely our own plans for a market-led approach.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Everyone knows that the Government have been thinking about joining the exchange rate mechanism for 11 years, and that they have been looking into it particularly deeply during the past five. Given this amazing conjunction of events, and the Chancellor's emphasis on the reduction in inflation, can he tell us the expected rate of inflation on a quarterly basis until October next year, and also what estimate has been made of the rate of unemployment in the same period?
Mr. Major: I shall do that in the Autumn Statement—as is traditional—at some stage in November; the precise date is as yet unclear.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us were disappointed by the rather churlish response of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—for whom many of us have considerable regard—when my right hon. Friend has done precisely what was asked of him only a week ago, by reducing interest rates and joining the ERM? Is this because the Opposition have recognised—it has been brought home to them—that what we must have are the same kind of wage increases, in relation to productivity, as other European countries; and that, if Rover and Ford car workers ask for 13 per cent. when Benz and Volkswagen workers are asking for 3 per cent., there is no way in which that can prove successful, whoever are in office?
Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is smack on the button: I entirely agree. I confess, however, to feeling some sympathy for the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. It is not easy to try to ride two horses in that circus.

Shootings (Jerusalem)
4.33 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist: I seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, to consider an urgent and specific matter which should have immediate attention, namely,
"Britain's relations with the Government of Israel following the massacre at the A1-Aqsa mosque".
Last Monday, 8 October, was the bloodiest day so far in Israel's 23-year occupation of Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Twenty-one Palestinians were slaughtered and 150 were injured when live ammunition was again used against civilians in the area of the old city which the Jews call the Temple Mount and the Moslems call the Noble Sanctuary; 11 Jewish worshippers were injured by stones in the lower area known as the western wall.
For five days last week, the United Nations laboured mightily—and, in my view, brought forth a mouse. The House should consider urgently whether three assistants from the Secretary General's office, sent as a mission 23 years after Israel's occupation, really constitute a serious response. Certainly, millions will contrast the rapid deployment of a task force to the Gulf following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait with the fact that, 23 years after Israel's invasion of the west bank and the Gaza strip, and after nearly three years of intifada, during which more than 800 Palestinians have been killed, the Secretary General is sending three assistants.
Should you, Mr. Speaker, grant it, the debate could and should illuminate this by considering the words of the former United States Assistant Defence Secretary, Laurence Korb, who said that the Gulf task force was obviously about oil because,
"if Kuwait grew carrots, we wouldn't give a damn."
Well, the Palestinians may not grow many carrots, but they certainly grow olives and citrus fruit, and it seems that the world, or at least the bit represented in the Security Council of the United Nations, does not give a damn.
944
Yesterday, The Observer reported Palestinian doctors who treated survivors as saying that medical evidence showed that the police had fired wildly; and Doctor Mustapha Bargouti of the A1 Makassed hospital, whom I had the honour of meeting in Jerusalem about 18 months ago, spoke of
"indiscriminate shooting and in one case we found 14 bullets in one man".
Of 120 people treated at his hospital, 32 were still being treated, including a four-year-old with a rubber bullet in his brain. What security risk was posed by a four-year-old seven days ago in the Noble Sanctuary to result in a rubber bullet in his brain?
I end with a call for a debate. There was no excuse for the slaughter. The middle east needs an end to these slaughters and to the occupation. As a socialist, I think that we need a federal solution that guarantees rights to a homeland for Palestinians and the state of Israel. Israel must come out of the occupied territories and these slaughters must end.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purposes of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"Britain's relations with the Government of Israel following the massacre at the A1-Aqsa mosque."
I have listened with care to the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised. As he knows, I have to decide whether to give his application precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I hope that at some stage it will be possible to debate these important matters, but I have to say that the matter that he has raised today does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Financial Services and the Single European Market
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Boswell.]
[Relevant documents: The fifth report from the Trade and Industry Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 256 of Session 1988/89) on Financial Services and the Single European Market and the Government Reply contained in the Committee's second special report (House of Commons Paper No. 598 of Session 1988/89).
European Community documents Nos. 4454/89 on guarantees issued by credit institutions or insurance undertakings, 6208/90 on "Capital Adequacy of Investment Firms and Credit Institutions", and the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 13 July on investment services.]
4.37 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Lilley): I welcome this opportunity to debate the development of the single financial area in Europe. Before I begin, I wish to apologise to the hon. Members for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) and for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) if there has been a failure of communication on my part, although it has the happy result, from my point of view, that I have the opportunity to debate with them. I suspect that we shall find that, although we may have occasional disagreements over measures, we shall have a large measure of agreement on our final objectives.
I begin by paying tribute to the work of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, whose excellent report forms the prelude to this debate. The Government agree with the bulk of the Committee's findings, as we made clear in our response. Like the Committee, we believe that the creation of a single European financial area should open up opportunities for one of Britain's most important industries. Indeed, the British Government have been the foremost exponent and supporter of the single market programme as a whole and of the single financial area in particular.
The single market is a natural extension of the policies of competition, deregulation and free markets which we have implemented domestically, and the single market programme was largely the brainchild of the British Commissioner Lord Cockfield. The unique and original feature of the single market programme was the idea of mutual recognition. Essentially, once a business or process has been authorised and is supervised in one country, all other member states agree to recognise that the business is duly regulated. It will therefore be allowed to do business or to set up branches in their states without undergoing further authorisation. This paradigm is particularly applicable in the financial services industry, as we shall see.
Implementing the single market in financial services is of special importance to the United Kingdom. Financial services are an area in which the United Kingdom has a relative advantage; that is clear from the Cecchini report, which shows that in many aspects of financial services United Kingdom industries' costs are lowest and their financial products are the most competitive.
The importance of the financial services industry to the United Kingdom's economy is shown by the number of people that it employs—some 2·7 million as against 1·6 million only 10 years ago. I refer advisedly to the United
946
Kingdom financial services and not just those of the City of London, because the United Kingdom also contains Scotland, which is our second most important financial centre. The financial services industry is already the largest industry in Scotland, having increased employment by 40 per cent. since 1979. Its contribution to Scottish GDP has grown at the rate of 6·3 per cent. per annum compound. The City of London is one of Britain's most important economic assets. It has the world's largest foreign exchange market, more cross-border equity transactions are carried out in London than in any other world market centre, and the Lloyd's insurance market is unique.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: It is now generally recognised throughout the City that the exchange rate mechanism statement and the base rate cut were leaked. Evidence of that is to be found in the FTSE 100 index, which went up 16 points, from 2,035 to 2,051, in the 90 minutes before the Chancellor's statement. We are told that the City is properly regulated. Will there be a leak inquiry and will the Minister ask the stock exchange surveillance department for a report on what happened during those one and a half hours so that there can be the fullest possible inquiry? May we have an assurance that this matter will not be brushed under the carpet, because many dealers and speculators in the market made millions of pounds in that 90 minutes as a result of having price-sensitive information.
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman has an unattractive habit of assuming that any allegation is automatically true. Allegations are examined by the authorities that we have established. I shall deal with that later.
All these businesses in the United Kingdom produce a total net income for the balance of payments of more than £6·5 billion per annum and the Government continue to create the conditions for further success. Taxes on business and on individuals have been brought down to more internationally competitive levels and the Chancellor's forthcoming abolition of stamp duty and the change of basis for the taxation of futures and options represent two further breakthroughs for our financial markets.
The strength of the British industry has been accumulated over generations, but it has been based particularly on two factors—its relative openness to competition and the rest of the world and its relatively high standards of integrity and reliability for which the London market is renowned. The Government have been particularly keen to reinforce both strengths. Hence, on the competitive side, the abolition of exchange controls and the removal of restrictive practices prior to big bang. Both these changes intensified domestic competition, encouraged more international players to base themselves in Britain, and consolidated London as the great world financial centre in this time zone.
Raising the standards of probity in financial markets and seeing that these higher standards were properly enforced has been a Government priority since our inception. In 1980, we brought in the first legislation against insider dealing. In 1981 we appointed Professor Gower to review the whole body of law on financial services and investor protection. His report led to the Financial Services Act 1986.
In 1988 we set up the Serious Fraud Office, with its special powers under the Criminal Justice Act 1987, and

947
we reorganised my Department's investigatory and prosecution functions by creating a new investigations division.
The Companies Act 1989 improved international co-operation with the establishment of memoranda of understanding with the USA and Japan in the securities area and the provision of new powers to assist overseas regulators. This is a real record of achievement and contrasts with that of the previous Government, who made no improvements whatever to the regulatory environment. We have strengthened the framework to tackle abuse and dishonesty in the City and other financial markets. The fact that a number of offences and alleged offences have been brought to light in recent years is not evidence that City standards have declined; it is proof that higher standards are being more vigorously enforced. Moreover, some of the more disturbing events took place under the old regime, and would have been more easily detected and therefore deterred under present arrangements.
In creating the main part of the regulatory framework—the Financial Services Act—it was important to strike a balance between the needs to ensure effective investor protection and to avoid a system so onerous and rigid that it would damage businesses and stifle innovation. With the later fine tuning introduced in the Companies Act 1989, we are getting the balance right.
Our system is based firmly in statute, but it also incorporates a significant degree of practitioner involvement. This gives flexibility and the scope for regulation to be sensitive to market needs. It is no accident that much of the regulatory reform at present going on in other EC member states is based on a similar approach. Having put the structure in place, we now look to the regulators and practitioners to make it work. They must do that in as cost-effective and flexible a way as possible, consistent with providing real protection to investors.
Our first priority has been to ensure that our own domestic arrangements are soundly based, but in negotiating the directives that open up the single financial area—the SFA—we have had similar objectives. The keystone to creating an SFA in Europe was the capital liberalisation directive. It came into force on 1 July 1990, by which time exchange controls were abolished in all the main EC countries.
An invaluable aspect of the capital liberalisation directive is that it requires member states to abolish restrictions on foreign exchange transactions not just between member states but erga omnes—that is, with the world as a whole.
Mr. Barry Porter: Very good.
Mr. Lilley: I had to look it up.
Following that, the second banking directive was adopted in December 1989. It will take effect on 1 January 1993. It incorporates the mutual recognition principle, and we hope that it will be the paradigm for all directives in this sector.
Essentially, banks and building societies will be given a passport to sell their services across borders and to establish branches, authorised and supervised by the monetary authorities in their home state.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Everyone recognises the importance and the fast progress that has been made in negotiating and agreeing these directives. Does my right
948
hon. Friend agree that, important as the directives are, it is equally important that they be observed in the same way in each country? It is one thing to have a single passport or a level playing field, but it is quite another to translate that into the same degree of observance in each member state. Although there is commonality in the trade in agricultural products, other countries frequently flout the rules.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Lamb in France.
Mr. Nelson: Lamb in France is an example. What guarantees or sureties are there that not only will the directives be enforced but that they will be interpreted in the same way in each country?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The United Kingdom is always in the forefront in implementing directives once they have been agreed, even though we may have difficulties with them when they are being negotiated. We are also in the forefront in enforcing them properly, objectively and effectively. We expect to see similar practices followed by our partners in the Community and, of course, they are subject to the European Court of Justice if they fail to do so.
As I have said, the second banking directive will give banks a passport to offer investment services as well as normal banking services, but specialist investment service companies that are not part of banking groups are not covered by that directive.
The investment services directive is intended to entitle them, too, to a single passport. On the continent, most investment advisers are parts of large banking groups and only the United Kingdom has a sizeable number of specialist investment firms outside banking. Hence this directive is particularly important to the United Kingdom.
One of our key objectives has been to ensure that the second banking directive and the investment services directives come into force simultaneously. Any delay in the investment services directive would put our independent investment services firms at a disadvantage to competitors that are part of big banking groups. Happily, negotiations on this directive are proceeding apace, and the United Kingdom welcomes the goal of the Italian presidency to reach a common position among member states by the end of this year.
However, the House will understand that agreeing this directive is a negotiating process and we still have some very important work to do to achieve the right provisions. Some of these provisions, such as those affecting the position of the professions and independent financial advisers, depend on the outcome of the capital adequacy directive. I should like to see them given a passport under the investment services directive.
The position of appointed representatives is another area where we have not yet reached agreement. Under United Kingdom law, appointed representatives of investment firms do not need to be separately authorised. The directive, as currently drafted, would require them to be authorised and I know that this is causing the industry some concern. However, I hope that we shall be able to resolve that point satisfactorily.
The concomitant of the second banking directive and the investment services directive is the capital adequacy directive, which ensures that all financial services supervisors enforce certain minimum standards of capital

949
adequacy to prevent regulatory arbitrage. However, it is important that the final capital adequacy directive should relate capital requirements for each type of business to the risks that firms actually accept. That means not overburdening existing firms or closing the market to new firms. Equally, I do not want such a level of reserves that business is lost from the whole Community.
The third measure—the proposed regulation on guarantees—is also a market-opening measure, but it is not yet one that we can support. It would oblige public bodies to accept guarantees offered by any credit institution or insurance company authorised in the European Community. The Government appreciate the intention behind the draft regulation—which I understand to be to prohibit discrimination on the ground of nationality—but we believe that it is unnecessary, because discrimination on the ground of nationality is already prohibited by the treaty of Rome.
As drafted, the regulation is seriously flawed and unworkable. It would require a public body to accept any guarantee offered, irrespective of the financial standing of the institution offering the guarantee. It would have to be accepted, regardless of whether the guarantee was unreasonably large in relation to the size of the institution offering it; regardless of its terms; and regardless of the merits of competing prospective offers, which would have to be ignored. Those concerns have been put to the Commission, which, we believe, recognises some force in them. It is reconsidering the terms of the regulation and we await further proposals.
The Select Committee expressed particular concern about the lack of progress in the liberalisation of insurance. While some progress has been made, the Government fully share the Committee's concern. There has been freedom since the 1970s for establishments to set up branches and subsidiaries in the Community, but that freedom has been subject to regulation by the host state. Some host states have used that supervisory role to control tariffs and the terms of the policies that may be sold. The result has been to protect home markets from price competition and from the innovation in which the United Kingdom industry excels.
The Cecchini report noted a wide disparity of prices for insurance throughout the Community which could not be explained by differing risks. Freedom of services is especially important for the British insurance industry. Last year, the insurance sector contributed almost £3 billion in invisible earnings—about half of the total of all financial institutions. It employs 340,000 people in the United Kingdom, a quarter of them in Scotland and the north of England.
The second non-life insurance directive, which came into force this year, provided genuine liberalisation of the market for large commercial and industrial risks, but outside that area the picture is not bright, at least in the short term. We are far from a position in which every European consumer has a free choice in purchasing any insurance policy that he wants from an authorised insurance company. That denial of freedom of choice is said to be justified on consumer protection grounds, but sometimes it appears to be more like producer protection.
However, at the end of last year, Sir Leon Brittan announced that the Commission intended to adopt for the
950
insurance market the principle of the single licence, or single European passport, which has already been introduced for other financial service sectors. That approach is embodied in the Commission's proposal for the non-life insurance framework directive. It was formally presented to the Council by Sir Leon Brittan on 17 September, and it will shortly be undergoing the usual scrutiny procedures of the House.
The single licence will enable insurers to provide all types of non-life insurance throughout the EC. They will be able to establish local branches in other member states and transact business across frontiers, subject to the authorisation of and prudential supervision by the authorities of their home state alone. Control of British insurers' prices, tariffs and policies by other member states will end and there will be genuine freedom of choice. That is good news for European consumers and also for British industry.
Mr. Stan Crowther: Does the Secretary of State agree that that happy state of affairs will not happen by 1993?
Mr. Lilley: I agree that it is unlikely to be implemented by then, but I hope that agreement can be reached on the directives.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: My right hon. Friend rightly stressed the importance of all the directives to the financial services industry, but even more important is the impact on the wider Community—the investors and the businesses that want to take advantage of the single market. One of the great problems in Britain is the considerable delay in clearing payments between one country and another. I understand that a discussion paper published by the Commission, that was recently given to my right hon. Friend, dealt with possible methods of speeding up payments. That would be of great benefit to small businesses and investors in this country. What is my right hon. Friend's attitude to that discussion paper?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend has made a good point about an important aspect of business across frontiers. We shall consider the discussion paper, but it would be wrong to give an off-the-cuff response.
British industry has welcomed our approach to liberalisation, and it is for it to take advantage of the new opportunities in prospect. The Commission is due to bring forward, by the end of the year, a parallel proposal for the life assurance framework directive. That will extend the single licence principle to the life assurance sector. We welcome the Commission's declared intention to give the highest priority to achieving its early adoption. It is essential that insurance is treated on a par with other financial services.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my right hon. Friend seized of the point that time is of the essence in reciprocity? While German banks can sell German life insurance in Britain, but British life insurance companies cannot sell their policies in France, there is unequal competition.
On the question of fraud, will my right hon. Friend comment on the recommendation in paragraph 82 that actions for damages should be justiciable in the country in which the person who suffers lives? People with modest means have access to legal aid for an action in this country, but they cannot sue a Greek insurance company in Greece with British legal aid.
Mr. Lilley: I agree that it is important that we reach agreement as soon as possible. The Commission is now seeking to do that, and we are giving every support. Of course, for as long as we fail to have the directive in place, the position described by my hon. Friend will pertain. In general, British insurance companies have the edge over foreign competitors, so it is they who want access to foreign markets, rather than the reverse. I think that I accept my hon. Friend's point on justiciability, but I want to consider it further. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may give him an answer when he replies to the debate.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Secretary of State said that British insurance firms have the edge, and I do not doubt that that is true. Is not that also precisely why—quite frankly, this is anecdotal—a number of Scottish firms are worried about doing business in Europe? They believe that barriers are being put up by people who know that we have the edge. That is especially true with medical insurance. Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations from medical insurers?
Mr. Lilley: I have. I have visited Scotland twice in the past fortnight and that point was made on each occasion. The Scottish institutions are at the forefront of the industry, and if they have any specific evidence of obstacles being put in their way, I hope that they will bring it to the Government's attention. We will use it as further evidence of the need for progress.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Germans are saying that they do not understand the concept of insurance broking, and therefore would have to pass special legislation before Germany could achieve the same standards as Britain? Does he agree that that is largely an excuse for delay? Will he do everything possible to ensure that the Germans do not use that bogus reason for delaying progress?
Mr. Lilley: It is true that insurance broking is not as developed in Germany as it is in this country, which is one reason why our insurance industry could benefit from the liberalisation of the Germany market. I agree that there should not be any artificial restrictions, and the absence of legislation should not be taken as an absence of permission to trade under Common Market rules. We would be hostile to any such legal interpretation.
For the Government, an important aspect of the debate will be the contributions from many hon. Members who have expertise and interest in this subject.
Progress with the single financial area is moving in the right direction, and we have avoided the dangers and pitfalls that might have presented themselves. We avoided also the over-rigorous harmonisation of sectors, which could have meant that idiosyncratic institutions and those perculiar to the United Kingdom—such as discount houses, gilt-edged market makers, and so on—would have suffered. We obtained proper permission to allow them to continue operating.
We also avoided the Fortress Europe approach and placing too much emphasis on reciprocity provisions with others outside Europe. We have ensured that the main emphasis is on mutual recognition of supervision by different member states, so that we are in the business of deregulating and of freeing up the market rather than otherwise.
952
The greatest changes will be those that result from the psychological changes that the directives bring about. I mean by that a greater willingness by producers and consumers alike to think beyond their own national borders. It is very much up to our industry to take advantage now of the opportunities that have already been opened up, to prepare for those that have yet to present themselves, and to respond to the change in the psychological climate. It will be immensely to the advantage of the industry and to this country if that is done.
5 pm
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I welcome the new Secretary of State of Trade and Industry and congratulate him on his appointment. This week, we read in our newspapers that only 2 per cent. of the public knew who he was.
Mr. Lilley: That is a higher proportion than the percentage of the general public with whom I am familiar.
Ms. Mowlam: I am sure that that is so, but that is the Secretary of State's problem, not the public's. The right hon. Gentleman is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and the public are not.
If only 2 per cent. of the public know anything about the Secretary of State, one must hope that he will double that figure by the time of the next general election. If so, he will be progressing as fast as inflation under the present Government.
The Secretary of State's speech was marked by a great deal of complacency. He said that regulation is in place and working, but has he forgotten Barlow Clowes, House of Fraser, Dunsdale Securities, Blue Arrow, Polly Peck, Guinness, and British and Commonwealth?
The right hon. Gentleman said also that he hoped that a "psychological change" would flow from the directives, and that the City would wake up to that change. However, as the many questions from all parts of the House show, the insurance industry does not need a psychological change. It is worried about the built-in structural differences that pose difficulties to British insurance companies. It does not need a psychological change, and for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that one should be the main focus of the directives is very worrying.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that the Barlow Clowes scandal and the others to which she referred occurred under the previous regulatory regime, before the existing financial services structure was put in place and before the single market regime came into effect?
Ms. Mowlam: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the same degree of complacency was evident before the new legislation's implementation in 1986. There is no substance to the point that he makes. The Blue Arrow case is to go before the courts this week, and in that instance the compliance officers were operating as a consequence of the Financial Services Act 1986. Other cases that have arisen since then include British and Commonwealth and Polly Peck. I accept that the Guinness and Barlow Clowes scandals, together with others, were perpetrated before that legislation, but of the six or seven instances that I cited, the majority have occurred since the Act was implemented.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I may add to my hon. Friend's list the case that I raised before. I refer to the leaking of price-sensitive information relating to the cut in the base rate a week last Friday. It is known by City dealers that a firm named Barclays de Zoete Wedd and another named Salomon Brothers were both active in the market in the one and a half hours before the Chancellor's statement. People are asking questions about those companies' actions, and if only to clear their reputation, if that is possible, the Government should order an inquiry into how that price-sensitive information got into the hands of people in the City.
Is it true that a senior Minister had dinner the evening before with a director of a major City bank, when the imminent cut in the interest rate was discussed? I only want to know the truth. Did that happen, or did it not?
Mr. Ian Bruce: Answer.
Ms. Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point.
Mr. Bruce: Answer.
Ms. Mowlam: I will answer, if the hon. Gentleman will permit me. I am sure that the Secretary of State listened carefully to my hon. Friend's remarks, and I hope that he will fully cover them when he winds up the debate.
As the House knows, we welcome the move towards a single market. At the same time, we accept the widely held view that the pace of change will be slow as a result of the many aspects that the Secretary of State mentioned, including derogation, different regulatory systems, and cultural and linguistic barriers.
Mr. Batiste: The hon. Lady welcomes the creation of a single market, but does she accept that the introduction of credit restrictions in the United Kingdom would severely weaken our banks and financial institutions at the very time that they need to perform at their best? Will she completely dissociate the Labour party from the introduction of any system of credit control?
Ms. Mowlam: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the proposals contained in our three-pronged approach to the country's economic problems are no different in respect of credit controls from those of the French and Germans, so clearly that will not be a problem in the single market.
It would be helpful if the Government would take into account and recognise the contribution by the City and the financial services sector to the British economy, and that it is in the interests of all British people that Government policies—including those of the next Labour Government—help to maintain the financial services industry's quality and vitality.
Contrary to the assertions by the Secretary of State last week, the Labour party is happy to be an ally of the City, provided that the City is happy to be an ally of the British people. The aims and values that the Labour party conference openly embraced state that we welcome the open market wherever its free operation achieves the end of providing real choice for the consumer. The difference between our attitude and that often displayed by the Government is that they and the Tory party have become hypnotised by their own obsessions with the single market and have forgotten its ultimate purpose. The open market
954
has become for the Government an end in itself. For us, it is the means to an end. Only at the point at which the single market fails to deliver that end will we intervene.
That view does not detract from our concerns about the failure of long-term investment in British industry—but no doubt a debate on the implications of taking the short-term approach will take place on another occasion. From the principle that I have stated flow our two main objectives—to ensure a positive enabling approach to UK financial services in Europe, and to maintain a firm commitment to investor protection for consumers of financial services in the UK.
From the negotiations leading to the big bang, to the introduction of the Financial Services Act 1986, one Minister after another has tried to convince the industry that the Government have been doing a good job. As has already been pointed out, the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is the ninth in as many years. I am sure that the new Secretary of State believes, like his predecessors, that he can do an even better job and that only a few changes are required to correct the minor errors that remain.
The reality is very different. Over the past year, I have spent a considerable amount of time listening to people in the financial community voicing their growing resentment of the failure of strategies executed or supported by the Department of Trade and Industry over the past 10 years. Examples include the selection of the wrong market maker system in SEAQ to the virtually complete re-writing of the FSA rules and structure, where the Government blundered along without direction.
The same is true of the Government's dealings in respect of Europe. Despite their recent trumpeting about co-ordinating international bodies, which the right hon. Gentleman repeated today, successive Ministers failed to rationalise the dissemination of information in the real business of enforcement. Ministers have gone to the United States and to Japan, and have returned only with agreements that had already been reached between the regulatory bodies of those countries and of this country.
How can the City have faith in a Government who pay minimal attention in the directive on undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities to the problems confronting our unit trust industry, which the Secretary of State failed to mention, because of the unfair advantage enjoyed by our competitors who have, as the Germans do, tied distribution channels, so making access for our industry more difficult and problematic?
Secondly, as the Minister mentioned, there are the difficulties in the insurance industry, which faces structural problems. Banks in Germany and France make it difficult for competitors to get into the market, as they are an addition, and it worries them greatly. Then there are the problems of greater vulnerability to takeovers in the industry when faced with French and German conglomerates.
Thirdly, there is the question of the future for our intermediaries when they are faced with the high capital adequacy levels demanded in the capital adequacy directive that the Minister referred to. Labour wants the London market to remain the lead financial centre in Europe. It is quite clearly a national asset of considerable value.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Mowlam: Yes, but it is the last time.
Mr. Hanley: I am grateful, and I declare any interest which might be published in The Observer colour magazine.
Will the hon. Lady make it absolutely clear whether her party's major policy is that of direct intervention by the state, or whether she will still uphold the Government's policy, which is basically self-regulation under supervision from the state?
Ms. Mowlam: I have answered that in principle, and I shall answer it in detail in a minute.
The London market is of essential importance to this country and we want it to continue. The difficulty—this was evident from the Secretary of State's remarks on the insurance industry—and what the Secretary of State does not seem to realise, is that, when other representatives in the EC talk about level playing fields, they send 12 players to the negotiations. The Government send our team without even a goalie. That is the sort of problem we face in negotiations in Europe. If the Government do not do what the French Government are doing for Paris and what the Germans are doing for Frankfurt, however hard the City competes for business in the single market its prospects will be scuppered.
Our greatest concern must be the Government's cavalier attitude towards consumers' interests. The Government were primarily motivated to promote wider share ownership as a cheap way of trying to popularise privatisations. Having created those investors for their own convenience, the Government must now have a responsibility for their interests.
What have the Government done to avoid the situation in which the number of brokers prepared to deal with private clients has plummeted? There has been no mention of that today. The minimum size of deals now accepted by some brokers is as high as £50,000 or £100,000.
If the investment services directive, to which the Secretary of State referred, is accepted as it now stands, investors who put their money into other European firms may not be entitled to the same sort of protection for their money as investors in British firms. In the years ahead, we could well be hearing of another Barlow Clowes, and even if it was a Barlow Clowes with a French, Spanish or Italian accent, the outcome for British investors will be exactly the same.
The major area where the Government have failed to protect the British people in the open market—it is amazing that the Minister got through his speech without even mentioning it in passing—is by ignoring the need for a consumers directive to be implemented at the same time as other directives in 1993. When I mention the interests of the British people, I mean the British people, not some small group of people dealing in an obscure market. I mean the 41 million people who have building society or bank accounts, the 24 million people with car insurance and the 18 million with life assurance. They need to know what rights and protections they have if they purchase services from other European countries. At present, the Government will fail to tell them.
Let us turn briefly to what the City is saying. Today, the Minister described why he thinks that the Government should be proud of their record on regulation and investor protection. The Government have introduced a cycle of regulation followed by deregulation. Let us look back to
956
the curtailment of powers of business investors to take civil actions when firms breach self-regulatory organisations' rules, which was once described—the Secretary of State grins—as the cornerstone of the Financial Services Act 1986. That is one of the many U-turns which the Government have implemented and the industry has had to survive.
There is no doubt that a quality product, produced in this country, needs defending and that its standards need to be maintained. If self-regulation cannot enhance and maintain that quality, the Government should act as quality controller.
The structure of regulation of financial services in this country requires amendment. It seems that everyone except the Government agrees with that. On this side of the House, we are not interested in change for change's sake. Quite clearly, the present structure is young and needs a period of stability to bed down, but several major weaknesses have been exposed in the existing system which need changing, both in the duplication of regulatory agencies and in the detection of fraud. What the Government and the Secretary of State have failed to acknowledge today is that, unless these problems are dealt with, the integrity of the present regulatory regime will be undermined.
We are not arguing for more regulation: we want more effective and precise regulation. If one talks and listens to people in the City, one realises that that is the problem that they and the investors are facing.
Sir Robert McCrindle rose—
Ms. Mowlam: I am sorry, but I have given way too often, and many hon. Members wish to speak.
Consumers are heavily dependent on other people's skill and integrity when buying a financial service. Therefore, it is as well, in some senses, that the Government are not offering financial services. Investors are bombarded by cross-selling between banks and building societies, and are exposed to the highly dubious practice of cold calling. We need to know what has happened to the attempt to agree even minimal harmonisation of regulatory rules across host nations so that consumer protection is maintained.
In its place, we have conduct of business rules, which, as the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, are designed to protect the consumer. The Secretary of State failed to tell the House that these rules can be challenged by non-British firms in the courts on the basis of whether or not they serve the "general good". If that happens and the case is taken to court, it could take a number of years. The person who suffers in the interim is the British investor. In the meantime, EC firms will come here and our firms will suffer for lack of a competitive advantage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): Could the hon. Lady clarify for us which regulatory bodies the Opposition would abolish, and which ones they would set up and strengthen?
Ms. Mowlam: I was not referring specifically to financial bodies. I made two points very clearly. First, under the present system of regulation, there are a number of regulatory bodies, and they need streamlining—talk to anyone in the City and they will confirm that. As the Minister well knows, the Association of Futures Brokers

957
and Dealers and the Securities Association are in negotiations, and other negotiations have been considered and will be considered, so streamlining is already under way.
Secondly, I referred to the regulation of serious fraud. About a dozen bodies deal with that. The Select Committee—not the report that we are discussing today, so this is not really relevant, but I shall answer the Minister's question—stated quite clearly that, in company investigations, a centralised computer-based system was needed. The Minister is so concerned about what we shall do with those regulatory bodies, but it will be equally interesting if he can answer whether that centralised database will be provided. The regulatory bodies need that degree of communication.
It would also help, if the right hon. Gentleman is interested in answering, if he told us how he advises Japanese and United States regulatory bodies when they come to this country. I have been to the States and talked to such bodies. With the present Government's regulatory structure, it is impossible for such bodies to know whether they should talk to the Serious Fraud Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, TSA or the Securities and Investments Board. Clearly, under our present system, that is a problem which we would address. It will be interesting to see if the Minister has any suggestions to make about what he would do.
Sir Robert McCrindle rose—
Ms. Mowlam: I am sorry, but I gave way to the Minister as a matter of courtesy and I shall not give way any more.
The point that I was making about business rules, which is central to consumers in this country, is that we have a set of rules that can be taken to the courts and as a result the protection that we consider essential for our consumers could be rejected on the grounds of general good. That is not just my worry. The British Bankers Association, which made a submission for this debate, is particularly worried about that point, not just for consumers, but for the competitive disadvantage to British industry.
The Minister knows, but failed to tell the House today, that in reality, without a consumers' directive but with the list of directives that he gave us, we shall get a harmonising down in consumer protection to the lowest common denominator of the European countries. When the Labour party comes to power, it will fight hard for a consumers directive. In the interim, the least that the Government can do is ensure that clients' assets are not available to the liquidator in the event of an investment firm becoming insolvent. Clearly that is not a problem here, but because of some structural conditions in other countries, it will present difficulties in harmonisation.
The Government should further ensure that all EC firms must disclose the nature of their compensation scheme by telling investors at the point of sale exactly what scheme applies, so what compensation they are entitled to. The minimum that the Government should achieve is that compensation schemes throughout Europe meet strict criteria, such as the index-linking of any limits on compensation and cheap, easy access to such claims.
The problems of cross-frontier dealing create considerable difficulties for British consumers. In 1987, there was a
958
case before the European Court of a British person living in Spain dealing with a Swiss insurance company about a problem with his car in Italy. It was not clear under which country's law that particular consumer should make his complaint. Such a problem is a legal nightmare for the individual. It is enough to make any British consumer break out in a cold sweat. They now face the prospect of recurrent cosmopolitan nightmares under the present regulations without that directive.
Consumers will not be alone in suffering from sleepless nights if the future of London as the lead financial centre is called into question. The House is well aware of the City's present clear advantages: in-depth experience, a range of specialist markets and greater liquidity than elsewhere. They need to be supplemented with Government assistance and encouragement not only to improve infrastructure and to supply trained and qualified staff, but to integrate technological infrastructures and to extend communications, such as the countrywide broad-band network.
Without those changes, the City will struggle to keep its competitive edge. The Labour party is pledged to give that support. The disengagement of Department of Trade and Industry Ministers is pervasive, yet the task is so central that it is left to the chair of TSA, Stanislov Yassukovich, to suggest that City of London corporation should set up a research unit to fund the problems of infrastructure in the City of London. If the Department of enterprise illustrated half the enterprise that it expects of others and dealt with that problem, the City would not face its present difficulties.
The Government in their response not just to Europe but to the City may go down in history as so complacent—perfectly illustrated by the Secretary of State's speech today—that the map of the square mile must undergo a humiliating boundary review as we reach the next century.
5.23 pm
Mr. Kenneth Warren: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his first speech in his new post from the Dispatch Box. Whatever the stupidity of the 2 per cent., he is admired by 100 per cent. of Conservative Members, who believe that he is the man for the job.
I declare a formal interest in the debate. I doubt whether any hon. Member with outside interests is not affected by the developments as we move increasingly fast towards 1992. I hope that the business managers on both sides will note my regret that Back-Bench Members are to be given only 70 or 80 minutes to debate this important subject. The benefit of that to those present is that my speech will be severely truncated. It is important that more time should be given to these important issues.
I am not so much concerned that it has taken 16 months for this matter to come to the Floor of the House. When a Select Committee report is published, it is good to give the House and those outside who are interested in it time to review what is going on. It may be uncharacteristic for a Select Committee member to do so, but I thank the Department of Trade and Industry for the efficiency with which it has made available in time for this debate several papers which we requested. We trust that that is a foretaste of how it will assist us in future. Today's papers state that the Confederation of British Industry will investigate the

959
DTI. After that, the light cavalry of the Select Committee may investigate the CBI. We are grateful to the DTI for its response.
In my short speech today I shall touch on three items: the Export Credits Guarantee Department, which is causing considerable concern inside and outside the European Community, in terms of our competitiveness compared with other Government-sponsored organisations within the EC; the regulatory organisations which were touched on by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam); and banking. I shall leave insurance to my elders and betters.
The report and this debate seek fair and equal access for firms to EC and worldwide markets.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: At the same time.
Mr. Warren: My hon. Friend is always at my right hand with the apposite words.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will recognise that, in all discussions and negotiations in the EC, we must not merely focus on what Brussels says. British companies must operate across the world. The threat from Tokyo and New York to the acknowledged supremacy of London is constant and growing. My right hon. Friend and his colleagues are well aware that, within the EC, Frankfurt is breathing increasingly hotly down our neck, with Paris and Amsterdam not far behind keeping the pressure on us.
We must see ourselves not just within the EC. We must recognise that disparities in competition must be measured on a worldwide scale. We may understand that, but I am not sure whether Mr. Delors and his merry troop see further than the gates of Brussels. I hope that the Government will bring it to their attention that we seek to operate within the world market, as should the whole EC.
One of the benefits of giving a report time to settle is that various authorities have a chance of telling us how they see the developments to which we have drawn attention. There is absolutely no question but that the lack of a proper working regime for the ECGD worries British exporters more than anything else. There is unquestionable evidence that the ECGD premiums are higher than those charged to our competitors by their national credit insurers. The Select Committee and those in industry are worried that the portfolio management system as it is proposed will not enable us to remain competitive with other nation states.
The Government—even a non-interventionist Government—must recognise that they are in partnership with all those who seek to export. They cannot escape that liability. Unless they campaign within the EC for reductions by organisations, such as Hermes and COFACE, in their methods of operation in parallel with our own, in seeking to provide more private enterprise, we shall destroy it.
Hon. Members have referred to regulatory bodies. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs intervened to ask the hon. Lady which bodies she would like to get rid of, I wondered whether I could stand up and say anything about that. I have a shopping list and I shall run quickly through it.
There are six financial service regulators, nine professional bodies, seven recognised investment exchanges, two clearing houses, the Bank of England and a partridge in a pear tree. We have 24 separate regulatory
960
bodies. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate it would be worth looking at that and seeing whether, after some years of working, the Banking Act 1987 and the Financial Services Act 1986 can be improved. The Government must maintain a competitive stance in parallel with the efforts of our exporters of visible and invisible goods.
The Securities and Investments Board is doing quite a good job but if we look at some of the other organisations it is extraordinary to find the number of staff they have in relation to the number of firms they serve. I shall throw a few acronyms around and hope that hon. Members will be able to translate them immediately in order to save time. The AFBD—Association of Futures Brokers and Dealers—has one member of staff for eight member firms. However, FIMBRA—the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation—has one member of staff for 400 member firms. LAUTRO— the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation—has one member of staff for 10 member firms. IMRO—the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation—has one member of staff for 130 member firms and TSA—the Securities Association—has one member of staff for five member firms. There is something wrong that so many regulatory bodies are needed. Something should be done to try to sift them down, because for the financial service regulators alone, there are 800 staff costing 46 million.
On rare occasions, Select Committee members are invited to sumptuous dinners in the City. We are not regarded as highly as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues, but on those occasions we are told that one of the penalties of the Financial Services Act which is now becoming apparent is that it is costing more to compete and that therefore we are not achieving the sort of service that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues intended in order to make the country and the City more competitive.
Mr. Nelson: This is an important point, about which some of us have written to my hon. Friend in his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee, and I hope that he will answer me. My hon. Friend mentioned the cost that falls on many firms. Part of that cost is that they pay subscriptions to the Securities and Investments Board to keep it running. Although my hon. Friend has said that the SIB is doing a good job, many firms feel aggrieved that there is little accountability for the way the money is spent or the administration of that body. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry has done an excellent job in producing the report. Why does it not ensure that the SIB is brought before it annually for proper scrutiny and press for a debate at least every year on the annual report of that body?
Mr. Warren: I have taken note of my hon. Friend's letter and I have brought it to the Committee's attention. We have a busy schedule, but my hon. Friend has reinforced his concern and we shall consider it as we come to our new programme in the month ahead.
Britain has over 330 banks of various types and they are almost unanimous, as are many other organisations, in that they are pleased with the responsiveness of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Government to representations made to them. However, they are

961
concerned that the dialogue should go on and on and that it should not be simply an occasional meeting. There must be a continual flow of information.
If the trade associations are to function properly, they must get good and efficient feedback to their members. The banks feel that there are still considerable problems in investment services, capital adequacy directives and others. If time permitted, I would have gone into detail. I shall not do so now, except to say that I hope to have an opportunity to write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the concerns.
The Government are pursuing the negotiations towards 1992. As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is repeatedly pointing out, 1992 first becomes effective in 1993, and other hon. Members have pointed out that it will become effective much later than that as some of the German insurance companies are brought to heel and become as competitive as we are. I hope that the Government will recognise that the negotiations must look at the world context, which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. In the negotiations proceeding with the European economic space, which the Select Committee has recently investigated, I hope that it will be seen that the new dimension provides partnerships which will be of interest to this country in the furtherance of its objectives in the EC.
In terms of the Government as a partner, it must be said that the criticism that often flows from the Select Committee is that it must be more efficient in terms of its regulations and negotiations. This is about ordinary people—the customer, the person with the bank account and those who invest in the privatisations that occur nicely and regularly. Above all, it is about the need for the Government to ensure that quality is available for all customers at home and those from across the world who want to invest.
5.35 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his promotion. When the lights in the Chamber suddenly brightened alarmingly, I thought that it was a belated attempt to give him the star billing that he achieved at the Conservative party conference. However, as it happened during the speech of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) I thought that perhaps Peter Mandelson had made his way into the building and that sweet music would shortly follow. Fortunately, all has been restored to normal, which is better for the rest of us who may not be improved by the shining of brighter lights.
I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), on the excellent report, massive though it is. It said that we should join the exchange rate mechanism as soon as possible. It was published on 12 July 1989. Between that date and now there have been some competitive exchange rates at which we could have joined. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's recommendations are implemented more quickly in future.
We welcome the single market in all aspects, financial services and others, and seek to bring it to reality as soon as possible. In general, I support and approve of what the Government are doing in that respect. However, the
962
Government are wrong in their rhetoric. They have not really helped the British public understand what this is all about. Despite all the publicity produced by the Department of Trade and Industry, so much of what Ministers and Back Benchers say is about meddling Brussels bureaucrats daring to interfere in how we organise things in Britain.
In reality, much of it is about trying to harmonise standards so that no one country's products are disadvantaged in the market of another. Sometimes, that works against our immediate interest. However, the Government should not constantly deride, attack and ridicule that process. If they do so, people will never understand that, as with French lamb, in insurance services it is in Britain's interests that there is proper harmonisation and uniform enforcement of rules so that we have access to markets in other countries.
The test we should apply to harmonisation is whether it advances the interests of the single market. Of course it does not always do so, and we can criticise it on those grounds. Putting VAT on the acquisition of lifeboat equipment by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution would do nothing to improve the single market; nor does general VAT harmonisation seem to be necessary to the achievement of a single market. Some harmonisation of standards is required to ensure that our products are not put at a disadvantage by the imposition of different and, in some cases, artificial restrictions by other member countries. No doubt they will think the same about us from time to time.
I want to remind the Government about several areas of concern, some of which are in their minds already. The first is the position of independent advisers, including sole traders. That includes many FIMBRA members. They are the subject of the new regulations system, but their position is different from that in other member countries. Independent financial advisers have had a hard time of late in several respects, not least of which is that the rules of disclosure that apply to them have been more demanding than those applied to building societies where tied assurance arrangements are becoming widespread.
People are taking on insurance commitments without realising the financial advantages that have accrued to the people who sold them, even though it is sometimes a body as respectable as a building society. Against that background, independent financial advisers, who quite properly are subject to a developed system of regulation, need some assurance that their interests are being looked after and that their opportunities to trade will continue.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Should we not quickly make further progress to ensure proper, clear disclosure of insurance brokers' commissions on the premiums of underwriting insurance companies' policies?
Mr. Beith: I agree absolutely. Whether it be brokers, building societies or any other bodies, disclosure is essential if a customer is to know what is going on, not least a customer who has started on the road to obtaining a mortgage but starts to realise some way down that road the financial transactions that lie behind the insurance that is being offered.
The second point that I want to draw to the Government's attention is the position of the insurance industry in general, and I was glad that the Secretary of State referred to it. The insurance industry provides

963
substantial regional employment in England and key employment in Scotland. In Edinburgh, increasingly in Glasgow and even in places such as Stirling, the insurance industry is a big employer. In the regional capitals of England such as Liverpool, Bristol and Norwich—
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Manchester.
Mr. Beith: Yes, but central Manchester is no longer the centre that it was because companies have moved further out into the leafy suburbs. Nevertheless, the insurance industry is an important regional employer and it is at specific disadvantages trading in Europe, of which the Minister is well aware and which must be removed if there is to be a genuine single market.
I have a worry about the passport system for all the various categories of financial trader, whether it be an insurance company, a security company or anything else. Certification in a company's own country being valid elsewhere is the right way to make rapid progress, but I should not like us to move towards a flag of convenience pattern, whereby companies are invited to move to a country of less stringent regulation, thus obtaining the passport to trade anywhere and yet be subject to less effective controls. The passport system must be accompanied by steadily growing uniformity of standard and regulation. We do not want a Liberia or Panama of the insurance or security industry world, whereby a country is attractive for a company to base its operations because regulation is less stringent and the consumer less well protected.
There is a further concern to which the Minister referred—ensuring that securities companies are able to trade and are not subject to unfair competition from the security operations owned by banks in other member countries. This revolves around getting the simultaneous approval of several directives. I was not clear whether, by suggesting that this is "proceeding apace", the Minister is confident that from day one of the financial single market there will be fair competition. We must ensure fair competition, and companies are seeking to do so, but we should like some assurance that it will be achieved.
A further concern is the takeover and merger differences between this country and other countries. British companies are severely subject to the threat of takeover and merger—a threat which is not present in some other member countries. That represents a significant distortion of the market, and we must address it. It is difficult, because in some respects the pressure for takeovers aned mergers in this country is oppressive, although it can also be argued that it is one means of promoting management efficiency, and its absence in some other member countries allows inefficiency to flourish. We must ensure that the extent of exposure to takeover, which is characteristic of British companies, does not place them at a disadvantage in the competitive market.
That raises some of the wider issues about how industry is financed and how financial institutions operate, because there are further differences between practice here and in other European countries. It is a common cry of industry in this country that a more long-term view is taken by German financial institutions than British ones and that their attitude to borrowing is different. The single market is an opportunity for us to enter that debate and to see whether we can change some of the short-termism that
964
Ministers have criticised, while opening up financial markets. That is one aspect from which we may be able to learn from other countries in Europe.
The last point that I wish to make concerns the position of the City of London in the system. Competition is brewing between London, Paris and Frankfurt. The decision to enter the exchange rate mechanism helps to secure the position that London has already earned because of the scale of transactions and the free market in London. It is my firm view that that position would be better enhanced if Britain were clearly committed to the single currency and to European monetary union in more than the nominal sense in which the Prime Minister accepts that concept. London will lose out badly without that commitment.
I think that it was a Deutsche bank adviser who said that the ideal European currency would be a currency with a French name, managed according to German principles from a central bank based in London. That is exactly what I want to see—a currency based in London, but managed with the attitudes to price stability and prudence that have characterised the Bundesbank for many years since the war. It is time that the Government, who are supposed to be in favour of combating inflation, took that principle on board. If we are, in the words of the Leader of the House, in the ticket office or the back carriage of the train, we impede London's opportunities to be the financial capital of Europe, which in so many respects it so obviously deserves to be.
5.45 pm
Mr. Barry Porter: I shall do my best to be brief. That is normally a precursor to a very long speech, but it is a very long report from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
After months of modest meals and hard work, the Select Committee reached 20 conclusions and 37 recommendations. In retrospect, perhaps we involved ourselves in a scatter-gun approach, and it might have been better if we had brought those things together, but the fact that the Committee reached 20 conclusions and 37 recommendations shows the mind-bending complexity of the problem that we are considering. I should not dream of taking hon. Members from one to 20 or one to 37, but I shall emphasise those matters that seem of importance.
If we are using Latin tags, the Minister may recall the simplistic philosphical observation cogito ergo sum, which for his benefit means: I think, therefore I am. That cannot he applied to every hon. Member of this assembly. I have just invented something that might be appropriate to the Brussels directorate—directamus ergo existo. If I remember the Latin word for table, tablamus, it could be tablamus ergo existo, which clearly is not true. The fact that there is a directive or something is tabled does not necessarily mean that it exists in the real world, and certainly not in the financial world.
May I deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)? The Committee did not say that we should join the ERM as a matter of urgency. It said:
"United Kingdom membership of the ERM or the use of a common currency would help to promote a single market in financial services but the absence of either"
is not a major barrier to such a single market. We are 50 per cent. of the way there, although I suspect for different reasons.
Mr. Beith: The Committee said in a recommendation printed in heavy type that Britain should
"join the Exchange Rate Mechanism of the EMS as soon as possible at a competitive exchange rate."
Mr. Porter: We are halfway there; 50 per cent. is not bad and I shall agree on that basis.
The Select Committee said that the policy of the Department of Trade and Industry of raising awareness of the single market has been timely and essential. It is important to avoid giving the impression that the single market in financial services will be complete or even approaching completion by 1 January 1993. That point has been made by the Chairman of the Select Committee and other hon. Members, but I repeat and emphasise it. No doubt 1993 has many attributes, but it will not happen in 1993.
I am sorry that the Government have been accused of complacency, although I must say that there has been an element of that. I am sorry, too, that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) went to the lengths of making a party attack on the Government, as our report was written on an all-party basis. Nevertheless, there was something in what the hon. Lady said and it deserves consideration by the Government. They may be well advised to apply the phrase that I heard in a seaside place last week—"Good enough, but not really good enough yet," or words to that effect.
Mr. Lilley: "Good, but not good enough."
Mr. Porter: That is it. Perhaps my right hon. Friend was listening more carefully than me because he had to.
We concluded that the single market will offer wider choice and potentially lower costs for consumers throughout the Community, but that such results may not be fully apparent by 1993. That is absolutely true. We should not pretend to the outside world that suddenly, on that day in 1993, all will be well; it will not.
I should like to emphasise a point to which hon. Members have already alluded: the slowness of the programme for achieving a single market in insurance seriously undermines the credibility of the single market programme in financial services generally. I know that, since the Committee reached that conclusion last year, a proposed directive has been tabled in relation to non-life insurance. That proposed directive, designed to widen a consumer market worth hundred of billions of ecu a year,
"seems certain to arouse fierce resistance in such countries as Belgium and West Germany."
That is a quotation from The Sunday Times, so it must be right.
It is all too true that fierce resistance will be aroused in such countries and even though the proposed directive has been tabled, it will not necessarily be implemented in the foreseeable future. The only country that would benefit if the proposals were implemented in the next year would be the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that Germany, Belgium and other countries will resist their implementation vigorously. I urge the Government to oppose that resistance and to win.
People have already talked about Frankfurt and Paris as potential competitors for the City of London. I do not take such talk all that seriously. I do not think that Paris will be in the same league, although Frankfurt could be. I still believe that the single market, as and when it arrives,
966
will not be a problem but an enormous opportunity for the City of London. Its history, traditions and expertise will ensure that.
Hon. Members have referred to the question whether there should be a change in the regulatory structure created by the Financial Services Act 1986. I do not know; I receive contradictory comments and advice about it, although a particularly vigorous and authoritative source tells me that the structure is not working well from anyone's perspective and that it needs radical reform. Although the hon. Member for Redcar was asked about that matter, she did not come up with a suggestion, and I am not making a suggestion either: what I shall outline is a suggestion made by someone else.
The two-tier structure of the Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulatory organisations is redundant. The Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation, the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation and the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation should be abolished and their role subsumed entirely within the SIB. The Securities Association has a better case for survival. A centralised system would be more efficient, effective and consistent, and I am pleased to note that even the building societies are now calling for a common system of regulation for banks and building societies. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will address his considerable intellect to those suggestions. He might even find an answer to the question.
This is a complex problem, but the sooner we get on with it, the sooner we shall achieve a single market. At the moment, progress is too slow and we are being held back in various matters by those who wish to protect their national interest even though they may spout the rhetoric of the new Europe. I agree with the Government that we are the ones who get on with implementing directives. But let us not fool ourselves into thinking that those in the other capitals of Europe are as enthusiastic as they say they are in public. It is certainly not what they say in private.
5.56 pm
Mr. Stan Crowther: It is a rare pleasure to find the Government accepting so many of the recommendations in a report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. They have accepted so many that I am beginning to wonder where we went wrong.
I support the view expressed by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) that the time allowed for the debate is too short. This is an extremely important subject and we all recognise the very important role in the economy that the financial services industry plays. Not all of us are quite convinced that the extent to which some people in the industry are rewarded is entirely justified. Ministers constantly complain about demands for what they regard as excessive pay increases in manufacturing. They would do well to take into account the fact that, according to The Daily Telegraph at least, salaries in the stock exchange rose on average by 49 per cent. last year. Perhaps Ministers would care to comment on that.
I propose to refer to one aspect of the report—the part that deals with takeovers and mergers. I express my unreserved support for the Committee's recommendations especially that dealing with the vulnerability of United Kingdom companies. However, I do not agree with the

967
view held by some of my colleagues on the Committee, and certainly by the Government and the Commission, that takeovers and mergers are marvellous in principle and that all barriers should be removed as soon as possible. There has not been much evidence in recent years that bigger is necessarily better. One field in which the creation of bigger and bigger firms, many of them now conglomerates, is positively unhealthy is accountancy. A mere handful of very large firms now audit the accounts of the great majority of large companies throughout the western world. That cannot be a healthy state of affairs. It is a dangerous tendency and any further mergers among accountancy companies should be examined most carefully.
The fact that the firms have increased their size enormously in recent years by developing and expanding in management and tax consultancy activities must make the danger of a serious conflict of interest considerable—especially in view of the Law Lords' ruling not so long ago that auditors have no duty of care to individual shareholders or potential investors. Given that ruling, and given that an accountancy firm may be doing the auditing as well as offering management consultancy services, we are getting into dangerous waters.
It is high time that auditors were not merely allowed but legally required to report to the appropriate authorities anything suspicious that they find in the books of any company whose accounts they are auditing, even if they hope to do business with that company in another capacity—as management consultants or tax consultants, or in the provision of any other service that they may offer. If it were made a requirement to report to the appropriate authority anything that aroused the auditors' suspicions—a Community-wide and, it is to be hoped, a worldwide requirement—the public would be afforded some protection against what seems to me to be the relentless advance of international financial crime.
It is an interesting coincidence that two of the Select Committee's recent reports have a considerable bearing on the matter that we are discussing tonight. Not long ago, we examined in great depth the information technology industry and more recently we looked at the growing problem of company fraud. During our inquiry into the detection and prosecution of people who engage in various forms of financial crime, many of us became more and more alarmed at the apparent ease with which substantial frauds and thefts can be committed with a very good chance of being unpunished. The scale of that crime is literally immeasurable. No one knows how much of it goes on, but we took sufficient evidence to convince many of the Committee members that there is an alarming level of such crime.
One little indicator of the level of that crime is that the Serious Fraud Office is not interested in anything less than £1 million. That may be the Serious Fraud Office's definition of serious, but many of my constituents would regard a fraud involving one tenth of that sum as very serious. Perhaps that gives us a guide to the scale of the problem in the City today.
I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) that the Secretary of State appears to be in some danger of sinking into the same puddle of bland complacency from which his predecessor was quite unable to escape. No matter how many
968
opportunities we gave him to escape that complacency, we could never persuade him to do so. I hope that the new Secretary of State will not take the same view.
I am not suggesting for a moment that financial crime is new. It has been going on for centuries. However, a new dimension has been added by the fantastic development of information technology. Billions of pounds can now be moved around the world at the drop of a hat or, more precisely, by pressing a button. That makes the matter far more serious. I get the impression that the agencies responsible for regulating the financial services and detecting crime are fighting a losing battle in trying to keep up with developments. There is clearly a need for much closer contact—and I believe constant contact—and co-operation among the various agencies throughout the world which are responsible for crime detection. In the Select Committee we received little evidence that that kind of co-operation is happening on the scale required.
Modern information technology is clearly as available to the forces of law and order as it is to the crime syndicates. However, the criminals seem to be winning at the moment. On the rare occasions when people are caught and hauled before the courts, if they are convicted the penalties tend to be derisory in this country, although perhaps not elsewhere. They are derisory here especially if the criminal concerned happens to make a contribution to a suitable charity.
Mr. Hoyle: Or political party.
Mr. Frank Haynes: The Conservative party.
Mr. Crowther: I would hardly dare to mention the Conservative party in that connection.
If we ever have a single market in financial services—I do not know whether we shall and the Select Committee warned that it will not happen as quickly as some people think—I should certainly welcome it in principle. Properly regulated, properly monitored and properly policed, it could be advantageous to consumers whether they are investors or pension fund beneficiaries. A single market could be very beneficial if it is properly run and regulated. However, I am afraid that lowering the barriers will make it easier for criminally minded people to pursue their frauds on a much wider scale. There is a danger that we may be creating not so much a single market in financial services as a single market in financial crime. That point needs far more attention in future that it has had in the past.
6.3 pm
Sir Robert McCrindle: Like other contributors to this debate, I propose to encapsulate my remarks in a short speech. I want to draw attention to two matters of concern: the unit trust movement, which I believe has not been referred to so far in this debate and secondly, and perhaps more importantly the effects of the capital adequacy directive on financial intermediaries.
I begin from the premise that, if 1992 is to provide opportunities for the United Kingdom in Europe, I suspect that it is common ground on both sides of the House that we should be seeking a level playing field between different types of investment in this country and also with regard to the differing tax regimes in relation to financial products in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. If such a level playing field can be created, I contend that the British financial services industry can compete.

969
At the moment, the tax regime for unit trusts operates very much against British companies. United Kingdom unit trusts are unique in paying corporation tax on their income. According to my information, no European fund suffers an equivalent tax. United Kingdom unit trusts should be allowed to distribute to European investors an amount equal to the tax credit to which United Kingdom resident investors are entitled, so as to place United Kingdom unit trusts on a more competitive footing.
If we achieve that level playing field, we can expect the industry to rise to the challenge. It would be ironic if we in the United Kingdom, the pioneers of the whole concept of unit trusts, were to be left behind as the single market approached, not because of some lack of efficiency on our part and not even because of an imposition by the European Commission but, dare I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, because of a tax regime dictated by the United Kingdom Treasury. If we could have the general support of the Minister when he replies for a movement towards that more level playing field, he and the Government would not be disappointed in the response from the unit trust industry in the United Kingdom.
I want now to consider the effect of the capital adequacy directive on small to medium financial intermediaries. Perhaps I should, not for the first time, declare an interest as an adviser to the British Insurance and Investment Brokers Association, many of whose members fall within the A2 category of membership of the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation—that is, those who are broadly speaking not authorised to hold money but who may advise and effect financial arrangements.
Part of the problem stems from the lack of understanding by our European partners of the concept of independent financial intermediaries, and particularly of small independent financial intermediaries. The case was mentioned earlier of their failure to understand the importance of insurance brokers in this country, and the House will be aware that many insurance brokers are indeed small to medium financial advisers as well.
If that is the reason for the difficulty as the capital adequacy directive confronts us, and if continental insurance fails to grasp the fact that, in this country, one does not have to be a large, very well capitalised institution before one can perform a perfectly respectable service, I hope that our Ministers and officials, as they debate the capital adequacy directive, will draw to the attention of our opposite numbers the fact that they are comparing apples and oranges and asking as what type of apples we should prefer.
I would like to see the A2 category FIMBRA member included within the scope of the investment services directive and thus have the European passport to which reference has been made, but be exempted from an inappropriate level of capital under article 3 of the capital adequacy directive.
The Financial Services Act 1986, to which much reference has already been made—I served on the Standing Committee some years ago with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson)—has received widespread criticism. Whatever the rights or wrongs of that criticism, there is no doubt that it has taken its toll on intermediaries in this country. Because of the difficulties of
970
continuing their independent role, many of them have chosen to go on tied to insurance companies, just at a time when there is a great need for independent financial advice.
Perhaps I should make it clear that we must make sure that the EC directives which are threatening—I do not put it too strongly—the continued existence of those financial intermediaries which remain do not place additional and unnecessary burdens on the independent financial intermediary, just as I hope that EC directives will give an opportunity for fair competition among intermediaries within Europe.
Reference was made in passing to the disclosure of insurance commissions. In an ideal world, there is no defence against failure to disclose commissions. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) failed to note that—to go back to the level playing field again—if it is expected that independent financial intermediaries, amidst all the other impositions of the Financial Services Act, are duty bound to disclose their commissions, so too in some shape or form should be those who are either part of the sales force of an insurance company or have become tied intermediaries.
Mr. Beith indicated assent.
Sir Robert McCrindle: I am glad to see the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed indicating assent. What is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander.
In his vendetta against the independent financial intermediary, as he comes back time and again to single them out because they do not declare their commissions in the way in which he would like, Sir Gordon Borrie has overlooked that fundamental point. One of the messages from this debate as we move towards the single market of 1992 is that the independent intermediary has already been substantially pilloried by the regime of the Financial Services Act. I do not say that as a reason to scrap the whole thing. It is too easy and too glib to say that, without thinking carefully of what we would put in its place.
I firmly believe that the financial intermediary must be seen as an extremely important part of the financial life of this country. Therefore, if an imposition is to be placed upon him, it should be no more and no less than the imposition that is placed on his competitors.
The EC's definition of liquid assets in relation to capital adequacy seems to be unduly restrictive. It will be difficult enough for some small operations to show capital required, and that is assuming that the United Kingdom gets its way in the discussions on the directive. It will be very difficult indeed if we go on with the restrictive definition of liquid assets. At the moment, it would be extremely difficult if some assets were not allowed to be classified as liquid.
The Minister is well aware of the important role that is played by unit trusts and independent financial advisers to which I have drawn the attention of the House once again. I ask him, in the negotiations that lie before us, to make sure that the EC of 1992 and beyond liberates our companies and gives us the incentive to benefit from the wider market. Whatever else it might be, it should not and must not be restrictive.
6.13 pm
Mr. Jim Cousins: One of the unfortunate things about the debate is that a long time has elapsed since the Select Committee produced its original report, and events have moved on. Last Friday, we heard that the country was to join the exchange rate mechanism. That announcement made a substantial difference to many matters that were discussed in the Select Committee's report. Only now that we have entered—according to the Chancellor—a period of stable exchange rates with Germany and France will it be possible to test the Government's supposition that regulatory switching of financial services activity between lighter and heavier regulatory regimes will not take place. That matter is now sharply to be tested.
Similarly, now that we have joined the ERM, we shall see what the City of London is really made of. It will now be possible for investments to be safely carried out on a far larger scale, that is investments in the stock markets of Europe rather than in the stock markets of Britain. The competitive position of the City of London, which was of great concern to the Select Committee when it reported in 1989, is now under much harder scrutiny. We can be far less certain that the Government's optimistic conclusions, outlined in their response to the Select Committee's report, are soundly based.
We also had before us the fast-changing position with regard to the United States and Japan and their role in the City of London. The City of London's strength as a financial market has largely depended on being the vital intermediary between the capital of the United States and Japan and its performance and investment inside Europe. There is now good cause to doubt whether that feature of strength in the City of London will continue. We should closely examine that matter.
We can now also see far more clearly than we could when the Select Committee reported just what the Financial Services Act regulatory regime might bring. Many of the cases that gave us concern when the Select Committee was doing its investigation originated before the passing of the Financial Services Act. We can now see coming forward a whole raft of new cases that were born during the operation of the Financial Services Act regime and still give grounds for continuing concern.
Even as we speak, accountants from Coopers and Lybrand are scouring Europe and parts of the middle east to track down where £200 million of Polly Peck's money might be found. That is a serious matter. We hope that the money is found. However, such matters give grounds for real concern about whether the Government can afford to be complacent about the regulatory regimes that were laid in place at the time of the passing of the Financial Services Act 1986. It cannot be doubted, either, that many practitioners in the City are sceptical about whether the regulatory regime that was laid in place then is at all appropriate for the present situation.
Of course, the focus of the regulatory frameworks of the Financial Services Act regime are on regulatory procedures and authorisation procedures. We can see much more clearly now than we could either in 1989 when the Select Committee reported or in 1985 when the Act was being passed that that is perhaps not the correct point of emphasis. The correct point of emphasis should be the competence of the professional who is engaged in the
972
business, the effective compliance procedures inside the firms that are conducting the business, and proper action against wrongdoing when it can be perceived.
The paper bunker of regulation into which the British financial services industry has been forced will not prove an adequate protection. It is not simply a matter of the scandals and the corruption that are occasionally revealed that is the worrying thing, but the normal routines, the concealment, doubt and uncertainty about what is really going on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) rightly drew attention to the role of accountants. The financial press has today reported that the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants has now produced a report which is honest enough to admit what has been clear for some time—that one needs a health warning before one looks at company accounts. What one sees in those accounts may not represent all there is, and what one does see may not be there. This is a matter of great concern, and the Government would be unwise to be complacent about the fate of the basic routines of accountancy.
Doubts have been introduced about the quality of British accounts. As a result of the Companies Act 1989, an accountancy regime has been established. The heads of that regime are now admitting that there are profound problems concerning what one sees in company accounts, inflation accounting, the use of good will, the different definitions of mergers and acquisitions, and the way in which that may enable the manipulation of accounts as well as about other things that can be manipulated so that they do not appear on the balance sheet at all. Given that the heads of the accountancy profession have admitted to those problems, the Government cannot simply stick by their response to the Select Committee report, especially as it was produced in another era.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) was right to say that the problems we have outlined are not the private concern of a club—we can no longer see the City of London as a club in which rules of behaviour are internal to the system rather than subject to public regulation. Such regulation may well require statutory agencies to enforce high standards. My hon. Friend also made a sound point about the creation of small shareholders, but of even greater importance is the fact that we have already socialised the ownership of industry and our services through the insurance industry and occupational pension funds.
Common ownership has been achieved, but the consequences that flow from that, and the extra requirements they make upon the regulatory systems and standards of conduct of those who operate on behalf of those common owners, have not been perceived. The Government must address that. I doubt whether a framework more appropriate to the Sock Shop capitalism of the 1980s is one that we should allow to endure.
6.22 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: Financial services represent one of the great successes of the United Kingdom economy. The London stock exchange is pre-eminent in Europe, with a market capitalisation of $500 billion compared with $160 billion in Germany and $100 billion in France and Italy. London's pre-eminence is even more noted regarding foreign exchange. The daily

973
turnover of foreign exchange in London is $90 billion, compared with $50 billion in Tokyo and New York. Our financial services are a great success and, in terms of banking, we are part of a truly international market in which we are predominant.
The circumstances surrounding insurance are somewhat different. The OECD countries hold some 94 per cent. of the $500 billion a year premiums in the world; the United States has some 45 per cent. of that market, Japan 14 per cent. and the European Community countries 30 per cent. The 30 per cent. held by EC countries is fragmented. The largest market is in Germany, where there is close protectionism, the third largest is that of France where there is a great deal of state ownership, but the second largest market is that of the United Kingdom, the most open. It is therefore important to approach banking and insurance in different ways.
In banking there is a lot to play for. The Cecchini report suggested that there are £15 billion of benefits to be gained on a one-off basis from joining together the European financial markets. That is equivalent to about 22 billion ecu as we must learn, I suppose, to say.
On a personal level, it is important to realise how much there is to gain from harmonising the European markets. If someone undertook a round trip of the European capitals and changed his spending money in each of those capitals he would return having lost more than half of his spending money as a result of dealing charges and losses on the official exchange rate. There is a great deal to play for, but we must remember that there are some risks and losses.
Reference has been made to the Financial Services Act 1986, which is not only a tight regulation of the financial institutions of the United Kingdom, but an expensive one. There is a risk that less well-regulated banks operating here might be able to operate with less expense and therefore be more competitive than our own institutions. It is important that we agree host nation monitoring—essential minimum harmonisation. Should it be necessary for the United Kingdom to change its regulations to ensure that our financial institutions are not at a disadvantage compared with other European countries, I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the risks and take steps to make the necessary modifications.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: What about the consumer? As it is now, years have gone by without any increase in the compensation limits despite nearly 30 per cent. inflation. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that, with that miserable record of compensation we should lower our level still further if continental countries do so?
Mr. Viggers: My hon Friend is referring to insurance rather than banking and I shall refer to that shortly.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will also bear it in mind that it is important that EC developments are consistent with operations in non-EC countries. That is particularly important for the United Kingdom, which has much insurance business outside the EC. Perhaps I should declare an interest as a member of Lloyd's although I cannot see that it is relevant, but that might save some Opposition Member from asking whether I have declared that interest.
Mr. Hoyle: Speak up.
Mr. Viggers: I beg the House's pardon, but I am gabbling to save time.
We are concerned that the changes in the EC should not be to the detriment of United Kingdom institutions operating outside the Community. An undercapitalised Portuguese bank that sought to open in the United States might find that it was unable to do so because of United States regulations. If there was full, obligatory reciprocity of recognition within the EC, it might follow that a United States bank seeking to open in the United Kingdom could be barred from doing so because of those reciprocity rules. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear that important point in mind, as it is of concern to the financial institutions.
There is also concern as a result of the investment services directive. Banks operating in the EC should not only be able to join EC stock exchanges and operate as investment advisers and operators within those exchanges, but they should not be barred from operating as investment advisers and from the execution of investment matters on behalf of clients outside those stock exchanges. In some parts of the EC, it is felt that banks should not be able to join stock exchanges, but in other parts of the Community it is felt that they should operate only within those stock exchanges.
So far we have heard little about shareholders. I am proud to say that the Government have doubled and redoubled the number of individual shareholders in the United Kingdom. The fact remains that the percentage of shares held in the stock exchange by private shareholders has fallen from 60 per cent. in 1960 to only 20 per cent. now.
I for one feel a great sense of disappointment that the number of individual shareholders continues to fall. There are several reasons for that—one is the cost of dealing for individual shareholders. I am concerned about what individual shareholders who have been encouraged by the Government to become shareholders for the first time will do when they try to calculate how much it will cost them to sell their shares and what the implications might be in terms of dealing cost and the inconvenience of having to declare for tax purposes any profit that they make.
I am also concerned that some companies have felt it necessary to set up their own systems to enable their shareholders to sell and buy shares. 1 believe that Cable and Wireless, British Gas and Reed have done that. That is not a helpful way ahead.
The insurance industry is riddled with complexity and vested interest. There are various standards in different European countries, including in the preparation of accounts and reserves, the handling of claims and legal procedures. There are many vested interests, in some cases assisted by Government. The French Government have a vested interest in the state insurance company's operations in France. The Italian Government require 30 per cent. of insurance premiums to be ceded to the state company, INA. Switzerland, although not in the European Community, provides a monopoly for fire insurance in each canton.
I welcomed Sir Leon Brittan's suggestion in November 1989 that there should be a single passport or licence—home country authorisation. Ideally, we should have harmonisation, but that would be exceptionally difficult. Therefore, the best route seems to be the creation of minimum standards throughout the European Community. Meanwhile, some companies are taking the

975
second best route of cross-border purchases, mergers and acquisitions. That is the second best route because it requires the companies to operate in accordance with the laws of the country in which they made their acquisition. However, it is only the second best route and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to press ahead as fast as he can with an effective single market as the long-term objective.
6.33 pm
Mr. Doug Hoyle: I am pleased to join in this debate, not only as a member of the Select Committee but as president of the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union, a large number of whose members work in financial services. I have been interested in the debate and one point that struck me is that, despite the reassurances given to the Secretary of State—I am sorry that he is not here—by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) that the Secretary of State's future was secure, I thought his was a pedestrian and lacklustre speech. When the Secretary of State goes to bed at night and has nightmares about all his predecessors, he may also find himself the victim of short-termism, as the Government call it.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) was right to emphasise the importance of the industry of which we are talking and which makes up 10 per cent. of the gross national product. In 1987, the industry gave a surplus on invisibles of £7·658 billion, which is considerable. I stress that we must not be complacent, because all the signs, including our earlier debate on ERM, point to the fact that Germany—the Bundesbank—is dominating the financial position in the European Community. That is why we must not be complacent or think that what is happening in the City of London, Edinburgh and the regions will be with us for ever. We must wake up to the fact that there will be increased competition and that Germany is growing in importance. If we do not, one day, probably not in the immediate future but certainly early in the next century, we shall wake up to find that, far from the City of London being in the premier exchange position, it will be Frankfurt.
As president of Manufacturing, Science and Finance, I am concerned about what will happen, particularly in the insurance industry. There is no doubt that we can provide life insurance at a third of the price of our European competitors. As has been repeatedly said today, the problem is that we are subject to takeovers in this country in a way that the Germans, French and Italians are not. It is easier to take over the Vatican than an Italian insurance company, which is almost impossible to do.
Takeovers occur all the time in this country because our companies are far more vulnerable than those in other countries. The German Allianz has taken over Cornhill, Signa (American) has taken over Crusader, and the French Axi-Midi has taken over Equity and Law. Another interesting example is that the French state-owned insurance company, UAP, owns 18 per cent. of Sun Life, which has an arrangement with Liberty Life by which they can bid for each other's shares. It will not be too long before Sun Life is taken over by a French state-owned company. I do not know how the Government will react to that.
We must ensure that the financial industry, which matters to us, has a prosperous future. I do not speak from the point of view of the investors in the industry or those
976
who deal in shares in the City of London, but from that of the employees in the industry. We must ensure—because they built up the companies that those employees have a future. In any of our dealings, we must ensure that we protect their interests.
The Minister was cavalier in jumping up and asking our Front-Bench spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) what she would do about the self-regulating bodies. The answer has come from Conservative Members. I do not think that one Conservative Member has stood up to defend such organisations, which are far too bureaucratic and costly, and of which there are too many. There should be rationalisation. I do not think I am alone in the House in believing that the era of self-regulation must come to an end. There must be statutory regulation, with far fewer organisations that are more efficient and less costly.
I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the fact that we should not bear an unnecessary burden when competing against other countries in the European market. I hope that he will also agree that, with our great insurance base, we in this country cannot allow other companies to operate from behind the barriers, which must come down. I hope that he will be fighting our corner to ensure that we maintain not only a great industry, but London as the financial centre. I warn the Minister that time is short.
6.38 pm
Sir Anthony Grant: Yes, time is short—we have three minutes, to be precise—so I shall immediately declare an interest in Bowring (UK) Ltd and Barclays bank, both of which are affected by financial services legislation.
I agree with the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) that there is a need for change in the regulatory system. I favour abolishing the two-tier system, but I cannot develop that argument, because I want to talk about insurance, a matter that has dominated the debate.
Our insurance is the best; it is the most skilled and best regulated in the world. When I was at the Department of Trade and Industry, I believe in the same position as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, there was the Vehicle and General insurance scandal, when everyone woke up and decided that it was important to regulate insurance. Now, we probably have one of the best regulated industries there is, particularly after the Lloyd's Act 1982, which I took through the House. That made our industry well respected, but also the subject of considerable envy. It creates £3 billion net earnings and provides 340,000 jobs. The restrictions in the EC have inhibited development and deprived the consumer of a better service.
If we are looking to the single market for the opportunity to break down barriers, we must accept that progress has been slow. On a visit to Brussels, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) tackled the issues vigorously, but I felt that—apart from Sir Leon Brittan—officials did not have the required sense of urgency.
The latest proposals published for non-life insurance are designed to widen consumer choice and cut premiums; however, it seems likely that there will be all sorts of objections from Germany and Belgium. I hope that the Minister will carefully study the suggestion that the Germans—because they do not understand anything

977
about broking—must pass a great deal of legislation and will use it as a spurious reason for delaying what is a most important reform.
Competition is the name of the game: it is immensely important, and is the main thrust of our policy. However, open competition must be accompanied by good conduct. Here, to some extent, I agree with the hon. Member for Rotherham, although not in party political terms. The overwhelming majority of people working in the City are of the highest integrity—I spent some 20 years of my working life there—but in recent years the square mile has become infested with a small minority of newcomers who—as I have said in the House before—are long on cunning but short on morals.
The old saying in the City was that a man's word was his bond; as I have also said, if a man says that nowadays, one tends to take his bond. Some of the loot from dishonest activities there makes the great train robbery seem like minor pickpocketing. The Lloyd's Act 1982 prevented further incidents like the Peter Cameron-Webb scandal, which did immense harm to Britain's insurance reputation, especially in the United States.
This Government have done probably more than any other to crack down, through legislation, on insurance and company scandals. I give them credit for that. But we must not be just the most efficient providers of financial services in Europe; I want us to be regarded as the most honest and the most honourable.
6.41 pm
Ms. Joyce Quin: This has been an interesting debate. I share the view expressed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House that it is a shame that we have had so little time to deal with the issue, especially given the comprehensive nature of the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
Not surprisingly, a major thread of the debate has been the concern expressed by hon. Members—again, on both sides of the House—about the unevenness of the playing field likely to be created in the single market in financial services. The Government's assurances at the beginning of the debate struck me as inadequate; I do not believe that they will tackle the problem.
An example is the Government's response to recommendation 7 of the report:
"We recommend that the Government should address itself to the vulnerability of United Kingdom financial institutions to hostile takeover by a company from elsewhere in the Community."
Their response was:
"The Government believe that we should press for the removal of barriers rather than erect new ones of our own."
That, surely, is not an adequate response to the problem of the bid-proof nature of many companies in other European countries.
When opening the debate for the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) rightly said that the Government were being complacent. I think that they are also being naive if they feel that other countries will automatically accept their view of what the rules of the game should be. It has been interesting to listen to some of today's contributions, especially from Conservative Members. It is clear that many of them agreed with us that the Government were being both complacent and naive.
978
An example—not related to financial services, but none the less important in the European Community—is state aid. The Government have frequently criticised the level of state aid given by other countries, but recent figures show that other countries have given high and consistent levels of state aid during recent years. All the Government's preaching on that subject has been to no effect. It is not good enough to say that we hope and expect everyone else somehow, magically, to follow our example.
Today—in submissions to me and, no doubt, other hon. Members—the Association of British Insurers said that it was worried about the possible unevenness of the playing field in taxation matters. While I agree that a totally harmonised taxation system is not needed to make the single European market work, the Government must nevertheless be vigilant about the big differences in taxation that may undermine whatever other directives are agreed. Clearly many hon. Members share our concern: I noted particularly the speeches of the hon. Members for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) and for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), who seemed to express concerns that are dear to our own hearts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar rightly laid stress on consumer protection, and I am glad that her view was reinforced by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I should like the Minister to tell us what consultations have taken place with consumer organisations in the United Kingdom.
In response to the report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the Government said that they accepted the recommendations on consumer involvement. Perhaps they can tell us what organisations they will be meeting and what will be the time scale involved, if we are to ensure that when the single market in financial services is created there will also be proper standards for consumer protection. To date, the signs are that the proper standards will not be in place, and—not surprisingly—many hon. Members have expressed concern about that. It is important that there should be information on redress, and proper levels of compensation below which European Community states should not go.
The consumer-protection budget in the European Community is tiny. I am disappointed that the European Council allocated such a small amount in the budget for 1991: 0·018 per cent. of the total budget, which compares very badly with the amount available for the support of tobacco production, for example. There needs to be a change of priorities—not just by our own Government, but by other Governments examining the European Community consumer budget. I accept, of course, that it is not just money in the budget that will solve the problem; directives, too, will benefit the consumer at the end of the day.
Not surprisingly, the insurance sector has exercised the minds of many contributors to the debate. It is of particular importance, because the United Kingdom insurance sector has a great interest in the opening up of the market in financial services. It is also true—unfortunately—that there has been a worrying decline in our invisible export earnings in recent months, and the share of that decline accounted for by the insurance sector is considerable. All is not well, and the Government should address that point.
Several reasons given by hon. Members tonight show that it will be a long, slow haul to achieve a common market in insurance. We need greater vigilance than seems

979
to have been exercised up to now. For those reasons, I was surprised at the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that the European market in financial services was almost complete; if he reads the recent publication by the Department of Trade and Industry he will note the number of directives that are still outstanding, and will mean thorny and difficult negotiations in the European Community in the coming months.
The problems of the Export Credits Guarantee Department are also mentioned in the report. They have not had a great deal of attention during the debate—although, if the Government go ahead with their threat to privatise part of it, no doubt that will be the subject of controversial legislation later on. So far, in the internal market, there is no pressure to privatise the ECGD; the Government seem to be doing so as a result of their own dogma rather than any other imperatives.
It appears that the French state export agency is to be allowed to underwrite risks for foreign exporters: if a French export agency can do that, why cannot our own state export agency? There is no doubt that exporters in Britain are worried about the proposals for the ECGD, as a recent article in this week's Financial Times makes clear.
Some worries have rightly been expressed about the regional implications of the creation of a single market in financial services. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred in an intervention to worries in Scotland, for instance. The Government must give far greater priority to this. There is evidence that the European Commission is studying it, and the Government should too.
Not surprisingly, the Select Committee's report gives considerable space to the problems of transport infrastructure in Britain which affect both the financial centre in London and the other centres outside it. I do not know whether the Minister has seen the recent edition of Lloyd's Log, entitled, "Jams today…The threat to the City's financial future". After 11 years of neglect of our transport infrastructure the Government are now trying to catch up and deal with a problem which is largely of their own creation.
The Government have presided over a massive decline in our balance of payments. It is alarming not only that the manufacturing deficit is so great but that the surplus on the service side and on so-called invisibles has deteriorated sharply. While we believe that the single European market will be immensely important to the future of our financial services industry, we do not believe that the Government are doing enough to deal with the problems. It would be good to think that the Secretary of State, new as he is to his job, would take a fresh look at the issues affecting his Department. Unfortunately, it looks as if he is already weighed down with the dogma and short-termist attitudes of his predecessors—attitudes which have disadvantaged both our manufacturing and our service sectors.
6.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and several other Opposition Members seemed to think that cases of malpractice being unearthed or of criminals being brought to book implied that something was wrong with the system. It is the first time that I have heard the theory that, if the police are
980
successful on detecting crime, that means that they are not doing a good job. Such cases show that we have put in a tougher regulatory framework and that we are pursuing wrongdoers as we should. If only the Labour party had done that before, we should not have had our work cut out to put through the legislation that we have.
The hon. Member for Redcar also said that the Government were making no effort to improve regulatory co-operation with overseas bodies. I have just returned from Washington, where I was pleased to sign with our Japanese and American counterparts the Airlie House declaration. We recognise that financial business is driven by technology and business pressures towards global trading. It is becoming ever more important, therefore, to hammer out common accounting, capital adequacy and other prudential standards on a worldwide basis. The agreement that we have signed is a major advance in that direction.
The document recognises the growing volume of cross-border business in financial markets around the world, and pledges the three major market authorities in London, New York and Tokyo to work more closely together to facilitate further growth in that business.
The agreement enshrines two important principles. The first is mutual recognition backed up by some common standards. When each country is thinking of changing its rules or systems, it will consult the other two to see whether changes can bring practices more into line. The second is co-operation to assist each other in tracking down malpractice and crime. The United Kingdom is well advanced in widening its memorandum of understanding with the United States to exchange information and to carry out investigations on behalf of each other. About one case a week now causes that co-operation to be undertaken.
There will also be close co-operation to monitor the prudential position of major multinational firms. The Government will do everything in their power to ensure that the international regulators talk to one another and track down criminal activity even when it tries to run across borders in search of safety.
The hon. Member for Redcar seemed unaware of the many new dealing services for small shareholders which are now growing up. The Government welcome them and agree with comments made in the House that there should be easy access to good dealing facilities for all who have shareholdings, however modest they may be. Progress is being made in that respect.
The hon. Lady and her colleagues also seemed unclear about what structure of regulation they want. She tells the House that she agrees with the Government that the present system should be given time to settle down—we believe that strongly. More change would mean more disruption, more cost and more elaborate structures. However, the hon. Lady goes on to say that she wants to change the system in a fundamental way but is not prepared to tell the House exactly how. We await her reconsideration of a new structure, when she will have to demonstrate why it would be cheaper and better. Given the way in which institutional changes by the Labour party have gone when it has been in government, it would be surprising if the system turned out cheaper and better as a result of the changes that Labour suggested.
The hon. Lady concluded by saying that, under a Conservative Government, the City would need a boundary review. I agree. I think that the boundaries of

981
the wider City will grow ever wider because of the success of the industry, which has grown in ways that many of my hon. Friends have pointed out in the debate. I look forward to positive and confident 1990s for the City under this Government's tutelage, because we shall work closely with the City to ensure that its businesses can expand and take advantage of all the directives and opportunities that the single market will undoubtedly produce.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) raised the issue of the number of regulators. I must tell him that we need the current exchanges; they are important bodies and they have a range of functions that facilitate choice and competition. But if self-regulatory organisations wish to merge because they think it in their members' interests to do so—it may, for example, lower the costs or improve the quality of regulation—the Government are delighted. The Government will not insist on it, however, because they recognise the divergent interests and concerns of the different members of the different self-regulatory organisations. These things will work only if done on a voluntary basis.
Many hon. Members should concentrate on the fact that it is not so much the institutional framework as the style of regulation that matters when examining the trade-off between its costs and its benefits. The Government believe that we are coming to the end of a period when a lot of effort had to go into rule-making and institutional change. We are working closely with the Securities and Investments Board, David Walker and others so that, in the new phase, we can concentrate less on prescription and detailed rule-making and more on investigation, compliance and detection, because that is what is needed.
It does not help matters if the regulators are continually thinking of yet new ways to tie up in knots the existing compliant businesses—the broad mass of businesses in the City that are doing a good job. The regulators are and will be judged by their success in tracking down the tiny minority who are guilty of business malpractice or criminal deeds. We are putting our efforts into tracking those people, and we are urging the regulators to do the same—
Ms. Mowlam: Oh yes?
Mr. Redwood: Yes, the Government have put a great many resources into detection and investigation—by setting up the Serious Fraud Office and ensuring that it can pursue the cases that come to light thanks to the tougher climate created as a result of our work.
I promise the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that if he can bring forward evidence
982
of malpractice in any particular deal we, or more importantly the stock exchange authorities whose job it is to do so, will look at it. If the hon. Gentleman knows anything about insider dealing or other criminal practices, he should refer the evidence to the proper authorities and not cast aspersions in the House unless he can back them up with evidence that the authorities will look at.
Several hon. Members asked about the timing of the directives and whether we can bring the whole single market in financial services together ready for 1 January 1993. The Government intend to do all that they can to see that the negotiations are concluded. The banking directives have been agreed; the investment services directive and the capital adequacy directive could be agreed within the next few months.
One of the important purposes of the debate is to give us guidance on the details that need to be put right, particularly to help independent financial advisers, and to help some larger businesses with matters such as liquid assets. We have listened carefully to what has been said and we shall of course carry these issues forward in our negotiations. If we can get the right deal by the end of the year, we shall sign up to it; if it takes a little longer, so be it, because it is important that our independent financial advisers and our major players in the stock market should have access on the right terms, under which capital requirements are related entirely to the risks being run and they are not burdened with unnecessary capital requirements when they are not carrying undue risk.
I agree with many hon. Members including my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) that on the insurance side, matters are proceeding too slowly. There are doubts about whether the whole of the insurance regime can be up and running by 1 January 1993. However, failure to reach that target will not be for lack of trying by the Government—we are urging our partners to work with us towards a speedy resolution of all outstanding issues on the passport directives. As a result of our efforts, one directive has been tabled and we shall get it to a working party for extensive negotiation.
It is also largely because of our requests that the Commission has promised to bring the other directive for First Reading in the Council of Ministers before the end of the year. The Government will put their full weight behind reaching a fair settlement in this area. As many hon. Members have said, there cannot be a completely open market in financial products if insurance is stymied for lack of the legislative action that we all seek. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther)—
It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.

Redbridge London Borough Council Bill (By Order)
Order read for consideration of Lords amendment.
Lords amendment: In page 4, lines 9 to 17, leave out clause 6.
7.1 pm
Mr. Vivian Bendall: I beg to move, That the amendment be now considered.
Hon. Members may wonder why I rise to speak to the Bill. It is because my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) is with an IPU delegation in Uruguay. He sends his apologies for not being able to be here. I shall say nothing more about the Bill because it has been debated in both Houses and in Committee.
Mr. Michael Neubert: I am pleased to have this early opportunity to speak, on our first day back after the long summer recess. It is seven and a half years since I spoke from the Back Benches; for a great deal of that time I was a Government Whip and was therefore not able to speak in the Chamber at all, other than to move procedural motions. To my surprise and disappointment, I found that such motions are not the stuff of tomorrow's headlines. After my being consigned to silence for so long, I know that my constituents will be reassured to hear me more often in future and to know that I am alive and well and working on their behalf at Westminster.
When I was at the Ministry of Defence I had the occasional opportunity to speak and to appear on the parliamentary peep show and, through the merciless medium of television, I sometimes appeared in every living room in the land. However, on private business the same Trappist vow of silence descends on Ministers, leaving them inert and mute, even though the business may affect one's own constituents. The disability is that much greater when the title of the Bill does not immediately reveal the reasons for one's presence. Colleagues who saw me sitting silently during earlier debates on the Bill may have assumed that I was overcome by momentary tiredness or that during the long hot summer I was taking advantage of the air conditioning in the Chamber, seeing no connection between me and the Redbridge Bill.
Hon. Members who have taken part in the debates know that the Bill should be called the Romford (Extinguishment of Centuries-old Exclusive Royal Market Franchise) Bill. If that were its title, my interest in it and opposition to it would be apparent to everyone. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), the promoter of the Bill, is not here, but I am glad that he was able to persuade his next-door colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) to speak on his behalf. We regret his absence, but understand that South American affairs have called him away from the Chamber. Even at this late stage in proceedings on the Bill I am glad to have this opportunity to speak, even if only in relation to clause 6.
I express my warm gratitude to my fellow Members for the London borough of Havering—my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). They ably sustained the heat and burden of battle on many occasions without any direct assistance from the Member for Romford in whose constituency the
984
charter market stands. I felt as guilty as any first world war general, quaffing claret in comfort behind the lines while sending other officers to face the flak at the front.
I am indebted to my Havering colleagues for all that they have done on behalf of my constituents, and theirs, while I sat through the proceedings unable to contribute to the debate. My hon. Friends have distinguished themselves by what they have achieved, because the Bill is now very different from the one that was introduced to the House about two years ago.
We are considering yet another amendment, this time from the Lords. No doubt it responds to the strength of the arguments deployed at an earlier stage and not simply to arguments deployed in the other House alone. My hon. Friends' efforts deserved a wider audience, but it is in the nature of things that there has been limited participation in the debate and, not surprisingly, at times the debate degenerated into a dispute between neighbours, the Members for Redbridge on one side and the three Havering Members on the other. As we all know from our surgeries, disputes between neighbours are sometimes the most intractable issues with which we have to deal.
Mr. Robin Squire: My hon. Friend has mentioned several hon. Members. I hope that he will not overlook the noble contribution by our hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), whose sterling speech highlighted some of the problems with clause 6. No doubt in due course we shall come to those and it would be unfair not to recognise that contribution.
Mr. Neubert: I am glad to record my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who, on a memorable evening, contributed to a discussion on clause 6, which comes before us now as a result of the Lords amendment. I am sure that she wishes us well in our opposition to the Bill, because she is one of many hon. Members who have charter markets in their constituencies and who will see them threatened by the Bill.
The original Bill contained just two pages and its substance was contained in only one. It included clause 6 about the transfer of rights, but did not have the last two lines that are now contained in the clause:
"provided that no such transfer or disposal or rights shall take effect without the consent in writing of the council."
After amendment, the Bill now covers the best part of four pages. The major additions to its length are the revised proposals for compensation.
The concern that this question aroused in the Chamber and in Committee underlines the seriousness of the main purpose of the measure, which is to remove an advantage conferred on Romford by royal charter by Henry III in 1247. That royal charter predates our Parliament and it has been a major factor in the prosperity of Romford and the London borough of which it has been part for the past 25 years. It is ironic that, after seven and a half years. I should find myself speaking for the first time in defence of a royal franchise, which has benefited the people of Romford for seven and a half centuries.
I am not a Conservative for nothing; I wish to conserve the best of our traditions and institutions until persuaded that there are good reasons for not doing so. The Bill does not constitute such a reason. The rights to which clause 6 refers are not related to the right to hold an open-air market in the borough of Redbridge. Redbridge is an extensive and highly desirable area of north-east London

985
and is represented in the House by three assiduous and active Members. It is unacceptable for it not to be also adorned by a lively open-air market where customers can enjoy the cut and thrust of the stallholders' repartee while looking for a bargain among the cauliflowers and cucumbers.
It would indeed be unneighbourly of the next-door London borough of Havering to object to and place an obstacle in the way of such a market anywhere in Redbridge. That is not the case. Many residents of Redbridge widen their consumer choice by patronising the market at Romford, which has a long-standing and deserved reputation for good prices and value for money.
The Bill would establish a new market in Ilford, within the six and two thirds miles radius of Romford market, which, for no fewer than 743 years, has been the subject of an exclusive royal franchise. Some have suggested that the whole concept of a charter market with a radius of six and two thirds miles is unbelievably archaic—a description given by an eminent legal luminary. However, it does not lack all sense or relevance to today's trading conditions.
The distance was decided on the basis that that was as far as a man could drive his cattle and back again in a day, allowing sufficient time in between for him to conduct his business and pursue his livelihood. Allowing markets within shorter distances of each other would have undermined the viability of the markets and the individual livelihoods of their traders because it would have diluted the spending power of those attending them. There are no longer any cattle at Romford market, and the straight high road from London, which used to pass through the market, has been bypassed with a ring road. The market is now a pedestrian precinct where shoppers can walk without risk, other than that of occasionally slipping on a cabbage stalk or, for politicians, a banana skin.
The old style of the market is not really that long in the past. I first visited Romford when I was a small boy. My grandmother took me there on the top of a bus, and the market still had cattle and other livestock. Romford was still part of the rural county of Essex; now it is part of metropolitan London, having been swallowed by the metropolis 25 years ago. Cattle were last sold at the market in 1959, only slightly more than 30 years ago, so it is not as archaic as might be thought.
Mr. William O'Brien: The location of the proposed market was an important point of debate on Third Reading. Labour Members were concerned that there was no plan identifying its proposed site. Some of us were under the impression that the market would be part of a larger commercial development in the area, rather than a market in the general terms that most of us understand. That matter caused a great deal of concern, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will comment on it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I regret that I cannot allow the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) to answer that point. As he said at the beginning of his remarks, we are debating a narrow procedural motion, and we must deal with the matter before us.
Mr. Neubert: I hear your guiding words, Madam Deputy Speaker, and, as ever, will seek to observe them. Of course, we are discussing not simply whether we should consider clause 6, but presumably—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are considering whether we should debate the Lords amendment. It is a narrow procedural motion.
Mr. Neubert: For the reasons that I have already given, I shall seek to argue that we should defer consideration for six months. That will require a certain amount of attention to the wider case, not simply clause 6.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That would require a great deal of ingenuity, but I know that the hon. Gentleman has that. I shall be as tolerant as possible.
7.15 pm
Mr. Neubert: I am indebted to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot respond to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), but I was present during all the previous proceedings, and I recall the occasion that he mentioned.
The rights enshrined in clause 6 relate to the establishment of a market in Ilford, which is in a part of Redbridge that comes within six and two thirds miles of Romford market, a distance thought to be archaic. However, under clause 6, Redbridge council wants not only to establish such a right against the long-standing claim of common law that ensures a safeguard for Romford market, but to transfer that right to others.
It might have been helpful if my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North had explained the background to the Lords amendment. It is not clear to me, or to the advisers from the London borough of Havering, why we are even considering it. We can only speculate, as I intend to do during my speech. The clause states:
"any person entitled or authorised by virtue of this Act to hold a market may transfer or dispose of all or part of his rights to another."
We need to examine not only the justification for whether we should tonight debate clause 6, but whether the privilege obtained by private Acts of Parliament should be for the benefit of others, and whether that is the right way to proceed.
It is a matter of some pain to me that the Bill has proceeded this far only through the support of Conservative colleagues. Members of Parliament have many calls upon their time and it is understandable that they may not always be as familiar as the sponsors with the issues involved in a private Bill. One reason for deferring consideration of clause 6 for another six months is to enable more hon. Members to attend the debate than the relatively few who are here tonight.
I have already mentioned the confusion caused by the title of the Bill, in which the removal of a franchise—a negative outcome—is revealed only upon closer examination. It suggests the positive purpose of establishing a new market. Nothing is more likely to enthuse a modern Conservative than the mention of the word "market", but "franchise" is an equally respectable commercial concept and, in effect, the royal charter granted to Havering all those hundreds of years ago is just that.
What sort of market are we dealing with? Its rights are to be transferred to others under clause 6. It is not just a single site, but part of a wider market economy. The

987
relatively few colleagues who have voted for the Bill to date may think that the rights to which the clause refers extend the free market and increase fair competition, but do they realise that they are conferring rights on the new market similar to those that Romford has enjoyed for so many years? That is hardly progress. If we were to move on to considering the clause, and if we rejected the Lords amendment, as I understand it, that protection could be transferred to a third party—not the local authority or some other representative of public interest, but to anyone who might take over the ownership perhaps, or certainly the operation, of the market. Of course, I read the clause as a layman and without any advice from the promoters.
It is likely and, again, understandable that some of my colleagues may have assumed that because the London borough of Redbridge has repeatedly had the good sense to elect a Conservative majority to its council, any private Bill promoted in its name must, by definition, be a good thing that deserves support without question. I have been a leader of a London borough council—before coming to Westminster, I was mayor of Bromley. I have a high regard for the benefits of Tory local council administration.
However, I would not suggest that on every occasion, and on every issue, a Tory town hall administration is necessarily infallible. Perhaps I may derive some support for at least that assertion from Opposition Members. I hope that the fact that the Bill has been vigorously opposed by other Conservative Members—12 heroes voted against it on Second Reading—will be enough to raise doubts in the minds of other of my right hon. and hon. Friends about the advisability of accepting too readily the Bill's virtues and granting the powers and privileges that it seeks to establish.
Some of those privileges to be found in clause 6 would be capable of being transferred to another party. Although the Bill has received some support in this House, it has never received the support of the full Redbridge council. Before considering whether we should debate the Bill further, there are questions to be raised about the aspect. Opposition to the Bill by Havering council has been not only overwhelming but all-party.
Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend mentioned that 12 of our right hon. and hon. Friends opposed the measure. No doubt he will mention also the germane point that no fewer than 30 colleagues supported an amendment to delete a little piece of clause 6. When one considers that about 100 right hon. and hon. Members were present for that debate, it is obvious that there is scope for a larger number of them to examine clause 6 in its entirety.
Mr. Neubert: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The question whether we should give the Bill further consideration without interruption relates to my point concerning the support that the Bill received before it was promoted. My advice is that, for such a Bill to be promoted in Parliament, it must receive a minimum level of support from the local authority in question, as expressed by a vote in council for the Bill to proceed. My information is that that level of support was exceeded in Redbridge council by only one vote.
Local elections were held in May. It would be interesting to know whether that narrow margin of necessary support for the Bill survived the changes of councillors that occurred in those elections. Perhaps my
988
hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North can say whether the council has been consulted about the promotion of the Bill since the May elections. One also wonders whether the council has been consulted about the Lords amendment and the attitude that should be adopted towards it. We have received no advice from the promoters on whether the Bill still has the council's support. We should know the answer to those questions before we consider the deletion or otherwise of clause 6.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), perhaps we should seek the guidance of the Chair on whether it would be right to proceed with the Bill if it no longer has the majority support of Redbridge council.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate, and there is no reason why the debate should not continue.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that, if we pass the Bill today, there is no further step the House can take to stop or reverse its progress. If it would be unlawful in procedural terms for the Bill to be promoted without its having the majority support of Redbridge council, surely we should not proceed with it tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The House must decide, at the end of this debate, whether or not to proceed with the Bill.
Mr. Neubert: If that is so, perhaps I am wrong in thinking that a council must have the support of its own members for a Bill before it can be promoted. It may be that, having once made the decision to promote a Bill, no further reconsideration is needed in altered circumstances. Nevertheless, it is unusual for a Bill to take two calendar years to get under way. The original Bill was printed on 16 November 1988. It is feasible that the newly elected council does not support the Bill by the majority needed for it to be promoted. That is relevant when we are considering whether we should continue to consider it in this House. We must question whether it has the necessary legal and statutory support from the promoting local authority. I cannot answer my own question on my feet, but we owe it to the House to give that aspect some thought before reaching a decision on the motion.
It may appear at face value that the Bill has received the support of Conservatives both at a local level and to a limited extent in Westminster. The matter is less clear-cut than it appears. Line 13 of clause 6 makes reference to section 50 of the 1984 Act, which in turn refers to the Food Act 1984. That legislation, enacted by a Conservative Government, left intact the rule that a franchise market is protected against any rival market within six and two thirds miles, and that a statutory market is protected within six and two thirds miles of any rival other than another statutory market.
If we reject the motion and move to consideration of clause 6 and it is passed, and if the Bill is passed with or without clause 6, Redbridge will enjoy protection against another market being established in the borough. Such protection is of very real commercial value and would be an important consideration in any arrangement to transfer the rights with which clause 6 deals. As the relevant legislation is so recent, having been enacted only six years ago, it follows that a number of right hon. and hon. Members—at least on these Benches—who supported the

989
Bill in the belief that it would in a small way create a free market would have certainly voted for the 1984 Act that embodies the protection that Redbridge will to a large part enjoy under the Bill. Alternatively, they may argue that in this respect they are being consistent. If so, why do those same Members of Parliament not respect Romford's long-held common law rights? Why favour Redbridge over Romford and at Romford's expense?
On Second Reading, the Bill as then drafted would have given Redbridge protection within the same six and two thirds miles' distance as has been attacked as anachronistic in the case of Romford. Subsequently, the Bill was substantially amended in Committee. The Lords amendment is only the latest in a number of amendments to ensure that the protection was limited to the area of the London borough of Redbridge only, which is less than six and two thirds miles distance from Ilford in the round. Nevertheless, an inconsistency remains—and to vote for the Bill and for the proceedings to continue would be a vote for statutory protection, not for a free market.
The reference in clause 6 to section 50 of the 1984 Act is consistent with clause 5, which states:
"A market established under this Act shall be deemed to have been established by the Council under section 50 of the Act of 1984."
It is not clear why clause 6 was inserted in the Bill and subsequently amended, or why it is now proposed that it should be deleted at this late stage, on the Bill's return from another place. It is not clear either why we are being asked to give further time to its consideration.
What place does such a clause have in such a Bill? It has already been amended, and it is now proposed to delete it from the Bill. I am open to correction, but I have received nothing in my post from the promoters to explain that surprising turnabout.
Mr. Squire: Nor I.
Mr. Neubert: Apparently, my hon. Friend has received no such communication either. At a very late stage the Bill appears back in the House with a proposal that this clause should be deleted.
Mr. Squire: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend has reminded me—I had not fully considered it—that to my knowledge, and obviously to yours, promoters of private Bills are required to notify hon. Members on either side of the House of details of the arguments for the Bill at each stage that the matter is debated in the Chamber. Echoing my hon. Friend's remarks, I have received nothing from the promoters of the Bill about this evening's debate. I wonder whether that is in order, or whether some breach of private Bill procedure has taken place which would negate our proceedings tonight?
7.30 pm
Madam Deputy Speaker: As far as I am aware there has been no breach of private Bill procedure. Of course it is usual for promoters to provide as much information as possible, but I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that there has been no breach of our procedures in this matter.
Mr. Neubert: I am reassured by what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was questioning why there should be
990
such a clause in the Bill in the first place, so that I should have some inkling of why it should be removed. To answer those questions I sought advice from the borough secretary and solicitor, Mr. Michael Tink, who has been handling Havering's case against the Bill. I refer to his letter of 21 September on this matter, which confirms the lack of information that seems to be common to my colleagues and myself, as far as Havering council is concerned.
Mr. Tink says:
"It may sound odd to say after all the attention given to this Bill that we cannot give a precise account of the reasoning for the amendment which now prompts the return of the Bill to the Commons"
and which gives occasion for this procedural motion tonight. He goes on to say that he had
"no communication from the promoters but the amendment"—
as we know—
"is for the deletion of the whole of clause 6 of the Bill."
He thinks that that may spring from arguments that he and others made before the Committee in the House of Lords, but he believes that the Committee did not recommend the amendment and that the Third Reading in the Lords was without debate.
The background to the matter was that Redbridge was apparently seeking in the Lords to counter the argument that it is wrong in principle to use piecemeal local legislation for overcoming limitations in the general law—something which my colleagues and other hon. Members believe in very strongly and which we urge upon the Government, represented by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment tonight. We think that that is a fair argument, and I may return to it later.
Redbridge's case was that local authorities throughout the country operate statutory markets under section 50 of the Food Act 1984, including Havering with the Friday market at Romford.
Redbridge wants to run a market under those powers and wants to site it at Ilford. Powers under the Food Act cannot be used to interfere with common law market rights in the area without consent. The Wednesday and Saturday markets at Romford are common law markets and their protection extends to the Ilford area. Therefore, Redbridge needed the Bill to overcome the effects of those rights and to allow it to use the powers granted by the Food Act without Havering's consent.
Redbridge has never sought Havering's consent. That is relevant to this motion. We might not be here tonight and we might not need to consider the motion if Redbridge had sought Havering's consent. From the outset, Redbridge has acted on the assumption that it would promote a Bill in Parliament rather than seek a licence. That is unfortunate because the Bill embodies the sort of compensation which as a licence fee might—I stress the word "might"—have interested Havering, and the House might have been spared hours spent on private legislation and any future hours we may spend debating clause 6 if we agree to do so tonight, or in debating the motion if we continue to do so.
I shall offer some evidence to the House to support my assertion. It comes from Committee proceedings last year, which show how long this unhappy Bill has been proceeding. I was supplied with some of the relevant Committee proceedings. I suggest that, rather than go on to consider clause 6 and give up further valuable parliamentary time, by not agreeing with the motion we

991
might call upon Redbridge to consider opening negotiations with the London borough of Havering at this late stage, which would avoid the necessity of promoting the Bill. There appears to be no end to it.
Is the licensed approach feasible? I have relevant extracts from Committee. If any members of the Committee are present in the House they may recall that on the first day in Committee Mr. J. Hawkins was giving evidence. He was asked:
"In July 1986 did the Council by its Environmental Health (Urgent Action) Sub-Committee agree that, subject to consideration of a report on the establishment of a market dealing with legal considerations and so on, it was prepared to consider the establishment of a market in the Borough under the powers contained in Section 50 of the Food Act?"
The answer was, "Yes." Later, he was asked:
"Was it resolved that the officers should carry out a further study of the implications of pursuing private legislation and to report back?"
The answer was, "Yes."
The questioning continued:
"On 13 April 1988, did the General Services Committee authorise the officers to proceed with the promotion of Private legislation for the provision of a permanent market site in Ilford and to engage consultants?"
Mr. Hawkins answered:
"They made that recommendation, yes."
I stress the date—13 April 1988—as it is two and a half years since the general services committee of Redbridge council authorised the officers to proceed, which adds weight to my suggestion that it might be time, if the opportunity has not already been taken, for Redbridge council to be consulted again about whether it wishes to proceed. The circumstances may have greatly changed.
Mr. Squire: A major change since then, as my hon. Friend will confirm, is the arrival of the unified business rate, which must have had a major impact in Ilford, knowing the impact that it has had in Romford. Surely that is a factor which the council should have taken into account?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It may well be a major factor, but it is not relevant to the question before us.
Mr. Neubert: To support my contention that at no time did Redbridge seek consent from Havering, as is allowed under common law and under statute law, I again refer to the Committee report on page 46, when Mr. J. Hawkins is being questioned. He was asked whether, about a week after the meeting of the general services committee to which I referred, there was a
"without prejudice meeting between the director of administration and legal services and the solicitor to the Havering London Borough Council."
The answer was, "Yes."
It was only after all those decisions to promote the Bill had been taken by the council that it finally approached Havering. Presumably it did so out of courtesy and a desire to inform it of the proceedings, but without any intention of negotiating and avoiding the necessity of a private Bill which would use valuable private Bill time in the House.
Hon. Members may think that perhaps it was not feasible for Redbridge to seek such consent. Perhaps Havering's past record went against it. That is certainly not so, because Mr. Tink also gives evidence about Kingston upon Thames, which is another example of a franchise market where such a license was sought and granted. There are hundreds of such markets and there may be other examples. In those circumstances it would be
992
easy for Redbridge to make a similar diplomatic approach to the London borough of Havering, seeking its consent to have such a market within the six and two thirds miles' radius on the grant of a licence and on payment of the licence fee.
Before we consider debating the Bill further, we should understand that there is an example in Kingston upon Thames. On page 38, Michael Tink, giving evidence to a Committee of this House, answered the question:
"Do you know, by way of example, of any other authority that has been prepared to grant a licence on proper terms in relation to its market rights?",
with:
"Yes, sir, I do. I have caused inquiries to be made, and I know that the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames does grant licences for, I believe, four or five rival markets, one of them in the London Borough of Sutton, one at Wimbledon Stadium. I am told there is another one in Kingston town centre itself, which operates on some sort of licence; one at Kempton Race Course and one at Merton. I believe there was formerly one at Putney which has now ceased."
It is perfectly feasible for Redbridge to negotiate with Havering, without our giving further time to considering the Bill in this House as we approach the end of the Session. I cannot guarantee a favourable outcome, but we should certainly consider that option before debating clause 6 and agreeing to the amendment. If the amendment is rejected, I imagine that the same applies to private legislation as to Government legislation, and that the Bill will have to go back to their Lordships who will have to consider the views of this House. Therefore, even if we reach a decision here tonight, it will not necessarily be the end of the matter.
The licence might be related to compensation. As a result of the decision of the Committee of this House, Redbridge would be required to pay compensation to Havering for the loss of commercial value to its market by the establishment of a market within six and two thirds miles of Romford. That has been put at 10 per cent. of the operating profit of the new market when it is established. I have no idea what sum that might be, but it might be the same as a licence fee negotiated directly between the two councils, without promoting a Bill or creating the precedents which threaten other markets, of which there are several hundreds. Indeed, there is a whole network of such markets.
The question of such a licence was raised. At no time has Redbridge followed that path, although it might well have done. On page 18, the aforementioned Mr. J. Hawkins, a witness for Redbridge, was asked:
"Do you know whether the London Borough of Redbridge has ever applied to Havering for a licence to operate a market within Havering's protected area?"
He answered:
"I am not aware that there has been such an approach."
That confirms that there was not such an approach and that, instead, the House has been asked to spend considerable time examining the Bill with all its shortcomings and defects and despite its lack of popular support. That is the result of Redbridge's unwillingness to negotiate. We are again asked to give time to explore the reasons for deleting clause 6, without having been told those reasons in advance of tonight's debate.
Counsel examined Mr. Hawkins about the licence and asked:
"Can we explore, nevertheless, some of what the basic terms of such a licence might be? Firstly, provision would be made, would it not, for which days of the week the licensed market was to be permitted to operate, do you agree?"

993
The answer was, "Yes."
"Secondly, and importantly, provision would be made for the duration of the relevant licence?"
The answer was, "Yes, it could be." Counsel asked:
"You could have provision for a fixed term, or you could have provision for a term capable of being brought to an end by either side by notice, could you not?"
The answer was, "Yes."
"In either event, the duration would be limited?"
The answer was:
"That is a possible approach, yes."
The examination continued:
"Thirdly, and importantly, there would be the amount of the fee to be paid by the licence-holder?"
The answer was, "There would be, yes", to which counsel asked:
"Which you accept might be geared to the profit made by the licensee in operating his market?"
7.45 pm
That is relevant because it is exactly the conclusion that the Committee reached, which persuaded it to require the promoters to add such an amendment to the Bill. The answer was:
"That could be the approach of the franchise-holder, yes. What the reaction from the person seeking the licence would be, of course, is another matter."
Counsel continued:
"If that were the approach, is there any reason why a percentage should, in your view, be fixed at any particular figure—the percentage of the profit made by the licence operator?"
The answer was:
"If this was the approach that was being accepted on both sides, then yes, there could be negotiation on any figure."
In other words, it was open to Redbridge and Havering to negotiate a licence fee which would enable Ilford to realise its ambition to have such a market, without affecting the 750 years' franchise conferred by Henry III on Romford market. Counsel said:
"Thank you. That was going to be the next point I was going to put to you. It would be the result, would it not, of a bargain between a willing seller and a willing buyer, or to be more precise, a willing licensor and a willing licensee?"
The answer was, "Yes."
I raise that at length at this stage because it is still possible for proceedings on the Bill to be adjourned to enable the neighbouring local authorities to get together and negotiate a reasonable arrangement. It probably would not cost Redbridge more than it would cost in the amendment to the Bill, because it has already agreed to a substantial 10 per cent. of the operating profit of the market going to Havering in compensation. That might be held to be a reasonable amount for Havering to ask as a licence fee. I have no brief to speak for Havering council and I cannot anticipate what its answer would be, but I am sure that it would wish the precedents created in the Bill not to be established, if there were an avoidable way out, such as the negotiation of a licence for a fee.
Counsel continued:
"It is right, is it not, that while such licence continued, the licensor could not be in any position to complain that the licensee's market was causing him any damage, could he?"
The answer was:
"No. Subject to the terms of the licence, I am sure that would be right, yes."
In other words, once Havering had agreed to such an arrangement without the Bill, it could not complain. It
994
would be getting its licence fee. That is what happens between markets in Kingston upon Thames and no doubt elsewhere.
It occurred to Mr. Tink, the borough secretary and solicitor, that clause 6 was not related to any restriction arising from Romford's market rights. He concluded:
"if Clause 6 was necessary at all then it must have been intended to give Redbridge different (and better) powers than those available under the Food Act to any other Local Authority."
Hon. Members might well be surprised if that were the case. Clause 6 would certainly be objectionable, if we were told that Redbridge were underprivileged and Romford sought a great advantage. If it were known that originally Redbridge were promoting a Bill to give itself greater advantage than Romford and countless other charter markets, many hon. Members might have taken a different view from the start.
The amendment seems to vindicate Havering's argument that clause 6 is either unnecessary or contrary to the case being made for the Bill. It is surprising that Havering has had no communication with the promoters on that point.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Am I right in thinking that this question was revealed in Committee and that Havering made the points that my hon. Friend is now making but that those representing Redbridge made no attempt to answer them? Therefore, the House has had no guidance from the promoters of the Bill on why they sought to put the clause in, just as we have had no further guidance on why they now wish to remove it.
Mr. Neubert: In general, that must be so. It is not that there has been insufficient time for them to do so. The Committee considered the Bill in the previous Session of Parliament well before the summer recess last year. Therefore, there has been ample time for an explanation to be given.
Redbridge's parliamentary agents are Sharpe Pritchard, who are well known to hon. Members. Their no doubt expensive services enjoy a high reputation in the House. Proceedings on the Bill have been under way for nearly two years if one dates them from the printing of the Bill on 16 November 1988. Redbridge residents must have been paying a packet all this time. The Bill has been controversial from the start, even if the extinguishing of a royal charter does not, to my regret, count as lèse-majesty. It has undergone substantial amendment, of which the Lords amendment is yet another example.
Proceedings have been protracted and have detained the House for an avoidable length of time. I am now detaining the House for an avoidable length of time and I ask for forbearance and understanding. The proceedings have played a part in putting pressure on the Leader of the House to change the private Bill procedure which will restrict our freedom and the rights of hon. Members to play their traditional role in such proceedings. All that has happened despite the fact that on Third Reading the Bill had a majority of only five. That is a narrow squeak in anybody's estimation.
As I understand it, if we were to disagree with the Lords amendment, it would return to the upper House. The Bill has survived this far only because the Government introduced a carry-over motion from the last Session to this. We are now coming towards the end of the second Session. I do not know whether it is possible for a private

995
Bill to be carried over a second time. It is my understanding that, if a private Bill does not secure enough support to pass through all its stages in one Session, it would go against the principle of private Bills for it to proceed at all. It would go against that understanding if it were to be carried over yet again. As I have said, there is no doubt that it has played its part in putting pressure on the Government and the Leader of the House to change private Bill procedure and I regret that.
Before the House reaches a decision, I ask again whether it would be wiser for Redbridge to withdraw the Bill. The expense does not stop at Queen Anne's Chambers. Redbridge is also being advised by a well-known firm of public relations consultants. I have no hard words to say against the company concerned. It does an excellent job and has even been shrewd enough on occasion to offer me hospitality at its offices not 100 miles from here.
The only other person I know who lives in that street is my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Incidentally, he should take a close interest in the Bill, as he is one of the many hon. Members who has a charter market in his constituency which would be threatened by the precedent set by the Bill.
The fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford lives in that street suggests the quality of the firm of consultants and I am sure it does not come cheap. It has been said—it has not been denied so far—that the consultants are being paid £50,000 plus £4,000 a month for expenses. Some of that money might, with advantage, have been spent on explaining to hon. Members the reasons for the to-ing and fro-ing on clause 6. We would all benefit from that, including the Chairman of Ways and Means who is responsible for private legislation in the House. He may regret as much as we do that we have no clear understanding of why we are at this unusual stage in private Bill procedure.
This legislation has very little support in the House—it was carried on Third Reading by 48 votes to 43—and I am distressed at the amount it must be costing the community charge payers of Redbridge with each week that passes.
It may be that clause 6 relates to the original clause 3. That clause as printed in the Bill of 16 November 1988, said that the council may
"(1) establish a market within a distance of one mile from the town hall, and
(2) authorise on such terms, (whether financial or otherwise) as they think fit, the establishment by others of a market within a distance of one mile from the town hall."
The second option might have entailed the transfer of rights as set out in clause 6. However, clause 3(2) has now been removed from the Bill, and, as a result, clause 6 may be redundant. I await an explanation. As I said earlier, I am a layman in these matters. I do not know precisely the reason why the promoters want to remove clause 6 and I cannot deduce from the wording of the clause why it is no longer appropriate. However, Havering made some play of arguing against the clause in their Lordships' House and it may be that this is a concession to those arguments.
It is clear that by the inclusion of clause 6 Redbridge had ambitions beyond what is necessary for a local authority to own and operate a market. That brings me back to my objection in principle to the clause and my
996
main argument for wishing to see my motion carried. They should have an opportunity for second, third or even fourth thoughts.
Throughout the country, there are many markets such as that in Romford. The figure of 284 has been cited, but I am not sure whether that represents the number of markets nationwide or whether it is the number of hon. Members whose constituents have access to such a market. A list has been circulated to some hon. Members by the National Market Traders Federation and it lists 284 hon. Members as having such a charter market. It is disappointing that so few of them seem to be aware of the issues in the Bill which, although it affects my constituency of Romford and is promoted by Redbridge, has implications for charter markets all over the country.
The network of markets has developed over hundreds of years and has provided the basis for local prosperity in many towns, especially mine. Romford is famous for its market. It is not famous for much else. It is not famous for its Member of Parliament and it no longer has a football club. It has an excellent brewery which promotes John Bull bitter, but only within the London Weekend Television area. It may be that some towns in this country have developed and been sustained solely as a result of their having a market. If the market is to have its charter removed by a private Act of Parliament, it may be that not only Romford but many other markets will be threatened and picked off one by one.
My hon. Friend the Minister is very patient to sit through the proceedings. His predecessor said on Second Reading that the House should be given an opportunity to examine the Bill although the Government have not supported it. However, they should have taken more interest in the motion to defer consideration. In fact, I would welcome a contribution from my hon. Friend the Minister on whether we should proceed or whether we should do as the motion suggests and defer consideration for six months.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: On the Government's attitude, the House should take note of what Lord Davidson said in the other place:
"We have reviewed the whole matter of charter market rights to consider whether they are a restraint on trade. We found this a highly complex matter, which could involve compensation for loss of rights and which might well be expensive … As existing franchise rights present little impediment to trade—market trading being such a very small part of UK retail trade—we should leave matters as they stand at present."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 April 1990; Vol. 517, c. 1612.]
Although I am sure that the Government do not wish to intervene on the Bill, that sentiment implies that matters should be left as they stood in Romford as well as in the rest of the country.
8 pm
Mr. Neubert: I am ready to agree with my hon. Friend, because with his unerring instinct for what is apt, he has anticipated my next point. The Government came clean in another place about their reasons for not proceeding with such legislation. It is a matter of complexity and compensation, and if the system is thought to be outdated—there is no doubt that in historical terms it is outdated, although it has some relevance to present day conditions—it would be better reformed outright, not by picking off one franchise market at a time by private Act of Parliament. Although they are a radical Administration,

997
the Government have not sought that reform, and I have no doubt that my noble friend Viscount Davidson had his finger on the point.
That confirms the value of such charters and that they should not be taken over and transferred to others, as anticipated in clause 6, without adequate recompense and without it being dealt with evenhandedly.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is not it true that many towns have grown around ancient charter markets and that in recent years authorities have put considerable investment into new market facilities? If such a Bill had been proposed at that time, they might not have made that investment.
Mr. Neubert: I am glad to have given way to the hon. Gentleman, who has sustained his interest throughout the long proceedings on this Bill; we have welcomed the value of his advice on more than one occasion. These arrangements are long established and will be upset by a Bill that picks off one market. The economy of Romford, which is prospering and supporting the livelihoods of many people in and around the town, is based on those long-standing arrangements, and simply changing them will have serious repercussions. The Committee that considered the Bill recognised that fact by requiring Redbridge to pay adequate compensation, but I do not know whether it is anything more a mitigating amendment. If we support the Bill, which attacks the long protected rights of a single market, we may condemn ourselves to endless such Bills, which is one of my greatest anxieties.
It cannot be right to proceed in this way and I hope that I have made it clear that the best for all concerned, even at this late stage and notwithstanding the expense incurred, the many hours of debate and discussion and the valued experience and knowledge that have been used to amend the Bill, would be to proceed by negotiation and to avoid putting this precedent on the statute book. It may be argued that there is already a precedent—the agreement reached by the borough of Bexley with Greenwich. It is not for me or other hon. Members to argue the case for Bexley or Greenwich, but, whatever their arguments or interests, they reached an agreement.
The Bill is not the subject of such an agreement—it would not need to be promoted in the House if there were such an agreement—but the result of Redbridge's single-minded determination to promote legislation as a way of achieving its objectives. For that reason, I support the motion to defer consideration because it gives Redbridge a chance to reconsider and to open negotiations with Havering and to explore whether there is another way out that does not require this precedent, which would be highly unfortunate for charter markets throughout the country and for Members of Parliament whose constituents enjoy the benefits of them. I very much hope that the motion will be carried.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) back to the land of the living. As one of his colleagues in Havering, I have very much missed his presence on the Back Benches. I hope that he will not take it amiss when I say that it was a sadness to me that the Government did not dispense with his services a few months earlier, because had they done so I
998
have no doubt that the Bill would not have reached this stage. With my hon. Friend's assistance, which he was debarred from giving, we would have managed to knock this absurd Bill on the head long ago.
Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, have sat through many nights of discussion on the Bill. We thought that we had exhaustively dealt with all the subjects that could have been brought before us, but it appears that we had not because the amendment radically transforms the nature of the Bill in such a way that it would be wrong for the House to consider it tonight.
No warning was given to Havering council as far as I am aware, and certainly to my hon. Friends or me, that the amendment would be moved. There was no discussion and it was unilaterally decided by Redbridge council to delete this clause lock stock and barrel fromn the Bill. I am not clear—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) will intervene and enlighten me—what are the consequences of the clause's removal. I shall read clause 6 as it was—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not yet dealing with the amendment to the Bill. The question before us is whether we move on to deal with the amendment.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That is right, but we cannot decide whether we should debate the amendment without considering the consequences of removing clause 6. I shall refresh the memory of the House and read that clause. It says:
"Any person entitled or authorised by virtue of this Act to hold a market may transfer or dispose of all or part of his rights to another and that other shall have and may exercise, to the extent authorised by the Council, all or any of the powers that the Council have in relation to markets established by them under Section 50 of the Act of 1984, other than any powers to make byelaws, but shall be subject to all the restrictions, liabilities and obligations in respect thereof to which the Council are subject."
How can the House assess what the result will be of removing the clause from the Bill without considering the amendment? I disclose my ignorance by saying so, but I cannot understand what the position will be if the Bill is passed without clause 6. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North will enlighten me, but if he cannot the House cannot conceivably consider whether the clause should be deleted.
Mr. Neubert: I had hoped, as no doubt my hon. Friend had, that we would have an explanation, not, as appears likely, at the end of the debate but at an early stage. It would have been helpful for an explanation to have been given so that I could have considered it. If we are not to have an explanation until the end of the debate, it will make a farce of it.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Or, indeed, if we are not to have an explanation at all. As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may have noted. I hesitated before rising, because I wished to give my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North an opportunity to clarify the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford. It is most unsatisfactory if those of us who criticise the Bill and who wish the motion to be carried are not to be given the advantage of knowing precisely what we are discussing.
I have scrutinised the rest of the Bill in an attempt to discover what the consequence of omitting clause 6 would be. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North is talking to some of my hon. Friends. I hope that he will

999
pay attention, because if he does not, he will not be able to answer the questions that I am putting to him. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us whether the council will authorise the transfer of stalls if there is no clause 6 and on what terms the transfer of rights in each stall will be made. Will the council have a blanket right to allow transfer by whatever means it wishes, or will it have no rights to authorise a transfer at all?
As far as I can see, nothing elsewhere in the Bill either grants or limits the power of transfer. Clause 3 deals with the establishment of the market. Clause 4 deals with the compensation payable in the event of the Bill being enacted and clause 5 merely specifies that section 50 of the 1984 Act shall apply to the Bill.
Mr. O'Brien: I consider this to be a very important matter. I have examined the proceedings in the other place and in Committee. Nowhere was any evidence given to support the case for the removal of the clause. Until the facts are made available to the House, we cannot proceed, and we should therefore support the motion. Does the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) have any information about the circumstances that gave rise to the tabling of the amendment?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I have no such information and I think it very unfortunate that I have none. As far as I am aware, no hon. Member—with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, has any such information. Indeed, I remain to be convinced that even my hon. Friend has such information. I deeply regret the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) cannot be here, although I understand the reasons. His absence handicaps those of us who seek a proper debate on an important part of the Bill. He is one of the two primary sponsors who have argued in favour of the Bill throughout our long proceedings on it, and it is regrettable that he cannot be here during its final stages.
I invite my my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North to enlighten the House, if he can, on the consequences of removing clause 6. Unfortunately, it seems that my hon. Friend cannot enlighten us, so let me speculate.
It is possible that if the clause is removed, the council will have no power to authorise the transfer of the trading stalls—in which case, I cannot see how it can proceed to set up and maintain a market in Ilford. Another possibility is that the council will have the power to authorise the transfer of the stalls without imposing any conditions on them. If that is so, I should be grateful for information about how that arrangement compares with arrangements for other markets where councils set up stalls.
Do the councils usually have the power to authorise transfer of stalls from one person to another without having any say in the type of business taking place at those stalls, or are restrictions perhaps imposed under section 50 of the 1984 Act? I do not think that it is incumbent on me to give the House the solutions. Those who are promoting the Bill and those who have brought it before us have a duty to tell us the consequences of accepting the amendment. At the moment, every hon. Member in the Chamber—and everyone who has considered the matter—is as much in the dark as I am.
Mr. Neubert: I find it quite intolerable that, even at the third or fourth time of asking, we are to be offered no explanation of the fact that we have been called here to
1000
deal with this business tonight—even though it was known before the summer recess that this business would be taken. I have had to spend some time preparing for tonight's debate, in ignorance of the reasons for it but in the confident belief that the sponsor of the Bill would make it plain at the outset why we were being asked to consider the Lords amendment and what the background to it was. It makes a mockery of our proceedings if we are to be given no explanation at all of a matter that is clearly so directly relevant to the Bill.
8.15 pm
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I echo my hon. Friend's sentiments. It is an abuse of the procedures of the House if business is brought before it for which no explanation is offered. There has been no proper resistance to the motion and no proper explanation has been given of why those who tabled it may be mistaken.
While remaining neutral on the fundamental question whether Redbridge should be given the power in the Bill, the Government should certainly not be neutral when it comes to matters affecting the procedures of the House. They should not be neutral about the fact that the sponsors of the Bill have not informed the House of precisely what they are asking it to agree. As the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said, no explanation was given when the amendment was moved in the other place. Having resisted such an amendment throughout the Committee stage—without giving any reasons for resisting it—the promoter has suddenly decided to adopt such an amendment and to try to force it through both Houses of Parliament without even opening their mouths to defend what they are doing. That is something that the House simply cannot tolerate.
I regret the fact that so few hon. Members are present, although it is not surprising on the first day back after a long summer recess, and especially as the Bill is not perhaps the most important business with which we are likely to be faced in the next fortnight—except to my hon. Friends the Members for Romford and for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and myself. Our colleagues who are not present would not for one moment tolerate such a procedure and I predict that there will be a roar of fury when hon. Members read Hansard and see what is being done in their name and in their absence and without any explanation from the sponsors.
That is the first reason why I vigorously support the motion, tabled to try to defer discussion of the amendment so that proper consideration can be given to it, so that proper consultation can take place between Romford and Redbridge and so that my hon. Friends and I can be given a full explanation of the consequences of accepting the amendment and of the reasons why it has been tabled.
I touched upon my second reason for supporting the motion in my point of order. I am not clear whether the locus standi of the promoter is still intact. I do not know the procedures and rules of the House in relation to a Bill being proposed without having complied—at the time when it was proposed—with the qualifications laid down in "Erskine May" for the introduction of such a Bill.
Perhaps it is enough—as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford suggested—that the conditions were intact when the Bill was first proposed and perhaps it does not matter what happens thereafter. But perhaps by now—some two and a half years after the introduction of the Bill

1001
—the qualifications allowing Redbridge to assert its right to introduce the Bill are no longer intact. If that is so, I do not know whether the Bill should be allowed to proceed.
If it should not be allowed to proceed, we should certainly not debate the amendment tonight. The debate should be adjourned and the matter should be considered further, perhaps by the occupant of the Chair, to determine whether the Bill still has proper standing to be considered in this place. That is a question of fundamental importance. There must be similar instances; indeed, I can think of one parallel straight away.
Suppose that a Government Bill is hybrid. As I understand it, a hybrid Bill cannot proceed through the House in the face of objection because it is not properly founded; it can be stopped. If my submission is right, the same rules should apply to this Bill. Unless the promoter can establish that the foundation on which the Bill has come to the Chamber is sound and intact, the Bill must fail. I must admit that I am not clear about what procedure should apply. If my supposition is correct, how can we stop the Bill at any time other than now? I am in your hands, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I am making a speech and not raising a point of order.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman raised the matter on a point of order earlier and I assured him then, as I do now, that the Bill is in perfect order, otherwise we would not be debating it tonight.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I accept that and I move my guard, as any good defensive boxer must when he has just been effectively punched.
The fact that the Bill is in order does not mean that the House should consider these matters without having been given prior notice that the change was to be made to the Bill. Even though it is in order for Redbridge to bring forward the Bill, the council may no longer have the requisite support for it, because it might have changed its complexion and many no longer support the Bill. It would be an insult for the new councillors of Redbridge who oppose the Bill and for those councillors who have steadfastly opposed it—I believe that those councillors have always comprised one third of the council—if the House were to proceed with the Bill and allow it to reach the statute book. It would be insulting for the House to do that if the council that brought the Bill to the House no longer wished to proceed with it because it had not yet had an opportunity to change its mind on the issue.
I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North to discuss with the council representatives who are present this evening whether it would be better, and in the interests of the constituents of Redbridge, for the Bill to be deferred so that proper consideration can be given to whether it is still popular in the constituency and the borough, whether it is still wanted and whether, above all, the council would still put the Bill before the House should it take such a decision today instead of relying on a decision taken two and a half years ago.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North will comment on those points. If he does not do so, we must conclude that the Bill is being brought before the House without adequate consideration even by the people living in the borough on whose behalf the Bill is allegedly being promoted.
1002
The final point, which I strongly believe the House should consider when deciding whether we should continue the debate on clause 6, is the fact that we were not told by Redbridge council or by its representatives in the House why clause 6 was included in the first place. Not only are we ignorant of the consequences of removing clause 6: we are equally ignorant of the reasons why it was included. It is important that the House should know whether what Redbridge was seeking in clause 6 were powers in excess of those granted by the Food Act 1984. Redbridge said nothing about that in Committee, despite the fact that counsel for Havering borough and others speaking on behalf of Havering raised that point several times. The point was never answered satisfactorily. Indeed, it was not answered at all.
The House must be ignorant about the purpose behind clause 6 and whether Redbridge was seeking powers well beyond the removal of the rights granted by ancient charter in Romford. The House was going to be used, had clause 6 not been removed, to do something which would have been unique in this country and which would have given Redbridge borough powers that no other borough possesses.
That may be why clause 6 was included in the Bill and perhaps it is being removed because Redbridge borough council has thought better of asking the House for powers that no other council possesses. However, I cannot say often enough or with adequate feeling that the House is not being properly treated or adequately briefed by the Bill's sponsors.
The procedures for private business have worked well for many years. I have served on private Bill Committees and the procedure is comprehensive. However, it is comprehensive only if the good will and good faith of the promoter allows a proper and full examination of the proposals in the Bill. That, dismally, did not occur in this case—although every opportunity was given to the promoter to answer the allegations.
If we had allowed the Bill to pass with clause 6, that could have thrown much ill light on the private Bill procedures. I submit that it would be wrong for us to proceed with the consideration of whether we should continue with clause 6 or allow the Bill to proceed without it. Such consideration cannot happen when we have not received the information that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford and I have been requesting this evening. That information was pressed for vigorously in Committee and the issue has been raised every time this business has come before the House.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North will seize this last opportunity and tell the House the facts that we are longing to know and so justify the stance that his council is putting forward as the reason for our supporting the Bill.
Mr. Pike: Unfortunately for the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), I am going to delay the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) for a few moments, but I also await the comments of the latter.
We welcome the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) to the Government Front Bench and congratulate him on his appointment. As he comes here in a virgin state as a Minister tonight, untainted by any previous involvement in this Bill, I hope that he will steer the House to a sensible

1003
conclusion in this debate and defer consideration for six months. I hope that that would be a sensible way forward at the moment.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The motion before the House is whether we consider the Lords amendment. It is not the six months motion.
Mr. Pike: Thank you for correcting me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that we all understand the situation.
Mr. Neubert: Does the hon. Gentleman take some encouragement from the fact that the new Under-Secretary of State, to whom I extend congratulations, is the hon. Member for Salisbury and has a charter market in his constituency and that he may well therefore be concerned to learn the implications of the Bill for his market? What is more, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is flanked by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, who is the hon. Member for Wokingham. He is one of the long list of hon. Members who have markets which benefit their constituents. With such a representation on the Government Front Bench, perhaps greater consideration can be given to the arguments that we have deployed for nearly two years now.
Mr. Pike: The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) has rightly made a pertinent point. I have been involved in the debates at every stage of this Bill and I know that concerns have not only centred around the implications for Redbridge and the neighbouring authority, but on the implications for all towns with charter markets.
It was somewhat unfortunate that, although he made his position perfectly clear in previous debates, the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) was unable to make a contribution to the proceedings. Tonight he has put forward an extremely good case for why we should not debate the Lords amendment. I congratulate him on that speech. Although I am sorry that he has had to go back to the Government Back Benches, his contribution to the debate has been most welcome, and I shall now concentrate on his final remarks.
8.30 pm
The hon. Member's argument was that we should not debate the Lords amendment because there should be a period in which the local authorities involved should be able to negotiate and consult, to see whether some mutually convenient and acceptable arrangement can be achieved. That is an eminently sensible proposal, which should commend itself to the House. I hope that the House will support that point of view.
We in Burnley have a charter market that dates back about 800 years. We fear that the next thing that we shall see is another Bill relating to another local authority, and then another Bill, and so on. That would be a dangerous precedent. The Burnley market was established by charter on the doorsteps of the church more than 800 years ago, and that pattern has been repeated on many occasions. We have often debated how the distance between markets was established, and so on.
As I said when the hon. Member for Romford kindly gave way to me, the local authority in Burnley has made a major investment in a new indoor and outdoor market. If charter rights had been in jeopardy, there would have
1004
been great reservations about that investment. Many other local authorities have made investments to bring their markets up to modern-day standards. If they thought that their charter rights would not be protected, they would not have made that investment: that is our worry.
I recognise that we are not debating the Lords amendment at this stage, but it is right to refer to the context of the debate. We do not know why, having resisted changes at all stages of the proceedings in this House, at this late stage we are presented with a proposal to delete clause 6. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your role as Chairman of Ways and Means, know very well that the normal procedure with private Member's Bills is that their promoters give reasons for major changes. It is strange that we are not in a position to know why that debate is to take place tonight, why that clause is to be deleted. It represents a major change to the Bill, and that matter is of concern to us.
It particularly worries me that the hon. Members for Romford and for Upminster, even though their local authority is directly affected, have not received the courtesy of being consulted or informed. Since July, we have known that the Redbridge Bill was the business for Monday 15 October at 7 o'clock. We have known that for a considerable time. That is a discourtesy not only to the House but to hon. Members with neighbouring constituencies that are directly involved, who have expressed reservations at every stage.
Mr. Neubert: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that this business was put down at short notice for consideration on 24 July and was not reached then only because of the weight of debate on the private business which preceded it? But for the fact that it was set down for second business on that day, we would have been in this position all those weeks and months ago. Even now we have no explanation. It is quite extraordinary.
Mr. Pike: The hon. Member for Romford is absolutely right. He would obviously be joined not only by the hon. Member for Upminster and others but by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who has taken a close interest in this Bill. With no disrespect to the hon. Member for Ilford, North, who has made his position clear throughout the proceedings, the principal advocate on most occasions has been the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who unfortunately cannot be present tonight. It would be wrong for us to proceed when he is not present to state exactly why the clause should be deleted.
The issues are clear. Hon. Members should refrain from discussing the deletion of clause 6 and allow adequate time for further consultation. That is the sensible course of action to pursue. It would also allow the two authorities involved to get their heads together and perhaps reach an acceptable compromise.
The hon. Member for Upminster questioned whether the people of Redbridge are still as enthusiastic about the Bill as they might have been when it started on its passage a considerable time ago. If we do not proceed tonight, we shall allow time for reflection. It is certainly not my wish to prolong the proceedings, but those two grounds alone constitute extremely good reasons not to debate the Lords amendment tonight. I hope that the House is also of that view and that the matter can be deferred.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I, too, am concerned about the length of notice that hon. Members

1005
have received. I add my congratulations to those of my colleagues on both sides of the House to my hon. Friend the Minister, the hon. Member for Salisbury, (Mr. Key). I am delighted to see him in a very well deserved post. Hon. Members look forward to hearing his contributions on many occasions.
My hon. Friend and I do not always agree on everything, but I have immense respect for him, which I know is universally shared, and I am delighted to see him on the Government Front Bench. I should like to talk at even greater length on his promotion, but at this point I should address the main question, which is whether we should debate the amendment or whether we should delay.
I was keen to hear the arguments for why we should debate the amendment. When I saw the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) on the screen, I ran in at high speed, because I wished to hear his arguments. I was not coming from a great distance, but, by the time I arrived in the Chamber, he had concluded his remarks. Sadly, therefore, I have heard no argument whatever for our debating the amendment now.
As I understand it, notice of the amendment was given from the other place immediately before we adjourned for the summer recess. Now, on the first day back, this amendment is on the Order Paper. Hon. Members cannot possibly have had sufficient time to consider its implications. I am told that no explanatory memorandum has been submitted, despite endless requests, so that we should know exactly what was in the minds of those in the other place when they decided to make the amendment.
Mr. Pike: Did I understand the hon. Lady correctly when she said that the borough of Havering had specifically requested that an explanatory memorandum should be made available?
Miss Widdecombe: I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Romford that numerous requests have been made for an explanation. I would welcome my hon. Friend's clarification of that.
Mr. Neubert: I am happy to be able to confirm that numerous requests have been made in this Chamber to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall). All I have been able to do is present evidence to show that the borough secretary and solicitor for the London borough of Havering are as unaware of the background to this most surprising development as we are. Havering borough has been the chief protagonist and petitioner against the Bill in both Houses and one would have thought that that borough at least would have been given the courtesy of some explanation. Certainly the hon. Members representing that borough have had no such explanation, and it follows that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) is equally underprivileged.
Miss Widdecombe: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification.
We are here tonight to discuss something for which we have been given no explanation, either verbal or written. We have not had time to consider it properly, because a number of sitting days have not passed. We have not had time for informal discussion of this important amendment. You may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from my earlier
1006
contributions that I am in sympathy with deleting that clause, but I would not stretch your patience by dwelling on the reasons for that. Nevertheless, I believe that proper forms must be observed. However technically in order it might be, it seems quite improper that such a major amendment of a clause that occupied hours of debate during earlier consideration of the Bill should be sprung on the House, especially as no proper explanation of it has been given.
The proposed change would affect all those constituencies with markets. I was most interested to hear the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) discuss the market at Burnley. He may recall that I had an acquaintance with Burnley—not as successful as his acquaintance with it—in 1979. I recall that market extremely well and the great contribution that it makes to Burnley life.
I can understand that the hon. Gentleman is concerned that we should not be precipitated into a situation in which a major Bill, which will create precedents, has an important consideration removed from it—the powers of local councils over the disposal of those markets. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman considers that that is unacceptable. I too have a market in my constituency and I am surprised that we have not been given further opportunity to consider the effect of deleting the clause.
When the Bill left the House in the summer, the clause was intact. Those local authorities and markets examining the likely effects of the Bill will obviously be studying it in the form in which it last left the House.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend's argument is even more forceful because of the way in which an earlier attempt to get an explanation from the promoter of why the clause was there was so firmly blocked. Every attempt by those opposed to the Bill to challenge that clause was met with a dead-wall defence. No explanation was given at any stage of why the clause was in the Bill and there has been less than zero information as to why it should be taken out of the Bill. That is a complete volte-face from the position adopted in Committee.
Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In our earlier proceedings on the Bill, I remember that we had a most unsatisfactory time trying to establish why on earth the restrictions under the Shops Act 1950 would not do, and why such an eccentric blanket provision should be built in to give local councils total control over disposals. Such powers would make it impossible for anyone to take sensible commercial decisions. Nobody would know what rules would govern the disposal of markets or parts of markets at the time that they chose to dispose of them.
I remember that questions were raised about nepotism on councils and about frequent switches of political control of councils. Those questions were never answered. We asked for clarification, but we did not get it. Tonight, the clause has disappeared and it has been amended out of existence. We have asked for an explanation, but we have not received one.
8.45 pm
Mr. Neubert: My hon. Friend mentioned clause 6. It is important to remember that we have not yet amended it out of existence. We are discussing whether we should consider such a thing tonight. Things are even more mysterious than my hon. Friend has portrayed, because

1007
clause 6 not only existed in the original Bill, but two lines were added to it in the course of proceedings in the House. Lines 16 and 17 provided:
"No such transfer or disposal of rights"
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I think that the debate now is perhaps anticipating the debate that we may have on the amendment. We should confine the debate to the question whether the Lords amendment should be considered or otherwise.
Mr. Neubert: I understand your argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am simply making the point that the proposal as to whether we should consider the amendment tonight arises from an amendment which seems to be in contradistinction to the direction taken by the Committee that amended the clause in our proceedings in this House.
Miss Widdecombe: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.
I should be grateful for some guidance from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I understand why we should discuss whether the amendment should be heard, surely the parameters of that amendment and how it relates to the things we agreed earlier are important factors when considering whether to hear that amendment tonight. Although I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford is not in order because you say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he was raising a most important consideration of which the House should take cognisance when deciding whether to discuss the amendment.
You have referred, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to a debate that we may well have. I sincerely hope that we do not have that debate without proper time for reflection in order to establish why the clause should be wholly amended. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford is right to correct me from suggesting that the clause has already been amended out of existence, but that is the proposal we are discussing. I sincerely hope that we do not have that debate until we have had time to reflect on the effects of that decision. We should not discuss it until we have time to consult our traders, markets and local authorities to tell them that the situation has changed fairly dramatically. It is important to know that the Bill that left this place is no longer what is proposed.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Lady has reminded the House three times that, when the Bill left this place, the clause was intact. When the Committee in the other place considered the Bill, the clause was intact, but on Third Reading in the other place it was suggested that the clause should be deleted. No explanation has been given, and if there is no explanation on record in the other place, we are entitled to an explanation before any Division in this House. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to address that point.
Miss Widdecombe: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has summarised the matter admirably. He has said what I have tried to say in the course of what has perhaps been a rather long-winded contribution.
Throughout, the clause has been intact. It was challenged at one point, but that challenge was repelled. Therefore, it was reasonable for those considering the practical effects of the Bill to assume that the clause would be an integral part of it. As the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) rightly said, because it has survived scrutiny at all stages so far, it is fairly surprising
1008
that it now comes back with a proposal for deletion. What practical effect will that have? It means that those considering the Bill and those who have to live with its consequences have a different animal to examine. It is not sufficient for us to take a hasty decision tonight.
I did not know that the clause had been deleted, so I have not undertaken the proper consultation that I would have done had I known. I think that the same would apply to many other hon. Members with constituencies with markets or local authorities with a special interest in the matter. We are not talking about a minor deletion, which we could have swallowed, although we would still have expected the courtesy of an explanation. We are talking about telling local authorities that they will have no control, other than that already enshrined in legislation governing completely different set-ups such as rows of shops, over the disposal of rights to trade in this fashion.
Just as I bitterly opposed the eccentric blanket provision that councils should simply refuse permission to dispose without a specified set of grounds being included in the Bill, I now believe that the Bill has gone the other way and there is too little protection. Now, councils do not have the ability to refuse disposal if they consider that the consequences would be undesirable for the district under their control. I appreciate that, to a certain extent, to debate that is to debate the merits of the amendment. I believe that it is such a major consideration that it is important that those authorities, markets and traders should all have an input. If the clause is to be deleted and nothing is substituted, or the substitution is inadequate, that creates a different sort of Bill from that which left this place, and we have not had adequate time to consider it.
Mr. Pike: As well as the traders and those who use the markets, would not another factor involve the fact that many councils derive crucial income from their markets? I do not want to enter the argument on whether we have poll tax or rates, but local government funding, however it is raised from local residents, can be affected by the proposal we are debating tonight. If a council's income falls, it must affect local charge payers in one form or another.
Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is absolutely right, and has raised yet another major consideration. As I said, we are discussing not a minor clause but something that will have long-term practical consequences for many local authorities, traders and citizens. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to get it right, which we cannot do with the sort of notice or explanation—or lack of explanation—that we have been given. We should not consider the clause tonight, but should have time for proper consultation.
Mr. Neubert: On that very point, is there not art extra dimension that has not yet been mentioned? This Bill, with a clause 6 that was not only not deleted by the Committee but actually added to in Committee and approved on Third Reading, comes back from their Lordships' House with a proposal to delete that self-same clause. I do not want to exaggerate the issues, but there is a possibility of a constitutional clash between the two Houses of Parliament because one is taking an entirely different view from the other. Therefore, should we not have had some explanation for that at the debate's outset?
Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, and the possibility of a clash makes it all the more urgent that we do not consider the

1009
amendment passed in another place, with the possibility that we shall refuse it. Surely it is better for us to take due time to consult in all the necessary places and consider the consequences of accepting or rejecting the amendment, talk to interested parties and come to a reasoned view rather than one formed on the spur of the moment—as it must be, since this is the first day back.
Mr. Allen McKay: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on his new post, although he will not expect me to wish him to be there too long. I hope that he may be Opposition spokesman before too long, rather than a Minister, but I congratulate him.
There are three reasons why we should not discuss the Lords amendment. First—this does not colour my point of view—the Market Traders Association is in my constituency. Secondly, I have a great deal of feeling and nostalgia for markets in my constituency. Thirdly, although it is a Redbridge Bill, it could affect 246 other constituency areas, which means that we must not consider it lightly but should study it in depth to see where we are going.
When the markets were set up by charter 700 or 800 years ago, the people who gave them were wise, because they realised, even then, that there was only so much money to go round and so much trade to be had; to stop dog eating dog, a charter was created that allowed a market to be built and provided that, within a certain mileage of that central market, others should not be built. It did not make it impossible, but it meant that those involved got together and decided on the arrangements.
A practical illustration involves my own little village, Hoyland, under the Barnsley authority, where there was a charter market. The authority came down heavily and said that there could not be another one, but then reason prevailed and, between the parties, they decided what could be done. However, if we do not allow time for such discussion and negotiation, we are in danger of letting the Bill go through inadequately discussed or thought about and, worse still, with the parties involved not having had the chance to get together and decide whether the House should be used as an instrument to pass a private Member's Bill for one part of a district to usurp another part of that district, bringing full authority to bear with the permission of the House—which is how the House is being used. Before we do that, we should think clearly and deeply about it.
If the Bill goes through, we must consider what we are doing to the 246 constituencies with charter markets.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why, does it affect them?
Mr. McKay: It could easily affect them, because, once a precedent is created by the Bill, another authority will be able to say, "Wait a minute, they have done it, so we can." If my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and his authority decided that legislation involving their district should be passed, there would be another market between Wakefield and Barnsley.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With respect, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman's speech would be more appropriate on Second Reading. At this point, we are
1010
considering whether to give consideration to an amendment made in another place. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill received a Second and Third Reading in this House.
9 pm
Mr. McKay: I am hoping that we can prove our point that it would be better not to discuss the Lords amendment tonight, but to let the participants go back and decide for themselves rather than the House deciding for them. If our argument is valid and accepted, we will not need a Second or Third Reading. However, that can be left until later to tidy up any little bits that may return.
While I naturally accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that the points that I have made will stop a Second and Third Reading from taking place. I hope that common sense will prevail.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Given that clause 6 has not been explained by the sponsors of the Bill, does that not bear out what the hon. Gentleman is saying? No one has had the opportunity to explore the effect of clause 6, or the effect of removing it. In those circumstances, is it not important that the effect on the other charter markets is explored by the House before we decide even whether to debate the removal of clause 6?
Mr. McKay: Certainly we should have time to explore that. We should not sit back gently and be steamrollered; we are bigger and more important than that. Time should be given for us to have an explanation of what the Bill means.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) has been here since 7 o'clock listening to the debate. Is he saying that neither the sponsors of the Bill nor anyone connected with its purpose has explained what is in clause 6? We know from experience that some Bills get through without proper discussion, especially private Bills. Is my hon. Friend saying that, despite all our efforts, we cannot get anyone to get up to explain what is in clause 6 and why the Lords have passed the amendment?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It might be more appropriate to consider the effect of clause 6 and its deletion when we come to debate the Lords amendment. We are debating whether the House should consider that Lords amendment.
Mr. McKay: I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that we have not had an explanation. If we had, we would probably not be in this position. We would probably have had a better knowledge of the Bill and its effect on other areas and constituencies.
Mr. Neubert: We have proceeded for two hours without explanation from the sponsors for the reasons for the amendment, and we are now being asked whether we should consider it now or in six months' time. I can only assume—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The six-months motion is not before the House; the question is whether the House should consider the Lords amendment. I have just said that we should wait until the debate on the Lords amendment to find out what clause 6 is all about. The hon. Gentleman is ignoring what I have just said.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am exposing my ignorance, and at risk of incurring your displeasure, but I do not understand why the Order Paper specifies
"That the Lords Amendment be considered upon this day six months"—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not our practice to debate a motion that has not been selected for debate. I repeat that the Question before the House is that the Lords amendment be now considered. I hope that hon. Members will address themselves to that.
Mr. McKay: Our question is why the Lords amendment should be considered. If it were dealt with in that way, it would give more time—time that is needed for explanations, for participation, for us to try to right the mistakes that we will probably make and for us to ensure that, before anything goes out of the House, it has been considered to the best of our ability.
Mr. Skinner: Now we know what we are about. We have had no explanation for two hours, although clearly the Lords passed the amendment. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have said that we must speak about the Lords amendment. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien): how many Lords were present when they passed the amendment?
Mr. O'Brien: None.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend, who is well informed on these matters, says, "None." That is a tired old state of affairs, is it not? We have had no explanation about clause 6, and when I asked how many Lords took part in the great debate that introduced the amendment, I was told that the answer was none. Now my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) is trying his level best to discuss that matter, but we are told by the Chair that we must stick to a narrow formula that precludes my hon. Friend from making any comment at all.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover knows that interventions must be brief.
Mr. McKay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining the matter in his usual direct and blunt way. The amendment has not been considered in the Lords and we are being asked to rubber-stamp it and forget it—but the House will not forget it.
Mr. O'Brien: As I tried to explain earlier, when the Bill was considered in the other place, it went through Committee in the form in which it left this House, with clause 6 intact. The Bill was given a Third Reading without debate in the House of Lords, and it was then suggested that it should be accepted with the amendment. Never has any reason been given as to why clause 6 should be deleted. That is why my hon. Friend is saying that it should not be considered here tonight, and that is why his appeal is justified.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just been to the Vote Office, and it seems that Sharpe Pritchard, the parliamentary agent for the Bill, has distributed the wrong copy of the Bill to the House. The copy that we have contains no clause 6, so the amendment, which reads
"page 4, lines 9 to 17, leave out clause 6",
1012
refers to part of clause 4 and part of clause 5.
I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have thought that we should discontinue this sitting at least until Sharpe Pritchard gives us proper copies of the Bill. Then we should start again from the beginning, since we have been discussing something that does not exist.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I may have misheard the hon. Gentleman. Did he refer to a Bill which he has just obtained from the Vote Office?
Mr. Barnes: I collected the Bill from the Vote Office as I came in. It is not the correct Bill because page 4, lines 9 to 17 are not part of clause 6. There is no clause 6 in the Bill; parts of clauses 4 and 5 are being referred to.
Until this has been corrected, the House cannot proceed with this measure. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may hold a copy which is correct, but hon. Members are in the dark.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have seen me taking advice while he was addressing the Chair. I am advised that the Bill that is available in the Vote Office does contain all the clauses—I refer to the House of Commons Bill. The hon. Gentleman may have been supplied with a copy of the House of Lords Bill, in which case there has been a mistake at the Vote Office. But I understand that copies of the House of Commons Bill contain the clause to which he refers.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I also collected from the Vote Office a copy which does not contain the clause. If you like, I shall go to the Vote Office and check whether it has a copy that contains the clause, but the copies that have been given to Members who have asked for them certainly do not contain it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take immediate steps to obtain clarification, and I suggest that, until the House obtains it, we continue the debate.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I went to the Vote Office twice. When I examined the Bill that I had collected, I wondered what on earth was being discussed, because I could not find the clause in question. I returned to the Vote Office, which told me that Sharpe Pritchard had distributed the wrong copy of the Bill and that someone from the Vote Office had rung up the agent to try to get hold of the correct copy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I have suggested, perhaps we should continue until I have obtained clarification, when I shall report to the House.
Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This seems a bit cock-eyed to me. We have just discovered that we are debating a clause of which Members have no copy. It is high time that you took a decision and suspended the sitting so that you can get in touch with Sharpe Pritchard—it will cost a tidy fortune, I am sure.
I know that it is the first day back after the 10-week holiday, but one would have thought that these well paid parliamentary agents would have produced the Bill on time. As we cannot discuss it, I think that the sitting should be suspended and we should start again another day.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman heard my decision. We shall continue until the matter has been clarified.
Mr. McKay: We now see the importance of what we are discussing. Amendments were introduced on Third Reading in the other place. They were approved without debate and passed to us. Clause 6 is not in the Bill, so it must have been decided that we would rubber-stamp the decision to leave it out. We got hold of a copy of the Bill that does not contain clause 6. It is important to find out whether the sitting should be suspended, but it is more important for every hon. Member to realise what he is voting on.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: There is precious little chance of the House knowing what it is voting on when hon. Members have the wrong copy of the Bill and have not had a word of explanation from the promoter about why the amendment has been tabled or why the clause was there in the first place. Therefore, a proper debate on the matter is impossible. That is why we are moving an amendment to try to defer discussion on the removal of clause 6 until we have had a proper chance to consider the consequences to the Bill.
Mr. McKay: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. Matters get worse as we go on, because we continue to find little wrinkles and caveats. We should opt for a proper debate by deferring the whole matter so that we can get the proper documentation and a proper explanation. Before we take any decision, we must be fully aware of all the facts.
Mr. Harry Barnes: We cannot discuss whether to leave out clause 6 because we do not have that clause in front of us and do not know what is to be left out. If we are obliged to vote on we know not what, we shall have to vote against the measure in order to prevent procedural nonsense. I hope that we are not obliged to decide on a matter that is not in front of us, because that would be acting blindly. Much happens in the House as a result of partial understanding and it is assumed that things are done according to the correct procedures. However, when we sus a matter out and discover the problems, we must correct them so that we do not pass defective legislation.
Mr. Neubert: Perhaps I could clear up some of my own procedural nonsense. I was rightly pulled up and told that we were discussing a motion about whether to consider the Lords amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) has said, it was all over in a flash. I thought that we were discussing the motion to defer discussion for six months and that was why I said that I hoped that the motion would be carried. Now I know that the motion is to consider the Lords amendment and I am opposed to that and will vote accordingly.
Mr. Harry Barnes: We should not be asked to vote on the Lords amendment. If we are obliged to do that then we shall go into the No Lobby in order to prevent constitutional and procedural nonsense.
Mr. Bob Cryer: I listened to the first part of the debate and at that stage it was about whether the House should discuss the Lords amendment. I now understand that the Lords amendment is not available and that nobody knows what it is. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the House proceeds in this way, it will undermine
1014
parliamentary democracy because we could be accused of approving something that is secret and about which no hon. Member knows anything?
Mr. Barnes: In fact, the Lords amendment is not missing. I have a copy of it, and it states
"Page 4, lines 9 to 17, leave out Clause 6."
We could debate that—
Mr. O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you can guide me. You called my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), but he does not have the necessary information to enable him to make his speech. It is quite ridiculous that hon. Members should have to address the House when they do not know what they are talking about. That could be rectified by adjourning the debate until the necessary information is available. I appeal to you to ensure that my hon. Friend has the details that he requires to address the House.
9.15 pm
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) is right. If the debate were being televised—as, indeed, it might be—people would think it was another Monty Python sketch. When the amendment came before another place, no one spoke to it. There are 1,100 Members in the other House, but not one opened his mouth to discuss the amendment. They have sent it to the House of Commons to be debated on the first day after the holidays, no doubt thinking that no one would be here.
Here we are, but clause 6 does not even appear in the Bill. Hon. Members are debating clause 6, but no one knows anything about it. It is like that parrot—it is extinct, it is dead, it is late, it was, it is no longer. If we do not keep talking until 10 o'clock, the Tories will bring in their troops. None of them will have listened to the debate, but they will be told by their shop stewards to walk through the Lobby and vote for the motion.
I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton to do his level best to talk about the non-existent clause for as long as possible in the interests of parliamentary democracy. I suppose that this is what they do in the Common Market. It is probably a Common Market system. After all, the debate is about markets—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this an intervention?
Mr. Skinner: It is a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask you to send for Mr. Speaker, the man in the full gear. That will make the sketch complete.
Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Bendall.
Mr. Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was on my feet when the first point of order was raised. I waited for you to respond to the point of order, but you did not. You chose to call another Member.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is patient for half a minute, he will realise that, in an indirect manner, I am responding.
Mr. Bendall: Perhaps I can assist the House—
Mr. Neubert: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this further to the points of order that have already been raised, or is it a speech?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is further to the points of order.
Mr. Bendall: The reason that I did not delve deeply into clause 6 when I opened the debate was that it was not the subject of our debate. However, as the Bill deposited in the Vote Office—which I understand is the Bill that the parliamentary agents were told to deposit—is causing such great concern, I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.
Question put and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed on Thursday next.

Financial Services and the Single European Market
Postponed proceeding resumed on the Question, That this House do now adjourn.
9.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): It was fortunate that I was here during that long interruption in our debate on financial services. It is a pleasure to have time to respond at greater length to the many good points that were made earlier, and to have an opportunity to allow right hon. and hon. Friends who want to intervene to do so.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) asked about compensation. The Government believe that the United Kingdom's compensation arrangements are among the most generous in the world, and are certainly good by comparison with many available on the continent of Europe. I remind the House that the Securities and Investments Board scheme provides 100 per cent. compensation for eligible claims up to £30,000 and 90 per cent. compensation on the following £20,000.
In the case of bank deposits in the United Kingdom, compensation covers three quarters of the first £20,000 of duly protected deposits, and for insurance policy holders, it amounts to 90 per cent. of contract rights, and 100 per cent. if those contracts are compulsory—as is the case with motor insurance. There is no upper limit to those claims. The compensation rate in respect of building societies is 90 per cent. on the first £20,000 on deposit.
The hon. Member for Redcar asked about the arrangements that we intend to make in the wider European market for adequate compensation and consumer protection. Under the present system, companies offering services in the United Kingdom from other countries within the European Community can do so without offering compensation under any approved scheme, and even without full disclosure of the status of the service that they are offering in relation to compensation.
The Government intend to tackle that problem in two phases. First, in the negotiations on the investment services directive and capital adequacy directive, we want written into the rules the provision that compensation arrangements should be clearly disclosed to potential customers in the United Kingdom, so that they will know whether the country from which the service provider comes offers compensation and, if so, the nature of the scheme. That will be a distinct advance in consumer protection compared with the current position.
Secondly, we should like to negotiate with our partners in Europe more common arrangements for minimum levels of compensation across the Community. We have been told by the Commission that it is working on a proposal in this area but obviously that will take time, as there are many obstacles to be overcome. Therefore, those arrangements will not be in place at the same time that the single market in financial services is in place—I trust, by 1 January 1993. However, we shall encourage the Commission to work as fast as possible on this second phase of our policy, because we share the Opposition's

1017
concerns and want to tackle the problem first by disclosure and, in due course, by more common arrangements.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Are we to take it from the Minister's remarks that there is resistance from the Commission in that important matter? What is the likely timetable?
Mr. Redwood: I cannot speak for the Commission, although I do not know of any resistance to the general idea. The main problem is that the Commission is naturally giving priority to all the measures that are necessary for the single market in 1992. We are pleased that it is giving considerable priority to the insurance directives, which the House emphasised again tonight, quite rightly, that it wants to see introduced with due speed. I am sure that the Commission will then turn to the question of compensation, and the Government will give it every encouragement and offer whatever support we can in that work.
I was asked whether we offered to consult consumer bodies. Of course we did, and we shall continue to do so. The Consumers Association is regularly consulted and is being most helpful, and the National Consumer Council has also been informed of our work. Some more general questions were raised about the consultations that we are having in respect of the investment services directive and the complementary capital adequacy directive. Again, I invite all those who have not written in to do so, so that we know their views, because the Government wish to proceed with negotiations in Europe based upon the fullest consultation.
Mr. John Marshall: When my hon. Friend is consulting on those directives, can we have an assurance that he will consult practitioners in the industry? For example, is he aware that the unit trust industry is worried that the costs of regulation in the United Kingdom are so high that some unit trusts may decide to set up in Luxembourg where they are lower? In a free market, he runs the risk of over-regulating the United Kingdom market, and encouraging such mobile jobs to go elsewhere, which is of no benefit to this country.
Mr. Redwood: In my earlier remarks I said that we were trying to move on to the next phase of our regulatory progress in this country, when there should be less prescriptive rule-making and expensive, detailed activity by the regulators, and more concentration on compliance. That should answer some of my hon. Friend's questions. As to the desirability of Luxembourg as a place in which to undertake certain types of investment business, I have looked into the question of undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities and into whether it would be more sensible to set them up in Luxembourg rather than in the United Kingdom. The results that I have received show that both on tax grounds and on grounds of regulatory cost, it is by no means clear that Luxembourg is preferable. Several hon. Members raised the question whether we had the right tax regime to encourage and maintain business in this country.
In the case of UCITS, one has to look into both the territory in which the investor is placed and the territory in which the business is conducted. One has to draw up a
1018
complicated matrix for different tax arrangements, affecting both the provider of the investment product and its consumer. That matrix shows that in many cases it can be better to set them up in the United Kingdom than in Luxembourg.
Those hon. Members who are worried about any tax implication for British business should of course draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Cash: I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on the position of the independent financial advisers. I should declare an interest, because I have followed their concerns very closely over a period, and indeed was concerned with them when I was on the Committee considering the Financial Services Bill 1986. About 20 million consumers receive advice from the independent financial advisers. It worries us, both in respect of capital adequacy and in relation to over-regulation, that they could be squeezed out as a result of some of the directives that have been coming from Europe. I may have an opportunity to elaborate on this later. May we have an assurance that the Minister has this—I am sure he has—very much in mind and that he will be looking after them? After all, they represent a significant part of the market in this country.
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is quite right. The independent financial adviser is an important intermediary in the British marketplace. A lively market for independent financial advice is something that we wish to preserve and strengthen wherever possible.
The main question relates to the negotiation of the capital adequacy directive. It has been largely a British initiative, which has seen the introduction of different levels of capital requirement related to the risks that businesses are running. We thought that it was quite wrong to have a single passport requirement, with a large sum of money, such as 500,000 ecu. That would be impractical for the independent financial advisers.
We are also keen to ensure that independent financial advisers who so wish can have access to the passport under the investment services directive and can carry out their business in other member states. That requires the introduction of three other levels. We have introduced a system whereby businesses that provide only investment advice and that do not handle clients' moneys are exempted from any capital requirement. Another category, supplying advice and perhaps ensuring that deals are executed on behalf of clients, is subject to a requirement of 50,000 ecu, and businesses that also handle client moneys but that do not deal on their own account are subject to a capital requirement of 100,000 ecu.
That is a huge improvement on the starting position of those negotiations, but the British Government are not yet satisfied. We wish to ensure that there are further advances. We are still arguing over how many people should be subject to the minimum 50,000 ecu capital requirement and we still think that too many are caught. We are discussing details of the calculation of the capital requirement for more sophisticated businesses, particularly the illiquid asset calculation, which is too onerous in the current directive. In that connection, the Commission may agree with us and I look forward to reporting progress in due course to the House on that subject.

1019
The hon. Member for Redcar posed a particular problem over insurance provision involving Switzerland, Italy and Spain, and she hoped that EC action might solve it. Unfortunately, by including Switzerland in her case that would be impossible because the Swiss are not governed by Community rules. Had she chosen three Community countries, that would have been the kind of issue that we would consider as we developed the directive programme covering all types of financial business.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), asked about barriers to takeovers. They are right that the Government have been exercised by the relative difficulty that many UK companies find in making takeovers on the continent of Europe compared with the relative ease with which European companies can make takeovers here. Progress is being made. The British Government have raised the issue with the Commission, which has responded by agreeing that it is a problem and introducing a work programme to attack some of the legal obstacles through directive proposals, for example in the 13th directive on company law.
Many hon. Members will agree with the Government that the obstacles are often fundamental and more cultural than legal. Often the law codes of the countries concerned permit companies to operate in one of many ways and they do not have to operate as they do. This weekend I was heartened to see in the newspapers comments that attitudes in Germany are changing as a result of the general discussion on barriers to takeovers. Many people in Frankfurt and, indeed, in Paris, where changes are more rapid, are coming to see the force of an open market to challenge existing management and to provide a more active marketplace in which ownership of companies can change hands as well as secondary shares in more limited packages.
We are making progress in the general argument and in tackling the cultural barriers, which are every bit as important as, if not more important than, the legal barriers that we have already identified with the Commission and that may in due course be tackled in some of the directives that we are considering.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) and many other hon. Members agreed with the Government's position that progress on insurance is too slow. He would also agree that speed is picking up a little. The British Government intend to help that along its way. I reassure him that if the opposition comes only from Belgium and Germany—they have been opposing some of these measures—they do not constitute a blocking minority in the Community, so progress can still be made. We must ensure that a blocking minority does not build up against the principle of freedom of provision in insurance. The British Government's strategy is designed to achieve greater unanimity among member states in favour of the proposal, and to prevent a blocking minority against the proposal.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: In the absence of the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) and as I listened to his speech, may I say that he is well aware that two countries do not make a blocking minority in the EC? He was worried, as are we, about the structural differences that are built into the insurance industry. It is the structure, particularly between the banks in Germany and France, which makes it difficult for our insurance industry
1020
to compete in what in directive terms may look like an open market, but which in practice is backdoor protectionism. That anxiety was voiced by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It would be useful if the Minister could explain how cultural differences that are slowly waning will prevent our insurance industry from having a fair and open competitive market in Europe in the next couple of years.
Mr. Redwood: That is not the concern that. I was addressing. However, I have heard the hon. Lady's point. I believe that our insurance companies in many areas have superior products at extremely attractive prices. That will come out within the single market once there is a legal framework that entitles them to work on a services or a branch basis under the necessary directives. It is with that in mind that the House agrees that we should make due speed in negotiating the directives to give them that chance.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) was worried about the dangers of concentration, particularly in accountancy. The purpose of our competition regime is to prevent damaging or dangerous concentrations. The mergers and competition regime applies to accountancy just as it applies to anything else. Each case is looked at on its merits and the Director General of Fair Trading offers advice to the Secretary of State accordingly.
The hon. Member for Rotherham claimed that fraud is widespread. He cast aspersions on practically the entire City and much of the corporate sector. I say to him and other hon. Members who make such allegations that if they bring us the evidence in these cases, I promise that they will be investigated and, if necessary, brought to court. However, general allegations are far from helpful. They put British business in a bad light when viewed by others from abroad, and, if nothing can follow because there is no evidence, everybody is left feeling dissatisfied that the allegation has been made but there has been no follow-through.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) made an extremely important contribution. He asked about taxation.
Mr. Dalyell: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, (Mr. Crowther) I should say that he was a member of the Select Committee. I was not a member of that Committee but I understand that it looked at the matter in some depth. Are the Government saying that the Select Committee was ill-informed?
Mr. Redwood: I have nothing to add to what I have already said. If there is evidence of fraud, we need it because we shall pursue it vigorously. If there is no evidence, it is a silly allegation.
I should like to remind my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar that the changes in stamp duty and the taxation of options and futures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget are welcomed in the City of London because they will help the competitiveness of the City no end. They are examples of the way in which the Government will listen carefully to those who make out a case that our competitiveness is being damaged by our taxation regime and will respond if the Treasury thinks that it is right to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar also mentioned the illiquid assets test. I promise the House that we shall pursue that adequately. In our consultation

1021
document, we set out a number of areas in which we think that illiquid assets are too stringently defined. We started with a capital adequacy directive that may have required City of London firms to increase their capital by around 40 per cent. or more. As a result of the major changes that have come about largely at the Government's insistence, the capital requirement may be 10 per cent. or so above the current levels. We believe that the current levels are about right. We think that they are safe and prudent and allow people to make some return on their money. If we can get the right result of the illiquid assets test, we may be nearly there on the capital requirement that we seek.
Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that the question of capital adequacy should be weighed against the question of competence? After all, people can come by money in all sorts of ways, which enable them to support the requirements laid down by law but not to deliver the goods to the customer. Surely it is important—I tried to suggest this with a fated amendment to the Financial Services Bill—that competence is a requirement as well.
Mr. Redwood: Part of our system relies upon assessing the fitness of people to run businesses and, in some cases, to assess their solvency. These are the basic principles needed to run a successful regulatory system.
Most of the other hon. Members made points—
Ms. Mowlam rose—
Mr. Redwood: I should like to leave time for other contributors. Two other hon. Members would like to speak and I think that I should press on.
Most of the other contributors to the debate reiterated points that had been made by others. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) was keen to ensure that reciprocity does not damage us. The Government agree with that. He was worried about the position of off-market trading. The Government recognise that difficulty and will strive to protect our interests on that important issue, which will be one of the difficult negotiating points in the next phase of the negotiations on the directive.
The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) thought that we needed statutory regulation rather than self-regulation. That misconception is shared by some other hon. Members. We have a system, established under statute, of professional regulation backed by practitioners who are involved in the process of regulation. It is not a pure system of self-regulation; it is professional regulation with practitioner involvement to keep people's feet on the ground.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest problems facing the financial services sector is the quality of auditing? Professional regulation does not seem adequate to stop auditors from signing rather duff dockets.
Mr. Redwood: The accountancy profession will shortly come under new arrangements, and the Department will be considering carefully those seeking recognition under the legislation because we are keen to ensure the highest standards of audit. However, I should not wish to associate myself with the attacks made by some Opposition Members on standards of auditing and the
1022
way in which the profession is conducted because much of the work that it does is first class and should be recognised as such.
Our system, which is rather similar in many ways to the Securities and Exchange Commission and its SROs, is based on the Securities and Investments Board, established under statute and backed by self-regulatory organisations—professional regulation with practitioners to keep people's feet on the ground. We wish to strengthen those elements because we believe that we need rather more compliance and detection work and rather less rule-making.
9.41 pm
Mr. Anthony Nelson: The financial services industry has a doughty champion in my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has had the good fortune of an extended opportunity to answer in some depth the important debate that we have had today.
I am pleased that we have been able to continue this debate and to allow further contributions, because it allows Parliament to be seen to be scrutinising carefully the contents of an important report from a Select Committee and to be taking the Government reasonably to task on their policies and views.
Everyone acknowledges that the financial services industry is vital to our economy and that it will be so in the ensuing decade. It accounts for some £7·7 billion of our invisible trade surplus, it employs more than 1 million people and an enormous proportion of our gross national product, some 10 per cent., is generated by it. In recent years it has had to adapt to enormous changes in the marketplace, perhaps above all in technology and in the regime of national and supranational control. Great accolades should be given to British financial services—the banking and investment industries—for the way in which they have responded to these challenges, have surfaced with profit and appear well set to weather the wind of competition in the next few years.
The Select Committee report, albeit lengthy and strewn with many recommendations, was an important study for it to undertake, and I should like to see it be a more permanent feature of the landscape rather than a one-off investigation. I have long felt that our parliamentary processes for scrutinising and considering Government policy on these matters are woefully inadequate. The American system of a congressional banking committee, which allows for scrutiny and a legislative role, is an excellent model, but, because of the demarcation of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Trade and Industry Select Committee, the former scrutinising banking and the latter financial services, we have never had the proper vehicle for considering this important aspect of our economy.
I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) to consider the possibility of establishing a Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry whose remit would be to consider and report on the financial services and banking industry throughout the year.
As I said earlier, I believe that there should be a more formalised approach to the consideration of annual reports—particularly those of bodies such as the Securities and Investments Board. We set those bodies up under the Financial Services Act. They have enormously important

1023
powers of investigation, prosecution and restitution and it is absolutely right that they should be accountable to the House as well as to the Government of the day. Not only are Government moneys invested in bodies such as the SIB; the integrity of the City as a fair market for investment services is at stake. I believe that the bodies themselves would not wish to be the only judges of their policies and would welcome the opportunity to explain themselves, at least annually, to a Select Committee of the House.
I am pleased to note that one of the Committee's recommendations was that we should become a full member of the exchange rate mechanism. That was a timely recommendation, speedily acted on by the Government. I tabled the original early-day motion calling for immediate membership of the ERM—some 12 years ago, believe it or not—which drew the support of signatories such as the present Chief Whip and a large number of members of the Cabinet, so I was delighted when the event took place, albeit not before time.
I hope that, now that the light has been seen, a constructive attitude will be taken to the much more important negotiations that will take place at the December conference on economic and monetary union. We should not take entrenched views on the commonality of the medium of exchange. No one really minds what colour a bank note is or what faces or names are inscribed on it. The important thing about a bank note is that it should be worth something and that it should maintain its value; its worth should not dive one day and soar the next. It is also important that one should not have to pay an extortionate rate of interest if one wants to borrow to buy a business or a house.
Most people who have adjusted to pounds and pence rather than pounds, shillings and pence will see that they have a distinct self-interest—as our country will see it has a national interest—in having a secure and valuable medium of exchange. For the industries that we are debating, a commonality of medium of exchange would be far preferable to a number of different media of exchange operating within the single market.
Let me give an example. Part of the debate about the entrenched protective position of the German insurance industry has to do with the rules that apply to the way in which assets are held in Germany. From the German perspective, it has not only been necessary but has been a good and right financial judgement that a large part of the assets should be held in deutschmark-denominated liquid currencies as well as in equity currencies. That is because not only the companies concerned but the money-denominated assets held have maintained a very strong value. One can understand why German insurance companies should be loth to accept an outside directive that tells them that they must hold a higher proportion of their assets in the currency-denominated assets of other countries, which may be more vulnerable. With the more rigid system that the ERM provides, or if we moved to a common currency system—the common pound or the common ecu—that problem would disappear because we would have one medium of exchange. That would make the operation of the single market a good deal easier.
Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend should cast his mind back to the middle ages or the 16th century, or perhaps to the Spanish inflation problems of the 17th century or to the gold standard and the problems of the 1920s, as well as
1024
considering the current situation. It is only too apparent that it does not matter what the currency is. What matters is the relative strength of the economy, which in turn is the determining factor in the strength of an individual currency. In other words, the strength of an economy, its competitiveness, how much one is saving, the manner in which productivity is operated and the extent to which unit labour costs are involved reflect the genuine strength of an economy. It does not matter a fig whether one refers to an ecu, a pound or a lire.
Mr. Nelson: I concur with my hon. Friend and I do not detract from his analysis. However, the currency that is commonly used in the United Kingdom is used in regions that have different economic performances, just as we live within a European Community with regions with different economic performance. My hon. Friend is right to state that there is a correlation between economic performance and the actual value and the exchange rate value of one's currency over a period of time.
However, we are in no position to be vainglorious. It is not as if the performance of our economy has been outstanding in comparison with other European countries. Why must business men and constituents in my area pay nearly double the rates of interest to be found in other ecu currencies? Why do we have nearly double the rate of inflation of some other European countries? It is not as if we are in an enormously strong position and are worried that somehow the exchange value of the pound will be diluted by joining the other currencies. Far from it. We are the supplicants. We need the disciplines and higher standards of prudential control which I believe membership will bring about. It is extraordinary for some elements of my party and others abroad to suggest that we need tighter financial control and greater prudential requirements and then to refuse to ally us to the mechanisms to enforce that discipline.
With regard to takeovers, I was interested in the Select Committee's recommendations on the Commission's report, which I hope will be published. I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary-Under Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs to consider two aspects. The first relates to the takeovers directive which states that a key feature of that directive shall be the fundamental principle that shareholders should be treated equally.
I have always been slightly mystified by that statement as a principal objective of the takeovers directive. My view, as I have explained previously, is that the fundamental principle must be the right and ability of shareholders first and foremost to decide how to dispose of their assets. There must always be compelling reasons if that right is to be taken away from them. That is not a matter of equality between classes of shareholders; it is a right which attaches to all shareholders.
My second point relates to a directive on disclosure requirements. The threshold at which disclosures have to be announced on a European level is 10 per cent., while it is 5 per cent. in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Redwood: No, it is 3 per cent.
Mr. Nelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting me.
I assume that that position will continue and we shall continue to operate a stricter and more open system of disclosure. However, if we are playing on a level playing field and we are not giving other companies an undue right

1025
to be exempted from takeovers and for minority stakes to be built up elsewhere in the European Community when they are a matter of disclosure here, I hope that we shall press for some changes in that regard.
I want to make several points about the single passport which is the ability to obtain authorisation as a bank or investment company in one European country and to offer those services throughout the Community. We must remember that our interests involve investor protection. We are not about trying to grease the wheels of the financial services industry. We are here principally to protect and enhance the rights of investors and companies to raise money. In doing that we must consider the best financial deal on the market. We want to see competition in the banking and financial services industry and the best competition need not necessarily come from within the European Community. It might come from Japanese or American companies.
Therefore, there is the matter of extending the passport to countries such as Japan and the United States. I should not like to feel that, in creating the single market, we were erecting barriers against Japanese or United States financial services and banking industries. Some right hon. and hon. Members may say, "That is not necessary, because they are in a strong competitive situation anyway." However, we can tie some access to the European single market with reciprocity, which is sorely needed and would overcome criticisms that we are just creating a customs union, a tariff barrier and a preference for companies within the European Community.
I was struck by what the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) said about consumer interests. As far as I am aware there is no specific directive on consumer interests. As I understood her speech, in addition to implementing the directives and arriving at 1993, she would like a greater international and public awareness of their protections, their opportunities and the safeguards that are being extended to them. I wholeheartedly agree with that. The hon. Lady's intentions were sound, but whether they should be the subject of a recommendation or a directive, I know not. The principal responsibility should rest with self-regulatory organisations. After all, it is in their interests to promote use of the markets of which their members are subscribers.
Ms. Mowlam: A consumers directive has been knocking around the Commission for some time. Its initial stages of negotiations will start in December 1991. The point I was making is that that means that it will not be in place when the other directives on investment services, capital adequacy and secondary banking are implemented in 1993. They are not being given the same importance, weight and balance as the other directives that we discussed earlier.
Mr. Nelson: I am obliged to the hon. Lady. Nevertheless, I have been supporting her comments and she might agree with what I say.
There are two other small points. One is about the directive on payment systems. I believe that there is a recommendation rather than a directive on payment systems. I should like to see that upgraded to a directive. Whether we like it or not, the credit card industry is a medium of exchange and payment which is here to stay.
1026
Credit card fraud is a multi-million pound business with professional crime involved, people being ripped off on a massive scale, and numerous new entrants to the market coming forward to tie loyalty to their business by issuing a card. We must regard much more seriously credit card fraud and professional operators. The Government should look much more carefully at that matter.
The other point relates to the winding-up directive. Although it may seem a little negative to consider such matters, I believe that winding up has an equally important part to play in the protection of investors as sponsoring the burgeoning of new industries. I should like to feel that winding up was instigated at the appropriate moments, that there were common rules and that it was given the importance that should be attached to it.
The Securities and Investments Board, in its role in the financial services industry in this country, deserves a word of support and commendation. Its chairman and members have worked extremely hard to provide orderly markets and communications with the SROs which they scrutinise. It is interesting that, under section 105 of the Financial Services Act relating to investigation powers, in the years since the Act has been in operation there have been 40 investigations and action has been taken in 21 cases by the self-regulatory organisation or by winding up. In five cases there has been restitution and in eight cases there have been criminal prosecutions on matters of fraud or conduct of business. In addition, there have been 330 cases of alleged unauthorised operation of businesses which can amount to a criminal offence. Fifty-seven of those have been resolved. There have been eight prosecutions and two civil injunctions, and 27 cases have been withdrawn. Many other cases have been resolved.
Many hon. Members who have called for the sweeping away of the system set up under the Financial Services Act and its narrowing down into a smaller number of bodies should respect the fact that a great deal of hard work has been done day by day to identify and follow up cases of alleged fraud.
Let those who call for the sweeping away or amalgamation of self-regulatory organisations remember that, if that were to happen, there would be a real danger of our moving towards even more centralist control. After all, if the SIB were to absorb all the self-regulating organisations we would end up to something more akin to a Securities and Exchange Commission.
For all those reasons, I believe that the existing structure set up under the Financial Services Act 1976, uncomfortable as it may have been in its inception, has worked to the advantage of the City and will continue to work to the advantage of our economy.
I welcome the response of the Government today and the contribution that the report of the Select Committee has made, but it must not end here; the scrutiny must continue.
9.59 pm
Mr. William Cash: I think that I must be very brief—I think it is time for me to sit down.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PROCEDURE
Motion made,
That this House agrees with the recommendations contained in the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of this Session (House of Commons Paper No. 379).—[Mr. Wood.]
Hon. Members: Object.

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS, ETC.
Motion made,
That with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament Standing Order No. 17 (Questions to Members) and Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of motions, amendments and questions) be repealed and the following Standing Orders be made—
Time for taking questions
(1)—Questions shall be taken on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, after private business has been disposed of.
(2) No question shall be taken after half-past three o'clock, except questions which have not appeared on the paper but which are in Mr. Speaker's opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business.
(3) Any questions tabled for written answer on a day on which the House does not sit by reason of the continuance of a previous sitting shall be deemed to be questions for written answer on the next sitting day and shall appear on the Order Paper for that day.
Notices of questions, motions and amendments
(1)—Notices of questions shall be given by Members in
writing to the Table Office.
(2) A notice of a question, or of an amendment to a motion standing on the Order Paper for which no day has been fixed or of the addition of a name in support of such a motion or amendment, which is given after half-past ten o'clock in the evening shall be treated for all purposes as if it were a notice handed in after the rising of the House.
(3) A Member shall indicate on the notice of any question whether it is for oral, written or priority written answer.
(4) Where a Member has indicated that a question is for priority written answer the Minister shall cause an answer to
1028
be given to the Member on the date for which notice has been given, provided that the requirement of notice shall be the same for such questions as that prescribed in this order for questions for oral answer.
(5) Notice of a question for oral answer may not be given on a day earlier than ten sitting days before the day for answer, provided that, where that earliest day would otherwise fall on a Friday, the earliest day on which such notice may be given will instead be the previous sitting day.
(6) Notice of any question for oral answer must appear at latest on the notice paper circulated two days (excluding Saturday and Sunday) before that on which an answer is desired.
(7) When it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of less than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purpose of calculating the period in paragraph (5) of this order.
(8) When notice shall have been given of a Motion for the adjournment of the House for more than three days Mr. Speaker may cause to have printed and circulated with the Vote a memorandum superseding the provisions of paragraphs (5) and (6) of this order and instead setting out the earliest day on which notice of questions for oral answer may be given for each of the first ten sitting days after that adjournment, provided that each such day shall as far as practicable fall on the same day of the week as that on which the question is to be answered and shall not be fewer than fourteen days before the day for answer; and also setting out the latest day for notice of questions for oral answer on each of the first two sitting days following that adjournment provided that each such day shall not be fewer than two days (excluding Saturday and Sunday) before the day for answer.—[Mr. Wood.]
Hon. Members: Object.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Ordered,
That Mr. Peter Lilley be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Francis Maude be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Wood.]

Haemophiliacs (Aids)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
10 pm
Mr. John Marshall: I cannot promise to be as brief as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). I should like to thank Mr. Speaker for exercising his discretion so that that we can have a wide debate rather than a narrow one this evening.
As the House will be aware, we have had a number of Adjournment debates on the vexed subject of compensation for those haemophiliacs who have contracted the AIDS virus. The House may ask why we are having yet another. There are two reasons. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has said, this problem will not go away. Secondly, developments during the summer recess have underlined the need for yet another debate.
I should like to remind my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister who is to reply to the debate of the words of Boswell in 1773:
"A lawyer has no business with the justice or injustice of the cause he undertakes. The justice or injustice of the cause is to be decided by the judge."
Certainly Mr. Justice Ognall has expressed his views clearly as to what should happen in this case. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend should look once again at the judge's recommendation in that case.
I should like to remind the House of the sequence of events that have led to this problem. In 1974, the Medical Research Council, concerned at the possible spread of hepatitis from infected blood recommended that the United Kingdom should become self-sufficient in blood products. In 1975, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), as Minister for Health, promised that we would become self-sufficient in two to three years. It is a chilling indictment of what happened in the 1970s that, if that promise had been met, some of the 1,200 individuals who became infected with the HIV virus would not have been infected. Individuals who have died might otherwise have lived.
If we look at the history of the warnings given, we learn that the first death of a haemophiliac infected by AIDS took place in Florida in January 1982. In July 1982, Dr. Bruce Evatt, the director of disease control in Atlanta, published his first warning. In 1983, there was a further warning in The Lancet. In April 1985, national health service heat-treated factor 8 became available, 10 years after the pledge given by the right hon. Member for Devonport.
The result of all that was a human tragedy. Some 1,215 haemophiliacs—one in four—became infected with the HIV virus; 210 have developed full-blown AIDS, of whom 150 have died. One of the greatest tragedies of all is that two dozen wives and girl friends have been infected by individuals who did not know that they had the HIV virus.
Those statistics cannot convey one iota of the depth of the human problems involved. It is a great irony that factor 8, which was designed to improve the quality of life for haemophiliacs, has granted many a suspended sentence of death. Many haemophiliacs have battled to overcome the consequences and difficulties of their illness. Some hon. Members will have seen that, only three weeks ago, Dr.
1030
John Herdman, a relative of one of my constituents, with a PhD in physics, was snatched away at the tender age of 28. No one could fail to be moved by the description in The Sunday Times stating that three years ago he was an active young man who went swimming every day. Now, because of the medical difficulties, he has died, and we have lost a brilliant life.
When I was a university lecturer, one of my most brilliant students was a haemophiliac. Throughout the course, he could not attend one lecture because he lived in Dunoon and could not make the boat and train journey to Glasgow. Despite the fact that he did not attend one lecture and had only two tutorials a term, he came second out of 200. That said a lot for his determination; and it may also have said a little about the quality of the lectures he did not attend and something about the impact of the distractions of the students union on academic performance.
We are faced with the problem of a man seeing his brother die and not being able to say, "There but for the grace of God go I," but knowing that his brother's physical suffering is a dress rehearsal for his own illness and death in perhaps weeks, perhaps months. We face the problem of a widow who is dependent on her sons for financial support, knows that they are both HIV-positive and realises that she will have to attend both their funerals and her financial support will disappear.
It involves the problems of a sister—haemophilia is one of the strange, unique diseases carried by ladies but directly affecting only men—who sees her brother suffer and says, as one has said, that she is witnessing the destruction of all the men of her generation in her family. Haemophiliacs must attend the funerals of victims, not knowing whose funeral will be next. We all attend family funerals, but for some haemophiliacs, doing so has become a way of life, if one can talk about a way of life under such circumstances.
AIDS is a particularly vicious disease, and the physical pain is only part of the problem. The difficulty facing its victims is not merely physical because, in the public mind, AIDS is associated with sexual promiscuity and drug addiction. It is a disease whose mysteries are clouded in prejudice throughout society; that has compounded the problems facing its blameless victims.
Even in Britain, famed as a tolerant and fair-minded society, the very word AIDS is likely to generate prejudice in at least some minds. That has compounded the problems of the father who says that he cannot accept that his son has died of AIDS. It has compounded the problem of the victim who, having told his employer that he has AIDS, loses his job. It has compounded the problem because the friendships enjoyed by the victims have all too often turned out to be skin deep. When people mention that they have AIDS, their friends tend to move away rather than come closer, as they should do.
The victims of the disease do not seek compensation for themselves but for their families. The problem was summed up for me in a few short sentences: "The victim has had to give up work. He knows that he is dying. He only wants peace of mind. He wants to know that his family will be all right." What the victims seek is to die with dignity, secure in the knowledge that their relatives will be cared for and their wives and children will not face a lifetime of penury and penny pinching. Perhaps they want that last family holiday together.

1031
Physical hardship can be alleviated by medicine, but peace of mind cannot be guaranteed by someone's saying, "Let us have a court case to be determined next March, April or June." If we wait for a court case to be determined then, a number of the victims will not be around to see the verdict. Posthumous justice will not grant them peace of mind; it may help their relatives, but it will not help them.
The full majesty of the law is clearly suitable for the vast majority of cases, but I do not believe that it is always a happy vehicle for cases in which speed is of the essence. I do not think that we are in a happy position when litigants are legally aided and the defendant—the Crown—is also relying on the taxpayer to pay the costs. A certain amount of public money will be spent, and it will not bring the law into good repute. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to examine the matter again.
In 1964, my right hon. and learned Friend and I fought our first general election. The slogan under which we fought was "Prosperity with a Purpose". The reason why Lord Home chose that as a slogan was that he was not following a course of sheer naked materialism, but rather underlining the simple, basic fact that he sought to create greater prosperity—not as an end in itself, but as a means to a far nobler end: the relief of hardship in our society.
There is no conflict between a belief in the social market economy and a social conscience; indeed, only if we have a social market economy can we afford a social conscience. I believe that the challenge to the Secretary of State is a simple one, and I appeal to him as a practical man to come to the House and re-examine the issue.
We are told that it would create a precedent if we paid compensation on a larger scale to the haemophiliacs tomorrow or next week; but are we really being asked to say that, if a further example of this were to hit us, no compensation would be paid? Would we say to another group in our society that they must go to the law? Of course not. I do not believe that the collective conscience of the nation would allow any future Government to walk down the other side of the road like a Pharisee.
Clearly the Secretary of State has been advised that he can satisfy the courts of the land, but I ask him to consider making a short statement to the House. I suggest that the statement should read as follows. He should say that this is an inherited problem, caused by decisions made long before he became Secretary of State or before the Government were returned in 1979; that, as Secretary of State, he cannot be held responsible for decisions made in 1976 and 1977. He should say that the Government provided the resources to permit the heat treatment of blood products so that a similar disaster would never befall the nation. However, I would also like him to say that he will reconsider his decision—reiterated today—about the wisdom of fighting the case through the courts.
I would also like the Secretary of State to show a willingness to enter into discussions with representatives of the Haemophilia Society. The chairman of that society is a constituent of mine who is a respected vicar, and I believe that any agreement that he reached would be honoured by the vast bulk of his members.
Finally, I should like the Secretary of State to say whether he is willing to reconsider whether £20,000 should be the limit for individual compensation. Is that an adequate figure to compensate for the physical difficulties, the emotional traumas, the financial suffering and the loss of life involvd in this case? I fear that if there is no early solution to this problem many people will raise the issue
1032
time and time again. The last time I spoke in an Adjournment debate the only Members present were waiting for a lift to Hampstead; the fact that there are several hon. Members here tonight shows that there is disquiet, and I hope that the Minister—
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Hear, hear.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My hon. Friend will be aware that many hon. Members who are not here tonight warmly support what he has said and want further action from the Government.
Mr. Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for that short, pertinent and welcome observation, and I thank the hon. Member—I shall not be so indiscreet as to mention his name—who said, "Hear, hear," from a sedentary position.
I thank the House for the way in which this debate has been received.
10.15 pm
Mr. Hugo Summerson rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Gentleman have the consent of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and of the Minister?
Hon. Members: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Summerson: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and the Minister for giving me one minute in which to speak.
I cannot understand the Government's obduracy over this matter. I can understand the legal frame of mind that shrinks from anything that implies liability, but the lawyers who fear liability should turn their minds to finding a way that would permit payments without imputing liability. If the will exists, the words will be found.
I have at least one HIV-infected haemophiliac in my constituency. His story wrings the heart. He and the others are suffering grievously through no fault of their own. They need a generous and just sum to enable them to live out the rest of their lives in some comfort and dignity. I should like to add my voice to that of my hon. Friend and appeal to Ministers—including my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State—to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that that comes about.
10.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has used the opportunity of this first Adjournment debate of the autumn term to draw attention to an issue of undoubted public concern. I shall begin by trying to sketch out what I see as the common ground between him, the Haemophilia Society and Ministers. I am struck by the extent of the common ground between us on this subject.
First, it is clearly common ground that this story represents a terrible human tragedy, made more poignant by the fact that its cause was that people came to the NHS to receive treatment intended to enhance their lives and it ended up shortening them. There is sometimes a tendency for Ministers to reply to debates of this sort by citing statistics and legalistic arguments, and I shall have

1033
something to say about the Government's legal position in a few moments, but I begin by reminding the House of the facts.
We are talking about 1,200 men and women who sought care from the NHS and received a lethal dose. We are talking about people who relied on the expertise of health professionals and—although they could not have known this at the time—found it wanting. We are talking about 1,200 families of people who were already sick and who looked to the NHS for hope and found it cruelly snuffed out.
Of course my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I feel a profound sympathy for the people caught up in this tragedy. He and I want to help, and of course we both feel these basic human emotions. However, those emotions do not add up to a policy.
As I have discovered in the last six months, it is part of the lot of a Health Minister to witness a wide variety of human devastation. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South doubts that, I invite him to come with me on some of my visits to national health service installations, where I see people whose lives have been permanently scarred by spinal injuries or mental handicap that may have been caused at the moment of birth. A visit to the patients in any children's hospital is also enlightening. One learns quickly that a Health Minister cannot right all wrongs, because that object is not achievable. All that we can do is to offer the best health care within the resources that are available.
My hon. Friend asked us to look again at the judge's statement on which he placed some weight. Much of what Mr. Justice Ognall said in that statement gives rise to no disagreement from the Government. He said:
"The plight of the plaintiffs—or many of them—is a special one:
(a) All of them suffer from or live in the shadow of a fatal condition for which there is presently no known cure." That is obviously true. The judge said:
"Many have already died, and in the nature of things many more will die without knowing the outcome of this litigation. It seems to me, at least, that this factor should be treated as cardinally important."
As I shall show, the Government have already acted on that understanding. The judge said:
"It is common ground that all plaintiffs are entirely blameless … I believe that the legal profession has a duty to do its best to see that the legal system does not become a scapegoat in the eyes of the public for what I fear may be perceived as the unjust and inhumane denial of any significant measure of compensation to the plaintiffs. 'The law must take its course' is not an attractive principle in the context of this case."
I agree with all those quotations. The judge's argument is based on the proposition that the Government have a moral obligation to the victims in this case. The Government accept that moral obligation and that is why funds have been made available, first in 1987 and again last year, to the Macfarlane Trust. Those funds were made available well ahead of this litigation and made possible a minimum payment of £20,000 to each person affected and assistance to families in need. We gave an undertaking, repeated many times, that the Government will review that assistance to ensure that it is adequate to meet the case. The total already amounts to £34 million.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Dorrell: Only once.
Mr. Marshall: I know that my hon. Friend will give way only once. Will he underline his statement that the Government are willing to reconsider the amount of assistance? That is very important.
Mr. Dorrell: As I have already said, the Government have repeatedly said that they will keep under constant review the payments made to the Macfarlane Trust and the fund attached to it to ensure that they match the case. Our track record demonstrates that in practice we have done that.
The judge argued that there is a moral obligation and, outside the context of their case, the plaintiffs also argue that case. The Government accept that obligation and acted on it well in advance of the litigation, and that reflects the sense of urgency that has been argued in support of the case. Once again, that argument gives rise to no disagreement. The disagreement between the parties is not over the principle of moral obligation, because all are agreed on that. Apart from the court case, the disagreement is over the level of compensation that will discharge the moral obligation.
We must acknowledge that here we are in difficult country and that legal practice simply does not help. The courts can help us with the amount of compensation that is payable in cases where a person is proved to have been negligent. In this case, the Government and all the defendants in the action deny negligence and we are left with the question about the level of compensation that will discharge the moral obligation.
That raises the more fundamental question—and one that is not capable of being settled by a law court: What is the value of life? The court asks not that question, but what is the amount of compensation necessary to put a plaintiff in the position in which he would have been before the damage caused by negligence. That is not the question in this case and it is not relevant when considering a moral obligation. The only disagreement is the level of payments necessary to discharge that moral obligation—a matter that, in the nature of things, can be only a matter of judgment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South referred to the thalidomide case. That was a different case, because the payments were made in settlement of a negligence action. They were explicitly and closely linked to the scale of damages payable where negligence is proved. That would not be right in this case, because it is the defendant's view that there was no negligence. Against that background, it would be wrong to link payments made in discharge of a moral obligation to payments that would have been made in the event of a successful negligence action.
It is also argued that there should be no-fault compensation. People say, "Why inquire about fault? There is an injured party, so why not just pay damages?" That raises two points. First, even those who support the principle of no-fault compensation do not support the suggestion that, in the event of compensation being paid in cases where no fault is proved, that compensation should reflect the damages that would have been paid if negligence were proved. No one has argued that that would be the proper quantum for damages. Secondly, the whole issue of no-fault compensation was extensively examined by a

1035
royal commission—the Pearson committee in 1978—and rejected. Its advice has been accepted by Governments of both parties.
I strongly believe that this is a sad case. The moral obligation exists and has been acknowledged by the Government. The argument is not one of principle against a moral obligation. However, there remains another disagreement, and it is the subject of the action before Mr. Justice Ognall. Some 1,000 victims and their families are suing the Government and other defendants for negligence. They are perfectly entitled to do so, and I make no complaint about it.
It would be unwise to comment on the detail of the action. However, I wish to comment in general terms about why I am in no doubt that the action should be resisted. As I have already stressed, it is based not on a moral responsibility—that is not in dispute—but on alleged negligence by the Department of Health, the national health service and others. That is a quite different proposition. Each case is individual and the Government cannot simply admit negligence where they believe that none exists.
I have studied the background. I am not a lawyer, but as a layman I do not believe that, in common sense, the negligence claim stands up, not least because it has not been shown what more attractive alternative action was available at the time. What more attractive alternative decision would have been sensible on the basis of the evidence then available? When reviewing the papers, time
1036
and again I asked myself whether, on the information available at the time, I would have acted differently. Time and again, I could only answer, "No." Ultimately, it is for the court to decide whether there has been a case of negligence. If the individual plaintiffs believe that negligence exists, it is not for a politician to interfere. However, I have seen no evidence of that and therefore I believe that it is right to resist the claim of negligence, while acknowledging the moral obligation—as we do.
I see a sad story of people trying to help and, unwittingly, making matters worse. I see clearly a case in which the Government have tried to discharge—and, indeed, have discharged—a moral obligation to act. I cannot accept that that moral obligation is affected by an independent belief by some victims that they have a claim in negligence.
10.29 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is 12 long years since the Pearson commission reached its conclusions and thinking has moved on since then. A great many hon. Members, some of whom could not be here tonight, support the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall)—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current percentage collection rate by each local authority for the poll tax; what is the shortfall in revenue; and by how much poll tax rates would have to be increased in each case to compensate for the loss of revenue from non-payment.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government have no comprehensive information on current collection rates. We shall be receiving details of collection rates at 30 September 1990 from local authorities and this information will be collated and made available to the local authority associations in the same way as was the information for 30 June.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the latest figures he has for actual spending in 1989–90 and planned spending in 1990–91 for (a) each of the London boroughs, (b) the metropolitan districts of Salford, Stockport, Trafford, Sefton, Wirral, Coventry, Sandwell, Bradford and Leeds and (c) the shire counties of Cambridgeshire, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Hereford and Worcestershire, Kent, Oxfordshire, Somerset and Wiltshire.

  Mr. Key
  The available information is as follows:

  Net revenue expenditure provisional outturn 1989–90 and budget estimates 1990–91

  Provisional outturn 1989–90 £'000s

  Budget estimates 1990–91 £'000s

  Cambridgeshire

  304,500

  335,093

  Devon

  456,617

  519,332

  Dorset

  273,158

  304,476

  Gloucestershire

  241,871

  274,190

  Hereford and Worcester

  292,162

  320,493

  Kent

  661,425

  760,000

  Oxfordshire

  247,861

  291,554

  Somerset

  234,537

  250,951

  Wiltshire

  261,404

  285,110

  Salford

  151,658

  163,400

  Total expenditure1 final outturn 1985–86 to 1989–90. Net revenue expenditure2 provisional outturn 1980–90 and budget estimates 1990–91

  Final Outturn 1985–86 £'000

  Final Outturn 1986–87 £'000

  Final Outturn 1987–88 £'000

  Final Outturn 1988–89 £'000

  Provisional Outturn 1989–90 £'000

  Budget Estimate 1990–91 £'000

  Suffolk

  197,896

  218,200

  230,942

  254,492

  276,116

  318,718

  Babergh

  3,061

  2,520

  3,088

  3,557

  3,534

  4,636

  Forest Heath

  2,540

  1,968

  1,983

  2,275

  3,031

  3,781

  Ipswich

  7,934

  8,865

  10,292

  10,997

  14,982

  17,782

  Mid Suffolk

  3,010

  2,807

  3,274

  3,368

  3,783

  6,064

  St. Edmundsbury

  3,181

  3,296

  3,283

  2,546

  4,095

  5,020

  Suffolk Coastal

  4,101

  3,978

  4,758

  4,744

  6,300

  9,081

  Waveney

  5,244

  5,275

  5,874

  6,574

  7,230

  8,229

  606

  Provisional outturn 1989–90 £'000s

  Budget estimates 1990–91 £'000s

  Stockport

  141,575

  168,761

  Trafford

  107,869

  130,610

  Sefton

  146,770

  179,143

  Wirral

  191,520

  218,160

  Coventry

  192,636

  218,115

  Sandwell

  187,208

  223,558

  Bradford

  297,477

  331,843

  Leeds

  358,442

  422,348

  City of London

  76,160

  67,873

  Camden

  147,683

  180,685

  Greenwich

  99,721

  221,596

  Hackney

  135,825

  236,000

  Islington

  127,107

  195,118

  Kensington and Chelsea

  65,004

  117,458

  Lewisham

  117,997

  207,292

  Southwark

  159,513

  231,020

  Tower Hamlets

  124,538

  212,471

  Wandsworth

  92,579

  242,772

  Westminster

  106,317

  173,617

  Barking and Dagenham

  85,292

  99,852

  Barnet

  150,595

  169,842

  Bexley

  118,358

  124,602

  Brent

  228,953

  238,444

  Bromley

  134,747

  150,238

  Croydon

  165,362

  189,838

  Ealing

  197,583

  222,964

  Enfield

  153,003

  170,417

  Harrow

  112,640

  126,455

  Havering

  119,620

  133,290

  Hillingdon

  138,020

  155,194

  Kingston-Upon-Thames

  76,805

  83,679

  Merton

  91,290

  117,016

  Newham

  204,721

  213,940

  Redbridge

  114,644

  132,619

  Richmond-Upon-Thames

  81,034

  90,376

  Sutton

  91,909

  105,360

  Waltham Forest

  167,193

  183,019

  In 1990–91 information for capped authorities shows the position after capping.

  Information is not yet available from Hammersmith and Fulham, Lambeth, Haringey and Hounslow.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what was(a) the capital expenditure and (b) the revenue expenditure of (i) Baleigh district council, (ii) Forest Heath district council, (iii) Ipswich borough council, (iv) Mid-Suffolk district council, (v) St. Edmundsbury district council, (vi) Suffolk Coastal district council, (vii) Waveney district council and (viii) Suffolk county council in each year from (1) 1985–86 and (2) to 1990–91.

  Mr. Key
  The information is as follows:
  607

  Gross capital expenditure 1985–86 to 1990–91

  1985–86 £'000

  1986–87 £'000

  1987–88 £'000

  1988–89 £'000

  1989–1990 £'000

  1990–91 £'000

  Suffolk

  18,079

  24,605

  24,703

  35,173

  34,995

  44,330

  Babergh

  3,792

  4,999

  2,736

  5,814

  7,149

  7,146

  Forest Heath

  2,112

  2,474

  4,217

  5,117

  7,669

  6,653

  Ipswich

  15,486

  14,615

  10,203

  18,993

  22,549

  17,193

  Mid Suffolk

  6,007

  6,237

  6,757

  6,834

  8,650

  7,712

  St. Edmundsbury

  8,821

  7,391

  8,183

  7,304

  12,956

  14,100

  Suffolk Coastal

  3,250

  4,789

  6,298

  6,897

  9,166

  6,084

  Waveney

  5,306

  5,991

  6,771

  8,333

  8,343

  11,114

  1Total expenditure as defined in the rate support grant system.

  2Net revenue expenditure as defined in revenue support grant system.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will detail the amounts received by(a) Baleigh district council, (b) Forest Heath district council, (c) Ipswich borough council, (d) Mid-Suffolk district council, (e) St. Edmundsbury district council, (f) Suffolk coastal district council, (g) Waveney district council, (h)

  Rate Support Grant 1985–86 to 1989–90

  1985–86 £'000

  1986–87 £'000

  1987–88 £'000

  1988–89 £'000

  1989–90 £'000

  Suffolk

  71,583

  70,640

  75,740

  78,863

  71,898

  Babergh

  2,212

  2,456

  2,318

  2,182

  1,096

  Forest Heath

  1,748

  1,820

  1,818

  1,684

  1,761

  Ipswich

  4,834

  4,778

  3,482

  3,027

  3,384

  Mid Suffolk

  2,086

  2,312

  2,269

  2,115

  2,134

  St. Edmundsbury

  2,341

  2,445

  2,489

  2,363

  2,390

  Suffolk Coastal

  2,833

  3,137

  2,807

  2,289

  2,663

  Waveney

  4,221

  4,528

  4,606

  4,721

  4,927

  Relevant Specific Grant 1985–86 to 1989–90

  1985–86 £'000

  1986–87 £'000

  1987–88 £'000

  1988–89 £'000

  1989–90 £'000

  Suffolk

  16,629

  19,098

  21,485

  23,787

  25,564

  Babergh

  787

  821

  863

  1,003

  1,013

  Forest Heath

  273

  287

  332

  332

  368

  Ipswich

  1,984

  2,139

  2,573

  2,558

  2,811

  Mid Suffolk

  669

  754

  818

  885

  1,013

  St. Edmundsbury

  524

  555

  664

  677

  828

  Suffolk Coastal

  1,240

  1,310

  1,531

  1,583

  1,844

  Waveney

  1,578

  1,749

  2,048

  2,119

  2,367

  Domestic rates 1985–86 to 1989–90

  1985–86 £'000

  1986–87 £'000

  1987–88 £'000

  1988–89 £'000

  1989–90 £'000

  Babergh

  8,814

  10,724

  11,596

  12,882

  14,428

  Forest Heath

  5,367

  6,601

  7,086

  7,933

  9,108

  Ipswich

  14,438

  17,013

  18,956

  20,757

  24,102

  Mid Suffolk

  7,853

  9,646

  10,599

  11,778

  13,544

  St. Edmundsbury

  9,312

  11,312

  12,395

  13,908

  15,353

  Suffolk Coastal

  13,394

  16,433

  18,403

  20,590

  22,858

  Waveney

  11,275

  13,549

  15,058

  16,529

  18,379

  Non-domestic rates 1985–86 to 1989–90

  1985–86 £'000

  1986–87 £'000

  1987–88 £'000

  1988–89 £'000

  1989–90 £'000

  Babergh

  6,321

  7,531

  8,044

  8,743

  9,725

  Forest Heath

  4,818

  5,845

  6,401

  7,160

  8,142

  Ipswich

  18,102

  20,965

  22,806

  24,731

  28,445

  Mid Suffolk

  5,513

  6,586

  7,129

  7,817

  8,913

  St. Edmundsbury

  9,524

  11,287

  12,344

  13,649

  14,985

  Suffolk Coastal

  10,276

  12,397

  13,628

  15,568

  17,185

  Waveney

  7,409

  8,721

  9,575

  10,524

  11,618

  608
  Suffolk county council by way of (i) rate revenue support grant, (ii) specific grants, (iii) non-domestic rates and (iv) domestic rates and community charge in each year from (1) 1985–86 to 1990–91.

  Mr. Key
  The information is as follows:
  609

  1990–91

  Revenue support grant £'000

  Specific grants within AEF £'000

  Community charge income £'000

  Income from non-domestic rate pool £'000

  Suffolk

  0

  29,169

  0

  0

  Babergh

  8,409

  124

  19,666

  17,525

  Forest Heath

  5,366

  113

  11,740

  9,902

  Ipswich

  14,458

  255

  40,682

  26,633

  Mid Suffolk

  8,403

  103

  19,582

  16,976

  St. Edmundsbury

  9,623

  173

  22,556

  20,192

  Suffolk Coastal

  11,272

  142

  30,208

  22,253

  Waveney

  11,894

  256

  28,297

  23,966

  Notes:

  1. Domestic rates gross of rate rebates but net of rate relief grant.

  2. Community charge income gross of charge benefits and transitional relief grant.

  3. Income from the non-domestic rate pool is distributed in proportion to relevant population (£292·51 per adult). It is not comparable with income from non-domestic ratepayers in earlier years.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the relationship of community charge to rates in the manner of his answer to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) on 19 June,Official Report, column 480, using actual rates of community charge set by local authorities.

  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 Government Superannuation Regulations
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the implementation of the Local Government Superannuation (Amendment) Regulations 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Local Government Superannuation (Amendment) Regulations 1990 came into force on 17 September. Comments on the draft regulations were invited from interested parties in April, and 14 replies were received. These included a detailed response from the United Kingdom steering committee on behalf of local authorities in England and Wales.

  Archaeological Funds
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 18 July,Official Report, column 562, what consideration he has given to the most appropriate measures for protecting archaeological finds made on unscheduled sites.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department is currently discussing this issue with English Heritage.

  Nature Conservation Grants
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements will be made arising from the proposed reorganisation of the Nature Conservancy Council to co-ordinate applications for nature conservation grants for projects with a Great 610
  Britain interest or which relate to more than one country; and whether the Joint Nature Conservation Committee will take a co-ordinating role.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government has already made it clear that the new agencies should agree efficient procedures for dealing with applications for nature conservation grants which cover more than one agency's interests, in order to prevent duplication of funding and to avoid unnecessary work for applicants. Grants are an executive function for the country agencies themselves and there is no need for any statutory or other formal provision for involvement by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

  Water Quality
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list each nitrate derogation which has been granted to each water company in England and Wales, giving the date when each derogation was issued and the expiry date;

  (2) if he will list each centre of population which receives drinking water which is in breach of European Community nitrate limits.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Derogations for nitrate which were granted in 1985 were withdrawn by the government in 1988. For those supplies which breach the EC and national standard for nitrate, or where there has been a past breach which is likely to recur, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has accepted an undertaking from the water company under section 20 of the Water Act 1989 to secure compliance with the standard. All supplies will comply by 1995 at the latest. Those supplies which do not meet the standard in the interim are not considered to endanger health. Copies of the undertakings by the water service companies are available in the Library.

  I am arranging for copies of the undertakings my right hon. Friend has accepted from the statutory water companies to be placed in the Library.

  Undertakings accepted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales are a matter for the Welsh Office.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment further to his reply of 19 July,Official Report, column 729, if he will give details and results of all surveys of groundwater contamination in Staffordshire undertaken by the National Rivers Authority.
  611
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The National Rivers Authority has a network of 75 regularly measured groundwater quality monitoring points in Staffordshire. The network particularly covers the triassic sandstone aquifer which is a major source of public water supplies in the county. The data collected from the monitoring surveys is lodged on the public Water Act register which is held at the authority's Severn Trent region's office.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what steps he has taken to ensure that the chargepayer's privacy is adequately protected when information is disclosed by a community charge registration office or charging authority without the knowledge or consent of the charge payer; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will introduce regulations to provide that a community charges registration officer should not disclose information about a charge payer to another community charges registration officer without the knowledge or informed and express consent of the charge payer; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Community charges registration officers and charging authorities may only make use of information they have obtained in carrying out their statutory functions in accordance with their powers under the Local Government Finance Act 1988, and are bound by the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. There is no intention to alter this position.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department will take positive steps to discuss with the Data Protection Registrar, all his Department's legislation that impacts on the use, collection, processing or holding of personal data; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Christopher Patten
  I am reminding my officials of the need to consult the registrar about proposed legislation which might affect or be affected by the Data Protection Act 1984.

  England

  United Kingdom

  Owner-occupied dwellings (millions)

  per cent. of all dwellings

  Owner-occupied dwellings (millions)

  per cent. of all dwellings

  December 1960

  6·4

  45

  7·0

  42

  December 1970

  8·2

  51

  9·5

  49

  December 1980

  10·3

  57

  11·9

  55

  December 1989

  13·2

  68

  15·3

  66

  June 1990

  13·3

  69

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.=not available.

  Landfill Gas
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer of 19 July,Official Report, column 726, when he intends to publish the results of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's survey into landfill sites to determine those with the potential to generate landfill gas; and which sites have been and are being monitored in Staffordshire.

  Mr. Trippier
  The results of the survey are expected to be published in the near future. The survey has identified 22 gassing or potentially gassing sites in Staffordshire. It

  Blue-green Algae
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to local authorities concerning advice to the general public of health hazards associated with blue-green algae.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Advice from the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is included in the standard letters sent by the National Rivers Authority to chief environmental health officers, medical officers of environmental health and site owners when particular water bodies are identified as being likely to develop potentially toxic algal blooms. This advice is also included in a leaflet containing information on the dangers associated with blue-green algae published by the National Rivers Authority on 6 June. The wide distribution given to this leaflet included environmental health officers as well as owners and users of recreational water facilities.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of all research currently undertaken into blue-green algae.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  As part of the work of its task group on blue-green algae, the National Rivers Authority has undertaken a comprehensive survey of research into this field, both in this country and overseas. Details are included in the report published by the National Rivers Authority on 1 October. The report makes a number of detailed recommendations for further research which are being carefully considered.

  Home Ownership
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of home ownership currently(a) in number and (b) as a percentage of all housing; and what are the comparable figures for 1980, 1970 and 1960.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The information is as follows:

  would be for Staffordshire county council as the waste disposal authority to provide any details about the number of sites currently being monitored.

  Voluntary Agencies
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many voluntary agencies, who in 1989 received Government funding under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985, did not do so in the current year.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Fourteen. However, the following 23 organisations received section 73 grant for the first time this year:
  613

  Brighton Housing Trust

  Centrepoint (Soho)

  Chester Lodgings and Support Group

  Coventry Day Centre

  Housing Aid for Youth, Blyth

  Key House Project, Keighley

  Leicester Night Shelter

  Lodgers

  The London Connection

  St. Martin in the Fields Social Care Unit

  The National Foster Care Association

  Newark Young Single Homeless Trust

  North Lambeth Day Centre

  The Passage Day Centre, Westminster

  The Portsmouth Housing Trust

  Reading Emergency Accommodation Project

  Riverpoint Single Homeless Ltd., London

  St Basil's Centre, Birmingham

  The Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, London

  Thames Reach, London

  Threshold, Hammersmith

  West End Co-ordinated Voluntary Services for Homeless Single People, London

  Yeldall Christian Centre.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further criteria were used to determine which voluntary agencies received funding in the current year in addition to section 73 of the Housing Act 1985.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), on 5 June, at column 485.

  Palace of Westminster (Cleaning)
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the timetable for the cleaning of the exterior of the inner courtyards of the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Key
  The work to repair and clean the stonework in the courtyards is due to begin in 1994–95 following the completion of the work to the Victoria tower.

  Rents
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the typical gross rate of return on uncontrolled rents of private residences in the private sector in(a) central London and (b) north-west England as a percentage of the capital value of the asset.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  We do not yet have sufficient information on the level of rents being charged for assured tenancies to serve as a basis for estimates of the rate of return on capital. A survey intended to provide such information is currently in hand.

  Environment Protection (Local Government Spending)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account the autumn statement on standard spending assessment will take of the necessary expenditure incurred by local authorities on(a) pollution control, (b) enforcement, (c) prevention, (d) training of staff and (e) all extra duties to be conferred following the enactment of the Environmental Protection Bill.

  Mr. Portillo
  Extra duties falling to local authorities were one element in my right hon. Friend's decision to 614
  increase aggregate external finance for local authorities by 12·8 per cent. for 1991–92. He expects to make his proposals for standard spending assessments, including control totals for service blocks, in the next few weeks.

  Peatlands
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reach conclusions about measures necessary to conserve peatlands; if he is satisfied that the current options offer sufficient scope to accommodate both continued peat extraction and conservation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The noble Lord Reay's response to the debate on peatland issues, which took place in another place on 9 May 1990, indicated that there were a considerable number of matters to be addressed. Work on these is progressing both in my Department and elsewhere, but information on some key aspects is not yet available. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to be able to make a statement about measures necessary to conserve peatlands during the first half of 1991.

  Amphibians
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his efforts in the last three months to establish the extent of the changes in the population of frogs and other amphibians over the last decade; and if he will detail the effect on frogs of habitat loss and pesticides.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) has commissioned Leicester Polytechnic to undertake an inquiry to provide information on the current status of widespread species of amphibians and reptiles.

  Provisional information shows that the status of the frog has continued to improve during the 1980s; it has increased in seven of the NCC's regions and not changed appreciably in the other eight. The crested newt has done least well of the species studied, but the rate of decline has slowed. The toad, the smooth newt and the palmate newt have more or less held their own nationally during the 1980s.

  In instances where frog numbers had declined, and where the reasons for decline were given, 88 per cent. of correspondents mentioned habitat loss. Nobody specifically mentioned pesticides.

  City Grant
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by region, and date of completion, all projects completed where city grant has been paid, the name of company, the amount of private investment and the amount of grant paid for these projects.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is shown in the following table. Although some schemes are physically complete some of them are still incurring expenditure and in those cases final claims are still to come. A further 54 schemes are currently under construction.
  615

  Completed City Grant Schemes

  Region and project name

  Project completion date

  City grant paid

  Private expenditure

  West Midlands

  Constitution Hill T.S. Gandhi Esq.

  1 September 1990

  67,933

  284,000

  Garrison Lane, Industrial Development Birmingham J. A. Elliott (Developments) Ltd.

  30 March 1990

  570,000

  2,906,000

  Startpoint Industrial Development Pentos plc

  9 March 1990

  283,000

  850,000

  Walsall Chamber of Commerce Walsall Chamber of Commerce

  7 June 1990

  25,593

  281,000

  Windmill Lane, Smethwick McLean in the Inner Cities Ltd.

  1 May 1990

  748,922

  2,286,000

  1,695,448

  6,607,000

  North West

  Hazel Avenue and Acme Mill Housing Development Brackenlea Ltd.

  30 April 1990

  490,158

  2,915,000

  Oozebooth Mill Euro Jeans Ltd.

  11 May 1990

  142,000

  441,000

  Prospect Mills Housing Tay Homes (Northern) Ltd

  26 March 1990

  649,773

  1,593,000

  1,281,931

  4,949,000

  Northern

  Ascot Court, Phase 3, Farringdon Two Castles Ltd.

  6 October 1989

  100,800

  403,000

  Ascot Court, Sunderland, Phase 4 Two Castles Ltd.

  18 December 1989

  52,360

  307,800

  Coach Lane, North Shields Nomad Properties plc

  10 November 1989

  88,892

  442,600

  Dean Street, Newcastle Avatar Ltd.

  27 February 1990

  351,000

  896,000

  Former Walkers Department Store Onix Construction Ltd.

  31 March 1990

  128,485

  412,485

  Grosvenor Mews, North Shields R. A. Construction Ltd.

  28 February 1990

  64,620

  253,000

  West Row, Stockton Glynns Estates (Cleveland) Ltd.

  20 August 1990

  96,772

  425,000

  882,929

  3,139,885

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  175 Arundel Gate Manor Developments (Chesterfield) Ltd.

  16 January 1990

  233,353

  856,000

  Maxi's Chinese Restaurant Maxi's (Yorkshire) Co. Ltd.

  30 November 1989

  74,000

  614,000

  Site 2, Ringway Industrial Centre Slough Properties Ltd.

  2 March 1990

  204,639

  565,000

  Victoria Buildings Lynthorpe Property and Development Ltd.

  22 November 1989

  72,790

  224,000

  584,782

  2,259,000

  London

  Ackermans Chocolates Ltd. Ackermans Chocolates Ltd.

  31 January 1990

  70,000

  280,000

  70,000

  280,000

  East Midlands

  8 Stanford Street, Notts Rushcliffe Developments Ltd.

  30 September 1989

  305,500

  1,159,000

  Lamberts Factory Office Development Pickering Developments Ltd.

  31 August 1990

  709,333

  2,594,000

  Pilcher Gate, Nottingham James McArtney Architects

  9 March 1990

  58,717

  627,000

  Rutland Square Hotel Rutland Square Hotels Ltd.

  20 October 1989

  738,000

  2,478,000

  St. Johns Corner Provident Mutual Life Assurance Assoc.

  13 July 1990

  294,639

  5,078,000

  2,106,189

  11,936,000

  Merseyside

  Former Huntley and Palmer Building Anglo International Holdings Ltd.

  31 December 1989

  334,690

  1,307,000

  616 617

  Region and project name

  Project completion date

  City grant paid

  Private expenditure

  334,690

  1,307,000

  Grand Total

  6,955,969

  30,477,885

  Sunday Markets
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received about the effects on residents of the introduction of Sunday markets;

  (2) whether he intends to take any action to control the spread of Sunday markets.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Department has received a small number of representations about Sunday markets during the last 12 months. The representations have commonly raised issues relating to noise nuisance, traffic congestion, permitted development rights, unauthorised operators, and amenity.

  Local authorities already have a variety of statutory powers to control markets, and my right hon. Friend has no plans for further legislation.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the pressure on the resources of the NCC of their increased volume of planning applications coming from the south-east of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) has drawn attention to this pressure in the corporate planning documents submitted this year. It will be taken into account when determining the grant-in-aid to be made available to the Nature Conservancy Council for England next year.

  Development Corporations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his proposed guidelines to the chairmen of development corporations will include arrangements relating to compulsory purchase powers in respect of land acquisition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The guidance will contain advice on handling any conflicts of interest which may appear to arise from the use of compulsory purchase powers by an urban development corporation.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what steps his Department has taken to ensure that the procedures adopted for the letting of contracts or the offering of consultancies by the Sheffield development corporation have conformed with the procedures outlined in his answer of 20 December 1989,Official Report, column 329; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps his Department takes to ensure that all development corporations are following the procedures laid down in regulations arising out of the Local Government Act 1988 or similar previous enactments relating to competitive tendering, together with appropriate EC directives; and if he will make a statement.
  618
  Mr. Portillo
  Guidance on the competitive tendering requirements of the Local Government Act 1988 and EC directives was issued to all UDCs, including Sheffield, in December 1988. The Department monitors compliance through arrangements for project approval, post implementation sampling of projects, and the work of external auditors appointed by the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will now publish the report of the investigation into the running of Sheffield development corporation; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he intends to take any action arising from the recommendations of the inquiry into the operation of the Sheffield development corporation in respect of separating out potential conflict of interest arising out of appointments held in companies or organisations who may have a commercial or other similar relationship with the development corporation, to review the membership of the Sheffield development corporation board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Those who gave evidence to Sir John Garlick's inquiry did so in confidence. I do not therefore believe that it would be fair or appropriate to publish the report.

  On 29 August, I issued the following statement:
  "Earlier this year my Department received from Mr. Keith Beaumont, the Chief Executive of Sheffield Development Corporation, a letter criticising the Chairman's role in the conduct of the Corporation's business.
  "The letter was sent by Mr. Beaumont quite properly in his role as the Corporation's Accounting Officer. I thought it right to ask Sir John Garlick, a former Permanent Secretary of this Department, who as a Member of the Board of London Docklands Corporation is familiar with UDC procedures, to look into the matters raised and report to me as quickly as possible. He has now done so.
  "I am satisfied that Mr. Sykes has performed his role as Chairman with complete honesty and integrity. Sir John found no grounds whatever for thinking Mr. Sykes had attempted to secure improper financial gain through his role as SDC Chairman—nor had Mr. Beaumont made any such suggestion.
  "Mr. Sykes has tremendous enthusiasm for and commitment to the regeneration of the Lower Don Valley and has my full support in continuing as Chairman of the Development Corporation.
  "Sir John did however find a number of shortcomings in the way Corporation business had been conducted. Some of these were the responsibility of the Chairman, others of SDC officers. Sir John also concluded that some criticism could be made of the Department for not ensuring that the most effective guidance was available to the Chairman.
  "The shortcomings in the conduct of SDC business were in four areas:

  (1) The holding of Chairmanship of Hallamshire Investments plc concurrently with SDC Chairmanship. Mr. Sykes was instrumental in establishing Hallamshire Investments plc which is a joint public/private sector investment company set up with the specific objective of investing in the regeneration of Sheffield. Mr. Sykes is non-executive Chairman of Hallamshire, but has no financial interest in the company and is not involved in its investment decisions. On this basis my Department agreed, after discussion with Mr. Sykes, that he could properly retain the Chairmanship. This was an exception to the

  619
  normal rule that Development Corporation Chairmen give up Chairmanships of companies which operate in their area.

  "Sir John found no evidence of harm or wrongdoing but concluded that, given the nature of the company's activities, for one person to hold the chairmanship of both Hallamshire Investments and the SDC was inconsistent with the need to avoid situations where public duties and private interests conflict or where there could be a suspicion of conflict. Sir John also found that my Department's views on his retention of the Chairmanship of Hallamshire Investments and of certain other business interests may have left the Chairman confused as to exactly what constraints applied to his activities, particularly in relation to Hallamshire Investments.

  (2) "The Chairman's business interests. Mr. Sykes has a wide range of business interests both inside and outside Sheffield. He has been entirely open about these to the Department since his appointment and has in general followed the guidance given to Development Corporation Chairmen which is designed to ensure that there can be no conflict or suspicion of conflict between public and private interests.

  "Sir John was satisfied that the Chairman had no wish deliberately to disobey the rules and indeed noted that on several occasions he was at pains to ensure that he was acting entirely properly. But Sir John found a few occasions when a clear distance was not kept between his public and private activities and when as a result a suspicion of conflict might have arisen. He found no evidence whatever of any financial impropriety or wrongdoing.

  (3) "Appointment of consultants to the SDC. The rules governing the appointment of consultants to public bodies are strict. Competitive tender is required in all but exceptional circumstances and the Corporation's systems need to be able to ensure and demonstrate that value for money is being achieved.

  "Sir John told me that, in his wish to ensure that the SDC had access to high quality advice, the Chairman had, he judged pressed too hard for the appointment of a particular consultant. Sir John noted however that it was a matter of judgment as to how far it was reasonable for a Chairman to press for the appointment of a particular individual or firm, and that his own judgment in this case was inevitably subjective. He also noted that SDC officers had been slow in making progress on the appointment of any candidate in the particular case.

  "Sir John also criticised the SDC's systems for selecting, appointing and subsequently monitoring consultancy appointments. These were the responsibility of the Chief Executive. Again Sir John found no evidence of financial impropriety or wrongdoing, but noted the need for proper observance of procedures and adequate systems to ensure that the SDC always obtained best value for money.

  (4) "Use of SDC facilities. Mr. Sykes' personal staff of two full time secretaries and one part time assistant work on both SDC and non-SDC business. The SDC pays for one full time member of staff, Mr. Sykes for the other two.

  "Sir John found no evidence that the SDC paid for more secretarial time than it should under this arrangement. Indeed the SDC may well, on balance have gained. But he regarded the arrangement which the SDC had entered into as untidy and open to abuse.

  "Sir John emphasised that he found no evidence of actual harm arising from any of these matters. But noted that a continuation of what had happened in the past could lead to justifiable criticisms in future.

  "I have discussed these findings with Mr. Sykes and with my officials. Mr. Sykes entirely recognises the procedures and standards involved in public business and the need for the SDC to improve its official systems and procedures. He and his board have given me an assurance that the Corporation will maintain the highest possible standards in future. The Corporation is also taking steps to review its systems and procedures.

  "As far as Sir John's criticism of the Department is concerned, I am making arrangements to strengthen the guidance given to all Chairmen and board members.
  620
  Detailed guidance will be given to cover the difficult issues that can arise for a Chairman who has a range of local business interests. Local knowledge and connections can in themselves be of considerable value to an urban development corporation. But a clear distance needs to be kept between the activities of the public body and private business interests to avoid any suspicion of a conflict of interest.

  "As far as the Chairmanship of Hallamshire Investments is concerned, I am satisfied that Mr. Sykes behaved entirely properly in continuing to hold both Chairmanships after the first discussions with the Department. But we both accept Sir John's conclusion that, given the nature of the company's activities, there are difficulties in one man holding the Chairmanships of both the SDC and Hallamshire. Mr. Sykes has therefore told me that he will be talking to the Board of Hallamshire Investments with a view to resigning his Chairmanship.

  "I am most grateful to Sir John for the speed and thoroughness with which he has completed his work. I am happy that the Corporation will now be able to get on with its vital work of regenerating the Lower Don Valley. The Corporation has made excellent progress so far in securing environmental and economic improvements. I confidently expect that positive change to continue and accelerate over the next few years".

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has anything to add to his answer of 20 December 1990,Official Report, column 329, in respect of the practice adopted by the development corporations in the letting of contracts or the funding of consultancies, following the statement issued by the Minister of State on 29 August in respect of the investigation which had been undertaken into the running of the Sheffield Development Corporation; and if he will make a statement on the new guidance to be given to the chairmen of development corporations in respect of the separation of public and private interest.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 20 December 1989. When the Department's revised guidance to UDC chairmen and board members on handling conflicts of interest is issued a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in the guidelines to be issued to development corporation chairmen, advice will be given on(a) the appointment of staff without public advertisement or interview for the post concerned, (b) the separation of payment from public and private funds for those employed by, or paid on behalf of, the development corporation and (c) the calling of ad hoc and unminuted meetings of selected members of the board of development corporations for discussion of business to be considered by the whole of the board membership; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  All urban development corporations have been advised that staff should be recruited on merit on the basis of fair and open competition and in accordance with the standards expected of public sector employers. My Department will shortly issue guidance on the separation of payment from public and private funds for those employed by or paid by UDCs. Arrangements relating to meetings of a UDC board are a matter for the corporation to determine.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when officials of his Department were notified of suggestions of impropriety or concerns relating to the procedural or other conduct of the workings of the
  621
  Sheffield development corporation about which he subsequently initiated inquiries; what action was taken at that time as a consequence of the reference made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  In July 1989 a member of the public expressed concern about the conduct of SDC's affairs. In September that year the chief executive raised similar concerns informally with the Department. In neither case did the Department consider that there was any evidence of impropriety.

  At the end of May this year, the chief executive wrote to the Department criticising the chairman's role in the conduct of the corporation's business, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked Sir John Garlick to carry out a formal investigation. That investigation found no grounds whatever for thinking that the chairman had attempted to secure improper financial gain through his role as SDC chairman.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether development corporations are now to be made subject to the provisions of the compulsory competitive tendering legislation contained in regulations arising out of the Local Government Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Urban development corporations have always been subject to the provisions of parts I and II of the Local Government Act 1988.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what further resources he has made available for successor agencies to the Nature Conservancy Council in addition to his estimate of the notional cost required to perform the new range of statutory duties;

  (2) pursuant to his reply of 25 July, Official Report, column 453, if he will make it his policy that the final additional costs of reorganisation of the Nature Conservancy Council will be made available to Parliament before the Environmental Protection Bill concludes its parliamentary stages;

  (3) what funding he proposes to enable successor agencies to the Nature Conservancy Council to carry forward new initiatives to enhance nature conservation;

  (4) what is his latest estimate of the increase in staff numbers and resources as a result of the Nature Conservancy Council being split into four separate agencies;

  (5) what percentage of the agreed posts in successor authorities to the Nature Conservancy Council, on current estimates, will be staffed by April 1991.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government have made an extra £1·4 million available in the current financial year to cover initial reorganisation costs. Detailed work on the cost of reorganisation in 1991–92 has been carried out by the existing agencies and the relevant Government Departments. It is already the Government's intention to make the main results of this work available to Parliament very shortly and before the Environmental Protection Bill concludes its parliamentary stages.

  The Government's statement will include details of the manpower requirements of the new agencies and the outcome of the current work being undertaken by the
  622
  Nature Conservancy Council and Countryside Commission to meet those requirements by assigning existing staff to the new agencies. Any vacancies which remain will be filled by trawls or recruitment and every effort will be made to complete this process before 1 April 1991.

  Decisions about the total resources to be made available to the successor agencies to cover all their responsibilities in 1991–92 will be taken within the timetable and context of the annual public expenditure round.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the number of grants given by the Nature Conservancy Council in the year ending 31 March 1990 for the management of land which is not SSSI and not related to net profits forgone, and the total cost of such grants.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what dates in 1988, 1989, and 1990 he met the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council to discuss formally his proposed changes in the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Secretary of State or his predecessor, as well as other Ministers, met the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council on a number of occasions in 1989 and 1990 to discuss the Government's proposals to reorganise the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Restrictive Covenants
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what weight his inspectors attach to restrictive covenants when considering and determining planning appeals.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The weight to be attached to any relevant planning consideration is a matter for the inspector to assess within the particular circumstances of each appeal.

  Nitrogen Oxide Abatement
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 26 July,Official Report, column 387, if he will make a statement on the final report into evaluation of nitrogen oxide abatement technologies for large combustion plant.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department has not yet received the final report.

  Kurdish Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what finance has been made available to local authorities in London to assist the needs of Kurdish asylum seekers in the past two years.

  Mr. Key
  The Department has to date made payments of £790,174 to London boroughs on the basis of initial claims under the terms of the scheme of special financial assistance established in January 1990 for London local authorities which incurred in 1989–90 extra expenditure directly as a result of the influx of Turkish asylum seekers
  623
  into the United Kingdom in April, May and June 1989. Final audited claims are due to be submitted to the Department by 31 December 1990. The housing investment programme allocations made to the London authorities for 1990–91 took account of the housing capital needs related to the arrival of refugees, including Turkish asylum seekers.

  Next Steps
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the management consultancies(a) his Department and (b) the executive agencies for which he is responsible have employed in connection with the Next Steps agency programme; and if he will list the task for which they were employed, and the fee paid.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Consultants have been employed on eight occasions to advise on the development of financial and management systems for my Department's agencies and agency candidates. Details of the individual contracts are commercially confidential.

  Water Undertakers (Land Disposals)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a list of land disposals by regional water undertakers, stating in each case the reasons for the disposal of each parcel of land.
  624
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. The Department does not hold this information since land disposals do not normally require the Secretary of State's specific approval. Customers interests in disposals are protected by the Director General of Water Services. Proposed disposals in National Parks, the Broads, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest must be cleared by the Countryside Commission, and, in the case of SSSIs, the Nature Conservancy Council. Water undertakers as private companies can exercise their commercial judgment on disposals, subject to meeting their obligations under the Water Act 1989.

  Community Charge
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to end the entitlement of the mature student spouse of a top income tax rate payer to pay the reduced rate of 20 per cent. community charge.

  Mr. Key
  Pursuant to the reply given on Tuesday 24 July at column 182, a student for the purposes of the community charge is defined by reference to the nature of the studies undertaken not the source or level of income available. The administrative cost of assessing the resources of all students and their spouses would far outweigh the increased charge revenue collected to the disadvantage of all chargepayers and taxpayers and would serve only to create new anomalies.

  House of Commons Crypt
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the result of the work of a team from his Department and English Heritage in investigating the stonework round the crypt font in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Key
  Work to solve the problem of damp penetration which has caused the deterioration of the marble is proceeding on two fronts.

  Recent excavations by English Heritage have revealed evidence of a pre-Victorian culvert running parallel to the south wall of St. Stephen's Hall. The culvert is damp leading to the thought that it may be drawing up ground water. English Heritage's proposals are now awaited for further excavations to try to establish the relationship, if any, of the culvert to the dampness in the Chapel.

  Consultant architects have also been considering the means of preventing the seepage of moisture through the stonework. Because of the pressure of the rising ground water they do not recommend the application of a damp proof outer membrane. Instead they propose the construction of a new waterproof retaining wall. This will be considered together with the results of English Heritage's further work.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's discussions with the sculpture conservation department of the Tate gallery on the progress of the restoration of the purbeck marble in the Crypt of the House of Commons.

  Mr. Key
  The head of sculpture conservation at the Tate gallery visited the Crypt Chapel in January 1990 when he saw at first hand the complexity of the conservation problem under consideration. It was agreed that before any action could be taken within the Chapel, the source and entry route of the ground water has to be established.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the level of United Kingdom overseas aid and the ways in which it is allocated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Increasingly people who talk to me about aid recognise the importance of aid supporting sound economic policies and good government, and doing more to tackle the key issues of poverty, population and the environment.

  Sheep Farming
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy in respect of aid to encourage sheep farming in the third world.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Sheep play an important role in the livelihoods of many poor communities, as they exist on marginal land and produce a range of products which provide subsistence and cash income.
  626
  ODA supports activities which directly or indirectly enhance sustainable sheep production in developing countries, priority being given to nutrition, health and breeding in the context of land use systems.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total amount of aid to Bangladesh granted over each of the past three years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Gross disbursements of bilateral official development assistance provided by the United Kingdom to Bangladesh over the calendar years 1987, 1988 and 1989 amounted to £31·6 million, £44·9 million and £52·9 million respectively. In addition the share of aid given through multilateral institutions, and attributed to the United Kingdom was £25·3 million in 1987 and £27·2 million in 1988. Figures for 1989 are not yet available.

  Tigray
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he propposes to take to assist the work of the Relief Society of Tigray.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have committed emergency aid worth over £35 million to Ethiopia since the beginning of 1989. This includes the provision of 5,859 tonnes of sorghum, and other relief assistance, totalling some £6·18 million for the hungry in those areas of northern Ethiopia where the Relief Society of Tigray works. A further 2,500 tonnes of wheat valued at £0·733 million is currently on its way to Tigray.

  Animal Conservation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what animal conservation projects are currently being considered by his Department for funding.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Several possible projects are under consideration of which animal conservation would be an important element. They include the following:

  Anguilla: Coastal zone inventory.

  Belize: Coastal zone inventory.

  British Virgin Islands: Coastal zone inventory.

  Cameroon: Environmental advice.

  Egypt: Study of impact of pollution on acquatic communities, Lake Manzala; Ecological studies, Lake Maryut.

  Kenya: Further support for Kenya Wildlife Service.

  Madagascar and Mauritius: Creation of nature reserve areas on off-shore islets.

  Namibia: Fisheries resource management.

  Nigeria: Conservation adviser, conservation education programme.

  Tanzania: Support for Ruaha game park.

  Zambia
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list any requests he has received from the Government of Zambia for specific items of aid since July.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Since July of this year, the Government of Zambia have formally requested:

  (a) extension of earlier assistance to the Central Statistical Office;

  627

  (b) assistance with rehabilitation of Lusaka urban district council water supply, sanitation and other utilities;

  (c) provision of fisheries instructors;

  (d) a second phase of assistance under the Central Province district development project; and

  (e) payment of the first £5 million tranche of a £30 million programme aid grant in support of economic adjustment.

  Items (b) and (c) are under consideration, the former in company with other donors. The remaining requests have been accepted and implementation is in hand.

  Brazil
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals Her Majesty's Government have to increase aid to Brazil to tackle environmental problems.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Under the memorandum of understanding on environmental co-operation, signed in July 1989, we have agreed four projects with the Brazilian authorities with a total cost to Her Majesty's Government of £4·6 million. We expect to agree a further four projects soon. We are discussing a number of further proposals with the Brazilian authorities.

  As part of our programme of environmental assistance, we are also supporting—as a tripartite initiative, involving the Brazilian Government and ICI—a conference on the theme of "Ecological Restoration for Forest Conservation". It will be held in Brasilia from 30 October to 1 November 1990. I am looking forward to the conference and I will be taking the opportunity whilst in Brazil of discussing with the Brazilian authorities, including their Secretary for the Environment, our present and proposed programme of environmental projects.

  Emergency Relief
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on emergency relief aid expended under the United Kingdom's aid programme.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Providing immediate and effective humanitarian assistance is one of the key areas of the aid programme. Last year we spent over £61 million in disaster relief, help for refugees and emergency food aid.

  Natural History Museum (Collections)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the discussions of the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) over the summer with Dr. Neil Chalmers, Dr. John Peake and other officials of the natural history museum about the future of the collections relative to the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My recent visit to the natural history museum was informative and useful. Working particularly with our Natural Resources Institute, the museum will play a valuable role in ODA's research and development programmes for developing countries and identify new opportunities for fruitful collaboration. The institute and museum will pursue these opportunities and I will be kept informed of developments.

  Biological Diversity (Study)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the letter of 9 July from the Minister for Overseas Development to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if she will make a statement on the interim results of the strategic study she has commissioned on biological diversity in marine environments, with particular reference to work on reefs.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are studying the first draft of the report that we commissioned on marine biological diversity. I shall let the hon. Member know the outcome.

  Bophuthatswana
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many housing projects in Bophuthatswana have been assisted by the Overseas Development Administration;

  (2) what community development projects are being assisted by the Overseas Development Administration in Bophuthatswana;

  (3) if the British awards scheme has funded academic support at South African universities for any students from Bophuthatswana;

  (4) what proportion of British aid to black South Africans is directed to Bophuthatswana;

  (5) how many scholarships and training awards in Britain are being provided for undergraduates and postgraduates from Bophuthatswana.

  Mrs. Chalker
  While we and other countries, with the exception of South Africa itself, do not recognise Bophuthatswana as an independent state, assistance has been approved since April 1989 for 12 community development projects located within that territory. We see no reason, however, to keep records of the geographical origin of those receiving help under scholarship and housing assistance programmes which are intended to benefit disadvantaged black people throughout South Africa.

  Overseas Aid Annual Review (Cost)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost was to public funds of publishing the 1990 overseas aid annual review; and how many copies were printed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  15,000 copies were produced at a total cost of £76,504·90, a unit cost of £5·10.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, column 682, if he will make a statement about Britain's current humanitarian and other assistance to the people of Cambodia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I am monitoring the situation closely and announced that I would make up to £100,000 available for British non-government organisations to help civil war displaced people inside Cambodia. My officials are in touch with interested NGOs about this.

  Since 1988–89 under the Overseas Development Administration's joint funding scheme we have committed

  629
  £565,000 in support of 12 humanitarian assistance projects carried out by non-government organisations. We currently have a number of other NGO project proposals under consideration and expect to receive more applications. In addition we have allocated £1·25 million to support programmes in Cambodia carried out by the United Nation's Children's Fund, the World Food Programme and the World Health Organisation; these include provision of safe water supplies, food for work schemes, primary health care, education and assistance for agricultural development. We have also provided nearly £15 million since 1979 in assistance for refugees on the Thai-Cambodian border.

  For the future, we are ready to consider with other donors, initially in a reconvened Paris International Conference on Cambodia, how refugee repatriation and development/reconstruction needs might best be met in the context of a comprehensive political settlement.

PRIME MINISTER

  Spanish Fishermen
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on the implications of the European Court of Justice decision on interim relief to Spanish fishermen from the 1988 Act; and if she will consider submitting all future draft bills to the court for its consideration with a view to avoiding administrative complexities involved with interim relief.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to my earlier answers on the subject of the European Court of Justice's decision on interim relief. I have no plans to take up my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  Waverley Housing Trust
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Prime Minister what guidance is given to civil servants concerning the scope of advice and information given to local authority officials prior to the passage of relevant legislation through Parliament; and whether she will make a statement concerning advice surrounding the establishment of the Waverley Housing Trust.

  The Prime Minister
  Civil servants may give information and advice to outside organisations and individuals concerning the Government's policies, consistent with the general rules governing conduct and the requirements of statute regarding the disclosure of information. Where information is given about policies whose implementation is dependent on the passage of legislation through Parliament, this would be made clear.

  I shall ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to write to the right hon. Member once his information into contacts between civil servants and those who established the Waverley Housing Trust is complete.

  Children
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will accept the invitation to attend the world summit for children to be held at the United Nations on 29 and 30 September.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Prime Minister if she proposes to accept the invitation to attend the United Nations world summit for children in New York during September.
  630
  The Prime Minister
  I attended the world summit for children in New York on 29 and 30 September where I gave an address on the role of the family in child development.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Prime Minister which new initiative designed to protect British children in the areas of(a) health, (b) education rights and (c) environment Her Majesty's Government are taking as a result of the recent New York international conference.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Nations world summit for children drew upon the experience of developed countries in drawing up an action plan for improving the health and welfare of all children. We have already made substantial progress in most of the areas mentioned and are undertaking a number of relevant initiatives which, where appropriate, we will be progressing in co-operation with overseas countries.

  Examples in the field of health care include the treatment and prevention of AIDS, childhood immunisation programmes aimed at controlling infectious diseases and better nutrition for pregnant mothers and young children.

  In the United Kingdom rights to education are already provided for in legislation. Section 8 of the 1944 Education Act places a duty on local education authorities to "secure provision of Primary and Secondary schools". Futhermore, British education aims to develop fully the abilities of all children, with compulsory school starting at 5 years of age.

  The White Paper "This Common Inheritance", which sets out the Government's environmental policies for the next decade and beyond, emphasises our duty to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Prime Minister what specific measures Her Majesty's Government are proposing in order(a) to help children in the Third world in the areas of health and education and (b) to combat child labour exploitation both at home and abroad; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Through our aid programme we provide a great deal of assistance to children, both through our bilateral programme, and multilaterally through organisations such as UNICEF and WHO. Our policy is to support the development of health care services for all the family as the best way of improving child health.

  In education, we support programmes of assistance to educational institutions in the developing world covering school buildings, training of teachers, the provision of materials and educational planning.

  The Government deplore the exploitation of children for economic purposes. However in many countries children in the cities and the countryside have to work in order to survive. Widespread exploitation of children can only be overcome by the alleviation of poverty and by more appropriate policies for economic growth and social development. We are assisting in this through our aid programme.

PRIME MINISTER

  Science Policy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the visits she has made during the recess in her capacity as Minister for co-ordinating science policy in appropriate cases.

  The Prime Minister
  On 28 September I hosted a seminar given by young scientists on the following subjects, antibody engineering, novel materials, collision physics: human genetic disease, enzymology and astronomy.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will take positive steps to discuss with the Data Protection Registrar all legislation that impacts on the use, collection, processing or holding of personal data; and whether she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  My colleagues in charge of Departments have been asked to ensure that officials are aware of the need to consult the registrar about proposed legislation which might affect or be affected by the Data Protection Act 1984.

  European Community
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions she has had with other heads of Government in the European Community about the enlargement of the Community territorially.

  The Prime Minister
  Heads of Government reaffirmed at their meeting in November 1989 that there should be no decisions on EC enlargement until the work on the single market has been completed. However I have made clear on many occasions our view that the Community should remain open to all the countries of Europe once they are democratic and ready to join.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment she has made of the benefits child benefit has given to families on income support since it was introduced.

  The Prime Minister
  Families on income support do not gain any overall financial advantage from child benefit because it is taken fully into account in the assessment of their income support entitlement. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has indicated on many occasions, this is one of the factors he has to take into account when he reviews the level of child benefit.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will introduce legislation to(a) disallow business expenditure on the supply or running costs of passenger cars other than light vans as a business expense and (b) charge the full cost of such vehicles to the keeper for income tax purposes; and if she will provide an estimate of the revenue yield in each case.

  The Prime Minister
  I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion. The detailed information needed to give estimates of yield is not available.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will make it her policy that the Private Office will in future return to the sender all requests addressed to her for intervention at departmental level with a request to make representations direct to those concerned.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to release to the press any letters she receives asking for favours or intervention with Departments of State.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will place in the Library a copy of her reply to the letter sent to her on 21 July by Mr. Colin Wallace, 14 Dalloway road, Arundel, about the Calcutt inquiry.

  The Prime Minister
  No. It is not my normal practice to do so.

  Nautical Archaeology
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has now completed her review of Departmental responsibilities for nautical archaeology; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We have completed the review of Departmental responsibilities for nautical archaeology. We have now proposed, in paragraph 9·36 of the White Paper "This Common Inheritance", that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment should assume responsibility for the protection of historic wrecks in English waters, and that similar transfers of responsibility should take place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This will bring together control of archaeology on land with that under water. We will be responding more fully to the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee on the other matters raised in its report, "Heritage at Sea".

  Gulf Crisis
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will take urgent steps to help those Third world countries which as a direct consequence of the Gulf crisis are in danger of economic hardship.

  The Prime Minister
  The best way to help countries damaged by the Gulf crisis is to bring an end to the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and restore stability to the region. Britain has made a very substantial contribution to that effort, including the decision to send over 15,000 servicemen to the Gulf. We have also contributed to the cost of resettling refugees and shall also contribute to the European Community's special programme of assistance to Jordan, Egypt and Turkey. But the bulk of assistance to affected countries will need to come through adjustment assistance to be given by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and from those countries which are not participating in the military effort.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the Third world countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America
  633
  most seriously affected (a) by the oil price increases and (b) by the trade embargo ordered by the United Nations as a consequence of the Gulf crisis.

  The Prime Minister
  The economies of Egypt, Jordan and Turkey have been most directly affected by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the consequent application of UN sanctions against Iraq.

  All net oil-importing countries are being adversely affected by the increase in oil prices, but there is no single measure of which are the most seriously affected. This will depend on the source and volume of their oil imports and access to alternative energy sources, as well as on the initial strength of their economies and their ability to adjust to the new situation.

  Veterans
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will create a veterans' Department.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The Government and everyone in this country recognise the immense debt of gratitude owed to war veterans and other ex-Service personnel. It is essential that departments deal with their affairs efficiently. However, although it might seem convenient to have a separate Department of veterans' affairs, I do not believe that this would result in better service and it could have the effect of confusing responsibilities which at present fall clearly on each departmental Minister.

EMPLOYMENT

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department will take positive steps to discuss with the Data Protection Registrar all his Department's legislation that impacts on the use, collection, processing or holding of personal data; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I am reminding my officials of the need to consult the registrar about proposed legislation which might affect or be affected by the Data Protection Act.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the safety record of companies working on the channel tunnel project.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government and Health and Safety Executive have made clear their concern about accidents on the channel tunnel project. The contractors are now engaged in a programme of implementing the recommedations made in the HSE's accident prevention advisory unit's recent audit of safety management on the project. The HSE is monitoring this process carefully.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements are made for the Health and Safety Executive to inspect the channel tunnel workings.

  Mr. Forth
  It is for the Health and Safety Executive to make arrangements for inspections of the channel tunnel 634
  workings. Inspectors visit the workings regularly to inspect and monitor conditions and to investigate incidents and accidents.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department has indentified any additional safety measures which might be introducted on the channel tunnel project to make working safer.

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for health and safety on the channel tunnel project rests with the employers.

  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) accident prevention advisory unit carried out an audit of the management of health and safety on the channel tunnel project in May 1990. The contractors have accepted the recommendations of the audit and are now engaged in a programme of implementing them. HSE is monitoring that process carefully. HSE inspectors continue to visit the channel tunnel sites and will continue to take whatever action is necessary to maintain and develop safety standards.

  Social Attitudes Survey
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the British social attitudes survey to be completed; and when he expects it to be published.

  Mr. Jackson
  The British social attitudes survey takes place annually in the early spring. The results of each survey are published approximately 18 months after the field work. The results of the 1990 survey, which covers questions on the child care needs of working women as referred to in the reply from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on 24 July at columns 195–96 will be published in November 1991.

  Iraqis (Training)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many Iraqis have been in Britain for industrial training in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of work permits issued under the training and work experience scheme since 1984 are given below. Statistics for issues prior to April 1984 are not available. Records of approvals for the work element of sandwich courses are not kept by nationality.

  Number

  1 April 1984 to 31 December 1984

  6

  1 January 1985 to 31 December 1985

  12

  1 January 1986 to 31 December 1986

  7

  1 January 1987 to 31 December 1987

  4

  1 January 1988 to 31 December 1988

  6

  1 January 1989 to 31 December 1989

  6

  1 January 1990 to 31 August 1990

  5

  "Hard Labour"
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department has considered the report "Hard Labour", prepared by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I have considered this report. I believe that the existing provisions of employment legislation strike a fair balance between safeguarding the rights of employees and avoiding excessive burdens on business which would discourage the growth of job opportunities.

  Unemployment (Costs)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department has considered the estimates of the costs of unemployment assessed by the unemployment unit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department has not considered the estimates in any detail as we do not accept the analysis on which they are based.

  Earnings
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of national average earnings for(a) men, (b) women and (c) all workers (i) at current prices and (ii) at 1990 prices for each year since 1970; and what was the level of medium earnings for (a) men, (b) women and (c) all workers for each of these years.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information on the earnings of full-time adult employees in Great Britain in April of each year is published in table 15 of Part A of the annual new earnings survey reports. Figures for males and females combined are readily available only from 1983 onwards and are given in table 17 of the recently published part A of the 1990 survey report. Information on the retail prices index (all items) to convert the figures to 1990 prices is published in table 6·4 of Employment Gazette for April 1990, and table 26 of the annual supplement to Economic Trends for April of each earlier year.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Statutes
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he takes to ensure that his Department obtains up-to-date information on statutes and orders in force.

  The Attorney General
  The Departments for which I am responsible obtain such up-to-date information both from Her Majesty's Stationery Office and from commercial publishers.

  Guinness Trial
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will refer to the Court of Appeal the sentence on Mr. Gerald Ronson, in the Guinness trial, on grounds of leniency.

  The Attorney-General
  No. I did not consider the sentence to have been unduly lenient, which is the criterion specified in Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as governing my power to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal.

  "Another Blood Libel"
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration has been given by the Crown prosecution service to initiating proceedings in respect of the leaflet "Another Blood Libel", published by the Campaign for Gentile-Jewish Reconciliation.

  The Attorney-General
  I understand that the Board of Deputies of British Jews have forwarded a leaflet entitled 636
  "Another Blood Libel or Ritual Murder", to the police with a request that an investigation leading to criminal proceedings is begun.

  Before the Crown prosecution service can consider initiating proceedings it is necessary for a police investigation to produce evidence as to the individual or individuals responsible for publication or distribution of the leaflet. No file of evidence has yet been received by the Crown prosecution service but should one be forwarded then full and careful consideration will be given to the institution of criminal proceedings. The Law Officers and the Director of Public Prosecutions regard the publication and distribution of material which offends against the provisions of part III of the Public Order Act 1986 as a serious matter.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  ERASMUS Project
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students in the academic year 1990–91 have applied and how many have been accepted, to take part in the ERASMUS project·4

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Student mobility under ERASMUS takes place largely within inter-university co-operation programmes for which higher education institutions apply direct to the European Commission for funding. For 1990–91, the Commission has approved for support 1,748 ICPs involving 1,100 insitutions and 44,484 student exchanges. This includes 375 United Kingdom led ICPs and 8,857 UK students who will spend a period of their study in another European Community country.

  Information is not available on the number of student exchanges proposed in ICP applications made to the Commission or on the number of students not involved in an ICP who are assisted as "free movers" under ERASMUS.

  Special Needs Teaching
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the impact of local management of schools in special needs teaching.

  Mr. Fallon
  Local management of schools was introduced in April this year. We are monitoring its effects carefully. I expect the introduction of LMS to benefit all school provision, including that for special needs.

  Teachers (Pay)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to meet the teaching unions to discuss local arrangements for pay.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend has met each of the six teacher unions on several occasions to discuss the Government's proposals for new teachers' pay negotiating machinery. He has no immediate plans for further meetings.

  University Accommodation
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on student accommodation in Scottish universities.
  637
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The provision of accommodation for students in universities is a matter for the institutions themselves. Universities are autonomous and therefore responsible for deciding their own funding priorities within the total resources at their disposal. I pay tribute to the efforts made by university accommodation services to help students find suitable accommodation.

  Funds Allocation (Local Authorities)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidelines he has recently issued on the criteria applied by local education authorities in allocating funds.

  Mr. Fallon
  The last major set of guidelines issued was in circular 7/88, published in September 1988. My right hon. Friend expects to issue a draft circular for consultation later this year.

  Trafford (Secondary Schools)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions he has had with Trafford council about the selection procedures for Trafford's secondary schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  No recent discussions have taken place, but officials from the Department have been in correspondence with the authority over its selection procedures.

  TVEI
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his assessment of the technical and vocational education initiative scheme's operation in St. Helens.

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that the pilot TVEI scheme in St. Helens went well, producing effective curriculum changes with good practice in teaching and learning styles.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the latest figures for the numbers of applications for all approvals of city technology colleges.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. Friend has to date agreed with sponsors to establish 14 city technology colleges. Proposals to establish a 15th city technology college at Bristol are currently subject to consultation with the local education authority and other interested parties.

  Open Enrolment
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the implementation of open enrolment in secondary schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  The provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988 relating to school admissions came into effect for all secondary schools on 4 August this year. These provisions do away with the artificial limits placed by some local education authorities on the number of pupils admitted to particular schools, thus increasing parents' chances of securing a place for their child at the school of their choice. Following the introduction of pupil-led funding the "more open enrolment" provisions also provide a clear incentive for schools to raise educational standards.

  Pupils (Attainment)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he is taking to improve the educational attainment of school pupils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The national curriculum is central to the Government's drive to raise standards of achievement in schools. It will provide pupils with a framework of clear objectives, matched with regular assessment against national standards. We have already introduced the first national curriculum requirements for English, maths, science and technology, and early feedback from Her Majesty's inspectorate is encouraging. Preparatory work on the remaining national curriculum subjects is well in hand.

  Schools (Local Management)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding local management of schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. Friend continues to receive representations from governing bodies, headteachers, parents and others about local management of schools. Many of these welcome the opportunities which delegated budgeting brings them.

  Sport and Physical Recreation
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps his Department will take to protect the position of sport and physical recreation in the national curriculum for pupils aged 14 to 16 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  Physical education, which includes sport, will be a compulsory part of the curriculum in all maintained schools for the first time under the requirements of the national curriculum. My right hon. Friend has asked the National Curriculum Council for advice on increasing flexibility in the curriculum framework for 14 to 16-year-olds. Their advice will be submitted in early November. Whatever the outcome of this consultation, we expect the great majority of pupils in this age group to undertake some form of physical education.

  Sport
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary for State for Education and Science what progress has been made by his Department's working group on sport in the national curriculum; and when its interim report will be published.

  Mr. Eggar
  The national curriculum working group on physical education is working towards production of its interim report, which is to be submitted to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Wales by 31 December 1990.

  Teacher Vacancies (Newham)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about current levels of teacher vacancies in the London borough of Newham.
  639
  Mr. Fallon
  Data provided by the London borough of Newham for the Department's September survey shows that there were 13 secondary vacancies and no primary vacancies at the beginning of the new school year.

  1979–80

  1987–88

  1989–901

  Age

  Numbers (thousands)

  Participation rate Per cent.

  Numbers (thousands)

  Participation rate Per cent.

  Numbers (thousands)

  Participation rate Per cent.

  16

  322

  42

  350

  48

  349

  55

  17

  204

  27

  237

  33

  264

  39

  16 and 17

  526

  34

  587

  41

  613

  47

  1 Provisional.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department will take positive steps to discuss with the Data Protection Registrar all his Department's legislation that impacts on the use, collection, processing or holding of personal data; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am reminding my officials of the need to consult the registrar about proposed legislation which might affect or be affected by the Data Protection Act 1984. The Department expects to issue guidance shortly on the responsibilities of school governors under the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Local Education Authorities
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he reviews cases where a local education authority refuses to comply with the recommendations of the local government ombudsman.

  Mr. Fallon
  No. The Commission for Local Administration in England is entirely independent of central and local government. Part II of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 made new provision for cases where the local government ombudsman is not satisfied with the action which a local authority is taking in response to a report.

  Honours Degrees
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the provisions of four-year honours degrees.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  None. The length of degree courses is essentially a matter for individual higher education institutions and validating bodies.

  Iraqi Students
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many Iraqi students have been in British institutions of (a) secondary and (b) tertiary education in each of the years from 1980 to 1990.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the number of 16 and 17-year-olds remaining in full-time education.

  Mr. Tim Eggar
  Trends in the numbers of 16 and 17-year-olds in full-time education in England are shown in the following table.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The numbers of students from Iraq enrolled on courses in publicly-funded institutions of further and higher education in Great Britain between 1980 and 1989 are as follows:

  Academic Year

  Students

  1980–81

  2,218

  1981–82

  2,018

  1982–83

  2,239

  1983–84

  1,845

  1984–85

  1,559

  1985–86

  1,378

  1986–87

  1,420

  1987–88

  1,255

  1988–89

  918

  Figures for 1989–90 are still being collated. Comparable information on secondary education is not held centrally.

  Literacy (Devon)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the literacy levels of primary school children in Devon from current statistics and those of 10 and 20 years ago.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information on the literacy levels of primary school children in Devon is not available centrally.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list research projects currently being undertaken into reducing hypertension and improving treatments for cardiac failure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Government fund medical research primarily through the Medical Research Council. I am arranging to place in the Library a list of the main projects relating to hypertension and cardiac failure currently supported by the MRC. Other relevant research may also be supported by university departments and medical schools, and the health authorities.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to prevent the closure of the blood pressure research unit at the Western infirmary, Glasgow; and if he will make a statement.
  641
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The unit is funded by the Medical Research Council. The council receives grant in aid from this Department. Under the terms of its royal charter, it is for the council to decide what research to support. I understand that the council has not taken a decision about the future of the Glasgow unit.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those grant-maintained schools that have been visited by Her Majesty's inspectors and the dates on which they were visited.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: Up to June 1990, the following grant-maintained schools had been visited by Her Majesty's inspectors. The last date of visit is given.

  Queensbury School, Beds

  May 1990

  Hendon School, Barnet

  June 1990

  Queen Elizabeth's, Barnet

  June 1990

  Baverstock School, Birmingham

  February 1990

  Small Heath School, Birmingham

  June 1990

  St James CE School, Bolton

  January 1990

  Colyton GS, Devon

  March 1990

  Old Swinford Hospital School, Dudley

  March 1990

  London Oratory School

  February 1990

  Wilmington Girls School, Kent

  February 1990

  Castle Hall School, Kirklees

  January 1990

  Heckmondwike GS, Kirklees

  June 1990

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School,

  Lancs January 1990

  King's School, Grantham

  June 1990

  Queen Elizabeth GS, Lincs

  June 1990

  Skegness GS

  November 1989

  Wilson's School, Sutton

  May 1990

  Audenshaw School, Tameside

  February 1990

  Bankfield School, Cheshire

  March 1990

  Southlands School, Berkshire

  June 1990

  Cardinal Vaughan School, London

  June 1990

  City Technology Colleges (Private Donations)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total amount of private donations to city technology colleges, including planned and proposed colleges(a) pledged, (b) confirmed, (c) committed, and (d) actually paid over and showing in each case the nature of donations in kind rather than cash.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 25 July 1990]: The total value of private donations for announced projects in

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  M-25 Margaretting

  40,000

  49,000

  54,000

  59,000

  62,000

  Boreham-Hatfield Peverel

  42,000

  44,000

  56,000

  58,000

  62,000

  Feering-Marks Tey

  34,000

  38,000

  52,000

  53,000

  58,000

  Marks Tey-Stanway

  41,000

  46,000

  52,000

  57,000

  63,000

  Four Sisters

  26,000

  29,000

  32,000

  31,000

  32,000

  Heavy goods vehicles accounted for approximately 15–20 per cent. of these daily traffic flows.

  London Underground
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing the level of investment in the London Underground system in each year from 1974 to date, and in which year it ceased to be the responsibility of the Greater London council.
  642
  the CTC programme currently stands at some £31·5 million. To date, £8·636 million has already been paid over —£7·081 million in cash and £1·555 million in kind. In addition, some £6 million has been promised for possible further projects not yet announced, the support of curriculum development work and other work by the City Technology Colleges Trust. I regard these resources as representing the firm commitment of the private sector to date.

  Football Licensing Authority
  Mr. Tom Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the inspectorate required by the Football Licensing Authority for the exercise of its functions to be in place; and what will be its terms of reference.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have been asked to reply.

  The appointment of the inspectorate and the formulation of its terms of refernce are the responsibility of the Football Licensing Authority. I understand, however, that advertisements have been commissioned by the authority to appear at around the end of October. Applications will then be processed and appointments made as soon as possible. The role of the inspectorate will be to inform and advise the authority on matters relating to the licensing of sports grounds at which designated football matches are played, and to the exercise by local authorities, in relation to those sports grounds, of their functions under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975.

TRANSPORT

  A12
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the traffic flows along the A12 between(a) the M25 interchange and Chelmsford, (b) Chelmsford and Witham, (c) Witham and Colchester and (d) Colchester and Ipswich for each year from 1985 to 1989; and if he will indicate the division between heavy goods vehicles and other traffic.

  Mr. Chope
  Information is not available in exactly the format requested. However, representative data are available for daily traffic flows between the following points on the A12 trunk road:

  Mr. Freeman
  The figures for investment in the Underground since 1974 are as follows:

  Year

  Cash £ million

  Real (1990–91 prices) £ million

  1974

  36·3

  162·7

  1975

  43·4

  155·7

  1976

  49·9

  154·2

  1977

  43·6

  116·0

  643

  Year

  Cash £ million

  Real (1990–91 prices) £ million

  1978

  46·8

  115·1

  1979

  65·0

  141·0

  1980

  77·9

  143·2

  1981

  90·9

  149·1

  1982

  81·8

  123·7

  1983

  109·8

  158·9

  1984–85

  1117·0

  1158·9

  1985–86

  135·1

  135·1

  1986–87

  171·2

  212·6

  1987–88

  212·9

  256·1

  1988–89

  206·2

  233·9

  1989–90

  307·3

  327·2

  21990–91

  400·0

  1 Annualised equivalents figure of a 15-month total of £156 million (cash) and £211·8 million (real).

  2 Planned figure.

  The London Regional Transport Act came into force in 1984. However, the level of the Underground's funding for 1984–85 was determined by the GLC. On current estimates, Underground investment in 1990–91 will be two and a half times higher, in real terms, than in 1984–85.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what surveys have been made of the impact of the opening of the channel tunnel in 1993 and of the Waterloo link upon the numbers travelling by the Northern line.

  Mr. Freeman
  A survey carried out by Halcrow Fox for British Rail in 1989 estimated the numbers of channel tunnel passengers that would be using the Underground. London Underground is making use of the resulting data in its strategic planning.

  Airport Capacity
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the working party he has established to examine the Civil Aviation Authority's report on runway capacity in the south-east will be examining only the range of options set out in that report; and if he will make his policy that greenfield sites for major new airports in the south-east will not be considered.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend explained in his reply of 17 July to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) his intention that the working group should address the wider implications of airport development for the options identified by the Civil Aviation Authority, in addition to examining the contribution of regional airports to meeting demand. My right hon. Friend had earlier agreed with the authority's judgment that the development of a major airport on a completely new site in the south-east was unlikely to be realistic or acceptable.

  Railway Investment
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing the level of railway investment on a comparable basis in each year from 1974 to date.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Railways Board's railway investment is as follows, in constant 1990–91 prices:
  644

  £ million

  1974

  492

  1975

  534

  1976

  506

  1977

  502

  1978

  484

  1979

  489

  1980

  512

  1981

  432

  1982

  362

  1983

  353

  11984–85

  421

  1985–86

  504

  1986–87

  486

  1987–88

  601

  1988–89

  612

  1989–90

  741

  1 1984–85 was a 15-month accounting period. The 12-month equivalent is given; the actual figure (in 1990–91 prices) was £526 million.

  Note: Railway investment includes track, signalling, locomotives, rolling stock, stations and railway facilities. Expenditure by subsidiaries, and on non-operational land and continuously welded rail (CWR), are excluded. Figures are drawn from BR Annual Reports and Accounts, adjusted to exclude CWR between 1974 and 1979, and adjusted to 1990–91 prices using published GDP deflators.

  Summerley Coal Aston Airstrip (Accidents)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange for the air accidents investigation branch to investigate and report upon the two separate aircraft accidents at the Summerley Coal Aston airstrip in Derbyshire on 24 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The air investigation branch has completed its investigations into the two unconnected light aircraft accidents at Coal Aston airstrip, Derbyshire on 24 July 1990.

  The first accident occurred when the pilot of a Cessna 150 aircraft landed with excessive speed and bounced heavily causing the nose landing gear to collapse. The second accident occurred when a Piper Tomahawk aircraft, operated by the United States Air Force Flying Club failed to accelerate to a safe flying speed within the reduced runway length used. There were no injuries sustained in either accident.

  Full details of the AAIB investigations will be published in the next AAIB Bulletin on 7 November.

  Oil Spillages (Protection Equipment)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the stockpile of equipment, particularly oil absorbent booms or barrier booms, held in Scotland at Cambusbarron; and how long it would take to transport this equipment to protect Loch Roag in the western isles in the event of an oil spillage.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Cambusbarron stockpile is one of three centrally located stockpiles of specialist equipment for shoreline clean-up of oil pollution maintained by the marine pollution control unit (MPCU) and available at short notice to local authorites who have accepted primary responsibility for beach cleaning. A list of all directly owned or contracted counter-pollution resources available to the MCPU, including the Cambusbarron stockpile, is held in the House of Commons Library. Equipment from the Cambusbarron stockpile could be deployed to Loch
  645
  Roag within 10 to 17 hours from Callout, depending on the availability of suitable aircraft and vessels. Additional equipment relevant to a particular incident could also be deployed as necessary from the other MPCU stockpiles or from commercial sources.

  Taxis
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has, subsequent to his announcement of 11 May 1989,Official Report, column 486, to propose changes in legislation concerning taxi and private hire car vehicles.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government have no such legislative changes to propose at this stage.

  Minch Oil Spill Exercise
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make public the results of analysis of the marine pollution unit oil spill exercise carried out in the Minch on 4 and 5 July.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The marine pollution control unit (MPCU) oil spill exercise carried out in the Minch on 4 and 5 July 1990 was the latest in a continuing series of annual live exercises designed to activate and test contingency plans to deal with oil spillages from ships. These objectives were successfully achieved by the exercise. Some minor lessons were learned with regard to communications and certain aspects of on-scene command and control. These have been taken into account.

  Airports (Safety)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which statutory body or part of his Department is responsible for advising(a) him and (b) local authorities on the safety of people on the ground outside the statutory safety and air zones of new or expanding airports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Civil Aviation Authority has the statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of civil aviation. The primary purpose of its safety regulation group, which comprises some 750 professional and other staff, is to minimise the probability of aircraft having accidents or incidents. By so doing, the authority also protects people on the ground.

  Bus Routes (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to requiring tendering for bus route contracts for London Regional Transport to be published in the same manner as other areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the London Regional Transport Act 1984, the tendering of bus routes in London and the decision on whether to publish successful tender bids are matters for London Transport. While the Government have no immediate plans to amend this legislation, the point raised by the hon. Gentleman will be considered in the context of our plans to deregulate the London bus market.

HEALTH

  Hospital Catering Costs
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the cost of food in hospitals, per patient, excluding special diets and supplementary food and labour costs, but including all meals and beverages, for each district health area in England.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department collects the average cost of provisions per patient per day for each hospital annually. These figures exclude labour costs but include special diets and supplementary food. They will be published for 1987–88 and 1988–89 as part of the additional health service indicators which will be placed in the Library later this month.

  Friern Barnet Psychiatric Hospital
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds have been allocated to date by North East Thames regional health authority on reprovision of facilities for patients currently resident at Friern Barnet psychiatric hospital; and what funds are scheduled to be spent between the present time and September 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The allocation of funds for the reprovision of care for the mentally ill, is a matter for the individual health authorities concerned.

  Water Supply
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has received from the chief medical officer of the possible dangers to public health from the presence of viruses in water mains; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Viruses are removed from mains water during the process of water treatment. These treatment processes are designed to ensure that the water supply meets microbiological standards and is not therefore a risk to public health.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the possible dangers to public health from viruses in water mains and from leakage of harmful organisms and viruses from(a) water mains and (b) sewage pipes to (i) water services and (ii) land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As drinking water conveyed in water mains is treated to remove harmful organisms and viruses, leakages do not present a risk to public health. Potentially harmful organisms leaked from sewage pipes will be attenuated by natural decay and dilution, thus minimising the risk to public health. No land is free from naturally occurring bacteria or viruses and any additional risk from leaked sewage, unless in sufficient quantity to cause flood conditions, is minor.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the possible damages to public health from(a) the flushing of water mains and (b) the reduction of water pressure in respect of any harmful organisms or viruses which may be present in water mains; and if he will make a statement.
  647
  Mr. Dorrell
  As flushing is done with disinfected mains water which is flushed into sewers or surface water drains, there is no risk to public health. Following any significant drop in mains pressure due to some loss of integrity of a distribution system it is routine procedure for pipes into which contaminated water may have entered to be disinfected and flushed. The water is then sampled and analysed before it is returend to the public supply. Reductions in pressure for operational purposes are controlled to prevent contamination and minimise the risk to public health.

  Kidney Dialysis
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children under 10 years of age are receiving kidney dialysis per million of the population; how many he estimates could benefit from this treatment who are not getting it; and what was the number in 1985 of children under 10 years of age receiving kidney dialysis per million of the population.

  Mr. Dorrell
  According to information provided by the European Dialysis and Transplant Association, the number of children in the United Kingdom under 10 years of age receiving treatment for end stage renal failure was as follows:

  At 31 December 1985:
  185 children, of whom 35 (5·0 per million population) were receiving dialysis

  At 31 December 1988:
  212 children, of whom 32 (4·3 per million population) were receiving dialysis

  The rate per million population is based on the number of children in the relevant age group. The latest year for which statistics are available is 1988.

  It is not possible to provide accurate information on the number of children who could benefit from this treatment, but we are not aware of any children requiring renal reaplacement therapy who are not receiving it.

  Diabetic Kidney Patients
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of diabetic kidney patients are receiving treatment; and whether any patients in this category have been refused care.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information is not available in the form requested. According to information provided by the European Dialysis and Transplant Association, the number of diabetic patients receiving treatment in the United Kingdom for end stage renal failure at 31 December 1988 was approximately 800.

  Romanian Orphans
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidance to local authorities on the charges to be levied on parents for documents required to adopt Romanian orphans; and if he will make a statement.
  648
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Local authorities have been advised that they can charge prospective adopters to cover the costs of assessment and preparation of reports in connection with the adoption of children from overseas. The charges made are a matter for the authorities. The local authority associations are considering whether there is any advice which they can offer to authorities about the level of charges.

  South-East Thames Region
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the figures for revenue and capital expended in the South East Thames region hospital service in each year on a comparable basis since 1974.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on the expenditure by the South East Thames regional health authority and the district health authorities (and their predecessor authorities) comprising the South East Thames region, derived from annual accounts submitted to the Department in cash and at constant prices, is shown in the table. Over such a long period the figures are not entirely comparable.

  Total revenue and capital expenditure on Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS)—South East Thames Region

  £'000s

  Year

  Revenue Expenditure

  Capital Expenditure

  (Cash)

  (1989–90 Prices)

  (Cash)

  (1989–90 Prices)

  1974–75

  208,755

  877,512

  19,970

  83,945

  1975–76

  279,572

  934,623

  25,625

  85,666

  1976–77

  321,373

  947,915

  23,529

  69,401

  1977–78

  356,258

  923,139

  17,539

  45,447

  1978–79

  395,880

  926,656

  23,026

  53,898

  1979–80

  471,151

  944,300

  25,992

  52,094

  1980–81

  603,001

  1,021,261

  35,138

  59,511

  1981–82

  662,702

  1,022,291

  39,422

  60,813

  1982–83

  700,421

  1,007,717

  46,327

  66,652

  1983–84

  739,438

  1,016,387

  51,988

  71,460

  1984–85

  772,108

  1,011,045

  49,853

  65,281

  1985–86

  807,525

  1,003,624

  55,181

  68,581

  1986–87

  857,088

  1,030,203

  76,517

  91,972

  1987–88

  928,872

  1,059,685

  91,148

  103,984

  1988–89

  1,039,270

  1,106,823

  92,284

  98,282

  11989–90

  1,116,191

  1,116,191

  103,905

  103,905

  1 Provisional figures—as yet subject to audit.

  Notes:

  1. The figures for earlier years have been expressed at 1989–90 prices by the use of the Gross Domestic Product deflator.

  2. HCHS covers all health authorities' services including hospital, community health, patient transport (i.e., ambulance) and blood transfusion. Expenditure on family practitioner services is excluded. However, the figures prior to 1 April 1985 include small elements related to the administrative expenses of family practitioner committees (FPCs).

  3. The figures from 1987–88 exclude an element for the costs of the London Ambulance Service which in earlier years was shared by all four Thames RHAs.

  4. Capital expenditure for particular authorities and regions tends to fluctuate year on year mainly reflecting changes in the pattern of capital investment throughout the country.

HEALTH

  Hospices
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospices there are in each of the counties of England; and what is his policy regarding the expansion of hospice provision in England.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not available in the form requested. The following table gives an analysis by health district. The Government value the contribution made by the hospice movement to improving services for people with a terminal illness and their families. We expect health authorities to take the lead in planning and co-ordinating such services, in consultation with hospices and other interested organisations.

  Hospice in-patient units

  Health district

  Existing

  Number Proposed

  Airedale

  2

  0

  Aylesbury Vale

  1

  0

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  1

  0

  Barnet

  0

  2

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  Basildon and Thurrock

  0

  1

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  0

  1

  Bassetlaw

  0

  1

  Bath

  1

  0

  Bexley

  0

  0

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  1

  0

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  1

  0

  Bloomsbury

  1

  0

  Bolton

  0

  1

  Bradford

  0

  0

  Brighton

  2

  1

  Bristol and Weston

  0

  0

  Bromley

  1

  0

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  0

  0

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  0

  0

  Bury

  0

  1

  Calderdale

  1

  0

  Camberwell

  0

  0

  Cambridge

  2

  0

  Canterbury and Thanet

  1

  —

  Central Birmingham

  —

  Central Manchester

  —

  Central Nottinghamshire

  —

  1

  Cheltenham and District

  1

  —

  Chester

  1

  —

  Chichester

  2

  —

  Chorley and South Ribble

  —

  —

  City and Hackney

  1

  —

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  3

  —

  Coventry

  —

  Crewe

  —

  1

  Croydon

  —

  —

  Darlington

  —

  —

  Dartford and Gravesham

  1

  1

  Dewsbury

  —

  —

  Doncaster

  —

  1

  Dudley

  —

  —

  Durham

  —

  1

  Ealing

  1

  —

  East Berkshire

  1

  —

  East Birmingham

  —

  —

  Eastbourne

  2

  —

  East Cumbria

  —

  1

  East Dorset

  1

  2

  East Hertfordshire

  —

  1

  East Suffolk

  1

  —

  East Surrey

  1

  —

  East Yorkshire

  —

  —

  Enfield

  —

  —

  Exeter

  1

  1

  Frenchay

  —

  —

  650

  Hospice in-patient units

  Health district

  Existing

  Number Proposed

  Gateshead

  —

  —

  Gloucester

  —

  —

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  1

  —

  Greenwich

  —

  1

  Grimsby

  1

  —

  Halton

  —

  —

  Hampstead

  1

  —

  Haringey

  —

  —

  Harrogate

  1

  —

  Harrow

  —

  —

  Hartlepool

  1

  —

  Hastings

  1

  —

  Herefordshire

  2

  —

  Hillingdon

  3

  1

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  —

  —

  Huddersfield

  1

  —

  Hull

  —

  1

  Huntingdon

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight

  1

  —

  Islington

  —

  —

  Kettering

  —

  1

  Kidderminster

  —

  —

  Kingston and Esher

  1

  —

  Lancaster

  1

  —

  Leeds Eastern

  3

  —

  Leeds Western

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  2

  —

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  1

  —

  Maccelesfield

  1

  —

  Maidstone

  —

  1

  Medway

  1

  —

  Merton and Sutton

  1

  —

  Mid-Downs

  1

  —

  Mid-Essex

  1

  —

  Mid-Staffordshire

  —

  —

  Mid-Surrey

  —

  —

  Milton Keynes

  1

  —

  Newcastle

  2

  —

  Newham

  —

  —

  Northallerton

  —

  —

  Northampton

  1

  —

  North Bedfordshire

  1

  1

  North Birmingham

  —

  —

  North Derbyshire

  1

  —

  North Devon

  —

  —

  North East Essex

  1

  —

  North Hertfordshire

  —

  1

  North Lincolnshire

  1

  —

  North Manchester

  —

  1

  North Staffordshire

  1

  —

  North Tees

  1

  —

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  North Warwickshire

  —

  1

  North West Durham

  —

  —

  North West Hertfordshire

  1

  —

  North West Surrey

  1

  —

  Norwich

  1

  —

  Nottingham

  1

  —

  Oldham

  —

  1

  Oxfordshire

  2

  1

  Parkside

  2

  —

  Peterborough

  —

  —

  Plymouth

  1

  —

  Pontefract

  —

  1

  Portsmouth and South-East Hampshire

  1

  1

  Preston

  1

  —

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  —

  —

  Riverside

  —

  1

  Rochdale

  1

  —

  Rotherham

  —

  1

  Rugby

  —

  —

  St Helen's and Knowsley

  1

  —

  Salford

  2

  —

  651

  Hospice in-patient units

  Health district

  Existing

  Number Proposed

  Salisbury

  1

  —

  Sandwell

  —

  —

  Scarborough

  1

  —

  Scunthorpe

  1

  —

  Sheffield

  1

  —

  Shropshire

  1

  —

  Solihull

  1

  —

  Somerset

  2

  —

  Southampton and South-West Hampshire

  1

  1

  South Bedfordshire

  1

  1

  South Birmingham

  2

  —

  South Cumbria

  1

  —

  South East Kent

  —

  —

  South East Staffordshire

  1

  —

  Southend

  1

  —

  South Derbyshire

  1

  1

  South Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  South Manchester

  1

  —

  Southmead

  2

  —

  Southport and Formby

  —

  1

  South Sefton

  1

  —

  South Tees

  —

  1

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  South Warwickshire

  1

  —

  South West Durham

  —

  —

  South West Hertfordshire

  1

  1

  South West Surrey

  1

  —

  Stockport

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  1

  —

  Swindon

  1

  —

  Tameside and Glossop

  —

  —

  Torbay

  1

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  —

  Trafford

  —

  —

  Tunbridge Wells

  —

  —

  Wakefield

  1

  —

  Walsall

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  1

  —

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  Warrington

  1

  —

  West Berkshire

  2

  1

  West Birmingham

  1

  —

  West Cumbria

  1

  —

  West Dorset

  —

  —

  West Essex

  —

  1

  West Lambeth

  1

  —

  West Lancashire

  1

  —

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  —

  1

  West Suffolk

  —

  1

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  1

  —

  Wigan

  1

  —

  Winchester

  1

  —

  Wirral

  1

  —

  Wolverhampton

  1

  —

  Worcester and District

  —

  —

  Worthing District

  1

  —

  Wycombe

  —

  1

  York

  1

  —

  Special Health Authorities

  3

  —

  TOTAL

  128

  44

  Northern Region
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what total sum has been made available for the distinction awards to hospital consultants in the northern 652
  region in the financial year 1988–89 and in the current financial year; and how much will be available in the 1990–91 financial year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No specific sum is allocated to authorities for the payment of distinction awards. Health authorities are expected to meet the cost of distinction awards from their own resources.

  Health Education
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the funding of organisations working with elderly people to enable them to develop additional health education programmes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department grant-aids a number of voluntary organisations under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, several of which include a health education element in their programmes. The overall funding available through this source will be increased to £15,680,000 for the financial year 1991–92. We are currently receiving applications for funding, all of which will be carefully considered. It is too early to say at this stage what proportion of the overall funding will be allocated to organisations working with and for elderly people.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the total saving to the Health Education Authority arising from the ending of the health in old age programme.

  Mr. Dorrell
  During 1990–91 £106,000 will be spent by the Health Education Authority on its health in old age programme. The ending of the Programme is not intended to achieve a financial saving, but to enable the Authority to utilise its resources more effectively by addressing the health education needs of elderly people across the whole range of its activities rather than by being restricted to a specific programme. It is too early to say what resources the Authority will devote to the health education needs of elderly people in 1991–92 and beyond.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the future of the age well programme.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Officials are in discussion with Age Concern, who have responsibility for the age well programme, to discuss its future. We are not aware of any representations other than those made by the hon. Member.

  Consultants
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the amount of distinction awards paid to consultants in each of the health authorities in the Northern Region for the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on the amount of distinction awards paid, as given in a footnote to the annual accounts of the Northern Regional Health Authority (RHA) and the district health authorities comprising the Northern region, is shown in the table.
  653

  Northern Region—Medical and Dental Consultants Distinction Awards National Health Service Staff

  1985–86 £ (cash)

  1986–87 £ (cash)

  1987–88 £ (cash)

  1988–89 £ (cash)

  11989–90 £ (cash)

  Northern RHA

  49,910

  24,580

  26,720

  20,280

  33,030

  Hartlepool

  38,848

  37,862

  37,412

  32,107

  28,261

  North Tees

  105,967

  103,333

  121,653

  131,614

  131,048

  South Tees

  198,514

  172,333

  220,474

  227,172

  227,187

  East Cumbria

  110,142

  122,868

  157,775

  187,120

  178,712

  South Cumbria

  109,420

  77,509

  83,556

  88,922

  n/g

  West Cumbria

  84,001

  93,706

  101,939

  103,750

  95,124

  Darlington

  n/g

  56,768

  n/g

  n/g

  n/g

  Durham

  66,280

  103,005

  n/g

  95,727

  63,824

  NW Durham

  43,316

  35,532

  38,123

  35,051

  53,836

  SW Durham

  46,210

  62,348

  58,220

  49,705

  43,764

  Northumberland

  97,217

  125,181

  136,574

  153,078

  118,341

  Gateshead

  50,316

  71,533

  77,370

  97,511

  104,482

  Newcastle

  703,120

  755,680

  784,866

  986,739

  1,292,602

  North Tyneside

  26,151

  18,785

  35,958

  47,338

  75,779

  South Tyneside

  25,648

  29,257

  31,592

  42,456

  87,931

  Sunderland

  102,596

  138,534

  168,635

  160,714

  172,934

  1 1989–90 figures are "provisional" in that the annual accounts for that year are as yet subject to audit.

  n/g—Not given.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the number of hospital consultants who received top-up bonuses in each health authority in the Northern region in the financial year 1988–89 and in the current financial year;

  (2) what sums have been made available for top-up bonuses to hospital consultants in each health authority in the Northern region in the financial year 1988–89 and in the current financial year; and how much will be budgeted for each authority for the 1990–91 financial year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  NHS hospital consultants do not receive "top-up bonuses".

  Menopause Services
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of the guidance notes issued by his Department asking health authorities to balance the services provided by specialist clinics and those provided by general practitioners as they relate to the menopause.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The guidance referred to in my reply to my hon. Friend on 24 July at column 176, relates to family planning services. No specific guidance has been issued on menopause clinics. The provision of services for the women concerned is a matter for local health authorities to determine in the light of local needs and priorities.

  Social Services (Unallocated Cases)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of unallocated cases for each social services area.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) and for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Mr. Henderson) on 3 July at column 535.

  DES/Stilboestrol
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will meet the representatives of the DES/Stilboestrol Action Group in England;

  (2) if his Department plans to examine the conclusions of the DES/Stilboestrol symposium held in Dublin on 14 September;

  (3) if his Department will inquire into reports that the grandchildren of patients treated with the drug DES/Stilboestrol have suffered ill effects.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) carefully monitors all issues of drug safety. There is also a statutory obligation for pharmaceutical companies to provide details of any suspected adverse drug reactions which they may receive in relation to one of their products. Any new information relating to side effects from stilboestrol will be monitored in the usual way when it becomes available to the CSM. There are no plans to meet representatives of the DES Action Group.

  Travellers
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is routinely collected by his Department about health authority plans, targets and services for traveller mothers and babies.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Routine information as not collected centrally. We recognise that meeting the health care needs of traveller families requires special attention from health authorities in areas with a significant traveller population. To help develop good practice the Department provides financial support to a travellers information and liaison unit run by the Save the Children Fund.

  Tehidy Hospital, Cornwall
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce his decision on the future of Tehidy hospital, Cornwall.
  655
  Mr. Dorrell
  South Western regional health authority will consider on 6 November a proposal by Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority to develop a community hospital at Barncoose, and to sell Tehidy hospital. If the regional health authority supports the proposal it will be referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the final decision.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what treatment is available for ME on the National Health Service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department of health and the National Health Service recognise myalgic encephalomyelitis as a debilitating and distressing disease. Its causes are not yet fully understood, nor is there a generally agreed method of treatment. Treatment to alleviate the various symptoms is a matter for medical judgment in individual cases. A number of licensed medicines, prescribable under the NHS, have been found to bring relief to some patients.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent by his Department in funding research on myalgic encephalomyelitis for each year for the past three years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department of Health is aware of several studies being conducted into myalgic encephalomyelitis although it has not sponsored this research. The main Government agency responsible for the promotion of biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science. I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Education and Science gave my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 2 February at column 422.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total staff of the London ambulance service for each month since January 1989.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Data is not collected in the form requested but annual figures are available in a national ambulance survey prepared by York health authority. The total numbers of staff for the last two available financial years for the London ambulance service are given in the table. Total staffing figures include officers, operational staff and general staff such as mechanics and domestics.

  London Ambulance Service Total staff (whole-time equivalent)

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Total Staff

  2,939·19

  2,993·19

  Source: York health authority

  National Ambulance Survey 1987–88 and 1988–89

  The management of the London ambulance service is the responsibility of the London ambulance service board, chairman Mr. James Harris, to whom the hon. Member may wish to write for further information.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the average response time for the London ambulance service in emergencies for each week since January 1989.
  656
  Mr. Dorrell
  Data are collected centrally only on a financial year basis. In both 1987–88 and 1988–89 the median response time to emergency calls was less then 10 minutes. The management of the London ambulance service is the responsibility of the London ambulance service board, chairman Mr. James Harris, to whom the hon. Member may wish to write for more detailed information.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the total number of vehicles and (b) vehicle miles covered by the London ambulance service for each week since January 1989.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Data is not collected in the form requested but annual figures are available in a national ambulance survey prepared by York health authority. The total numbers of vehicles and vehicle miles for the last 2 available financial years for the London ambulance service are given in the table. Vehicles included ambulance and other ambulance service vehicles such as major incident vehicles and recovery vehicles.

  London ambulance service: vehicles and vehicle miles

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Vehicles

  994

  963

  Vehicles miles

  12,369,411

  12,199,647

  The management of the London ambulance service is the responsibility of the London service board, chairman Mr. James Harris, to whom the hon. Member may wish to write for further information.

  Birth Statistics
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give for England and Wales for 1988, for births within marriage and jointly registered births outside marriage, the numbers of live births, still births, early neonatal deaths, late neonatal deaths and post-neonatal deaths of babies with mothers with occupations in:(a) social class I, (b) social class II, (c) social class III non-manual, (d) social class III manual, (e) social class IV, (f) social class V, (g) in other occupations and (h) with no stated occupation;

  (2) if he will give for England and Wales for 1988 the numbers of live births, still births, early neonatal deaths, late neonatal deaths and post-neonatal deaths of babies with mothers with occupations in (a) social class I, (b) social class II, (c) social class III non-manual, (d) social class III manual, (e) social class IV, (f) social class V, (g) other occupations and (h) with no stated occupation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will give the numbers of women resident in (a) Dacorum local government district and (b) St. Albans local government district who gave birth in 1989 in (i) St. Albans City Hospital, (ii) Luton and Dunstable Hospital, (iii) Queen Elizabeth II Hospital, Welwyn Garden City, (iv) Watford general hospital, (v) Royal Bucks hospital, Aylesbury, (vi) RAF Halton maternity unit, (vii) other hospitals, (viii) at home and (ix) elsewhere.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is as follows:
  657

  Dacorum

  St. Albans

  St. Albans City hospital

  1,016

  1,124

  Luton and Dunstable hospital

  39

  51

  Queen Elizabeth II hospital, Welwyn Garden City

  8

  145

  Watford general hospital

  279

  77

  Royal Bucks hospital, Aylesbury

  186

  —

  Non-NHS hospitals1

  189

  6

  Other NHS hospitals

  78

  101

  At home

  31

  11

  Elsewhere

  3

  0

  1,829

  1,515

  1Figures for individual non-NHS hospitals are not available for 1989.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State fro Health if he will give for England and Wales for 1983 and 1988 the

  Birthweight within marriage and jointly registered outside marriage by father's social class for singleton livebirths

  Birthweight

  Social class of father

  1,000

  1,000–1,499

  1,500–1,999

  2,000–2,499

  2,500

  Not stated

  Total

  1983

  Within marriage

  I

  80

  110

  310

  1,030

  36,720

  50

  38,300

  II

  120

  400

  910

  3,680

  109,150

  130

  114,380

  IIIN

  90

  220

  370

  1,860

  53,360

  70

  55,970

  IIIM

  330

  910

  1,910

  6,620

  174,910

  180

  184,860

  IV

  170

  310

  870

  3,640

  69,850

  80

  74,920

  V

  30

  160

  350

  1,580

  28,480

  70

  30,680

  Other occupations1

  40

  140

  190

  760

  18,030

  80

  19,240

  Occupation not stated

  10

  10

  30

  70

  950

  —

  1,070

  Total

  870

  2,260

  4,940

  19,240

  491,150

  660

  519,420

  Jointly registered outside marriage

  I

  10

  —

  10

  20

  920

  —

  960

  II

  30

  60

  50

  380

  6,500

  10

  7,020

  IIIN

  10

  20

  40

  130

  3,460

  —

  3,660

  IIIM

  80

  170

  390

  1,290

  23,250

  30

  25,210

  IV

  40

  20

  210

  690

  10,620

  30

  11,610

  V

  50

  90

  80

  570

  8,420

  —

  9,210

  Other occupations1

  10

  40

  40

  50

  1,690

  10

  1,840

  Occupation not stated

  —

  10

  10

  30

  590

  —

  640

  Total

  230

  410

  830

  3,160

  55,450

  80

  60,150

  1988

  Within marriage

  I

  70

  90

  150

  1,020

  39,190

  80

  40,600

  II

  290

  550

  1,070

  3,280

  117,500

  210

  122,900

  IIIN

  120

  260

  470

  1,700

  51,120

  50

  53,710

  IIIM

  470

  940

  1,540

  6,270

  161,690

  180

  171,080

  IV

  180

  380

  680

  2,770

  63,430

  50

  67,490

  V

  90

  120

  270

  1,230

  23,050

  40

  24,790

  Other occupations1

  60

  50

  190

  710

  21,310

  60

  22,380

  Occupation not stated

  —

  10

  20

  110

  1,480

  10

  1,630

  Total

  1,280

  2,400

  4,390

  17,090

  478,770

  680

  504,580

  Jointly registered outside marriage

  I

  —

  —

  60

  110

  2,600

  —

  2,770

  II

  50

  90

  220

  600

  14,640

  40

  15,640

  IIIN

  20

  70

  110

  230

  7,560

  20

  8,020

  IIIM

  150

  340

  600

  2,220

  47,030

  60

  50,400

  IV

  40

  180

  420

  1,150

  21,640

  20

  23,450

  V

  90

  120

  240

  750

  14,270

  30

  15,500

  Other occupations1

  10

  70

  20

  210

  3,220

  10

  3,540

  Occupation not stated

  20

  10

  40

  60

  1,690

  —

  1,820

  Total

  380

  880

  1,710

  5,330

  112,650

  180

  121,140

  1 Other occupations = Armed Forces, inadequately described, students, independent means, permanently sick, no previous job.

  658
  estimated total numbers of live births within marriage and jointly registered births outside marriage of singleton babies weighing (i) under 1000g, (ii) 1000–1499g, (iii) 1500–1999g, (iv) 2000–2499g, (v) 2500g and over and (vi) with unstated birthweights for babies with fathers in (a) social class I, (b) social class II, (c) social class III non-manual, (d) social class III manual, (e) social class IV, (f) social class V, (g) other occupations and (h) with no stated occupation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is shown in the table. The data on social class are derived from a 10 per cent. coding of occupation details, and weighting factors have been applied to this sample to give estimated data. It should also be noted that the two years are not exactly comparable in the "other occupations" and "no stated occupation" categories due to a change in coding practice.

  Bloomsbury and Islington Health Authority
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements will be made to ensure adequate provisions of finance for the merged Bloomsbury and Islington health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is for North East Thames regional health authority to decide funding levels for the merged Bloomsbury and Islington health authority.

  Friern Barnet Hospital (Closure)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision has been made by his Department for the effects of the closure of Friern Barnet hospital on the neighbouring health and local authorities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is a matter for the North East Thames regional health authority and for the health and local authorities concerned.

  Peak Flow Meters
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the cost per unit of peak flow meters available at present to his Department; and what he treats as an acceptable cost;

  (2) if he will now announce a date from which peak flow meters will become available on prescription to asthmatics; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what information he has on the reasons for the delay in implementation of his Department's earlier announcement that peak flow meters would be made available on prescription to asthmatics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Peak flow meters were made available on prescription from 1 October 1990. Two brands of meter have been included in the prescribable list—the drug tariff—manufactured by Clement Clarke Limited and Vitalograph Limited.

  Two models have been approved for each manufacturer: standard-range meters suitable for both adults and children and low-range meters for adults or children with serverely restricted air flow. Clement Clarke meters are priced in the drug tariff at £6·39 and Vitalograph meters at £5·99. These prices are both acceptable.

  Recording charts in the form of a booklet are being issued free of charge via general practitioners for making a daily record of the user's peak expiratory flow rate. The booklet covers a year's usage and includes notes on the use and care of the meter.

  I announced on 21 March 1990 that peak flow meters would become available on prescription. To be accepted for listing on the drug tariff, each company's meters had to conform to a Departmental specification, meet criteria of safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness, and be available in sufficient quantity to meet potential demand. Labelling, packaging, user instructions and prices were also the subject of consultation and negotiations.

  Haemophiliacs (AIDS)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total cost to the Government to date of the legal case in which people with haemophilia, having been infected with the AIDS virus in the course of national health service treatment, are suing the Government.
  660
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The cost of the time spent by civil servants on this litigation and other administrative expenditure is not separately identified. So far, £25,961 has been paid in legal fees, and £10,495 in fees to expert witnesses. This does not include the costs of legal aid, which are a charge on the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on his reaction to Mr. Justice Ognall's appeal to both sides in the legal case in which people with haemophilia, having been infected with the AIDS virus in the course of national health service treatment, are suing the Government, to give anxious consideration to a compromise solution and the judge's offer to arbitrate in a speedy settlement of the case.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have carefully considered the points put forward by Mr. Justice Ognall in his statement handed down on 26 June 1990. The text of the Department's response was as follows:Thank you very much for providing me with a copy of the note handed down by Mr. Justice Ognall on 26 June 1990.
  The Secretary of State has carefully considered the points put forward by the Judge, together with the advice given previously by Counsel in the light of the overall situation concerning the tragic effect on haemophiliacs of the use of Factor VIII containing the HIV virus.
  The Government has recognised that the plight of haemophiliacs and the fact that the treatment which led to their infection was intended to help them to lead as near a normal life as possible, makes their case wholly exceptional. Accordingly, and in recognition of their unique position, the Macfarlane Trust was set up following an announcement by the Minister of Health in November 1987 and was provided with £10 million, to make payments on an ex-gratia basis to affected individuals and their families throughout the United Kingdom. Since then, many payments have been made out of the fund, on the basis of financial need, and this continues.
  When announcing the establishment of the Macfarlane Trust, the Government made it clear that, while it considered the sum of £ 10 million to be appropriate at that time, it would nevertheless keep open to review the question of what funds were required. Following an announcement by the Secretary of State on 23 November 1989, a further sum of £24 million was made available for haemophiliacs. The aim was first, to make individual payments of £20,000 to each haemophiliac infected with AIDS virus as a result of treatment with blood products in the United Kingdom or the family of such a person who has died; and second, to enable the Macfarlane Trust to continue on a more generous scale to help families in particular need.
  So the Government has already made available a total of £34 million to mitigate the effects of this tragedy on all haemophiliacs with HIV and their families and not just the litigants in this action. Some £24 million of this total has been distributed to individuals affected, irrespective of means, whilst the remainder has been and continues to be made available on the basis of need. None of these payments is taken into account for the purposes of social security or indeed of legal aid.
  The Government proposes to keep the sums available to the Macfarlane Trust and the needs of haemophiliacs under regular review.
  All these sums are of course paid on an ex-gratia basis. They are intended to provide the resources to respond positively to the particular needs of affected haemophiliacs and their families. They are not however intended to be a substitute for litigation of the issues presently before the Court. Mr. Justice Ognall has suggested that there are actions which should perhaps be settled on the basis of moral obligation rather than on a strict assessment of legal liability. The Secretary of State has already recognised the moral argument and the strong compassionate arguments in favour of providing assistance to haemophiliacs affected by HIV in the setting up of the Macfarlane Trust and in providing resources for their treatment. In the Secretary of State's view,

  661
  the fact that the affected haemophiliacs have chosen to pursue their legal claim does not raise any fresh moral obligation beyond that already recognised by the Government. And, of course, he has the general duty to weigh up the claims for assistance of this particular group as against the claims of other groups of sick or disabled people, within the resources voted by Parliament.
  Ministers are always and understandably faced by an array of competing demands for highly desirable objectives within the inevitably finite resources available. Spending more on one group, whatever the reason for doing so, inevitably means spending less on others. The haemophiliacs with HIV infection have attracted public attention and quite rightly won the nation's sympathy, but there are many other examples of people suffering severe disability with the prospect of premature death also through no fault of their own—for example, patients with advanced cancer; patients with end-stage renal failure; or children born with severe congenital heart defects. It is the responsibility of Ministers and their advisers to weigh up these difficult choices and to arrive at a reasonable ordering of priorities.
  Ministers are, of course, and rightly, accountable to Parliament for their decisions on policies and priorities. As you know it is the Secretary of State's case in this litigation that such decisions do not and should not give rise to a duty of care to individual members of the public such as to enable those individuals to bring a claim for damages. This is an important principle and one which would have far reaching repercussions if compromised. There are strong public policy reasons why this is so. First, it would make the process of policy formation very much less effective if every decision were subject to the risk of legal challenge in the courts. Second, if it were accepted in this particular action that Ministers did owe such a duty of care this would be likely to lead to very large numbers of costly and time-consuming claims against the Department, Licensing Authority and CSM. There is nothing unique about this aspect of the present claim.
  The Secretary of State fully recognises the force of the argument that the resources likely to be taken up by this litigation would be better used to alleviate suffering. However, it would not achieve this purpose if the likely consequence of compromising these actions were to encourage other expensive litigation in future. The Secretary of State considers that the existence of this litigation on its own is not a sufficient reason to adopt different criteria from those which govern the decisions which regularly have to be made where the competing demands of many pressing and deserving causes have to be balanced in the light of the resources that are actually available.
  The Secretary of State is satisfied that the best and indeed the proper way of meeting the need referred to by Mr. Justice Ognall is through the machinery of the Macfarlane Trust or similar means. The Government remains committed to pursuing that course and will ensure that the needs of all affected haemophiliacs and their families are kept under review. That resolve will not be affected by the progress or outcome of the litigation.
  It is recognised that it would be in the interests of everyone that the present litigation should be brought to a speedy conclusion. Apart from the anguish which it inevitably causes to plaintiffs and their families, it has placed a heavy burden on the resources of the Legal Aid Fund and of the Department and Health Authorities. That inevitably involves the diversion of scarce resources from elsewhere. It must be a matter for individual Plaintiffs and their advisers as to whether they wish to continue to pursue their allegations against the Central Defendants in the expectation or hope that they will be able to establish liability. However, whilst the Secretary of State will continue to review the position from time to time, until or unless you advise that there is a real likelihood of the Plaintiffs or any of them succeeding in establishing liability, his view is that these actions should continue to be defended firmly. Meanwhile, I know that you and Counsel will do everything possible to adhere to the timetable set by the Court.
  I would be grateful if you would express the Secretary of State's thanks to the Judge for his observations and make him aware of the matters set out in this letter. A copy of this letter may be provided to the Judge if you consider this appropriate.
  662
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why he withheld from the courts documents that are wanted by the legal representatives of people with haemophilia who contracted the AIDS virus in the course of National Health Service treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  A number of documents were withheld because the Department of Health considered that a claim for public interest immunity applied to them. This immunity cannot be waived by the Crown.

  The documents in question related to the period of office of both the previous Labour Government and the present Conservative Government.

  Public interest immunity is a principle of law that prevents the dislosure of documents on the grounds that production of those documents would be injurious to the public interest. The immunity prevents the disclosure of, for example, documents which concern the inner workings of the Government machine or policy making within Departments. In the course of his judgment in the Court of Appeal on 20 September 1990 Lord Justice Ralph Gibson said:
  "The Department of Health has raised the matter of public interest immunity so as to prevent the disclosure of [certain documents]. The Department does not do that in order to put difficulty in the way of plaintiffs, or to withhold from the Court documents which might help the plaintiffs. The Department raises the matter because it is the duty of the Department in law to do so in support of the public interest and the proper functioning of the public service, that is the executive arm of the Government…It is not for the Department but for the Court to determine whether the documents should be produced. The plaintiffs acknowledge the validity of the claim to public interest immunity but ask the Court to order production notwithstanding the existence of a valid claim to immunity. It is essential that the aspect of these proceedings should be clearly understood.
  The valid claim to immunity to be overridden by the order of the Court if the law requires that it should be overridden. The task of the Court is properly to balance the public interest in preserving the immunity on the one hand, and the public interest in the fair trial of the proceedings on the other".

  Prescription Costs
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if his Department has considered research conducted by the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries on estimated and actual prescription costs for the elderly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a copy of the ABPI briefing pamphlet "Trends in usage of prescription medicines by the elderly and the very elderly between 1977 and 1988". We agree with the general conclusion that the need for prescription medicines increases with aging population and progressively more so at the extreme end of the age spectrum. This will be reflected in the setting of indicative prescribing amounts for practices under the indicative prescribing scheme set out in "Improving Prescribing".

  X-rays
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department considered research by the Royal College of Radiologists on effects of excessive X-ray treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We are considering the document entitled "Patient Dose Reduction in Diagnostic Radiology" issued
  663
  by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) on 5 September 1990. This document reports the findings of the joint working party of the Royal College of Radiologists and NRPB, and makes recommendations for the reduction of radiation doses to patients. Radiologists and other professionals who work in this field have a statutory obligation to keep the dose of ionising radiation to the patient as low as reasonably practicable in order to achieve the required diagnostic purpose, and we are considering what other assistance or advice can be offered by the Department of Health.

  Special and neonatal intensive care cots, by health authority, England, 1985 to 1989–901

  Health Authority

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–902

  Northern RHA

  289

  273

  258

  260

  262

  Hartlepool

  15

  26

  15

  15

  15

  North Tees

  19

  19

  19

  19

  19

  South Tees

  28

  21

  16

  19

  20

  East Cumbria

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  South Cumbria

  12

  10

  10

  10

  10

  West Cumbria

  12

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Darlington

  14

  14

  14

  14

  13

  Durham

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  North West Durham

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  South West Durham

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Northumberland

  18

  18

  18

  18

  18

  Gateshead

  13

  13

  13

  13

  14

  Newcastle

  45

  45

  45

  45

  45

  North Tyneside

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  South Tyneside

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  Sunderland

  41

  25

  26

  26

  26

  Yorkshire RHA

  304

  293

  290

  282

  280

  Hull

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  East Yorkshire

  15

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Grimsby

  25

  25

  25

  19

  18

  Scunthorpe

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Northallerton

  6

  6

  10

  10

  10

  York

  13

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Scarborough

  6

  8

  8

  10

  10

  Harrogate

  14

  14

  14

  14

  13

  Bradford

  36

  36

  29

  32

  32

  Airedale

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  Calderdale

  18

  18

  18

  18

  18

  Huddersfield

  18

  18

  18

  18

  18

  Dewsbury

  20

  20

  20

  17

  18

  Leeds Western

  21

  16

  16

  16

  16

  Leeds Eastern

  35

  35

  35

  31

  30

  Wakefield

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  Pontefract

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  Trent RHA

  341

  331

  321

  310

  302

  North Derbyshire

  22

  18

  16

  16

  16

  Southern Derbyshire

  28

  28

  24

  24

  24

  Leicestershire

  43

  43

  43

  43

  41

  North Lincolnshire

  21

  21

  20

  15

  15

  South Lincolnshire

  23

  22

  23

  23

  23

  Bassetlaw

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  Central Nottinghamshire

  28

  28

  28

  28

  23

  Nottingham

  49

  50

  45

  45

  45

  Barnsley

  20

  15

  13

  13

  13

  Doncaster

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Rotherham

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  Sheffield

  61

  61

  62

  56

  55

  East Anglian RHA

  145

  135

  134

  135

  132

  Cambridge

  24

  24

  24

  25

  24

  Peterborough

  20

  20

  20

  20

  18

  West Suffolk

  12

  12

  12

  12

  12

  East Suffolk

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Norwich

  22

  22

  22

  22

  22

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  18

  16

  16

  16

  16

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  20

  12

  12

  12

  12

  Huntingdon

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  North West Thames RHA

  293

  297

  280

  269

  249

  Intensive Care Cots
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will specify the number of intensive care cots(a) in each region and (b) in each district of the last five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: The tables showing the daily average numbers of neonatal cots which are not in a maternity unit for the period from 1985 to 1989–90 are as follows, although it should be noted that some health authorities also provide intensive care facilities within maternity units.
  665

  Health Authority

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–902

  North Bedfordshire

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  South Bedfordshire

  26

  26

  26

  26

  26

  North Hertfordshire

  20

  20

  20

  20

  13

  East Hertfordshire

  16

  16

  15

  14

  14

  North West Hertfordshire

  24

  24

  17

  18

  12

  South West Hertfordshire

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Barnet

  34

  38

  36

  26

  26

  Harrow

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Hillingdon

  22

  22

  22

  22

  22

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  27

  27

  27

  26

  23

  Ealing

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Riverside

  21

  21

  21

  18

  15

  Parkside

  34

  35

  28

  30

  30

  North East Thames RHA

  318

  300

  295

  291

  291

  Basildon and Thurrock

  21

  21

  17

  21

  21

  Mid Essex

  21

  21

  21

  21

  21

  North East Essex

  20

  18

  18

  18

  18

  West Essex

  16

  16

  16

  16

  16

  Southend

  16

  16

  16

  16

  16

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  31

  27

  27

  27

  27

  Hampstead

  18

  16

  19

  18

  18

  Bloomsbury

  30

  31

  22

  22

  23

  Islington

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  City and Hackney

  23

  14

  21

  21

  21

  Newham

  21

  20

  20

  20

  18

  Tower Hamlets

  12

  13

  12

  12

  12

  Enfield

  20

  20

  15

  10

  10

  Haringey

  17

  16

  18

  18

  18

  Redbridge

  18

  18

  18

  18

  18

  Waltham Forest

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  South East Thames RHA

  281

  277

  279

  282

  278

  Brighton

  22

  21

  24

  24

  24

  Eastbourne

  12

  12

  12

  12

  12

  Hastings

  12

  12

  12

  12

  12

  South East Kent

  19

  18

  19

  19

  19

  Canterbury and Thanet

  22

  22

  22

  22

  22

  Dartford and Gravesham

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  Maidstone

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Medway

  19

  19

  20

  20

  20

  Tunbridge Wells

  17

  17

  17

  17

  17

  Bexley

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  Greenwich

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Bromley

  19

  16

  15

  15

  15

  West Lambeth

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Camberwell

  21

  21

  20

  20

  21

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  40

  40

  40

  42

  38

  South West Thames RHA

  187

  188

  185

  188

  189

  North West Surrey

  15

  15

  16

  15

  15

  West Surrey and North East Hants

  20

  20

  20

  12

  12

  South West Surrey

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  Mid Surrey

  14

  14

  14

  13

  14

  East Surrey

  12

  12

  12

  12

  11

  Chichester

  10

  10

  10

  9

  10

  Mid Downs

  18

  18

  18

  20

  19

  Worthing

  11

  10

  10

  10

  9

  Croydon

  19

  20

  19

  20

  20

  Kingston and Esher

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  Wandsworth

  18

  19

  16

  17

  19

  Merton and Sutton

  15

  15

  16

  25

  25

  Wessex RHA

  193

  180

  179

  182

  183

  East Dorset

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  West Dorset

  13

  13

  14

  15

  15

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  22

  22

  22

  22

  22

  Winchester

  16

  16

  16

  16

  16

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  Salisbury

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  Swindon

  31

  18

  18

  18

  19

  Bath

  21

  21

  19

  21

  21

  Isle of Wight

  9

  9

  9

  9

  9

  Oxford RHA

  194

  192

  193

  193

  183

  666 667

  Health Authority

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–902

  East Berkshire

  33

  35

  35

  35

  27

  West Berkshire

  30

  30

  30

  30

  28

  Aylesbury Vale

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  Wycombe

  18

  16

  16

  16

  16

  Milton Keynes

  17

  20

  21

  21

  21

  Kettering

  16

  16

  16

  16

  16

  Northampton

  32

  27

  27

  27

  27

  Oxfordshire

  35

  35

  35

  35

  35

  South Western RHA

  208

  200

  198

  166

  168

  Bristol and Weston

  32

  32

  32

  32

  32

  Southmead

  32

  30

  30

  30

  30

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Exeter

  31

  31

  31

  28

  27

  North Devon

  6

  6

  7

  0

  2

  Plymouth

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Torbay

  5

  5

  2

  0

  1

  Cheltenham

  12

  12

  12

  12

  12

  Gloucester

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Somerset

  26

  20

  20

  0

  0

  West Midlands RHA

  434

  428

  400

  402

  387

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  12

  10

  12

  12

  12

  Herefordshire

  12

  12

  12

  14

  12

  Worcester and District

  20

  20

  12

  12

  12

  Shropshire

  22

  22

  24

  22

  22

  Mid Staffordshire

  12

  12

  12

  12

  12

  North Staffordshire

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  South East Staffordshire

  14

  14

  14

  14

  15

  Rugby

  8

  8

  6

  8

  8

  North Warwickshire

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  South Warwickshire

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  Central Birmingham

  45

  45

  36

  36

  30

  North Birmingham

  22

  22

  22

  22

  22

  South Birmingham

  30

  26

  14

  14

  14

  West Birmingham

  25

  25

  25

  24

  23

  Coventry

  29

  29

  29

  29

  29

  Dudley

  20

  20

  20

  18

  18

  Sandwell

  14

  14

  13

  14

  14

  Solihull

  39

  39

  39

  39

  38

  Walsall

  20

  20

  20

  21

  21

  Wolverhampton

  26

  26

  26

  26

  20

  Mersey RHA

  188

  188

  178

  175

  172

  Chester

  29

  29

  23

  20

  20

  Crewe

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  Macclesfield

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Warrington

  18

  18

  18

  18

  15

  Liverpool

  37

  37

  37

  37

  37

  St Helens and Knowsley

  24

  24

  20

  20

  20

  Southport and Formby

  11

  11

  11

  11

  11

  South Sefton

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Wirral

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  North Western RHA

  341

  328

  333

  332

  334

  Lancaster

  16

  16

  15

  16

  16

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  24

  24

  18

  18

  18

  Preston

  29

  21

  21

  20

  20

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  17

  17

  17

  17

  17

  West Lancashire

  9

  9

  9

  9

  9

  Bolton

  21

  21

  21

  21

  21

  Bury

  17

  17

  17

  17

  16

  North Manchester

  18

  18

  18

  18

  18

  Central Manchester

  30

  30

  43

  41

  41

  South Manchester

  29

  28

  27

  28

  28

  Oldham

  16

  16

  16

  16

  16

  Rochdale

  15

  13

  15

  15

  15

  Salford

  16

  16

  15

  15

  18

  Stockport

  22

  22

  20

  20

  20

  Tameside and Glossop

  20

  19

  19

  19

  19

  Trafford

  9

  8

  8

  8

  8

  Wigan

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  Special Health Authorities

  40

  40

  47

  46

  41

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's

  40

  40

  47

  46

  41

  England

  3,754

  3,651

  3,567

  3,513

  3,451

  668 669
  1 Figures for 1987–88 to 1989–90 are not strictly comparable with earlier figures.

  2 Provisional.

  Source:

  SH3 return (special care baby unit cots) 1985 and 1986.

  KHO3 return (neonate cots not on maternity units) 1977–88 onwards.

ENERGY

  Uranium consumption
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish in the Official Report details of the United Kingdom uranium consumption for each year since 1960; and if he will set alongside this the level of world uranium consumption indicating the percentage annual growth in each case, and the predicted levels to be reached by the year 2000.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 25 January 1990 col.817.

  The OECD/IAEA publication referred to in that answer has been updated this year. Forecast requirements now relate to Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear.

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish details of the expenditure on reprocessing and decommissioning undertaken by BNFL plc in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a commercial matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Nuclear Incidents
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish in the Official Report information supplied to his Department through the incident reporting system of the International Atomic energy Agency about nuclear incidents reported to that agency by states participating in the incident reporting system.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. The International Atomic Energy Agency gives its incident reporting system reports restricted circulation because they may not be publicly available in their country of origin.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) pursuant to his statement of 23 July,Official Report, column 39, if he will make it his policy to negotiate with Hanson Trust plc maximum values for capital and tax allowances available to the parent company, in connection with the sale of PowerGen;

  (2) what methods of advertisement to possible trade purchasers of PowerGen, other than Hanson Trust, he proposes, pursuant to his statement to the house of 23 July, Official Report, column 39.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the announcement that I made on 23 August 1990, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the European Commission regarding the implications for European Community competition policy of the possible trade sale of PowerGen, pursuant to his statement to the House of 23 July,Official Report, column 39.
  670
  Mr. Baldry
  The European Commission was kept fully informed about the Government's proposals.

  Plutonium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will publish details of the current location of separated plutonium arising out of reprocessing, but originating from Magnox reactors at Bradwell and Berkeley.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Magnox reactors at Bradwell and Berkeley have contributed, along with other civil nuclear installations, to the stocks of plutonium held by British Nuclear Fuels plc at Sellafield for Nuclear Electric plc and by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. All this material is subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the UK/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement. Details of the plutonium held at 31 March 1989 were given in the press release issued by my Department on 5 December 1989, copies of which were placed in the Library of the House. In addition, some separated plutonium from Bradwell and Berkeley was consigned to the United States before 1971 under the United States/United Kingdom mutual defence agreement. The United States authorities have confirmed subsequently that this material has been used for civil purposes.

  Radioactive Material
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of radioactive material produced at nuclear installations in the United Kingdom is not subject to the 1977 tripartite safeguards agreement between the United Kingdom, Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency in each year since 1983; and if he will publish in the Official Report details of the international export of plutonium from civil nuclear reactors in the United Kingdom to (a) European Community Countries and (b) third countries.

  Mr. Baldry
  All uranium and plutonium produced in civil nuclear installations is subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the UK/Euratom/IAEA tripartite Agreement of 6 September 1976 (IAEA INFCIRC 263) at all times.

  For information on exports of civil plutonium, including the recipient countries, I refer the hon. Member to the answer in Official Report, 17 January 1989, at column 157, and to the Department's annual press releases on plutonium production, (produced since the year 1986–87), which are available in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Power
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what funding the United Kingdom makes available to the International Atomic Energy Agency in respect of its safeguarding activities and if he will give a breakdown of that funding in each year since the United Kingdom first contributed.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom contributes approximately five per cent. of the International Atomic
  671
  Energy Agency's general funding through an annual membership subscription. It is a matter for the IAEA to decide, subject to the approval of the board of governors, as to how much of these funds are allocated to the activities of its safeguards department. In addition to this funding, the United Kingdom provides a sum annually to send IAEA inspectors on training courses arranged in the United Kingdom.

  Gas Fields
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for energy whether any of the additional costs of taking the proposed central area transmission system pipeline to Teesside, rather than the shorter route to a landfall at St. Fergus, will be met from public funds by offsets against petroleum revenue tax, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The petroleum revenue tax liabilities and reliefs of companies participating in the proposed central area transmission system would fall to be assessed in due time by the oil taxation office in the light of the actual costs of the project and the revenues it earned. If the cost of the proposed pipeline is admissible for petroleum revenue tax relief, this would apply to a landfall at either Teesside or St. Fergus.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if there are any plans to develop the Drake, Maggie or Hawkins fields; and if he will give details;

  (2) if he has had any discussions about, or received any applications under annex B, for the development of the Maggie, Drake or Hawkins fields.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No such plans or applications have yet been received by my Department; neither has the Department had recent discussions with any of the operators concerned about possible development of the fields.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will give details of any requirement upon companies developing gas fields to recover gas condensate and of any regulations relating to this; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will give details of any guidance issued to companies developing gas fields about or relating to the recovery of gas condensate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In considering plans for the development of gas fields on the UKCS my Department seeks to ensure that, where it is economic to do so, all hydrocarbons, including condensate liquids, will be recovered to the maximum extent that is technically achievable. Since the optimum recovery procedure differs from field to field, the Department bases its discussions with operators on specific technical studies of the individual field concerned. In addition my officials have regularly participated in conferences and specialist seminars at which general guidance has been provided to the industry on the Department's criteria for the development of reservoirs containing condensate liquids.

  Power Station, Teesside
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what involvement he has had with Northern Electric and the Neptune Group and their plans to locate a gas-fired power station in Teesside; and if he will make a statement.
  672
  Mr. Baldry
  My Department is aware of the Neptune Group's interest in constructing a 1,050 MW combined cycle gas turbine power station on Teesside. However my right hon. Friend has not yet received either an application under section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 for his agreement to use gas as the fuel in such a station or an application under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for his consent to construct the station.

  Foreign Magnox Fuel (Reprocessing)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what are the volumes of intermediate-level waste, low-level waste and high-level waste produced in the United Kingdom by the reprocessing of foreign magnox fuel that has been returned to the original owners of the fuel for each of the years from 1965 to 1990 inclusive; and what are the projected volumes to 1999;

  (2) what are the volumes of intermediate-level waste, low-level waste, and high-level waste produced in the United Kingdom by the reprocessing of foreign magnox fuel that has not been returned to the original owners of the fuel, for each of the years 1965 to 1990, inclusive; and what are the projected volumes to 1989.

  Mr. Baldry
  Since 1976 all overseas reprocessing contracts have contained options for the return of wastes arising. For the Government's policy with regard to the return of such wastes, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 2 May 1986 at columns 500–01. No waste from the reprocessing of overseas magnox fuel has yet been returned. The total projected volumes of waste from reprocessing magnox fuel irradiated at overseas power stations are:

  cubic metres

  Pre-76 contracts

  Post-76 contracts

  High-level waste

  20

  20

  Intermediate-level waste

  1,600

  1,700

  Low-level waste

  44,000

  110,000

  1Compacted.

  From 1993 all low-level waste will be compacted, thus reducing its volume.

  Neptune Project
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give details of the type and level of grant assistance or tax relief available for the Neptune project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  No formal proposals for the project have been submitted to my right hon. Friend, whose approval would be required before it could proceed. Teesside, the Neptune location, has development area status, and is thus an area where regional selective assistance applies. No application for assistance has been received by the Department of Trade and Industry. It would be for that Department to determine the eligibility of the project for such assistance. The implications of any capital expenditure on the project for the tax positions of the companies concerned are a matter for the company and the Inland Revenue in each case.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department will take positive steps to discuss with the Data Protection Registrar all his Department's legislation that impacts on the use, collection, processing or holding of personal data; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have reminded my officials of the need to consult the registrar about proposed legislation which might affect or be affected by the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received concerning the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department received a large number of responses to the consultation paper published earlier this year from both voluntary and commercial organisations. It also received a number of letters from interested individuals, including Members of Parliament, and my right hon. Friend the former Minister of State for Energy met the director of Neighbourhood Energy Action and representatives of relevant trade associations before details of the scheme were finalised.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps his Department will take to publicise the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Baldry
  The administering agency for the home energy efficiency scheme will agree arrangements for publicity on the scheme with my department. It is in that agency's own financial interests to ensure that take-up of the scheme fully utilises the resources available for grants.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, when he expects to be in a position to publish details of the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Baldry
  Regulations governing the operation of the home energy efficiency scheme were laid on 3 September 1990, and the award of the contract for the administration of the scheme to Neighbourhood Energy Action was announced on 1 October.

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year since 1978 in terms of pence per gallon the fob export and cif import price of (a) crude oil and (b) petrol together with the United Kingdom ex-refinery price of petrol, excluding tax.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The figures requested are given in the following table:
  674

  Pence per gallon

  Crude oil

  Petrol1

  Export price (fob)

  Import price (cif)

  Export price (fob)

  Import price (cif)

  United Kingdom refinery petrol price2 (premium leaded)

  1978

  20·5

  20·9

  28·2

  28·5

  32·5

  1979

  26·7

  24·8

  42·5

  45·7

  46·7

  1980

  41·9

  37·4

  55·3

  52·4

  60·8

  1981

  51·5

  48·7

  62·9

  62·1

  67·9

  1982

  54·0

  54·6

  64·0

  65·7

  67·5

  1983

  56·4

  56·9

  64·6

  68·4

  73·0

  1984

  61·2

  62·4

  66·5

  70·2

  73·7

  1985

  62·4

  63·1

  70·3

  72·5

  79·8

  1986

  29·3

  29·6

  39·8

  39·6

  49·2

  1987

  32·0

  31·9

  37·3

  41·1

  51·3

  1988

  24·5

  24·0

  32·8

  33·6

  45·5

  1989

  31·3

  30·7

  40·3

  46·5

  55·0

  1 Includes aviation spirit.

  2 Net sales proceeds to refiner, before taking account of marketing and distribution costs.

  Sources: Export and import prices from Overseas Trade Statistics, refinery price from Department of Energy statistics.

  The same information at 1989 prices is shown in the following table:

  Pence per gallon1

  Crude oil

  Petrol2

  Export price (fob)

  Import price (fob)

  Export price (fob)

  Import price (cif)

  UK refinery petrol price3 (premium leaded)

  1978

  48·5

  49·4

  66·7

  67·4

  76·8

  1979

  55·1

  51·2

  87·8

  94·4

  96·4

  1980

  72·4

  64·6

  95·6

  90·5

  105·1

  1981

  80·0

  75·6

  97·7

  96·4

  105·4

  1982

  77·9

  78·8

  92·3

  92·3

  97·4

  1983

  77·3

  78·0

  88·5

  93·7

  100·1

  1984

  80·2

  81·7

  87·1

  91·9

  96·5

  1985

  77·3

  78·2

  87·1

  89·8

  98·9

  1986

  35·1

  35·4

  47·6

  47·4

  58·9

  1987

  36·5

  36·4

  42·5

  46·8

  58·5

  1988

  26·2

  25·6

  35·0

  35·9

  48·6

  1989

  31·3

  30·7

  40·3

  46·5

  55·0

  (1) Revalued to 1989 prices using the implied deflator for gross domestic product (at market prices).

  (2) Includes aviation spirit.

  (3) Net sales proceeds to refiner, before taking account of marketing and distribution costs.

  Sources: Export and import prices from Overseas Trade Statistics, refinery price from Department of Energy statistics.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the average cif import price of a gallon of crude oil and the average fob export price of petrol for each month of 1990 to date, the corresponding United Kingdom ex-refinery price of petrol, excluding tax, and the current crude price at $25 and $30 a barrel, respectively, together with the current ex-refinery price of petrol.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The figures available, which are still provisional, are given in the table.
  675

  Pence per gallon

  1990

  Export price (fob)

  Import price (cif)

  Export price (fob)

  Import price (cif)

  United Kingdom refinery petrol price2 (premium leaded)

  January

  35·9

  34·8

  41·9

  46·7

  56·1

  February

  34·0

  35·0

  42·7

  45·6

  March

  32·4

  31·7

  42·8

  45·0

  April

  30·3

  28·8

  44·8

  48·5

  59·1

  May

  30·4

  27·6

  44·1

  46·9

  June

  27·3

  26·4

  43·8

  49·3

  July

  28·1

  26·9

  43·6

  47·2

  Sources: Export and import prices from Overseas Trade Statistics, refinery price from Department of Energy statistics.

  1 Includes aviation spirit.

  2 Net sales proceeds to refiner, before taking account of marketing and distribution costs. Data are available only quarterly.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, what information he has on petrol prices per litre in Germany, France, Holland, Italy, Spain and the United States of America(a) in December 1989, (b) at the latest available date and (c) the percentage increase since 2 August.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The petrol prices are given in the table for the countries requested(a) in December 1989, (b) at 17 September, which is the latest available date. At (c) the percentage increase since 30 July is given, as this is the nearest date prior to 2 August for which the Department of Energy has prices. Prices are in pence per litre (including tax and duty) for premium petrol, except those for the USA which are for regular unleaded.

  (a) December 1989

  (b) 17 September

  (c) Percentage increase since 30 July

  Germany

  44·1

  48·7

  15·7

  France

  53·1

  59·7

  14·3

  Holland

  51·9

  58·1

  11·8

  Italy

  68·5

  73·7

  11·1

  Spain

  43·9

  47·7

  10·1

  USA

  16·2

  17·6

  15·6

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will seek powers to issue an order freezing petrol prices at the level which appertained prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and direct that oil companies must justify any application for a price rise with his Department.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No. Price controls below market levels stop the market working and affect availabilities. France has now abandoned the price controls it applied in August and September which restrained prices less well than the approach the United Kingdom and other countries have followed. The hon. Member may also be aware of the Director General of Fair Trading's conclusions about price control in his report published on 28 September.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) how many meetings he has had with oil companies to discuss heating oil prices since 2 August;

  (2) how many meetings he has had with oil companies to discuss petrol prices since 2 August.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet representatives of the oil companies and discuss a range of issues including oil product prices.
  676
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what value and quantity of oil was bought and sold by British companies on(a) the Rotterdam market and (b) long-term contracts in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Data are not available to the Department in the precise form requested. Figures are available from the major importers of crude oil into the United Kingdom showing their purchases under continuing supply agreements (i.e., long-term agreements) and other purchases. The figures, which cover a majority of crude oil imports, are shown in the table below, but are available only from 1983 onwards:

  Continuing supply agreements

  Non-continuing supply agreements

  Value US$ million

  Quantity million barrels

  Value US$ million

  Quantity million barrels

  1983

  3,268

  109

  1,171

  39

  1984

  2,251

  79

  1,350

  47

  1985

  2,122

  77

  1,812

  65

  1986

  1,740

  123

  892

  64

  1987

  2,393

  132

  1,251

  70

  1988

  2,259

  150

  720

  50

  1989

  3,333

  188

  999

  57

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the refinery input cost in terms of a gallon of crude oil at $20 and $30 a barrel.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The input costs to a refinery are the cost of the crude oil plus any delivery costs to the refinery not included in that price. Delivery costs vary greatly, depending on the distance and the method of transport (ie pipeline, barges, tanker) and the going rate for transport at that time, and are not directly related to the price of the crude oil itself.

  The Department does not collect information on delivery costs or delivered prices of crude oil.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for energy whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year since 1978 and for the first six months of 1990 the average ex-refinery price of petrol less tax in the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy as well as the current price.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department has limited information on ex-refinery prices. The figures presented in the following table are for pump prices excluding tax for the countries and periods requested.
  677

  Petrol price less tax (pence/litre)

  West Germany

  Italy

  United Kingdom

  1978

  10·09

  8·82

  8·20

  1979

  11·51

  9·39

  11·90

  1980

  14·13

  13·56

  15·20

  1981

  16·88

  15·61

  16·50

  1982

  16·94

  17·57

  16·70

  1983

  17·76

  18·77

  18·00

  1984

  18·92

  18·96

  18·30

  1985

  19·61

  19·20

  19·70

  1986

  13·00

  12·72

  13·59

  1987

  13·18

  13·36

  13·60

  1988

  11·61

  12·48

  12·30

  1989

  13·98

  14·76

  14·70

  1990

  January

  15·46

  15·53

  15·14

  February

  14·59

  15·90

  15·08

  March

  15·04

  16·11

  15·12

  April

  14·73

  16·27

  16·02

  May

  15·38

  16·10

  15·64

  June

  14·17

  15·44

  15·54

  17 September

  20·73

  21·09

  21·69

  Oil Companies (Gifts)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what entertainment or gifts have been offered by the oil companies and accepted by civil servants in his Department in their official capacity in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  All gifts received by civil servants in their official capacity have to be reported and recorded. Excluding minor items of a seasonal or promotional nature, such as calendars or diaries, officials accepted, and were authorised to accept, from oil companies, one gift in 1987, two in 1988 and two in 1989. All were valued at less than £20.

  It is frequently essential to the work of the Department for officials to attend working lunches and working dinners and to attend other functions which further the work of the Department. Some of these functions can be classified as entertainment because they are cultural or sporting events. Acceptance of invitations to these must be reported to senior officers, who will consider whether the work of the Department will be forwarded and whether the invitation is appropriate. The only full year for which my Department has records of such social invitations is 1989. In that year 239 of them were received from oil companies and 114 of them accepted.

  Orimulsion Fuel
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimate he has made of the impact upon Snowdonia of the burning of orimulsion fuel at power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand that PowerGen is conducting orimulsion combustion trials which aim to assess the potential of orimulsion as a fuel, including environmental effects. The trials are being conducted in consultation with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will meet Friends of the Earth Cymru to discuss the environment in Snowdonia consequent upon the burning of orimulsion fuel at Ince power station.
  678
  Mr. Baldry
  I have had no request for a meeting from Friends of the Earth Cymru.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy concerning the burning of orimulsion fuel at Ince power station.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is an operational matter for the generating companies to decide which fuels to burn in their power stations.

  Oil Supply
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, how many days' oil supply companies are required to maintain for emergency purposes.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Orders made under the Energy Act 1976 require contingency oil stocks to be held by all companies supplying petroleum products to the United Kingdom market if their total deliveries exceed 50,000 tonnes per annum. Refiners must hold stocks equivalent to 76·5 days of their previous calendar year deliveries; non-refiners must hold 66 days.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the increase between 1985 and May 1990 in United Kingdom production of intermediate goods for use in the United Kingdom; what was the corresponding increase in the volume of imports; and what is the implied increase in the import content of goods manufactured in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Information on the volume of imports of intermediate goods is published in the "Monthly Review of Overseas Trade Statistics" tables C9 and C14. Other information requested is not readily available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish in the Official Report a list of finished capital goods whose exports have more than doubled since 1985, together with the percentage increase in imports and in United Kingdom output.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  On the basis of trade analysed in terms of the industries of which they are the principal product there are no capital goods industries whose exports have more than doubled in value since 1985.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the reasons why exports of intermediate goods have increased by less than 30 per cent. in volume since 1985; and if he will publish a list of the products for which there was no increase.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not the policy of this Government to set targets for exports, which result from action by individual companies. In August the seasonally adjusted volume of exports of intermediate goods was 37 per cent. above the monthly average in 1985.

  Estimates are not available of the volume of trade in individual products classified as intermediate goods. Trade

  679
  in goods analysed in terms of the industries of which they are the principal products gives a rough indication of intermediate products where the volume of exports has not increased since 1985. The industries are:

  AH 3410 Insulated wires and cables

  AH 3434 Electrical equipment for motor vehicles

  AH 3470 Electric lamps and lighting equipment

  AH 3740 Watches, clocks and other timing devices

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many officials in his Department are employed in collecting and collating information and statistics concerning trade between the United Kingdom, other members of the European Economic Community and third countries, respectively; and if he envisages any change in their duties and the nature of published information from 1991 until the end of the decade.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are some 950 officials directly engaged on overseas trade matters, and the provision of advice and information about export opportunities, in the Department's overseas trade divisions and regional offices. Approximately 17 officials in the economics, market intelligence and statistics division work with published trade statistics. At present no significant changes in their duties are envisaged.

  The collecting and collation of trade statistics is the responsibility of the Central Statistical Office and HM Customs and Excise.

  Computers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether United Kingdom exports of computers imported from non-European Economic Community countries have to be identified as such on export to other European Economic Community countries.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No, unless individual contracts require it.

  Company Directors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce legislation to enable him to disqualify, as a director or a shareholder, any director or owner of a private company found guilty of criminal malpractice.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 already provides wide powers allowing the courts to disqualify, where appropriate, a person as director of a company and from being concerned, whether directly or indirectly, in management of a company, whether private of public.

  Meat Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will extend export sales guarantees to the British meat export trade with France.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  ECGD facilities for the export of British meat to France are already available, subject to ECGD's normal terms and conditions.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the rate of progress in using recycled paper by the paper and board industry;680
  what percentage of United Kingdom production is now manufactured from recycled materials; and what is the value of this in terms of import saving.

  Mr. Redwood
  Use of recycled fibre by United Kingdom mills has set new records in each of the past three years. It is estimated that waste paper accounted for 53 per cent. of the total fibre used in making British paper and board in 1989. The cost of importing an equivalent quantity of new pulp is estimated at around £600 million.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department will take positive steps to discuss with the Data Protection Registrar all his Department's legislation that impacts on the use, collection, processing or holding of personal data; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am reminding my officials of the need to consult the registrar about proposed legislation which might affect or be affected by the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Beer
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's monitoring of the developing structure of the beer industry consequent upon the implementation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission proposals.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Director General of Fair Trading is monitoring compliance with the measures we have adopted following the MMC report on beer, and will be carrying out a review of their overall effectiveness after they have come fully into effect in November 1992. The director general will advise the Secretary of State if he thinks action is necessary to modify the orders before the review. In the meantime the Department maintains close contact with the Office of Fair Trading on issues that arise. The director general also has the responsibility of keeping himself informed about developments in this or any other sector which may give rise to merger situations qualifying for investigation by the MMC, and of making recommendations to the Secretary of State concerning any action that may be appropriate.

  Iraq
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many trade missions to Iraq have been sponsored by his Department for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The number of trade missions that have visited Iraq for each year since 1979 which have been sponsored by the Department of Trade and Industry is as follows:

  Number

  1979–80

  1

  1980–81

  4

  1981–82

  9

  1982–83

  4

  1983–84

  5

  1984–85

  2

  1985–86

  2

  1986–87

  2

  681

  Number

  1987–88

  2

  1988–89

  2

  1989–90

  4

  1990–91

  1

  Defence Equipment
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what actions have been taken by his Department concerning the sale of defence and defence-related equipment to Chile and the enforcement of the end user certificates system; and what evidence he has of the sale to Chile of such equipment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Defence and defence-related equipment for sale to Chile or elsewhere which is subject to export control under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989 requires an export licence, for which my Department is the issuing authority.

  Each application for a licence is considered on its merits in consultation with other Departments taking into account the type of equipment, its end use and end user. It would not be appropriate to disclose the nature of the end use checks made.

  Under the EG(C)O there are penalties, enforceable through the courts, for any person who makes a false statement or provides information known to be false to obtain an export licence.

  Over the past 12 months, 96 licences have been issued for defence and defence-related equipment exports to Chile, though not all cases in which a licence was issued would have resulted in a sale.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the number of export licences that have been(a) granted and (b) refused for the sale of defence equipment and defence-related equipment for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Figures for the number of export licences(a) granted and (b) refused for the sale of defence equipment and defence-related equipment cannot be provided for the years 1979 to 1986. The figures for the years 1987 to the end of September 1990 are as follows:

  Year

  Number of export licences issued

  Refused

  1987

  16,745

  113

  1988

  16,005

  97

  1989

  13,584

  167

  11990

  10,269

  117

  1January to September

  Approximately one third of the licences issued are for small arms including personal firearms and shotguns.

  Timeshare Industry
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to regulate the timeshare industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  We are currently considering recommendations for new legislation made by the Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Gordon Borrie, in his recent report on timeshare.

  House of Fraser
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make it his policy to ask the House of Fraser to pay for the report by his Department's inspectors into that company.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. Provision for the recovery of the expenses of and incidental to Companies Act inspections is contained in section 439 of the Companies Act 1985, as amended by section 59 of the Companies Act 1989. These provisions are not applicable in the case of House of Fraser Holdings plc.

  Reverse Charge Calls
  Sir Alan Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will discuss with the chairman of British Telecom methods of blocking reverse charge calls from overseas so that they are not debited to the renter of private call boxes.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This is a matter for the Director General of Telecommunications to consider. My hon. Friend may wish to write to the director general with details of any problems of which he is aware that have arisen in this area.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the annual exports from the United Kingdom of chlorofluorocarbons for each year from 1979 to 1989; what is the figure for 1990 to the most recent practicable date; and what estimate he has made of the quantities which will be exported in 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Redwood
  [pursuant to the reply by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr Forth), 20 July 1990, c. 753–54]: Information is available only in respect of exports since 1 January 1989. Exports were 37,044 tonnes in 1989, valued at £32·278 million. Exports for the first five months of 1990 were 17,811 tonnes valued at £18·309 million. Further small quantities may have been exported in mixtures with other chemicals but these cannot be identified. My right hon. Friend has made no estimate of exports in 1991 or 1992.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Agencies
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what changes in accountability have taken place in the relationship between agencies and non-departmental public bodies in those instances where an agency has replaced the Department as the sponsoring body.

  Mr. Mellor
  The position on ministerial accountability to Parliament remains unchanged: Ministers remain accountable to Parliament for non-departmental public bodies which are sponsored by an agency.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the criteria used to decide whether a unit of central Government is suitable for agency status under the "next steps" programme.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime
  683
  Minister on 18 February 1988 at col. 1149. There are currently 34 Next Steps agencies, and the identification of further candidates among the executive functions of Government will continue.

  Recruitment (Salaries)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list(a) those Departments offering above the adult minimum starting salaries to executive officer recruits, (b) the numbers involved in each Department, (c) the spine point that is offered in each case and (d) whether in (i) London and the south-east or (ii) elsewhere.

  Mr. Mellor
  The required information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

DEFENCE

  Mid-air Collision, Northumberland
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the report to be published on the inquiry into the mid-air collision between two Royal Air Force jets near Riding hill in Northumberland on 9 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The military aircraft accident summary was published on 9 October.

  Military Lands Acts (Byelaws)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of any new byelaws that he makes under the Military Lands Acts 1892.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department will take positive steps to discuss with the Data Protection Registrar all his Department's legislation that impacts on the use, collection, processing or holding of personal data; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My officials are aware of the need to consult the registrar about proposed legislation which might affect or be affected by the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Greenham and Crookham Commons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current situation regarding rights of common at Greenham and Crookham commons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  An application has recently been made for a judicial review of the decision to extinguish the rights of common over our land at Greenham and Crookham commons. In the circumstances, we do not intend to proceed with the extinguishment process until the outcome of this application, and any subsequent judicial review, is known.

  Middle East
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the projected costs of the deployment of troops in the middle east, arising out of Iraq's invasion of 684
  Kuwait and associated costs (a) to the present time and (b) to the end of the financial year, assuming that full-scale war has not taken place or an early resolution of the dispute has been reached; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The full costs to date of the operation in the middle east, arising out of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, including commitments for equipment purchases, is estimated to be £300 million. On the assumption that the operation continues at the present level, without hostilities, the full cost to the end of the financial year is expected to exceed £600 million.

  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he has made to inform British service men serving in the current operations in the Gulf of the circumstances in which they will be exempt from paying poll tax.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information about the community charge has already been made known to all members of the armed forces and covers the circumstances under which they may apply for deregistration. Individuals should therefore, have sufficient information to enable them to make appropriate arrangements, although they can seek advice on specific points from administration officers at the main locations and on board ships. The guidance will, however, be repeated in financial instructions being produced for Army units and personnel who may deploy in future.

  Morocco
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military information was made available to Prince Mohammed when he visited Britain as a guest of the Government in June.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A range of matters of mutual defence interest were discussed during the visit by Crown Prince Mohammed of Morocco to the United Kingdom in June this year.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give any details of British Government military trade with Morocco including present uncompleted contracts.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the policy of this and previous Administrations not to comment on matters of this kind.

  North Sea (Submarines)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what statements have been made by officers of his Department about submarine activity in the North sea on 4 October at the time of an incident involving the fishing vessel Moray Adventurer.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Statements were made both to Her Majesty's Coastguard and to the media that no Royal Navy or NATO submarine was operating in the vicinity of the Moray Adventurer at the time of the incident.

  South-east Asia
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which Governments and forces in south-east Asia military training assistance has been supplied by Her Majesty's Government over the past 12 months.
  685
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the 12 months to 1 October 1990, the following countries in south-east Asia have received assistance in the form of military training courses in the United Kingdom or training from British service personnel overseas:

  Brunei

  Indonesia

  Malaysia

  Philippines

  Singapore

  Thailand

  Details about training provided are generally confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the Government concerned.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Schools
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the estimated cost per pupil for each of the grammar schools in each education and library board's area for the last five years;

  (2) what is the average cost per pupil in each of the maintained schools in each of the education and library board areas in Northern Ireland over the last five years;

  (3) what is the annual cost per pupil in each of the secondary schools in each education and library board's area over the last five years in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  School year

  Education and Library Board Area

  1985–86 £

  1986–87 £

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  Belfast

  Ashleigh House

  1,170

  1,374

  —

  —

  —

  Belfast Royal Academy

  1,269

  1,363

  1,534

  1,593

  1,767

  Bloomfield Collegiate

  1,200

  1,314

  1,392

  1,398

  1,541

  Campbell College

  1,897

  1,958

  2,102

  2,077

  1,962

  Dominican College

  1,175

  1,294

  1,473

  1,509

  1,594

  Hunterhouse College

  —

  —

  1,492

  1,585

  1,894

  Methodist College

  1,268

  1,374

  1,481

  1,659

  1,718

  Princess Gardens

  1,187

  1,278

  —

  —

  —

  Rathmore Grammar

  1,120

  1,279

  1,354

  1,398

  1,529

  Royal Belfast Academical Institution

  1,336

  1,467

  1,568

  1,674

  1,858

  Richmond Lodge

  1,173

  1,431

  —

  —

  —

  St. Dominic's High

  1,170

  1,361

  1,526

  1,628

  1,794

  St. Malachy's College

  1,139

  1,323

  1,510

  1,626

  1,803

  St. Mary's Christian Brothers

  1,177

  1,305

  1,416

  1,527

  1,696

  Strathearn

  1,296

  1,300

  1,359

  1,445

  1,546

  Victoria College

  1,300

  1,481

  1,706

  1,736

  1,968

  North-Eastern

  Ballymena Academy

  1,098

  1,204

  1,359

  1,450

  1,624

  Ballymena, St. Louis

  1,020

  1,148

  1,333

  1,388

  1,448

  Ballymoney, Dalriada

  1,155

  1,301

  1,415

  1,528

  1,692

  Belfast High School

  1,157

  1,285

  1,453

  1,586

  1,822

  Coleraine Academical Institution

  1,154

  1,336

  1,501

  1,606

  1,885

  Coleraine Loreto Convent

  1,072

  1,257

  1,406

  1,533

  1,632

  Garron Tower, St. Macnissi's

  1,148

  1,241

  1,325

  1,456

  1,640

  Larne Grammar School

  1,117

  1,330

  1,503

  1,628

  1,835

  Magherafelt, Rainey Endowed

  1,189

  1,371

  1,587

  1,653

  1,744

  Magherafelt, St. Mary's

  1,016

  1,185

  1,266

  1,449

  1,513

  Portstewart, Dominican

  1,258

  1,386

  1,639

  1,791

  1,805

  Whitehead High

  1,111

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South-Eastern

  Ballynahinch, Assumption

  1,060

  1,243

  1,397

  1,486

  1,583

  686
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many grade 2 pupils were denied grammar schools places in each of the education and library board areas in Northern Ireland in 1990.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information in the form requested is not readily available. In this year's transfer procedure tests 2,789 pupils were awarded grade 2 of whom 2,008 have been admitted to grammar schools. This includes pupils awarded places as a result of directions given by appeal tribunals. Not all pupils with a grade 2 applied for admission to grammar schools.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many grade 3 and 4 pupils, including preparatory department pupils, were accepted into grammar schools in each of the education and library board areas in 1990.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Grade 3

  Grade 4

  Belfast

  109

  34

  Western

  17

  1

  North-Eastern

  152

  4

  South-Eastern

  28

  3

  Southern

  105

  43

  These figures include pupils who were awarded places as a result of directions given by appeal tribunals.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average cost per pupil in each of the voluntary grammar schools in each education and library board's area in Northern Ireland for each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:
  687

  School year

  Education and Library Board Area

  1985–86 £

  1986–87 £

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  Bangor Grammar

  1,122

  1,236

  1,344

  1,418

  1,620

  Belfast, Our Lady and St. Patrick's

  1·123

  1,317

  1,417

  1,553

  1,613

  Downpatrick, St. Patrick's

  1,078

  1,234

  1,259

  1,359

  1,440

  Holywood, Sullivan Upper

  1,088

  1,156

  1,291

  1,395

  1,534

  Lisburn, Friends

  1,142

  1,268

  1,396

  1,511

  1,643

  Lisburn, Wallace

  1,072

  1,181

  1,301

  1,455

  1,522

  Southern

  Armagh, Christian Brothers

  1,142

  1,298

  1,591

  —

  —

  Armagh Royal

  1,366

  1,559

  1,712

  1,889

  1,973

  Armagh, St. Patrick's College

  1,256

  1,414

  1,653

  —

  —

  Armagh, St. Patrick's Grammar

  —

  —

  —

  1,540

  1,797

  Donaghmore, St. Joseph's

  1,210

  1,335

  1,450

  1,693

  1,819

  Dungannon Royal

  1,358

  1,600

  1,809

  1,849

  1,905

  Dungannon, St. Patrick's Boys'

  947

  1,061

  1,170

  1,296

  1,533

  Dungannon, St. Patrick's Girls'

  1,017

  1,132

  1,186

  1,275

  1,345

  Kilkeel, St. Louis High

  1,180

  1,394

  1,713

  2,017

  2,287

  Lurgan, St. Michael's Senior

  1,339

  1,533

  1,701

  1,965

  2,118

  Newry, Christian Brothers

  1·070

  1·203

  1·281

  1,386

  1,581

  Newry, Our Lady's Grammar

  917

  1,036

  1,146

  1,254

  1,390

  Newry, Sacred Heart

  1,032

  1,146

  1,304

  1,307

  1,446

  Newry, St. Colman's

  1,021

  1,095

  1,212

  1,353

  1,455

  Western

  Enniskillen Convent

  1,037

  1,154

  1,256

  1,347

  1,455

  Enniskillen, Portora

  1,440

  1,721

  1,876

  2,048

  2,287

  Enniskillen, St. Michael's

  1,022

  1,148

  1,310

  1,440

  1,556

  Londonderry, Foyle and Londonderry College

  1,221

  1,313

  1,421

  1,514

  1,656

  Londonderry, St. Columba's

  1,001

  1,116

  1,270

  1,423

  1,552

  Londonderry, Thornhill

  1,074

  1,220

  1,343

  1,395

  1,588

  Omagh, Christian Brothers

  1,040

  1,162

  1,267

  1,380

  1,525

  Omagh, Loreto Convent

  1,095

  1,191

  1,336

  1,321

  1,437

  Strabane Convent

  1,016

  1,164

  1,336

  1,463

  1,595

  Notes:

  1. The figures exclude preparatory departments.

  2. Whitehead High closed in August 1986.

  3. Armagh Royal amalgamated with Armagh Girls' High School (a controlled grammar school) to become a co-educational voluntary grammar school with effect from the 1986–87 school year.

  4. Dungannon Royal amalgamated with Dungannon Girls' High School (a controlled grammar school) to become a co-educational voluntary grammar school with effect from the 1986–87 school year.

  5. Princess Gardens and Ashleigh House amalgamated to become Hunterhouse College with effect from the 1987–88 school year.

  6. Victoria College and Richmond Lodge amalgamated to become Victoria College with effect from 1987–88 school year.

  7. Armagh Christian Brothers and St. Patrick's College, Armagh amalgamated to become St. Patrick's Grammar, Armagh with effect from the 1988–89 school year.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils there are in each primary and secondary school in the constituency of Newry and Armagh in the new academic year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Latest available information is for the 1989–90 academic year and is as follows:

  Primary schools

  Enrolment (at January 1990)

  Aghavilly, Armagh

  83

  Ahorey, Craigavon

  31

  Anamar, Newry

  84

  Annaghmore, Craigavon

  86

  Armagh Christian Bros, Armagh

  462

  Armstrong, Armagh

  429

  Bessbrook, Newry

  128

  Cabra, Craigavon

  34

  Carrickrovaddy, Newry

  35

  Clare, Craigavon

  71

  Clay, Keady

  71

  Clonalig, Newry

  171

  Cloughoge, Newry

  353

  Collegeland, Dungannon

  39

  Collone, Armagh

  140

  The Cope, Armagh

  93

  Corttamlet, Newry

  37

  Darkely, Armagh

  93

  688

  Primary schools

  Enrolment (at January 1990)

  Derryhale, Craigavon

  89

  Drelincourt Infants, Armagh

  45

  Dromintee, Newry

  144

  Drumhillery, Armagh

  89

  Drumsallen, Armagh

  48

  Foley, Armagh

  96

  Glassdrummond, Armagh

  75

  Hamiltonsbawn, Armagh

  100

  Hardy Memorial, Richhill, Armagh

  501

  Jonesborough, Newry

  148

  Keady, Armagh

  59

  Killeen, Newry

  99

  Killylea, Armagh

  84

  Kingsmills, Armagh

  33

  Kinnego, Dungannon

  26

  Lisdrumchor, Armagh

  29

  Lislea, Armagh

  5

  Lisnadill, Armagh

  57

  Lissummon, Newry

  55

  Loughgall, Armagh

  51

  Markethill, Armagh

  241

  Middletown Boys', Armagh

  51

  Mount St. Catherine's Convent, Armagh

  487

  Mountnorris, Armagh

  89

  Mullaghglass, Newry

  71

  Mullavilly, Craigavon

  61

  689

  Primary schools

  Enrolment (at January 1990)

  Newry Model, Newry

  39

  Newtownhamilton, Newry

  125

  Our Lady's, Keady, Armagh

  45

  Poyntzpass, Newry

  64

  St. Brigid's, Crossmaglen

  133

  St. Brigid's, Belleeks, Newry

  89

  St. Clare's Convent, Keady

  266

  St. Clare's Convent, Newry

  682

  St. Colman's Abbey, Newry

  764

  St. Colmcille's, Armagh

  28

  St. James', Armagh

  44

  St. James', Craigavon

  73

  St. Jarlath's, Dungannon

  169

  St. Joseph's, Armagh

  126

  St. Joseph's, Bessbrook, Newry

  386

  St. Joseph's, Killeavy, Newry

  188

  St. Joseph's, Poyntzpass, Newry

  90

  St. Joseph's Convent, Newry

  436

  St. Lawrence's, Newry

  57

  St. Louis' Convent, Armagh

  46

  St. Malachy's, Whitecross, Armagh

  83

  St. Malachy's Boys', Armagh

  193

  St. Malachy's, Camlough, Newry

  299

  St. Malachy's, Newry

  449

  St. Mary's Boys', Keady, Armagh

  252

  St. Mary's (Barr), Newry

  53

  St. Mary's, Tassagh, Armagh

  63

  St. Mary's, Newry

  235

  St. Michael's, Mowhan, Armagh

  39

  St. Michael's, Newry

  102

  St. Mochua's Armagh

  91

  St. Oliver Plunkett, Kilmore, Armagh

  102

  St. Oliver Plunkett, Newry

  79

  St. Patrick's, Armagh

  522

  St. Patrick's, Crossmaglen, Newry

  311

  St. Patrick's Cullyhanna, Newry

  285

  St. Patrick's Boys', Newry

  388

  St. Peter's, Newry

  280

  Salters Grange, Armagh

  14

  Tandragee, Craigavon

  344

  Tullyheron, Armagh

  51

  Tullymore, Armagh

  68

  Tullyroan, Dungannon

  39

  Tullysaran, Armagh

  69

  Tynan, Armagh

  21

  Windsor Hill, Newry

  217

  Secondary schools

  Armagh Secondary, Armagh

  619

  Armagh Royal, Armagh

  547

  Christian Brothers', Abbey, Newry

  683

  Markethill Junior High, Armagh

  412

  Newry High, Newry

  571

  Newtownhamilton, Newry

  89

  Our Lady's Girls' Grammar, Newry

  770

  Sacred Heart Girls' Grammar, Newry

  813

  St. Brigid's Boys', Armagh

  322

  St. Catherine's College, Armagh

  852

  St. Colman's College, Newry

  775

  St. Joseph's, Crossmaglen

  536

  St. Joseph's, Newry

  516

  St. Mary's, Newry

  542

  St. Patrick's Grammar, Armagh

  704

  St. Patrick's High, Keady, Armagh

  828

  St. Paul's, Bessbrook, Newry

  1,244

  Tandragee Junior High, Craigavon

  281

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils there are at each primary and secondary school in the constituency of Strangford in the new academic year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Latest available information is for the 1989–90 academic year and is as follows:
  690

  Enrolment (at January 1990)

  Primary schools

  Abbey, Newtownards

  221

  Alexander Dickson, Newtownards

  178

  Andrews Memorial, Comber

  511

  Ballykeigle, Comber

  57

  Ballyvester, Donaghadee

  78

  Ballywalter, Newtownards

  144

  Belvoir, Belfast

  303

  Braniel, Belfast

  341

  Cairnshill, Newtownbreda

  353

  Carrickmannon, Ballygowan

  74

  Carrowdore, Newtownards

  151

  Castle Gardens, Newtownards

  564

  Comber, Newtownards

  468

  Cottown, Bangor

  41

  Donaghadee, Donaghadee

  352

  Greyabbey, Newtownards

  63

  Killinchy, Comber

  225

  Kircubbin, Newtownards

  51

  Kirkistown, Cloughey

  51

  Leadhill, Belfast

  181

  Londonderry Model, Newtownards

  274

  Loughries, Newtownards

  74

  Millisle, Newtownards

  209

  Moneyrea, Newtownards

  133

  Newtownards Model, Newtownards

  361

  Newtownbreda, Belfast

  219

  O'Neill Memorial, Belfast

  49

  Portaferry, Newtownards

  51

  Portavogie, Newtownards

  181

  St. Anne's, Donaghadee

  47

  St. Finian's, Newtownards

  234

  St. Mary's, Ballygowan

  60

  St. Mary's, Comber

  30

  St. Mary's, Kircubbin

  220

  St. Mary's, Portaferry

  343

  St. Patrick's, Portaferry

  72

  Victoria, Newtownards

  681

  Victoria, Ballyhalbert

  94

  West Winds, Newtownards

  231

  Secondary schools

  Comber, Newtownards

  570

  Donaghadee, Donaghadee

  322

  Glastry, Newtownards

  475

  Lagan College, Belfast

  585

  Movilla, Newtownards

  631

  Regent House, Newtownards

  1,638

  Scrabo, Newtownards

  445

  St. Columba's, Portaferry

  403

  Strangford Lough
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what way the residents around and users of Strangford Lough are involved in its management; what proposals he has to increase local participation in the management of the lough; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The management of the lands around Strangford Lough is in the hands of individual owners and occupiers. Where the lands comprise or contain foreshore designated as Strangford Lough area of special scientific interest co-operation between the owners and occupiers and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is required. The users of the lough can make their views on or proposals for the management of the lough known to the relevant Government Department (Department of the Environment or Department of Agriculture) at any time, either individually or through one of the bodies which represent various interests.
  691
  The Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside will advise the Department of the Environment regarding management structures.

  The Department will consult widely during the formulation stage of management plans for Strangford Lough in the context of the proposed marine nature reserve.

  Roads
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when road traffic conditions on the main Belfast/Ballygowan road in the vicinity of Ryan Park in the borough of Castlereagh were last examined; and what proposals he has to improve road safety at this location.

  Mr. Needham
  Traffic conditions were last examined in June this year.

  It is planned to provide a double line along the centre of the road to deter excess speed and overtaking and to enhance road safety.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for road improvement schemes in the next 12 months in the locality of Donaghadee and district.

  Mr. Needham
  The only road improvement scheme planned in the next 12 months is a sight-line improvement at the junction of the Windmill road and Killaughy road, Donaghadee.

  Drainage Costs
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made with regard to the recovery of costs from developers of off-site drainage work where building developments have taken place.

  Mr. Needham
  The Planning and Building Regulations (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, which came into operation on 24 September 1990 contains, inter alia, provision for the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to enter into agreements with developers to recoup the cost of off-site infrastructure improvement works.

  The Department is currently considering with the Department of Agriculture how best to administer these agreements in relation to off-site drainage works.

  European Community
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the whole of Northern Ireland will qualify under the new European Community Interreg initiative.

  Mr. Cope
  The whole of Northern Ireland will qualify, apart from the city of Belfast.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what way he has brought to the attention of the public in Northern Ireland the eligible measures under the European Community Interreg initiative; what is the closing date for the submission of proposals to the Government; what is the closing date for submission of proposals to the European Commission; and if he will make a statement.
  692
  Mr. Cope
  Officials from the Department of Finance and Personnel wrote to a large number of local bodies and organisations in Northern Ireland in August and September advising them about the Interreg initiative enclosing a set of guidelines on the Initiative issued by the Commission. Recipients were asked to forward preliminary proposals for consideration. A number of presentations, to which local bodies and organisations were invited, are taking place during this month to explain the initiative further and answer any queries. In addition, a conference, organised jointly by the Belfast and Dublin European Commission Offices, will be held in November at which interested parties, north and south of the border, can obtain further information and put forward their ideas.

  The Government wrote to ask local bodies and organisations in September to put forward their preliminary ideas by the middle of this month in order that work can proceed in preparing a Northern Ireland/ Republic of Ireland submission detailing the aims, objectives and measures of a joint programme for submission to the European Commission by the due date. That date is at the end of February 1991—six months from the date of publication of the European Commission guidelines on the initiative. However, it should be noted, that provided projects fall within the scope of the measures under the programme they can be submitted and considered at any time during its lifetime, that is, to the end of 1993.

  Louis Robinson
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will arrange for a judicial inquiry into the events prior to and at the time of the IRA ambush and murder of Louis Robinson of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on the border with the Republic of Ireland on 15 and 16 September; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  No. The murder of Detective Constable Louis Robinson is already the subject of a full RUC investigation.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which Minister will now carry out the duties allocated to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) in the last Cabinet Office document intituled, "A List of Ministerial Responsibilities."

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply of 26 July 1990, Official Report, col 570]: After further consideration, there have been some minor adjustments to the allocation of responsibilities given in my answer of 26 July.

  The main differences are that my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) will now take responsibility for water and transport while my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) will take over responsibility for works service and the public record office. I will retain responsibility for decisions relating to certain planning applications.

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs were created by the Industrial Development Board in each district council area in Northern Ireland in each of the years from 1 April 1985 to 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Needham
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of the companies assisted by the Industrial Development Board who located factories in each of the district council areas in Northern Ireland from 1 April 1985 to 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Needham
  The following table shows, by district council area, those new inward investment projects for which letters of offer were accepted in the period from 1 April 1985 to 31 March 1990:

  1985–86

  Ards borough council

  Down Linen Yarns Ltd.

  Ballymena borough council

  Smart (UK) Ltd.

  Belfast city council

  De La Rue (Smurfit) Ltd.

  Carrickfergus borough council

  Multi Food Machinery

  Craigavon borough council

  Norish (NI) Ltd.

  North Down borough council

  Samson Yarns Ltd.

  1986–87

  Antrim borough council

  Swaddlers (Europe)Ltd.

  Camella Foods Ltd.

  Ards borough council

  Tensator (NI) Ltd.

  Belfast city council

  ICS Computing Ltd.

  Craigavon borough council

  United Meat Packers (NI) Ltd.

  Newtownabbey borough council

  Canyon Europe Ltd.

  1987–88

  Antrim borough council

  Neotech Industries Europe Ltd.

  Group Publishing Co. Ltd.

  Ballymena district council

  Mastercut Foods Ltd.

  Belfast city council

  Capita (NI) Ltd.

  Crosspharma Ltd.

  Craigavon borough council

  Henry Denny & Sons (NI) Ltd.

  Larne borough council

  Stern Fenster UPVC Ltd.

  Newry and Mourne district council

  ETI Ltd.

  Newtownabbey borough council

  McDonnell Douglas Information Systems Ltd.

  1988–89

  Antrim borough council

  Daewoo Electronics Ltd.

  Belfast city council

  Science Typographers International Ltd.

  MSS International Ltd.

  Carrickfergus borough council

  Kalon Group PLC

  Down district council

  International Leathers Ltd.

  Gross Domestic Fixed Capital Formation in Scotland for selected industries1, 2

  £ millions current prices

  Year

  Agriculture, forestry and fishing

  Energy and water supply

  Manufacturing

  Transport 3 and communication

  Private dwellings

  Public dwellings

  Total of industries shown

  1974

  90

  226

  309

  4

  5156

  214

  4

  1979

  171

  620

  561

  258

  5401

  288

  52,299

  1980

  194

  859

  645

  244

  399

  309

  2,650

  1981

  189

  838

  586

  247

  412

  298

  2,569

  1982

  204

  813

  541

  251

  469

  325

  2,603

  1983

  222

  756

  470

  297

  501

  385

  2,631

  1984

  238

  664

  597

  376

  616

  376

  2,865

  1985

  237

  618

  861

  415

  663

  339

  3,133

  1986

  233

  554

  788

  392

  742

  389

  3,099

  1987

  230

  456

  738

  403

  762

  454

  3,043

  694

  Limavady borough council

  Hueco Lightronic (NI) Ltd.

  Lisburn borough council

  Montupet (UK) Ltd./Willace (UK) Ltd.

  Newtownabbey borough council

  BS Toolings Ltd.

  1989–90

  Antrim borough council

  Du Pont (UK) Ltd.

  Belfast city council

  Harris Laboratories Ltd.

  Printapack (NI) Ltd.

  British Telecommunications PLC GB

  Carrickfergus borough council

  Ryobi Aluminium Casting (UK) Ltd.

  Castlereagh borough council

  Barney (UK) Ltd.

  Craigavon borough council

  British Telecommunications PLC GB

  DDL Electronics Ltd.

  Derry city council

  British Telecommunications PLC Sigro (UK) Ltd.

  Fruit of the Loom Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

  Dungannon district council

  Viper International

  Newtownabbey borough council

  Circaprint (NI) Ltd.

SCOTLAND

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary for Scotland what was the incidence of calling in of fishing vessels for(a) June 1989 and (b) June in the current year, by length band.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 24 July.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will published the capital expenditure in Scotland on(a) vehicles, ships and aircraft, (b) plants and machinery, (c) private dwellings, (d) public dwellings and (e) other new buildings and works for the year 1974 and for every year since 1979, at 1985 prices.

  Mr. Lang
  The table gives the total gross domestic fixed capital formation GDFCF in Scotland in current prices for selected industries and dwellings for each of the years for which the information is requested. Estimates for other industries are not available. Estimates of GDFCF in private and public dwellings are given, but further analysis by asset type could be provided only at disproportionate cost. There are no separate Scottish deflators from which to construct constant price estimates.
  695
  Source: Central Statistical Office

  Note:

  1 Leased assets are excluded

  2 All figures exclude investment in land and existing buildings

  3 Sea and air transport are excluded from the transport and communication estimates

  4 This figure is not available

  5 The 1974 and 1979 estimates for private dwellings are not strictly comparable with estimates for later years.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the percentage collection rate for each local authority for the poll tax(a) in 1989 and (b) in 1990; what was the shortfall in revenue in 1989 in each case; and by how much poll tax rates would have to be increased to compensate for the loss of revenue from non-payment.

  Mr. Lang
  The collection of community charges is the responsibility of individual local authorities and the information requested is not held centrally. I understand that in respect of 1989–90 most levying authorities now expect to collect 90 per cent. or more of the total billed revenue from the community charge, which is over 95 per cent. of their budget estimates. Final collection figures will not be known until local authorities have completed their recovery procedures, which may not be for some time. I understand also that collection for 1990–91 is proceeding generally at a similar rate to last year. It is not possible to estimate the effect of community charge non-payment upon future community charge levels. Any shortfall on budgeted revenue is unlikely to be more than 1 per cent. of local authorities' overall income, and may be less. We have made it clear that local authorities faced with such a shortfall should be able to adjust their expenditure, for example by making efficiency savings, without materially affecting services and that the shortfall should not be seen as a pretext for increasing charges.

  Drift Nets
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many English fishing vessels have been prosecuted for carrying drift nets in Scottish waters.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There have been no prosecutions of English vessels for carriage of drift nets in any of the past four years.

  Output
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the annual index of(a) gross domestic product (output) and (b) manufacturing output for Scotland in each year from 1970 to the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Year

  Production output (1985=100)

  Construction output (1985=100)

  Industrial production and construction (1985=100)

  Manufacturing output (1985=100)

  1970

  95·3

  117·0

  99·8

  101·5

  1971

  94·2

  114·1

  98·4

  99·5

  1972

  96·2

  118·8

  100·9

  101·7

  1973

  104·5

  126·8

  109·2

  109·8

  1974

  103·4

  113·9

  105·6

  109·1

  1975

  99·8

  118·9

  103·9

  104·2

  1976

  100·1

  115·6

  103·4

  104·1

  1977

  99·9

  120·3

  104·2

  103·4

  1978

  100·6

  119·9

  104·7

  103·5

  1979

  101·2

  113·8

  103·9

  103·3

  1980

  95·1

  107·5

  97·7

  96·4

  1981

  93·1

  93·6

  93·1

  93·8

  1982

  93·6

  96·4

  94·1

  94·5

  696
  Mr. Rifkind
  The table gives the latest figures for gross domestic product (output) and manufacturing output. These figures are at constant prices and indexed to
  1985= 100.

  Year

  Gross Domestic Product (output) (1985=100)

  Manufacturing Output (1985=100)

  1970

  80·1

  101·5

  1971

  81·0

  99·4

  1972

  83·9

  101·7

  1973

  90·0

  109·8

  1974

  89·8

  109·1

  1975

  88·5

  104·2

  1976

  90·1

  104·1

  1977

  91·7

  103·4

  1978

  93·9

  103·5

  1979

  94·8

  103·3

  1980

  93·0

  96·4

  1981

  91·7

  93·8

  1982

  93·1

  94·5

  1983

  94·4

  93·5

  1984

  97·5

  97·8

  1985

  100·0

  100·0

  1986

  100·4

  97·9

  1987

  103·5

  100·8

  1988

  108·7

  108·6

  1989

  n/a

  113·6

  Souce: Industry Department for Scotland.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the annual index of(a) total industrial production and construction and (b) manufacturing industry for Scotland in each year from 1970 to the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information requested is set out in the table. This gives output figures, at constant prices, indexed to 1985 =100, for production, construction, production and construction, and manufacturing.
  697

  Year

  Production output (1985=100)

  Construction output (1985=100)

  Industrial production and construction (1985=100)

  Manufacturing output (1985=100)

  1983

  93·3

  98·6

  94·4

  93·5

  1984

  97·2

  98·2

  97·4

  97·8

  1985

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  1986

  97·8

  98·4

  97·9

  97·9

  1987

  99·7

  96·3

  99·0

  100·8

  1988

  107·1

  101·9

  106·1

  108·6

  1989

  111·3

  101·5

  109·4

  113·6

  Source: Index of Industrial Production for Scotland.

  Fishery Enforcement Officers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secrertary of State for Scotland how many enforcement officers from his Department are permanently stationed in each Scottish fishing port; and where none are resident, how many landing days per annum are supervised by his officials.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has 59 permanent staff based at 20 coastal offices. The normal deployment of these staff is shown in the table.

  Port

  Number of staff

  South East area

  Eyemouth

  4

  Pittenweem

  2

  Arbroath

  2

  Eastern area

  Aberdeen

  5

  North Eastern area

  Peterhead

  8

  Moray Firth area

  Fraserburgh

  5

  Macduff

  1

  Buckie

  2

  Lossiemouth

  1

  Northern area

  Wick

  2

  Lerwick

  4

  Scrabster

  1

  North Western area

  Kinlochbervie

  3

  Lochinver

  2

  Stornoway

  2

  Ullapool

  4

  Mallaig

  3

  South Western area

  Oban

  1

  Campbeltown

  2

  Ayr

  5

  Total

  59

  No records are maintained of the frequency of inspections at other ports, but they are visited regularly having regard to the level of fishing activity in each area.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what checks are made by his officials to see that fish listed as caught in a specified area were actually caught there.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Log books are examined each time a fishing vessel lands a catch or is boarded at sea.
  698
  Confirmation of the reported areas of fishing activity is sought by comparing the log book entries with surveillance data provided by fishery protection vessels and aircraft.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the gross domestic fixed capital formation for manufacturing industry in Scotland in real terms in each year since 1970.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table gives the gross domestic fixed capital formation at current prices from 1971 to 1987.

  Gross domestic fixed capital formation in manufacturing industry in Scotland.

  Year

  Gross domestic fixed capital formation in (£million)

  1971

  176

  1972

  182

  1973

  233

  1974

  309

  1975

  421

  1976

  468

  1977

  491

  1978

  523

  1979

  561

  1980

  645

  1981

  586

  1982

  541

  1983

  470

  1984

  597

  1985

  861

  1986

  788

  1987

  738

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the annual index of gross domestic capital formation at factor cost in manufacturing industry in Scotland in each year from 1970 to the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Information in the form requested is not available.

  Fish Quotas
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of prosecutions for fish caught over quota by Scottish fishing boats in(a) 1988, (b) 1989 and (c) 1990 to date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of successful prosecutions for breach of quotas by Scottish vessels is set out in the table.
  699

  1988—three cases

  1989—Nil

  1990—Nil to date; four cases are pending.

  A1
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library all the data on which he bases his figures and projections for traffic flows on the A1 road.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The projections for future traffic on the A1 formed part of the work carried out by the consultants commissioned to undertake the Scottish Development Department's major "Routes South of Edinburgh" trunk road study. It is not our practice to place copies of detailed technical reports on road studies in the Library. I did however lodge copies of the consultation document in the Library, together with a series of short technical papers which provide further details on specific aspects of the study.

  Hospital Casualty Services, East Lothian
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the provision of hospital casualty services in East Lothian following his announcement on 6 September about the Lothian health board's proposal to close the unit at Roodlands hospital in Haddington.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Lothian health board is currently developing, in consultation with general practitioners in Haddington and relevant nursing staff, the proposals for a minor casualty service at Roodlands hospital.

  College Students
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the reduction in the numbers of students attending colleges of education in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of full-time students attending colleges of education in Scotland have risen from 4,300 in 1984–85 to 5,150 in 1989–90, a rise of 20 per cent. Student rolls in the colleges are expected to increase further in the years ahead as the demand for newly trained teachers expands.

  University Students
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the reduction in the numbers of Scottish students gaining entry to Scottish universities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the numbers of Scottish students entering Scottish universities was published by the Scottish Education Department in its statistical bulletin "University Students (No 10/H1/1990)" which is available in the Library. I am pleased to say that the numbers of Scottish undergraduates in full-time higher education rose from 53,400 in 1980–81 to 60,300 in 1988–89, a rise of 13 per cent.

  Health Visiting Diploma
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many National Health Service staff in Scotland have been seconded to take the one-year diploma in health visiting during the periods(a) 1989 to 1990 and (b) 1990 to 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of student health visitors in Scotland was 85 at 31 March 1989 and 109 at 31 March 1990, the latest date for which information is available centrally.

  RECHAR Programme
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how European Community grant aid under the RECHAR programme is being administered and distributed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Proposals for RECHAR programmes in Eastern and Western Scotland were submitted by the Government to the European Commission on 27 July. Its decision is awaited.

  Community Care
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department has considered research conducted by the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations into the effects of recent legislation on availability of funding for voluntary organisations involved in community care; and if he will consider a review of funding provision and collaborative arrangements.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend will reach conclusions on the report, which was funded by the Scottish Office, in the light of discussions which are due to be held shortly between officials and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. The provision of grant assistance to voluntary organisations in the social work field is reviewed annually. The funding of services in the community care field in 1991–92 will receive careful consideration in this context.

  Asthma
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department will take steps to promote and assist the national asthma survey, organised by Action Asthma; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand that the survey was launched on 3 September with the aim of assessing the extent to which people in the United Kingdom are affected by asthma, thus enabling improvements in asthma management to be considered. The Scottish Home and Health Department is obtaining from Action Asthma information about its work.

  Junior Doctors (Working Hours)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for variation orders on working hours per week of junior doctors have been made by Greater Glasgow health board during 1990; and, of these, how many(a) have been refused and (b) are currently under consideration.
  701
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many variation orders on working hours per week of junior doctors have been issued during 1990; and how many are currently in force, for each health board area in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  One variation order has been issued in 1990 to permit a junior doctor to be regularly rostered for duty in excess of the limit permitted under the hospital, medical and dental staff terms and conditions of service.

  Health Visitors
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that no newly qualified health visitor in Scotland is unable to find a job; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The responsibility for reviewing manpower requirements lies with health boards and it is for each health board to determine the number of students to be trained in accordance with identified manpower needs. While most newly qualified health visitors should find employment on completion of their training, it is impossible to guarantee the employment of all such health visitors and students are made aware of this when they enrol.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many vacancies for health visitors currently exist in each health board area in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department has considered research conducted by the Scottish Foundation for Economic Research for Strathclyde regional council into the effects of the community charge upon the poor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has noted the findings of this research.

  Old People's Homes
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to implement in Scotland arrangements under the Registered Houses Act 1984 to ensure that local authorities may satisfy themselves that a person applying for registration to run a small home for old people is a fit person and that they may visit any such home as necessary.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The 1984 Act provisions do not apply in Scotland. Local authorities' statutory responsibilities for the registration and inspection of residential establishments provided under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 apply as matters stand to all homes irrespective of size.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the nature and locations of therapeutic services currently available within the National Health Service in Scotland for sufferers from multiple sclerosis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

WALES

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether his Department will take positive steps to discuss with the Data Protection Registrar all his Department's legislation that impacts on the use, collection, processing or holding of personal data; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My officials are aware of the need to consult the registrar about proposed legislation which might affect or be affected by the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of the inward investment projects secured for Wales during 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In 1988, Wales secured 97 inward investment projects and in 1989, 100 projects were secured. A list of the companies concerned, except where they have requested confidentiality, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Teaching Posts
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list showing the latest figures for(a) the total number of applications, (b) the total number of teaching posts and (c) the ratio of applications to teaching posts at secondary school level in Wales; and if he will include a breakdown for each county and for each subject taught.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No information is available centrally on the number of teaching posts by subject. This, together with applications for appointment, is a matter for local education authorities.

  General information about the numbers of subject teachers is available from the secondary school staffing survey, which was published in July, and is in the Library of the House.

  Water and Sewerage (Security Measures)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if, for each water and sewerage undertaker, he will list the dates on which the undertakers submitted their plans pursuant to paragraph 2(2) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989;

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of the plans submitted to him by each water and sewerage undertaker pursuant to paragraph 2(2) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989;

  (3) if for each water and sewerage undertaker, he will state which plans he has approved with modification pursuant to paragraph 2(2) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989;
  703
  (4) if, for each water and sewerage undertaker, he will state the form in which he has prescribed the reports shall be submitted pursuant to paragraph 2(2) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989;

  (5) if, for each water and sewerage undertaker, he will state which plans he has approved without modifications pursuant to paragraph 2(2) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989.

  Mr. Grist
  The former Welsh water authority prepared and submitted plans progressively, under letters of direction issued in 1983 and 1986. Undertakers are currently reviewing these plans, following the 1989 direction. In addition, plans for expenditure each year on the provision or purchase of facilities and equipment are submitted to the Department for approval, with modifications if necessary. It is neither in the interests of national security nor commercial confidentiality to provide the further information requested.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, for each water and sewerage undertaker, he will list the number of employees he has required to be made available(a) as regional co-ordinators and (b) in such other capacity as he has required and in what capacity, pursuant to paragraph 5(2) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage undertakers) Direction 1989.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has appointed a chief regional water co-ordinator, a deputy chief regional water co-ordinator and regional water co-ordinators. Seven employees have been made available by Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig to fulfil these roles.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if, for each water and sewerage undertaker, he will give the losses which it has sustained by reason of compliance with the direction, pursuant to paragraph 6(2) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989;

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of the reports submitted to him on or before 1 April 1990 pursuant to paragraph 6(1) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989;

  (3) if, for each water and sewerage undertaker, he will state the form in which he has prescribed the reports shall be submitted pursuant to paragraph 6(2) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989;

  (4) if, for each water and sewerage undertaker, he will list the dates on which the undertakers reported to him pursuant to paragraph 6(1) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989.

  Mr. Grist
  It is not in the interest of national security to provide details. Information on the losses sustained by each undertaker in complying with the direction is subject to the normal rules of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) whether, having regard to the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983 and section 3 of "Emergency Planning Guidance to Local Authorities", the duty to consult other water and sewerage undertakers pursuant to paragraph 5(1) of the Security Measures (Water Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989 is 704
  to be extended to local authorities with civil defence functions under regulation 4 of the 1983 regulations; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if, for each water and sewerage undertaker, he will state the extent to which he has required their plans, operations, facilities and services to be complementary and co-ordinated pursuant to paragraph 5(1) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989;

  (3) whether, having regard to the Civil Defence (Fire Services) (Water) Regulations 1956, the duty to consult other water and sewerage undertakers pursuant to paragraph 5(1) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989 is to be extended to fire authorities; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what guidance, procedures and requirements have been notified to the water sewerage undertakers by him pursuant to paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989; and if he will place copies in the Library;

  (5) what general policy in respect of civil defence he has notified to the water and sewerage undertakers pursuant to paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 23 July 1990.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, for each water and sewerage undertaker, he will list the land he has specified pursuant to paragraph 3(1) of the Security Measures (Water and Sewerage Undertakers) Direction 1989.

  Mr. Grist
  It would not be in the interests of national security to give the information requested.

  Milford Haven (Fishing)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial support has been given for fish processing in Milford Haven since 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since 1979 regional selective assistance of £40,000 has been provided for two fish processing projects in Milford Haven.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial support has been given to individual trawler companies and combines operating from Milford Haven since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since 1979, grants totalling £489,000 have been provided by the Welsh Office and the European Commission for six commercial fishing projects in Milford Haven. In addition the Sea Fish Industry Authority, acting on behalf of the Government, provides grants and loans for the construction of new fishing vessels and improvements to existing vessels. For Wales as a whole, the authority has since 1979 provided £1,653,000 in grants and loans for 251 projects.

  I place a great deal of importance on the need to sustain and develop a successful sea fishing industry in Wales, and am pleased that practical support is being provided to commercial fishermen.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the fishing industry in Milford Haven since June 1987.
  705
  Mr. David Hunt
  During the period in question, Welsh Office Ministers and officials have received numerous representations on a wide range of issues relating to the fishing industry in Milford Haven. My hon. Friend did bring in to see me on 20 September senior representatives of the industry and I am carefully considering the arguments he and they put forward.

  Laura Ashley
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit the Leeswood, Clwyd, Laura Ashley factory now proposed for closure.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no present plans to do so.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the Clwyd, Delyn and Alyn and Deeside councils to discuss the job losses associated with the Laura Ashley company.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I very much regret the job losses recently announced by Laura Ashley Holdings Ltd. I, my officials, the WDA and DBRW are in close touch with the company and are exploring what might be done to off-set the job losses. The local authorities involved will have a part to play and I will not hesitate to contact them if necessary.

  Gwynedd Health Services
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the £8 million to be provided to the Gwynedd health authority to transform the provision of health services in the county will be wholly or partly by way of loan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  On the basis of the Gwynedd health authority's plan to rationalise health services within the district, as outlined in its pathfinder business plan, my right hon. Friend has offered, in principle, a loan of up to £8 million toward the capital cost of the implementation of this strategy. As currently envisaged, the loan would amount to £3·5 million in 1991–92 and £4·5 million in 1992–93; and, under existing arrangements, the expectation would be for this finance to be repaid subsequently from revenue savings. However, as a result of the reforms arising from the National Health Service and Community Care Act, resource allocation arrangements are currently under review. Authorities were recently consulted on proposed changes which would re-establish a central funding mechanism for capital schemes of strategic importance as from 1 April 1992. If these proposals are implemented, it is likely that the funding of major schemes in progress at that time—which would, of course, include those which are in prospect in Gwynedd—will be subsumed within transitional arrangements that accord with the new allocation mechanisms. In such circumstances, the strategic capital brokerage made available to Gwynedd to enable the authority to proceed with these schemes would cease to be regarded as a loan and would instead be redefined as central funding of those schemes under the transitional arrangements. My right hon. Friend intends to make an announcement on new resource allocation arrangements and transitional arrangements to apply from 1 April 1991 in January when consultations on new revenue allocation mechanisms have also been completed.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Diesel Duty
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the special rate of duty charged on diesel used by agriculture; what is the purpose of this provision; and what is the differential between this rate and that for diesel used by industry.

  Mr. Ryder
  The special rate of duty charged on diesel—gas oil—used by agriculture is 1·18p per litre. Its purpose is to raise revenue but at a rate significantly lower than that chargeable on diesel—gas oil—used as road fuel. Both industry and agriculture pay duty at the rebated rate; the full rate of 19·02p per litre is paid only on fuel used in road vehicles.

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment as to whether the conditions for entry into the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS have been met; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The conditions have now been substantially met, and accordingly the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Government's decision to join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS on 5 October.

  Money Supply
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase in the money supply since 1 January 1988; and how much of the total is accounted for by the funding of the trade deficit.

  Mr. Maples
  There is no simple connection between the money supply and the trade deficit. Figures for the monetary aggregates are published in table 11·1 of "Financial Statistics". Information on the trade balance is published in table 27 of "Economic Trends".

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many subject access requests under the terms of the Data Protection Act his Department has received; what was his estimate of the number of requests that would be received; what consideration he is giving to the subject access fee charged by his Department as a result; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  No subject access requests have been received by the Treasury since the Act came into effect. Initial estimates of likely volume, based on discussions with the Data Protection Registrar and examination of the experience of other European countries, were that the number would probably be low. Departments agreed that civil servants would not be charged for reasonable access to their records, but that non civil-servants—with legitimate access—would be charged the guideline £10. That is still the Treasury view.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department will take positive steps to discuss with the Data Protection Registrar all his Department's legislation that impacts on the use, collection, processing or holding of personal data; and whether he will make a statement.
  707
  Mr. Ryder
  I am reminding my officials of the need to consult the registrar about proposed legislation which might affect or be affected by the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has discussed his concerns about the direct marketing exploits of financial institutions that promote the uptake of credit with the Data Protection Registrar; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  No.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the extent to which the deterioration in the trade balance since 1975 is due to lack of productive capacity in British industry; and if he will name the sectors in which British suppliers have been unable to meet demand for this reason.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The rise in the United Kingdom trade deficit in 1988 and 1989 reflected very strong growth of domestic demand from both companies and the personal sector, which outstripped industry's capacity to meet it. Strong growth in investment has begun to produce additional capacity which will enable British industry to meet more of the demands made on it. Industry has already exploited export opportunities. In 1989, exports of manufactures, excluding erratics, increased by 10½ per cent., the fastest growth rate since 1973. Manufactured exports, excluding erratics, in the current year to date are 10¾ per cent. higher than in the corresponding period last year.

  CBI surveys suggest that an historically high proportion of firms across all sectors experienced capacity constraints during 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the annual index of(a) total industrial production and construction and (b) manufacturing industry for the United Kingdom in each year from 1970 to the most recent year for which figures are available;

  (2) what was the annual index of (a) gross domestic product (output) and (b) manufacturing output for the United Kingdom in each year from 1970 to the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  For the answers to these questions I refer the hon. Member to table 1·5 of "United Kingdom National Accounts", 1990 edition, otherwise known as the CSO Blue Book and to the Scottish Office news release 0801 of 15 May 1990. The former gives separate annual output index numbers for the years 1968 to 1989, for each of construction, manufacturing, and total production as well as the output based gross domestic product index. The latter includes the available figures for an index of construction and production for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made to Chancellor Kohl concerning the adverse effect on other countries of the German surplus on visible trade; and if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the amount of that surplus in terms of dollars for (a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States of America and (c) Japan in 1979, 1985, 1989 and the current year to date.
  708
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made no such representations. The information for 1989 and the current year is available in recent editions of "IMF Directions of Trade Statistics". Figures for 1985 and 1979 are available in the "IMF Direction of Trade Statistics Yearbook" for 1989 and 1986 respectively.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are taken to assess the number of cases on which interest relief is being given on mortgages taken out for purposes other than home purchase.

  Mr. Maude
  For loans taken out from 6 April, 1988, mortgage interest relief is given only where the loan is applied to the purchase of a person's sole or main residence or for the purchase of life annuities by people aged 65 or over.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what representations he has received calling for abolition of mortgage interest tax relief.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer receives a variety of representations about mortgage interest relief, ranging from extension to abolition.

  Import Levies
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the import levy imposed at the last convenient date on imports from(a) African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and (b) other countries of (i) paddy rice round grain, (ii) paddy rice long grain, (iii) husked rice round grain, (iv) husked rice long grain, (v) semi-milled round grain, (vi) semi-milled long grain, (vii) wholly-milled rice round grain, (viii) wholly-milled rice long grain and (ix) broken rice.

  Mr. Ryder
  The import levy per tonne on rice at 1 October 1990 falling within the stated descriptions was:

  States associated with the Community1 £

  Other Countries £

  Paddy rice round grain (CN Code 100610 92 0 00)

  121·8837

  249·5501

  Paddy rice long grain (CN Code 100610 96 0 90)

  123·6322

  253·0389

  Husked rice round grain (CN Code 100620 92 0 00)

  153·0825

  311·9396

  Husked rice long grain (CN Code 100620 96 0 90)

  155·2560

  316·2946

  Semi-milled round grain (CN Code 100630 42 0 00)

  189·8393

  398·8069

  Semi-milled long grain (CN Code 100630 48 0 90)

  230·0609

  479·1939

  Wholly-milled round grain (CN Code 100630 92 0 00)

  202·4552

  424·7284

  Wholly-milled long grain (CN Code 100630 96 0 90)

  246·9435

  513·6970

  Broken rice (CN Code 100640 00 0 00)

  73·8906

  152·6000

  1 African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries; and Overseas Countries and Territories of member States associated with the Community.

  709
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present import levy on duty on cheese from Canada.

  Mr. Ryder
  The present import levy, effective from 16 September 1990, on cheese from Canada (CN Code 040690 21 0 10) is £178·8483 per 100 kg. Consignments accompanied by a valid IMA 1 certificate, issued by exporting countries having special agreements with the European Community may be admitted at a reduced rate of £9·1665. No duty is payable in either case.

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the growth of manufacturing exports since 1983.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Manufacturing exports have grown on average by 7·1 per cent. a year since 1983 and in 1989 by 10·5 per cent.—the fastest growth in any year since 1973. Supply side reforms have transformed industry's ability to compete on world markets, and allowed manufacturers to maintain their share of world trade after decades of decline.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the percentage increases to date in the trade-weighted real exchange for the £ sterling at current nominal rates of exchange, against the Deutschmark, dollar and yen since (a) the fourth quarter of 1976 and (b) the first quarter of 1987, measured in terms of relative export prices for manufacturers, taking into account: (i) the increase in the nominal rate of exchange and (ii) the difference in the rate of inflation since the fourth quarter of 1989, as shown in table F8 of the monthly "Review of External Trade Statistics"; and if he will add a figure for the exchange rate mechanism countries combined in so far as these are available.

  Mr. Maples
  Table F8 of the monthly "Review of External Trade Statistics" is compiled using information from the IMF, and will be updated in due course.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the percentage increases in the trade-weighted real exchange for sterling at current nominal rates of exchange compared to the D-mark, dollar and yen between the fourth quarter of 1976 and the first quarter of 1990 measured in terms of relative export prices for manufacturers and the increase since then in the nominal rates of exchange; what effect the increase to the first quarter of 1990 had on the balance of trade in manufacturers; and what is his estimate of the effect which the increase since the first quarter will have on that balance in the next 12 months.

  Mr. Maples
  Figures for nominal and real exchange rates are available in "IMF International Financial Statistics". Recent movements in nominal and real exchange rates will be among the many factors taken into account in the revised forecast for visible trade to be published in the "Autumn Statement".

  Public Expenditure
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state in percentage terms the increase or decrease in expenditure since 1979 of each of the 17 programmes of public expenditure.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information requested can be derived from table 21.2.10—General Government expenditure by function, 1978–79 to 1989–90—in chapter 21 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93", Cm. 1021.

  Inflation
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the current inflation rates in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other Group of Seven countries.

  Mr. Maples
  Excluding mortgage interest payments and community charge, UK inflation was 8·3 per cent. in September 1990. The latest, more comparable inflation rate for other G7 countries was 3·4 per cent. in August.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  The all-times RPI inflation rate was 10·9 per cent. in September. Underlying inflation, as measured by the RPI, excluding mortgage interest payments and the community charge, was 8·3 per cent.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chanbcellor of the Exchequer what is the underlying rate of inflation.

  Mr. Maples
  There are a number of ways of estimating the underlying rate of inflation. As measured by the RPI, excluding mortgage interest payments and the community charge, it was 8·3 per cent. in September.

  Taxpayers' Charter
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a charter for taxpayers in relation to their rights under investigation by either the Inland Revenue or Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Maude
  The Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise jointly published a taxpayer's charter in July 1986. It sets out the principles and standards of service which both departments aim to achieve in handling taxpayers' affairs; and what people can do if they wish to appeal or complain.

  In addition, a number of leaflets are published for people involved in investigations:

  IR71 PAYE: Inspection of Employers' and Contractors Records.

  IR72 Inland Revenue Investigations: The examination of business accounts; and

  IR73 Inland Revenue Investigations: How settlements are negotiated.

  Visits by VAT officers.

  Copies of the taxpayer's charter and of the leaflets have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Criminal investigations carried out by both departments are conducted under the codes of practice of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Maples
  Bank base rates are 14 per cent.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in relation to the impact of interest rates on Welsh economic performance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of such representations.

  Environmental Improvement
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for using the taxation system to improve the environment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The White Paper on the environment set out the Government's view that market-based instruments, such as tax measures, are often an effective way of achieving environmental goals. But the Government must consider a whole range of factors in determining the right response to environmental problems.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss Britain's economic performance.

  Mr. Maples
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer meets the Governor of the Bank of England from time to time to discuss a variety of matters.

  Child Tax Allowance
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the benefits which would be given to families on low incomes or on income support by a child tax allowance.

  Mr. Maude
  Child tax allowances would not benefit families who do not pay tax and some families with relatively small taxable incomes would only be able to take partial advantage of them. This is so whether or not a family is on income support.

  Oil
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of(a) the current yield in tax on indigenous oil production of an increase of one dollar per barrel and (b) the increase in cost to the United Kingdom economy as a result of that increase.

  Mr. Maples
  It is estimated that the extra North sea tax receipts from a sustained increase in the oil price of 1 dollar per barrel would yield about £0·2 billion in a full year assuming no change in the exchange rate or in company spending in the North sea. A rise in the price of oil can be expected to lead to somewhat higher inflation and slower growth, in the short term. However, sound fiscal and monetary policies should help guard against any sustained adverse effect on inflation or economic growth.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the yield from a tax of 712
  1p per litre on all oil fuels and of an additional 20p on a gallon of (a) petrol and (b) diesel on top of the present price.

  Mr. Ryder
  The yield from a tax change on road fuels can be calculated from the tax revenue ready reckoner table published in chapter 4 of the "Autumn Statement".

  Civil Service Pensions
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the non-payment of civil service widows' pensions to the widows of post-retirement marriages with civil servants who retired before 6 April 1978.

  Mr Ryder
  A number of representations have been received about the arrangements made by the civil service pension scheme for the payment of pensions to the widows of post-retirement marriages. These seek an extension of those arrangements to include those widows of post-retirement marriages whose husbands retired before 6 April 1978. The Government have no plans to extend the present arrangements.

  Ronson Group
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inland Revenue will investigate the tax affairs of the Ronson group of companies.

  Mr. Maude
  Such information is confidential.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the gross domestic fixed capital formation for manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom in real terms in each year since 1970.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  This information may be obtained from the CSO database, which is accessible through the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual index of gross domestic capital formation at factor cost in manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom in each year from 1970 to the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information in the form requested is not available.

  Mr. Austin Michell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the increase in the volume of exports of manufactured goods since 1985 in terms of 1990 prices.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information relating to volumes of manufactured goods is only calculated at 1985 prices. This can be found in table A 10 of the monthly "Review of External Trade Statistics" which is available in the Library of the House, or on the Central Statistical Office database which may be accessed through the Library.

  Middle East (Expenditure)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from which budget headings the expenditure now being undertaken in the middle east, arising out of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, is to be drawn; and if he will make a statement.
  713
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Most of the present expenditure in the middle east arising from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait falls to the defence budget. Assistance to refugees displaced by the invasion is being drawn from the aid budget.

  New Coins
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new coins he intends to approve before December 1992; and what estimate he has of the cost involved in adapting, replacing or scrapping coin-operated machines.

  Mr. Maples
  The Royal Mint has recently consulted the vending industry about proposals to issue United Kingdom 1 p and 2p coins in copper-plated steel rather than bronze, as at present, because the cost of producing the coins now exceeds their face value.

  After careful consideration of the industry's response, my right hon. Friend has decided that copper-plated coins should be introduced from September 1992. The plated 1p and 2p coins will have the same weight, diameter and design as the existing coins and will circulate alongside them. I am placing an assessment of the cost to the industry in the library.

  Following the consultation exercise carried out by the Royal Mint in 1987, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that a smaller 10p coin would be introduced in 1992. The Chancellor has decided that this coin should also be introduced in September 1992, at the same time as the copper plated 1p and 2p coins, to minimise the cost to the vending industry.

  NHS Contracts (VAT)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what refunds of value added tax on national health service contracts have been made to health boards in Scotland since 16 October 1989; where refunds of value added tax are made; and what arrangements there are for that portion of such value added tax which requires to be paid to the European Community.

  Mr. Ryder
  A total of £24·3 million VAT has been refunded in respect of Scottish health boards' contracts since 16 October 1989. This sum includes refunds in respect of contracts where the special provisions of section 27(2A) of the VAT Act 1983 apply. Such refunds are included in the calculations necessary to establish our "own resources" payments to the European Community.

  European Community
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement concerning Councils of Finance Ministers of the European Communities, both formal and informal, he has attended since 1 September.

  Mr. Major
  Members of the Economic and Finance Council met informally on 7 and 8 September in Rome and formally in Luxembourg on 8 October. On both occasions I represented the United Kingdom with the assistance of the Financial Secretary at the October meeting.

  The September meeting concentrated on a discussion of economic and monetary union during which I gave a full explanation of the British proposals for a gradual evolutionary approach through the establishment of a
  714
  common currency, known as the "hard ecu", and a European monetary fund. A majority of member states shared our view that much greater economic convergence in the Community was a necessary condition for further monetary integration, and that it was therefore undesirable to set a premature date for moving beyond stage one of EMU. I stressed the importance of ensuring that all member states could move forward together. I explained that our proposals would allow for that while providing a strong anti-inflationary discipline and giving people and businesses the opportunity to choose which currency they wished to use. It was agreed that there was a need for further analysis of our proposals both before and during the forthcoming intergovernmental conference.

  The consequences of the Gulf crisis were also discussed and the Commission put forward proposals for aid to those front-line states which were suffering as a result of the crisis. No decision was reached. It was agreed, however, that the resulting rise in oil prices should not be accommodated either by relaxing monetary or budgetary policies and that the increase in oil costs should not lead to higher wage settlements or product prices.

  At the October meeting, the entry of the United Kingdom into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system was widely welcomed. Economic and monetary union was again discussed both during the Council and at an inter-institutional meeting beforehand with the European Parliament. There was a growing consensus that more economic convergence was indeed needed before the Community moved beyond stage one and that objective criteria to determine the timing of such a move should be considered. The presidency will be reporting on progress with preparatory work on EMU to the European Council on 27 and 28 October. I expect discussions in ECOFIN and the Monetary Committee to continue.

  There was a brief discussion of the Commission's proposals for VAT and excise systems after 1992 and for raising travellers' allowances on duty-paid goods in preparation for the single market. The consequences for the financial perspectives of German unification and the Gulf crisis were also considered. The money laundering directive was discussed. The majority of member states shared our concerns that the present draft appeared to extend the competence of the Community into the field of criminal law, but it was hoped that this problem could be resolved so that the directive could be agreed before the end of the year.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library any document or proposal sent to the Council or Commission of the European Community concerning implementation of economic and monetary union.

  Mr. Maude
  The Commission's report of 21 August entitled "Economic and Monetary Union", which was discussed at the informal Council of Economic and Finance Ministers in Rome on 7 and 8 September, was deposited in the House on 12 October; and I have today placed in the Vote Office copies of an explanatory memorandum about it.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he deposited in the Vote Office the communication of the Commission of the European Community to member
  715
  Governments, dated 21 August, concerning implementation of economic and monetary union and the related Government memorandum; and what other steps he has taken to publicise the contents of each document.

  Mr. Maude
  The Commission report to which the hon. Member refers was deposited in the House on 12 October and copies of an explanatory memorandum have today been placed in the Vote Office.

  Liquid Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to review the taxation of liquid petroleum gas used for automotive propulsion purposes.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will carefully consider the taxation of all forms of road fuel in the course of preparing his Budget.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Convicted Persons (New Evidence)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the machinery by which the Court of Appeal deals with new evidence on convicted persons.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations from Members of both Houses of Parliament, and from members of the public, about the role of the Court of Appeal in considering such cases.

  World Cup (Deportations)
  Mr. Denis Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to seek the destruction of all photographs and records of the English football supporters deported from Italy following the decision of the Italian Government to withdraw restrictions upon them returning to Italy and acceptance of their innocence.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In the absence of any other football-related information on them, the national football intelligence unit will destroy by the end of the year the records it holds of all those who were removed from Italy during the World cup without having been convicted of an offence. Any person who wishes to see his record may apply to do so under the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the name, ranks and forces of those who attended the meeting at Scotland Yard on Friday 29 November 1974 to co-ordinate action for gathering intelligence against suspected members of the IRA in England, in connection with the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Waddington
  I understand that a number of conferences were held following the Birmingham pub bombings and that these were attended by members of police forces which were engaged in the investigations. Records relating to these conferences have since been destroyed, and the Metropolitan police are unable to say which forces attended which conferences or on what dates the conferences took place.

  Wyndham Burnett
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the release on parole of Wyndham Burnett a prisoner at Wayland prison, Norfolk, sentenced in December 1986.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 17 September.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were still in police cells in Greater Manchester on 12 October.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On Friday 12 October, there were 269 prisoners in Greater Manchester police cells.

  Sports Events
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans for the future of the national football intelligence unit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The purpose of the national football intelligence unit is to counteract serious and persistent football hooligans by co-ordinating police intelligence in this country and by improving liaison with police forces abroad. Its aims were more fully explained in Home Office circular 30/1990, a copy of which is in the Library. We shall continue to support the unit in its important work.

  Sports Events
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his undertaking to look carefully and quickly at the recommendation in Lord Justice Taylor's final report into the Hillsborough tragedy that it be made a specific offence to chant obscene or racialist abuse at designated sports grounds, 29 January,Official Report, column 21, what plans he has for implementing this recommendation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We hope to announce shortly our conclusions on whether to create this offence and the others recommended by Lord Justice Taylor.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to prevent broadcasters giving prominence through coverage of motor sports events to brewing companies' names and advertising.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans to do so. I understand, however, that the Brewer's Society has advised its members not to become involved in the sponsorship of motor sports events.

  Special Constabulary
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how funding is distributed for the special constabulary in England and Wales; and whether he has any plans to increase this funding in the near future.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Expenditure on the special constabulary is a matter for police authorities; all expenditure qualifies for 51 per cent. police grant from the Government.
  717
  The Government are also financing a three-year national publicity campaign to aid recruitment. This will start in 1991 at an estimated cost of around £1·5 million a year.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department will take positive steps to discuss with the Data Protection Registrar all his Department's legislation that impacts on the use, collection, processing or holding of personal data; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I am reminding officials of the need to consult the registrar about proposed legislation which might affect or be affected by the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the Government reserved the right to comply, or not, with principles 2·2 and 2·4 (collection of data) of the recommendation NO R (87) 15 of the Committee of Ministers to member states regulating the use of personal data in the public sector; whether these principles are complied with in respect of the information held on the police national computer; whether these principles are complied with in respect of personal information held on computer by the special branch; and whether it is the Government's intention to rescind the reservation entered to these principles.

  Mr. Lloyd
  The Government reserved their position on principles 2·2 and 2·4 after consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers. Principle 2·2 requires the police to inform individuals, where practicable, that data have been collected about them without their knowledge. It was felt that occasions would arise when although it would be practicable to disclose such information, it would be undesirable to do so; for example, where an individual might inform an associate that he had been under suspicion. The proviso that information need be disclosed only when the object of the police activities was no longer likely to he prejudiced was regarded as unrealistic and impractical in the context of police work.

  Principle 2·4, which restricts police activities in collecting data on particular groups such as suspected paedophiles, could seriously inhibit the police in preventing and detecting crime. The Government therefore entered reservations on both these principles. That remains the position.

  In collecting and storing data, the police national computer and computer systems in police forces comply with the ACPO code of practice for police computer systems. The code establishes procedures and safeguards to promote the maintenance of good practice and compliance with the Data Protection Act 1984. A copy of the code is in the Library.

  Iraqi Nationals
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Iraqi nationals are at present in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is estimated from the labour force surveys that some 5,000 Iraqi nationals, including students, are usually resident in the United Kingdom. Information on the number of Iraqi nationals currently in this country as visitors is not available.

  May Inquiry
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make arrangements for those classified documents which Sir John May's inquiry into the Guildford and Maguire cases deems necessary for the purposes of that inquiry, to be made available to that inquiry;

  (2) if he will make arrangements so that Sir John May's inquiry into the Guildford and Maguire cases is not constrained by the convention that police reports are not customarily allowed to enter the public domain;

  (3) if he will waive public interest immunity in respect of documents which Sir John May's inquiry into the Guildford and Maguire cases deems necessary for the purposes of that inquiry.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no reason to believe that the present arrangements make unavailable to Sir John May the documents he needs to carry out his inquiry satisfactorily, and therefore see no need at present to change those arrangements.

  Security Checks
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many security check inquiries were made of the National Identification Bureau on individuals by(a) Government departments and (b) other approved bodies in the years 1986, 1987 and 1988; and if he will list the names of the approved bodies who may undertake such inquiries;

  (2) if he will list the areas of employment which require security checks; and if he will list the areas of employment of those individuals who were the subject of a security check in 1989;

  (3) what was the cost of making security check inquiries on individuals in 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Details of criminal records are not released to bodies outside the criminal justice system except where disclosure is clearly in the public interest Information may be provided by the Nationa Identification Bureau to Government Departments and other bodies, direct or through the police, for purpose: such as the protection of national security, the protection of children and other vulnerable members of society and ensuring probity of justice. This covers a wide range o areas of employment but detailed records of these are no kept.

  Under the terms of the data protection registration fo the police, information may be released to the following

  Central Government Departments

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority

  Gaming Board for Great Britain

  Office of Fair Trading

  Local Authorities

  Foreign Governments

  Police Forces

  Prosecuting Authorities

  Courts

  Judges

  Magistrates

  Probation Service

  Hospitals, nursing homes

  Banks

  Lawyers

  Research Organisations

  British Telecom

  British Broadcasting Corporation

  Civil Aviation Authority

  719

  Post Office

  Police Complaints Authority

  General Medical Council and other similar professional organizations

  Official Receiver

  Traffic Commissioners

  Criminal Injury Compensation Board

  Crown Agents

  Crown Estate Commissioners

  National Museums and Galleries

  Royal Mint

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  Securities and Investments Board

  The purposes of criminal record checks by the police, Government Departments or approved bodies are not recorded centrally and the number and cost of those for security vetting cannot be identified. The number of checks undertaken by the Government searches section of the National Identification Bureau for vetting and other purposes was as follows:

  Number

  1986

  384,595

  1987

  348,901

  1988

  385,308

  These figures represent the number of transactions undertaken and not the number of individuals on whom checks were made. The same individual may have been checked more than once.

  The estimated cost of the Government searches section in 1989 was about £500,000.

  Police Computer
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Government Departments(a) presently have access to the police national computer and (b) will have access to the new police computer.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In addition to the Home Office, HM Customs and Excise investigation division and the Drivers and Vehicles Licensing Agency have terminals giving them direct access to some of the information on the police national computer.

  Consideration is being given to a proposal to allow a number of other Government Departments to have direct access to the criminal names index on the new police national computer. This would enable Departments to undertake their own preliminary inquiries, thus reducing the work load of the National Identification Bureau. In cases where this preliminary inquiry indicates that the subject might have a criminal record, the Department would ask the NIB to undertake a detailed check of the records.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a date has been set for the new police computer (PNC2) to become fully operational; what is its potential full capacity; and approximately how many individual records are likely to be held on the PNC2 at the date when it becomes fully operational.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A firm date has not yet been set for the "cut over" from the present PNC system to PNC2. It will be set only after all the components of the new system have been delivered and fully tested.

  As the hon. Member was told in reply to his question on 24 July at column 132, the PNC2 system will be capable
  720
  of handling 62 million instructions per second, its main memory will be capable of storing 190 million bytes of data and it will have sufficient disk capacity to store 80,000 million bytes of data.

  PNC2 is expected to hold records on about 45 million vehicles, 6 million persons and 4 million fingerprints.

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether there are plans to establish an agency independent of the police to maintain the national collection of criminal records;

  (2) whether a decision has been taken on transferring those criminal records presently held on microfiche to the new police computer.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As stated in the Governments' response to the Home Affairs Select Committee's report on criminal records (Cm. 1163), a study is to be undertaken to examine the most appropriate arrangements for the maintenance of, and disclosure from, the national collection of criminal records. In the light of the findings of this study, the Government will consider where responsibility for this work should lie.

  The response also makes clear the Government's intention to computerise the national collection of criminal records, which is currently held on microfiche, as and when resources permit.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are plans to update and amend Home Offices circular No. 45/1986 or to lay down statutory principles to govern the disclosure of criminal records as recommended by the Home Affairs Committee's report on criminal records.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 24 July 1990 at column 132.

  As stated in the Government's response to the Home Affairs Select Committee's report on criminal records (Cm. 1163), a study is to be undertaken to examine, among other things, the most appropriate arrangements for disclosure from the national collection of criminal records.

  Guinness Trial
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether those convicted in the Guinness trial will be allowed to carry on their private business directly or indirectly during their imprisonment.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Restrictions on business activities that apply to all prisoners have been published in prison standing order 1C, a copy of which is in the Library. Convicted prisoners are not allowed to conduct any business activity from prison, other than to wind up a business or to make arrangements for it to be managed in their absence.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are plans to include the new police computer into the Government data network.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no such plans.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the kind of information presently held on the police national computer under the data class of warning signals.
  721
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Warning signals are intended to alert officers to potential difficulties or risks in dealing with the individual. They may be used only in cases where there is supporting evidence of the need for them to be included in the record. Their inclusion and removal is at the discretion of the force which enters the record on the police national computer.

  The information held under the data class of warning signals is intended to indicate individuals who may possess firearms, may possess weapons, may resort to violent behaviour, may attempt to escape, may suffer from mental disorder, may possess explosives, may make false allegations against the police, may be a hazard to others as a carrier of contagious diseases (e.g., hepatitis), may suffer from a medical condition and/or require medication, e.g., heart condition, claustrophobia, epilepsy, alcoholism, may attempt suicide, may be in unlawful possession of controlled drugs, may impersonate male or female.

  Overseas Voters
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he has taken to monitor the use by political parties of the provision for registration of overseas voters for proxy vote of the Representation of the People Act 1989; (2) what guidance has been issued to groups seeking to register overseas voters as to how under the Representation of the People Act 1989 it is permissible to choose proxy voters for any particular constituency.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There is no reason for the Home Office to monitor the activities of the political parties in encouraging eligible expatriates to register as overseas electors, or in assisting them to appoint proxies to vote on their behalf. A proxy appointed to vote on behalf of an overseas elector can do so only in the constituency for which the elector is registered. Political parties are, we believe, well aware of the legal requirements for appointing a proxy, and we see no need to issue special guidance on the subject.

  Visas
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes there have been in entry requirements for citizens of east European countries; and what information he has that relates to changes between those countries of the European Community.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  During the summer, my right hon. and learned Friend introduced an immigration rules change removing the former German Democratic Republic from the list of countries whose nationals require a visa for admission to the United Kingdom. Following a further change last month, Czechoslovakia and Hungary were removed from the visa list with effect from 1 October. Most of our European Community partners have taken similar steps in relation to these countries.

  Drugs
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of those convicted of drug offences offend again within three years of(a) release from imprisonment or (b) the pronouncement of a non-custodial sentence;

  (2) what are the comparative success ratios, measured by reoffending rates, of the various types of sentence passed upon those convicted of drug-related offences.
  722
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The only readily available information is about drugs offenders discharged from custody in 1984 who were reconvicted within two years. This was published in table 8(c) of prison statistics for England and Wales 1987 (Cm 547) a copy of which is in the Library.

  Philippine Citizens (Employment)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what conditions Philippine citizens are admitted into the United Kingdom for employment by(a) public bodies, (b) registered businesses, (c) United Kingdom citizens and (d) non-United Kingdom citizens; and what steps he takes to ensure equitable conditions and contracts of employment and registration of any change of employer.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Overseas nationals seeking admission to the United Kingdom must qualify under the relevant provisions of the immigration rules (currently HC 251 as amended). As non-EC nationals, Philippine citizens wishing to work here generally require work permits. However, as I explained in a reply to a question from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 22 February 1990 at columns 917–8, there are exceptional arrangements outside the immigration rules and the work permit scheme under which a domestic servant who has worked abroad for an employer who comes to the United Kingdom can be admitted to continue working for him here. We have recently reviewed these arrangements in view of the concern about the possible exploitation of domestics and the outcome of that review was announced in another place by my noble Friend Lord Ferrers in reply to a question from Lord Hylton on 24 July 1990 at columns 1449–50. Whatever the provisions under which overseas nationals are admitted for work, they are entitled to the normal protection of our law. Their ability to change employers will, however, depend on the conditions on which they have been granted leave to enter or stay in the United Kingdom.

  Operation Carnaby
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for an interim report from the Metropolitan Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the investigation operation Carnaby, outlining its terms of reference, manpower utilisation, and budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Operation Carnaby is a criminal investigation by the Metropolitan police. I have no plans to ask the Commissioner for a report on that investigation.

  Research Contracts
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the research contracts awarded by his Department to academic institutions, and their cost, since 1985.

  Mr. Waddington
  [holding answer 10 July 1990]: Information on the cost and nature of each research contract awarded by my Department to academic and research institutions since 1985 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Total estimated Home Office expenditure on assignments

  723
  awarded to academic institutions for the period January 1985 to April 1990 is £6,725,271, and is represented as follows:

  £

  Oxford Centre for Criminological Research/Oxford University

  799,309

  New Mexico Engineering Research Institute

  605,195

  University of East Anglia

  572,500

  Institute of Criminology/Cambridge University

  564,250

  University of London

  510,788

  Policy Studies Institute

  299,000

  University of Birmingham

  294,330

  NACRO

  252,000

  VERA Institute of Justice

  250,532

  University of Manchester

  210,839

  University of Surrey

  165,981

  University of Bath

  165,400

  Tavistock Institute

  164,000

  London School of Economics

  141,662

  University of Swansea

  140,685

  University of Essex

  138,000

  University of Leeds

  128,123

  University of Bristol

  118,650

  University of Liverpool

  118,000

  University of Kent

  113,427

  University of Edinburgh

  105,953

  University of Aberdeen

  95,087

  University of Loughborough

  87,779

  University of Sheffield

  84,000

  University of Nottingham

  82,235

  University of Sussex

  75,000

  Hatfield Polytechnic

  69,522

  Bradford/Ilkley College

  59,000

  University of Dundee

  56,000

  City University

  55,078

  Policy Foundation

  45,500

  University of Hull

  40,990

  Trent Polytechnic

  40,700

  University of Warwick

  40,574

  Economics and Social Research Council

  40,000

  South Bank Polytechnic

  37,146

  Local Govenment Operation Research Unit

  34,500

  University of North London

  30,000

  University of Reading

  28,158

  National Institute for Social Work

  27,500

  North London Polytechnic

  25,200

  University of Lancaster

  18,000

  Thames Polytechnic

  18,000

  University of Cardiff

  8,000

  University of Brunel

  7,950

  Coventry Polytechnic

  7,000

  University of Southampton

  4,260

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Maintenance
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on his proposals to ensure that fathers pay maintenance.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on his proposals to ensure that fathers pay maintenance.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on his proposals to ensure that fathers pay maintenance.

  Mr. Newton
  I have received correspondence on this subject from one of the major lone parent organisations, members of the public and other interested parties. We will be publishing full details of our proposals in a White Paper shortly.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the numbers who have taken out personal pensions.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the numbers who will have taken out personal pensions.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the numbers who have taken out personal pensions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) earlier today.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are now in receipt of family credit.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are now in receipt of family credit.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are now in receipt of family credit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friends to my reply to the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) earlier today.

  Computerisation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding computerisation of the social security system.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Various inquiries have been received, both from members of the public and a number of outside organisations regarding the effectiveness of the Department's strategy systems, for which I have been able to provide comprehensive replies.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about spending on disabled people since 1979.

  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about spending on disabled people since 1979.

  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the increase in spending by the Government in support of disabled people since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friends to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir David Price) earlier today.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the numbers of people who will benefit from the measures outlined in "The Way Ahead".
  725
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the numbers of people who will benefit from the measures outlined in "The Way Ahead".

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the numbers of people who will benefit from the measures outlined in "The Way Ahead".

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friends to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) earlier today.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had with disability organisations on his proposals outlined in "The Way Ahead-Benefits for Disabled People".

  Mr. Scott
  We regularly meet the disability organisations to discuss a wide range of issues. I met the Disability Benefits Consortium—an umbrella group representing over 250 disability organisations—on 5 April in the second of a series of meetings to discuss their views on "The Way Ahead". On 1 August we issued a consultation document, "Disability Allowance: Assessment and Adjudication" building on the proposals set out in "The Way Ahead" and inviting comments. Copies of the paper have been sent to over 125 disability organisations and a number of these have sent constructive and interesting replies. A copy of the paper has been placed in the Library.

  Income Support
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many deductions are now taking place from people on income support to cover debts arising from the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Just over 9,000 deductions for community charge arrears were being made at 31 August 1990.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the level of supplementary benefit and income support scale rates for(a) a single person householder aged over 25 years and (b) married couples, each year since 1970; and what these amounts were as a percentage of national average earnings for each of these years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is available in tables 6·4b and 6·5b of the Abstract of Statistics for index of retail prices, Average Earnings, Social Security Benefits and Contributions published August 1989. A copy of this is in the Library.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the numbers of (i) men and (ii) women pensioners on income support by duration of time on benefit.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number and proportion of pensioners were receiving (i) income support only, (ii) retirement pensions only and (iii) income support and retirement pension, broken down by sex in each case.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information to show whether pensioners in receipt of Income Support also receive the 726
  state retirement pension is not available. The remainder of the information requested is available in tables 12·2A, 12·2B and 12·2C of the Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry. This was published in July 1990 and a copy is in the Library.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number and proportion of unemployed people were receiving (i) income support only, (ii) unemployment benefit only and (iii) income support and unemployment benefit, broken down by sex in each case.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information as at May 1990 is contained in part (1) of table 1·1 of "Unemployment Benefit Statistics—Quarterly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Community Care
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will direct social fund officers to consider applications for community care grants from persons leaving institutional care and entitled to invalidity benefit, whose weekly income is not more than £10 above income support level.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will direct social fund oflicers to consider applications for community care grants from persons leaving institutional care and entitled to invalidity benefit, whose weekly income is not more than £10 above income support level.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will direct social fund officers to consider applications for community care grants from persons leaving institutional care and entitled to invalidity benefit, whose weekly income is not more than £10 above income support level.

  Mr. Scott
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Acton (Sir George Young) asked me if I would look at extending eligibility for community care grants on 2 July 1990, and I am doing so.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of applications for community care grants were refused in 1988–89, 1989–90 and the first half of 1990–91.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) earlier today.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the latest trend in pensioners' real incomes since 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) earlier today.

  Social Security Applications
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has regarding the percentage of errors made by his Department in calculating social security applications.
  727
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department has a well established management information system which includes a range of output measures and performance indicators covering the adminsitration of all the major benefits. One performance indicator provides a measure of how accurately claims are handled, based on the percentage of payments which are incorrect. The figures are published in table 14·31 in the Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93 (Cm 1014) a copy of which is in the Library.

  Contributions (Earnings Limit)
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the upper earnings limit for social security contributions.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the upper earnings limit for social security contributions.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the upper earnings limit for social security contributions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We received representations from the Institute of Directors on this subject early this year.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the value of child benefit in real terms and as a percentage of average earnings in 1980, 1985 and 1990, respectively.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the value of child benefit in real terms and as a percentage of average earnings in 1980, 1985 and 1990, respectively.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is as follows:

  Date

  Weekly rate of child benefit (£)

  Equivalent value at April 1990 price1 (£)

  Rate as a percentage of average male gross earnings

  November 1980

  4·75

  8·55

  3·5

  November 1985

  7·00

  9·13

  3·5

  April 1990

  7·25

  7·25

  2·5

  1 Based on the movement in the general index of retail prices between the date in the first column and April 1990.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his plans for child benefit in 1991.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his plans for child benefit in 1991.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government's position on child benefit remains as set out in our last manifesto. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will continue therefore to review its level each year in accordance with existing law.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the number of standard rate taxpayers who would be affected by the abolition of the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions.
  728
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the numbers of standard rate taxpayers who would be affected by the abolition of the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) earlier today.

  Lone-parent Families
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest figure he has for the number of lone-parent families in receipt of income support; and how many such families were receiving supplementary benefit five years ago.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In 1989 there were 767,000 lone-parent families in receipt of income support; the corresponding figure for supplementary benefit for 1984 was 500,000. The figures do not include prisoners' partners.

  Source:Annual Statistical Enquiries for the relevant years.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the criteria governing the award of mobility allowance so that dependent blind persons who are unable to enjoy any mobility may qualify.

  Mr. Scott
  In April this year we extended mobility allowance to people who are both deaf and blind. Our proposals set out in "The Way Ahead: benefits for disabled people" (Cm. 917) will extend help to less severely disabled people of working age and below and will benefit many people with sight disabilities who are not independently mobile.

  Departmental Manuals
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the titles of guidance and procedural manuals produced for his Department's offices which are not available to the public and (b) in each case, the reason for them not being available publicly.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The table shows the titles of Departmental guidance and procedural manuals which are not available to the public. They contain administrative and procedural instructions for staff which would be of little value to the general public, and also prescribe checks and controls which must remain confidential.

  Title

  AA

  Attendance Allowance

  ABC

  Aids to Benefit calculation

  AP

  Adjudication Procedure

  AR

  Adjudication Reference

  CAP

  Common Appeals Procedures

  CC

  Contributions and Credits

  CCG

  Country Code Gazetteer

  CCM

  Court Collection Manual

  CHL

  Child Benefit Law

  CHP

  Child Benefit Procedure

  Conts Calc

  Contributions Calculator

  729

  Title

  COP

  Communications and Office Practice

  CRM

  Civil Recovery Manual

  CT

  Credits Manual

  DC

  Departmental Circulars

  DCI

  Departmental Central Index

  DM

  Datalink Manual

  DPM

  Data Protection Manual

  DPM Circulars

  Social Security Weekly Staff Announcements

  DSI

  Departmental Security Instructions

  Detailed User Guide

  Detailed User Guide for Family Credit

  EPIC

  Emergency Instructions and Procedures Code

  F

  Finance Code

  FIG (E&W)

  Fraud Investigator's Guide (England and Wales)

  FIG (SCOT)

  Fraud Investigator's Guide (Scotland)

  GB

  General Benefits

  GSC

  General Staff Code

  II (HQMB)

  Handbook for Industrial Injuries Medical Board

  IS (POG)

  Income Support (Printed Output Guide)

  IS (OS) SRG

  Income Support (Operational Strategy) System Reference Guide

  LAM

  Legal Aid Manual

  LOSP

  Local Office Stationery Procedure

  LP

  Legal Proceedings

  LR Guide

  Liability of Relatives (England and Wales)

  LR (S) Guide

  Liability of Relatives (Scotland)

  M

  Maternity: Benefits Procedure

  MAM

  Microcomputer Administration Manual

  MB

  Maternity Benefit

  MDLT

  Manual of Draft Letters for Typists

  ME

  Medical Boarding and Examinations

  Mob A

  Mobility Allowance

  MPM 57

  Handbook for War Pensions Medical Board

  MPM 57A

  Handbook for Medical Officer (War Pensions)

  MS

  Guidance for Medical Staff

  MUM

  Microcomputer User Manual

  NP

  New Pensions

  Notes for Managers

  Security Matters

  OA

  Office Administration

  OAL

  Office Address List

  OPAM

  Order Printer and Addresser Manual

  ORG

  Overpayments Recovery Guide

  P

  Pneumoconiosis: Office Procedure

  P (Supp)

  Pneumoconiosis: Board Procedure

  PIP

  Pensions Instructions and Procedures

  PL

  Pensions Law

  POM

  Post Operations Manual

  PPI

  Protection of Personal Information

  PSCS (POG)

  Pensions Strategy Computer Systems (Printed Output Guide)

  RC

  Reception Centre

  RIG

  Regional Implementation Guide

  ROW

  Relocation of Work

  ROWIG

  Relocation of Work Implementation Guide

  SB

  Sickness Benefit

  SFIM

  Social Fund Information for Managers

  SIG

  Strategy Implementation Manual

  SML

  Screen Message List

  SMR

  Statistics and Management Returns

  SSTI

  Social Security Technical Instructions

  STS

  Strategy Terminal Systems

  TAG

  Terminal Administration Guide

  VDLF

  Volume of Draft Letters and Forms

  WIP

  Widows Instructions and Procedures

  WP

  War Pensions

  WP (LO)

  War Pensions

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether students who will remain entitled to housing benefit and non-student partners in receipt of housing benefit will receive a £10 disregard for income from top-up loans.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Yes. The disregard, which will be subject to the overriding disregard of £10 on all income other than earnings, will apply for as long as the loan recipient remains a student.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Department intends to reply to the letter sent by Merseyside Welfare Rights Resource Centre on 25 April regarding an apparent contradiction between practices within his Department and a written reply given by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We are unable to trace this letter. If the hon. member could provide a copy, I will look into the matter.

  Family Benefits
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the relative benefits given to a family with children(a) in the higher tax range and (b) below the tax threshold of child benefit or a general equivalent child tax allowance.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Child benefit provides virtually all families with a contribution towards the costs of bringing up their children, irrespective of their tax liability, though the total family income of those receiving income support or family credit is not normally affected by the level of child benefit. A child tax allowance whose value to the basic rate taxpayer was equivalent to the level of child benefit would be worth more to families with incomes liable to tax at the higher rate. Child tax allowances would not benefit families who do not pay tax, and some families with relatively small taxable incomes would be able to take only partial advantage of them.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether his Department will take positive steps to discuss with the Data Protection Registrar, all his Department's legislation that impacts on the use, collection, processing or holding of personal data; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We are reminding our officials of the need to consult the registrar about proposed legislation which might affect or be affected by the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Review Applications
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for review were received during the period(a) April 1988 to March 1989 and (b) April 1989 to March 1990 in respect of (i) community care grants, (ii) budgeting loans and (iii) crisis loans by each of the local offices in Leeds; and how many of these applications for review resulted in revised decisions.
  731
  Mr. Scott
  The table shows the number of applications for review received by the Department's offices in Leeds and the number of revised decisions subsequently made by the social fund officers, senior officers and the social fund inspectors.

  Applications received

  Decision revised

  LEEDS EAST

  April 1988 to March 1989

  Community care grant

  33

  11

  Budgeting loan

  149

  67

  Crisis loan

  8

  3

  April 1989 to March 1990

  Community care grant

  105

  38

  Budgeting loan

  211

  83

  Crisis loan

  7

  1

  LEEDS NORTH

  April 1988 to March 1989

  Community care grant

  57

  27

  Budgeting loan

  118

  50

  Crisis loan

  9

  5

  April 1989 to March 1990

  Community care grant

  144

  44

  Budgeting loan

  174

  73

  Crisis loan

  8

  3

  LEEDS NORTH WEST

  April 1988 to March 1989

  Community care grant

  58

  24

  Budgeting loan

  102

  54

  Crisis loan

  10

  5

  April 1989 to March 1990

  Community care grant

  147

  53

  Budgeting loan

  181

  57

  Crisis loan

  5

  0

  LEEDS SOUTH

  April 1988 to March 1989

  Community care grant

  29

  11

  Budgeting loan

  78

  21

  Crisis loan

  12

  6

  April 1989 to March 1990

  Community care grant

  57

  22

  Budgeting loan

  85

  29

  Crisis loan

  12

  5

  LEEDS WEST

  April 1988 to March 1989

  Community care grant

  21

  5

  Budgeting loan

  110

  44

  Crisis loan

  7

  4

  April 1989 to March 1990

  Community care grant

  48

  23

  Budgeting loan

  102

  31

  Crisis loan

  5

  4

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the financing and future of the Independent Living Fund.

  Mr. Scott
  Our plans for the future of the Independent Living Fund are still under consideration following the decision to phase the implementation of community care. The level of funding for the ILF in 1991–92 will be announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his usual statement on the uprating of benefits.
  732
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State of Social Security what plans he has to incorporate the Independent Living Fund into the social security system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to incorporate the Independent Living Fund into the social security system.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications to the Independent Living Fund have been submitted since 1 August.

  Mr. Scott
  At 10 October the Independent Living Fund had received 1,233 applications since 1 August.

  Crisis Loans
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the budgeting loans budget was spent on crisis loans for those making an initial claim for income support and awaiting payment in arrears for the years(a) April 1988 to March 1989 and (b) April 1989 to March 1990 in (i) the local offices within the Leeds metropolitan area and (ii) nationally as (1) an actual figure and (2) a percentage.

  Mr. Scott
  The tables show the crisis loan expenditure by the Department's offices nationally and in Leeds arising from applications for applicants awaiting an initial payment of benefit.

  Crisis loan expenditure (Alignment) £

  Percentage of loans budget spent on crisis loans for alignment

  April 1988 to 1989

  National

  5,016,000·00

  4·00

  Leeds East

  20,871·66

  3·61

  Leeds North

  22,193·24

  3·70

  Leeds North West

  24,629·23

  7·74

  Leeds South

  6,632·38

  2·85

  Leeds West

  5,201·47

  1·71

  April 1989 to 1990

  National

  6,202,000·00

  4·39

  Leeds East

  20,023·98

  3·39

  Leeds North

  25,842·84

  3·70

  Leeds North West

  26,471·16

  7·02

  Leeds South

  11,987·78

  5·01

  Leeds West

  8,640·15

  2·79

  Social Fund
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for review of social fund decisions were received by the office of the social fund inspectors during the periods(a) April 1988 to March 1989 and (b) April 1989 to March 1990 in respect of (i) community care grants, (ii) budgeting loans and (iii) crisis loans, relating to decisions made by each of the local offices in Leeds; and how many of these applications for social fund inspectors' review resulted in (1) decisions substituted by the social fund inspectors, (2) decisions referred back to the social fund office and (3) decisions confirmed by the social fund inspector.

  Mr. Scott
  I am advised by the Social Fund Commissioner that the table represents the total number of applications for review received at the office of the social fund inspectors from the Department's offices in Leeds. The social fund inspectors have reached decisions in 27 cases for the first year and 79 cases for the second year.
  733

  Budget loans

  Crisis loans

  Community care grants

  LEEDS EAST

  11 April 1988 to 31 March 1989

  Received

  2

  0

  2

  Confirmed

  1

  0

  0

  Referred back

  1

  0

  2

  Substituted

  0

  0

  0

  1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  Received

  8

  0

  7

  Confirmed

  1

  0

  0

  Referred back

  6

  0

  5

  Substituted

  0

  0

  0

  LEEDS NORTH-WEST

  11 April 1988 to 31 March 1989

  Received

  8

  0

  6

  Confirmed

  1

  0

  2

  Referred Back

  3

  0

  1

  Substituted

  1

  0

  1

  1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  Received

  12

  0

  19

  Confirmed

  1

  0

  2

  Referred Back

  9

  0

  13

  Substituted

  0

  0

  2

  LEEDS NORTH

  11 April 1988 to 31 March 1989

  Received

  3

  0

  3

  Confirmed

  1

  0

  2

  Referred Back

  1

  0

  0

  Substituted

  0

  0

  0

  1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  Received

  7

  1

  14

  Confirmed

  3

  1

  0

  Referred Back

  4

  0

  11

  Substituted

  0

  0

  0

  LEEDS SOUTH

  11 April 1988 to 31 March 1989

  Received

  2

  1

  3

  Confirmed

  1

  0

  1

  Referred Back

  0

  0

  1

  Substituted

  0

  1

  0

  1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  Received

  5

  3

  5

  Confirmed

  0

  1

  4

  Referred Back

  3

  1

  1

  Substituted

  0

  1

  0

  LEEDS WEST

  11 April 1988 to 31 March 1989

  Received

  6

  0

  0

  Confirmed

  2

  0

  0

  Referred Back

  4

  0

  0

  Substituted

  0

  0

  0

  1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  Received

  6

  2

  4

  Confirmed

  2

  0

  1

  Referred Back

  2

  1

  2

  Substituted

  0

  1

  1

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide for each of the local offices in the Leeds metropolitan district comparable information to that provided in his answer of 6 July to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn),Official Report, column 721, for the years (a) 1985–86, (b) 1986–87, (c) 1987–88, (d) 1988–89 and (e) 1989–90.
  734
  Mr. Scott
  The table shows the comparative expenditure for the Department's offices in Leeds as reckoned by the gross domestic product deflator.

  Expenditure (£ thousands)

  Leeds South

  1985–86 single payments

  903

  1986–87 single payments

  689

  1987–88 single payments

  323

  1988–89 social fund

  Gross

  273

  Net

  102

  1989–90 social fund

  Gross

  277

  Net

  108

  Leeds North

  1985–86 single payments

  2,984

  1986–87 single payments

  2,215

  1987–88 single payments

  854

  1988–89 social fund

  Gross

  768

  Net

  425

  1989–90 social fund

  Gross

  804

  Net

  371

  Leeds North West

  1985–86 single payments

  725

  1986–87 single payments

  691

  1987–88 single payments

  522

  1988–89 social fund

  Gross

  340

  Net

  188

  1989–90 social fund

  Gross

  443

  Net

  212

  Leeds East

  1985–86 single payments

  1,272

  1986–87 single payments

  1,088

  1987–88 single payments

  793

  1988–89 social fund

  Gross

  685

  Net

  322

  1989–90 social fund

  Gross

  674

  Net

  313

  Leeds West

  1985–86 single payments

  1,076

  1986–87 single payments

  797

  1987–88 single payments

  453

  1988–89 social fund

  Gross

  337

  Net

  163

  1989–90 social fund

  Gross

  364

  Net

  156

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department has considered research conducted by the university of Lancaster for the Social Security Research Consortium on the effects of the social fund in responding to the needs of claimants in Strathclyde; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Yes. The research was based on a small localised sample that only reflects the first year of the scheme. The conclusions it reaches are unlikely to be typical of the current operation of the social fund.

  We have commissioned major independent research which is being conducted by the university of York's social policy research unit, to examine whether the social fund is meeting its objectives.
  735
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what extra social fund resources have been available to each social security office in Glasgow since 1 July.

  Mr Scott
  Details of all additional allocations to local offices since 1 July 1990 were placed in the Library on 3 September. There have been no further allocations since 3 September.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each social security office in Glasgow the numbers of social fund applications(a) submitted and (b) rejected on grounds of insufficient priority, since 1 July in each of the categories (i) grants, (ii) budget loans and (iii) crisis loans.

  Mr. Scott
  The information given in the table represents the number of applications and the number which were refused on grounds of insufficient priority, within each category, since 1 July 1990.

  Note: The figures given relate to the period 1 July to 30 September 1990 only.

  Glasgow social security offices

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  Community care grants

  Anniesland

  Applications made

  1,427

  570

  845

  Applications rejected

  54

  0

  23

  Bridgeton

  Applications made

  1,070

  745

  821

  Applications rejected

  72

  2

  31

  City

  Applications made

  1,030

  488

  787

  Applications rejected

  42

  0

  42

  Craigton

  Applications made

  1,150

  739

  761

  Applications rejected

  5

  0

  16

  Cranstonhill

  Applications made

  266

  771

  228

  Applications rejected

  89

  0

  0

  Laurieston

  Applications made

  1,124

  686

  623

  Applications rejected

  1

  1

  0

  Maryhill

  Applications made

  965

  574

  625

  Applications rejected

  30

  0

  10

  Partick

  Applications made

  682

  433

  360

  Applications rejected

  83

  1

  14

  Provan

  Applications made

  2,359

  844

  1,372

  Applications rejected

  132

  1

  55

  Rutherglen

  Applications made

  2,082

  1,041

  1,085

  Applications rejected

  160

  1

  41

  Shettlestone

  Applications made

  1,563

  416

  871

  Applications rejected

  34

  0

  79

  South Side

  Applications made

  1,692

  921

  953

  Applications rejected

  292

  2

  91

  Springburn

  736

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  Community care grants

  Applications made

  1,904

  1,188

  1,404

  Applications rejected

  101

  3

  103

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he is considering to establish a departmental or private agency for the pursuit and recovery of social fund loans and income support overpayments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans for the establishment of a separate agency for the pursuit and recovery of social fund loans and income support overpayments. Such work will become a responsibility of the Benefits Agency after its inception in April 1991.

  Social Security Commissioners
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average cost to his Department of an appeal to the social security commissioners.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The office of the chief adjudication officer, which is funded by the Department of Social Security, is responsible for processing appeals to the Commissioners. The most recent estimate of the total average cost of the work involved, which has been provided by the chief adjudication officer, is about £2,000. However, the cost is being recalculated and I will write to the hon. Member again when this information becomes available.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has to why the necessary claims forms and assessment forms were not available on 1 October for obtaining attendance allowance under the new rules for people who are terminally ill; how many persons he estimates experienced delays as a result; who was responsible for the failure to provide the necessary forms on time; and what actions he has taken to remedy these problems.

  Mr. Scott
  The new forms for use by people claiming attendance allowance on grounds of terminal illness were distributed to local offices on 11 September. Supplies were also sent to carers' organisations and welfare rights groups by 22 September. The report forms for use by doctors were distributed during September and all GPs and other doctors likely to need them should have had access to one by 1 October.

  Some delays in the distribution of these forms did occur due to a breakdown in communication between the Department and HMSO. Special arrangements were made to enable people to get supplies urgently and to ensure that claimants do not lose benefit due to delay in obtaining a form.

  Pensions
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would have been the value of the state retirement pension for (i) a single person and (ii) a married couple for each of the years 1980 to 1990, if it had been uprated in line with average earnings or increase in prices, whichever was the higher.
  737
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  It should be noted that such a link would attract a consequent increase in the national insurance contribution. It is estimated that the necessary increase in the contribution rate to support the additional cost in 1990 would be 1·25 per cent. and 1·45 per cent. on the basic rate of employees and employers contributions respectively; increasing them to 10·25 per cent. and 11·9 per cent. respectively. This would have meant for example a contribution increase for an employee on average earnings of £3·18 per week, together with an additional contribution of £4·35 per week for his employer.

  Standard rate RP increased by RPI or earnings since 1980

  Uprating date

  Single person

  Married couple

  November 1980

  27·45

  44·00

  November 1981

  30·75

  49·30

  November 1982

  33·30

  53·40

  November 1983

  36·20

  58·05

  November 1984

  38·05

  61·00

  November 1985

  41·40

  66·35

  July 1986

  43·70

  70·05

  April 1987

  45·60

  73·15

  April 1988

  49·20

  78·95

  April 1989

  53·45

  85·75

  April 1990

  58·65

  94·05

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average weekly amount received, by quintile groups, by retirement pensioners from occupational pensions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 25 July at columns 305–10.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sri Lanka
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will make representations to the Government of Sri Lanka to accept an immediate ceasefire in the civil war and a return to negotiations with mediation by the United Nations Secretary General.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since the latest outbreak of fighting the Sri Lankan Government have twice proposed a ceasefire. The Tamil terrorists "Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam" have rejected these proposals on both occasions. In the circumstances, representations would not be appropriate.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what activities are currently banned by the Antarctic treaty; and what information he has in respect of breaches of banned practices by any of the treaty parties since 1961.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Under the Antarctic treaty the following are prohibited:any measure of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases and fortifications, the carrying out of military manoeuvres, as well as the testing of any type of weapon;
  738
  any nuclear explosions and the disposal there of radioactive waste material.

  None of the inspections carried out in accordance with article VII of the Antarctic treaty has indicated that there have been any breaches of these provisions of the treaty.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Greenpeace concerning the 1989–90 Greenpeace Antarctic expedition to the abandoned British bases B and G and to Rothera base; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have received from Greenpeace a copy of its report on its Antarctic expedition between September 1989 and March 1990, which included visits to the British bases mentioned.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what total number of representations his Department has received from hon. Members and the public regarding Antarctic conservation.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have received more than 1,400.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the activities which are regulated by the Antarctic treaty system.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Antarctic treaty system has adopted 186 recommendations, the agreed measures for the conservation of Antarctic flora and fauna, plus three separate conventions:The convention for the conservation of Antarctic seals, the convention for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources and the convention for the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities.

  The specific activities which are regulated are set out in those documents, copies of which I have placed in the Library of the House. To list those activities separately would involve disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what documents he has received from Wildlife Link regarding the conservation of the Antarctic; and it he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have received a Wildlife Link draft report dated 18 July entitled "Comments on the various proposals for improved Antarctic environmental protection".

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which government departments are to be represented on the delegation to the consultative meeting of Antarctic treaty parties in November.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Present intentions are that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Departments of Energy, Environment and Trade and Industry will be represented.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the agreements, conventions and recommendations agreed by the Antarctic treaty parties since 1961.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Apart from the Antarctic treaty itself, three Conventions have been concluded and form part of the Antarctic treaty system: the convention for the
  739
  Conservation of Antarctic seals of 1972 (Cmnd. 7209), the convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources of 1980 (Cmnd. 8714), and the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities of 1988 (Cm. 634). In addition, in pursuance of the Antarctic treaty, the parties thereto have concluded the agreed measures for the conservation of Antarctic fauna and flora (set out in schedule 2 to the Antarctic Treaty Act 1967) as well as 186 recommendations. A list of the recommendations has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the statutes, statutory instruments and the statutory rules and orders which implement the United Kingdom's obligations arising from the Antarctic treaty and the consultative meetings of the parties to the treaty.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The relevant statutes and statutory instruments currently in force are the following:

  Antarctic Treaty Act 1967

  The Antarctic Treaty Order in Council 1962 (SI 1962/401)

  The Antarctic Treaty (Specially Protected Areas) Order 1968 (SI 1968/889)

  The Antarctic Treaty (Specially Protected Species) Order 1968 (SI 1968/889)

  The Antarctic Treaty (Specially Protected Area) Order 1971 (SI 1971/1236)

  The Conservation of Antarctic Mammals and Birds (High Seas) Order 1973 (SI 1973/1755)

  The Antarctic Treaty Act 1967 (Isle of Man) Order 1970 (SI 1970/1436)

  The Antarctic Treaty Act 1967 (Channel Islands) Order 1974 (SI 1974/1109)

  The Antarctic Treaty (Specially Protected Areas) Order 1977 (SI 1977/1235)

  The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1981 (SI 1981/1108)

  The Antarctic Treaty (Agreed Measures) Order 1988 (SI 1988/586)

  The Antarctic Treaty (Specially Protected Areas) Order 1988 (SI 1988/587)

  The Antarctic Treaty (Agreed Measures) (No. 2) Order 1988 (SI 1988/1296)

  The Antarctic Treaty (Amendment) Order 1989 (SI 1989/841)

  The Antarctic Treaty (Contracting Parties) Order 1990 (SI 1990/989)

  The Antarctic Treaty Act 1967 (Isle of Man) (Variation) Order 1990 (SI 1990/1198)

  Nuclear Power
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what extra expenditure has been incurred by his Department in 1990–91 following the assumption of responsibility for that part of the United Kingdom mission in Vienna which deals with the International Atomic Energy Agency; and what changes to his Department's cash limits have been made in consequence of the change in responsibilities.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The estimated cost to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of assuming responsibility for that part of the United Kingdom mission in Vienna which deals with the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1990–91 is £200,000. Subject to parliamentary approval, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cash limits for class 2 vote 1 and its running cost limits will be increased in due course.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any discussions have 740
  taken place with his counterpart in the People's Republic of China on the provision of radioactive waste management technology from the United Kingdom to the Daya Bay nuclear installation in the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No such discussions have taken place.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the United States and the USSR about the developing of nuclear weapons by the Democratic Republic of North Korea.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not personally discussed North Korea's nuclear programme with his American or Russian counterparts. However, as I made clear in my speech to the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) review conference, we are concerned at North Korea's failure to conclude a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, pursuant to her obligations under article III of the NPT. British officials have raised this subject on several occasions in the appropriate fora.

  Brazil
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Brazilian Government; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last met a representative of the Brazilian Government in the course of the meeting between European Community Foreign Ministers and representatives of the Rio Group in New York on 27 September, when discussion concentrated on measures to strengthen relations between the two regions.

  Italy
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his Italian counterpart; what discussion took place relating to the Italian presidency of the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the Italian Foreign Minister during the informal meeting of EC Foreign Ministers on 6–7 October in Asolo, Italy. They had discussions on a wide range of European Community issues. They meet frequently and shall do so again shortly during the President of Italy's state visit later this month.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the decision to prosecute demonstrators in Hong Kong for using loud hailers without prior permission.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The cases in question are still sub judice, pending the hearing of an appeal lodged by the five
  741
  convicted persons. The charges were brought under Hong Kong laws and at the decision of the Hong Kong Attorney-General. It is for the Hong Kong Government to handle these cases in accordance with Hong Kong law.

  British Embassy, Washington
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff from the Civil Aviation Authority are attached to the embassy in Washington; and what are their grades and functions.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A member of the staff of the Civil Aviation Authority serves on secondment to the embassy as civil air attach-eacute;. This post is graded at DS4 (equivalent to HCS5). The civil air attach-eacute;s functions are as follows:

  (i) to ensure that CAA senior management is kept aware of FAA policy and technological developments in respect of air traffic services, aviation safety regulation and related research and development

  (ii) to foster and develop further an harmonious relationship between the CAA and FAA based on mutual respect;

  (iii) to provide technical information to the CAA on FAA intentions and programmes, to ensure compatibility on subsequent international approaches, and to minimise nugatory effort by the CAA;

  (iv) to ensure that the CAA and FAA are each aware of any potential interactions of their policy decisions;

  (v) to advise FAA of CAA interests and to ensure these are adequately considered in the formation of FAA policy;

  (vi) to act as a focal point for CAA enquiries on technical issues at the working level; and

  (vii) to advise HM Ambassador on matters relating to air traffic services and the safety regulation of civil aviation operations.

  Middle East
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role Her Majesty's Government are playing in the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is making clear during his present visit to Egypt, Israel and the Occupied Territories our strong support for new efforts to relaunch the middle east peace process, once the Gulf crisis is over. The recent killings in Jerusalem have tragically underlined the need to find a just and lasting solution which combines Palestinian self-determination and secure borders for the state of Israel.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about diplomatic links with Afghanistan, particularly in regard to staffing arrangements in Kabul.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  British diplomats were withdrawn from Kabul in February 1989. It is too early to say when they will return. The Afghan Embassy in London continues to operate under a chargé d'affaires.

  Toxic Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he last met his European Community colleagues to discuss the export, movement and disposal of toxic wastes to and from third countries, including developing countries; and if he will make a statement.
  742
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The EC Environment Council will consider a proposal for Community and member states' ratification of the convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal (known as the Basel convention), under which parties to the convention shall not permit the export of toxic waste to parties which have prohibited the import of such waste. The fourth Lomé convention signed in December 1989 (and currently in the process of being ratified) has provisions prohibiting the direct or indirect export of Community waste to ACP states.

  Members of Parliament (Assize)
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what status will be given to any resolutions proposed or made at the forthcoming assize between Members of the European Parliament and Members of the United Kingdom Parliament.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We understand that the parliamentary conference of the European Community (as the assizes are now called) will probably conclude with a communiqué. This will not be binding on the inter-governmental conference. We will follow the proceedings with interest.

  Gulf Energy Resources
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on(a) the productive capacity of the oilfields in (i) Kuwait and (ii) Iraq and (b) the proven reserves of petroleum and natural gas in both Iraq and Kuwait.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Crude oil production capacities are estimated to be as follows: Kuwait 2·3 million barrels a day; Iraq 3·5 million barrels a day. Proven reserves of oil as at 31 December 1989 were as follows: Kuwait 94,500 million barrels; Iraq 100,000 million barrels. Proven reserves of natural gas as at 31 December 1989 were as follows: Kuwait 1·4 trillion (million million) cubic metres; Iraq 2·7 trillion cubic metres.

  Kuwait Oil
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the output of Kuwait oil refineries and the export of petroleum products prior to the invasion on an annual basis.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Kuwait oil refinery production and exports 1984–88 (the most recent available figures) were as follows (all figures in thousands of barrels per day):

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Production

  478·9

  566·5

  599·0

  619·0

  653·1

  Exports

  394·9

  492·9

  525·0

  553·0

  635·0

  In 1987, the latest year for which detailed figures are available, the breakdown of production by product was as follows:

  Barrels1

  Gasoline

  34·0

  Kerosene

  68·1

  Distillate fuels

  132·5

  743

  Barrels1

  Residual fuels

  276·7

  Others

  107·7

  1 All figures in thousands of barrels per day.

  Source: OPEC

  Kuwait (Desalination Plants)
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the impact on the operation of desalination plants in Kuwait as a result of reduced gas availability in the current crisis.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Unfortunately, we have no authoritative information available on this point.

  Iraq (Sanctions)
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to ensure that sanctions against Iraq are not breached by the maintenance of air transport links.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Security Council resolution 670, adopted on 25 September, is designed to ensure that the embargo against Iraq is not breached by means of air transport. The resolution confirms that Security Council resolution 661 applies to all means of transport, including aircraft; requires all States to deny take-off rights to any aircraft carrying cargo other than food in humanitarian circumstances or medical supplies; and requires all States to deny overflight rights to aircraft destined for Iraq or Kuwait unless such aircraft land for inspection, have been approved by the sanctions committee, or are carrying supplies intended for UN forces. A number of aircraft have already landed for inspection under the terms of the resolution.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gulf (UN Resolutions)
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the resolutions of the Security Council 660 to 665 with a brief analysis of the purpose of each, indicating how many of the resolutions were unanimous and upon which the Yemen and Cuba abstained.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The table shows the voting on each of the Security Council resolutions so far adopted on Iraq and Kuwait:

  Resolution No.

  Subject

  Voting

  SCR 660 (adopted 2 August)

  Condemned invasion and called for immediate and unconditional Iraqi withdrawal.

  14 votes for: 0 abstentions: 0 against. Yemen absent.

  SCR 661 (6 August)

  Imposed sanctions.

  13: 2: 0. Yemen and Cuba abstained.

  SCR 662 (9 August)

  Decided annexation of Kuwait by Iraq null and void.

  15: 0: 0.

  SCR 664 (18 August)

  Reaffirmed rights of third state nationals, including the right to leave.

  15: 0: 0.

  SCR 665 (25 August)

  Authorised measures to halt shipping in order to inspect and verify cargoes.

  13: 2: 0. Yemen and Cuba abstained.

  SCR 666 (13 September)

  Established system to permit food imports to Iraq and Kuwait in humanitarian circumstances.

  13: 0: 2. Yemen and Cuba voted against.

  SCR 667 (16 September)

  Condemned Iraqi attacks against diplomatic premises and personnel.

  15: 0: 0.

  SCR 669 (24 September)

  Called on Sanctions Committee to consider requests for economic assistance under article 50 of UN charter.

  15: 0: 0.

  SCR 670 (25 September)

  Measures to tighten air embargo and detain or deny entry to Iraqi-registered ships breaching sanctions.

  14:0:1. Cuba voted against.

  EC Programmes
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will tabulate in the Official Report in alphabetical or topic sequence the past or current programmes of the European Community, denoted by acronyms where applicable, showing for each (a) its approved cost, (b) its period of operation, (c) the approximate contribution of the United Kingdom and (d) the category and number of bodies or institutions in the United Kingdom participating.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The information requested is not readily available and could only be provided at 746
  disproportionate cost. Most of the information sought by the hon. Member is available in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

  Hungary
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made by Her Majesty's Government in helping Hungary's economic and political development.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The know-how fund for Hungary started in April. It is already running some 60 projects on the basis of priorities agreed with the Hungarians. We are involved in nine projects under the EC PHARE Programme and have taken a lead in promoting the speedy negotiation of an EC/Hungary Association agreement. The United Kingdom also participates in international financial assistance to Hungary.

  European Political Union
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he is making in preparation for the intergovernmental conferences in December, with particular reference to the issue of political union.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what progress he is making in preparation for the intergovernmental conferences in December, with particular reference to the issue of political union.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  EC Foreign and Finance Ministers discussed preparations for the intergovernmental conferences at their recent meetings and will report to the Special European Council in Rome on 27 and 28 October.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he is making in preparation for the inter-governmental conferences in December, with particular reference to the issue of political union.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  EC Foreign and Finance Ministers discussed preparations for the inter-governmental conferences at their recent meetings and will report to the Special European Council in Rome on 27–28 October.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We remain concerned about the situation in Kashmir and welcome the discussions between India and Pakistan on ways of reducing tension. We hope these will result in progress on confidence building measures, and allow the wider issues involved to be tackled in the spirit of the 1972 Simla agreement on bilateral relations between India and Pakistan.

  Central and Eastern Europe (Visas)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the easing of visa restrictions between the United Kingdom and the states of eastern and central Europe.
  747
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received many such representations from hon. Members and members of the public. I am glad to say that visa abolition agreements have been concluded with Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and took effect on 1 October 1990. We are keeping the situation regarding the other countries of eastern and central Europe under review. There are no plans at present for further visa abolition agreements, but where possible requirements have been eased, for example by extending the validity of multiple entry visas.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in improving the service provided to visa applicants by the British Embassy in Warsaw.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The visa section in Warsaw has now succeeded in clearing the backlog that arose from the surge in applications this summer (about 30 per cent. higher than last year). Applicants are normally seen on their day of arrival and, provided they meet the requirements of the immigration rules, receive their visas that day.

  Procedures have been streamlined. Greater authority has been delegated to issue visas without reference to London. The period within which single entry visas may be used has been extended from three to six months. Multiple entry visas have been extended in validity from six months to two years, and are now available to businessmen and other travellers with a genuine need to visit the United Kingdom frequently.

  The Polish authorities have been asked to help in an urgent search for more adequate premises. Meanwhile plans are under way to install a temporary waiting room and expand interview facilities to improve comfort and speed processing of applicants. This will also enable us to reinforce the visa section further.

  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the length of time taken to process a visa application for entry into the United Kingdom for short-term visits from(a) Hungary, (b) Romania, (c) Poland and (d) Czechoslavakia; if he has any proposals to improve this performance; and what are the comparable times for the processing of visa applications from these countries to other members of the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since 1 October 1990, Czechoslovak and Hungarian nationals visiting the United Kingdom no longer require visas. There are intergovernmental arrangements with Poland and Romania laying down target processing times for visas. For short visits the timescales are 14 working days for Poland (seven working days for officially sponsored applicants) and seven working days for Romania. We normally meet those targets. The great majority of applicants at both embassies now receive their visas within 24 hours and many on the day of application. We have sent additional staff to Warsaw and Bucharest and introduced new procedures to streamline visa issuing. Comparable times (where available) for processing applications from Polish and Romanian nationals visiting other European Community countries are: Belgium one to two weeks; Denmark 15 days; France 21 days (but 24 hours for Poles under 25 years); Germany 24 hours; Greece one week; Italy 15–30 days; Netherlands about five days to one month; Spain two weeks.

  Romania
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet his Romanian counterpart to discuss the plight of Romanian orphans.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the Romanian Foreign Minister in New York on 1 October and has no further plans to meet him in the near future. However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is organising and partly funding a visit to Romania by Department of Health and Home Office officials to discuss how the situation can be improved.

  British Hostages (Beirut)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the release of British hostages held in Beirut.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We resumed diplomatic relations with Iran on 27 September. Both sides felt that our outstanding bilateral problems, including that of the British hostages in Lebanon, would be more easily resolved with diplomatic relations. Iran, which played a decisive and helpful role in the release of Mr. Brian Keenan in August, has undertaken publicly to use her humanitarian influence to achieve the release of hostages in Lebanon. We shall urge the Iranian Government to persevere in their efforts until the British hostages, Mr. Jack Mann, Mr. John McCarthy and Mr. Terry Waite, are freed.

  Viraj Mendis
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has made any representations to the West German Government following their decision to allow Viraj Mendis to settle in the Federal Republic.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have made no such representations.

  Fishing (South Atlantic)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the approach of the Falkland Islands Government to the Japanese Government over fishing in the south Atlantic.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making about squid fishing and related fishing matters in the south Atlantic, to the Governments of Korea and Japan, as a result of the recent Falkland Islands Government delegation to Tokyo.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Following a visit by a Falkland Islands Government (FIG) delegation to Tokyo to meet far eastern fishing associations, we reinforced to the Japanese and Korean authorities the delegation's message abut the importance of fisheries conservation in the south west Atlantic. Such Government to Government contacts are properly a matter for Her Majesty's Government rather than FIG, although the latter are fully consulted about such contacts.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department will take positive steps to discuss with the Data Protection Registrar, all his Department's legislation that impacts on the use, collection, processing or holding of personal data; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our officials are being reminded of the need to consult the registrar about proposed legislation which might affect or be affected by the Data Protection Act 1984.

  USSR (Visas)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Russians on behalf of Leonid Belopolsky of Kiev and his family in their efforts to obtain an exit visa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We can certainly raise the case of Leonid Belopolsky and his family with the Soviet authorities, but in order to make our representations as effective as possible we shall need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Russians on behalf of Anatoly Butov of Bendery and his family in their efforts to obtain an exit visa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We can certainly raise the case of Anatoly Butov and his family with the Soviet authorities, but in order to make our representations as effective as possible we shall need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Russians on behalf of Alexander Borodyansky of Kiev and his family in their efforts to obtain an exit visa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have made numerous representations to the Soviet authorites about this case, most recently during the CSCE conference on the human dimension in Copenhagen in June. We shall continue to press until it is satisfactorily resolved.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Soviet Union on behalf of Boris Zolotarevsky and his family in their efforts to obtain an exit visa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  These cases have now been added to the list of those on which we make regular representations to the Soviet authorities. We shall not let up until there is a satisfactory outcome.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Soviet Union on behalf of Irina Voronkevich, a pensioner from Moscow, in her efforts to obtain an exit visa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have raised the case of Mrs Voronkevich with the Soviet authorities on a number of occasions. I understand that she has recently been granted permission to visit her family in Israel, she has not yet been given permission to emigrate.
  750
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations have been made to the Soviet Union on behalf of Liev Frenklakh and his family in their efforts to obtain an exit visa;

  (2) representations have been made to the Soviet Union on behalf of Rosa Frelikh and her family in their efforts to obtain an exit visa;

  (3) what representations have been made to the Soviet Union on behalf of Leonid Chulsky of Moscow and his family in their efforts to obtain an exit visa;

  (4) what representations have been made to the Soviet Union on behalf of Anatoly Brenner of Moscow and his family in their efforts to obtain an exit visa;

  (5) what representations have been made to the Soviet Union on behalf of Raisa Tarasova of Moscow and her family in their efforts to obtain an exit visa;

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We can certainly raise these cases with the Soviet authorities, but in order to make our representations most effective we shall need further details.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Soviet Union on behalf of Vladimir Tsivkin of Leningrad and his family in their efforts to obtain an exit visa;

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We raised Mr Tsivkin's case on a number of occasions with the Soviet authorities. I understand that he has now left Leningrad to join his wife and daughter in the United States.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations have been made to the Soviet Union on behalf of Lev Milman and Lia Krichman and their family in their efforts to obtain an exit visa;

  (2) what representations have been made to the Soviet Union on behalf of Boris Tsireleson and his mother Esther in their efforts to obtain an exit visa;

  (3) what representations have been made to the Soviet Union on behalf of Anatoly Gennis and his family in their efforts to obtain an exit visa;

  (4) what representations have been made to the Soviet Union on behalf of Irina Sokolova and Mikhail Lidsky and their family in their efforts to obtain an exit visa;

  (5) what representations have been made to the Soviet Union on behalf of Roman Bekker of Lvov and his family in their efforts to obtain an exit visa;

  (6) what representations have been made to the Soviet Union on behalf of Evgeny Pizarevsky of Leningrad and his family in their efforts to obtain an exit visa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  These cases are all among those on which we regularly press the Soviet authorities, most recently when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited the Soviet Union from 11–14 September. We shall not let up until there is a satisfactory outcome.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Soviet Union on behalf of Emil Kunin and his family in their efforts to obtain an exit visa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  These cases have now been added to the list of those on which we make regular representations to the Soviet authorities. We shall not let up until there is a satisfactory outcome.

  Bophuthatswana
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any of his officials have visited Bophuthatswana in the last year.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Staff from our diplomatic Posts in South Africa pay regular visits to all parts of the country, including Bophuthatswana.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is he will list those EEC countries which support British objections to diplomatic relations between Vietnam and the EEC.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Following agreement by the Vietnamese Government to accept back those Vietnamese who have not been accorded refugee status in other countries, we have informed our Community partners that we would welcome the renewal of formal diplomatic relations between the Community and Vietnam.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about Vietnamese money blocked in British bank accounts; and what are the obstacles to its release.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 23 July 1990]: According to the Bank of England's Quarterly Bulletin of May 1990, at 29 December 1989 Vietnamese deposits with banks and other financial institutions in the United Kingdom stood at US$18 million. The Government have not imposed a freeze on Vietnamese assets in the United Kingdom.

  Live Animals (Burning)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what diplomatic representations have been made in respect of the burning of live animals in transit in France from the United Kingdom; and what responses he has received.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Both my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs have taken this up with our French counterparts. The French authorities have condemned the use of violence, initiated legal proceedings and are taking necessary police action. They have also undertaken to secure compensation.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigations the Embassy in Paris has instigated into the burning of live animals from the United Kingdom while in transit in France; and what information he now has available.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Her Majesty's embassy in Paris had repeatedly made clear the concern of the British authorities about all recent incidents affecting British exporters and hauliers. It will remain in the closest touch with the French authorities.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Minister of Agirculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what investigations he has instigated into the burning of live animals from the United Kingdom while in transit in France; and what information he now has available;
  752
  (2) what representations he has made in respect of the burning of live animals in transit in France from the United Kingdom; and what response he has received.

  Mr. Curry
  My colleagues and I have made it clear to the French Government that we thoroughly deplore all recent incidents in France involving attacks on imported lamb, beef and live sheep.

  I have also raised the matter in the Council of Agriculture Ministers. The incident involving the burning of live animals was particularly abhorrent. The French Government, who are responsible for investigating these incidents, have emphasised their determination to maintain law and order, to take action against those concerned, and to compensate for damages sustained. I understand that a number of people have been charged in respect of the incident involving the burning of live sheep at Thouars.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom's role in resolving the western Saharan conflict.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have no direct role to play in resolving the dispute over the western Sahara. However as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council we have consistently supported the UN Secretary General in his efforts to arrange a free and fair referendum to determine the territory's future.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government has made to the Moroccan government on the subject of Moroccan abuses of human rights in the occupied territories of the western Sahara.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Moroccan authorities are well aware of our condemnation of human rights abuses, no matter where they occur.

  Iraq and Kuwait (Telephone Inquiries)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many calls have been made on the premium-rate telephone system set up for families to make inquiries about relatives trapped in Iraq and Kuwait; how much in total has been received at the latest available date from British Telecom as the Foreign Office's share of the premium tariff; and how much British Telecom receives as its share of the agreement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A total of 38,699 calls were received between 8 August, when the system was introduced, and 3 October when it was discontinued and replaced by a freefone facility. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's share of the premium tariff was £8,136, of which so far £4,000 has been given to the Gulf Support Group for accommodation costs.

  It is not the policy of British Telecom to divulge details of their share of revenue accruing from individual agreements.

  Live Animals (Export)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list his Department's responsibilities in relation to the export of live animals purely for slaughter.
  753
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Responsibility for controls on the export of live animals, including those exported for slaughter, rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  EC Presidency (Speech)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the dates on which and means used whereby a full transcript of the speech of the Italian Foreign Minister, President of the Foreign Affairs and General Council of the European Community outlining the programme and policies of the Italian presidency of the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 11 July was made available in the United Kingdom(a) in Italian and (b) in English; and what steps were taken to circulate and publicise either.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Italian Foreign Minister's speech, with an English summary, was passed to the Select Committee for European Legislation on 16 July, and was discussed fully when my hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs appeared before the Committee on 18 July. It is not the responsibility of the British Government to publicise speeches made by representatives of other member states in Strasbourg.

  Iraq
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library details of official responses by Her Majesty's Government to(a) the use of Iraqi troops of chemical weapons against their own citizens and (b) the Iraqi invasion of Iran.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions, and when, since 1979 Her Majesty's Government has protested at the use by Iraq of chemical weapons(a) internally and (b) in the war between Iran and Iraq.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have repeatedly condemned in the strongest possible terms the use of chemical weapons by Iraq both during the Iran-Iraq war and against their own Kurdish population. As an illustration, I would refer the hon. Member to the following Hansard references:

  Date of protest (if known)

  Hansard reference

  5 April 1984

  HC 30 April 1984, Vol. 59 col. 43

  29 March 1985

  HC 24 April 1985, Vol. 77 col. 442

  24 September 1986

  HC 3 December 1986, Vol. 106 col. 928–9

  "Recently" (October 1987)

  HC 28 October 1987, Vol. 121 col. 265

  2 September 1988

  HC 27 October 1988, Vol. 139 col. 410

  21 September 1988

  4–8 November 1988

  HC 10 November 1988, Vol. 140 col. 268–69

  "Recent" (February 1989)

  HC 20 February 1989, Vol. 147 col. 368–69

  In particular, we sponsored United Nations Security Council resolution 620 in August 1988 condemning the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq conflict. At the Paris
  754
  conference on chemical weapons 7–11 January 1989 I specifically referred to the full horror of the use of chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq war and the compelling evidence of the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. Following Iraq's right of reply we made public the evidence on which this was based.

  In response to Iraq's invasion of Iran, the United Kingdom voted in favour of Security Council resolution 479, which was adopted unanimously on 28 September 1980. A copy of the resolution is available in the Library of the House.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to inform all relations of hostages of the telephone and telex numbers of the British embassy in Baghdad.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The British embassy's telephone and telex numbers are (Baghdad code: 010 964 1) 5372121 and 213414 respectively. This information is published in standard reference works available in most public libraries. It is also available by telephone inquiry to the FCO Helpline on 071–430–9920/21.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what class of post is used for forwarding hostages' mail to their families when it arrives in London.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Mail forwarded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is sent by first class post.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Iraqi Government about their continued refusal to release Mr. Alistair Ross of 19 Lidfield road, Stoke Newington N16 9NA; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The plight of those detained in Iraq is a matter of great concern to us. Representations are continuously being made in Baghdad and in London.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he is doing to ensure Red Cross or Red Crescent access to the British hostages in Iraq.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Iraq has a clear obligation under international law to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to exercise its humanitarian mandate. The ICRC continues to seek access to foreign nationals in Iraq and Kuwait but Iraq has denied this. We continue to give the ICRC our full support.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what he is doing to ensure diplomatic access to the hostages in Iraq.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have made and will continue to make frequent and vigorous representations in Baghdad and London for access to British nationals held in Iraq. The Iraqis have rejected all such applications.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he is doing to ensure continued(a) postal, (b) telephonic and (c) telex contact between British hostages in Iraq and their friends and relatives in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  755
  Mr. Waldegrave
  We and our Embassy in Baghdad are doing everything possible to ensure that British nationals detained in Iraq can remain in contact with their relatives and friends here.

  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the economic measures that have now been taken by each of the member states of the Council of Europe to enforce effective sanctions against Iraq.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The 33 members of the Council of Europe which are also members of the United Nations are required to comply with the terms of Security Council resolutions 661, 665 and 670 which impose sanctions against Iraq. All except Liechtenstein have notified the Security Council of measures taken to implement SCR 661. Of the remaining two countries, Switzerland and San Marino, Switzerland has undertaken to observe sanctions and has notified the Security Council of measures taken.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Nigerian Government for assistance in training police or military personnel.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  At the request of the Federal Government of Nigeria, the United Kingdom has agreed to provide assistance in the training of Nigerian police officers. A joint project is currently being put together, supported by funds from the Overseas Development Administration's technical co-operation programme. The project involves the provision of a team of five British police officers as advisers to the Nigerian police force for two years. Nigerians have for many years attended a variety of military training courses in the United Kingdom. Training assistance is also provided in Nigeria.

  Kurdish People
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with representatives of the Kurdish people of(a) Iraq, (b) Iran, (c) Syria and (d) the Soviet Union since 1979.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There have been no formal discussions with any Kurdish groups or their representatives.

  Gulf (Human Rights)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Governments of(a) Kuwait, (b) Saudi Arabia and (c) the United Arab Emirates concerning the level of democracy and respect for human rights that pertain in those countries.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are well aware of the importance we attach to the observance of international human rights standards.

  Fiji
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has taken any recent steps to persuade the present Fijian Government to adopt a democratic constitution.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My noble Friend the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made our view known to the interim Government of Fiji when he was there for an international meeting in March. We wish to see an early return to parliamentary democracy in Fiji under a constitution acceptable to all its peoples.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present position with regard to the development of tourism in the Falklands; and what part the new airport at Mount Pleasant has played in that development.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Falkland Islands Government are at present diversifying their current economic base of agriculture and fisheries into other areas such as tourism. The Falkland Islands Government have close links with United Kingdom based tour operators to encourage tourist groups to visit the Islands. Links are also being developed with Chile and Uruguay. The opening of the airport at Mount Pleasant has facilitated visits by land-based groups who previously could not have visited the Falklands.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the position with regard to the purchase of large land holdings in the Falklands and their subsequent resale in smaller lots to owner occupiers.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  As recommended by Lord Shackleton's report in September 1982, the Falklands Islands Government have followed in recent years a policy of subdivision of large farms into smaller units. A total of 13 large farms have been divided to create 38 new farms. In eight years the number of individual farms has increased from 36 to 92. Further subdivision has been halted until the results of the previous subdivisions have been assessed fully.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals put forward by Lord Shackleton in 1982 have been implemented in the Falklands Islands and with what results.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Most of the recommendations made by Lord Shackleton and his team in September 1982 have been implemented, such as the establishment of a Falkland Islands Development Corporation, the subdivision of large farms, the development of agriculture and tourism industries, the establishment of a fisheries zone (of 150 miles but not the 200 recommended in the report) and the employment of a chief executive. Others, such as the provision of camp roads are in the process of being implemented. All the recommendations which have been implemented have had a positive effect on the islands' economy.

  Major Herbert Harwood (Arrest)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs what representations he has made to the Government in the Greek sector of Cyprus about the arrest of Major (Retd.) Herbert Norton Harwood; what age is the prisoner; what is the state of his health; whether he has been charged with any offence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Mr. Herbert Norton Harwood, a 77-year-old British national resident in Kyrenia, was arrested in Nicosia on 11 September 1990 and charged with photographing National Guard positions without permission. On 4 October 1990 he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. In consultation with his lawyer he is considering an appeal.

  He has received regular consular visits, most recently on 5 October 1990. He did not mention any health problems and appeared fit for his age. Nevertheless, the prison authorities have been reminded of the need to provide him with prompt medical treatment should he require it.

  We have made no representations to the Cyprus Government about Mr. Harwood.

  St. Helena (Airstrip)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there has been any progress in the establishment of an airstrip on St. Helena; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We understand that the private company planning to build an airstrip on St. Helena is currently seeking financial backing for the project. We welcome all measures which will improve St. Helena's transport links with the outside world. We have already financed the construction of a replacement ship which from later this year will continue to operate the Island's only regular link with the outside world, and we are considering other measures to reduce St. Helena's isolation.

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the application by Cyprus to join the European Community relates to the whole island of Cyprus; whether he has spoken to the Government in the Greek sector about this application; whether he has spoken to the Government in the Turkish sector about this application; whether the United Kingdom supported this application at the Council of Ministers' meeting in Brussels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garet-Jones
  The application for European Community membership was submitted by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. The United Kingdom received representations from both the Government of Cyprus and the leaders of the Turkish Cypriot community. On 17 September, the Council referred the application to the Commission for its Opinion, a purely procedural act, in accordance with Article 237 of the EEC Treaties. In doing so, the Council reaffirmed its longstanding view that the benefits of relations with the European Community should extend to the whole population of the island.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council on 17 and 18 September.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Foreign Affairs Council met in Brussels on 17 September. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I represented the United Kingdom.

  Ministers discussed the Iraq-Kuwait crisis. They reiterated their condemnation of Iraqi policies of aggression. In response to illegal acts against certain EC embassies in Kuwait, they decided to expel military personnel attached to Iraqi embassies and to limit the freedom of movement of other members of their staff. They reaffirmed their commitment to reinforcing United Nations sanctions against Iraq.

  The Council discussed provision of short-term economic assistance to the countries most seriously affected by the strict implementation of the sanctions against Iraq, notably Egypt, Jordan and Turkey.

  The Council also approved 30 mecu additional emergency aid for the region and agreed that negotiations for an EC/GCC free trade agreement should start as soon as possible and that the Commission should start negotiations with Syria for a third financial protocol.

  The Council approved a regulation to extend economic aid to Czechoslovakia, GDR, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia in addition to Poland and Hungary. The Council also decided to remove quantitative restrictions on exports to the EC from Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, GDR, Yugoslavia and Romania. The Council asked the Commission to make preparations for the signature of the Community's Trade and Co-operation Agreement with Romania. The Council had a preliminary discussion of the Commission's paper on association agreements with east European countries and invited the Commission to conduct exploratory talks with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

  Ministers welcomed the continued progress towards German unification and the signature of the two-plus-four settlement. The Council considered the Commission's proposals for the integration of the former GDR territory into the Community, and adopted two interim measures governing the short period between unification and final adoption of the overall package.

  The Council confirmed the need to accelerate consideration of Commission proposals to strengthen the Community's Mediterranean policy. The United Kingdom encouraged a greater emphasis on reform of EC trade with the Mediterranean countries. The Council also had a first discussion of the proposed declaration on transatlantic relations. The Council received a progress report from the Commission on the negotiations between the EC and EFTA for the creation of the European Economic Area.

  In accordance with article 237 of the treaty of Rome, the Council referred the applications for EC membership received from Cyprus and Malta to the Commission for an Opinion. In the case of Cyprus, the Council reaffirmed its consistent position that the advantages of relations between the EC and the Republic of Cyprus should benefit the whole population of the island and its full support for the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of Cyprus.
  759
  Meetings of the EC-Israel and EC-Algeria co-operation councils were held in the margins of the Council.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Forestry
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, following the European Community report on forest damage in Europe, his Department intends to raise in the European Community the issue of forestry policy in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on 26 July at column 599.

  Mr. Benyon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to forestry to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 12 November to Friday 16 November.

  Aflatoxin
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer in the Official Report, 18 July, column 612, if the consideration being given by the Food Advisory Committee to statutory limits of aflatoxin in nuts and nut products extends to nuts and nut products intended for consumption by wild birds.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are at present no plans to introduce statutory limits of aflatoxin in nuts and nut products for wild birds. My Department, along with that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, which has responsibility for the general protection of wild birds, is keeping the matter under close review.

  Equine Exports
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on how the United Kingdom laws restricting the export of horses and ponies are affected by current discussions in the Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  This subject has not yet been discussed in the Council of Ministers. As explained in the reply given to my hon. Friend on 26 June, we will be pressing to maintain controls on the export of horses and ponies.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest figure for the provision which has been made for expenditure relating to agriculture in the 1991 EEC Budget; and what was the estimate for 1990.
  760
  Mr. Curry
  The provisions for expendure relating to agriculture in the European Community's 1990 budget and 1991 draft budget are 30·3 billion ecu (£21·4 billion) and 33·4 billion ecu (£23·9 billion) respectively. In addition there is provision in each year for a monetary reserve of a further 1 billion ecu (£0·7 billion), which may be drawn on if unfavourable movements in the ecu : US dollar exchange rate cause an increase in expenditure on agricultural price support of more than 400 mecu (£286 million).

  Surplus Produce
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provision has been made in the 1991 EEC budget for the dumping and destruction of surplus food and wine.

  Mr. Curry
  The 1991 European Community draft budget provides for 854 million ecu (£610 million) of expenditure on the withdrawal of agricultural produce, not all of which is destroyed.

  Sheep
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much additional aid to farmers has been announced by the French Government following incidents involving British sheep and if this additional aid is subject to EEC approval.

  Mr. Curry
  On 31 August the French Government announced a package of national aid, costing some £120 million, giving immediate help to livestock farmers affected by the drought. A further package of aid to these farmers was announced on 26 September. This involves a three-year restructuring programme; the cost in the first year (1991) will be around £35 million. All national aids must be approved by the European Commission.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the price support system for sheep in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) France; how much is spent on such protection; and what price is guaranteed per pound for producers.

  Mr. Curry
  The sheep industry in the United Kingdom currently benefits under various support schemes, including particularly the sheep annual premium and the sheep variable premium: sheep producers in less-favoured areas also benefit from hill livestock compensatory allowances. These support payments are made under European Community schemes and, with the exception of sheep variable premium which is payable in Great Britain only and is to be phased out by the end of 1992 at the latest, are available in all member states. In 1989, sheep annual premium and sheep variable premium expenditure amounted to 423 million ecu in the United Kingdom and 196 million ecu in France. The 1990 basic price under the sheepmeat regime is 303·6p/kg (137·7p/lb), but this is subject to seasonal adjustment and the operation of the stabiliser mechanism.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what provision has been made for expenditure by his Department relating to agriculture in
  761
  the current financial year; and if he will publish a table showing the actual spending in each of the previous 10 years.

  Mr. Curry
  Provision for expenditure relating to agriculture in the current year is contained in the Supply estimates. Figures for the previous 10 years are available in the publication "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1989" and in the annual review of agriculture White Papers. These publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing the level of direct expenditure in support of United Kingdom agriculture not extended via the European Community, in each of the last 20 years.

  Mr. Curry
  Details of agricultural support in the United Kingdom for the years 1985–86 to 1989–90 (forecast) are set out in the publication "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1989". Figures for preceding years are contained in the annual review of agriculture White Papers. These publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Sheep Farmers
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what actions he proposes to take to safeguard the interests of British sheep farmers in the context of (a) falling prices for lamb, (b) threats of dumping from Ireland and (c) attacks on British lamb exports in France; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I fully appreciate the difficulties faced by sheepmeat producers in this country as a result of a number of factors currently affecting the market. The Government already provide very substantial support to the sheep sector, and have been in constant touch with the French authorities to ensure that our exports flow freely and safely. I shall continue to watch the situation very carefully.

  Fishing (North-east)
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in respect of the review of the north-east coast salmon fishery; and when he expects the conclusions of the review to be published.

  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has published the results of the inquiry into the north-east coast drift net policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Under the terms of section 39 of the Salmon Act 1986, Ministers are required to carry out a review of salmon fishing on the east coast of Scotland and the north-east coast of England and to lay a report before Parliament as soon as practicable after November last year. The report, incorporating background information collected by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Department will be submitted to Parliament as soon as possible.

  Dairy Products
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the relationship between Dairy Crest and the Milk Marketing Board.

  Mr. Curry
  We receive representations on this subject from organisations and individuals from time to time. The Department monitors the relationship between the Milk Marketing Board and its subsidiary Dairy Crest to ensure that the latter operates on an equal footing with independent dairy companies.

  Agricultural Exports (France)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken in respect of French attacks on agricultural exports from the United Kingdom; what further proposals he has to support the United Kingdom farming industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  My colleagues and I have taken every opportunity to make clear to the French authorities that everything possible should be done to ensure the safety of British drivers, livestock and vehicles, allowing our exports to flow freely and safely. The Government already provide very significant support for farmers, both nationally and through our membership of the European Community. I will continue to keep the situation of the agricultural industry under review.

  Livestock Industry
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to assist the livestock industry to encourage beef consumption; and what are the latest trends and figures.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Meat and Livestock Commission, which is financed by a statutory levy on the meat industry, is charged, among other tasks, with the promotion of the meat and livestock industry. The latest figure of beef consumption from the national food survey (which does not include beef consumed in restaurants or as processed products) covers the period from April to June 1990. In that period the average person in the United Kingdom consumed 5·13 ounces of beef and veal a week. This compares with 5·62 ounces a week in the same period last year.

  Mineral Hydrocarbons
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to introduce further controls on the use of mineral hydrocarbons in veterinary medicines, pesticides or food additives.

  Mr. Maclean
  Our intention to prohibit the remaining uses of mineral hydrocarbons in food following the advice of the Food Advisory Committee and the Committee on Toxicity was announced to the House on 9 February 1989, at column 781. Proposals to amend the Mineral Hydrocarbons in Food Regulations 1966 were subsequently issued for public comment. The comments received are currently under consideration and I shall make a further announcement on the outcome as soon as possible.
  763
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library the report of the committee on toxicology on mineral hydrocarbons.

  Mr. Maclean
  In this instance the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) did not produce a report. Its findings were passed directly to the Food Advisory Committee, which in turn advised me of its recommendations. However, the considerations on which the COT based its advice were published in a consultation letter to interested parties on 9 February 1989. I have arranged for a copy of this letter to be lodged in the Library.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department will take positive steps to discuss with the Data Protection Registrar all his Department's legislation that impacts on the use, collection, processing or holding of personal data; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department will take all necessary steps to ensure that new legislation or major computer applications wherein personal data, as defined by the Act, are used, will be drawn to the attention of the Data Protection Registrar, and his views sought, before the introduction of such legislation.

  The hon. Member will no doubt be aware that the Home Office is currently considering a system to cover the notification by Government Departments of any legislation likely to be sensitive in the area of personal data. My Department will comply fully with its instructions.

  Eastern Europe (Imports)
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the level of soft fruit imports from eastern Europe; what steps are being taken to monitor quantities and prices; and what is his assessment of whether the European Economic Community and the United Kingdom have the necessary information and power to ensure that such imports are unsubsidised.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have received numerous representations from growers and their representatives about the instability in the Community market for semi-processed soft fruit in recent months. This market is significantly influenced by substantial imports from Poland and Yugoslavia, with which the EC 764
  Commission makes annual agreements involving monitoring of quantities and prices of imports. Subsidies on imports from third countries generally are a matter for the EC Commission which has the necessary power to take any appropriate action. Following a request from the United Kingdom, the Commission has now introduced minimum import prices in the face of a disturbed market.

  I have continued to press the Commission to implement the undertaking it gave last year when substantial tariff concessions were granted on Polish imports of the products in question. These involved the strengthening of the agreements with suppliers, notably by the introduction of different prices for the different qualities of products involved.

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what agricultural grants are available for fur farms; whether there are grants which apply specifically to fur farms; and what has been the level of agricultural grant uptake by fur farms in the past three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  Fur farmers are eligible for the same grants under the farm and conservation grant scheme and the farm diversification grant scheme as other farmers. No agricultural grants are targeted specifically to fur farms. Figures indicating the level of grant uptake by farmers do not allow for separate identification of fur farmers.

  Live Animals (Export)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list his responsibilities in relation to the export of live animals purely for slaughter.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Minister has licensing responsibilities for the export of farm livestock from Great Britain under the Export of Animals (Protection) Order 1981. Under the requirements all animals destined for slaughter must be rested for a minimum of 10 hours at an approved export lairage near the port, and be offered food and water. They receive a veterinary inspection for fitness to travel and their loading is supervised. Other orders made under the Animal Health Act 1981 lay down requirements for welfare conditions during export journeys.

  There are also responsibilities under sections 40 to 49 of the 1981 Act which were designed to prevent the export of horses and ponies for slaughter.

  The Minister is responsible for the issue of health certification for exported cattle and pigs in accordance with the requirements of EC directive 64/432.

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

London: Strategic Planning
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to create an organisation with responsibility for strategic planning for London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government have no proposals for changing the existing land use planning responsibilities in London. The Secretary of State for the Environment issued strategic planning guidance for London last year and this provides the framework for the boroughs to prepare their new unitary development plans and to deal with individual planning applications.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she not aware that many people from all quarters believe that something is wrong with the government of London? Is she not aware also that it is felt, not surprisingly, that sadly London is beginning to lag behind Paris and some of the other continental capitals? There is no clear, overriding planning authority for London, and in practice responsibility is split between a large number of local authorities, central government, a whole range of ad hoc bodies and myriad committees. Will the Government examine whether or not they have it wrong?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I do not believe in the premise on which this Question is based—that is, that the plans to abolish the GLC and to put in place other arrangements are wrong. Strategic planning guidance is presented by government. Within that framework of guidance, unitary development plans are prepared by the boroughs. The London Planning Advisory Committee interfaces those two bodies, advises the Government and liaises with boroughs beyond the boundaries of London.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that strategic planning issues affecting London do not stop short at the boundary of Greater London, but can be addressed only in the context of the regional guidance which Secretaries of State for the Environment issue to SERPLAN from time to time? Do the terms of that guidance not demonstrate beyond peradventure that to create separate strategic planning for the City of London and the 32 London boroughs would do little more than add a layer of bureaucracy with no apparent advantage to anyone?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend because he brings us to the nub of the reason that the GLC is not alive and kicking today. This Question is more about the mechanics and not about policies and plans for London. I believe that my noble friend is right that planning does not stop at the borders of London. That is why we have set up a framework which starts with guidance for London but moves out, liaises and co-ordinates with planning well beyond the borders of London.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, setting aside party politics, if that is possible, perhaps I may ask this question. Is it not a fact that London, which I happen to believe is the capital city of the world, should have an authority of its own not only to deal with planning but also other matters such as housing? At present London is fragmented into a large number of boroughs which are politically divided. There is chaos throughout. Will the Minister do something about that and set up a proper authority? It is as simple as that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that it is the noble Lord's 52nd wedding anniversary today.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mellish: My Lords, at least one marriage has worked for 53 years!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, we hope that it continues to work for a long time.
The noble Lord raises housing issues. Those are better dealt with at borough level where there are people who know the locality. In terms of strategy, all the machinery is in place for matters which require a strategic overview to be dealt with within the framework of guidance by government, with the work of the LPAC and the individual work of the boroughs. After all, the LPAC is made up of the 33 London boroughs.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, without mourning the Greater London Council, can it possibly be true that there are between 30 and 40 co-ordinating committees, involving different authorities and different subjects answering to different people with different priorities? Is there not an urgent need to have somebody to co-ordinate the co-ordinators in order to take steps to avoid the congestion and muddle that is beginning to envelop London?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are not 33 co-ordinating bodies, but 33 London boroughs which happen to be situated in London. Those boroughs are making good progress in their unitary development plans which are carried out in a framework of guidance which pertains to London. Cross-boundary problems are being sorted out. Government departments meet together on London issues. The Department of the Environment gives a leadership on those matters. The DoE liaises with the borough planning officers. Senior staff from the Departments of Transport, the Environment, Employment, Trade and Industry and the training agencies all meet to discuss London issues from time to time.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, did not the Government abolish the GLC because they could not face the possibility of an authority in London whose policies may conflict with theirs? Is it not useless to expect the Government to create such a body unless they intend to bring into being yet another quango on top of all the other quangos so that ultimately they can all be one of us? The Government's policy of centralisation is madness. We know that. But they will not change it because it is a central part of their philosophy. Is that not the case?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall take the points in reverse order. The Question concerns devolution. The Government have devolved responsibility to the boroughs, not centralised it. Perhaps I may say that the reason for abolishing the GLC was that it was an ineffectual bureaucratic overlay on London government.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, even though the Government decided in principle against the creation of a new single authority for London, is there not a case for creating a single authority to deal with major specific issues? For example, it could deal with the subject of transport, which has been so often debated in your Lordships' House. Does not such an issue call for greater co-ordination? Waste disposal is another matter which was frequently discussed during the debates on the future of the GLC.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, transport issues for London are dealt with at government level. There is a great deal of liaison among London boroughs on the strategic policy formulation which is produced at government level. Regarding waste management, if the noble Lord will bear with us, a considerable amount of time has been spent on the Environmental Protection Bill to do exactly what he is suggesting; that is, to produce a regional framework of guidance within which waste management is incorporated.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, if everything is going well within the 32 London boroughs regarding strategic planning, how is it that Lady Porter, the chairman of Westminster Council, is calling for an overall strategic plan to be agreed among the 32 London boroughs?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Lady Porter is among those referred to as one of many people; but I suspect that many more people believe that London government is better served without an overlaying bureaucratic structure. Lady Porter believes that there should be some overall promotion of London, and that is the view of just one person.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the Minister think of one major city of the importance of London in any other country in the industrialised world which does not have a common administration?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Question was whether the arrangements in place are right for London. We are discussing the mechanics of government, not the proper policies and planning for London. The arrangements in place need time to work. It is my view, and I am confident on behalf of the Government, that they will work.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does not the Minister in all these replies reveal a blinkered view of what planning is? It is not simply a matter of land use. As other noble Lords have said, it is a matter of traffic and transport, and everybody knows that traffic and transport are in chaos in London. It is also a matter of homelessness and housing, and everybody knows that there are different standards, some of them very low, in different parts of London. It is, in addition, a matter which concerns the social structure of our city. All those considerations are missing from the present arrangements. That is why the city is going downhill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, strategic planning is dealt with by the Government presenting guidelines. Many of the issues mentioned by the noble Lord—in what I do not believe was a question—are still better dealt with at borough level. The boroughs know their locality best. Housing policy is certainly better dealt with at that level than at what would have been GLC level.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister give us an assurance that if and when any reorganisation of London takes place, London will not be allowed to grab large areas of Essex as it did last time?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is another question on boundaries. If the noble Lord would like to table a Question I shall deal with it at the appropriate time.

Money-laundering: Government Action
2.47 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will report progress on their efforts, at home and internationally, to prevent and detect the widespread practice of money-laundering.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government continue to attach high priority to combating drugs money-laundering, and various initiatives are in train. Internationally, negotiations on the draft EC Money-Laundering Directive are progressing and the Financial Action Task Force is being reactivated. The United Kingdom has also concluded bilateral agreements or arrangements with 17 countries to trace, freeze and confiscate drug trafficking proceeds. At home, co-operation between financial institutions and the authorities is making available an increasing amount of useful information. We are currently reviewing legislation on the confiscation of drugs proceeds and money-laundering.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. But is it not the case that the measures being taken within the European Community will take quite a long time to fructify, leaving aside obtaining agreement on them? Mid-1991 was named as the date upon which some kind of agreement would be arrived at. Is the noble Lord aware that the 23-nation Council of Europe has

579
already drawn up a convention due to be signed or become effective on 8th November which provides for very wide powers, including the inspection of bank records and so on, and for criminal offences? Would not the Government be well advised to explore that matter further with the Council of Europe, which has the additional advantage of including many Eastern states among its members?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The Council of Europe convention is important. It may well be open for signature at the meeting of Ministers of the Pompidou Group on 8th and 9th November. We are hoping to sign on that occasion should that prove to be the case.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Question refers to an extremely complex crime. Can the Minister say what resources the Government make available to the police authority to deal with it? Can he further tell the House how many qualified accountants, such as chartered accountants, are employed by the authority?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition specifically, but I can say that the Government appreciate that adequate resources are essential for effective enforcement. Staffing in this area has been increased over recent years, but this is not only a matter of staff numbers. Professionalism of enforcement officers, the use of modern technology and the use of intelligence are all essential in the fight against this dreadful crime. If the noble Lord requires further information on the exact numbers I shall have to write to him.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I realise that intelligence is necessary but cannot the noble Lord tell the House whether any chartered accountants are employed to deal with such crimes?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I assume that, since the enforcement officers are dealing with banks and accountants, they themselves would need to be well qualified.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord undertake to provide, as soon as possible, the information requested by my noble friend? In the meantime, while welcoming the Government's intention of signing the convention, which I take it the noble Lord has confirmed today, can the noble Lord say when the whole matter will be brought before Parliament for ratification? If it is ratified, what is the point of pursuing matters further through the somewhat tortuous process of going through the Council of Ministers?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course I shall reply in greater detail to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. As regards ratification, we are, of course, considering the convention in detail to ascertain whether or not any of its provisions will require amendments to primary legislation. If, as we think at the moment, that is not required, we hope to proceed to early ratification.

Crime Prevention
2.51 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any new policies to announce in order to deal with the recently announced record crime figures.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Government will continue to pursue vigorously their policies to combat crime and to protect the public. The proposals in the White Paper, Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public will increase and enhance the courts' powers to deal effectively with offenders. The programme of crime prevention measures is continuing to expand, but effective action against crime will require a wholehearted commitment from the entire community; for example, in reducing the opportunities for crime.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that his reply will be disappointing to many people who are very worried about the record crime rate figures? Perhaps I may remind the House of the 17 per cent. increase in the second quarter of this year compared with the same period last year. Were the Government not able to talk about greater police patrolling or about rehabilitation in the Answer to the Question? Is the noble Earl content with the Home Secretary's speech at the Tory Party conference—this side of the House would not have joined in the ovation—when issues of capital punishment, more severe sentences and cessation of parole in certain cases seemed to be the key-note of a very disappointing speech?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would not expect me to agree with his analysis of my right honourable friend's speech, which I thought was a masterly speech. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, took up one specific set of figures relating to the last quarter. One must be careful about taking one set of figures: one should take the annual figures from 12 months ago. The percentage increase of violent crime is, in fact, lower than the percentage increase of all crimes, which went up by 13 per cent. It is important to remember that much crime can be prevented. Nine out of 10 crimes are against property. Car crimes amount to one-quarter of all recorded crime, and 20 per cent. of all burglaries and all vehicle thefts are through unlocked and insecure doors and windows. While I regret greatly the increase in the number of recorded crimes, many of them are preventable by the public themselves.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Earl's analysis is interesting. Does he not agree —I am sure he does—that the crime figures fall into two categories? One encompasses serious crimes, including violence, and the other covers petty crime. As the noble Earl said, serious crimes have not increased as much as petty crimes, and we can be pleased about that. Nobody in the penal reform world wants mercy for crimes of violence, but we can no longer afford the luxury of sending petty criminals to prison, particularly when the prisons to which they are

581
sent are so utterly beneath decency. Therefore, I hope the noble Earl, in dealing with crime generally, will realise that there are matters, apart from the criminal aspect, which are hopelessly wrong and which must be put right.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, puts his finger on a point on which the Government at least go some way in agreement. The courts will be encouraged to make a sharper distinction between serious and less serious crimes. The serious crimes will attract long prison sentences —which I believe even the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will approve of —with at least half the sentence being spent in custody. We believe that punishment in the community is far more suitable for property offenders.
The noble Lord referred to the two categories of serious and petty crime. I re-emphasise the point which he touched upon; that is, that serious crimes remain a constant percentage of all crime. Violent crimes against the person increased this year by 7 per cent. at 180,000; sexual offences increased by 4 per cent. to 29,000, and robbery increased by 5 per cent. to 33,000. Therefore, of the total of 4.2 million for all crimes, 242,000 were crimes of violence. I should like to add that the majority of those bad crimes are cleared up, three out of four sexual offences are cleared up, nine out of 10 homicides are cleared up and more than three out of four offences of violence against the person are cleared up.
Lord Parry: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House a little more about these figures and how they relate to the rural areas of Britain? Does he accept from me that these days the newspapers are heavy with reported crime in the rural areas of Wales? Is there any relation between that phenomenon and the fact that the chief constables of Wales complain that they are understaffed and unable to cope with their duties at present?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot comment on specific parts of the country, other than to say that, while these matters have to be reported, sometimes people wonder whether the mere reporting of them stimulates action in others.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, the figures for reported crime are notoriously unreliable for a variety of reasons. Would it not be possible to arrange for the Home Office figures and the various police figures to be issued at the same time instead of allowing them to dribble out in a sort of alarmist crescendo over a period of time?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I will certainly look into that point, but getting statistics to appear when convenient and moving the dates when statistics appear is perhaps like moving Mount Sinai.
Lord Parry: My Lords—
Lord Donoughue: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we have now exceeded the time that the Procedure Committee recommended should be allowed for Questions. Perhaps I may therefore suggest that we
582
take two more questions from noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, had risen to his feet and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has been seeking to put a question for some minutes. We should then move on to the next Question.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that Government answers have taken twice as long as questions from this side of the House?
Lord Parry: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House. I ask the noble Earl to accept from me that I was not quoting alarmist figures. I am, in fact, reflecting what I believe is the alarm and concern generally felt. Can the noble Earl, either now or in a letter to me, reply to my question about the complaints from chief constables that they are understaffed?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, the answer is "yes" to both noble Lords' questions.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, bearing in mind that one area of expanding crime is the white collar crime of fraud in the financial sector, does not the noble Earl agree that the decision that has emerged this week to reduce the resources of the Serious Fraud Office by removing the position of one of the top three men —the deputy director—is inexplicable?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that that is an administrative point, but I shall certainly look into it.

Supercomputing Centres
3 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the three academic supercomputer centres in the United Kingdom.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the general policy is at least to maintain the current overall level of supercomputing services. The Computer Board is currently in discussion with the University of London about new arrangements for securing an efficient and cost effective contribution to those services from the University of London Computer Centre.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Is he aware what a pleasure it is for all noble Lords to see the noble Lord answering a Question for the first time from the Government Front Bench? We all wish him well.
I must declare an interest as a teacher at the University of London. Is it the case that the supercomputer centre at the University of London is in danger at the present time? It certainly costs more than other supercomputer centres, and I believe for very good reason. Pressure is being put on it to cut costs in a way which it may not be able to meet. Can the Minister say whether we might lose that computer centre? Is there any danger that that centre might be lost?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his kind wishes.
Recent studies have clearly demonstrated that the unit costs provision in the University of London Computer Centre is substantially higher than at Manchester University and at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Centres. The board and the department would be rightly criticised if they took no steps to bring the costs in line. Much depends on the University of London's response to the current negotiations. We understand that a decision is to be taken by the court on 17th October.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, perhaps it is rather unfair to ask the Minister to answer a maiden Question of a very technical kind. However, is he aware that the services rendered by the supercomputer centres are totally different? Moreover, the London centre provides a service which is of the greatest value to the users. Is the Minister also aware that a comparable service is not provided on a similar scale by other centres? I do not know whether the Minister can say something about the Computer Board which is a servant of the department. Can he say how the board arrived at its decision without looking at the vast range of services provided by the London Computer Centre?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I recognise the point made by the noble Lord. Whatever changes may be necessary in the geographical location of provision of service, the intention would be at least to maintain the existing level of service nationally.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Japan has 40 supercomputer centres; the United States has 25; Germany has nine; and that France and Germany have an academic computing power which is almost double that of Britain? Therefore, does he accept that this is not the right moment to reduce the services of one of our few computing centres? We do not want its work to be reduced but to be increased.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for those figures from other countries. I was not aware of them. Where efficiency reviews have been undertaken which affect the spending of public money, we cannot ignore the findings if it is shown that savings can be found. I repeat that there is no intention of reducing the provision. However, there is a requirement to make provision more cost-effective at the ULCC.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what is the estimated expenditure on supercomputers for this year, and what is predicted for the future? Will the Minister refer to the decisions of the Computer Board and discover how it arrived at its decision? It is very difficult to make effective comparisons between one supercomputer and another. Does the Minister not agree that the London Computer Centre is of particular importance to engineering and industry? The report from industry which has been received by the department suggests that it provides an essential service.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that I am rather
584
new to the department. My information is that the other two centres are more cost-effective by a factor of two.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that unit costs are always going to be higher in London than in the provinces?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the figure I have given has already taken account of London weighting.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, has the advice given by a representative of Shell been taken into account? Shell carried out a study and it decided that the London centre was very well run.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I have seen press comment to that effect. I do not think I can defend from the Dispatch Box anything that I have seen in the press.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, but is it true?

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Environmental Protection Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour, and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Avon Light Rail Transit (Bristol City Centre) Bill will be taken.

Environmental Protection Bill
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 78 [Statutory nuisances and inspections therefore]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 84, line 11, at beginning insert:
("() For the purposes of this Part, a statutory nuisance is any matter falling within subsection (1) below which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance to any person, or which adversely affects the personal comfort of any person or interferes with the enjoyment by such a person of their property, and (in the case of a nuisance arising under paragraphs (b)-(e) of subsection (1) below) shall be regarded as constituting local pollution within the meaning of Part I of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must learn not to move the first amendment after Question Time because I always have to start so slowly in order to gain the attention of those Members of your Lordships' House who are going to remain for the ensuing business. It makes it very difficult to pick up speed again afterwards.
Amendment No. 148 follows—but far from exactly —discussions which took place in Committee in which

585
we sought to improve the definition and understanding of the extraordinary phrase "statutory nuisance". I suppose it is only to those of us who are inured to jargon that there is any suggestion that statutory nuisance can be accepted as a phrase in legislation. What does it mean? Statutory nuisance does not mean anything to the public at large who are in fact the victims of the infringement of the quality of their local environment.
It surely means something that should perhaps be called local pollution. I am encouraged by the words used at Committee stage by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, to think that the definition of statutory nuisance is inadequate. He said from the Government Front Bench:
"Traditionally, the law has consistently defined a statutory nuisance as something which is either prejudicial to health or a nuisance to persons; something that adversely affects personal comfort or interferes with the enjoyment of one's property".—[Official Report, 26/6/90; col. 1577.]
I thought that was very apt and that he had very helpfully extended the definition of statutory nuisance from the rather formal and incomprehensible definition which is used for the purpose of legislation. Therefore, I have taken the liberty of adopting his words in this amendment. I hope that he is not going to charge me royalties for it. It seemed to me that we could do no better than take the words of an experienced Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Ministry of Defence in these matters and use them in the amendment now before your Lordships.
We are seeking to gain some understanding of what Part III of the Bill is about, and in a way that can be shared with the people affected by it. It may be that many of your Lordships are not too much concerned with definitions. However, as we go through the Bill it will be clear that the lack of definition of statutory nuisance and a decent comprehensible phrase to express that concept, means that the nuisances are very inadequately covered in Part III of the Bill. It will be seen from this afternoon's business that some of the definitions of these nuisances are extended by government amendments as well as by those tabled from this side of the House.
The Minister sought to create a distinction from the traditional definition. We are adopting his definition and putting it into the Bill. I suggest that in that way we are increasing the relevance of Part III of the Bill to the total Environmental Protection Bill; otherwise it is difficult to see what the provision is doing here. I hope that the Government will consider that the amendments are helpful, as is the intention, and extend our understanding rather than restrict or even change wildly the scope of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is no need to put on the face of the Bill the definition of a statutory nuisance contained in the first part of the amendment. There is the commonly understood meaning of what constitutes a statutory nuisance. It is grounded in a body of case law going back over 100 years.
The second part of the amendment seeks to provide that nuisance caused by various kinds of emissions
586
shall be regarded as constituting local pollution within the meaning of Part I of the Act. That is also unnecessary because there is already provision in Clause 78 (9) for nuisances arising under subsections (1) (b), (1) (d) and (1) (e) to be dealt with under Part I of the Bill. The objects of the amendment are achieved in other parts of the Bill and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is extremely confident that there is wide understanding of the phrase "a statutory nuisance". I have no doubt that there is wide understanding among environmental health officers, perhaps even among magistrates and certainly among parliamentary draftsmen. However, if the Minister went out into the street and asked the first 10 people she met, or even took a proper sample of the general public in this country, what was meant by the phrase "a statutory nuisance", she would receive confused and confusing replies.
I am sorry that the Government do not feel able to treat this helpful suggestion with the seriousness that I believe it deserves. Clearly it is not a matter upon which we shall seek the opinion of the House and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 84, line 11, leave out ("and (3)") and insert ("to (5)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a minor correction to the drafting of Clause 78. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 84, line 28, at end insert:
("(gg) the burning of any material (not otherwise falling within paragraphs (b) or (c) above) which when burned is prejudicial to health or a nuisance").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 151 and 152. Although the amendments do not deal directly with the same subject, both concern defects in the definition of a statutory nuisance as offered in Clause 78. Amendment No. 150 relates to cable burning; Amendment No. 151 relates to floodlighting; and Amendment No. 152 relates to aircraft night noise.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not in his place this afternoon because part of the thinking behind Amendment No. 150 arises from a comment that he made in Committee on 26th June 1990 at col. 1587 of the Official Report. Again, I do not know whether he will demand royalties from me. We had moved an amendment about cable burning and the noble Lord suggested that there should be a broader formulation creating a statutory nuisance in the burning of any material which would be prejudicial to health or a nuisance. In Amendment No. 150 we have defined a new form of nuisance as a catch-all for all types of burning which do not fall within subsections (1) (b) or (1) (c).
The Minister replied to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. In September the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, sought to convince me that the definitions of this form of nuisance were adequate for the purpose. Noble Lords may recall that during Committee the problem of cable burning was debated. It tends to be carried out by those who buy cable for the purpose of extracting the metal and, having no other premises, burn it on lay-bys, for example. The issue was raised by a Conservative Member of Parliament from Norfolk who had received complaints about incidents in his constituency.
The problem with the existing definition of the nuisance of burning is that it relates to premises whereas public land of this kind is not a premise. A further problem is that there may be different kinds of cable burning. One can first strip out the valuable metal and burn the remainder or one can burn the cable in order to obtain the metal for recycling. That is admirable in itself but not when it causes dense smoke and a nuisance.
Letters that I received from Ministers sought to convince me that smoke was the only problem with cable burning. However, I suggest that, particularly when the cable is rubberised, the smell is a major problem and therefore a nuisance which defines dark smoke is inadequate to deal with that. I hope that on reflection the Government will consider that their definitions do not go far enough.
I raised the issue of floodlighting in Committee in response to objections from a constituent of the then Secretary of State for the Environment and MP for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. The gentleman suffered as a result of a neighbour's powerful floodlighting placed in such a position that the source of the light —that causing the most pain —was visible from his property and caused him a great deal of distress. In reply the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said that the Minister for Housing and Planning would look further at the adequacy of present planning controls. The amendment seeks to discover whether progress has been made. Are planning controls adequate for the purpose or is further action required, and if so what action?
Finally, I turn to aircraft night noise. Some noble Lords may consider that it is a more serious problem than noise from model aircraft which is the subject of a government amendment. For millions of people who live in the areas surrounding our major airports aircraft night noise is not only a nuisance but the overriding, overpowering nuisance. That is particularly so for people in south-west London and the surrounding countryside. In many cases the noise makes their life unbearable.
The amendment is modest and suggests that the Secretary of State should have the right by regulation to specify acceptable levels of intensity, decibel levels, and so forth. It is not an unfriendly or unhelpful amendment. It would be greatly welcomed by the millions of people who suffer from aircraft night noise and it would strengthen the hand of environmental
588
health officers who must implement the statutory nuisance law. I hope that the Government will look favourably upon it and I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am not clear whether Amendment No. 150 extends to cover straw burning or whether that is covered in the Bill as it stands. There has been universal condemnation of straw burning as being a nuisance to a large number of people. It is to be banned in two years' time. That is extremely good news and a long way from the arguments that I had five years ago with the Department of Agriculture. However, far too much straw burning is still being carried out.
When I drew the matter to the attention of one of my near neighbours who is the county chairman of the NFU he drew my attention to an article that he was about to publish in the October issue of the Essex Farmer's Journal. In my view, it bears repetition. Therefore, if noble Lords will bear with me for a moment, I should like to repeat what Jim Padfield wrote about straw burning in his area.
The article reads:
"There is nothing that confirms the general public's view of farmers as vandals of the countryside so graphically as burning fields of straw. Essex NFU chairmen have been haunted by the public relations disaster of straw burning for 20 years, it even caused last year's chairman, normally a placid sort of fellow, to blow his top. I now know the reason why. The 'phone rings, it's Essex Radio, BBC Essex, the local papers, irate members of the public and, most distressingly, a pensioner whose wife has breathing problems. What can you say to any of them? It has got to the stage now that HQ send us a big pile of excuses in order to help us out of a muddle. 'There are only two more years then it's banned' or 'We have an NFU code of practice which is strictly enforced' (we all know that's rubbish) or one which is most popular this year with local farmers 'If the farmers did not burn the straw pyrotechnic members of the public will'. None of these `excuses' stand up to any intelligent scrutiny. Farmers have no right to fill other people's property with smoke and smuts. In my view it has to stop, we cannot afford another two years of straw burning".
So say, I hope, all of us.
However, what I need to know—I hope my noble friend will be able to help me—is this. Even though the situation will last for only two more years, is this straw burning a statutory nuisance or do we need Amendment No. 152 put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in order to bring it within the terms of the Bill? The practice has become an intolerable nuisance in many parts of the countryside and it is time, as Mr. Padfield said, for it to stop. Perhaps the procedures within this part of the Bill will provide one way to encourage those farmers who continue to burn straw to stop the practice forthwith.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I do not want to be frivolous about the matter but could not the wording of Amendment No. 150 be used to describe cigarette smoking? The amendment refers to,
"the burning of any material (not otherwise falling within paragraphs (b) or (c) above) which when burned is prejudicial to health or a nuisance".
This is a serious question.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I do not wish to add anything to the remarks of my noble friend Lord

589
Jenkin of Roding. However, I should like to point out to him that the straw burning provisions do not, I am glad to say, apply to Scotland at present.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, before the Minister replies, perhaps I may draw attention to the statutory nuisance provision contained in Clause 78(1) (d). I suspect that when the noble Baroness responds to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, she will probably say that the situation outlined in Amendment No. 150 is covered by that paragraph. However, am I right in saying that "other effluvia" is in fact noxious liquid?
I have a point to make which I made previously in this House. There is an enormous tyre dump, which is still burning, situated within two miles of my home. It causes many problems. Moreover, I suspect that effluvia and other nuisances are emanating therefrom. I hope that such a situation is covered by Clause 78(1) (d) of the Bill. I assume that tyre burning, where it gives off fumes, smoke and effluvia—which I assume to be a liquid—is caught by the provisions of this clause. I should like a reassurance on that point from the Minister.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall deal first with Amendment No. 150. Combustion processes which give rise to pollution are already adequately covered by existing or proposed controls. Under the Clean Air Acts there is already a sufficient armoury of controls over smoke emissions from premises, including open land, which are the primary pollutant in most cases of combustion. The emission of noxious fumes from prescribed processes will be controllable under Part I of the Bill. Local pollution from premises arising from fumes or gas emissions not controlled under Part I can be dealt with under paragraphs (c) and (d) of Clause 78(1). I trust that that deals with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. What this amendment would catch that is not already covered by existing controls under the Clean Air Acts or proposed controls under Parts I and III of the Bill would seem in practice to be confined to emissions from either moving or static sources on the public highway.
Under Road Traffic Act legislation there is already a well-established body of law to control vehicle emissions and we have announced further measures in the environmental White Paper. So far as concerns emissions arising from static sources on highway land, the noble Lord mentioned in Committee the problems which can arise from gypsies burning cable in road lay-bys. However, there is already legislation which can be applied here. Illegal cable burning is an offence under Section 78 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (COPA). We do not have any evidence that other sorts of emissions arising from static sources on highways land present any widespread problems—other than that mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. If one takes the view that it is injurious to health, then one would say that it is probably caught by this clause. However, I await further advice from on high in respect of that question.
Before I conclude my remarks on this amendment, perhaps I may also point out to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding that the specific ban is dealt with
590
under Clause 142. Therefore, the code of practice will apply until the date of implementation. I gather from his remarks that he is not over-impressed with the code of practice or the way in which it operates. However, if there is a breach of the code, there is a penalty which applies. Local authorities should take action to ensure that local farmers adhere to the code of practice.
As my noble friend Lord Arran promised in Committee, I and my colleagues have given further consideration to the issues raised about floodlighting, which is dealt with in Amendment No. 151. We are not convinced that provisions should be included in the Bill to deal with floodlighting. First, we remain to be convinced that there is evidence that it is a widespread problem. Inquiries which officials have made of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers suggest that the average number of complaints received by local authorities was about six in a recent year. Moreover, the noble Lord's amendment is too wide-ranging in that the term "floodlighting" is not defined or limited in any way.
Some floodlighting installations may cause a measure of local distress but on the information available problems which cannot be dealt with by local negotiation appear to be few and far between. If there is an important issue we need to look carefully at what would be the preferable approach to deal with it: whether we should try to strengthen the existing planning controls or whether we should opt for the route of statutory nuisance control. We are not at this stage in a position to take firm decisions on this but I can assure the noble Lord that we intend to keep it under review and to look further into the floodlighting question outside the context of the Bill.
I turn now to deal with Amendment No. 152. The Government accept that aircraft noise, like any other noise source, needs to be controlled. But, as we explained in another place in Committee, in our view statutory nuisance legislation is not the most appropriate tool for doing so. As far as night-time flying of civil aircraft is concerned, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has specific responsibility for the abatement of noise created by civil aircraft at airports that have been designated for noise control purposes under the Civil Aviation Act 1982. These are Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. There are already tough restrictions on the number and types of aircraft which can operate at night at Heathrow and Gatwick. These came into effect in 1988 and apply for five years. At other airports, management applies its own restrictions; for example, at Manchester and Luton. Night-time flying may also be restricted as a condition of planning consent, as is the case at Leeds Bradford Airport.
At smaller airports responsibility for noise abatement rests with airport management, which, in consultation with other interested parties, is best able to decide which measures are appropriate in local circumstances. Under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 airports can be required to have a consultative committee; forty-seven airports are so designated. The environmental White Paper announced that we are

591
currently reviewing controls over aircraft noise to ensure that they afford sufficient protection to local people. Furthermore, the report of the Noise Review Working Party, whose scope was extended to include aircraft noise, is to be published very shortly.
Military flying, one has to accept, is intrinsically noisy. Pilots have to be trained and trained to fly at low level because that is what they would need to do in a combat situation. We can never be sure when our pilots may be called on to exercise those demanding skills, as the current situation in the Middle East has shown.
However, in recognition of the fact that noise can be particularly intrusive at night, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence authorises no more night low flying training than is absolutely necessary. There is a general lower limit of 150 feet for training, although limited and specially controlled flying down to 100 feet is permitted in three less densely populated parts of the country. Every effort is made to complete the flying programmes as early in the evening as possible, and in any case jet aircraft are not normally permitted to low fly after 11 p.m. and other flying after 11 p.m. is limited. Running engines on the ground is normally carried out during daylight hours only.
I can assure your Lordships that training during the hours of darkness is kept to a minimum and kept under constant review to ensure that it continues to meet our defence needs while at the same time keeping disturbance to the public to a minimum.
I shall say a word about the phasing out of noisy aircraft, which is an important issue in the debate. Flights by aircraft which do not meet basic international noise standards are already banned in this country and the next noisiest aircraft types will be gradually phased out by 2002 which will help to minimise both daytime and nighttime disturbance.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, raised the matter of tyre dumps. They should be controlled by waste disposal site licence conditions which include liquid effluent.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, having put down a mixed bag of amendments, I suppose I must expect a mixed bag of answers, which is what it was. I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said about straw and stubble burning. As he has been told, that is dealt with by Clause 142. It was not intended to be covered by the amendment. I sympathise with him and those who complain. I am not reassured by the existence of a code of practice as he described its effect. I am not convinced—I may have misinterpreted the answer —that the Minister is right when she says that penalties exist for breaches of the code of practice. There are no legal penalties for breaches of the code of practice, unless I am much mistaken. There is likely to be two further years of the kind of difficulty described by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
592
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, effluent is not just liquid; it is any exhaled substance. He will have heard the Minister's answer. I would not be satisfied if I were he.
I turn now to floodlighting. I am disappointed by the answer. It may not be a widespread nuisance now, but in view of the continuing increase in crime about which we heard in Question Time the use of floodlighting as a security measure is bound to increase dramatically. Therefore the nuisance to neighbours from floodlighting is also bound to increase. The fact that it has not yet been picked up as a widespread nuisance does not mean that action should not be taken. The position the Government take—waiting for it to become a widespread nuisance —is short-sighted. It would be better to anticipate an increase in floodlighting as a nuisance and be prepared to deal with it. This is the opportunity, above all, to deal with it. It is probably the only legislation dealing with statutory nuisance which will get on the statute book for 10 years. I am afraid that that answer is unsatisfactory.
With respect to aircraft night noise, it is not good enough for the Government to rely on self-regulation by what the Minister rightly described as interested parties. Airport managements are not likely to be on the side of local residents. They are on the side of making a profit. They make their profit by encouraging as many flights as possible. If that means encouraging night flights, they will do that so far as they can get away with it. I was interested in what the noble Baroness said about the forthcoming report of the Noise Review Working Party, but again I feel that the Government are losing an opportunity in this comprehensive review of statutory nuisance legislation to make the legislation more effective and to meet the anxieties of people who suffer attacks on their environment.
I am sorry about all those responses to all my amendments. People who suffer from those nuisances will also be sorry. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I apologise to the House because I was unavoidably detained. I wonder whether he is aware that successive governments, and those who deal with night flying from our main airports, especially those in the London region, come under great pressure from the operators, particularly during the summer months. As a distinguished chairman of the CAA, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will recall that fact. If the Government or the other authorities were to bend to those pressures—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, this is out of order. The Minister has answered. We are on Report.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me. He said, "Before my noble friend sits down". He is introducing a new point. He is not asking a question. I believe that the noble Lord is out of order.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 151 and 152 not moved.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran) moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 84, line 33, at end insert ("and, where a complaint of a statutory nuisance is made to it by a person living within its area, to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate the complaint.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to clarify that local authorities are not only under a duty to inspect their areas from time to time to detect statutory nuisances but must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate complaints made to them. It will, I am sure, be welcomed by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Nathan, who moved amendments which had a similar purpose in Committee.
We have consulted local authority associations and other interested organisations and in general there was support for the principle of the amendment, which puts into effect a recommendation made by the Noise Review Working Party. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is true that we welcome the amendment and I am grateful to the noble Earl for moving it. It places a new duty upon local authorities because it means that it is more difficult for them to plead shortage of resources as a reason for not investigating a nuisance. The question must and will arise as the grant timetable winds its way through the parliamentary year as to how local authorities will have the resources to do the work. It is a welcome measure, but it is pointless unless the local authorities have the resources.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 84, line 33, at end insert:
("() Subsection (1) (b) and (g) above do not apply in relation to premises—

(a) occupied on behalf of the Crown for naval, military or air force purposes or for the purposes of the department of the Secretary of State having responsibility for defence, or

(b) occupied by or for the purposes of a visiting force;

and "visiting force" means any such body, contingent or detachment of the forces of any country as is a visiting force for the purposes of any of the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act 1952.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Government have brought forward the amendment because we have concluded that in certain circumstances, to which I will refer, the application of Clause 78 would impose constraints on the activities of the Ministry of Defence as they affect the defence of the realm. This clause places a duty on every local authority to inspect its area from time to time to detect, and under subsequent clauses to take action on, specified types of nuisance. The two types of activity which we wish not to apply to defence activities are smoke (Clause 78(1)(b)) and noise (Clause 78(1)(g)). The Ministry of Defence is currently exempt from all statutory nuisance legislation so that even with this amendment Part III of the Bill will increase the degree of legislative control to which it is subject.
It is not possible to ensure that the armed forces are properly trained and equipped without the generation
594
of smoke and noise which may in certain circumstances constitute a nuisance. For instance, soldiers cannot be trained to be effective in wartime without realistic training exercises including smokescreens, tank manoeuvres and the firing of weapons. Similarly, the equipment which they use needs to be tested in the open, generating smoke and noise. The application of statutory nuisance legislation to such activities could place an intolerable constraint on them.
When I proposed this amendment last July understandable concern was shown in your Lordships' House and it was suggested that the exemption given to military premises could be abused. This is certainly not the intention. The Ministry of Defence has issued a policy statement to all its formations and those of the United States armed forces in the United Kingdom indicating the extent to which smoke and noise nuisance is constrained. Copies of this statement have been placed in the Library in response to a question from my noble friend Lord Swinfen.
The statement makes clear that domestic activities, which I may add include building work, hospital incinerators and standard industrial type processes, should not cause smoke or noise nuisances. Additionally, it places conditions on the generation of smoke or noise, where this is operationally necessary. The Government undertake to ensure that the letter and the spirit of this policy statement are followed at all times.
I therefore commend this amendment to your Lordships as placing the minimum constraint of the extension of nuisance legislation to the Ministry of Defence that is consistent with the interests of national security. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, let me at once acknowledge the truth of what the Minister has just said—that in general the Bill reduces the immunity on Crown property and the armed services. In so far as the immunity of the armed services from prosecution is part of a general policy, as with hospital kitchens, for example, we welcome it and we think that it goes in the right direction.
Perhaps I may also acknowledge that the Minister was good enough to write to me in September setting out in some detail the Ministry of Defence reasons for wishing to maintain this amendment. He also sent me a copy of the Ministry of Defence policy statement. I do not think he will be surprised to hear that I am not entirely happy with the answers that have been given.
In his letter, the Minister distinguished between essential operational and training activities of the armed forces and, presumably, non-operational activities. However, there is no definition of them in the amendment, nor is there really a definition of them in the policy statement. There is or ought to be a distinction between them but it ought to be made more clearly than it has been. No one could object to the use of smoke in the laying down of smokescreens or the use of fire in training firefighters. But smoke, fumes and smell can come from kitchens or burning rubble

595
on Ministry of Defence property, just as much as from the same activities anywhere else. They ought to be covered more clearly.
The Minister has just given an undertaking—I hope wrote down correctly what he said—that this policy statement will be adhered to at all times. That reminds me a little too much of the code of practice on straw and stubble burning, which, as we have heard, is not adhered to at all times even if it is widely understood. Surely it would have been possible for the Government at least to agree to an amendment saying that regard would be paid to this policy statement in controlling statutory nuisance from defence premises. As it is, I am afraid that the definition of what is allowed on defence premises is far too wide, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said at Committee stage. The protection of the policy statement is far too limited. I am disappointed that the Minister has seen fit to come back with exactly the same amendment and has not taken advantage of the intervening period to produce a better one.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, can the Minister assist us on paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 154 relating to visiting forces? He relies heavily on the observation of the code of practice. How can he be sure that visiting forces will observe the code of practice which has been laid down?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, before the Minister replies, in happier times I would have pleaded that we should do something about low flying aircraft. I live in an area where noise from aeroplanes is absolutely appalling; that is, the upper Teme valley. They come over every day. I realise that at the moment that is not a popular comment to make because pilots need to practise. However, presumably the Bill will have to stand the test of time for many years and we hope that there will not be a crisis in the Middle East or anywhere else in a few years' time.
On behalf of those people who have to live in areas like mine where low flying aircraft such as fighters and bombers come in very low indeed, frightening the life out of us, I plead that some protection should be written into the Bill on this point.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may first reply to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. To refresh his memory, I said:
"The Government undertake to ensure that the letter and the spirit of this policy statement are followed at all times".
I particularly draw your Lordships' attention to the policy statement issued by the Minister of Defence. I apologise if noble Lords do not have a copy. Paragraph 4 says:
"We take great care, therefore, to ensure that we strike a balance between the need to maintain the operational effectiveness of the Armed forces, with the need to protect the environment and to be a good neighbour".
That is the whole point of the paragraph in the policy statement and it also answers the noble Lord, Lord Ross. Of course there is some irritation at times about low flying. The Ministry of Defence is always acutely and increasingly aware of it. I can say to the
596
noble Lord, Lord Ross, that it is our intention, particularly at the moment, that the armed forces should march with the environment. That is important. However, at the same time I am sure that your Lordships will understand that in order to have fit and well trained men the forces must be able to train in the normal way.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in regard to visiting forces, as I said when I proposed the amendment, the policy statement has been sent to the general commanding the United States air force in this country, General Anderson. I know that he is aware of it and will do his best to ensure that it is carried out. I hope that answers the points raised.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 84, line 33, at end insert:
("(1A) A local authority may where it considers it desirable, cause its area to be inspected from time to time to detect smoke other than smoke to which subsection (1) (b) above applies, and may in respect of smoke emitted from a vehicle which it considers harmful to the environment notify the relevant chief officer of police for the purposes of prosecution").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first perhaps I may say what is meant by,
"smoke other than smoke to which subsection (1) (b) above applies".
As the following provisions of the amendment make clear, we refer to smoke coming from vehicles. I do not believe that anyone doubts that smoke from vehicles is a major source of pollution and a danger to health. The problem is that no one seems prepared to do anything about it. It falls between two stools. If one complains to the police about it, the police say that it is up to the local authority; if one complains to the local authority, it says that it is the responsibility of the police. That failure was reflected but not resolved in the debates which we had on the subject at Committee stage.
I do not blame the police for giving a higher priority to road safety or the enforcement of traffic laws. After all, they are not particularly well qualified to deal with smoke emissions from vehicles. It is a technical subject which is much closer to the responsibilities of the local authorities. I do not altogether blame the local authorities for fearing to take action on smoke from vehicles, because they need police powers to stop a vehicle if they are to take effective action.
No one is to blame for this situation except the Government, who are to blame for not putting it right. They have the opportunity to achieve co-operation between local authorities and the police to get rid of what is a most unpleasant and widely detested statutory nuisance. The amendment is intended to be entirely helpful. It seeks to give local authorities the power to draw to the attention of the relevant chief officer of police for the purposes of prosecution smoke that is emitted from vehicles.
I venture to suggest that this way forward might well be a suitable mechanism for the future for other forms of statutory nuisance. The same problem as

597
regards the need for technical expertise combined with enforcement powers applies to other statutory nuisances. I believe this is a helpful suggestion which the Government should take seriously. It will not be good enough for the Government to say that everything is well. Everything is clearly not well and the nuisance continues unabated. The law should be capable of putting the matter right. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have to disappoint the noble Lord because the Government's reply is that help is at hand. The Government consider that everything is well. I wish to explain briefly why we believe this to be the case.
There is already a considerable body of law to control vehicle emissions. Construction and use regulations made under powers granted to the Secretary of State for Transport under the Road Traffic Act 1988 lay down standards for emissions of fumes, gases or smoke from vehicles. They are the appropriate way of controlling these matters. We have announced further proposals on vehicle emissions in the environmental White Paper.
There are several arms of enforcement to deal with excessive emissions from vehicles. The first area of responsibility for day-to-day enforcement lies with the police. It is an offence to use a vehicle which emits smoke of such a density that it is likely to cause danger under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, Regulation No. 61.
Additionally, the police co-operate from time to time with the Department of Transport's inspectors to conduct roadside checks on the condition of vehicles, especially heavy goods and public service vehicles. The Government cannot support the idea of local authority officers being given the power to stop vehicles in the street. The Department of Transport's vehicle inspectors do not have this power either. It is restricted by the Road Traffic Act 1988 to uniformed police officers. Apart from the obvious reasons to do with civil liberties, it is not safe for a person in civilian clothes to attempt to stop a moving vehicle on a public highway. But having said that, it is already open to local authorities to take the kind of action envisaged by this amendment. Indeed, environmental health officers are probably among the best qualified to help the police by providing evidence of a good quality to support a prosecution. I might add that the noise review to be published shortly will have some things to say which are relevant to the question of making best use of the expertise of environmental health officers. It is for those reasons that I ask your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a totally unsatisfactory answer. I wonder whether the ministerial car which the Minister uses is completely insulated from the outside world, or whether he ever leaves his car. I wonder whether he has been on the streets, at any rate of London, in recent years. It is obvious that enormous numbers of vehicles are breaking the construction and use regulations and emitting smoke and noise which are of a quantity that breaks the law. No one is saying that the construction
598
and use regulations are wrong or that powers do not exist. What we are saying is that no one is enforcing the regulations or the powers. No one has the necessary range both of technical skill and of authority to enforce the regulations and see that the law is not broken.
The amendment does not state that people in civilian clothes should stop moving vehicles. It states that they should notify a relevant chief officer of police when they have detected smoke which is in breach of the law. That means that people observe the smoke and take the number of the vehicle concerned. It means nothing more or less than that. It does not mean that they stop the vehicle. I do not think that the Minister can be serious in thinking that the enforcement of the law at present is adequate to the purpose. If the Minister is adamant that he will not accept this modest gesture to improve co-operation between local authorities and the police, I have no choice but to seek the opinion of the House.
3.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 155) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 118.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Ardwick, L.

Mellish, L.

Aylestone, L.

Meston, L.

Birk, B.

Mishcon, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mulley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nathan, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Northfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ennals, L.

Parry, L.

Erroll, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Richard, L.

Ezra, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Galpern, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

[Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Hampton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stallard, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stedman, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Strabolgi, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Thurlow, L.

Kissin, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Underhill, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Longford, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Balfour, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Allerton, L.

Beloff, L.

Ampthill, L.

Belstead, L.

Arran, E.

Bessborough, E.

Astor, V.

Blatch, B.

Auckland, L.

Blyth, L.

599

Boardman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bolton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Borthwick, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Byron, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nelson, E.

Carnock, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Norrie, L.

Cawley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Constansine of Stanmore, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L,

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Penrhyn, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Porritt, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Reay, L.

Effingham, E.

Rees, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renton, L.

Elles, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Rodney, L.

Faithfull, B.

Saint Albans, D.

Ferrers, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Flather, B.

Selkirk, E.

Foley, L.

Shannon, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Slim, V.

Gainford, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Strange, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Swinfen, L.

Havers, L.

Terrington, L.

Henley, L.

Teviot, L.

Hives, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hood, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hooper, B.

Tranmire, L.

Howe, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trumpington, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ullswater, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kimball, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Weir, V.

Long, V

Westbury, L.

Lothian, M.

Whitelaw, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wise, L.

Lurgan, L.

Wynford, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Young, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to according.
4.3 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 86, line 4, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 156 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 159. There is a risk that in the consideration of the Bill we may be thought to be involving ourselves in theological distinctions. The phrases used in the Bill to describe the obligations on those who may be responsible for pollution and those responsible for environmental protection as between best practicable means, best practicable environmental option or best available techniques not entailing excessive cost may be thought to amount to an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I hope that that is not the case because there are real distinctions which deserve proper consideration.
Noble Lords will recall that the concept of the best practicable environmental option is that which is preferred by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the principle of BATNEEC (best available techniques not entailing excessive cost) is the definition which is preferred by the European Community, though Government Ministers tend to sneer at that alternative—except when they use it—by describing it as a definition which has no firm basis in case law in this country or elsewhere. Ministers have sought to argue that the BATNEEC principle is suitable for large-scale pollution under the integrated pollution control provisions of Part I of the Bill but not for the local problems which are tackled in this part of the Bill.
At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said quite rightly that the size of the business is not the proper consideration in describing or identifying what is wrong and what should be done to put it right. He asked whether the best practicable means definition, which is used here, is sufficiently sensitive to the varying conditions which apply to businesses. He said that unless we were sensitive there could be serious results for small businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, who was then the Minister concerned, said that the expression "best practicable means" was flexible and wide enough to enable the courts to take into account the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, referred. Therefore, it is a flexible standard which environmental officers negotiate with the polluter as to the standard which his equipment is to reach. That is what is generally understood, but it is not what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, when he responded to the amendment.
We want more clarity from the Government on this matter. If the best practicable means is a flexible standard does it mean anything at all? If BATNEEC is a procedure which has no basis in case law in this country how is it to be enforced? We are asking the Government in response to the amendment, on which I do not propose to divide the House, to give an account of the difference between the standards which they apply in Part III of the Bill for local pollution or statutory nuisance and the standards which they apply in Part I.
If it is true that the defence for statutory nuisance is to be at a different level from the defence against breaches of integrated pollution control how are we to be sure that the Government will not be heavily influenced by the interests of polluting business and how are we to be sure that the more flexible standard which is proclaimed in Part III will be enforced? I hope that the amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to reply and make matters clearer than the Government have succeeded in doing so far. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, as my name has been mentioned I should like to correct one minor point that the noble Lord made. It was my noble friend Lord Hesketh who replied, at col. 1594 of Hansard, on the earlier occasion on the subject of small businesses.

601
I join the noble Lord in asking for clarification. The reply that I was given was that environmental health officers would look carefully if a small business was involved. I shall be interested to hear again what my noble friend has to say on this question because it is a valid point.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, the amendments raise once more the proposition that the concept of best practical means (bpm) in Part III should be replaced by the concept of best available technology not entailing excessive cost (BATNEEC), which is the formulation used in Parts I and VI. The noble Lord argued in Committee for the adoption of a standard definition throughout the Bill.
The Government see no need to repeat the arguments put forward in Committee against the proposition. In our opinion they remain valid. I should just re-emphasise one aspect. The bpm defence is a robust concept which has survived so long because of its simplicity. It is familiar to and well understood by the courts and businesses of all types and sizes. It is an unsophisticated concept which seeks to minimise damage to the environment without crippling industry. It is also a flexible and dynamic concept which can take account of scientific progress and advances in abatement technology. In the context of Part III we see no advantage in changing to a different formulation such as BATNEEC.
I should add that BATNEEC is the formulation used in European directives. It is more applicable to the cross-media pollution issues addressed by Integrated Pollution Control (IPC). Unlike bpm, it has no firm basis in case law in this country or elsewhere.
For those reasons, which were outlined in Committee and which I hope have been slightly expanded upon today, we ask your Lordships to reject this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I noticed that in his reply the Minister did not even seek to answer the questions which arose about the enforceability of the different standards. Certainly I understand with regret that the Government are determined to have different standards for different forms of pollution. That is why we did not bring back at Report stage the same amendments that we moved in Committee.
I do not feel that the Government have been as helpful as they might have been in responding to this short debate. I do not think that matters are as clear as they ought to be. The Minister referred to "best practicable means" as a crude concept. That may well be the case but I should have thought that legislation of this kind offers an occasion to impose something which is clearer rather than a crude concept which is simply bolstered by many years of case law. That is notoriously an area in which lawyers make their money and local authorities waste time and resources in the courts, very often not achieving their objective.
602
However, clearly we shall not make any progress on this matter.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may put the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, right on one point. I did not in fact use the word "crude". I used the word "robust". I said that the bpm defence is a robust concept which has survived so long because of its simplicity.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I withdraw the word "crude". The noble Earl may have used the word "unsophisticated" or something of that kind. He said something to that effect which indicated to me that this was not as powerful a weapon as it ought to be. As I said, clearly we shall not make progress. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79 [Summary proceedings for statutory nuisances]:
[Amendment No. 157 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 157A not moved.]
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 87, line 22, at end insert:
("() Where on hearing an information under subsection (4) above it is proved that the alleged nuisance existed at the date of the service of the abatement notice and that at the date of the laying of the information it either still existed or was likely to recur, then, whether or not at the date of the hearing it still exists or is likely to recur, the court shall order the defendant to pay to the local authority such reasonable sum as the court may determine in respect of the expenses incurred by the authority in, or in connection with, the service of the abatement notice and the proceedings before the court.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my amendment is grouped with three others which cover slightly different points. One of them is a government amendment, one stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Byron, and the third in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I wonder whether, in view of the fact that her amendment comes second in this grouping, the Minister would prefer to reply at the end of the debate. I suggest that it might be simpler to deal first with the other three amendments. Would that be acceptable?
My amendment concerns the local authority being able to recover costs, whereas the other amendments (which I think must be of rather greater importance, judging by the number of letters that we have received from solicitors, and in particular those in the London area, who are very concerned about the fact that this Bill supersedes Section 94(3) of the Public Health Act 1936) are slightly different and relate to fines and appeal procedures.
This amendment seeks to ensure that a local authority is entitled to recover the costs of bringing abatement notice proceedings even if the defendant shows that he is using the best practicable means to abate the nuisance. I suggest that this is only fair, because his operations are still causing a nuisance, while the facts that lead a court to find proved best practicable means may not be available to the authority. The amendment gives effect to the polluter

603
pays principle. It is a slightly amended version of the provision which appears in Section 94(3) of the Public Health Act. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 158 seeks to carry over provisions similar to those in Section 94(3) of the Public Health Act 1936 by virtue of which the award of costs can be mandatory if it is proved that the nuisance existed both at the date of service of the abatement notice and at the date that proceedings were instituted.
We cannot support this amendment. In the context of action by local authorities we consider the mandatory costs provision must be regarded as archaic and obsolete. It is true that we have accepted the need for mandatory costs in the case of actions brought by private individuals under Clause 81 and we are bringing forward an amendment to Clause 81 accordingly. We have done that because of the implications of the Sandwell v. Bujok judgment and because the resources of people such as, for example, housing tenants who take action under Clause 81 may be limited. They could be put off taking action unless they are reasonably sure of being awarded costs.
A comparable mandatory provision is not justified for local authorities which have greater resources and the legal staff which should enable them to decide whether or not prosecutions are likely to be successful.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 160 and 165A. I am sure that Amendment No. 160, which we have brought forward, will be welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. It is intended to meet the concern expressed in Amendment No. 285 which he moved at Committee stage. Having considered this matter further, we are persuaded by the noble Lord's view that proceedings under Clause 79(3) are civil and not criminal in character. The government amendment, Amendment No. 160, is therefore necessary to provide for a right of appeal to the Crown Court in respect of decisions of magistrates' courts on appeals made to them under Clause 79(3).
However, we are indebted to the noble Lord for his perspicuity and for bringing to our attention by Amendment No. 165A the point that Amendment No. 160 does not go far enough. We accept that there also needs to be provision for an express right of appeal to the Crown Court against the decision of a magistrates' court under Clause 81(2) on a complaint, made to them by a private individual for a nuisance order. The noble Lord's amendment achieves this effect and we are therefore delighted to be able to accept it.
Turning to Amendment No. 162A, the issue raised by this amendment has arisen previously. It was discussed when a similar amendment, Amendment No. 285C, was brought forward in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Ross. We see no reason to alter our view on this point. We consider that the proposed amendment to Clause 81 is both misconceived and unnecessary.
The amendment is misconceived because it would insert a provision for a fine at a stage in the proceedings when the matter before the court is
604
whether a nuisance order should be made. The correct time for a fine to be imposed is after a criminal offence has been committed. An offence is not committed unless and until the requirements of the nuisance order are contravened or not complied with, and in that event criminal proceedings follow. Subsection (4) of Clause 81 already makes provision for the court to impose the same penalty as this amendment seeks on summary conviction for such a contravention. For that reason we believe that this amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Byron: My Lords, we may here be in some slight procedural muddle. It was my intention to move Amendment No. 162A, which has not yet been called. I think that it is grouped slightly misleadingly with the other amendments. But since the Minister has dealt with the point, I wonder whether it would be in order for me to say a little now about Amendment No. 162A.
The purpose of this amendment is to insert into the Bill a provision similar to that which is presently in the 1936 Public Health Act. Before going any further I should say that, although I did not take part in the debate in Committee, I welcome a number of amendments which the Government are bringing forward in response to certain pressures. My amendment is supported by the Law Society and a number of other organisations which have practical experience of dealing with this problem in the magistrates' court.
Perhaps I may briefly explain the position. When a person is aggrieved by a statutory nuisance, which may very well be in the context of housing but could also arise in other contexts, the present procedure is that that person will go along to the magistrates' court and lay an information alleging the existence of the statutory nuisance. If the magistrates are satisfied that the statutory nuisance exists they can order that it be abated. They can make orders to ensure that the nuisance does not recur. As the law stands at the moment they can also impose a fine. As the Bill is drafted, that power to fine does not arise until after an abatement order made by the magistrates' court has not been complied with.
At first glance it may seem that there is some logic in what the Government propose. However, I urge that by taking away the power that the court has at the moment to fine ab initio and to provide the power to fine only when there is a subsequent breach of an order by the court gives the section considerable teeth.
I understand that one organisation alone has advised about 4,000 tenants in connection with housing problems. Those are obviously extremely severe housing problems because they come into the realm of matters where health is in danger. We are not talking about defective housing. That is a matter which would normally be in dispute between landLord and tenant and would be properly dealt with in the county court. We are talking about matters where health is at risk and where there is on the statute book, and has been for over 50 years, a very convenient summary procedure whereby an aggrieved person can go to the magistrates' court.

605
That procedure still exists under the Bill as presently drafted. However, the court will not have the power to impose a fine unless the defendant is in breach of the subsequent order made by the court. Those people who are working at the coal face, as it were, dealing with those issues every day regard the present power that the court has under the Public Health Act 1936 as a very valuable power and one which compels people who are perpetrating nuisances to abate them before the matter goes to court. Otherwise they risk being fined and having a criminal conviction.
I make three points. We are talking about extreme situations in the housing field. We are talking about criminal proceedings. The matter begins with the laying of information in the way that criminal proceedings start. We therefore have a criminal burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The amendment is drafted in exactly the same way as the law stands at the moment. The court will have the power, not an obligation, to impose the fine and will do so only if the matter is sufficiently severe.
I shall beg to move the amendment in due course.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may say that the presence of my noble friend Lord Byron on these Benches is very welcome.
I have a good deal of sympathy with him on the grouping. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, is on a much wider and quite different point. However, if I may presume to explain the matter as I see it to my noble friend, the position is this. He was quite at liberty to make a speech at this stage in support of his amendment as it has been grouped with another one. When his amendment is called, if he so wishes he will be entitled to divide the House. Perhaps when he has heard my noble friend Lady Blatch he may feel that it is not necessary to do so.
However, I should like to support the substance of the amendment moved by my noble friend and to point out an advantage that he did not mention although it clearly follows from what he said. If his amendment is accepted the result could be achieved in one court appearance. But under the Bill it would be achieved by two court appearances. If we do not wish unnecessarily to add to the courts' work, I should have thought that it would be very wise indeed for the Government to give careful consideration to the matter and for my noble friend to give an undertaking to consider it at Third Reading.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I may well be responsible for the confusion about the grouping. If I had heeded the advice given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, we might not have had such a grouping. However, I dealt with the amendments in the way that they were proposed. I dealt with Amendments Nos. 160 and 165 together, and with Amendments Nos. 158 and 162A separately. Perhaps I may add an extra word on Amendment No. 162A.
It is true that there was a provision allowing the court to impose a fine under Section 94(3) of the 1936
606
Act. However, that power could be invoked only after a local authority had served an abatement notice which had been ignored. In that case the court was in a position to decide whether to order compliance with the notice by means of an abatement order and have the possibility of imposing a fine. That is the present position under the Bill.
As the amendment proposed by my noble friend is set out, Clause 81(1) gives private individuals who are aggrieved by a statutory nuisance the right to seek a nuisance order in the magistrates' court.
Clause 81(2) provides that the court shall make a nuisance order if it is satisfied that the alleged nuisance exists. However, the amendment inserts a provision for the court to impose a fine at the same time that it makes the nuisance order. The difficulty that the Government have over accepting the amendment is that it is the wrong stage at which to provide for imposition of a fine since at this stage no offence has been committed.
A criminal offence is not committed unless or until the nuisance order is contravened. Subsection (5) already makes provision as to the penalties which the court may impose for the offence of contravention of a nuisance order. There is therefore no difference between us as to what should be done. The difference is in regard to the stage at which the imposition of a fine is set. That is the difference between the noble Lord's amendment and what is on the face of the Bill.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I apologise. It might have been better if I had said in the first instance that we should try to take the amendments separately. I attempted to set the matter in the right direction. I am aware that there has been a great deal of concern about the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Byron. In letters I received only this morning I was asked to support it. Many solicitors are concerned about the issue. The matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at Committee stage. I cannot say whether or not we have the right answer.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Byron, will study what has been said and consider whether he wishes to come back at Third Reading. In the meantime, it looks as though the local authorities are losing out yet again. They do not seem able to gain the generosity of this Government. They ought sometimes to be able to obtain their costs. However, I have to accept what was said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 159A:
After Clause 80, insert the following new clause:
("Public registers of information
. —(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to maintain a register containing prescribed particulars of or relating to—

(a) applications to the Secretary of State for consent under section 78(9) above;

(b) notices served under section 79 above;

(c) appeals under section 79(3) above;

607

(d) the occasions on which the authority has exercised any power under section 80(3) and (4) above;

(e) orders made under section 81(2) below;

(f) convictions for offences under this Part;

(g) the results of any measurements or tests carried out or obtained by it in connection with its functions under this Part;

(h) such other matters relating to statutory nuisances or the exercise of the authority's functions under this Part as may be prescribed.

(2) The provisions of sections 21 and 22 of this Act shall apply in relation to registers under this section, and references in those sections to registers maintained under section 20 of this Act shall he construed as including references to registers maintained under this section.
(3) It shall be the duty of each local authority—

(a) to ensure that the registers maintained by them under this section are available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge; and

(b) to afford to members of the public facilities for obtaining copies of entries, on payment of reasonable charges.

(4) Registers under this section may be kept in any form.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 159A which provides for public registers relating to statutory nuisance. As I read it, this is the only part of the Bill dealing with pollution which fails to provide rights of access to information. The Bill, as it stands, together with the government amendments on the Marshalled List, provides for access to information under Part I in Clause 20; under Part II in Clause 63; and under Part IV if Amendment No. 190 is passed by your Lordships. Part V is covered by Schedule 5, paragraph 15; Part VI by Amendment No. 213 after Clause 117, and Part VIII by Clause 139.
Not only is there no positive duty to disclose information in the area with which we are dealing today but the Bill contains a secrecy clause which penalises disclosure. I shall return to that in amendments with which I shall deal in due course.
Amendment No. 159A would require local authorities to set up public registers similar to those required elsewhere in the Bill. So there is nothing wild, radical or new about the proposal. The registers would show various details which are contained in the amendment and which I think are self-explanatory.
Subsection (2) of the amendment allows for the withholding of information which is commercially confidential or harmful to national security. The procedures for withholding such information are laid down in Clauses 21 and 22 of the Bill, as your Lordships will no doubt remember in relation to integrated pollution control registers. Those clauses will also apply to the new registers, and although we may be critical of some of the procedures the object is to bring Part III into line with precedent already in the Bill. Subsections (3) and (4) are quite standard in the Bill.
It seems to me that this is a straightforward amendment. It is always possible that it is technically flawed but if that is all, I hope that the Government will agree to it in principle and perhaps tidy it up at the next stage. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, one of the welcome provisions of the Bill is the extent to which it
608
reflects the move over recent years to give very much more public information about matters concerning pollution and the environment.
Although perhaps I should not say it, I was the Secretary of State who accepted the recommendation of the tenth report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which recommended that there should be a great deal more publicity for environmental matters. Nothing but good has come out of that. I always took the view in relation to nuclear pollution and other matters that the more secrecy that surrounded them the more there was the risk of alarmist and sometimes dangerously inaccurate stories gaining credence. If one tells the whole story and is seen to tell the whole story the chances are that one will be believed—not universally perhaps, but possibly so.
Therefore, in general I welcome the existence of public registers. Paragraph 17.26 of the White Paper states:
"These registers make information available in a form which is easy to use and have been widely welcomed".
The document adds:
"The Government will propose arrangements, including registers, by which environmental information can be made available in Britain. It believes that the role of the public in monitoring environmental information and demanding improvements where necessary will be one of the most effective stimuli to improving the environment throughout Europe".
It may well be that there comes a point of detail when the burden of preparing registers of what may be large numbers of minor statutory nuisances outweighs the advantage of having them made public. But if there is any doubt in the matter and if there appears to be a balance, I hope that Ministers will feel it right to tilt the balance in favour of publicity rather than in favour of no publicity. In the environmental field, as indeed in many others, accurate information readily available is one of the best instruments of good government.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for making the point about the Government being much more open with information. It is true that in recent legislation great efforts have been made to ensure that where there is a balance it is in favour of open access to information.
However, if I may address myself to the amendment, there is a significant difference between Part I and Part III in so far as under Part III, Clause 81 gives members of the general public the right to go directly to court if they are affected by a statutory nuisance. Therefore there is not the same justification for a public register. If a local authority were unwilling to provide information, in the last analysis a member of the general public could force the issue by initiating action under Clause 81. Under Part I only Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution or the local authority can initiate action.
We are proposing in Amendment No. 190 to require public registers of information to be kept for Part IV. However, Amendment No. 190 relates to orders under Clause 89(3) in respect of litter control

609
areas and street litter control notices issued under Clause 92(1). Such orders and notices affect owners of land, and it is right that not only the public but subsequent purchasers of the land should be aware of their existence.
Part III differs from Part I in being concerned, in the great majority of cases, with relatively small-scale nuisances committed or capable of being committed by individuals. Moreover, Part I reduces the importance of the statutory nuisance regime by taking a lot of smaller factories and processes out of statutory nuisance control and placing them under local authority prior authorisation control. This considerably lessens the need for members of the public to know about individual convictions, notices, or orders.
In fact we see positive objections to the keeping of a register which is available for public inspection in the case of Part III nuisances. It could enable anyone to find out what misdemeanours a particular individual has been guilty of. An obvious example is that of a landlord being able to find out that a prospective tenant has created a noise nuisance at his previous address and therefore refusing to give him a tenancy.
We accept that there are some elements in this package of information-keeping requirements for which a case might be made for public availability, for example items (1)(a) and (1)(g), but we are not convinced there is a sufficient case as respects Part III of the Bill. Once we embarked on this course it could lead in almost all the cases mentioned to information about the commission of nuisances by private individuals being traceable back to the individual. We have concluded it would not be desirable to keep a register which could lead to information of that sort being imparted.
Another point raised by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding concerned the benefits of setting up a public register and whether they are sufficient in relation to the high cost. It is our view that the benefits of setting up a public register in this instance are small in relation to the very high cost. However, it is important to say that the Government will ensure that the public has access to this information on request in implementing European directives on public access to environmental information.
It is out of protection of the individual against, if I may coin a phrase, a sort of licence for "nosey-parkering" by other individuals that I am forced to say that we would like this amendment to be rejected.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I sometimes wonder where we are heading on this matter. The fact is that it is possible to be penalised for disclosing information under the Bill, and there is absolutely no positive duty to disclose the information anyway. To hide behind the idea that a landlord might be able to find that a tenant has done something naughty in other premises and therefore not allow him a tenancy is stretching one's imagination a very long way.
610
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, can probably advise me better than I can advise your Lordships. I am quite sure that the landlord and tenant legislation would put a blockage on information being abused.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for his intervention; I do not dissent from a word that he said. But where there is a secrecy clause penalising people, there ought to be a counter-balancing provision for a positive disclosure of information in many cases.
The noble Baroness accepts that there may be a case under subsection 1(a) and 1(g). All I ask is that, even if the Government do not like the amendment as it stands, they will reconsider the situation. Noble Lords will notice that those are applications for consent to the Secretary of State under Section 78(9) and orders made under Section 81(2) which presumably do not affect private persons in the same way.
I am disappointed that this section of the Bill is singled out for different treatment from the rest of the Bill, but there seems little point in my pressing the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may apologise for the possibility that I may well have misled the House in my previous reply. Under Part I of the Bill, although HMIP and local authorities are primarily charged with enforcing the provisions of that part, it does not mean that other people cannot bring prosecutions under that part of the Bill.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Statutory Nuisances: Supplementary Provisions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 160, line 47, at end insert:
("(2A) An appeal against any decision of a magistates' court in pursuance of an appeal to which this paragraph applies shall lie to the Crown Court at the instance of any party to the proceedings in which the decision was given.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 161, line 44, after ("samples") insert ("equipment").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, will not feel that I am picking on him, but I must come back to something that he said in Committee. When we turned to Schedule 3, which is concerned with powers of entry to deal with statutory nuisances, we thought that it was clear that the officers would be empowered to seize equipment as well as samples and articles. It seems clear to me that, in mounting a prosecution, the nature of the equipment that is used is as relevant as the samples.
However, in response to Amendment No. 283A, the noble Earl said in Committee on 26th June 1990 (col. 1598 of Hansard) that it was arguable whether the term "articles" included equipment. He said that the Government were prepared to consider whether an

611
amendment was needed to deal with the point raised. There is no government amendment. We bring forward this amendment so that the Government can explain why not. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is quite correct. We agreed in Committee to consider the issue that was raised by the amendment. We had concluded that a power in Schedule 3 to remove equipment would compare undesirably with the Bill's other rights-of-entry clauses which do not contain an equivalent power.
Perhaps I may endeavour to explain briefly to the noble Lord what exactly the Government are trying to do. The word "equipment" does not appear in the equivalent context in Clauses 17(3)(f), 68(3)(f) and 111(3)(d) and (e). Those other provisions clearly empower an inspector to take away the samples that he takes of articles or substances, thus leaving the bulk where it is on the premises. After all, it is the property of someone.
The other provisions allow property to be dismantled or otherwise tested and, in an extreme case, damaged or even destroyed, but they do not entitle the inspector to remove the plant or equipment that is there. It is not only the property of someone, but may be the means by which a business is carried on. It is not necessary to remove all the equipment to determine whether a particular process is causing a problem and should be modified or ultimately prevented from operating. That is why we believe the amendment is not justified.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a strange answer. In Committee the Minister said that it was clearly desirable that there should be a power to remove equipment and that it was simply a question of drafting as to whether equipment was included in the word "articles". He now says that it is undesirable. He has still not made it clear whether the word "articles" can be interpreted to include equipment.
This is one of those cases in which we seem to be moving backwards rather than forwards. No one is suggesting that inspectors wilfully go to remove larger items of equipment than they need to prove a case. They will remove some significant part of the equipment if that part is causing pollution. For example, if a filter is not working properly, it is part of the equipment but it is also evidence of whether matenal—effluent, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would say—is escaping which should not be escaping and of whether that item of equipment should be removed.
I do not wish us to be at cross-purposes on the amendment. Will the Minister now answer the question which he asked himself in Committee and which I repeated just now: is equipment included in the word "articles"?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said before; namely, that it must be recognised that the equipment is the property of someone but that that property can be the means by which a business is carried on. Surely it is not necessary to remove all the
612
equipment to determine whether the process is causing a problem and should be modified or ultimately prevented from operating. I do not think that I can make it much clearer than that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the amendment does not refer to all the equipment. The noble Earl has still not answered his own question. It is a matter of doubt as to whether the word "articles" can be construed to include equipment—not the whole of an item of equipment but such amount of equipment as is necessary to prove a case at law. We still do not have an answer to that question. I do not know whether an answer is about to arrive now. Can the word "articles" be construed to include equipment?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand that the answer is definitely in the affirmative.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, why did not the Minister say so and save us all that trouble? He asked himself the question more than three months ago and should have been prepared to answer it. I am pleased to have an answer, but I am not pleased with the answer. The answer appears to be that, because the Government are wilfully misinterpreting my amendment to suggest that it means all of any item of equipment, equipment should therefore be excluded from this part of the Bill. It may well be—this is the only reason I am not seeking to divide the House on the matter—that we should seek to amend the Bill in more than one place. The answer, and the process that I have had to go through to drag an answer out of the Government, are totally unsatisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 161A:
Page 162, line 10, leave out ("manufacturing process or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 161B.
These two amendments seek to limit the scope of the secrecy provisions in Schedule 3, which applies to information about statutory nuisance. Paragraph 2 of the schedule gives local authorities powers of entry for the purpose of dealing with statutory nuisance. Paragraph 3 makes it an offence for a person to disclose information,
"relating to any manufacturing process or trade secret obtained in the exercise of any powers conferred by paragraph 2 above … unless the disclosure was made in the performance of his duty or with the consent of the person having the right to disclose the information".
Nothing in the Bill suggests that disclosure of information forms part of the duty of a local authority in relation to statutory nuisance. It is possible that there may be an argument that a duty arises in some indirect way, either in common law or under the general provisions of the Public Health Acts. However, it seems to me that it would be very unsafe to rely on that in the face of such an explicit restriction.
The restriction on disclosure is particularly inappropriate in the case of statutory nuisances. By

613
definition those powers can be used only in relation to health hazards or nuisances; that is, real problems rather than theoretical risks. Moreover, the powers can only be invoked where the problem already exists or is imminent. They do not involve the general anticipatory precautions found in other pollution control laws. Thus, if a local authority acts under the statutory nuisance provisions, that is because there is a real hazard or severe nuisance which is when the case for the public being fully informed is most important.
Amendment No. 161A restricts the secrecy clause to disclosures about trade secrets. There is no intention in these amendments to try to disclose trade secrets in the normal course of events. However, the revealing of information about a non-secret manufacturing process should not be a criminal offence. Clearly that should take place only when necessary but it should not be a criminal offence to do that if the process is not secret.
The Government accepted that argument recently in the Food Safety Act and have also accepted the argument in relation to previous pollution legislation. For example, the Clean Air Act 1956 originally contained a bar on the disclosure of:
"any manufacturing process or trade secret".
That provision was amended by the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to delete the words "manufacturing process" which is precisely what we seek to do in the first of these two amendments.
The second amendment adds a new justification for disclosing information to those already found in paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 3. With the amendment the paragraph would read as follows. I shall read it in full because it is important that the full meaning is clear to your Lordships:
"If a person discloses any information relating to any manufacturing process or trade secret obtained in the exercise of any powers conferred by paragraph 2 above he shall, unless the disclosure was made in the performance of his duty or with the consent of the person having the right to disclose the information",
and we add the words:
"or was necessary for the purpose of protecting the health of any person from serious injury be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5".
In other words, in those cases where it is necessary —and I stress the words "necessary"—to protect the health of any person from serious—and I stress the word "serious" —injury there should be an exemption from the provisions of this clause. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I confess immediately that I have not researched the debates which took place on the earlier legislation to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred when he said that the words "or manufacturing process" had been taken out. It may be that they are not in exactly the same case as this. I should like to argue quite strongly that the words "or manufacturing process" should remain.
I say that because if Parliament in its wisdom gives authority to a public official to enter a manufacturing premises in the circumstances envisaged by this paragraph of the schedule, it seems to me that it
614
behoves us to impose the most strenuous duty to ensure that that entry should be confined solely to the purpose to which it is intended.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, accepts the question of a trade secret. I know that he has some knowledge of the manufacturing industry since our paths have crossed while looking at some very sophisticated manufacturing plant. Therefore, he must accept that while there may be nothing secret and no question of any patent or know-how agreement, an engineer or, if one is talking about a chemical plant, a chemical engineer can, just by looking at the plant, see the way in which the problem has been solved by a competitor. That may be worth quite a lot of money to someone. If it is known that an inspector has gone into a competitor's plant, the competitor will wish to make it absolutely clear to that inspector that he may not talk at all to anyone about what he saw when he was there except in so far as it is strictly in accordance with his duties.
Manufacturing processes are often developed over a very long period at the same plant with minor modifications being made. Competitors might dearly love to have access to information about another competitor's plant. We want to be quite clear that if we give that authority to inspectors to visit plant, they should not talk at all about what they saw there to anybody. I understand that that is what this subparagraph is intended to do. I hope that my noble friend will not yield to the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to remove those words.
As regards the other amendment, I do not have a very strong view, but I shall listen to what my noble friend on the Front Bench says in reply.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall deal with the issue raised by my noble friend before I come to the amendment. With respect to my noble friend, I accept his proposition that the manufacturing industry should be protected from releases of information which may be commercially confidential. However, I assure him that the retention of the words "trade secret" will operate to protect such information. If I do not say that, he may be slightly disquieted by the rather pleasant news to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that I am about to accept the amendment.
We are pleased to be able to accept the amendment noting the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and noting that one must have regard to the words "trade secrets". This amendment brings the provisions of Schedule 3 relating to disclosure of information into line with those of Section 94 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and Section 26 of the Clean Air Act 1956.
As regards Amendment No. 161B, the additional exemption to the restrictions on disclosure of information provided for by this amendment is, in effect, already covered by the existing provision in paragraph 3(2) that no offence is committed if the disclosure is made in the performance of the inspecting officer's duty. The duty there referred to is the duty of detecting any statutory nuisances which should be dealt with under Clause 79. Statutory nuisance is

615
defined in Clause 78 as meaning something which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance. That would include the protection of the health of any person from serious injury. Indeed, if anything the amendment is more restrictive than Clause 78 as that refers simply to "prejudice to health" and does not require evidence of serious injury.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will respond to our generosity in accepting his first amendment and will forgive me for asking the House to reject the second amendment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, says. We spent several happy hours looking over sophisticated chemical engineering equipment—for want of a better phrase.
I had a similar slight difference of opinion with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on the food safety legislation when he raised a similar point in relation to the food industry. However, I felt all along that the "trade secret" provision covered the sort of matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, refers.
I declare an interest as a non-executive director of a chemical company, and I should not wish to see the important information contained within some of the plants of the company of which I am director revealed to our competitors. We are a high technology organisation and that is how it makes its money. However, I am confident that "trade secret" will cover that, and I am glad that the Government have come round to my view. I am glad that the long summer has been a useful period of gestation.
On the second amendment, I accept what the Minister says, and again I am most grateful to her. I shall read what she said. If there are any minor problems which I believe exist then I shall either discuss that with her outside the Chamber or perhaps return to the matter on Third Reading. In the meantime, I am grateful for her acceptance of my first amendment, and for the reassurance on my second amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 161B not moved.]
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 262, line 41, at end insert:
("(7) The Secretary of State may by order vary or revoke any order previously made by him under this paragraph.
(8) Any order under this paragraph may include such incidental, supplemental and transitional provisions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a minor amendment which adds two additional subparagraphs to the Secretary of State's default powers in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3. It reflects amendments to the default powers in Clause 71 of Part II of the Bill, to which your Lordships have already agreed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 81 [Summary proceedings by persons aggrieved by statutory nuisances]:
Lord Byron Lord Byron had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 162A:
Page 89, line 9, at end insert ("and may also impose on the defendant a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not sure whether it is in order for me to move this amendment. I wish simply to say to my noble friend that if I understood her correctly she may be mistaken or perhaps we are talking at cross purposes. I have met representatives from the Law Society.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. In the light of our previous conversation I shall be prepared to take this amendment back and reconsider it before Third Reading, without commitment of course.
Lord Byron: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's response.
[Amendment No. 162A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 89, line 9, at end insert:
("() If the magistrates' court is satisfied that the alleged nuisance exists and is such as, in the opinion of the court, to render premises unfit for human habitation, an order under subsection (2) above may prohibit the use of the premises for human habitation until the premises are, to the satisfaction of the court, rendered fit for that purpose.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 163 I shall speak also to a large group of amendments in my name—Amendments Nos. 163 to 165, 166 to 170, 277, 287 and 288. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 165ZA and 165ZB in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am not sure whether the noble Lord prefers me to proceed with my amendments before he speaks to his. He indicates that that is so.
Amendments Nos. 165 and 169 meet the concerns reflected in Amendments Nos. 285B and 286A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in Committee and will, I am sure, be welcomed by him. Although Clause 81 makes no explicit provision, I am advised that as the clause is drafted the normal discretionary rules on costs would apply. We were incorrect in referring to the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1973 in the previous discussion of this matter in Committee. It is in fact the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 which gives the court inherent jurisdiction to award costs in such cases.
The noble Lord referred in Committee to concern felt by tenants that Clause 81 as drafted could weaken their rights to take direct action in the courts. We are persuaded that it is right to meet this concern by bringing forward Amendment No. 169.
Amendment No. 165 is necessary as a corollary of Amendment No. 169. The noble Lord referred in Committee to the concern felt by local authorities that complaints could be made to the courts without the local authority being notified and being given an opportunity to put things right. Although that concern was voiced by local authorities in the context of action being taken against them for housing repairs, the principle that there should be a requirement for prior notice holds good for other forms of statutory

617
nuisance. The difficulty has been to pinpoint a formula which will enable appropriate periods of notice to be tailored to different forms of nuisances.
Amendment No. 165 provides for the period of prior notice before court proceedings are instituted to be not less than three days in the case of noise nuisance and 21 days in the case of other nuisances. The amendment gives the Secretary of State powers to vary the minimum period of notice applicable to any description of statutory nuisance.
Amendment No. 163 meets the concern expressed in Amendment No. 285D brought forward in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Ross, which my noble colleague, Lord Arran, undertook to consider. We now accept that an amendment on those lines is required. Amendment No. 167 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 168. Amendment No. 168 is consequential on Amendment No. 163.
Amendment No. 164 is a small but necessary amendment to the procedural requirements of Clause 81, which gives private individuals the right to take direct action in the courts for the abatement of a statutory nuisance. Without this amendment Clause 81(3) would not refer to the action to be taken where the nuisance arises from any defect of a structural character and could result in someone other than the owner being served.
Amendment No. 166 is a minor but necessary correction to Clause 81(5). Clause 81(5) makes it an offence to contravene any requirement of a nuisance order but does not make it an offence to contravene any requirement imposed by a nuisance order. This amendment remedies that omission.
Amendment No. 170 meets the concern expressed in Amendment No. 286B which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, brought forward in Committee and which my noble friend Lord Arran undertook to consider. It would carry over from the Public Health Act 1936 a necessary adjunct to the court's power to make a nuisance order.
Amendments Nos. 277, 287 and 288 are all minor technical amendments. Nos. 277 and 288 are required to list Parts I and III separately as functions which may be assigned to the London port health authority. This is because Part I will come into effect on a different date to Part III. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for speaking to all those amendments so clearly. I shall restate briefly—it is important that it should be on record—the two cases being put forward. As we understood it, the situation at Committee stage was that under the Public Health Act 1936 it was possible for tenants who could claim that the condition of their property was such as to create a statutory nuisance to go to the courts without giving notice. If their case was proved they could receive the costs for that court action.
Tenants of both local authorities and private landlords found that power very helpful in persuading their landlord to do necessary repairs. To the extent
618
that it was necessary to have that failsafe procedure which would involve them in costs which they almost certainly could not afford it was desirable to maintain Clause 99 of the Public Health Act 1936. I met many representatives from legal firms acting for tenants who said how important it was to maintain that right. That was what we put forward at Committee stage.
At the same time as tenants and their legal representatives were jumping up and down in defence of the 1936 Act, local authorities were jumping up and down saying that it was unreasonable for those tenants to go to the courts claiming a statutory nuisance without at least giving notice to the landlord that there was something wrong, thus giving them a chance to put it right before being involved in the expense of court procedures. Although those may seem to be opposing views, I do not believe that they are in conflict. They are views which in natural justice appear to be well justified.
I therefore moved amendments to meet the concerns both of tenants who wanted to continue to have access to courts, and if their case was proved to have the costs paid by the landlord, and of local authorities who wanted a chance to put things right by being given notice of the court action in good time. The Government tried hard, almost entirely successfully in my view, to meet the points made in Committee. I repeat that I am grateful for that.
I have tabled two relatively minor amendments to Amendment No. 165, Amendments Nos. 165ZA and 165ZB. Amendment No. 165ZA leaves out the provision that for any nuisance of a description other than that in paragraph (g), which is noise, there should be not less than 21 days' notice. It says that there should be a period of notice which is "reasonable in the circumstances". It replaces the whole of subsection (4) (b) by that provision in line 5 of the government amendment.
It may be that there is no perfect answer to this question. It is not simply a matter of, on the one hand, noise which deserves three days' notice and, on the other, all other kinds of nuisance which deserve 21 days' notice. In practice, it will be possible for magistrates to interpret what is reasonable notice in relation to the time it would take to put matters right. Clearly, putting right noise which has already happened is much more immediate because what you want to do is get it stopped. Putting right a structural defect is another matter and may on occasion require even longer notice than 21 days. Therefore, we are arguing for a little more flexibility.
The other complication is that the law appears now, as of last Thursday, to be not what we thought it to be. Your Lordships, sitting in your judicial capacity, have now reached a final judgment in the case of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council v. Bujok. Perhaps I may remind the House that this is a case where the respondent, Mrs. Bujok, took Sandwell Metropolitan Council to court, claiming that structural repairs were necessary but were not visible from outside and the council had to put them right. The borough council

619
protested that it had not been given notice and asked not to have to pay the costs, though the case was proved.
What the Appellate Committee said I can best summarise from the assenting words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, on 11th October:
"For the reasons to be given by my noble and learned friend Lord Griffith"—
who gave the full judgment—
"I agree that an aggrieved person is not required to give warning of his intention to bring proceedings complaining of a statutory nuisance. I agree also that the magistrates are not required to award the costs of such proceedings to the appellant".
Therefore, those who thought, as law centres tended to think, that there was a right for costs to be awarded against the landlord were not correct and those who complained, as the borough council complained in this case, that they ought to be given notice, were correct. The government amendments are, in my view, in the right direction in both cases. In other words, they require that the tenant shall give notice and that costs should be awarded against the landlord if the case is proved. Therefore, with those minor amendments I welcome this set of government amendments.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I may have misheard my noble friend the Minister in her opening remarks but I thought that, in almost her closing words when speaking to Amendment No. 170, she referred to the Lord Advocate. If so, my point is that the last line on page 89 of the Bill states:
"Sections 78 to 81 above do not apply to Scotland".
Perhaps I have misunderstood my noble friend.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, these amendments came up at a late hour and I must admit to the House that I was dozing at the time. However, I am grateful that the Government have tabled the amendments. If the noble Baroness will look again at Amendment No. 162A and perhaps accept it, on the whole the people who have been writing to us complaining bitterly about changing the procedure from criminal to civil should be satisfied with what the Government have brought forward.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will accept that I must take that point away and consider it again, but without commitment. We shall also look at it in the light of what has been said on this amendment.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with the point raised by my noble friend regarding the Lord Advocate. I actually referred to my noble friend Lord Arran, not the Lord Advocate.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is right in saying that there are not many questions in these matters for which there are perfect solutions. Amendments Nos. 165ZA and 165ZB substitute a requirement for such notice to be given as is reasonable in the circumstances in place of the specified period of prior notice which Amendment No. 165 stipulates. We cannot agree that
620
it would be right to leave the requirement as vague as that. It would put the onus on the individual to decide the period of notice.
The court would have to decide whether reasonable notice had been given, and if it came to a different view the individual taking action under Clause 81 would be back to square one. It is much better that the individual should have certainty as to the notice he is required to give. Our amendment specifies set periods of notice, but it is important to note that, if need be, these can be altered in the light of experience in the working of the legislation. I hope the noble Lord will therefore consider not moving his amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall have to read carefully what the Minister said, but I reaffirm that with the exception of these minor amendments —to which, on reflection, I do not think I am entitled to be responding because Amendment No. 165 has not yet been moved—we are at one on the thrust of most of the government amendments.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, the Question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think that Amendment No. 163 has to be put first and I therefore beg to move Amendments Nos. 163 to 165, en bloc.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I have tabled amendments to Amendment No. 165 perhaps it would be better if we took the earlier amendments first. At the risk of tedium, perhaps we should take them one by one.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 164
Page 89, line 10, leave out from ("Proceedings") to end of line 13 and insert ("for an order under subsection (2) above shall be brought—

(a) except in a case falling within paragraph (b) or (c) below, against the person responsible for the nuisance;

(b) where the nuisance arises from any defect of a structural character, against the owner of the premises;

(c) where the person responsible for the nuisance cannot be found, against the owner or occupier of the premises.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 89, line 17, at end insert:
("(4A) Before instituting proceedings for an order under subsection (2) above against any person, the person aggrieved by the nuisance shall give to that person such notice in writing of his intention to bring the proceedings as is applicable to proceedings in respect of a nuisance of that description and the notice shall specify the matter complained of.
(4B) The notice of the bringing of proceedings in respect of a statutory nuisance required by subsection (4A) above which is applicable is—

(a) in the case of a nuisance falling within paragraph (g) of section 78(1) above, not less than three days' notice; and

(b) in the case of a nuisance of any other description, not less than twenty-one days' notice;

621
but the Secretary of State may, by order, provide that this subsection shall have effect as if such period as is specified in the order were the minimum period of notice applicable to any description of statutory nuisance specified in the order.").
[Amendments Nos. 165ZA and 165ZB, as amendments to Amendment No. 165, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 165 agreed to.
Lord Nathan Lord Nathan moved Amendment No. 165A:
Page 89, line 17, at end insert:
("() An appeal against any decision of a magistrates' court on a complaint for an order under subsection (2) above shall lie to the Crown Court at the instance of any party to the proceedings.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister has already replied to this amendment and stated that the Government accept it. Therefore it only remains for me to move it formally. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 89, line 19, leave out first ("of") and insert ("or prohibition imposed by").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 89, line 34, leave out ("and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 168
Page 89, line 36, at end insert (; and,

(d) in the case of a nuisance which is such as to render the premises unfit for human habitation.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 89, line 41, at end insert:
("() Where on the hearing of proceedings for an order under subsection (2) above it is proved that the alleged nuisance existed at the date of the making of the complaint, then, whether or not at the date of the hearing it still exists or is likely to recur, the court shall order the defendant (or defendants in such proportions as appears fair and reasonable) to pay to the person bringing the proceedings such amount as the court considers reasonably sufficient to compensate him for any expenses properly incurred by him in the proceedings.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 89, line 41, at end insert:
("() If it appears to the magistrates' court that neither the person responsible for the nuisance nor the owner or occupier of the premises can be found the court may, after giving the local authority in whose area the nuisance has occurred an opportunity of being heard, direct the authority to do anything which the court would have ordered that person to do.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 171:
Before Clause 85, insert the following new clause:
("Review of resources for litter authorities
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall within three months of the coming into effect of any Code issued under section 88(7) below, and annually thereafter, review the level of resources available to individual litter authorities in respect of their duties under this Part.
622
(2) In conducting any review under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations representative of litter authorities as appear to him to be concerned.
(3) The Secretary of State shall, before making any determination of the amount of Rate Support Grant payable to local authorities in respect of any succeeding financial year, satisfy himself that the resources likely to be available to litter authorities in that year are reasonably adequate in respect of their duties under this Part").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now move to Part IV of the Bill in that easy, sliding way which we follow at Report stage, having got rid of statutory nuisances. This amendment is absolutely critical to the effective operation of Part IV of the Bill which is concerned with litter. It will be obvious to those of your Lordships who took part in or heard any of the debates at Committee stage that the litter provisions of the Bill are entirely welcome to those on this side of the House. We have dispute about the detail, but there is no dispute about the principle and the idea that it is necessary to improve the law relating to litter both in terms of the definitions of litter and how it is practically to be avoided; what penalties there should be; the powers provided to the enforcing authorities; and so on. To that extent we are on common ground.
The problem with Part IV of the Bill is that the work is to be done by the local authorities. Unless other provision is made they will not have the resources to carry out the work. I remind the House that local authorities have been trying to deal with the problem of litter for many years. Their problem has been partly that they have not had the resources to do the work and also that they have not had the powers.
Much though it goes against the grain I pay tribute to the City of Westminster which has taken powers to deal with litter with on-the-spot fines. That may well be the appropriate procedure in heavily congested areas of central London. We must face facts and admit that sometimes local authorities have not done what they might have done in order to deal with litter. As a result of this Bill we have had a debate on the subject and raised public awareness in the way that the Prime Minister intended when she picked up litter that had been carefully distributed for the purpose in Hyde Park about two years ago. So much the better for Parliament and the law arising from those activities.
Since the Bill first saw the light of day late last year a draft code has been produced with definitions of litter and how different forms of litter are to be dealt with. To be fair, the Government recognise that there will be substantial additional costs. They called in Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte to investigate what the implementation costs would be. The figure that materialised from an analysis carried out by 17 authorities was that the increased cost of the litter code to be applied by the Bill would be between 15 per cent. and 30 per cent. although local authorities were saying something different.
In the past few days we have received the results of the inquiry made by local authorities into the additional costs of implementing the litter code. I am sorry to say that the estimates made by Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte are inadequate for the purpose. The

623
costs will be significantly more. Enforcing the code of standards itself will cost, according to the estimates of the local authorities in the metropolitan areas alone, an additional £60 million or 61 per cent. of the existing cost. I say straightaway that the estimate was based on a larger sample than that used by Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte It involved 35 authorities who were able to supply information compared to the 17 in the other case.
An additional complication had not been fully anticipated. It concerned the cost of the extra bins and their specifications required by the code of standards. It is now required that the bins should have a capacity of 200 litres. They will be very substantial bins and quite an intrusion on the landscape. They have to be spaced more frequently than has been the case in the past. The estimates made by the metropolitan authorities based on this quite substantial sample of authorities is that the cost of the bins themselves will be of the order of £377 million. The cost of emptying the extra bins will add £102 million per year, presumably, to the total cost of emptying bins in metropolitan districts. These are enormous sums which were not anticipated when the Bill was put forward.
The stark conclusion is that unless more money is made available to local authorities and recognition given to the way in which the government grant is made, besides providing something very much better than the community charge restriction and capping procedures imposed this year, something will have to give. Either the code of standards will have to be relaxed, which will be very undesirable, or additional funds will have to be found. I appreciate that the Secretary of State for the Environment is in very great difficulty with the Treasury concerning his budget as a whole. I appreciate that he has had to give very high priority over all other aspects of his budget to measures to ensure that our predictions do not come true about increases in the poll tax next year. We were right and they were wrong.
It is clear that without the very substantial additional injection of money which was announced in the summer, poll tax bills would increase enormously both in Conservative and Labour authority areas. No doubt that applies to Liberal Democrat authorities as well. The cost would have been enormously greater than originally predicted and much closer to the figure that we predicted. So something has to be done. We would like to see the litter provisions of the Bill survive unscathed. We do not wish to see a diminution of standards. Unless more money is to be made available there is no doubt that the code cannot be enforced and any debate that takes place on Part IV of the Bill is largely pointless. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I wish to give the support of these Benches to the amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Ezra. Effectively, if you are to have a code you must make sure that it is funded; otherwise, it is totally useless. That is the long and short of it. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has done his usual very thorough job in explaining the absurdities of the situation where
624
insufficient funding is being provided to get the code in place. Many arguments have been bounced around the Chamber about "may" and "shall". Now we have the "shall" argument. Something has to be done, but there are not the resources to do it. Therefore we have to look for a rise in local taxation. In effect that is what is going to happen unless the Government come up with the money. Surely, the Government must provide some extra funding or at least stop talking about local authorities' overspending.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the Tidy Britain Group works closely with the Government and all other interests in the country which are seeking to secure, as we all are, a clearing up of the litter problem and the improvement of the environment in Britain. The Minister of State has taken the trouble to inform the Tidy Britain Group and to work with it so that it can have an understanding of the thinking behind the proposals in the Bill. The Tidy Britain Group is grateful for that. As its chairman I also recognise that certain sums of money have been won from the Treasury by the department in order to implement part of the proposals. We are aware that recently in Blackpool there was a "court of the bedchamber" at which the Treasury sought to limit the demands made by Ministers for their important plans. The set of plans before us is as important as any the House has considered.
I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who was once president of the Tidy Britain Group. We emphasise the fact that the Minister was right in asking for an amount of money larger than he was given and that in holding back the Treasury is impeding the proposals that the Bill seeks to implement.
Throughout the country people who are trying to grapple with the problems of litter and the provision of services to remove litter and other waste materials always have one reservation about the provisions of the Bill and the White Paper. It is whether they can afford to pay for what they will be compelled to do. There is no need to emphasise my support, which is almost from an apolitical position as head of the Tidy Britain Group. I urge the Government to take a new look at the provision for funding.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, explain subsection (3) of the amendment which states:
"in that year are reasonably adequate in respect of their duties under this Part"?
Does that mean that the Secretary of State, poor chap, will not be forced to dish out money that he does not have?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendment seeks to ensure that local authorities are provided with additional resources to carry out the new duties imposed on them by Part IV of the Bill and that the level of resources available to them is reviewed annually.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and others that we too are concerned that local authorities

625
have sufficient funds to carry out their statutory duties. That is why we commissioned consultants to look at the financial implications of those duties and the associated code of practice. I can also assure the noble Lord that the local authority associations were consulted before we undertook our independent study and before the final report was published through their representatives on the code of practice advisory group.
In setting the revenue support grant for next year we took account of the consultants' report that an additional £50 million would be needed. We are satisfied that the total standard spending is sufficient to allow local authorities to carry out their functions, including the new duties.
We shall of course review that level in subsequent years as we review the total level of revenue support and if we consider that more resources are required then we shall provide them; and there are established mechanisms for local authorities to put their case for resources in advance of the RSG settlement each year.
Perhaps I may deal with some specific points that were raised during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to an extra £60 million. I assume that he meant £60 million in addition to the £50 million that has been set aside by the Government for this purpose. The Coopers and Lybrand study was based on the views of local authorities. The estimates given by the noble Lord are based on an out-of-date version of the code of practice—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, I did not mean £60 million in addition to the £50 million already provided. I meant £60 million in addition to the existing costs. That refers only to metropolitan districts because the costs in shire counties and districts will be on top of that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government's assessment made on the basis of the Coopers and Lybrand review was £50 million and I note what the noble Lord has said. The figures to which he referred were based on an out-of-date version of the code of practice. The advice on the size and siting of litter bins, which he specifically mentioned, was not government authorised but came from the Tidy Britain Group. It no longer appears in the code.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned the survey. The Municipal Journal—if I dare quote from it during the course of a debate—recently claimed that the results of the AMA's survey were based on responses from only half of its 36 members. Although all 36 were canvassed for their views, only half responded. There is also doubt about an aspect of the survey carried out by Coopers and Lybrand and perhaps the noble Lord can clear that up. The survey was based on street cleaning for public health and amenity purposes, whereas the basis of the AMA's survey included highways' cleaning, and that would account for the difference in cost. However, the funding is also different. The Government's funding refers to cleaning for health and amenity purposes
626
whereas the grant for highways' cleaning currently paid to the highways authority will be transferred to the districts next year in order to take account of the shift in cleaning responsibilities. In the light of the noble Lord's comments and my reply I suspect that in cash terms there is not a great deal between us.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that there is, so perhaps I may first deal with the statistical side. The noble Baroness is in error in believing that only half of the 35 authorities responded. Thirty-five were able to supply information. More local authorities were asked but the estimated additional cost of meeting the code standards for 1991/2 totals £30.39 million for the 35 authorities able to supply the information. We reach the figure of £60.03 million and 61 per cent. by taking the means and grossing it up to the number of metropolitan authorities. Therefore it would be wrong to assume that that is only a little more than the £50 million already provided. As I said in my intervention, my figures apply only to metropolitan authorities and not to shire counties and districts. The cost will be substantially more than the £50 million provided. I also wish to recognise the point that the proposals for the 200 litre bins and their spacing were put forward by my noble friend's organisation, Tidy Britain. In many ways I am relieved to learn that they have not been adopted.
I shall withdraw the amendment for one reason. If my scribbling of the Minister's words is accurate, she said that if more resources are required the Government will provide them. I take that as being an assurance that the Government recognise the possibility that substantially more money will be needed for the enforcement of litter codes than was originally expected and that the Government will recognise that in setting revenue support grants in forthcoming years. In order to help me to withdraw the amendment, will the Minister give an assurance that there will be a full review of the matter each year?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the only response that I can give is to say that all local government expenditure is reviewed each year in the PES rounds.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I recognise that but I had hoped that the Minister would say that the evidence for such a review will be collected afresh each year. However, I shall not abuse the procedures of the House by seeking to pursue the matter with her now. On the basis of my understanding of what she said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 85 [Preliminary]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 93, line 47, at end insert:
("() A place on land shall be treated as "open to the air" notwithstanding that it is covered if it is open to the air on at least one side.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 172, 175 and 177. to 184 are all technical and are required to correct and clarify the Bill as it stands. Amendment No. 172 provides that a place on land shall be treated as open to the air, even if it is covered,

627
as long as it is open on at least one side. This is to ensure that the offence of littering could apply to covered places on relevant land such as sports stadia, bus stations or covered shopping precincts.
Amendment No. 175 irons out an untidiness between subsections (1) and (3) of Clause 86. The words "in the open air" in subsection (1) are not needed given that subsection (3) defines the places to which the clause applies. Amendments Nos. 177 to 184 redraft subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 86 so as to be consistent with Amendment No. 172. I commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 173 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 173A:
Page 93, line 47, at end insert:
("(12A) The Secretary of State shall by Order in such areas as he may designate for this purpose as urban areas apply the provisions of this Part which apply to litter to any description of droppings from a dog in all or any prescribed circumstances, and with such modifications as appear to him to be necessary, and the Order made under this subsection, shall include a requirement that the owner or person at that time in charge of the dog should immediately clear away such droppings.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 174, 114A and 174B. The first two amendments are tabled in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Stanley of Alderley, Lord Ezra and Lord Monson, whereas the last two are tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley.
With these amendments we return to the matter of what I called "dog shit" in Committee. I do not apologise for that fact. In a sense I was pleased that I did so, although I ran the risk of widening the range of acceptable parliamentary terms. However, at least it drew attention to what is a very important aspect of public health. Although there appear to be adequate powers to cover the situation, that is not the case; and there are not in fact adequate powers to deal with the problem.
The amendments I moved in Committee were defective in many ways. First, they frightened the farmers because they did not apply only to dogs; they could also have applied to farm animals. Secondly, they were not adequately restricted to urban areas—I shall deal with that problem in a moment—and they certainly ran the risk of quite unnecessary controls in unnecessary areas.
Our concern is quite clear. We are concerned with the bulk of animals kept as domestic pets in urban areas—that is, areas where the parks, the streets and the pavements are places where large numbers of children play. We believe that they ought to be allowed to do so without risk to their health. The proposals in the amendments apply to the droppings from dogs which will now, by virtue of amendments approved by your Lordships in Committee in the summer, require to be registered. Therefore, the
628
obstacles to our previous amendments—namely, that there was no registration scheme which would enable us to pin down the owners of dogs and that they were too widely drawn in relation to the range of animals and areas covered—have now been fully overcome.
However, there are one or two strange difficulties in the matter. For example, when we wanted to define "urban areas", we found that there was no generally accepted definition. It is not the area of an urban district council as one may think and it is certainly wider than a metropolitan area. Of course, there are definitions which are well known to sociologists but it appears that there are no such definitions which are well known to the Government. Therefore, at the beginning of Amendment No. 173A we have had to state that the Secretary of State must designate urban areas for this purpose in order to,
"apply the provisions of this Part".
It is perhaps a clumsy procedure; but it is a provision which may well turn out to be of use at a later stage. I thought of having such a designation in the 30 mph speed zone. However, that does not work because there are speed limit zones of 40 mph and 50 mph in urban areas and there are also pavements in those zones. I therefore pass that buck with great pleasure to the Government and leave it to them to make a decision because they are much better qualified than I am to deal with such matters.
There is also the problem of the definition of "dog droppings" or "dog shit". We have had to table amendments to our own amendments; for example, Amendment No. 174B gives power to the Secretary of State to,
"apply the provisions of this Part which apply to litter to any description of droppings from a dog in all or any prescribed circumstances, and with such modifications as appear to him to be necessary".
That is the kind of provision which I tend to attack from this Dispatch Box because it gives the Secretary of State the power to do what he likes. However, it is necessary in this situation because we are entering what is after all a relatively new area of law. Perhaps I should make clear in what sense it is a new area of law.
Under existing laws there is no difficulty about a local authority setting up a by-law. A by-law can forbid dog droppings, for example, in a specially designated area of a park, and so on. However, the problems with existing law and the reason why dog shit is an offence against people—I do not mean an offence in law—in our cities and towns is twofold. First, there is no adequate definition of what is meant by the words "dog shit". Amendment No. 173A would provide such a definition. Secondly, and much more important, there are no powers available which enable immediate action to be taken. What we are introducing here is an important principle which will bring dog droppings under the litter provisions of the Bill, rather than under statutory nuisance. In other words, we are making it analogous to a litter offence whereby, as in Westminster under the litter code, there is a fixed penalty fine on the spot; or, analogous with a parking offence where there is a fixed fine and where

629
notice can be served on the person in charge of the dog. In the latter case, such a notice would be a fixed-penalty notice and the fine could be paid into a court or at a fixed penalty office in the same way as someone pays a parking fine.
We must ensure that the law is clear and that it is widely recognised that the provisions make it possible for a local authority to enforce it on the spot without unnecessary argument or unnecessary recourse to the courts. We must also ensure it is well understood that it is no longer acceptable for owners of dogs in urban areas of this country to allow their dogs to foul the pavements, the parks, the streets and the public places. That is the purpose of this series of amendments and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, as this is the first time that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will be responding to me on behalf of the Government in this connection, perhaps I may warmly congratulate her on her new appointment. I should like especially to thank her and her department for the time and help which they have extended to me in respect of the amendments tabled in my name. I appreciate her concern and thoroughness. I hope that we shall agree on most issues. I also hope that she does not miss the comfort of the Back Benches too much.
In supporting this amendment, I have taken note of what my noble friend Lord Hesketh said in Committee. He said that it was not the Government's intention to use Clause 85(13) to control farm animal droppings, not least because they are likely to be so controlled under the Road Traffic Act. Perhaps my noble friend can confirm that statement. At the same time, I wonder whether she can tell the House whether there are any circumstances in which this clause could be used to control farm animal droppings; for example, could it ever apply to private land, especially if that land was in a litter control area? If the answer is yes, obviously it could cause a few problems.
So far as concerns dog droppings, I find myself having to support the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I cannot accept the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Hesketh in Committee at col. 1657 on 27th June 1990. He said that if a dog fouls it is not the owner's responsibility as it is the dog which does the actual dropping. I do not want to repeat the vexed question of registration. However, one of its main purposes is to bring home to the dog owner his or her responsibility for his or her dog. I cannot seem to get that message across to the Government. This is another example of the Government ignoring it. People should be as responsible for their dogs as they are for their children. The fact that I have four children and three dogs accounts for the number of grey hairs that I have on my head.
The point made in Committee (at col. 1566) by my noble friend Lord Hesketh was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He said that the problem could be dealt with by local authority by-laws. He said that the Home Secretary was looking at the scope of the antifouling by-laws. I hope that my noble friend will give us some idea of what they will be. Unless they
630
have the same effect as Amendment No. 174B, which classes dog shit as litter, I shall be obliged to support the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, should be press the amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I give the support of these Benches for the amendment. As someone who has done a great deal of road running/jogging in urban areas, I can say firmly that I am against the souvenirs which our canine friends leave on the pavements although my coach says that it improves my sidestepping when I play rugby. Once again, we must place the responsibility for the control of dogs, and everything that goes with them, upon the owners. Dogs are not designed for living in urban areas. If man chooses to have a dog in an urban area, he must take responsibility for it. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, put the case well. I hope that the amendment is accepted.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am fortunate enough to live for most of the year in a local authority area which a few years ago took strong measures against dog fouling. The improvement in the quality of life since has been startling. One would like to see the great benefits of the elimination of that nuisance extended to all urban areas. for that reason, I warmly welcome that amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am worried about one or two points contained in the amendment. First, on the whole, I prefer the words on the face of the Bill to those of the amendment. If a shepherd is taking sheep along a road—I assume for the moment that the amendment is accepted—and the sheep make a mess on the road, that does not matter. If his dog leaves excreta on the road, the shepherd will commit an offence. I do not see why dogs should be distinguished and separated from horses, sheep, cattle or anything else that uses the road.
Lord Parry: My Lords, with the pleasure that the House is taking in using the vernacular, perhaps we should change the consonant in the word "litter". When the control of a dog is in the hands of the owner, then the owner is responsible for the dog. One could have some system of endorsing the dog's licence to make it responsible and punish it. The serious point is that more dogs roam the high streets and back streets of Britain than sheep even though sheep tend to go in flocks of 50. Thousands of dogs roam the streets. It is a foul menace and we must do something to clear it up. The amendment emphasises that point. As soon as it is brought to the attention of the owner of a roaming dog that his dog has fouled the street or the pavement, he becomes responsible. There is a vast problem with which we must grapple. Although we are talking about dogs on leashes, we must couple that with dogs which roam.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I understand that if farm animals foul the road, it is the farmer's responsibility to clean up the roads, and so I do not know why dog owners should be any different.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend for his general comments about my appointment. It would be tempting fate too much to

631
say that I miss the comfort of the Back-Benches. There are occasionally moments when the Back-Benches would be much more comfortable than standing at the Dispatch Box.
Amendment No. 173A once again raises the issue of dog fouling. I welcome the opportunity offered by the debate to assure your Lordships that we are not complacent about the issue. Fouling by dogs is not just a nuisance; as has been said, it can be a serious health hazard.
I can assure your Lordships that we intend to use the power in Clause 85(13) to ensure that under the new litter duty local authorities and others will be required, as part of that duty, to clear up dog faeces on their land. To that extent, the amendment is unnecessary.
As for extending the litter offence and requiring owners to clear up dog mess in urban areas, we again have no dispute with the intention of the amendment but powers are already available to local authorities to deal with the problem. Local no-fouling and scoop-scoop by-laws already exist in many local authority areas. Other authorities may wish to consider adopting such by-laws, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said. The local authorities have it within their remit to take considerable measures. We hope that the passing of the Bill may give a new impetus to that procedure. Those by-laws and related ones ale currently under review in order that we can be certain that they are as effective as possible. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary hopes that he will be able to announce the outcome of the review in the near future. I cannot anticipate that announcement, but I understand that the proposed new litter duty is being taken into account when considering the availability of by-laws. Powers are already available to all authorities. The word "available" is most important in this context since we believe that it is right that authorities should have the flexibility to consider introducing measures which are appropriate for their locality. It would be extremely difficult to make an order covering different parts of the country which offered the same flexibility.
As for Amendment 174, I can assure my noble friend Lord Stanley who admits to having three children and four dogs—I admit to having three children and two dogs—that we do not intend to use the Secretary of State's power under Clause 85(13) to designate farm animal droppings as refuse. There will be no obligation on anybody under the new duty to clear away farm animal droppings, even if the farm is situated in a litter control area. I was impressed by the point made about the farmer's responsibility for clearing up the road. This is only a general comment; but by and large farm animals are not a problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Parry, said, dogs cause the greatest concern.
As noble Lords are probably aware, there has been a long consultation period over the control of dogs. That period has just ended. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement about the result of that consultation before the Bill receives Royal Assent I almost hesitate to enter into a debate with
632
my noble friend Lord Balfour about all the other animals. I can remember with some pain the time spent on the definition of horses, mules and other animals. I shall leave the point by saying that the amendment relates to dogs. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. The powers are available to deal with the matter at local level. The objective that the noble Lord wishes to achieve is achieved by measures contained in the Bill and by the powers available to local authorities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, is one up on the Minister in terms of numbers of children and dogs. His opinions should have the weight of seven as against the weight of five. I am sorry that we have gone back to an issue which is wrong and which I believed had been cleared up in Committee. No one denies that local authorities have the power and duty to clean up dog mess from the streets. That is not the point at issue. Everyone knows that local authorities are supposed to keep their streets and pavements clean although it is much more difficult to keep playing fields and parks clear of dog shit, but that is not the issue.
In Amendment No. 173A we are ensuring something different. We are ensuring that it is the duty of the dog owner (the person in control of the dog) to clean up. We do so on the basis that the gap between an offence being committed and the time when the local authority gets round to clearing it up—if it ever does—is exactly the time when the danger to health occurs. It is important that a mess caused by dog shit in our streets, in our parks, on our playing fields or wherever the public has access should be cleared up straight away. The only way to achieve that is by what is called a pooper-scooper law.
Aside from that point, I do not believe that any of the arguments have any force against the amendments. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, is concerned about flocks of sheep. There are not that many sheep in urban areas. It is not that much of a problem. Even if it were, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has already made clear that there should be no less an obligation on dog owners than there is already upon farmers. Clearly, as a farmer, he does not believe it to be unreasonable to have this control.
The amendment will achieve in a practical way, with such safeguards as are necessary—for guide dogs, for example —that there will be immediate action to clean up dog droppings in public places in our cities and towns. The Government have given no indication to us, other than the promise of a review by the Home Secretary, that there is any reason why there should not be legislation now on this issue.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting, but does not Clause 85(13) cover this point? It covers all animals, not just dogs, although it includes dogs.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl is speaking to my Amendment No. 173A and the other amendments in

633
the names of other noble Lords. They refer only to dogs in urban areas. There is no reference to other animals in these amendments. We took good care not to repeat the delightful arguments which the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, for example, introduced at Committee stage.
These are simple, clear amendments. They overcome successfully all the objections that were raised at Committee stage. They are capable of being enforced in a way which can only be made effective in the litter part of an environmental protection Bill. They could not be achieved by a review of by-laws because the by-laws could not be imposed on local authorities in the way the litter code can be imposed on them. If we are to get our streets and public places clean I see no alternative to putting these amendments on the face of this statute so that we will not be dependent on any future promises about by-law reviews. I commend the amendment to the House.
6.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 173A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Ailesbury, M.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Attlee, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Birk, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Meston, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carter, L.

Monson, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Munster, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nelson, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Newall, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Norrie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Northfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Onslow, E.

Ennals, L.

Parry, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Galpern, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

[Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Greenway, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Thurlow, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Walpole, L.

Jeger, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Listowel, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Beloff, L.

Allerton, L.

Belstead, L.

Ampthill, L.

Blatch, B.

Arran, E.

Boardman, L.

Astor, V.

Borthwick, L.

Auckland, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Balfour, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

634

Butterworth, L.

Lawrence, L.

Byron, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Caldecote, V.

Liverpool, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cawley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Coleraine, L.

Margadale, L.

Colwyn, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mersey, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Mills, V.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mountevans, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Derwent, L.

Norfolk, D.

Dormer, L.

Northbourne, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Orkney, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elles, B.

Pender, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Faithfull, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Pym, L.

Ferrers, E.

Reay, L.

Flather, B.

Rees, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Renton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renwick, L.

Hacking, L.

Rodney, L.

Halsbury, E.

Seebohm, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Selkirk, E.

Henley, L.

Strange, B.

Hives, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howe, E.

Torphichen, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tranmire, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trumpington, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Ullswater, V.

Killearn, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kimball, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Knollys, V.

Wynford, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Young, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.10 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 174, 174A and 174B not moved.]
Clause 86 [Offence of leaving litter]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 94, line 7, leave out ("in the open air") and insert ("to which this section applies").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 94, line 8, at end insert:
("(1A) Subject to subsection (2) below a person shall be guilty of an offence under this section if he recklessly distributes any thing in such a way as is likely to lead to the subsequent defacement by litter of any place in the open air.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to clarify the meaning of Clause 86(1). I wish to establish what the position is when handbills —for example handbills advertising goods, services or events—are placed under windscreen wipers. This often occurs in car parks at agricultural shows. Is it the duty of the car owner to collect this material? If he

635
leaves it and it flies off the windscreen and litters a public place, has he committed an offence? Surely it should be the person or the organisation who placed the material on the car who is to blame.
This amendment also seeks to control the reckless and irresponsible distributing of leaflets which are often forced on people as they leave tube stations. They are then discarded on the pavement a few yards further on. I suspect that my noble friend will say that it is the fault of the person who accepts the leaflet. But what is the position of a person who has a coat in one hand and a suitcase in the other and a leaflet is placed on the coat and then falls off? That is not a fancy of my imagination; it happens. The leaflet falls on to the ground and causes litter. Is the offence in this case committed by the distributor of the leaflet or by the innocent recipient of it, or could the innocent recipient claim that he or she had been battered or assaulted? I propose in this amendment the addition of the word "recklessly" to cover both the cases I have referred to. That word would make it clear to such distributors of leaflets that they are at risk of committing an offence. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord attends Conservative Party conferences. However, if he attended Labour Party conferences, he would discover a long line of people distributing leaflets which are thrust into the hands of unsuspecting, or perhaps suspecting, delegates. I certainly fall into the category of a suspecting delegate, and I object as much to "green" leaflets as to Trotskyist leaflets. Both constitute litter in my opinion. I would rather not be given them, and I hope that the Bill will make such leaflets the responsibility of the distributor rather than of the recipient. I support the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I see that the amendment has been grouped with Amendment No. 185. However, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, did not speak to Amendment No. 185.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I point out that Amendment No. 176 has been decoupled from Amendment No. 185.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am extremely pleased to hear that as they deal with totally separate topics. It is much better to deal with them separately. I strongly support Amendment No. 176, not only from the environmental point of view but also from the road safety point of view. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has pointed out, acceptance of the amendment would eliminate the great nuisance of advertising material being shoved under the windscreen wipers of cars.
If only one windscreen wiper in 10,000 is damaged by this process, it is one too many. Accidents could occur as a result. Worse still, I have seen people drive away in a hurry—I refer to mothers collecting their children from school as an example—in the pouring rain without realising that something has been shoved under their windscreen wipers. They pull out from the kerb, switch their wipers on and realise, too late, that their entire windscreen is covered with torn, soggy
636
pieces of paper. A collision is only too likely to occur in consequence. Acceptance of this amendment would not only improve the quality of life; it may also on occasion save the lives of motorists and pedestrians, both adults and children.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment and suggest that it might be extended to other things which are affixed to windscreens by people wearing yellow hats.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does not the noble Lord mean people wearing black hats with yellow bands? Amendment No. 176 deals with a problem which I am sure we have all experienced at some stage. I hope that I can persuade my noble friend Lord Stanley that the Bill will be able to deal quite adequately with the problem of litter while still allowing those in another place to distribute election leaflets, safe in the knowledge that they are not committing an offence. The amendment might make it an offence to hand out such leaflets. Some may say that that should be an offence. I am sure that, if the truth be told, some people would prefer not to receive election leaflets. However, I am not convinced that another place would welcome an amendment to this effect.
If the amendment were introduced, it could adversely affect many organisations. Charities, for example, might be unable to hand out badges on flag days. One might consider that that practice was not reckless distribution, but there are particular problems in law about assessing whether an act was carried out in a reckless manner.
We are fortunate enough to live in a society where we are free to stand on a street corner and hand out leaflets just as we are free to refuse to take any material offered to us. Most people deal with unwanted paper in a responsible manner and place it in the bin. However, those who do not use bins and throw the material on the ground are littering and action can already be taken under the appropriate clause of the Bill. We are, of course, not able to refuse to take any leaflets left under our car windscreens. However, placing leaflets under car windscreens is and will be an offence. I can reassure the noble Lord that this matter will be covered in the Bill. One cannot refuse to take a leaflet that is put under one's car windscreen, but one can report it as littering. Therefore if it is possible to trace the leaflet back to an owner, one can make a complaint. I hope that with that explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Parry: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she apply her mind to her statement about people in another place fighting democratic elections? Those candidates do not seem to me to be as good looking these days as was the case when most of us were fighting election campaigns. If those candidates stick their posters up and engage in fly posting, they can be made to take them down. Is it not simply an extension of that rule that if candidates recklessly dispose of election leaflets, they are littering? Does not the same law apply in that case?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that fly posting during an election is an offence. I believe that it breaches the rules governing elections. That is another subject. Fly posting constitutes posting up leaflets on either council property or private property without permission. Therefore that could be reported as an offence.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I hope that the Minister can clarify a further point before she sits down. She said that placing advertising material under car windscreens would constitute littering. Is the material considered to be litter when it is under the windscreen wiper, or only when it falls on to the ground after having been so placed?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can answer that question. The material is litter while it is under the windscreen wiper.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I found my noble friend's answer somewhat confusing, as I believe did other noble Lords. As I understand what she said, if someone comes along and puts a leaflet or a beautiful picture of my parliamentary candidate on my windscreen, I drive off and it falls on to the road the fault will lie with the person who put the leaflet on my windscreen because I did not willingly receive it. I may be wrong. I am not asking my noble friend to reply unless she wants to; I should be happy to return to the matter at Third Reading.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may respond. The placing of a leaflet on a windscreen is an offence; it is litter. However, if you go back to your car and drive away knowing that the leaflet is on your windscreen you are deemed to have received it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, that is a very helpful explanation. As I now understand it, if I see my parliamentary candidate—who is doubtless from the same party as myself—putting his beautiful picture on my windscreen I can say "You have committed an offence, take it away, I do not like your face". If, on the other hand, I drive away and the leaflet blows on to the road it is my fault for driving off with it on the windscreen.
I believe that the matter is now clear. I am most grateful to my noble friend for her explanation because it is important that people and organisations should know that they are at risk of prosecution if they wander around putting information on car windscreens. I hope that some prosecutions will be taken out soon after the Bill is passed. I am most grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 177 to 184:
Page 94, line 15, after ("to") insert ("any public open place and, in so far as the place is not a public open place, also to").
Page 94, line 17. leave out ("and any other free public open place").
Page 94, line 18, leave out ("which is not a free public open place").
638
Page 94, line 20, leave out ("which is not a free public open place").
Page 94, line 23, leave out ("which is not a free public open place").
Page 94, line 25, leave out ("which is not a free public open place").
Page 94, line 27, leave out ("which is not a free public open place").
Page 94, line 28, leave out ("free").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 185:
After Clause 86, insert the following new clause:
("Prohibition on the sale of ring pull containers
.—(1) For the purpose of preventing the defacement by litter of, and the creation of a public nuisance in, any place to which this section applies, any retailer who sells a beverage contained in a ring pull container after the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) This section applies to those places to which section 86 above applies.
(3) A retailer who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(4) In this section—

"retailer" means a person whose business is or includes that of selling a beverage for the purpose or use of consumption of that beverage and in the case of sale by a vending machine includes the owner of that vending machine;

"ring pull container" means a sealed container wholly or mainly constructed of metal and designed to be opened without the aid of an instrument by the complete removal and separation of a portion of the container from the rest of the container.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with the problem of what I call those little bits that come off the top of a can and litter the streets and countryside and cause damage to my livestock or to children. I moved a similar amendment in Committee but have amended it to take account of the problems raised by the Government and my noble friend Lord Swinfen, who I am delighted to see has added his name to the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is the same, namely, to ban the sale of beverage containers which have detachable ring-pull tabs. Those little bits, as I call them, are very sharp and can cause injury to livestock and children. I am sure that every noble Lord in the House has seen them littering the streets.
In opposing a similar amendment in Committee my noble friend Lord Hesketh (at cols. 1674 and 1675 of Hansard) said that there would be a problem of disposing of stocks of cans with detachable ring-pulls. He said that with some beverages, such as low-alcohol beer, there were technological problems. He added that the fine that I suggested was excessive. My noble friend also said:
"Nonetheless, the manufacturers expect all cans to have the new non-detachable ring-pull within the next couple of years".—(Official Report, 27/6/90; col. 1674.]
As a result of my noble friend's helpful remarks and those of my noble friend Lord Swinfen the amendment has taken full account of the problems raised and the provision will not come into force until two years after Royal Assent. As always, I am being

639
more than generous to the manufacturers and to my noble friend's suggestion. I have also altered the level of fines as my noble friend suggested.
I sincerely hope that if she will not accept the amendment my noble friend Lady Blatch will not suggest that the reason is the litter caused by cans and not just by the ring-pulls. I pray that she does not put that forward as a reason because, with due respect, it is a fairly stupid one. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we strongly support the amendment, which seems to have overcome all of the rational difficulties which were suggested against it at Committee stage. Although it may seem a very minor matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, it represents a health risk and is something that could so easily be put right and should be put right. There is experience, I believe in South Australia, of the proposed measure having been made to work effectively and there is no reason why we should not introduce it here and now.
Lord Monson: My Lords, this is another extremely worthwhile amendment. The arguments advanced against a similar amendment—although it had not been perfected as this one has—at the previous stage were wholly unconvincing. The argument was that it was tough on the poor manufacturers to be obliged to eliminate their dangerous ring-pulls.
We have had a hot summer, and at least two-thirds of the numerous cans of beer, lager and soft drinks that my family and I consumed over that period were of the new, environmentally friendly type, irrespective of the outlet from which they were bought. Therefore I cannot believe that the older type of ring-pull cannot be phased out easily before the two-year period which the amendment permits.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, pointed out, acceptance of the amendment would also have a secondary benefit by not only reducing litter but also reducing the danger to animals which are prone to swallow the old-fashioned type of ring-pull.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I am very pleased to support the amendment from these Benches. It is very sensible. It is generous in the amount of time that it gives manufacturers to put the correct type of ring-pull on their cans. We should not have to introduce this amendment because the matter should be included in the Bill. It is simple, straightforward and would avoid a great many problems, especially for grazing animals.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the House will remember that the Ideal Homes organisation recently made a massive collection of cans and brought home to us the dangers of the ring-pulls which were scattered about the country. The organisation was recently given an award for its efforts.
In enthusiastically supporting the amendment I believe that the House should congratulate the noble Lord on the amount of work that he has done. He has taken the trouble to contact many manufacturers and a great many people in order to see that the amendment almost exactly meets the responsibilities involved.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, at the risk of sounding stupid to my noble friend I have to say, first, that the amendment would make it an offence for a retailer to sell a drink contained in a can with a detachable ring-pull. It gives the can makers a period of grace of two years. The can makers are making positive efforts to switch to the new style cans, but my noble friend believes that his amendment is required to speed up that solution. I do not believe that the available evidence supports that view.
I hope that I am able to give my noble friend some encouraging information which updates the information that was reported at Committee stage. I understand that more than 95 per cent. of soft drink cans already have the non-detachable environmental ends. The comparable statistic for beer cans is 70 per cent. I am told that this lower figure is mainly because of the technical difficulties but that the great majority of beer cans will have switched by the spring of next year. Allied Beer Brands, which is part of the brewing division of Allied Lyons, started to introduce non-detachable ends on all its canned products from May this year, and other major firms such as Coca-Cola and A. G. Barr—which will be known at least to my Scottish noble friends and colleagues around the Chamber—already use cans with non-detachable ring-pulls.
The upshot is that by the spring of next year all but one or two isolated producers will have brought in the new style cans, and those isolated producers are expected to conform during 1991. In the light of this evidence we believe that it would be wrong to legislate. In this case the market is proving that it can deal with the problem on its own, and, as your Lordships know, the Government's general preference is for industry and commerce to adopt their own solutions, with legislation as a last resort if the voluntary approach does not yield results.
The noble Lord suggested that Britain could become a dumping ground for old style cans from the Continent. I do not believe that that will be the case. All major UK producers run production lines supplying fillers with cans plus ends as a complete package. There is little likelihood of their importing ring-pull ends for attachment to cans nor of fillers reverting to ring-pull ends, which increasingly attract consumer opposition. Imports of filled cans in fact account for less than 5 per cent. of UK consumption, and since the drive for "environmental ends" originated from abroad, this is unlikely to be a significant future source of ring-pull cans.
The real problem is the amount of cans which are thrown not in bins but on our roads and in our parks. We shall be dealing with that through the provisions of the Bill. I hope that that is a sufficient update of information and is an encouragement to my noble friend to persuade him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I do not think so, my Lords. Perhaps I may start with the last part of the Minister's reply. My noble friend walked into the trap of saying that what she is worried about is the can and not the small piece on the top of it. If one carries that form of thought to its illogical conclusion, one will

641
say, "We only need bother about the large litter; don't let us bother about little bits". As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Parry, will agree, little bits of litter soon create big bits of litter. So I do not like the Minister's argument.
My noble friend then said that it will all be okay and everything will be all right. If that is so, why does she object to the amendment? She reminded me of something I had forgotten that I had said at Committee stage; namely, that we could become a dumping ground for all those cans which have not yet been modernised. Of course that could happen. Despite what my noble friend says, we could become a dumping ground. One sees time and again that when stock is left over and we are the only place that will take it, we shall have it.
I am not happy with my noble friend's answer. I should like to press the amendment if noble Lords will support me.
6.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 185) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 85.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Meston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Monson, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Norrie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Northfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Parry, L. [Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Pender, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Greenway, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Hacking, L.

Seebohm, L.

Hampton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton Foster, B.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Walpole, L.

Kilbracken, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Caldecote, V.

Allerton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ampthill, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Arran, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Astor, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Attlee, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Auckland, L.

Colwyn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Belstead, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blatch, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Borthwick, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elles, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Butterworth, L.

Faithfull, B.

642

Flather, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Henley, L.

Nelson, E.

Hives, L.

Newall, L.

Holderness, L.

Norfolk, D.

Hooper, B.

Onslow, E.

Howe, E.

Orkney, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Kimball, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Knollys, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Piatt of Writtle, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Reay, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Rees, L.

Liverpool, E.

Renton, L.

Long, V.

Rodney, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Selkirk, E.

Lyell, L.

Strange, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Margadale, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Tranmire, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mersey, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mills, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wynford, L.

Munster, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.40 p.m.
Clause 87 [Fixed penalty notices for leaving litter]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 185A:
Page 95, line 33, at end insert:
("() Nothing in this section permits an authorised officer of a litter authority to enter, or to take any action in relation to an alleged offence under section 86 committed in, private property without the agreement of the owner or occupier of that property.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that I shall be allowed to speak to Amendment No. 185A and several of my other amendments separately. At Committee stage it was common ground that Part IV of the Bill was entirely laudable in its overall objective. It seems also to have been common ground that a balance had to be struck between dealing with litter at source and any unnecessary infringement of private property rights.
The Bill introduces various concepts such as public open space and relevant land about which I shall have a little more to say later. It also introduces a power of designation of litter control areas. Without going into details of those matters at this stage, it is clearly envisaged that the Bill could extend in this part to private property. I do not suggest that private property should be immune from all the litter provisions of the Bill. However, I question whether the machinery of Clause 87 should apply to private property.
Clause 87 introduces a form of fixed penalty notice whereby a litter officer could give a form of parking ticket to an offending property owner or occupier. In order to assess the need for such a notice, to give the notice, and to try to identify the correct recipient of the notice, the litter officer may well feel the need to enter private property.
If that is the consequence of Clause 87, we should as always be careful in giving unfettered rights of entry by public officials on to private land. To encourage the

643
private landowner or occupier there are other carrots and sticks that can be applied. The landowner or occupier should first and foremost have an opportunity to deal with matters himself using his own resources and manpower. He should also have an opportunity to co-operate with the litter officer.
My amendment would allow entry on to private land by agreement. If all else fails, the landowner or occupier will be vulnerable to the procedures and proceedings under what are now Clauses 90 and 91 —the real teeth of this part of the Bill.
Accordingly, I invite your Lordships to accept the amendment on the basis that it will not completely debar entry on to private land but will only debar entry on to private land without agreement. The recalcitrant and reckless landowner or occupier who causes litter can be dealt with in other ways. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the amendment. I am becoming very fed up with local authority officials walking all over my property without even bothering to ask me about it or to let me know that they are coming. Very often legislation does not fully take account of the private landlord who in many cases is up against many difficulties with regard to litter or other problems. There is some force in what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, says.
Lord Reay: My Lords, my understanding is that Amendment No. 185A was grouped with several other amendments in the noble Lord's name. However, in this case I can give an answer separately. I can state the Government's position.
Amendment No. 185A would prohibit an authorised officer of a local authority from entering private property for the purpose of issuing fixed penalty notices without the agreement of the owner or occupier of that property. I can assure my noble friend Lord Balfour that the amendment is unnecessary as without the consent of the owner or occupier the authorised officer would be trespassing. I hope for that reason that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I am grateful to know that I struck a chord with at least one other noble Lord in the Chamber. I am also grateful to the Minister for his view of the issue. I should like to consider the issue a little further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 88 [Duty to keep land and highways clear of litter etc.]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 96, line 26, after ("(1)") insert ("Subject to subsections (6A) and (6B) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a paving amendment to Amendment No. 189. Amendment No. 189 has two objectives. In new Section (6A) of the amendment the intention is to explore the possibility that the highway authority's duty to maintain roads —and that includes verges—and the district council's duty to clear litter from the highways may not be
644
properly co-ordinated as the Bill stands. It would appear that a highway authority could mow the grass verges thus revealing a considerable amount of unsightly litter. I am sure that all noble Lords have seen that. They can do so without informing the district council, which is normally the litter authority.
The amendment places a duty on the authorities to arrange between them for any litter so exposed to be cleared as soon as possible and in any case within two days. If the district council undertakes the work, then it would be entitled to reimbursement for its expenses from the highway authority.
That could encourage the highway authority, for instance, when asking for tenders to mow verges to insist on the contractor clearing up the mess that he makes. It would also have the effect of stopping highway authorities needlessly and mindlessly mowing small lanes in early May so destroying wild flowers and achieving no better road safety. As a farmer, I know to my cost that grass does not grow luxuriantly until the end of May; and certainly not at the beginning of May.
The other purpose of Amendment No. 189 is contained in new Section (6B). That provides a duty on district councils to ensure that so far as is practicable highways are kept clear of litter and refuse. Although the duty includes verges since they are part of the highway, it would not include removing litter from hedges or fences adjoining the highway. That seems to me to be somewhat stupid, if I may say so. In most cases the hedge will be on the adjoining farmer's land. However, from the point of view of the passer-by, the verge and hedge are all part of the same visual scene. It would seem to me to be absolutely correct and in the interests of the community to ensure that hedges and fences are not left out of this desirable duty on local authorities. It would be ridiculous to do so.
That part of the amendment would also solve another anomaly. As I understand it, if one throws a beer can—which I am afraid will still have a detachable ring on it—out of the car window and it rests on the adjoining hedge one will have committed an offence liable to a fine of £1,000. If one does the same thing while not on the highway but just on the verge, one will not have committed that offence. The farmer would have to take a civil action. If we mean to tidy up our countryside, we must try to tidy so far as the adjoining hedge. I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I support my noble friend on this amendment. We have recently had Written Answers about the M.4 and the garbage that has been thrown into the central reservation. I presume that the noble Lord's amendment would cover this. When one drives up and down the country, one finds some of the motorways are quite disgusting, and this amendment should make it the local authority's business to tidy up our motorways.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I am not sure whether my noble friend intends to press the amendment, although he has been very aggressive in his amendments so far today, but I hope he will not

645
because I am not sure that this is exactly right. Nevertheless, it is most important that the subject has been raised.
It is of interest, that this is a view taken both by the county council and the district council where I live. They are concerned about the matter of co-ordination. The district council has been trying to get schedules of grass cutting work from the highway authority, with some difficulty, and then trying to co-ordinate them with its plans for cleaning. It is very difficult indeed to get down to the two days for which my noble friend is asking.
There have been a number of problems over this which can also be aggravated by lesser frequency of grass cutting. If the grass grows longer, it blows everywhere, gets into drains, and is much more pestilential to clear up than might otherwise have been the case. Also, grass and litter will get chopped up together. This situation is just about par for the course. That is what I gathered from the Association of District Councils.
It seems to me that a better solution would be for the highway authority to get the district council to cut the grass as well as to clear the litter. Then a lot of the co-ordination problems would be eliminated. That might work provided that the district councils are paid satisfactorily by the highway authority. Perhaps we should ensure that something is arranged on those lines for the good of all.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may start by clearing the detail out of the way for my noble friend Lord Stanley. He used the example of the comparison between somebody standing on the highway and throwing away a can and somebody standing on the roadside verge and doing the same, and not being subject to the same penalties. I can assure my noble friend that if someone throws litter onto the verge of a highway while standing on the verge that is still an offence under the Bill since the legal definition of a highway includes the verges of the roadside. Therefore, regardless of where the litter lands, an offence will have been committed.
Guidance on the discharge of the cleaning duty imposed by Clause 88(1) is to be set out in the code of practice to be published in accordance with Clause 88(7) and which will fall to be approved by Parliament in accordance with Clause 88(11). The Government have already consulted widely on a draft of this code, which included standards for clearing litter and refuse from roads. Standards set out in the code are to be based on visual appearance comprising four grades ranging from Grade A, which is "no litter or refuse", through to Grade D, which is "heavily littered".
The first part of the noble Lord's amendment comprising the proposed new subsection (6A) draws attention to the fact that cutting of vegetation on highway verges may expose litter to view. Such cutting becomes necessary for road safety purposes to ensure drivers' lines of sight are not obscured. Maintenance of a road in a safe condition is the responsibility of the
646
highway or roads authority. Equally, any litter that may be present would be exposed to view when roadside vegetation dies back in the winter months.
However litter may become exposed to public view, the first consideration is whether it requires action in accordance with the approved code of practice. If action is required, then it should be taken by the local authority having the duty to clear litter and refuse under Clause 88(1)(a). It would not be appropriate to shift the responsibility to the highway authority and expect them to meet the cost simply because their activity has revealed the presence of litter.
The code will specify how quickly action should be taken to remove litter. In clearing litter from roads, traffic management measures may be necessary to ensure the safety both of those doing the work and of road users. The response times in the code will take account of the balance to be struck between the desirability of clearing litter and the need to maintain road safety. However, I recognise the noble Lord's particular anxiety, and we shall draw attention in the advisory section of the code to the problem of litter being exposed by grass cutting.
The definition of highway used in this part of the Bill includes the verge, as I mentioned earlier. If litter is trapped by a hedge or fence within the highway boundary and is accessible from the highway, then it will be the duty of the responsible authority to clear it so far as is practicable. Again, this can be made clear in the code of practice. So the second part of the proposed amendment comprising the new subsection (6B) is unnecessary. It would not be appropriate to expect the local authority to clear litter or refuse which might have been trapped outside the highway boundary and which is not accessible from the highway. That must be the responsibility of the adjoining landowner.
I hope with that explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, she spoke as if the code of practice will be entirely about grass cutting. Does she appreciate that machines cleaning ditches beside the road produce an enormous amount of litter as well? My noble friend's amendment says "any other maintenance". Will she make sure that it is all road maintenance that produces litter that is affected and not just grass cutting?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding of the code of practice, which will only be formulated with consultation with all the appropriate authorities, is that the code of practice will include all forms of litter clearance on any kind of highway.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I do not intend to press the amendment, which was a probing one. I shall read very carefully what my noble friend has said. It may be that she could write to me; but she referred to the code of practice, and the particular point which I should like her to bring out in the code of practice concerns whether it will state that the highway authority, when it is clearing the highway and the verges, will be bound to inform the litter authority,

647
that is the district council, that it is going to do it and when it is going to do it. The point was made very forcefully by my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton. It is very important that there should be co-ordination there.
There is another point on which I feel I must have misheard the noble Baroness. She said that it would be the duty of the litter authority to clear the verges and the highway, and that is quite clear to me; but what is worrying me is that they should clear to the adjoining edge. I think that is vitally important. I was not quite clear whether or not she said that that would be their duty. I am not asking her to reply to this now; but perhaps she would let me know before Third Reading because this is a matter we should address again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 189 not moved.]
Clause 89 [Litter control areas]:
7 p.m
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 189A:
Page 98, line 20, at end insert:
("() Nothing in this section shall authorise the Secretary of State to prescribe descriptions of land under subsection (1) above which include land which is not in the open air.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I preface my remarks on this amendment by asking your Lordships——
Lord Reay: My Lords, would the noble Lord give me a moment? Does he intend to speak to the rest of the amendments in his name with which this one is grouped in the list?
Lord Meston: My Lords, I regret to say that I was not consulted about the groupings. With respect, they are separate topics. I am happy to talk to Amendments Nos. 189A and 189B together, if that is convenient to the Government Front Bench, and also to Amendments Nos. 189D and 189E in due course; but I hope I am not being tiresome in not wishing to be confined to the groupings on the list, because it is not convenient or manageable to deal with the matter in that way.
On Amendment No. 189A, I was going to ask your Lordships to cast a critical eye on the terminology of this part of the Bill. The concepts used make what is meant to be a straightforward scheme confusing. First, there is "relevant land" in Clause 85(4), defined as land which is open to the air. Then there are various other types of "relevant land" such as "relevant Crown land" which must be open to the air and accessible to the public, although Clause 85(8) enables the Secretary of State to exempt altogether Crown land, local authority land and other publicly owned land.
Under Clause 86 we had what was described as a "free public open place", amended this afternoon to "public open place". Under Clause 86(4) that means a place in the open air or, as I interpret it, somewhere that is partially covered but available for public use. Presumably the draftsman had something in mind
648
when he distinguished between land that was in the open air and land that was open to the air, but it escapes me for the moment.
Under Clause 89 we have another concept—the designated litter control area. Government Amendments Nos. 177 to 184 have removed some of the confusion, but the position still lacks clarity and consistency and it is consistency with which Amendment No. 189A is concerned. It appears to be inconsistent if, as I understand it, publicly owned buildings which are publicly accessible are not caught by this part of the Bill because they are not open to the air but private buildings could be so caught by virtue of the provisions or prescription and designation under Clause 89. I question the logic of the position.
My amendment seeks to introduce some consistency, if not logic, because there is no good reason why Crown land and other public buildings should have some form of partial immunity. That is a criticism of the language of the Bill, which we all want to work and to be understood readily by those who have to operate it.
Amendment No. 189B is a separate topic, but I shall deal with it briefly. It is self-explanatory. The Bill does not contain a provision to allow for the revocation of designation orders when they are no longer necessary and the continuation of an order is no longer justified. Obviously, such a state of affairs might arise with a change of character of the land concerned or a change of owner of the area designated. That is a curious omission from the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, Amendment No. 198A would prohibit the Secretary of State from including descriptions of land which are not in the open air among those which can be designated as litter control areas under Clause 89.
We cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment. There may be enclosed areas, including for example some shopping centres, which are defaced by litter and refuse. We want to ensure that such conditions do not persist and feel it necessary that those areas are capable of being designated as litter control areas. We accept that shopping centres have their own arrangements for cleaning and that such areas are in many instances much cleaner than some local authority land. However, there may be occasions when fully enclosed land may be in such a condition as to warrant designation as a litter control area. I must stress that land can be designated only if it is defaced by litter in the first place. If shopping centres are kept free of litter, they cannot be designated. It is therefore important that the amendment should not be accepted.
The second amendment to which the noble Lord spoke, Amendment No. 189B, requires a local authority to revoke orders designating land as a litter control area if requested by the occupier of the land and if it is satisfied that the reasons for designating the land in the first place no longer apply and are not likely to return once the order has been revoked. The format of the clause is based on the precedents of the

649
Public Health Acts and the Control of Pollution Act, none of which provides for the withdrawal of an abatement notice if the nuisance concerned ceases to exist. That concept is based on the premise that, where the nuisance has ceased, the effect of the notice has effectively lapsed, although it would continue to have force should the problem recur.
It is the same with the designation of an area of land as a litter control area. If the reasons for making the original order no longer applied and the land was kept in a clean and tidy condition, the owner would have nothing to fear from continued designation, which would in practice have ceased to have effect. However, its continuing existence might be valuable if there were to be a subsequent falling off in the standards of cleanliness achieved. The amendment of the noble Lord and the case that he puts for it sound reasonable, but for the reasons that I have given I must ask him not to press it.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I do not intend to press either amendment at this stage. The aim of Amendment No. 189A was to protest at the confusing concepts in the Bill and to draw attention to the illogicality. As the noble Lord said, public libraries and other public buildings of that kind can be just as untidy and littered as a shopping centre, but a shopping centre can be caught while a public building cannot be caught. That is illogical. I do not understand the Government's position, but I do not propose to press the amendment at this stage.
I am a little disappointed by the answer to Amendment No. 189B. There is a distinction between withdrawal of an abatement notice and withdrawal of a designation under Clause 89. Under Clause 89, a designation seems to be a far wider and more far-reaching concept than a simple abatement notice, which usually deals with one specific problem. However, I do not propose to press that amendment either. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 189B not moved.]
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begins again at five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

Avon Light Rail Transit (Bristol City Centre) Bill [H.L.]
7.7 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a fairly standard Bill of this nature containing the normal provisions. I declare an interest in the Bill, first, as one who has been associated for several years with the company promoting the Bill —an interest which is well known in the Bristol area —and, secondly, as a resident of Bristol. I have lived
650
in Bristol since 1941 and seen over the years the constant increase in traffic congestion and frustration for travellers. It is to ease that situation that the Bill is put forward.
The county of Avon came into being in 1974 as a result of the reorganisation of local government. With a population approaching 1 million, the major urban areas are Bath, Bristol and Weston-super-Mare. Although Bristol's population is decreasing, there has been substantial growth in other parts of the county and more is planned, particularly north and north-east of Bristol and east of Weston-super-Mare.
Land use transportation studies in the 1970s highlighted the high level of car availability and usage. Taking figures from the 1981 census shows that among urban areas with a population of over 500,000 the greater Bristol area has the highest car availability in Great Britain at 0·82 cars per household and the highest proportion of households—over 63 per cent. —having at least one car available. Clearly, since 1981 those figures have increased.
At the end of 1988 the number of cars and light vans registered in Avon was 378 per 1,000 population or 11 per cent. above the level in Great Britain as a whole. Even more important, the figures show that some 56 per cent. of the residents of the Bristol urban area travel to work by car. Again, that figure is the highest in the country among the larger cities.
The other side of that picture is that in 1981 only 23 per cent. of all trips to work in central Bristol were made by bus or train. The county remains a strongly developing area and the pressures upon the Bristol transport network grow inexorably. In 1989 alone in that area 4,200 new houses were completed, as were 100,000 square metres of office space.
The company promoting the Bill was formed in 1986 with the ambition to propose a light rail public transport system for Avon County. Initial plans were drawn up on which a feasibility study was carried out and completed in July 1987. The company lodged its first Bill in Parliament in November 1987 for the route from Portishead to Bristol city centre. Royal Assent was given in May 1989. In November 1989 two further Bills were lodged, one for the Bristol city centre, which we are discussing this evening, and one for the route from Temple Meads to Bradley Stoke and Yate. The three Bills will link up to form the first phase of a comprehensive system.
The Bristol city centre Bill, involving street running, required consent to lodge the Bill from the county council and Bristol City Council. Avon County Council as the highway authority gave consent in January of this year. After substantial negotiations with Bristol City Council, consent was given in June of this year. The Avon LRT Bill 1989 for the route to Bradley Stoke and Yate also had a section of street running, but consent to lodge was obtained and the Bill has received its Second Reading in your Lordships' House.
The company has formed a joint venture with the county council which was finalised in August this year.

651
Three of the district councils have become countersignatories to the joint venture—namely, Northavon, Woodspring and Wansdyke. Bath City Council is considering the possibility of also becoming a signatory.
The company has entered into a similar agreement with Bristol City Council. Each agreement sets out a method for formulating decisions in the design and implementation of the project. Obviously the agreements do not preclude the councils from petitioning against current or future Bills, but there is a general spirit of co-operation.
The company also finalised in March of this year an agreement with Badgerline. Badgerline is a bus company which operates 95 per cent. of the bus services in the area. This will enable the provision of a fully integrated public transport system.
The company has completed environmental assessments for the two current Bills, each of which is currently the subject of public consultation. It has also completed all the elements necessary for an application for Section 56 Department of Transport grant. These documents have been submitted to the department and negotiations are under way. It is hoped that a full application will be made in the new year.
The first three Bills provide a route of 52 kilometres —I am afraid that it is a sign of the times that I use the metric measure without comment on it—with an estimated ridership of 64,000 journeys per day at the end of the first year of operation, programmed to be in 1995. Such figures will have a considerable impact on the increasing traffic congestion in and around the city. The present level of car engine fumes has created unacceptable levels of air pollution, particularly during the past two summers.
All being well, the company plans further routes in the future, particularly a south Bristol route linking the large post-war housing estates of my former constituency with the city centre and creating new job opportunities. There is also the inclusion of the current British Rail routes to Avonmouth, a link to Bath and a service within Bath itself. The company has identified the need and offered a solution. Regarded by many as a pipe-dream at first, the project now has widespread support. The question most frequently asked is how soon the system can be running. The benefits, as illustrated on the grant application, will be substantial in their effect on traffic congestion, safety, improved environment and opportunities for regeneration and new jobs. The best estimate of the number of jobs which will be created by the system is some 2,700, which will be a very welcome addition to Bristol's opportunities.
Much of the route follows old and disused railway lines, making use of disused infrastructure, which is illustrated by the viability and the wide service to be provided. Particular attention will be paid to the needs of the elderly and disabled by the use of low-bedded vehicles and kerb-side stops in the city centre and shopping centres.
652
The Bill is an essential link in an imaginative plan to alleviate traffic problems in Bristol and Avon. I ask your Lordships to give it a fair wind.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe.)
7.14 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sure the House will wish to thank my noble friend Lord Cocks for the succinct and clear way in which he presented this Bill. I am sure that the House will be impressed also by the arguments which he used in favour of it. I did my best to convert 52 kilometres into miles because I only understand miles. I believe that it is about 32.5 miles. Therefore, I now know exactly the proposed length of route. I hope that has helped my noble friend and I believe it will be the only time I shall help him during my speech. Nevertheless, I hope that I have helped him on that matter.
The importance of the Bill was drawn to my attention by Mr. Leonard, who represents, among others, the Eastern Community Association. At first I was reluctant to become involved with the Bill, which concerns the interests, amenities and environment of the city of Bristol and its environs and of course the citizens of that area and which after proper and due debate should be decided by them. That is still my view. Therefore, I shall not go deeply into the merits of the Bill itself. In any event the opportunity for that will arise in another place when they can be discussed by people who are properly elected by the citizens of Bristol and other constituencies.
However, I became concerned at the manner in which the consent of the local authority had been obtained. It is required under Standing Order 25 before a tramway or light railway Bill can be introduced. My anxiety remains. Indeed it became deeper when I read the report of the examiners and their conclusions. Perhaps it would be as well if I quoted from the report about the sequence of events in Bristol City Council referred to by my noble friend.
I can do no better than quote from paragraphs 6 and 9 of the report. Page 2 is headed:
"The sequence of events in Bristol City Council".
Paragraph 6 states:
"The City Council met on 12th December 1989 and considered a report from their Planning and Traffic Committee. The recommendation of that Committee was that `the Council invoke Standing Order 25 of both Houses of Parliament' in respect of the Bill. The meaning of the words `invoke Standing Order 25' in this context was unclear to the Examiners but in the course of their hearing the parties agreed that it could be interpreted as meaning 'refused to give consent to the Bill".
Paragraph 7 goes on to state:
"At the next meeting of the City Council on 9th January 1990 a motion to rescind the decision about the Bill taken in December was proposed by Councillor Abraham. Under the City Council's Standing Order 18 a motion to rescind a resolution duly passed by the Council may not be brought forward within six months. Standing Order 18(2) similarly provides that when a motion has been rejected by the Council, the same motion may not be brought forward within six months. There are only two exceptions to these prohibitions. The first is when notice of a motion to rescind or to bring the same motion forward is given at or immediately after the meeting at which the original motion was passed or rejected.

653
The motion on 9th January satisfied that condition but was rejected. The second is the case of a motion brought forward to the Council on the report of a Committee, which does not apply in the present case".
Paragraph 8 states:
"At their annual general meeting on 15th May the City Council considered in the normal way a report from their Policy and Resources Committee proposing the appointment and terms of reference of the Council's various committees for the new Council year. At that meeting an amendment was agreed to alter the membership of certain committees and to appoint an additional committee, namely the ATA Committee, which was 'to have full powers to act with regard to the granting of any consent under Standing Order 25".
Paragraph 9 states:
"The ATA Committee met on 25th May and resolved that once the City Clerk had entered an agreement on certain matters with the Promoters he be authorised to give consent under Standing Order 25. Such agreement was duly reached and a certificate of consent was signed by the City Clerk and deposited in Parliament on 1st June".
That is the history of the matter. In paragraph 16 the examiners say:
"If the Committee decide that the certificate should be taken as conclusive, then the Standing Orders will have been complied with in this case. If, however, the Committee decide that the Examiners can properly go behind such a certificate in a case where it is challenged by a memorialist, then in the light of the facts set out earlier in this report difficult questions arise as to whether consent was truly given. The Examiners were not persuaded that there was any irregularity in the constitution of the ATA Committee, or that the meeting on 25th May was improperly convened. On the other hand, they found considerable force in the argument that as both parties accepted that the Council's Standing Order 18 precluded the full Council from giving consent under Standing Order 25 of both Houses either at the time when they established the ATA Committee or at the time when the ATA Committee decided to give consent, it therefore followed that the ATA Committee themselves could not validly take such a decision on 25th May".
That was the examiners' report. For reasons given in its report the standing order committee ruled that Standing Order 25 had been complied with through the certificate signed by the city clerk and therefore that the Bill could proceed. I cannot quarrel with the decision of the standing orders committee, a decision that it came to in accordance with its own powers and limitations. However, it is my view that Bristol City Council on 15th May 1990 could not give to the ATA Committee the power to rescind a decision of the whole council taken less than six months earlier. Therefore even if it was the wish of the council to rescind its previous decision not to grant consent under Standing Order 25—and that is doubtful—it did not have the power to do so under its own standing orders. In those circumstances any reasonable person would conclude that the ATA Committee had no power to instruct the city clerk to grant a certificate under Standing Order 25.
My view is that the decision of the ATA Committee is of doubtful legality and certainly of dubious morality. The consent of Bristol City Council was railroaded through not on the basis of democratic decision-making on behalf of the citizens of Bristol but by means of a disreputable device to meet the needs and timetable of a private organisation.
654
I understand that light railway transit Bills, although they may be privately promoted, are usually sponsored by the local authorities after agreement has been reached regarding routes and other matters, including the extent to which public finance may be required. That is especially so if local charge payers are to be asked to contribute. In the case of this Bill no such agreement was reached. Indeed, it could not have been reached as the promoters did not publish their report on the six routes until 14th August 1990. Bristol City Council, as I understand it, far from sponsoring the Bill is petitioning against it on a number of grounds, one of which is that the proposed LRT system has been devised in complete isolation from any transport policies of Bristol City Council and other authorities.
Due to the lack of agreement on routes and finance, and due to the widespread view apparently held in Bristol that this Bill is not about the improvement of transportation in Bristol and its environment but rather about profits from property development—some of which may derive from the compulsory purchase of other people's property under this Bill —in my view it is of doubtful wisdom on the part of the promoters to proceed with the Bill as it stands.
Again in my view—it is a personal view—it would be far better to withdraw it at this stage and seek proper agreement with and unimpaired consent from Bristol City Council. The company is unlikely to take advice from me, but I must say this. As it stands the Bill, with its history, was tainted from the start due to the dubious manner in which consent under Standing Order 25 was obtained. It will remain tainted and therefore suspect during the whole of its passage through Parliament and thereafter.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it has been suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and I should speak before the Lord Chairman of Committees in this debate as there is no government speaker. That appears to be a wise move in that he can doubtless reply at the end of the debate, before the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, sums up, to any detailed points we wish to make.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was approached by the same person and had a considerable briefing from that source. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I was disturbed by what I read. Again, when I read the report from the examiners which was sent to me, like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I wondered what was going on with Standing Order 25 consent.
When I read the report in more detail I wondered whether the argument by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the petitioners did not rest on the interpretation of paragraph 6 on page 2, read to us by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The examiner there said,
"The meaning of the words 'invoke Standing Order 25' in this context was unclear to the Examiners but in the course of their hearing the parties agreed that it could be interpreted as meaning 'refuse to give consent to the Bill"'.

655
It could be interpreted as the opposite. That is why I am confused. If the meaning was the opposite, the whole case crumbles. That is the point on which I seek guidance.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, makes a persuasive case against property developers. I am no friend of property developers of one sort or another; they tend to underdevelop people while developing their property. The purpose of a light rail transport system of one sort or another should be an improvement in the standard of living for citizens of the great city of Bristol and its environs.
I make the point immediately that I am a great supporter of LRT schemes. I am delighted to know that my old city of Manchester has advanced with its plans and that such schemes are being brought into existence in a number of our major cities. I see that as a way forward and a means of reducing congestion, reducing air pollution and getting people in our major cities out of their cars and on to an effective public transport system. Therefore, in principle I am very much in favour of these schemes and I do not always see them necessarily as being the work of property developers.
Of course, property developers need to be watched like hawks. That is why the procedure of going through a Select Committee exists. The petitioners have an opportunity to bring forward petitions and noble Lords who sit on those committees in a quasi-judicial capacity have a duty to ensure that petitioners are properly heard and dealt with. Only a moment or two before I came into this Chamber I received a message from the leader of my party on the Bristol City Council saying that the members of my party fully support this scheme. I understand that all party leaders on Bristol City Council support the scheme. Therefore, I begin to wonder whether there has pot been a misinterpretation or even some misinformation in the lead-up to this debate. I hope that that is not the case but I am now looking again with a slightly different eye at the interpretation which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, properly and understandably put before your Lordships. It will be interesting to hear from the Chairman of Committees.
I hope that the difficulties that have been outlined can be overcome. At the end of the day, it is important to have a light rail transport system for Bristol which enables the citizens to go about their daily lives in a way that does not penalise the environment, cyclists or pedestrians. I understand that consultations are continuing and that there is to be another round of consultations regarding the route and where it impinges on cycle tracks. Clearly that is greatly to be encouraged. I await with interest to hear what is said in reply to the points raised.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Cocks for outlining and explaining the purpose of the Bill and also to my noble friend Lord Stoddart, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for the manner in which they put their objections to the way the Bill has been dealt with. It is
656
not my intention to refer to Standing Order 25, to the report of the Examiners of Petitions or to the subsequent meeting of the Standing Orders Committee. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. It is fortunate that the Chairman of Committees will be putting forward the views of the committee.
I understand that there are a number of petitions against the Bill. My noble friend Lord Stoddart said that members of the city council may be among the petitioners, in which case their views should be heard properly before the Select Committee. No one has approached me from the city council or from the county council. I have read the Hansard reports of proceedings in the other place when it dealt with the Bill which is now the 1989 Act. The problems which my noble friend Lord Cocks outlined as the reasons for the Bill—the congestion and so on—were clearly given during the Second Reading debate of what is now the 1989 Act. As my noble friend rightly said, the Bill in no way proposes the construction of a new railway. The intention is mainly to convert or to reopen lengths of rail which have not been used since 1931. Noble Lords will note what my noble friend Lord Cocks said about congestion in the city. There is no argument about that or other problems associated with traffic conditions in Bristol.
The 1989 Bill is now an Act. In other words, there has been agreement that there should be an Avon light railway transport system. Two further Bills are now before Parliament of which the Bill before us is one. I want to deal mainly with the general principle of why a Bill for a light rail transport system in the area should be considered and leave the arguments that have been raised on the technicalities of the standing orders to be dealt with by the Chairman of Committees.
In addition to the points made by my noble friend Lord Cocks, I understand that at the time the 1989 Bill was being considered a poll was undertaken by MORI, respectable and trustworthy pollsters who have carried out a lot of polling work for the Labour Party at different times. So they must be good! At that time, 85 per cent. of the persons interviewed said they wanted a light rail transport system introduced in the area. That factor must be taken into consideration.
I am sure we all appreciate, too, that light rail transit systems are environmentally friendly. I was pleased to see a copy of a draft report of an environmental assessment issued in September for consultation dealing with the whole question of the environment on two of the routes. That report covers 160 pages and is now open to public consultation.
Noble Lords should understand the general principle of light rail systems. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that Manchester has had such a system approved, as has Sheffield. A Bill has been tabled in Parliament for the West Midlands metro system. Light rail transit systems are not new in this country.
My own party, on page 15 of its transport policy states:
"Labour will also encourage public and private collaboration"—

657
note that, public and private—
"in rapid transit systems which provide attractive, modern, clean and fast movement through cities. Now common in Western Europe, 11 schemes are already being considered in British cities. But their development has been hindered by the narrowness of the government's financial approach".
Therefore, the general principle of light rail transit systems is welcomed by my party.
I am prepared to accept that it would have been better if, right at the outset, public transport as such had been involved in the Avon transit system. That is where there was success in the metropolitan county areas. In the conurbations of Sheffield, Manchester and the West Midlands there is a public transport authority and a public transport executive who would be closely involved. I regret that that has not happened in this case because of the nature of the area.
I regret also that there is no government speaker to tell the House what might be the financial position, particularly on the Section 56 grants to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred and also on the possibility of EC grants for this type of scheme. Therefore, we shall be considering a Second Reading without the advantage of the views of the Government on the financial aspects. That is very important. When the 1989 Bill, which is now an Act, was before the other place the opposition spokesman took the same view as the one I have just expressed—that is to say, it would have been preferable if the project had been included in an integrated and co-ordinated transport system in Bristol. Nevertheless, he made it quite clear that he had received an assurance from the ATA, which was the firm concerned with the project, of its intention to introduce a public transport system to be integrated with the bus services, which would allow a co-ordinated interchange, through-ticketing and other related services.
Therefore, we are in a position to hear what the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has to say, and for the petitioners, I hope, to put their case before the Select Committee. That is why I believe that the Bill should be given a Second Reading so that the petitioners can have the advantage of putting their case before the Select Committee. The principle of a light transport system is one which we heartily support. When I say "we" I simply point out that, as with all Private Bills, I am speaking personally in this matter. I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and that a full opportunity will be given for the matters that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the general question of the scheme to be brought before the Select Committee.
7.41 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for allowing me to come in rather later in the debate. I perhaps can bring them some reassurance. I may even bring some small reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, though I rather doubt it. I cannot engage in discussion on the merits of the Bill, and noble Lords would not expect me to do that. I
658
remind your Lordships that if you give the Bill a Second Reading you will not be approving the principle of the Bill, but simply permitting it to be considered by a Select Committee which will take into account both the principle of the Bill and the more detailed matters raised in the petitions which have already been deposited.
If your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading it will go to a Select Committee. The intention is that the committee should consider both the Bill that is under consideration this evening, the Bristol City Centre Bill, and the other Avon Light Transit Bill mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, which has already received a Second Reading. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that there are no fewer than 75 petitions deposited against these two Bills. There are 20 against the city centre Bill and 55 against the second Bill, including, in the first case, petitions from the city council and the county council. So clearly the Select Committee is going to be very busy and it is likely to sit for a number of weeks.
In the usual way, the committee will hear arguments from the promoters and the petitioners and it will take decisions on the Bill in the light of the arguments and the evidence put before it. As to the timing of the Select Committee, your Lordships will know that for a Private Bill to continue in the next Session of Parliament this House must approve an appropriate Motion known as a carry-over Motion. In the case of a Bill introduced in this House such a Motion also requires the subsequent consent of another place. I shall be tabling carry-over Motions in respect of both Avon Bills very shortly. However, I believe that your Lordships will agree that, in the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to arrange for an early Select Committee.
Accordingly, I have agreed on a provisional basis that arrangements should be made for a Select Committee to sit in January next year when the House resumes after the Christmas Recess. These arrangements can only be confirmed when the Bill is reintroduced in the new Session.
I now wish to turn to the preliminary proceedings on the Bill which were particularly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon—that is to say, the proceedings before the examiners and before the standing orders committee. I do not think I need describe the background at any great length. The special report of the examiners covered the ground in some detail. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, quoted extensively from their report. I thought it right to make available in the Printed Paper Office copies both of that report and, most importantly, of the subsequent decision of the standing orders committee.
Very briefly, in December last year Bristol City Council refused to give its consent to the introduction of a city centre Bill. That meant that the promoters of the Bill were unable to prove before the examiners that they had complied with this House's Private Business Standing Order 25, which in the case of a tramway Bill requires the consent of the local authority of the area through which the proposed tramway is to be constructed.

659
Subsequently, in June this year, the promoters deposited in Parliament a certificate signed by the city clerk that the council had then given its consent to the Bill as required by Standing Order 25. Accordingly, the matter again came before the examiners. The validity of the council's decision to give consent was challenged by a number of memorialists. As they are entitled to do under the standing orders, the examiners referred to the standing orders committee by means of a special report the question of whether a certificate of consent duly signed by an authorised officer of a local authority was conclusive of the question of consent for the purposes of Standing Order 25. Those were the matter s raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
The standing orders committee met in July and heard submissions from both the promoters and representatives of the memorialists. It gave the matter the most careful consideration and came to a unanimous decision. It held that a certificate of consent is not conclusive for all purposes. For example, the examiners could properly go behind such a certificate where it was alleged to be a forgery or obtained by fraud or where that consent had already been held to be invalid in legal proceedings. But the committee considered that only in such exceptional circumstances, which did not apply in the present case, should the examiners go behind the certificate.
The committee went on to say that it was doubtful whether the specific arguments used by the memorialists to question the validity of the certificate were well-founded. However, in any event there were arguments involving important questions of law and of the interpretation and the effect of the council's standing orders. The proper forum for the resolution of such questions was, in the view of the committee, the courts and not the examiners. That is the committee's answer to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I hope that they will reassure both the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
The committee concluded that the certificate must accordingly be treated as conclusive and determined that standing orders had been complied with. Therefore, the Bill was read a first time on 13th July. I hope the House will agree that it should now proceed in the normal way.
Lard Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I should like to thank all colleagues who have taken part in this short debate. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for pointing out that the light rail system is a very popular concept now and that all parties support it. I also thank him for stating that the provision of both private and public funds in the construction of one of these systems is now accepted by the Labour Party in its recent policy statement. While at one time there was very strong resistance to that policy, it is now recognised that with the limited resources available governments, in the light of the overwhelming demands made on them, say that the involvement of private capital is very much to be desired.
I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his remarks and general support and for reporting to this
660
House the support of his party on Bristol City Council. I know that both my own party and the party opposite are extremely keen that this measure should proceed. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, became a little pejorative towards the end of his remarks. I remind him that the question of land enhancement was the basis on which the initial railway systems of this country were built in the the middle of the last century. I declare an interest because my mother's father was a porter on the old Southern Railway.
I am extremely grateful to the Chairman of Committees for guiding the House through the labyrinthine procedure matters. As a member of the usual channels I must say that having Members in both Houses who are prepared to concentrate on such detailed matters is of great service to us all. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his offices in respect of the Bill in addition to the other contributions that he makes to our proceedings.
I appreciate the intellectual honesty and integrity of my noble friend Lord Stoddart. However, should your Lordships be good enough to give the Bill a Second Reading tonight I believe that when it is reported tomorrow morning on local radio the motorists who will be queuing to drive into the centre of Bristol on the M32, Gloucester Road, Whiteladies Road, Cumberland Basin and Wells Road will be grateful for that permission to proceed and will not be interested in arguing between themselves about the merits of the intellectual point which my noble friend Lord Stoddart put forward.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until five minutes past 8 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.52 to 8.5 p.m.]

Environmental Protection Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 90 [Summary proceedings by persons aggrieved by litter]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 189C:
Page 100, line 1, leave out subsection (12).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak to this amendment with some diffidence because I am conscious of the fact that I am shooting at a target which has been moving during the course of debate today. However, having moved, I am not sure where it has gone.
At an earlier stage when discussing the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ross (Amendment No. 158) the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, described the mandatory costs provision under Section 94(3) of the Public Health Act as "archaic and arbitrary". Since that time we have debated the Government's amendment, Amendment No. 169 to Clause 81. During the course of the debate the noble Lord, Lord

661
McIntosh of Haringey, put his finger on the problem when he said that it was really a question of balancing the need not to discourage those with legitimate complaints about nuisance by fear of being out of pocket if they take matters to court with the fairness to the landowner or occupier who should have an opportunity to put matters right before proceedings are taken to court. The opportunity which ought to be available should be given to that person by proper notice so as to afford him the chance to do whatever is necessary to abate the nuisance.
As I understand it, the Government have recognised the need for prior notice for proceedings in the other part of the Bill, especially in relation to nuisance. It is in that context that I ask the Government to look again at Clause 90(12) which seems to give a mandatory power to order costs, even if at the end of the day the magistrates' court takes no action in respect of the complaint before it.
The position is that the complainant can only have reasonable grounds for bringing the complaint if he had given notice to the alleged offender before launching into proceedings. It is to be hoped that the scheme of the Bill will ensure that proceedings will be the last resort rather than the first. If I can have some assurance that the Government will reconsider subsection (12) in that light and that they will perhaps look at the wording again to ensure that it is consistent with the other provisions of the Bill, I shall not press my amendment. However, for the purpose of ascertaining the Government's view, I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, Amendment No. 189C would remove subsection (12) from Clause 90. That subsection was included for a specific reason which I hope that I shall be able to explain to the noble Lord and in so doing perhaps enable him to identify once again the target. Clause 90 provides for an aggrieved citizen to apply to the magistrates' court for a litter abatement order against a body under the duty to clean where the body has not been discharging that duty. The complainant must give the body concerned five days' notice of his intention.
Under the procedures of the Magistrates' Courts Act, costs in magistrates' courts normally follow the outcome of the case. So where a court grants a litter abatement order against a defendant, costs would normally be awarded to the complainant. Similarly, if the court decides that the issuing of an order was not justified, the defendant would normally be awarded costs.
The main point here is that the court has power to issue an order only where the land is defaced by litter at the time of the hearing. The order can require the defendant only to clear litter or refuse present at the time; it can have no retrospective effect with regard to litter which was defacing the land when the complaint was made. In a case where the court is satisfied that the litter was there at the time of the application but has subsequently been cleared, it cannot issue an order against the defendant and the defendant has not, in the normal sense of the term, lost the case.
662
As it may take some months for a case to come to court and the land may be cleared only the day before the hearing, it is necessary to provide that, if the court were satisfied that the application was valid when it was made, the complainant may none the less be awarded costs. If it is not satisfied that the complaint was justified, it will not issue an order and in the normal way it will be able to award costs in favour of the defendant.
The amendment, which seeks to remove that power, seems to us to be unfair. It would leave bodies without any incentive to clean up until the last moment before the case was due to be heard. It would also effectively discourage any aggrieved citizen from applying for an abatement order to be made. I hope that that explanation reassures the noble Lord and that he will not therefore feel obliged to press his amendment.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I am reassured. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 [Summary proceedings by litter authorities]:
Lord Mountevans Lord Mountevans moved Amendment No. 189CA:
Page 100, line 29, at end insert ("which is land to which the public has access").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 91 authorises local authorities to impose abatement orders in respect of relevant land as defined in Clause 85. The amendment seeks to modify the definition of "relevant land".
I declare, as I have in the past, my interest as a judge of British Rail's best kept stations contest. During the Recess I travelled some 7,000 miles and claim some knowledge of the litter problem as it affects British Rail. Having judged for four years, I feel that British Rail is coping well with the litter deposited by its customers in areas to which the latter have access. Incentives by British Rail and the Tidy Britain Group have played a major part in the development of a much cleaner rail infrastructure, as has work done by British Rail's community unit.
The problem lies not in litter in areas such as stations to which the public has legitimate access; it lies with litter and refuse deposited by third parties on railway land to which the public does not legally have access. An extreme example given in last Friday's newspapers was the stolen car that was dumped on a piece of track near Workington in Cumberland which led to the derailment of a passenger train. A more relevant example might be a British Rail clean-up operation just outside Brighton. Television sets, mattresses, sofas and domestic refuse were removed. Another extreme example is a closed line in the Liverpool dock area where British Rail is still the proprietor of the waylink where builders' refuse is dumped to the height of tunnel crowns. Yet another example is the 34 tonnes of rubbish—all domestic I hasten to add—removed from track in and around Shrewsbury station under BR's own operation which is called operation clean-up.
As it stands, the Bill would enable district councils to serve abatement orders ordering British Rail to clear up such refuse and litter from such land. Such a provision seems, first, to give a degree of power to local authorities without imposing on them any responsibility. It could be easily abused. After all, it is always attractive to order someone to spend their money tidying up a problem which is not of their making. The abatement order process is a disincentive to district councils to co-operate with British Rail in clean-up projects. There have been a number of such projects ranging over large areas. There were successful ones in the Black Country in the corridor around Stoke-on-Trent and on Teesside.
I share the general view that we must do all we can to have a tidier Britain, but the Bill and the proposed code of conduct—codes of conduct can be flexible friends but they can also be nasty enemies—go about things in a negative way. We have talked much about the principle that the polluter pays, but the way I read the Bill it exposes British Rail, which is the victim, to paying for clean-up operations arising out of circumstances which are not within its control. Hence the amendment seeks to protect British Rail, its customers and the PSO grant. Under abatement order; it would be the customers and the PSO grant which would end up paying for the clean up and not the tippers or the dumpers.
I also seek to preserve an element of existing good practice —the partnership schemes that I have already mentioned. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, perhaps I may raise one further point which might be helpful to the amendment. Normally there are no trespassing laws in Scotland. However, under Scots law it is a serious offence to trespass on railway or aircraft property. The legislation was placed on the statute book many years ago. I cannot quote chapter and verse, but the trespassing laws were written into Scottish legislation with L. view to protecting the life of the trespasser and for no other reason.
Lard Parry: My Lords, I have much sympathy with the ca se made by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. He has worked with the British Tourist Authority and had an early involvement with the environmental consequences to the travelling public of a dirty environment. He has also worked with Mr. David Perry, who for a number of years has been responsible for heading British Rail's effort to clean up the environment and make its track more attractive. It is an immense problem, as everyone in the House will be aware. I agree with him when he says that we do not necessarily want to emphasise the negative aspects of the problem. However, at various times I have tried to persuade British Rail to carry out one wholly negative award system.
British Rail would be justified in setting up a dirty dozen award to discover the dirtiest adjoining properties, the occupiers of which throw rubbish onto British Rail property and foul the entrances to many towns and cities. However, I appreciate that in the first
664
instance British Rail would not want to force people onto British Rail property and into danger to clear it, nor would it, because it has been so positive in cleaning up its railway stations, want to become involved in a wholly negative enterprise.
I have no such doubts. It is time we began to show pictures of the people who throw their rubbish onto someone else's property, identify that property and make them pay for polluting the environment. I do not know what the Government's reaction will be, but I underline the positive aspects and the work that British Rail is doing to combat this massive problem.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying a tribute to my noble friend for the work that he does with British Rail in keeping the railways tidy. In recent years there has been discernible evidence of the improvements to our railway stations. My local station is not Cambridge but Huntingdon and I look forward to it receiving a prize one day. I also include in that tribute the noble Lord, Lord Parry, and his work with the Keep Britain Tidy organisation, which is complementary.
I understand the concern which has led my noble friend Lord Mountevans to table this amendment. British Rail and other statutory transport undertakers suffer considerably from the deplorable practice of fly-tipping. In the case of British Rail, for example, the urban railway embankments which we propose that the new litter duty should cover are often prime targets for fly-tipped refuse. We do not dispute that. Nor do we deny the benefit which undertakers like British Rail can derive from partnerships with local authorities to deal with the problem.
In recognition of the task facing British Rail, we are proposing that, exceptionally, the litter duty should apply to most urban railway embankments not from 1st April 1991 but from 1st April 1992. This will give British Rail an extra period of grace to deal with the accumulated refuse on the embankments. We would of course have preferred the duty to apply from 1991 but we have been persuaded otherwise in this case—and not only by arguments tonight.
We have also agreed to refer, in the code of practice which we will be issuing, to the need for partnerships between the statutory transport undertakers, local authorities and voluntary groups in order to deal with this problem. From this, I hope it will be clear to your Lordships that we are not blind to the realities of the situation.
However, there is another reality that we ignore at our peril. One of the prime reasons for the Government's initiative on litter was because of justified public indignation about the unsightly nature of motorway and railway embankments. The noble Lord's amendment would remove an important element of our package of measures to deal with the problem—the local authority would no longer be able to tackle the statutory undertaker if he were failing in his duty.
I should say that I do not believe the amendment would in any case help the situation where a local

665
authority wished to back out of any existing arrangements for dealing with refuse on embankments. But I am not convinced that in practice that will be a widespread danger; since those arrangements are mutually beneficial, I would expect them to continue, as we urge in our code of practice.
Litter and refuse will persist until we persuade people that it is anti-social and degrading to treat our landscape in this way. The culprit in this instance is the irresponsible fly-tipper. Wherever possible—and this is the point brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Parry —he should be identified and required to clear up the fly-tipped material himself. Of course, this poses a particular problem for British Rail, as has already been mentioned—that of safety.
If necessary, it is possible to take legal action in some cases. I say this not because the noble Lord is unaware of the point but simply to remind your Lordships that our debate would not be necessary if it were not for the thoughtless actions of a minority of the population. Where it is possible, they should be made to deal with the consequences of their own actions. I hope with that explanation my noble friend will not press his amendment.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation which I shall read with great interest. One proposal to which I did not understand my noble friend's answer was the reversal of the theory of the polluter pays which I put forward. Here it will be the taxpayer and the British Rail customer who will pay for the clearing up. Perhaps I may think a little more about that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 93 [Street litter: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 189D:
Page 103, line 28, at end insert:

("(aa) inform any other person whose property adjoins the land comprised in the specified area in the proposed notice;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 189E. Under Clauses 92 and 93 local authorities can require traders to take action to clear litter in the vicinity of their premises. The purpose of these amendments is to provide that neighbouring traders are informed of the requirement before it is imposed. Neighbouring traders ought to know that someone is to be served with a notice, both to be reassured that something is being done and also to have some say about how and when the frontage and the vicinity of the premises concerned are to be cleaned up. This is in order to minimise inconvenience and for them to have some say in the requirements which are to be imposed. I do not think that the amendments need further explanation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, Clause 93(6) requires local authorities, before serving a street litter control notice, to inform the person on whom the notice will be served and to take into account any representations he may make.
666
Amendments Nos. 189D and 189E would also require local authorities to inform any other person whose property adjoins the land which will be the subject of the notice and to take their representations into account. Street litter control notices will impose certain requirements on the person on whom they are issued with the purpose of removing litter and refuse from his frontage and in some cases from the street adjacent to his premises. These notices can only have a positive effect on adjoining properties. The street will be cleaner as a result and the adjacent property owners will not have to face take-away wrappers outside their premises.
If it is just a case of the property owner learning of a notice on his neighbour, then, subject to a later amendment he will be able to see any notice which may be issued in a litter register. I must confess that unless there is any strong, compelling reason for this amendment—and we are not convinced that there is one—we do not feel that it is right to impose an unnecessary duty on local authorities who may be required to inform possibly an extra dozen people. I urge the noble Lord not to press this point.
Lord Meston: My Lords, the burden—if that is the right word—to be imposed on local authorities by this amendment was not meant to be great. The intention was to ensure that the interests of neighbouring traders were looked after. For example, at one extreme they may need to be protected from the over-zealous trader cleaning the street at awkward times from the point of view of the business of the neighbouring trader. At the other end of the spectrum, traders may need to be reassured that something is being done so as to prevent them taking action either through the courts or otherwise.
This is not a compelling reason, but it may be felt that the amendment contains a useful provision. I do not propose to press it at this stage; I wish to consider it further. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 189E not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 190:
After Clause 93, insert the following new clause:
Public registers
(" .—(1) It shall be the duty of each principal litter authority other than a county council, regional council or joint board to maintain, in accordance with this section, a register containing copies of—

(a) all orders made by the authority under section 89(3) above; and

(b) all street litter control notices issued under section 92(1) above.

(2) Where the requirements of a street litter control notice are varied or added to on an appeal under section 93(7) above a copy of the order making the variation or addition shall be included in the register.
(3) Copies of the orders and notices required to be kept in the register shall be so kept for so long as the order or notice is in force.
(4) It shall be the duty of each authority maintaining a register under this section—

(a) to secure that the register is available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge; and

667

(b) to afford to members of the public facilities for obtaining copies of the documents kept in the register, on payment of reasonable charges.

(5) A register under this section need not be kept in documentary form.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 190, in my name, follows up an undertaking made in Committee to consider further a similar one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. The amendment will require local authorities to maintain a register containing copies of all the orders they have made designating land as a litter control area, together with all the street litter control notices they have issued. The register would be open to inspection by the public, who could also pay for copies of the relevant documents.
We accept the noble Lord's argument that the registers are necessary. I am pleased to be able to bring forward this amendment to replace the one which he tabled in Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 191 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 191ZA:
After Clause 93, insert the following new clause:
Transitional provision relating to section 88
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may, for the purposes of the transition to the duties imposed by section 88 above on local authorities and educational bodies, by regulations, make provision—

(a) modifying that section, or

(b) modifying Part I of the Local Government Act 1988 (competition rules for functional work or works contracts).

(2) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different descriptions of authorities, different areas or other different circumstances or cases.
(3) In this section—

"educational bodies" means the governing bodies and education authorities mentioned in section 88(1) (f) above; and

"local authorities" means the local authorities mentioned in section 88(1) (a) and (c) and (2) (a) above.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to make transitional provisions to protect the position of authorities who had already assigned contracts for the provision of the relevant services under the competitive tendering legislation before the new litter code was published.
We appreciate that such contracts are likely to have to be modified in many cases to take account of the standards of litter clearance now required by the code. Indeed, so far as concerns future contracts, we have already taken action by postponing the rounds of competition due to be completed by 1st January and 1st August next year to 1st August 1991 and 1st January 1992 respectively, so as to make it possible for authorities to take full account of the code when drawing up their specifications.
Where contracts had already been let before the code was promulgated, the new clause will give the Secretary of State the power to make the necessary transitional arrangements. These will provide for any
668
additional work which may be necessary to be taken on board. They will also protect the position of authorities until such time as this can be done. They will cover cases in which contracts have been let to the private sector and also those in which work has been assigned to the authority's own direct service organisation following competition under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988. We intend to announce the nature of the provision to be made as soon as possible, once the details have been finalised.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be aware from my recent letter to him on this subject, the new clause as originally tabled has been modified so as to make it possible to extend protection to the governing bodies of educational institutions on whom the new litter duties bite, in cases where their LEAs have entered into a contract for the provision of the relevant services.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wishes to move a series of amendments to my amendment. For the time being I shall sit down and allow those amendments to be presented. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 191ZA, Amendment No. 191ZB:
After Clause 93, line 4, after ("regulations") insert ("applicable to any authority which has not at the date of the regulations being laid decided to carry out functional work to which this part applies or let a contract for such work to any other persons").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 191ZB I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 191ZC, ZD, ZE, ZF and ZG. The Minister understood that I wished to speak to those amendments. I believe she will also understand that we had drafted those amendments to her previous version of Amendment No. 191. They only appear on the Marshalled List with asterisks because we had to re-draft them after the Minister had changed her own amendment. I hope that the House will acquit us of any discourtesy in producing amendments at the last minute. We tried not to do this, but it was the Government's own second thoughts that made life more difficult for us.
Government Amendment No. 191ZA is clearly intended to be helpful and to deal with some of the problems which may arise in the application of the litter codes to compulsory competitive tendering. Even by the fact of tabling these amendments, the Government show that they recognise that the litter codes will make substantial differences to the way in which local authorities have to deal with services which have either been contracted out or have been submitted for tender and kept within a local authority's services. We are primarily concerned that, as far as possible, local authorities should be spared the agony of having to relet tenders when they have already been negotiated and when it would be possible to deal with them by renegotiation within the scope of the same tender. We are concerned that they should

669
not have to start again from scratch. To us, that would be the worst of all possible worlds. However, we think that is the Government's intention.
Amendment No. 191ZB standing in my name is intended to extend the no relet principle. I hope I may put it that way. The amendment seeks to extend it so that it applies not only to those contracts which have already been let—the Minister referred to those—but also to contracts which are far advanced in the tendering procedure and are awaiting contract.
Amendments Nos. 191ZC and 191ZD standing in my name are intended to explore what is meant by the phrase,
"different areas or other different circumstances"
which appears in the government Amendment No. 191ZA. We are anxious to secure that there should not be any discrimination against direct service organisations which have won in the competitive tendering process and which are subject to more stringent rules on renegotiation or reletting than is the case with tenders that have gone to outside contractors. I was to some extent encouraged by what the Minister said in introducing the government amendment on that matter.
Amendments Nos. 191ZE and 191ZF seek to make that provision more explicit. Amendment No. 191ZE states that tenders which have,
"fulfilled the first, second and third conditions specified in section 7 of the 1988 Act"
and which have been awarded to direct service organisations should not be discriminated against in a decision as to whether a contract should be renegotiated or relet. I remind the House that the first, second and third conditions are the stages of the tendering process.
Amendment No. 191ZG would require an affirmative resolution procedure if there were to be significant changes either to Clause 88 of this Bill or to the 1988 Act. I am sure all noble Lords would consider that appropriate. In other words, subordinate legislation should not be used to make major changes to primary legislation. I hope the Government will feel that the amendments are helpful as regards the tendering process and the renegotiation process when the litter codes are established. I hope the Government also feel that the amendments would help to remove the threat of unfairness and administrative impracticality which would otherwise arise. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as the noble Lord has explained, the intention behind these amendments is to restrict the regulation-making power which government Amendment No. 191ZA proposes should be given to the Secretary of State to make transitional arrangements in relation to the interaction between the competitive tendering requirements of the Local Government Act 1988 and the litter duty imposed by this Bill.
Amendment No. 119ZB seeks to provide that the regulations could apply only to authorities which had not completed the competition procedures and decided to assign work either to their own workforces
670
—that is, the direct service organisations—or to external contractors. In consequence, those regulations could not bear on the case of authorities which had reached such a decision. I have to say that to limit the regulation-making power in this way would be to fail to address the real problem that we have identified.
Earlier this year the Minister responsible for local government, Mr. Portillo, announced our intention to put back the date of the deadlines by which those authorities which had not yet completed competition procedures for street cleaning were required to do so. Those authorities which had been working to a deadline of 1st January 1991 will now have until 1st August 1991 to complete the procedures. Those others whose deadline had been 1st August 1991 will now have until 1st January 1992 to complete the procedures, thereby being able to take into account the measures contained within the Bill.
We decided on this postponement precisely because we wanted to give those authorities a longer period during which they could take account of the standards of litter clearance that will result from the Bill, and to prepare tender specifications which would reflect them. We do not therefore expect that those authorities will face problems that will need to be addressed by the use of the proposed new regulation-making power. By contrast, we foresee that problems may well arise where authorities have completed the competition procedures and have assigned work to their workforces or to external contractors. This is because those authorities which have assigned work to their own work forces cannot simply revise a specification to meet higher standards. Section 7(8) of the Local Government Act 1988 constrains them from doing so.
If authorities have awarded work to private contractors, they are not constrained by the 1988 Act, but they may face difficult commercial negotiations if they wish to revise contracts to achieve higher standards. We are still considering the extent of such problems and the best way for local authorities to deal with them, but we want to be in a position to act on the relevant legislation—that is, the 1988 Act and the Environmental Protection Act, as it will become—if it appears to us to be necessary to do so to ease the problems of local authorities.
Amendments Nos. 119ZC, ZD, ZE and ZF are clearly ancillary to the purpose of Amendment No. 119ZB, reducing the flexibility of the regulation-making power in relation to authorities which have not completed competition procedures. For the reason that I have explained, we consider that the basic thrust of these amendments is misconceived. They would restrict the power to make transitional arrangements to future contracts. But, as I have explained, the real need is to make provisions for contracts which have already been met. That is why subsection (1) of the new clause, as contained in Amendment No. 119ZA, makes clear that the powers taken are very much for the purposes of transition to the litter duties imposed by this Bill. Given that transitional nature of the provisions, we see no need for the restrictions which would result from this set of amendments.

671
Amendments Nos. 191ZG and 272A seek to make the regulations subject to affirmative resolution. We have given careful consideration to that proposal but we do not believe that such a procedure would be appropriate or justified in this case. As I have stressed, these are transitional provisions. The affirmative procedure is rightly regarded as appropriate only for major issues of principle which are likely to have a lasting impact on future action. For example, under the competition legislation the only power requiring affirmative procedure is that which makes it possible for the Secretary of State to bring whole new services into the framework of that legislation.
We accept, however, that local authorities have a major and legitimate concern with the form that these transitional arrangements will take. I can therefore give your Lordships a clear undertaking that we shall be consulting the local authorities through their associations on the nature of the provision to be made for protecting the position of authorities which had let contracts to the private sector or assigned work to their own workforces before the code of practice was promulgated.
The one question that I have not dealt with concerns different treatment for different authorities. Given that most authorities start from a very different base, it is my understanding that even those authorities which have already let contracts privately have determined very different specifications for those contracts and therefore the level of cleaning and of the tender specifications will vary considerably. The same will apply in respect of the variable base on which those authorities have the cleaning carried out by direct labour organisations. The standards required of the different organisations will differ in each authority. Therefore, when we find a formula to deal with the problem we shall have to take all of those variations into account.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that very complex reply and for the assurance that there will be consultation. I am sure that the local authority associations will also greet that assurance warmly. The fundamental point that we have to secure is that the consultation will produce a formula which will deal with the most difficult case that will arise.
It seems to me that the most difficult case that will arise will be one in which a contract has been let or has gone so far in the letting process that it cannot be resiled. There may be no money to meet the higher standards under this part of the Bill, or the drafting of the contract may not allow for renegotiation. Under those circumstances, if there is no possibility of renegotiation or of extra money, the two alternatives are either to throw the whole thing back into the melting-pot—which would seem to be the worse alternative of the two—or, however undesirable it may be, to provide that for the term of the contract the contractor and the local authority will have to be exempt from at least some of the provisions of this part of the Bill. In other words, they may have to be exempt from the public complaint procedures.
672
If the Minister can show her appreciation of those difficult cases and give us some assurance that she recognises the problem and will take that into account in consultations it would be enormously helpful.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Lord will understand that I can give no guarantees at this stage. However, I can give an assurance that all the various scenarios will be taken into account when determining the formula that we hope will be effective.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suppose that I shall not get any further than that at Report stage. However, the point has been made. There will be risk of a very expensive and unsatisfactory renegotiation procedure, which nobody wants, neither the local authority on one side nor the contractor or DSO on the other, or of some relaxation of the rules. Neither is perfect but the second is a good deal less imperfect than the first.
On the basis that the Minister recognises the fundamental reason for the reservations that we hold, I believe it is better that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 191ZB, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 191ZC to 191ZG not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 191ZA agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Parry Lord Parry moved Amendment No. 191A:
After Clause 93, insert the following new clause:
("Application of Part II
.—(1) This section applies to litter and refuse collected—

(a) by any authority or person in pursuance of section 88(1) above;

(b) by a principal litter authority in pursuance of section 91(9) above; or

(c) by any person in pursuance of section 92 above.

(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing that prescribed provisions of Part II shall have effect, with such modifications (if any) as may be prescribed,—

(a) as if references to controlled waste or controlled waste of a prescribed description included references to litter and refuse to which this section applies or any description of such litter and refuse;

(b) as if references to controlled waste or controlled waste of a prescribed description collected under section 44 above included references to litter and refuse collected as mentioned in subsection (1) above or any description of such litter and refuse.

(3) The powers conferred by this section are exercisable in relation to litter and refuse to which it applies whether or not the circumstances are such that the litter or refuse would be treated as controlled waste apart from this section and this section is not to affect the interpretation of the expressions defined in section 74 above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is always pleasant to move a wholly friendly amendment. To do so in the post-prandial peace is equally pleasant, particularly when we have had compliments to Tidy Britain from the noble Baroness.
The House will have recognised that the clause offered here enables regulations to be made to bring within the controls of Part II of the Bill litter and refuse which has been collected by litter authorities

673
and other bodies in pursuance of their duties under Part IV of the Bill. This ensures that any such waste collected must be disposed of or recycled at properly licensed facilities. It ensures that once the litter has been collected it falls within the definition of controlled waste in Part II of the Bill and therefore to dispose of it by fly tipping, which was mentioned earlier, or at a site not licensed to take it would be an offence.
The amendment also enables regulations to be made to define litter collected by waste collection authorities to be treated as household waste for the purpose of defining the responsibilities of the waste disposal authority's duties towards it. That would have the effect of placing a duty on waste disposal authorities to arrange for its disposal in the same way as they currently arrange for the disposal of all other waste collected by the collection authorities without charge to those collection authorities.
No matter what care has been taken over draftsmanship, no matter what unanimity may exist over proposals for cleaning up Britain, or indeed for anything else, there are always those who go through legislation with a small-toothed comb to try and find ways of avoiding the charges placed upon them. I therefore have pleasure in moving that this new clause be inserted in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parry, has moved his amendment with great enthusiasm. The amendment sets out the relationship between Parts II and IV of the Bill, the former dealing with waste disposal and the latter with litter. It provides that regulations can be laid to make litter collected by a waste collection authority or certain other persons a controlled waste under Part II, and, therefore, to dispose of it illegally would be an offence. It also allows regulations to be made to place waste disposal authorities under a duty to dispose of this waste in the same way as they are responsible for disposing of other waste collected by a waste collection authority.
I am indebted to the noble Lord for bringing the amendment to your Lordships' House. It highlights a confusion in the present provisions between the definitions of waste in Part II and of litter in Part IV of the Bill. The noble Lord is well placed to spot such anomalies through his excellent work with the Tidy Britain Group, to which I am pleased to pay tribute for the second time this evening. I am happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 95 [Powers in relation to abandoned shopping and luggage trolleys]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 105, line 14, after ("may") insert (", subject to subsection (2A) below,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in dealing with the group of amendments comprising Amendments Nos. 192, 193 and 194 I should like to move Amendment No. 192,
674
invite my noble friend Lord Lucas to present his amendment and then deal with all three amendments at the same time. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I readily accede to my noble friend's invitation. As a result of discussion and correspondence during the Summer Recess the noble Baroness intimated that she would put down Amendments Nos. 192 and 193. I thank her for her letter. As a result I did not pursue the argument or indeed the amendments on this matter which I tabled at Committee stage. At that time I sought to give statutory backing to a set of voluntary guidelines.
I can readily accept what my noble friend suggests in her two amendments but I enter just a small caveat. The assumption is that the new provision for prior consultation will certainly encourage the negotiation of voluntary arrangements along the lines of those which have already been successful in some local authorities. For example, I instance Newbury in Berkshire—Berkshire comes at the beginning of the alphabet—and Bromley, which is around the middle in terms of this provision, because under the London Local Authorities Act 1990 what was broadly in the amendment that I tabled at Committee stage was agreed to.
Voluntary arrangements have been entered into in those two areas. It is important to note that Newbury —which is half way down in the alphabet—under the Berkshire Act charges £1.50 per trolley if a retailer collects within 24 hours and 50p per subsequent day thereafter. Bromley, which has set up voluntary arrangements, does not hide under or ask for the support of any Act. It uses a local contractor who charges £1 per trolley. That sets the scene for Amendment No. 194.
Amendment No. 194 invites the House to substitute the word "reasonable" for "sufficient" at line 22 on page 164. I accept totally that the letter of 28th September from my noble friend Lady Blatch obtains. In that letter she says:
"I can assure you that the Bill is deliberately worded to ensure that local authorities cannot make a profit, but allows them to break even in the long term. The phrase 'sufficient, taking one financial year with another' allows for the fact that it would be impossible, on the first day that the Schedule is brought into operation, for the authority to assess exactly what its costs will be throughout the year, and how many trolleys it will be handling".
That is all very well so far as it goes. But having instanced to your Lordships the practice of Newbury and Bromley—which charge £1.50 and £1—I draw noble Lords' attention to a letter which is addressed to a leading retailer from the Kensington and Chelsea local authority in which it says that there has been some correspondence. Further:
"notwithstanding … any measures you may have been prepared to take, it is now the intention to pass a Resolution in accordance with the London Local Authorities Act 1990 in which the issue of luggage and shopping trolleys is clearly dealt with in Section 43, Part IV of the Act".
The letter then goes on:
"For your further information a fee of about £40 is to be recommended as a reasonable payment for the return of abandoned trolleys".
That is absolute nonsense.

675
When we discussed the London Local Authorities Bill, as it was in 1989, the question of charges arose. I recall discussing the matter. At that time I suggested that the wholesale price for buying a trolley was only £50 or thereabouts. Now Kensington and Chelsea suggest £40. At that time some noble Lords opposite supported my argument, because this is not a question only of supermarkets of one size, kind or another. It concerns airport trolleys, British Rail trolleys, super-supermarket trolleys, megamarket trolleys and shop trolleys.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, surely the noble Lord is not suggesting that Co-op supermarket trolleys become litter, is he?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not suggest that, but the Act does if they are found in certain places, notwithstanding the great endeavours of that body to contain its trolleys. The noble Baroness's letter states that this year on year business will in fact prevent unreasonable charges being imposed.
Tonight I suggest to my noble friend something just a little different. I have a very good team of researchers. My noble friend the Minister will know some of them. We have looked at Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law.
Lord Parry: Hear, hear!
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I thought that the noble Lord would agree with that. Page 1502 of Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law states:
"If there is a contract to do a thing or to buy goods, and no time or price is mentioned, the law implies the thing is to be done in a reasonable time, and that a reasonable price is to be paid".
The dictionary goes on to define what is reasonable. That is generally accepted in the courts of this land when deciding cases of this kind.
The Government want to remove the word "reasonable". They want to put "sufficient" year on year. Let me put the case to your Lordships. Suppose that a local authority imposes a charge of, say, £20 —let us be a little more moderate than Kensington and Chelsea, which suggests £40. At the end of the year, depending on the number of trolleys collected, there is a profit or a surplus. The local authority can do one of two things. It can reduce the charge for the next year and if at the end of that year there is a deficit, adjust it upwards the following year. Alternatively it can say, "This surplus is a jolly good egg. Let us now employ another lorry and two more wardens. We can use up the surplus, utilise labour and facilities and so on, and year on year we shall draw equal". I suggest to your Lordships that that is not reasonable.
Notwithstanding the noble Baroness's amendment, Amendment No. 193—and one hopes that these discussions before Schedule 4 provisions are entered into will result in an amicable agreement—Kensington and Chelsea does not appear to think that. It will go for £40. It seems to me that airports, British Rail, the bigger supermarkets—ASDA, Tesco's, Sainsbury's, the Co-op and so on—are not willing to lose their trolleys, which have cost them £50, £60 or £70. Indeed,
676
some of the walk-down-the-steps ones used by the airports are fairly valuable pieces of equipment. They do not want to lose them. They want to recover them. They do not want them taken away. It seems reasonable in all the circumstances that they should have the protection within the Act of reasonable charges being made, one authority against another, which can be proven in court. My amendment simply seeks to bring a little sense of reasonableness to the Act.
9 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that I am right in saying—I look to the Clerk for assurance—that my noble friend will have an opportunity to speak again because we are still technically on Amendment No. 192. I should hate to deny him the opportunity to respond to my response to his amendment. Amendments Nos. 192 and 193 in my name, and Amendment No. 194 in the name of my noble friend, Lord Lucas, relate to Clause 95 and Schedule 4, both of which concern new powers for local authorities to deal with abandoned shopping and luggage trolleys.
Schedule 4 contains detailed provisions on how a local authority may seize, detain, remove and ultimately dispose of abandoned trolleys. Clause 95 deals with the mechanics of applying the schedule. Under those provisions, the local authority can remove what appears to it to be an abandoned trolley. It must then notify the apparent owner of the trolley of its removal and inform him where it is being held. The owner may then reclaim the trolley within six weeks although he will have to pay a fee in order to do so. The fee must be set at a level sufficient to cover the costs to the local authority of applying the provisions of the schedule. The local authority may sell or otherwise dispose of any trolley unclaimed after six weeks.
Amendments Nos. 192 and 193 address a point first raised in Committee by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. They provide that a local authority may not apply the provisions of Schedule 4 in its area unless and until it has consulted with those who appear to be affected by the application of the schedule. These amendments aim to give trolley owners the opportunity to come to a voluntary agreement with the local authority before coercive measures are contemplated. Many local authorities do have such voluntary schemes in operation already, adopting a code of guidance on trolley control which has been produced by the Retail Consortium. We would prefer to see this sort of measure applied throughout the country rather than allowing local authorities to go ahead without first listening to the views of the people they would be affecting. I am sure noble Lords would agree that co-operation is preferable to compulsion and I therefore commend these amendments to the House.
Amendment No. 194 would require that the fee charged by a local authority to the owner of a trolley which had been seized should be set at such a level as is reasonable rather than one which is sufficient, in covering the local authority's costs in removing, storing and disposing of abandoned trolleys. I

677
understand my noble friend's concern that a local authority might take it upon itself to set punitively high charges for the return of trolleys to their owners. He has given some graphic examples in the presentation of the amendment. We take the view, however, that the term reasonable would allow local authorities to pitch the charge above what would be required to meet their expenses. What is reasonable to one authority might not be reasonable to the trolley owners in its area. An authority might think it reasonable to set the charge slightly (or indeed significantly) above the actual costs it incurs in operating the scheme, whereas the Bill as drafted is quite clear about the amount an authority can charge.
The wording of paragraph 4(1) allows the local authority to make the necessary adjustments to its scale of charges from time to time to ensure that all its costs are met. Charges can therefore be raised to offset a deficit or lowered to reduce a surplus. It would plainly be untenable—and therefore subject to challenge in the courts—for a local authority to make the charges punitive.
An example was given by my noble friend of using the surplus that may be made in any one year perhaps to over-provide for the service of collecting trolleys. I hope that what I say reassures my noble friend. The district auditor would have something to say if the provision that was engaged by a local authority was surplus to the job in hand of collecting trolleys.
There is no intention on the part of the Government that the system should be used as a taxation. That is what is being suggested by my noble friend. Given that at the outset it will be difficult to gauge the charge precisely, a charge will be made, and if there is a deficit that will be adjusted in making the charge to trolley owners in the following year. If there is a surplus, the surplus will be required to reduce the cost of collecting the trolleys in the following year. In other words, at the end of the day the charge that will be levied over a period of two, possibly three, years would be that which would equate to the sufficient costs for doing the job. I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, in the early part of her reply to the amendment spoken to by my noble friend Lord Lucas, the Minister referred to abandoned trolleys. I am afraid that I lost her after her reference to Clause 95. I did not find the relevant schedules. It shows what happens to noble Lords who become interested in one particular point under discussion. However, the Minister mentioned that the abandoned trolleys could be gathered up by the local authority and that if they were not reclaimed—I believe that she mentioned after a period of six weeks—they could be sold.
Perhaps the Minister will answer this question, or my noble friend Lord Lucas might inform me at a later stage or outside the Chamber. What is the market for those abandoned trolleys? A figure of £40 has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lucas. Such a figure of £40 or £50 would certainly encourage those concerned to take greater care of them when shopping
678
in Chelsea and Kensington where I live. The large baggage trolleys at airports might be worth more than £40 or £50.
In connection with the sale or auction of abandoned trolleys, what do such trolleys fetch? What is the realistic price? I am curious to know this; I am a Scot. What is the second-hand value of those trolleys? What is the point of paying a charge of £40 to claim one's trolley? If one waits six weeks there will be an auction.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is a Scot—and a canny one at that. I do not know the market price of a second-hand trolley. Whatever the price, and whatever the income to the authority, income under that activity will have to be recycled to benefit the public and the community charge payer in that area.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 105, line 21, at end insert:
("(2A) It shall be duty of a local authority, before making any resolution for the application of Schedule 4 to this Act in its area, to consult with the persons or representatives of persons who appear to the authority to be persons who will be affected by the application of that Schedule.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Abandoned Shopping and Luggage Trolleys]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 164, line 22, leave out ("sufficient") insert ("reasonable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Baroness Blatch, in her response to my earlier remarks, allowed me—and your Lordships' rules permit me—to discuss Amendment No. 194 in rather greater depth.
I accept in part what my noble friend the Minister had to say, most particularly with regard to the year-on-year surplus and deficit element. She said clearly that a charge that was punitive could be challenged in court, in any event, under this Bill. I do not believe that that is in fact so under the provisions of the Bill.
Again, I have to accept what she said about what the district auditor might have to say, and the point she made with regard to local taxation.
If I may answer my noble friend the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, one of the trolleys that walks down escalators guided by a canny Scot or other passenger is worth nearly £100, and an ordinary trolley about £50. If it is fished out of the river it is worth nothing. If a local authority decides, as Kensington and Chelsea has, to charge £40, the trolleys will be abandoned. It will then fall upon the community charge payer to meet the bill for disposal. There will be no encouragement to recover the trolley. That is the real point.
My noble friend the Minister talked about sufficient year-on-year, but I am suggesting to your Lordships that the term "sufficient" provides only for an assessment by a local authority of the projected costs incurred in collecting, storing and disposing by an

679
unspecified method, which is bound to err on the side of never making a loss. It does not require any assessment of the method of collection and provides for an unlimited level of charging, although that charge can be adjusted in subsequent years. The term "sufficient" provides the local authority with the choice between an efficient method and an inefficient method. I admit that I described somewhat frivolously earlier what that might lead to. Of course the Government do not want to find additional moneys for local authorities for trolley collection.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would permit me to say this. He has already spoken for 11 minutes on this amendment in an earlier group. Is he going to speak for another 11 minutes on the same amendment?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, not 11 minutes but perhaps three or four more.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is an abuse of the procedure of this House.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may think it an abuse. He has wound up some of his amendments at very great length without anybody challenging the abuse.
I am answering my noble friend the Minister. The way the matters were grouped was not my fault; I went along with the suggestion. It is not an abuse. I am saying that it is not fair on railways, airport authorities and stores that this matter, which I have proven is open to abuse, should remain in the Bill. I am suggesting that the word "reasonable" is a more proper way of dealing with the matter.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, very briefly, because of the way in which my noble friend has presented his amendment I think I should say more about the reason why I believe "sufficient" is a better word than "reasonable".
It might indeed be reasonable to pay £20 or £40, as has been graphically illustrated by my noble friend; but if the local authority were making a profit by charging that amount it would clearly be more than sufficient. So to use the words we have used, it would therefore be outside the provisions of the Bill as drafted and therefore could be challenged in court by the trolley owners. This is not a protection. The word "sufficient" would be a protection; but "reasonable" would not be a protection in court if the trolley owners felt aggrieved at the charging that has clearly been illustrated by my noble friend.
My noble friend also asked who decides what is sufficient. I have said that the courts could decide. The district auditor could also decide and be called upon to make a judgment as to whether the charge was sufficient or excessive. However, what is reasonable to one authority is unreasonable to another and it would be no defence in court.
I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment. Given the word "sufficient", I believe that the Bill will achieve all the protection that my noble friend seeks.
On Question, amendment negatived.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 195:
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment to procedure in connection with registrations and authorisations on disposal
.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 11 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 (referred to in this Part as "the 1960 Act") (procedure in connection with registrations and authorisations), for the words "may afford to such local authorities or" there shall be substituted the words "to any local authority within whose area a disposal takes place (or is expected to take place) or which is otherwise affected by such an activity, and may afford to".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if in moving this amendment I were to speak also to Amendments Nos. 196C to 196E, 197, 197A, 198A, 198B and 198D to 198G.
The burden of these amendments is to give local authorities the right to be consulted in cases concerning radioactive licensing. The main purpose of that is to provide local populations represented by such local authorities with a belief that they are part of the total consultation process. That is the purpose of the first batch of amendments. The second batch deals with certain lacunae in the Bill in such a way that it accords with intentions that have been stated by Ministers but have not perhaps been wholly honoured in terms of the Bill.
The case arises from a dispute affecting Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council which received from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution a copy of a grant of a licence for disposal of radioactive waste under Section 6 without any prior warning. The authority objected to that. It said that it had not been consulted and that the matter was clearly one of legitimate local concern.
The Government asserted in rebuttal that HMIP, which acted on their behalf in the matter, had observed the proper procedures under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. They contended that they were required to consider whether to consult a local authority only where the applicant had exercised his right to a hearing. The matter was therefore resolved in court. It was resolved in favour of the Dudley local authority because the court found that the Secretary of State was required to consider whether to involve local authorities regardless of whether an applicant had exercised the option for a hearing.
Unfortunately, however, the matter did not end there because a further licence was issued by HMIP after the Department of the Environment had considered whether to consult the Dudley council. It decided against doing so and, in effect, Dudley was therefore excluded from the consultative process and with it the local population which clearly had no role to play. To my mind, that is in complete conflict with what the Government say in their much-heralded document This Common Inheritance in which they refer to the need for the public to receive environmental information and to demand improvements, and so on, which has been belied by what happened in that case.
In Amendment No. 195 and certain other amendments coupled with it we seek to give authorities an absolute right to a hearing in the more serious cases of disposal. I stress that I refer to the more serious cases of disposal of waste and its accumulation. The main purpose is therefore to enable public anxiety to be much more readily allayed than is the case at present. The Government must know what a sensitive issue this is and how deeply concerned the public are about matters of this kind. Consequently, when the Government protest that they want to establish greater public awareness about environmental issues I should have thought that they would jump at the opportunity to do precisely what we urge upon them now.
We understand that the Secretary of State may on occasion require to use his powers to exclude information relating to national security from any hearing or consultative procedure. Nonetheless, the burden of our case is that a more informed and mature view of the disposal of radioactive waste is required and this amendment would encourage that situation.
There is a feeling among local authorities—and no doubt the Minister realises this—that HMIP acts in an unaccountable manner and it cannot be to its own advantage that that should be the case. Consequently, a better regulated system of consultation would also be in the interests of HMIP.
Some authorities report that they have seen local communities become suspicious of disposal operations even where they do not involve radioactive waste because members of the public have no means through their local authority of being able to express their opinions or of receiving more than the most basic level of information. I hope that the Government will recognise the force of that argument.
As regards this grouping, I conclude by asking the Government to consider very seriously giving this automatic right of hearing in the more serious cases. Local authorities may not wish to take up that right in all instances but, nevertheless, they should have the right.
We have put forward the consultative procedure which is outlined in the rest of the amendments in this group in the event that the Government—and it looks as though this is the case—are unable to agree to an improved hearing procedure. This matter arose in earlier debates. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, said in Committee that applications will be passed to the councils before an authorisation is granted, thus giving the authority the necessary opportunity to comment. The difficulty to which we are pointing in these amendments is that there is no defined process after a notice has been sent whereby authorities' comments will be received or considered. That leaves both authorities and HMIP in a state of considerable uncertainty as to the status of comments which may be returned somewhat later in the process than the inspectorate would wish.
The amendments then go on to propose that the Secretary of State should have the power to make
682
directions to the chief inspector setting out a period of notice. The inspectorate should have a duty to consider and have regard to any reply received within that period of notice. I understand that a typical time for an application to be processed is something like four months. Therefore, a period of six weeks' notice to local authorities may be appropriate in those circumstances.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will be rather more forthcoming than he has been in the past. I hope that he will see that it is important for local residents not to feel that they will be confronted with a blank wall, which would add to their anxieties. I look forward to hearing a positive response from the Minister to these reasonable amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, this is quite a large group of amendments and I hope that noble Lords will bear with me if my reply seems rather lengthy. These are complicated and important matters.
The effect of Amendment No. 195 would be to place a duty on the Secretary of State in respect of all authorisations for the disposal of radioactive waste to afford the opportunity of a hearing to the local authority either in whose area the waste was being disposed of or which was affected by that disposal.
Before coming to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, I must point out that this amendment is defective. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of Schedule 5 have already amended the hearings procedures in Section 11 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. Except in the case of nuclear licensed sites, which are mainly nuclear power stations and Sellafield, the hearings procedure in Section 11 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 has been replaced by a procedure for applicants to appeal against the decision of the chief inspector to the Secretary of State. In addition, powers are given to the Secretary of State to call in for his determination any application to dispose of radioactive waste. All local authorities will receive copies of applications to dispose of radioactive waste, which will be available to the public, and it is open to any person or local authority to ask the Secretary of State to call in an application for his determination and to hold a local inquiry.
The position with respect to nuclear licensed sites in England is somewhat different, and in these cases the previous provisions for a hearing have been retained. After the operator has made an application to the chief inspector to dispose of radioactive waste, local authorities, the National Rivers Authority and other public bodies must be consulted before any authorisation is granted. It has been the practice of the Secretary of State to consult far more widely than is required by RSA60, and this will continue under the chief inspector.
Before the chief inspector and the Minister, MAFF, refuse such an application or grant it subject to limitations and conditions, the applicant may request a hearing before a person appointed by the Secretary of State and the Minister. It is at this point in the process of considering an application that the

683
amendment put forward by the noble Lord would have an effect, in that local authorities would have a right to a hearing. As they will have already been consulted, we see no reason for the duplication which would result from local authorities also being given an automatic statutory right to a hearing.
There may of course be cases where it is felt that the opportunity for a hearing before a person appointed by the Secretary of State should be afforded to a local authority, and where the Secretary of State and the Minister consider it appropriate, they have the power to do this. In reaching a decision on this, factors such as the exposure to radiation of the critical group resulting from the authorisation would be considered. Indeed, following the ruling of the High Court in the Dudley case, for every relevant authorisation specific consideration is now given to the question of whether local authorities or other persons should be afforded the opportunity of a hearing. I must say that in the 27 years during which the Act has been in operation no applicant, as a result of being granted or refused an authorisation or registration, has requested a hearing.
In a similar way the effect of Amendments Nos. 198D and 198E would place a duty on the Secretary of State and the Minister to afford a hearing to the local authority in whose area radioactive waste was being disposed of or accumulated. They would also insert a reference to Section 7 of RSA60 dealing with the authorisation for the accumulation of radioactive waste into the provisions of paragraph 9 of Schedule 5. Paragraph 9 sets out the procedures for hearings in respect of authorisations requiring the authority of both the chief inspector HMIP and the Minister.
These amendments are also defective, since authorisations for the accumulation of radioactive waste are authorised by the chief inspector alone and not jointly with the Minister. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the chief inspector in relation to authorisations for the accumulation of radioactive waste will therefore be subject to the appeals procedure in paragraph 10 of Schedule 5 to the Bill. It is only disposals of radioactive waste where the authority of both the chief inspector and the Minister is required and which are subject to the hearing procedures set out in paragraph 9 of Schedule 5.
Furthermore, Amendment No. 198F would have the effect of removing the right to a hearing of any person, other than the local authorities, whom the Secretary of State and the Minister, MAFF, might consider appropriate. Thus any public authorities which may have been consulted would have no statutory entitlement to be heard. The substance of these three amendments is to seek to achieve the same as Amendment No. 195—to place the Secretary of State and the Minister under a duty to afford a hearing to the local authority in whose area the activity was to take place.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 196C, 196D, 196E, 197A, 198A, 198D and 198G would be to require that, when local authorities are copied applications relating to the keeping or use of radioactive materials, including the use of mobile radioactive apparatus or the accumulation or disposal of radioactive waste,
684
they shall be given a period to comment on those applications. They further provide that the chief inspector and/or the chief inspector and the Minister shall consider and have regard to the views of the local authority before granting a registration or authorisation.
I am afraid that we cannot accept these amendments. The task of regulating radioactive substances has fallen to and been effectively carried out by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution in England and Wales and by Her Majesty's Industrial Pollution Inspectorate in Scotland and their predecessors for over 30 years. We do not see what local authorities could add.
In many cases—for example, where radioactive materials are to be used or kept—the local authority will have no executive or regulatory function. Indeed, most authorisations for the disposal of radioactivity to the environment are concerned with extremely small quantities of material which are disposed of; for example, by flushing down laboratory sinks or to dustbins. More generally local authorities do not have the range of highly specialist expertise which would be necessary to make an input. In these circumstances, it is difficult to see what consultation would achieve. Indeed, it would be a waste of scarce national radiochemical manpower resources if local authorities were to try to duplicate the work of HMIP. Furthermore, we are not convinced that most local authorities would welcome the imposition of further unnecessary burdens on them.
This is not to say that local authorities do not have a role to play in certain circumstances in fulfilling their normal local authority functions. Where they do—for example, in respect of major disposals from nuclear licensed sites such as nuclear power stations or where they are involved, as is frequently the case, in a disposal operation themselves—RSA60 already provides for them to be consulted, and this will continue. But to extend this to all cases, regardless of whether the local authority has a role to play, cannot be justified and I must ask the House to oppose the amendments.
Finally, government Amendment No. 197 provides that where applications are made under Section 3 of RSA60 for a certificate of registration of mobile radioactive apparatus, a copy of the application and a copy of the certificate of registration will be sent to those local authorities in whose area the apparatus will either be kept or used for releasing radioactive material to the environment. As with other documents, copies of the application and the certificate of registration must be made available to the public. These provisions were inadvertently omitted from the Bill but I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is appropriate for information on mobile radioactive apparatus to be placed in the public domain.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, of course the Government, with their vast array of civil servants, have much greater access than the Opposition to the

685
way in which amendments are drafted, but the Minister has significantly failed to concede the burden of the argument. Therefore, while I have to concede his point that the first group of amendments is defective, it is not nearly as bad as the situation where the government arguments in principle are so basically defective.
With respect, the Minister equated consultation with a hearing. The two are quite distinct. The public, the local populace, who are mainly concerned in areas such as this, would know what was going on if there was a hearing. The information that they get following a consultation is, by necessity, hearsay. There is, therefore, a vast difference in principle. Of course, the consultation procedures that we set out in the second group of amendments was always intended to be a fall-back. Indeed, that is precisely why the amendments were tabled. They were tabled largely as a result of the intervention of the noble Lord in Committee —to which he did not, if I recall aright, make any reference tonight—when he said:
"Applications will be passed to the councils before an authorisation is granted, thus giving the authority the necessary opportunity to comment"—[Official Report, 2/7/90; col. 1937.]
What is significantly lacking about the Minister's reply tonight is that he has not added to the procedure to be deployed. How are the councils to comment? I ask the Minister to he kind enough to define the procedures. This is important.
The Minister says that local authorities would not welcome additional burdens that would be imposed on them as a result of what we are saying here. That is a very strange argument coming from the Government after all the additional and unnecessary burdens that they have placed on local authorities in other respects in this Bill. I ask the Government to be a little more precise.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have spoken at considerable length giving our reasons for not accepting these amendments. I do not think there is very much to add. In connection with hearings and the point the noble Lord made about the public not being informed, under the procedures as they now exist I can say that by copying all applications to local authorities and making them available to the public, there will be greater knowledge of what is to happen than ever before.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, notwithstanding the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I do not wish to press the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 100 [Application to Crown of 1960 Act]:
[Amendment No. 196 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Further Amendments of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 196A:
Page 165, line 1, after ("words") insert (" "Minister and the Minister" there shall be inserted "chief inspector and the Minister" and for the words").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 196B. These are tabled as probing amendments. It would appear on the face of Schedule 5 that changes made to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 may not be complete. The purpose of this part of the Bill is to give formal responsibility for exercising the function to the chief inspector in place of the Secretary of State for the Environment. This part of Schedule 5 makes the necessary drafting changes to the 1960 Act. It appears that the references in Section 8(1) and (3) of the 1960 Act may have been omitted. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, these amendments seek to make consistent the references to the chief inspector and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Section 8 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. I thank the noble Lord for the diligent way in which he has examined this part of the Bill. I am sure that he is aware that the drafting of this part of the Bill is extremely complex, amending as it does existing legislation. He may not be too surprised to learn that the effect of his amendment is already achieved by the provisions of Clause 96(2). That clause lists the section of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 where the responsibilities of the Minister and thus the Secretary of State are transferred to the chief inspector. The effect of these amendments has already been achieved.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. We need to look very carefully at what he has said. I do not propose to press the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 196E to 196E not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 166, line 16, leave out from ("area") to end of line 17 and insert ("it appears to him the apparatus will be kept or will be used for releasing radioactive material into the environment." ").
[Amendment No. 197A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 197, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 197 agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 166, line 20, leave out from ("area") to end of line 21 and insert ("it appears to him the apparatus will be kept or will be used for releasing radioactive material into the environment." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 199, 200 and 201. They are government amendments and make a number of adjustments to the powers of inspectors and to the public access provisions. Amendment No. 198 provides that where a certificate of registration for mobile radioactive apparatus is issued a copy of the certificate of registration will be sent to those local authorities in whose areas the apparatus will be kept or used for releasing radioactive material to the environment. As with other documents, the certificate of registration must be made available to the public. Those provisions were inadvertently omitted from the Bill and I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is appropriate for information on mobile radioactive apparatus to be placed in the public domain.
Amendment No. 199 lifts an inadvertent restriction on the powers of entry of inspectors in respect of premises where they have reason to believe that mobile radioactive apparatus is being or has been used or kept. Inspectors have comprehensive powers of entry including the powers which are being added by paragraph 13 of Schedule 5. They will allow inspectors to enter upon any premises at any reasonable time where the premises have previously been registered under RSA60 and the inspector has reasonable grounds for believing that radioactive material is being kept on the premises. I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is equally important that inspectors have the rig it of entry in cases where they believe that mobile radioactive apparatus is on the premises.
Amendments Nos. 200 and 201 fulfil an undertaking which I gave in Committee when considering amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. They related to the need to make available records of persons convicted under RSA60. The amendments provide that records of conviction under RSA60 shall be copied to local authorities and made available to the public. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I was delighted to see these amendments on the Marshalled List. I am grateful to the Government for taking up the broad hint that we gave in Committee. If my birthday had not been last Thursday I should have been happy to celebrate it today with these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 198A and 198B not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 198C:
Page 168, line 53, at end insert:
("8B. In section 9 of the 1960 Act (Provisions as to functions of public and local authorities) in subsection (3) of that section—

(a) after the first words "local authority" there shall be inserted the words "waste disposal contractor"; and

(b) at the end of the subsection there shall be inserted the words "and, in any case involving precautions by a waste disposal contractor, the relevant Minister shall consult the local authority in whose area the contractor undertakes activities" ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the 1960 Act contains an additional provision for consultation with local authorities where a Secretary of State deems that they will need to take special precautions to deal with the consequences of an application. The usual state of affairs dictates that that will involve the disposal of radioactive waste in place on a local authority site. The Bill does not affect that provision but we are raising a point for the future.
Where the effect of Part II is to require local authorities to contract out waste disposal operations either to controlled companies or to the private sector the special precautions may in future be taken by the LAWDC rather than the local authority. We contend that in such a case it should still be the authority as the waste disposal authority which is consulted where such precautions are required. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, before dealing with the argument put forward by the noble Lord I must point
688
out that the amendment is flawed. The consultation process is now to be undertaken by the chief inspector or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and not the relevant Minister as the amendment suggests. This is because Clause 96(2) provides that in Section 9(3) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 the references to the Minister (other than the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) are to be replaced by "chief inspector". It is also not clear whether the noble Lord intends that waste disposal contractors should be consulted when they are required to take special precautions or whether he intends that consultation should be restricted to the authorities in such circumstances.
The Secretary of State has already taken administrative action to extend the consultations with local authorities and other bodies which are required under Section 9(3) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. As a result, we now consult waste disposal contractors and local authorities where disposal is to private landfill sites or where disposal takes place on the authorised premises of the person who is disposing of the waste. Therefore, we are already achieving the objective set out in the amendment and we shall continue to do so. Flawed as it is, we see no need for the amendment to be accepted.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am not having a good night regarding drafting; indeed, I am constantly being "flawed". On this occasion, I willingly accept the observation made by the noble Lord. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the flawed amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 198D to 198G not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 173, line 42, at end insert:

("or in respect of premises on which there are reasonable grounds for believing that mobile radioactive apparatus has been or is being kept or used." ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 199A:
Page 174, line 17, at end insert:
("() In subsection (3) (offences relating to the disclosure of information)—

(a) for the words "relating to any relevant process or" there shall be substituted the words "whose disclosure is contrary to the interests of national security or which relates to any"; and

(b) the definition of "relevant process" shall be omitted.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 199B, 201A and 201B. The amendments do not hang together, but we shall deal with the situation as we proceed with the debate.
The first two amendments are not dissimilar to the ones which we tabled in Committee and which were rejected by the Government. They aim to replace a blanket offence under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 of disclosing any information about "relevant process" where this is defined as,

689
"any process applied for the purposes of, or in connection with, the production or use of radioactive material".
The Government stress that this does not apply to information about the final disposal of radioactive waste. However, discussion of the problems caused by waste inevitably require some discussion as to the purpose for which the radioactive substance was used in the first place. I cited a number of such instances in Committee.
A similar incident occurred in July of this year. The Observer newspaper reported that people were being contaminated by the presence of low level radioactive waste in drinking water in the Thames area. Researchers from St. Bartholomew's Hospital found radioactive iodine 125 in the thyroid glands of humans examined after post mortem. The presence of high levels in people in the Thames Valley region correlated with high levels in the River Thames, compared with lower levels in both tissue and rivers elsewhere in the country.
Such findings inevitably raise the question about the sources of the waste. Some of this information may be disclosed without contravening Section 13 of the Radioactive Substances Act hut, inevitably, questions will arise which involve some information about a,
"process applied … in connection with … the use of radioactive material".
For example, a disclosure which revealed how much radioactive material was used in the luminous dials of a particular brand of watch, or telephones where BT Trimphones have luminous radioactive dials, or a smoke detector may be covered by this provision. I should remind your Lordships that at present disclosure would be a criminal offence, punishable by up to two years' imprisonment. In my view that is going over the top. It may not be what is intended by the Bill; but it is what the Bill actually says.
Therefore, Amendment No. 199A proposes that an offence would only be committed if the information disclosed is harmful to national security or jeopardises trade secrets. We have already talked about trade secrets today—and to some good effect, I am glad to say. Disclosure of information which is not harmful in that way should not be an offence.
Amendment No. 199B allows justification for what would otherwise be illegal disclosure; namely, that the disclosure
"was necessary for the purpose of protecting the health of any person from serious injury".
That argument is similar to one we had earlier this evening.
Amendments Nos. 201A and 201B would provide for public access to the results of the monitoring of radioactive discharges and waste. Such information is obtained by the pollution inspectorate under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. Paragraph 15 of the schedule provides for a certain amount of disclosure. As we have heard, the Government have been good enough to table an amendment in relation to one that we put down at the last stage requiring disclosure of
690
details of convictions under the 1960 Act; but it appears that they still refuse to provide for full disclosure of the monitoring results.
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, argued that the amendment would swamp the system by making impractical demands. He went on to say that they intended that summary data would be immediately available and that more detailed information would be available on request. That is helpful, but it is not adequate. First there is no requirement in the Bill to disclose monitoring results. There is provision for the disclosure of documents sent by the pollution inspectorate to local authorities if the Secretary of State so dictates. That is presumably the mechanism for disclosure of monitoring results. However, without a statutory basis any directions of the Secretary of State can be modified or even cancelled.
A parallel solution arose in relation to information about genetically modified organisms, which are dealt with in Part VI. The Government initially gave a commitment that the Secretary of State would keep a public register of the relevant information. He was pressed to give that statutory force. The amendment which now appears in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, provides for statutory registers in Part VI. We hope that in this part the Government will accept the case for putting disclosure on the face of the Bill.
Secondly, we still believe that the basis for disclosure should be the full monitoring results rather than the summaries. Summaries will inevitably be published several months after the event whereas we expect a scheme based on full data to involve much faster publication. Where there is a manageable number of sample results they should be made available as soon as possible. Why cannot registers of the type set up under Part I on integrated pollution control also be adopted here?
However Amendment No. 201B recognises that that requirement could create difficulties where monitoring is in the form of automated continuous read-out which may be capable of producing thousands of results in one day. The amendment makes provision for that.
The applicant would need to specify the period of time in which he or she was interested and the inspectorate would be required to provide figures showing the minimum, maximum and average readings during that period and the number of occasions upon which the level specified by the applicant had been exceeded. That presumably would require only a simple interrogation of the computer data upon which such results are based. That duty applies only so long as the relevant results have been retained by the inspectorate. Although they sound complicated, the amendments are straightforward. I hope that the Government, having had some time to think about them over the Summer Recess, are now able to be of more assistance to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am able to give the noble Lord much satisfaction. He

691
obviously feels strongly about Amendment No. 199A and argued his case well. However, I am afraid that we are not able to accept the amendment. It would mean that certain processes which were not subject to national security restrictions or classified as trade secrets, but where disclosure might be prejudicial to the interests of the person concerned, would not be given the necessary protection from unwanted disclosure. We have in mind some university activities where disclosure of a process might be prejudicial if it took place in the development stage, and information on the operation of large irradiation sources.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that it would be wrong for persons with legitimate reasons for holding information on the whereabouts of radioactive material and data to be denied the protection they need. I equally hope that your Lordships will appreciate, as I emphasised in Committee, that a considerable amount of information is being made available to the public as a result of the provisions on access to information being introduced in the Bill. It is a case of striking a balance between the two, and I believe that we have struck the right balance.
Amendment No. 199B would have the effect of enabling a person to remain immune from the commission of an offence of unlawful disclosure of information if the disclosure was necessary for the purpose of protecting a person's health from serious injury. In our opinion, this amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate. Section 13(3) of the Radioactive Substances Act makes it an offence to disclose
"any information relating to any relevant process or trade secret used in carrying on any particular undertaking which has been given to or obtained by [a person] under [the] Act or in connection with the execution thereof unless disclosure is made in specified circumstances".
The important words here are:
"under [the] Act or in connection with the execution thereof".
Information relating to serious injury to a person's health as a result of radioactivity would not be obtained by any person under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 or in connection with the execution thereof since matters of health are not within the scope of that Act. There is therefore no need to build any protection from prosecution into the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 201A and 201B seek to add to the list of documents which the chief inspector is required to copy to local authorities and make available to the public. Here, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, returned to the question of making available information on the analysis of samples. However this time his amendments are less widely drawn than they were in Committee in that they do not require the chief inspector to make available all data obtained through continuous automatic monitoring.
We appreciate the noble Lord's constructive approach, but unfortunately in our view the amendments are still too broad in scope for me to be able to recommend that your Lordships should accept them.
To take the proposals contained in Amendment No. 201A first, these would, with the exception of any
692
information obtained through continuous automatic monitoring, which I shall come to in a moment, require every analysis of every sample to be sent to local authorities and kept and made available to the public by the chief inspector. I can only say, as the noble Lord pointed out I said at Committee stage, that in our opinion this procedure would swamp the system and make it less effective in giving the public the opportunity to examine documents of real significance. However, we intend that summary data will be immediately available and that more detailed information will be available on request. The data immediately available would indicate that further information was available.
Amendment No. 201B would have the effect of requiring the chief inspector to provide on request details of average, minimum and maximum figures from the results of any sample analysis obtained by continuous automatic monitoring. Any person requiring information obtained in this way would be able to stipulate any length of time he wished that information to cover. He would also be able to request a statement of the number of times a given level is exceeded. If the period specified is excessive and the threshold level is set very low, this could involve an unreasonable amount of data. Also, by specifying a very short period, it would be possible to require the production of equally large volumes of data. I do not believe it would be reasonable to ask that of the chief inspector. We consider that it is inappropriate for such powers to be placed in a Bill, as the requirements are too detailed. In the light of this, I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment.
10 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I appreciate the difficulty which he faces, particularly as regards the previous two amendments to which I referred. We have been striving to reach the underlying problem behind these amendments but we have obviously not yet attained it. I suspect that we may not have either the time or the ability to do so before the next stage of the Bill. Nevertheless, I believe there is a problem here which the Government would be wise to address.
As regards the first two amendments to which I referred, I understand the reassurance that the noble Lord has given on Amendment No. 199B. I shall want to consider that assurance and see whether we cannot try to find a slightly different form of words because here again an important problem is involved. As regards Amendment No. 199A, I have a nasty feeling that whenever we get into the area of disclosing information on substances of this kind the shutters come down with a terrible bang. I wish that this part of the Government's environment department was able to be as understanding and as flexible as other departments.
The spectre of national security and all kinds of other matters seem to be thrown into the pot with reckless abandon. Frankly, I do not understand why the university dimension of this matter is seen as a horrific problem. I do not understand why universities should not be able to be treated sensibly as regards the

693
terms of this Bill. That seems to me to be an astonishing state of affairs. However, I shall certainly reconsider that matter and see whether we can find yet another form of words which excludes the quite genuine cases the Minister has referred to but does not act as a blanket stoppage of information on all kinds of matters that the public should have a right to know about. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 199B not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 175, line 13, leave out ("and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 175, line 15, at end insert ("and

(d) such records of convictions under section thirteen of this Act as may be prescribed in regulations;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 201A and 201B not moved.]
Clause 102 [Purpose of Part VI and meaning of "genetically modified organisms" and related expressions]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 111, line 9, after second ("is") insert ("or is not").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 202 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 203 and 211. These are all technical amendments over which I need not detain your Lordships long.
Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 are both drafting amendments which clarify the definition of "biological matter" in Clause 102(3). Amendment No. 211 is necessary to ensure that any limitations or conditions on genetically modified organism consents issued in Northern Ireland are not imposed for the purpose only of securing the health of persons at work. It complements the existing wording of Clause 108, which has the same effect in respect of Great Britain. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 111, line 11, leave out ("or in the case of other") and insert ("and, in the case or).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clinton Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 204:
After Clause 103, insert the following new clause:
("Consultation with local authorities
. The Secretary of State shall before making any regulations under this Part consult such powers, including organisations representative of local authorities, as appear to him to be appropriate and he shall take account of any representations from such persons before issuing any regulation concerned.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords this amendment seeks to procure a commitment by the Government to consultation before regulations implementing Part VI are laid, and furthermore a specific commitment to consult local authority associations where it is appropriate so to do.
The Minister will know that the Secretary of State is given broad powers to set down in regulations what should or should not be considered harmful for the purposes of this legislation. Those powers are designed to cater for genetically-modifed organisms which are deliberately intended to cause harm. They are obviously powers that would have to be used with very great caution. They also require widespread consultation with those who have appropriate expertise and interests before there is any question of those powers of exemption being invoked by the Minister.
Other areas where the regulations will decide important issues of policy include the criteria for risk assessments, the circumstances under which consent will be required, and the circumstances under which exemptions from any parts of the system will be permitted.
In our submission it is wholly appropriate that local authorities, because of their environmental health roles, should be involved in such consultations. They have a representative on the Advisory Committee on Genetic Manipulation and on the new Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. They are actively involved in the process of authorisation on a day-to-day basis. Consequently, and because of their role in relation to the overall planning of the implementation of Part VI, I believe that it is wholly appropriate that they should be consultees in the processes that are to be undertaken. That is also appropriate in this context because if there is an accident or an escape they will be more appropriately involved than almost anybody else.
Having regard to those issues I hope that the Government will feel that it is appropriate to accept the new clause. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the concern underlying the amendment is understandable. It is, of course, right that the Secretary of State should take account of expert and lay opinion on the important matters which Part VI enables him to regulate. My noble friend Lord Hesketh gave an assurance during Committee that there will be full consultations on Part VI regulations. I am happy to make clear that that commitment applies to appropriate local authority organisations as well as to other relevant bodies and individuals.
The Government accept that they have, as a general rule, everything to gain from thorough and wide-ranging consultations on the complex issues surrounding biotechnology. A need could, however, arise to amend regulations rapidly in view of the speed with which biotechnology is developing. Statutory consultation could result in unworkable delay in cases of exceptional urgency, but I stress that such cases are likely to be the rare exception and not the general rule. It is for that reason that we do not wish to accept the amendment on the face of the Bill. With the assurance that local authorities will be consulted I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House will recognise that the noble Baroness has been very

695
forthcoming and helpful. I should have preferred it had she gone further, but having regard to the arguments that she adduced I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104 [Risk assessment and notification requirements]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 113, line 3, leave out ("release").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 205 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 206 to 210 which stand in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh and myself.
The underlying purpose of the amendment is to require the Government to give effect to any international convention on pesticides or organisms in their regulations on marketing or release. The duty would apply to activities with organisms which as a result might be marketed or released abroad.
This was an issue that was raised at the Committee stage of the Bill. Noble Lords urged the Government to describe the progress that had been made towards an international convention on genetic manipulation. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, was able to say that the United Kingdom supported the pursuit of rigorous international action and had been influential to date in the European Community and OECD in securing rational and workable solutions. Tonight we should like to know the progress that is being made at the present time in OECD and the United Nations regarding the procurement of this extremely important international convention. I believe that there is nothing between the Government and ourselves in relation to that.
We say that regulations made applicable in this country should at the very least make such provision affecting those GMOs which may be exported as will give effect to any international convention. Consequently that is the underlying point in the request that I made a moment or two ago.
I hope that the Government will agree with my submission that an international convention is indeed critical. It is critical because companies within those countries which are currently regulated—that is to say, the European Community, Japan and the United States—might test or market GMOs in countries in which no such regulations exist. The biotechnology industry in Europe is already known to be discussing the possibility of experimental releases in Eastern European countries. In the same way a convention is needed because of the danger of indigenous companies in less regulated countries undertaking experimentation and releases which could undermine existing regulatory regimes.
I put this question to the noble Earl or the noble Baroness, whoever will reply to this debate. How can it be justifiable that the United Kingdom could debar the release of an organism within its boundaries yet permit the export of that organism for use elsewhere? Moreover, since GMOs by nature are capable of being replicated, escape may not easily be containable. The escape of a single organism might result in huge
696
numbers in a relatively short time. Escape or uncontrolled release in any one country cannot be guaranteed to be limited in its effect to that country. One could have a situation in which organisms could be inadvertently reimported into the United Kingdom, possibly with disastrous consequences.
A further danger lies in the fact that GMOs could be designed in this country in the light of conditions in another part of the world. For example, organisms capable of survival in the tropics will not necessarily be capable of survival or replication in this country. Regulations need to take account of the fact that, as a country with currently superior technology, companies here may be engaged in manufacturing organisms which are not intended for release in domestic conditions.
I hope that the Government will be forthcoming about the generality of the issue relating to what is happening in international forums at the present time and also on the more specific points which I made in the latter part of my remarks. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, while Amendment No. 210 would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for general consents under Clause 107 for certain types of release, taken together the other five amendments would establish a regime for GMO releases which would be similar to but less sensitive and flexible than that already provided for in the Bill.
At present it seems probable that most if not all release activities will require specific consent, but there may be arguments for exceptions—for example, releases of GMOs and certain innocuous waste processes. We shall consider carefully the case for such exceptions. We should keep open sufficient options to deal with different types of cases.
Part VI enables the Secretary of State precisely to gauge the appropriate requirements for releases on a strict case by case basis. The amendments imply a step-by-step approach to releases in which the options for control would be more limited without any obvious advantages for environmental safety.
Amendment No. 207 would require the Secretary of State to make such regulations for the risk assessment of organisms used outside the United Kingdom as shall give effect to international agreements.
I can well understand the point behind this amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is right to raise it in this debate. The implications of GMO biotechnology spread beyond the boundaries of the UK and the European Community. Equally, I am sure your Lordships will accept that this Bill is not the vehicle for achieving what the amendment seeks.
It would be impracticable in the Bill to seek to take account of risk assessment factors which are relevant to countries outside the Community. Lest your Lordships fear any complacency by the Government on the general issue, however, let me draw attention to Chapter 13 of the White Paper which contains a specific commitment to take an active part in work in

697
the OECD and the UN towards achieving international guidelines on the worldwide control of GMO activities. The Government will pursue that commitment with vigour.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about progress so far. Since Committee there has been no significant progress in the UN or OECD. However, the United Kingdom is firmly committed to developing wide international guidelines.
I hope that with those explanations and with that reassurance the noble Lord will feel obliged not to move these amendments.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. As someone who has served in government before I am familiar with the "wrong vehicle" argument. It is useful and perhaps it is right in these circumstances. We have obtained from the Government today a clear commitment that they will continue to ensure that progress is made in these international fora.
Noble Lords will wish to have the assurance—I believe that the Government will have no great difficulty about it —that the House and indeed the
698
public will be kept informed as to the progress on these extremely urgent matters and that the Government will be instrumental in furthering that progress. We cannot brook delay. I should like to have that assurance from the Minister. We do not anticipate that he will have much difficulty in giving it.
I thank the noble Earl for the courtesy that he extended when considering the purpose underlying the amendments. The points have been properly ventilated. The debate has given the Government the opportunity to be perhaps a little more forthcoming than in the previous debate. Perhaps I ought to invite the Minister to reply to the short point that I made before I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I can give the assurance to the noble Lord that he requires regarding information upon the continuing progress of the talks. I hope that with that reassurance he will be content.
ues
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 207A:
After Clause 105, insert the following new clause:
("The Genetic Modification Commission
.—(1) There shall be established a body to be called the Genetic. Modification Commission (in this Part referred to as "the Commission") to perform the functions assigned to it by or under this Part.
(2) The members of the Commission, of whom there shall be not less than eight, shall be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with such organisations as they consider appropriate.
(3) The Commission shall give to the Secretary of State advice on matters relating to the execution of this Part of the Act or the exercise of any power conferred by it, or otherwise relating to genetic modification, where either the Commission consider it expedient, or they are requested by the Secretary of State to do so.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment, which stands in the names of my noble friend Lord McIntosh and myself, seeks to establish a genetic modification commission. That is a commission that could give advice to the Secretary of State on matters concerning the implementation of this part of the Act or otherwise as far as concerns genetic modification. This would be broader than the purely technical advice available through the advisory committee on releases to the environment or other existing advisory bodies.
When this matter was raised at Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said that it would add nothing to the roles already carried out by the advisory committee on genetic manipulation or the new advisory committee on releases to the environment. I submit that that is not consistent with the facts.
The work of the ACRE—I hate these acronyms, but I suppose at this time of night it is better to use them—is going to be concerned primarily with the operation of the legislation. Our anxiety is that there is nothing in the Bill and nothing in Amendment No. 218 which ensures that the ACRE will either be asked or will be practicably able to take into consideration broader issues. Precisely the same restrictions apply to the ACGM.
The Government need to be forthcoming about this point. I should like to put a number of specific questions to the Minister. First, am I right in asserting that neither the ACGM nor the ACRE would be able to refer to these broader issues as I have referred to them? After all, we are talking here about the environmental impact of plants which have been manipulated to be resistant to herbicides, allowing broader application of those herbicides. Would the ACRE consider the overall environmental impact of this type of development as well as the environmental safety of the manipulation itself?
The social and economic effects of a form of technology which could radically alter the structure of a particular industry are important. We have recently had the serious controversy over the bovine growth hormone used to produce increased quantities of milk. Some experts argued that this would put many small dairy farmers out of business. Is this a matter on which either of those two bodies would be able to offer its
700
expertise in relation to the implications of what is involved, or would the bodies feel proscribed from being able to offer the necessary advice?
There are also ethical considerations. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would recognise only too well that in transferring genes between species, particularly where human genes may be involved, serious ethical considerations arise. Is there any committee capable of offering the Government advice about such ethical considerations? How are they to be dealt with?
Another point concerns the membership of the two organisations. One wonders whether what is currently envisaged in terms of the membership is to provide a broad enough membership which could consider issues of this kind even if the terms of reference of the committees permitted this to happen. What is required is participation from a very broad range of interest groups for a proper debate to take place on the impacts of such a powerful new technology. The genetic modification committee would be seen as including environmentalists, consumers, economists, representatives of the Church, industrialists and other concerned groups.
There have been general calls for the kinds of debates to which this amendment gives rise. It is a pity in many ways that it is being taken at such a late hour because I think the whole House recognises that these are fundamentally important matters.
Commenting on ethical aspects of developments in biotechnology, a recent report by the Government's Advisory Council on Science and Technology stated:
"We recommend that Government Departments need to be sufficiently alert to the ethical issues that are likely to cause concern in the future. We recommend that consideration be given as to how a detailed and systematic analysis of … ethical concerns can be carried out before public worries highlight particular issues".
Industry has made similar calls. The senior advisory group on biotechnology of CEFIC, which is the European body umbrella organisation for the chemicals industry, recently called for the European Community to appoint an independent advisory commission to,
"advise and provide guidance on matters, both European and international, concerning biotechnology and particular ethical issues".
It also emphasised the need for advice on the economic and social impact of biotechnology and underlined the need for such a body. After all, this is nothing new. Such bodies exist in several member states of the Community at present. One must ask why it should not apply here.
We ask the Government to agree to the appointment of a United Kingdom Genetic Modification Commission. It is a realistic proposal. I must be realistic too because I anticipate that the Government will respond negatively. But it is right that the Opposition should state their case clearly on this point, as we do. The next Government will appoint a Genetic Modification Commission.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 207A would require the establishment of a Genetic

701
Modification Commission appointed by the Secretary of State. The purpose of the commission would be to advise the Secretary of State both on Part VI matters and genetic modification generally.
I hope that noble Lords will accept that the amendment is redundant because the Government have already made provision for the matters which it seeks to address. Perhaps I may take the question of general advice first. The Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification (ACGM), founded in 1984, exists to advise the Health and Safety Commission and the Secretary of State on general issues of genetic modification. So far as particular advice on Part VI matters is concerned, noble Lords will be aware that we have set up the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE).
Like the noble Lord, I dislike acronyms. However, ACRE is the acronym for that body. We must be careful because I understand that there are two ACREs. We must qualify which one we are talking about.
Noble Lords expressed concern in Committee that ACRE should be able to function effectively and that it should be secure in its position. Amendment No. 218 ensures that that will happen by introducing a specific requirement for the Secretary of State to appoint a Part VI advisory committee—in practice ACRE—and to provide the means for enabling it to operate effectively.
There are certain technical differences between the two amendments, but the government amendment, taken together with the fact that ACGM already exists, provides the essence of the situation sought by the opposition amendment.
Dealing with the issue of ethics, which is one of the broader issues mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, Part VI is designed only to provide a system of controls to protect the environment. Neither the 1989 consultation paper nor the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report covered ethical aspects of genetic modification. The Government appreciate that those aspects are important and arouse strong views. The Secretary of State is considering with colleagues the ethical implications of GMO activities and will make a statement in due course.
In addition, it is relevant that there are activities going on outside government. The Nuffield Foundation has taken a welcome initiative in that area by convening a conference on bioethics attended by distinguished scientists and senior members of professional bodies, as well as lawyers, philosophers, theologians and representatives of the public and consumers. The foundation is expected to pursue further consultations with official and unofficial bodies to consider whether there is scope for creating new national machinery to handle those ethical issues.
ACGM and ACRE serve distinct purposes. Both committees have the advantage of having not only pure scientists as representatives but also representatives from both sides of industry. Of course the main
702
function of ACGM is to advise on general standards of safe working with GMOs and in particular on the suitability of facilities in which they are produced and the competence of the individuals handling them.
Since the committee is established under the health and safety legislation, its remit concentrates on the protection of human health and safety. On the other hand, ACRE is specifically concerned with the effect of GMOs on the environment. The expertise and experience of those composing ACRE reflect that particular and distinct function. I believe that any body which sought to combine the differing and equally demanding tasks of both ACGM and disparate kinds of expertise required to do the job properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised a particular point about the powers of ACRE. It has powers to advise the Secretary of State on broader issues as well as technical matters. I am advised that ACRE is not concerned with the particulars of the genetic modification on its own but rather with the possible impact on the environment. For example, the committee will be able to advise on pesticide development.
Having listened carefully to the noble Lord, while understanding many of the anxieties behind his amendments, I believe that all of them can be met by the proper functioning of the two bodies. I hope that he will not feel it necessary to press these amendments.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, on this occasion I cannot say that I am satisfied with the Minister's reply. However, I anticipated that I should not be. There is a large gap between us in terms of the necessary application of principle here as well as the establishment of another organisation.
I should like to hear further from the noble Baroness on one important matter concerning the advice which the Government have received on ethical considerations. She said that the Secretary of State would be making a Statement in due course. Can she tell us something of the timescale of such a Statement? The need for an approach to be made in relation to the ethical considerations should be given the same priority as the Government have given to those other matters. They are all important and, indeed, indivisible.
When I was a member of the Commission I was very much involved in arguments relating to the bovine question, to which I referred earlier. One of the problems was great anxiety and, indeed, suspicion on the part of ordinary people about that area of policy-making. That was reflected in the debates which took place in the European Parliament. As a result of that public pressure, the decision was made, because the Commission has to take parliament very seriously —this arose after my mandate was finished —to defer action for a considerable period of time so that further research could be undertaken.
I am not entirely happy about that because I am not sure that the ethical considerations have been properly tackled at European Community level either. I hope

703
that I am not reading too much into what the noble Baroness said, but the time-honoured assertion that the Secretary of State will make a Statement in due course is rather unsatisfactory in the circumstances. Therefore I ask her to be more specific about when that Statement is likely to be made and to give us some general indication—I do not expect it to be too particular—of the area to be covered by the Statement.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord said earlier that he was not having a very good evening. I am afraid I shall not be able to make it any more bearable. I cannot comment specifically on the timing. However, I am able to assure him of two things: first, that there is absolutely nothing sinister behind the lack of information at this time; we are seized of the importance of the issue. Secondly, progress is being made, but regarding the specific time I must remain within the phrase that the Secretary of State will report in due course.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, again I am disappointed by that response, but now is not the time to pursue it. It will be pursued elsewhere. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 107 [Consents required by certain persons]:
[Amendments Nos. 208 to 210 not moved.]
Clause 108 [Consents: limitations and conditions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 211:
Page 117, line 41, at end insert ("or, in relation to Northern Ireland, Part II of the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland; Order 1978)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 212:
After Clause 108, insert the following new clause:
("Strict liability in certain cases
. Where any loss or damage is caused by the acquisition, keeping or release of any genetically modified organism, the person who acquired, kept or released that organism shall be liable for the loss or damage, irrespective of fault on his part, except where such loss or damage—

(a) was done wholly to the fault of the person who suffered it; or

(b) was suffered by a person who voluntarily accepted the risk of the loss or damage being caused; or

(c) as a result of the keeping, acquisition or release of an organism within the terms of a consent issued by the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh and myself, relates to strict liability. We feel that the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution that strict liability should arise where any person releases a GMO without the necessary consents should be reflected in the legislation. It was an issue raised at Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Graham. We feel that it is right and proper that the issue should be ventilated again tonight.
The Royal Commission expressed strong views about civil liability in this context. Traditional liability law deals with damage in terms of persons and
704
property, and there is anxiety about whether this is an adequate way to cater for the interests of the environment where it has common ownership within the community. Consequently, as the Government are aware, there is a draft European Commission directive, and we drew on that directive in the drafting of Amendment No. 332G at Committee stage. We are seeking to create strict liability for damage to the environment and to give public authorities and common interest groups a right to take action in such circumstances.
In the earlier debate the noble Earl, Lord Arran, cited the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, a well-known case to which all students of law are inured. It relates to liability for damage caused by the escape of dangerous things, without proof of negligence, from land. Of course there are exceptions to the Rylands v. Fletcher rule. It applies where dangerous objects escape from land, although the noble Earl sought to argue on that occasion that there would be liability where the damage occurred on land on which GMOs were kept. He went on to say that the rule of strict liability applies only when there is some special use bringing with it increased danger. However, he did not elaborate on that proposition. It is important for Ministers to indicate what "special use" means in the context of GMOs.
The Royal Commission was asserting that any use of a GMO is potentially at least a special use which can bring substantial consequential risks. Therefore, if the Government do not go along with that we have to ask which types of GMO use are intended to be special in this context and which are subject to normal rules of liability.
We are not arguing for strict liability, though frankly I might be tempted to do so at another time. This amendment falls short of strict liability, but I hope that the Government will now explain the position rather more clearly than they were able to do in Committee. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this amendment, as outlined by the noble Lord, is an attempt to impose a form of strict liability in certain cases where loss or damage is caused by the acquisition, keeping or release of a GMO.
This Bill is not the place to seek the establishment of the kind of rules on civil liability attempted by the amendment. The purpose of Part VI is to set up a regulatory system for the control of the environmental safety of GMOs, with appropriate sanctions against those who contravene the requirements of the system. The provisions of Part VI are admirably suited to that purpose. They impose certain specific requirements and general duties on those involved in GMO activities, with the object of preventing or minimising damage to the environment. The concept of environmental damage is very clearly defined. In particular, the definition of "harm" at Clause 103(6), on which this concept is dependent, covers a very wide range of possibilities, including damage to human health and other living organisms, interference with ecological systems and offence to man's senses or damage to his property.

705
Those causing harm run the risk of committing one of the many offences imposed by Clause 114 and of having to bear a very stiff penalty in the worst cases. In addition, an offender can under Clause 116 be ordered by the court to take steps to remedy the matters in respect of which he has been convicted; and under Clause 117 he can be required by the Secretary of State to cover the costs of remedying the harm caused which could be a very serious burden in some cases.
Turning to the question of civil liability, I hope that your Lordships' concerns will be met when I explain that the question is under wider consideration than is possible in relation to Part VI. There is a Council of Europe draft convention on damage resulting from dangerous activities defined as,
"including the release of dangerous GMOs",
and a proposal from the European Commission for a Council directive on civil liability for damage caused by waste. We are actively discussing the principles behind these ideas.
In so far as there is a danger which is above that which is normal, it will be caught by strict liability. If it is not above that level there is no need for special provision. What is special is a matter for the courts. This is a fast developing area on which the courts will make their determinations according to the facts at that time. I hope that these explanations have been of some assistance to the noble Lord and that he will not press the amendment further.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I cannot say that I am satisfied by that reply. To say that these are issues which should be ventilated in the courts by litigation is to surrender an important principle in terms of legislation. Legislation should be clear and it should as far as possible avoid litigation in order to obtain a definition.
The noble Earl has made a serious admission which causes me great concern. He referred to the draft directive to which I had earlier referred regarding civil liability for damage caused by waste which would give rise to strict liability. The Minister based his case on this aspect of the matter. Will he be kind enough to indicate what attitude the Government are taking? It is no use just saying that they are negotiating. Are they not obstructing that draft directive? If that is the case, it is a very serious matter. Strict liability in relation to that area of the law applies in France and Germany and works perfectly well. What are the Government doing about it?
10.45 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as Annex A to the White Paper states, strict liability is a concept that has a potential application to secure environmental protection objectives. It also points out the complexities of ramifications of the concept and the fact that the subject is being pursued in a number of international organisations including the European Court, OECD and the EC. I can tell the noble Lord
706
that progress in developing strict liability regimes can only sensibly take place in the international context. It would not be productive to pursue them ad hoc.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is a prescription for further delay. There is nothing in the White Paper that holds out much hope that the positive draft directive proposed by the Commission is going to be supported by the Government. That will cause considerable anxiety to many people. However, I am not going to raise the issue further at this stage. As I say, I am not satisfied with the response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 213:
After Clause 117, insert the following new clause:
("Publicity Public registers of information
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall maintain a register ("the register") containing prescribed particulars of or relating to—

(a) notices given or other information furnished under section 104 above;

(b) directions given under section 104(8) above;

(c) prohibition notices;

(d) applications for consents (and any further information furnished in connection with them) and any advice given by the committee appointed under section (advisory committee for purposes of Part VI) below in relation to such applications;

(e) consents granted by the Secretary of State and any information furnished to him in pursuance of consent conditions;

(f) any other information obtained or furnished under any provision of this Part;

(g) convictions for such offences under section 114 above as may be prescribed;

(h) such other matters relating to this Part as may be prescribed;

but that duty is subject to section (exclusion from register of certain information) below.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State—

(a) to secure that the register is open to inspection by members of the public free of charge at all reasonable hours; and

(b) to afford to members of the public facilities for obtaining copies of entries, on payment of reasonable charges.

(3) The register may be kept in any form.
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to the keeping of the register; and in this section "prescribed" means prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend and with the leave of your Lordships' House, in moving this amendment I propose first to speak to government Amendment No. 216, and then to deal with the other amendments in the group, having listened to the arguments of noble Lords opposite. The government amendments meet the undertaking given by my noble friend Lord Hesketh during Committee to give specific statutory backing to the Government's previously declared policy on the setting up of appropriate public registers of Part VI information. Amendment No. 213 provides for the setting up of the registers themselves while

707
Amendment No. 216 allows for certain specified exclusions. The exclusions are based largely on the requirements of the European GMO directives.
I should like to draw your Lordships' particular attention to the fact that both information about consent applications and the advice given to the Secretary of State by the advisory committee set up by virtue of Amendment No. 218 will be among the matters included on the register. This meets a point previously raised in debate both inside and outside the House. It will permit the Secretary of State to allow a period of delay before reaching a decision on applications. During that period he may receive representations on the application both from the applicant and other parties. Let me assure the House that our administrative procedures will allow for this to happen.
In practice, when the advisory committee provides advice to the Secretary of State on matters such as consent limitations and conditions, or the need to revoke a consent, we intend to inform directly those persons such as the applicant for the consent or the consent holder who would be directly affected. In summary, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that these amendments handsomely meet my noble friend's undertaking and that they are thorough and apt to their purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 213, Amendment No. 214:
After Clause 117, Line 12, after ("below") insert ("or any other committee").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that it will be for the convenience of the House if we debate also Amendments Nos. 215, 216A, 216B, 217 and 217B. Perhaps I may at the outset thank the Government for Amendment No. 213 which responds positively to arguments that were raised by many noble Lords including noble Lords on this side of the House. I wish to raise a number of questions. I fear that I may take a few moments in so doing because they are important issues in relation to other amendments that stand in the names of my noble friend and myself.
As regards Amendment No. 214, the purpose is to put on the register advice from any committee in relation to applications. The reason is that other committees, including the Advisory Committee on Genetic Manipulation and that on novel foods and processes, are likely to provide advice on GMO activities covered by the Bill. That will be in addition to the advice produced by the Advisory Committee on Releases. However, there is no provision for the advice of these. committees to be published. Consequently, I should like to hear the Government's response to that. It would be inconsistent if the advice of the ACRE were the only advice to appear on the register where an application had been commented on by more that one committee.
Amendment No. 215 seeks to provide for a requirement for the publication of revocations or variations of consents, limitations or conditions. The reason for this is to test the logic for their apparent omission from the new clause as it stands. The new clause provides that consents and information
708
furnished in pursuance of consent conditions should be published. Similarly, prohibition notices and convictions are to be published. The information to be in the public domain might, from the point of view of an applicant or subsequent operator, be more damaging than the information proposed in Amendment No. 215. It is possible that Amendment No. 215 merely represents an omission from the new clause and it is put forward in a constructive spirit to decide to test whether there is any practical reason why revocations or variations of consent and so forth which have already appeared on the register should be excluded. The amendment is also important in order to foster public confidence in the way the regulatory system is working.
Amendments No. 216A and 216B test the limits of the necessary national security exclusion in subsection (1) of the second new clause. The purpose is not to argue that there should not be exclusion in respect of national security but to test to what extent these involve deliberate releases to the environment. Surely, it is indefensible that such deliberate releases should take place without some form of public acknowledgement of their existence.
Amendment No. 217 removes subsection (2) of the new clause which enables the Government to exclude information from the register where, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, its inclusion might result in damage to the environment. That is a broad way of formulating the matter which, from the Government's statements in Committee, is intended to provide a safeguard against sabotage. However, the problem is that the formulation is much broader than the case it is intended to meet. The information that would need to be withheld to prevent vandalism would be little —in fact, probably only the exact location and the timing of a trial. Therefore, it is important that such a power is neither too broad nor used for purposes for which it was not originally inserted. In principle, it needs to be queried as to how access to information can lead to damage to the environment.
The words of Amendment No. 217A apply the mandatory inclusions more broadly than the subsection allows for at the present time. It is intended to reflect the current formulation in the European Community. Subsection (7) sets out six matters specified in (a) to (f) which must be included in respect of any GMO use. They correspond with the items enumerated in Article 19 of two Community directives on contained use and release. The respective articles specify that these matters may under no circumstances be kept secret for reasons of commercial sensitivity. The purpose is to require a minimum amount of information to exist in the public domain while respecting the need for secrecy in some cases. That is not unlike the position that appertains in the United States.
In their new clause the Government are going beyond the purpose of the Community directive in that there are no requirements for minimum information in the new clause concerning national security or environmental damage which are the two other areas of secrecy adopted by the Government in

709
the new clause. What we are seeking to do by way of this amendment is to make the requirements of the directive applicable in all cases in order to plug this loophole. Considerable clarification is required from the Government in this connection.
It needs to be accepted that there will be some areas where absolute or near-absolute secrecy is probably sensible in the interests, at least, of national security. It is also understood that the Community directive may be interpreted narrowly in certain countries. For example, in France the Government are understood to be intending to interpret the directive sufficiently strictly to define the place of release as France and the organism involved as a micro-organism. However, the effect of the new clause is clearly much more restrictive than the directives intend. Therefore, once again, I look for clarification in the matter.
There is also continuing concern about the Government's amendment (Amendment No. 216) as it spells out in some detail exclusions from the register of certain information. In Committee it was accepted that certain information needs to be excluded on grounds of commercial confidentiality or national security.
The Government's move to registers also raises many issues concerning public access to information generally and the involvement of the public in the vetting procedure for GMOs. The Bill requires that advertisements concerning applications for consent should be made. We understand it is intended that advertisements should be placed before consideration of an application by ACRE, which would enable the committee to consider representations by the public. The question raised by the register amendments is what information would be available to those members of the public in responding to an advertisement. In that respect, I ask for greater clarification from the Government.
This is a matter of considerable importance because, in a recent letter to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the Secretary of State said:
"I can confirm that your proposal that applications for GMO release consents, and others, should have the opportunity to make representations before I reach a decision on the consent will in effect be implemented. Information on the application and the advice given to me by the Advisory Committee will be held on the register of publicly available information which will be established. I shall allow a delay during which representations may be made to me before I take a decision, taking account of any representations received".
On the face of it, that appears to be quite helpful. However, in my view, there are certain points of practicality which the Government should clarify tonight. First, will applications for consents be placed on the register contemporaneously with the advertisements? Secondly, will they be advertised, placed on the register or both as soon as they are sent to the regulatory authorities; or will either or both of these events be delayed until the committee has issued its advice? Thirdly, how long does the Secretary of State expect to delay an application between obtaining the committee's advice and making a decision?
Of course, many of these details of the system will arise in the regulations which will be tabled in due course. However, what we are looking at now are the underlying principles being considered by the Government. These are principles upon which the regulations will be based. I hope therefore that the Government will respond positively in the matter. I am sorry that I have taken up so much time, but there are many amendments which we believe are important in this respect and which we hope will assist us in securing the help of the Government which we seek. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I shall deal with all the amendments mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I propose to begin by dealing with Amendment No. 214 which requires details of advice given to the Secretary of State by "any other committee", in addition to that set out by virtue of Amendment No. 218, to be recorded on the register. Such a provision would be redundant as the register will relate only to Part VI matters, and the advisory committee appointed by the Secretary of State—namely, in practice, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—will be the only committee giving relevant advice in such matters. Further, there is some cross-membership of ACGM and ACRE and close collaboration between the secretariats of these two committees and other relevant advisory committees.
Amendment No. 215 would require details of revocations and variations of consents, and so on, to be included on the register. The amendment is also unnecessary because such information is information relating to consents covered by sub-paragraph (1) (d).
Amendments Nos. 216A and 216B would prevent the Secretary of State from excluding from the register any information about the deliberate release into the environment of an organism. The main reason for not accepting the amendment is that it would be inconsistent with the terms of the EC directive on deliberate releases. The directive reasonably permits the exclusion of certain information on the grounds of commercial confidentiality except for the kinds of information listed at subsection (7) of the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 216. The latter kinds of information must always be included and I think that the House will agree that the categories covered are such as to be able always to prevent any operation with implications for environmental safety being obscured by a smokescreen of excessive commercial secrecy.
Amendment No. 217 would remove the Secretary of State's ability to exclude from the register information which in his opinion might result in damage to the environment. Such an ability is necessary to avoid the possibility of wilful damage or sabotage by third parties of a kind which would itself risk the causation of damage to the environment. Let me make it clear, however, that exclusion on those grounds will not be used to cover sensitive work in a cloak of secrecy. For example, it might be reasonable, on environmental safety grounds, not to reveal the precise location of exposed or difficult to protect test

711
sites if the risk of criminal trespass or damage was high. On the other hand, it would not be reasonable to extend that precaution to the point of removing from the register details of the individual, company or institution conducting the work and general information about the operations involved.
Similar arguments also make Amendment No. 217A unacceptable. Its effect would be to require the Secretary of State to include on the register certain kinds of information about matters which would otherwise be excluded on the grounds of national security or the need to prevent environmental damage. As I have indicated in relation to Amendment No. 217, the ability to exclude information in order to prevent environmental damage will be used with reasonable discretion. So far as concerns national security, it is a common feature of provisions of this kind to allow some means of protecting information related to national security interests. There is no reason why Part VI should be an exception to that general rule.
Advertisements will be placed before consideration by the committee. It is likely that consent applications will be placed on the register as they are received. I hope that that fairly long explanation of the amendments will have gone some ways towards helping the noble Lord.
11 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, at this time of night it is difficult to absorb everything. I am sure that the noble Earl did not absorb everything that I said and I am not sure that I absorbed everything that he said. It is a mutual situation. I should like to consider what he said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[Amendment No. 214, as an amendment to Amendment No. 213, by leave, withdrawn].
[Amendment No. 215, as an amendment to Amendment No. 213, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 213 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 216:
After Clause 117, insert the following new clause:
Exclusion from register of certain information
(" .—(1) No information shall be included in the register under section (public registers of information) above if and so long as in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the inclusion of the information would be contrary to the interests of national security.
(2) No information shall be included in the register if and so long as, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it ought to be excluded on the ground that its inclusion might result in damage to the environment.
(3) No information relating to the affairs of any individual or business shall be included in the register without the consent of that individual or the person for the time being carrying on that business, if the Secretary of State has determined that the information—

(a) is, in relation to him, commercially confidential; and

(b) is not information of a description to which subsection (7) below applies;

unless the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the information is no longer commercially confidential in relation to him.
(4) Nothing in subsection (3) above requires the Secretary of State to determine whether any information is or is not
712
commercially confidential except where the person furnishing the information applies to have it excluded on the ground that it is (in relation to himself or another person) commercially confidential.
(5) Where an application has been made for information to be excluded under subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State shall make a determination and inform the applicant of it as soon as is practicable.
(6) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that any information (other than information furnished by the person to whom it relates) which has been obtained under or by virtue of any provision of this Part might be commercially confidential, the Secretary of State shall—

(a) give to the person to whom or to whose business it relates notice that the information is required to be included in the register unless excluded under subsection (3) above; and

(b) give him a reasonable opportunity—

(i) of objecting to the inclusion of the information on the ground that it is commercially confidential; and

(ii) of making representations to the Secretary of State for the purpose of justifying any such objection;

and the Secretary of State shall take any representations into account before determining whether the information is or is not commercially confidential.
(7) The prescribed particulars of or relating to the matters mentioned in section (public registers of information) (1) (a), (d) and (e) above shall be included in the register notwithstanding that they may be commercially confidential if and so far as they are of any of the following descriptions, namely—

(a) the name and address of the person giving the notice or furnishing the information;

(b) the description of any genetically modified organisms to which the notice or other information relates;

(c) the location at any time of those organisms;

(d) the purpose for which those organisms are being imported, acquired, kept, released or marketed (according to whichever of those acts the notice or other information relates);

(e) results of any assessment of the risks of damage to the environment being caused by the doing of any of those acts;

(f) notices under section 108(3), (4), (5) or (7) above;

and the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe any other description of information as information which the public interest requires to be included in the register notwithstanding that it may be commercially confidential.
(8) Information excluded from the register under subsection (3) above shall be treated as ceasing to be commercially confidential for the purposes of that subsection at the expiry of a period of four years beginning with the date of the determination by virtue of which it was excluded; but the person who furnished it or to whom or to whose business it relates may apply to the Secretary of State for the information to remain excluded on the ground that it is still commercially confidential.
(9) The Secretary of State may by order substitute for the period for the time being specified in subsection (8) above such other period as he considers appropriate.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 216A to 217A, as amendments to Amendment No. 216, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 216 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 218:
Before Clause 118, insert the following new clause:
Advisory committee for purposes of Part VI
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a committee to provide him with advice—

713

(a) on the exercise of his powers under sections 107, 108 and 109 above;

(b) on the exercise of any power under this Part to make regulations;

and on such other matters concerning his functions under this Part as he may from time to time direct.
(2) The chairman and other members of the committee shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of their appointment.
(3) The Secretary of State shall pay to the members of the committee such remuneration (if any) and such allowances as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I welcome the provision the Government have made by making statutory the advisory committee on releases. This was demanded at Committee stage and the Government have responded positively. I wish to pose one or two questions at this stage.
It looks as though the terms of reference are somewhat wider than appear to be contained in Amendment No. 218. The committee is not limited to modified organisms but covers novel organisms. It will be involved in the Wildlife and Countryside and Health and Safety at Work Etc. Acts. It has not been given many responsibilities which were suggested by the Royal Commission. The basic powers which exist would be to draw up regulations and guidelines.
The Royal Commission suggested in section 8.14 that it should also advise on the whole scope for categorising releases on the need for research, most particularly on matters relating to release; that it should be able to undertake reviews of the outcome of releases and also liaise with overseas organisations; advise on possible needs for changes in legislation procedures; and produce an annual report on activities, on developments in the subject and on lessons that might have been learnt. Is it intended that these should be involved in the activities of the committees?
The second question I wish to ask is: why have the terms of reference not been translated into the legislation? Those terms of reference allow the ACRE to advise the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The phrase "Secretary of State" in legislation refers to any Secretary of State, but does it include the Minister of Agriculture? It may be that this is a term of art bound up with the definition of Secretary of State, but we should like to know.
There is no mention in the legislation, as in the terms of reference, to advising other bodies. As the amendment stands, without a specific direction, the committee's role appears to be severely limited compared with its terms of reference. It is even limited in relation to the legislation. Therefore it would be excluded from advising on the operation of Section 104 or any of the clauses bearing on enforcement, such as Clause 110 on the appointment of inspectors or Clause 112 on obtaining information.
We need from the Government a clear understanding that the committee will be able to comment on all aspects of human and environmental health and safety
714
issues and the other functions which are referred to in the terms of reference. Finally, why is the committee's remit limited to Clauses 107 to 109 of the legislation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think we touched on at least one of the questions when we first discussed this amendment. That was the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about other issues—the broader issues than those mentioned in my first response to the amendment. I am pleased to be able to give an assurance that these committees will be involved in the wider issues.
As for the terms of reference not being wider than the powers in Amendment No. 218 as regards genetically modified organisms, organisms coming under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act will also be covered by the committees. I believe the noble Lord's concern is that the remit is too narrow and that some subjects will fall outside the scope of the two committees. I believe I am right in saying that the noble Lord need have no fear on that issue. The request of the Secretary of State for advice and the information that the committees deem it important for the Secretary of State to take note of can cover a wide-ranging area of advice.
The other point concerned the cognisance given to the Royal Commission. Again I am advised that advice given by the Royal Commission is heeded by the two committees and that discussions will be comprehensive and will take the views of the Royal Commission into account.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hope that I may repeat a question that I put to the noble Baroness on the position of the Secretary of State. Does that cover the position of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? I hope that I may continue talking for a little longer while the fourth cavalry provides assistance.
The other matter that is important concerns the final point I raised on the specific direction of the committees' role. I realise that the noble Baroness dealt with that matter in part. The most important point here concerns nomenclature. I hope the noble Baroness will refer again to that matter. It would be helpful if she could be more specific. However, I feel that we shall learn by experience. Some further legislation may be required in due course, if my fears are realised.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should say that we are happy to share the noble Lord's objectives that the committees should work and do their job and that major matters, particularly those mentioned by the noble Lord, should not be left outside the scope of the work of the two committees. I am advised that the appointment of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is dealt with under Clause 119. If that answer is not sufficient for the noble Lord, I shall write to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 120 [Definitions]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendments Nos. 219 and 220:

715
Page 127, line 13, leave out ("Great Britain") and insert ("United Kingdom").
Page 127, line 15, leave out ("Great Britain") and insert ("United Kingdom").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships that I was unable to raise this point in Committee. This was due to my being unable to be in the Chamber on that one day. Although I am aware that Part VI basically applies only to Great Britain, I am concerned that the escape or release of certain genetically modified organisms could be detrimental to the environment over a wide area.
The words "United Kingdom" appear only in Clause 138(7) and Clause 154(4) which deal with transportation. I feel that this Parliament at the Palace of Westminster should take the lead in helping not only Northern Ireland but also those islands which have their own Parliaments such as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. This Parliament should control the production, for want of a better word, of any type of GMO anywhere within the territorial waters around our shores. These two amendments may not achieve what I am seeking, but I hope that some lead from the Government can cover the point I have raised. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 219 and 220 en bloc.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to be able to help my noble friend, even at this late hour. I can tell him that Part VI does not apply generally to Northern Ireland because environmental issues, including GMOs, are "transferred matter" under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The only exception is imports of GMOs into that country. That is because imports are a "reserved matter" under the 1973 Act and are dealt with by the United Kingdom Government. In most cases
716
imported GMOs are likely to be found in finished products, which present the lowest degree of risk. The effect of my noble friend's amendments would be to apply the full range of Part VI controls to the territorial seas and Continental Shelf adjacent to Northern Ireland. That would be inappropriate in view of the presently restricted application of Part VI to Northern Ireland.
I can, however, understand the noble Earl's concern about the application of the matters covered by Part VI to Northern Ireland. I can assure him that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intends in due course to make an Order in Council which will replicate Part VI in the Province. For the time being, however, his amendment is inappropriate for the technical reasons that I have given.
So far as concerns the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, I understand that the authorities there have indicated that they will proceed by way of local legislation if they decide to adopt any of the measures in the Bill. I hope that those remarks help my noble friend.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am most grateful for that explanation. I now have a much clearer picture and understanding of the situation all round the British Isles. I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  ARCHBISHOPS' COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION
  ARCHBISHOPS' COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION
  ECOFIN COUNCIL MEETINGS
  ECOFIN COUNCIL MEETINGS
  KEGWORTH AIR DISASTER: REPORT
  KEGWORTH AIR DISASTER: REPORT