Sitting of 17 October 1990

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

  NEW WRITS
  For the county constituency of Bootle, in the room Mike Carr, Esq., deceased.
  For the county constituency of Bradford, North, in the room of Charles Patrick Wall, Esq., deceased.—[Mr. Foster.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF DUNDEE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the City of Dundee District Council; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered on Tuesday 23 October and to be printed. [Bill 199.]
  ZETLAND MASONIC SICK AND WIDOWS AND ORPHANS FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Zetland Masonic Sick and Widows and Orphans Fund; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered on Tuesday 23 October and to be printed. [Bill 200.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of trade unions in the Scottish steel industry to discuss the future of steel in Scotland.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I met representatives of the Ravenscraig trade unions on 11 October. My hon. Friend the Minister for industry and local government met representatives of the Dalzell trade unions on 15 October. I am prepared to meet them again as occasion demands.
    Mr. Robertson: The Secretary of State will be aware of the deep and passionate concern in Lanarkshire not only among the trade unions but throughout the community about the future of Ravenscraig and Dalzell. We want to know whether, at yesterday's meeting with the chairman of British Steel plc, he received answers to the questions put by the shop stewards at Ravenscraig, which he undertook to put at any meeting that he had with Sir Robert. Did he receive any answers to those questions? Did he receive any assurances from British Steel about co-operation with the Scottish Development Agency inquiry into the Scottish steel industry? What confidence can the people of Scotland have in any assurances given by British Steel, given its past record and the contemptuous way in which it has treated the Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: With regard to the representations of the trade unions, I did as I undertook when I met Mr. Brennan and gave Sir Robert the detailed questions to which he and his colleagues wished answers. I put to Sir Robert the utility of trying to respond to those questions as much as he felt able to do. With regard to British Steel's attitude to the SDA study, in response to my representations Sir Robert Scholey said that British Steel would co-operate with the Scottish Development Agency study on the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland. He further said that he intended to have a meeting with Sir David Nickson, chairman of the Scottish Development Agency, to discuss that matter. Sir Robert gave me a full assurance that British Steel would not dismantle or remove any plant from the hot strip mill in advance of its proposed closure next April.
    Dr. Bray: Will the Secretary of State invite British Steel to join the Government, perhaps other steel companies and the European Commission in a study of the treatment of Ravenscraig as a development plant for the introduction of the next generation of new technology, which is more efficient and produces higher quality steel, including thin-slab casting? Is he aware that that is within the policies of the steel strategy of the European Community, his research and development strategy, his energy policies and his environmental strategy and that it would qualify for state aid under the European Community state aids regime?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this suggestion, because he has raised it in the

    1195
    past. I hope that British Steel will fully consider any proposals, including that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, to find out whether this is a potential project which should attract investment by British Steel and get support from a wider circle.
    Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the trade unions that the long-term viability of the steel industry can be guaranteed only if decisions on future investment are made for valid commercial reasons and not for political reasons? Will he tell the trade unions that the most commercially competitive and productive plant in this country is at Teesside and that it would be a tragedy to dismantle it because of the political machinations of the Labour party in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: I cannot comment on the details involving the Teesside plant, to which my hon. Friend understandably referred, given his constituency interest. I think that there is now agreement on both sides of the House that the steel industry's future must be decided on commercial grounds. When I met the trade unions, they emphasised their view that commercial considerations should apply. Of course, there must be a debate on what the commercial conclusions should lead to and on whether one should argue in favour of Ravenscraig or against it. Naturally, we in the Scottish Office hope that British Steel will fully take account of the commercial case for investment not simply at Ravenscraig but at Dalzell.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, in effect, the meeting yesterday between himself and the chairman of British Steel was a meeting between two private citizens, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has effectively given up his ability to influence British Steel's decisions in spite of Ravenscraig's commercial viability? Can he tell the House when the SDA's study on the future of the steel industry in Scotland is likely to be available and whether it is likely to be available in sufficient time to contribute to reversing this disastrous decision?
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Liberal party, is calling for the renationalisation of the steel industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, unless that is what he is doing, he exposes the bankruptcy and double standards of his earlier question. We expect the preliminary conclusions of the SDA's study to be available by Christmas and final conclusions early in the new year. On that basis, I am particularly pleased that British Steel is to co-operate with the study. Obviously, there will be limits with regard to commercially confidential information. It is important to note that British Steel will co-operate with the study, that Sir Robert will discuss the study with Sir David Nickson and that no irreversible action will be taken on the plant until the study's conclusions are known and can be taken into account.

    Steel Industry
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the Scottish steel industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkind: I met the chairman of British Steel yesterday when we discussed matters relevant to the steel industry in Scotland.
    Dr. Reid: British Steel's commitment to co-operate with the SDA's study and the guarantee that the hot strip mill will not be dismantled, destroyed, cannibalised or removed before the study's completion are two steps forward, and it would be churlish of me to say otherwise.
    However, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that British Steel will be more co-operative with the SDA in supplying information on Ravenscraig than it has been up to now with him? Given the rumours that now constantly sweep the Scottish steel industry, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the works that were not mentioned—the Clydesdale tubes plant at Bellshill, were on the agenda for discussion yesterday? Can he give me a categorical assurance that he was given no information by the chairman of British Steel that would indicate an imminent or serious threat to the Clydesdale tubes works?
    Mr. Rifkind: I asked Sir Robert about the Clydesdale works and he was not able to give me any decisions or conclusions reached by British Steel. He emphasised the difficult position faced by the seamless tubes sector and indicated, as has been said publicly in the past, that British Steel was looking for ways of identifying a possible future for at least part of that project. I do not conceal from the hon. Gentleman my concern about that plant's future, for reasons with which the House is familiar.
    Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the willingness to co-operate with the SDA's study and particularly the agreement not to dismantle any part of the plant in advance of the study's conclusions. Clearly, part of the purpose of the SDA study is to seek to identify commercial opportunities for the steel industry in Scotland. It ought to be relevant for British Steel to wish to co-operate with that effort and with the report's conclusions if such opportunities are identified.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is inexplicable that such a highly profitable company should refuse to give a coherent reason for the closure of the hot strip mill? How can we possibly test the commercial judgment of British Steel if we cannot have the facts on which it has based its decision?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct, and it is for precisely that reason that I and others have said that we cannot say whether the conclusion reached by British Steel is or is not justified. Clearly, one would have to have access to the information before one could be expected to agree or comment in any detail on the commercial judgment of British Steel.
    Mr. McAvoy: In supporting all that my hon. Friends have said about the Scottish steel industry, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he is aware of the contribution made to that industry by the highly skilled work force at Clydebridge and Cambuslang in my constituency? Will the Secretary of State undertake to ensure that Clydebridge is also high on the agenda for his discussions with the British Steel chairman?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes. I can confirm that we are equally concerned with all employees and all aspects of the steel industry in Scotland. The SDA study does not concern itself with only one plant; its authors have deliberately and expressly been asked to consider the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland as a whole and that includes the plant to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Holt: May I advise my right hon. and learned Friend that, since his meeting yesterday with the chairman of British Steel, the board of British Steel has met? I have been in contact with the company, which has assured me that its expansion plans and other works on Teesside will go ahead, that it is not being influenced by the Scottish lobby on this matter and that the expansion of jobs in my constituency—which no Labour Member in the north-east of England has tried to defend—will go ahead.
    Mr. Rifkind: Clearly, those are matters for British Steel. I do not believe that it is helpful for any part of the United Kingdom to seek to achieve benefits at the expense of any other. We are all seeking to achieve a healthy steel industry in the United Kingdom as a whole, and I believe that all my hon. Friends will share that view.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Has the Secretary of State had the misfortune to read the ill-informed, sloppy and uninviting academic report that describes Coatbridge as one of the worst towns in the whole of Britain? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that this once-proud iron burgh is still suffering from the fact that the iron and steel masters, having made their money, have pulled out? Will he ensure that other towns do not have the same experience, especially at a time when steel is as competitive as it is today?
    Mr. Rifkind: Many towns—it is perhaps true of every town in the United Kingdom—have had, at some time in their history, to adapt to new industrial requirements and the changing patterns of industry. I have no doubt that the genius and ability of the people of Coatbridge will enable them to cope with the effects of any difficulties that they have experienced in recent years and to attract new industry, employment and prosperity for those who have the good fortune to live in the town.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the Secretary of State aware that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has managed to give us much more information about British Steel's investment than the right hon. and learned Gentleman has? Is he aware of his responsibilities to the Scottish people? Is he further aware that one cannot talk about the future of the Scottish steel industry without reference to what is happening on Teesside? Did he ask the chairman of British Steel about the foundation already laid for the pipe mill at Hartlepool, and is he aware of the link, through the pipe mill, to a single plate mill strategy? Is he aware that if that goes to Lackenby, it will be at the expense of Dalzell? Did he ask those questions? What was the response?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have two things to say in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, the bulk of our discussions was about the prospects for the steel plants in Scotland. I raised with Sir Robert the claim that I believe was made by the hon. Gentleman at the end of last week that he was privy to information that the decision on the Dalzell plate mill would be delayed for two years. I regret to say that I was informed that the hon. Gentleman's allegation was, as usual, complete nonsense.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Having heard that Coatbridge is allegedly the worst place in which to live, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Perth and Kinross has been
    1198
    adjudged the place with the highest quality of life and the best place to live in Scotland—no doubt because of its representation?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. and learned Friend's most excellent representation of that worthy borough and county at least in part explains his reputation with the nation as a whole.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is little consolation for the stewards at Ravenscraig to be told that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has urged upon Sir Robert the utility of responding as far as he is able to do to their questions? Is not it time that the Secretary of State delivered his promises, got to the facts and forced British Steel to come clean about the reasons behind the decision to close the strip mill?
    However, may I welcome what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about British Steel not dismantling or removing any plant from the strip mill in advance of the report commissioned by the Scottish Development Agency? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear that there will be no removal of any plant before the publication of the report and before a proper assessment of its findings? I ask him to clarify that, because his earlier answer stated that there would be no removal in advance of the proposed closure, which is a very different circumstance. We want a guarantee that there will be no removal until the report is available and has been assessed. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman guarantee that, when the report is available, he will be prepared to meet Sir Robert Scholey and to go to battle on behalf of the Scottish steel industry if the report reaches positive conclusions about its future which, I am sure, is what all hon. Members hope?
    Finally, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman remember that on 16 May when he first dealt in the House with the proposed closure of the strip mill, he deplored the decision and its implications for the work force and pledged:
    "we shall seek to persuade British Steel to reconsider its proposal".—[Official Report, 16 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 887.]
    Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman still trying to do that?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I certainly am. On the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, I have no doubt that it will be desirable for me to see Sir Robert again in the next few weeks or months, depending on how matters develop.
    I have two points in response to the hon. Gentleman's other questions. First, the categorical assurance that Sir Robert gave me was that there would be no dismantling of the plant or of any part of it before the proposed closure in April next year. Secondly, however, Sir Robert also stated his intention to co-operate with the SDA study. I would find it inconceivable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I am answering the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I would find it inconceivable that British Steel would wish to take any action that would be inconsistent with the proper consideration of the conclusions that that study might reach. We expect the study to come to its preliminary conclusions by December of this year and that will give an early opportunity at least to consider the general conclusions, proposals or ideas. There will be further opportunities early next year. That

    1199
    matter will need to be dealt with in the spirit as well as the letter of the assurance that was received from Sir Robert Scholey.
    Mr. Speaker: I allowed a long run on that important matter, but we must now move on more rapidly.

    Council Houses
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Scotland since May 1979.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Since April 1979 more than 210,000 public sector houses in Scotland have been sold to sitting tenants. Included in this figure are more than 147,000 sales by local authorities. Owner-occupation now amounts to 50 per cent. of the total number of houses in Scotland.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend expect that the extension of the rents-into-mortgages scheme to local authority tenants, which was announced last week, will result in a significant increase in home ownership in Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I certainly do. In the course of time eligibility will be open to 320,000 local authority tenants—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) is putting up five fingers. I must point out that ten times as many as that will have bought their homes under the trial scheme by the end of the month and that there will be 200 by the end of March. In the first year of the right to buy only 10 Scottish special housing association tenants bought; it takes time for the process to gather momentum.
    The average weekly payment under the rents into mortgages scheme will be about £18 and the average weekly council rent is £20·89, so this is a very good opportunity for those in a position to afford it.
    Mr. McAllion: Has the Minister read the copy of the Dundee house conditions survey that was recently given him? Did he fully comprehend the awful state of housing that it describes? Eighteen thousand council houses are riddled with damp and condensation; 15,000 require urgent repairs; 4,000 require whole window replacement. Will he get it into his skull and into the skulls of all his fellow Ministers that rents into mortgages do nothing to alleviate these Dickensian housing conditions? Will he therefore undertake to send a loud and clear message to the Treasury that what is required is massive new investment in the housing stock across Scotland? If Ministers are not prepared to fight Scotland's corner they must move aside for those of us in the Opposition who are.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In the past Dundee district council was taking more than a year to process council house sales. If it had processed them more quickly it would have received considerably more funds for its public sector stock. I am also advised that this year we increased net public expenditure for housing by about £40 million as compared with last year as a result of the drop in right-to-buy receipts. We shall consider the representations made to us by the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) in the final allocations that will be made later this year.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the failure of Dundee council to run its housing stock is an argument for encouraging more owner-occupation and a smaller public sector, not a larger one? Would he like to suggest that Dundee corporation sorts out its problems instead of running an independent foreign policy, linked as it is with Nablus on the west bank of Israel?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I strongly agree that home ownership is an aspiration of a large number of Scots who do not have the opportunities now, and I believe that they will have them in future. I also suggest that authorities such as Dundee, which I shall visit again shortly with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), would be well advised to do what they are doing—to work closely with housing associations, and to explore all the possibilities, including the possibility of using its land bank—this applies to authorities that have land banks—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are doing it."] I am glad to hear that.

    Constitutional Status
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had in the current year regarding the constitutional status of Scotland within the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Rifkind: Nineteen letters regarding the constitutional status of Scotland have been received during the current year.
    Mr. Wallace: Will the Secretary of State also tell us when he expects to receive the report commissioned by leading Conservative business men in Scotland on the future government of Scotland? In the meantime will he take some time to look at the experience of West Germany where, over many years, decentralised powers and administration have gone hand in hand with business and economic success?
    Mr. Rifkind: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question appears to refer to a newspaper report in The Scotsman, which referred to certain business men, who were not named, who had asked an academic, who was not referred to, to produce a report that no one had requested. It is an interesting bit of newspaper speculation, which, as far as I am aware, has no foundation in truth.
    The hon. Gentleman will know that the West German experience bears no relation to the proposals put forward either by the Labour party or by the so-called constitutional convention, which wants to create unilateral devolution with an assembly in Scotland but no significant or fundamental change in the rest of the United Kingdom. That would create the dangers and the additional level of taxation that would be so damaging to Scottish prosperity.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the people of Scotland are right to regard the conclusions of the so-called self-appointed constitutional convention with complete boredom and indifference? Would not it be better to pay full heed to the opinions of leading business men such as Mr. Ewan Marwick of the Association of Scottish Chambers of Commerce who has consistently opposed devolution in the light of his outstanding personal knowledge of business and industry in the west of Scotland, including Paisley?
    Mr. Rifkind: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the important contribution to the debate made by Mr. Marwick and his colleagues. My hon. Friend asked about the constitutional convention. I hope that in one respect people in Scotland will not treat the views and recommendations of the so-called convention with boredom or indifference. It is important for the public to be aware that that convention and the Labour party are proposing that the people of Scotland, under such an assembly, should be subject to an additional level of income tax which would not be paid in any other part of the United Kingdom. The damage to Scottish jobs and prosperity which would result from that would be devastating for the future of Scotland.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: If the Secretary of State is so concerned about the people of Scotland, why is he so rigid in his opposition to the idea that people should have the right democratically to express through a referendum their views on Scotland's constitutional future? Given that his party has one stance, that the constitutional convention is bringing forward a devolution package and that my party supports the idea of independence in Europe, does he not think that there should be an opportunity for the Scots to have a choice on these matters? Is it the case that, like the Prime Minister who is afraid to debate constitutional matters in relation to Europe, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is just a big fearty on Scottish constitutional matters?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady is unwise to draw such a conclusion, because she will he aware that her party and mine declined to take part in the so-called convention precisely because we believe that talking shops of that kind are unlikely to be of any practical benefit to people. She will also be aware that the nationalist proposal for a referendum has had very little support from other political parties or from other expressions of opinion with interests in constitutional matters. It has been seen as a slogan by her party with little else to commend it.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if Scotland wishes to remain part of the United Kingdom, and all the indications are that it does, any change in its unique constitutional position would have to be agreed and accepted by this House and by the other place before such change could be implemented? Any attempt to persuade the people of Scotland about measures that would never get through the House must be either flawed or fraudulent or both.
    Mr. Rifkind: What my hon. Friend says was the experience of the last Labour Government. It is right that all the citizens of the United Kingdom should take an interest in these matters. Apart from anything else, there are several hundred thousand if not millions of Scots living in England. Under the SNP proposals they would become foreigners in the country in which they are presently our fellow citizens. The people of Scotland are well aware that the United Kingdom as a nation has existed for almost 300 years and that the proposals of those who seek fundamental constitutional change would cause serious damage.
    Mr. Dewar: Is not it a mark of the Government's desperation that when they look for an independent authority to quote on this issue they come up with an inexperienced parliamentary candidate, Mr. Marwick? If
    1202
    the concept of what the Secretary of State is pleased to call unilateral devolution is so objectionable in principle, why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman resign Front Bench office in the Conservative party over its failure to support what was a unilateral scheme? Does he agree that it is silly to spread daft scare stories about well-thought-out constitutional convention schemes which would give a greater say to Scots over Scottish affairs within the framework of the United Kingdom and which command widespread public support? Does he not realise that in so doing he sounds every day a little more like the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), and that that is doing his reputation no good at all? The Secretary of State managed to make the report in The Scotsman sound like an everyday chapter from life in Chester street at Scottish Conservative party headquarters. Does he not recognise that a growing concern is clearly surfacing about the totally negative attitude of the Conservative party to the government of Scotland? The Conservatives really must make some bid in this field if they are to retain any credibility at all.
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of trivialising a serious issue by the nature of his question. The House will have noted with some interest that the one remark to which he did not respond was the clear and unmistakable proposition from his party that Scotland will be saddled with an additional level of income tax as a result of the proposals for a Scottish assembly. The failure of the so-called convention to address itself to the serious implications for the Scottish economy and Scottish jobs requires us to treat its conclusions with contempt and indifference.

    Health Boards
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase the funding of health boards in Scotland.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Yes, additional allocations will be made to health boards to take account of the changes in the VAT rules affecting construction. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to welcome today's announcement of £150,000 towards establishing cochlear ear implant operations and surgery within Lothian district.
    Mr. Griffiths: I welcome that drop in the ocean. Will the Minister acknowledge what everyone else in Scotland and in Lothian knows—that when it comes to choosing between creating patient choice or cutting patient services, the Government will cut services every time? When 14,000 patients at the Longmore hospital exercised their choice by expressing their wish that that world-famous hospital be kept open, the Secretary of State backed its disgraceful closure. In view of the incompetent handling of that issue by Lothian health board, will the Minister and the Secretary of State intervene and save Longmore?
    Mr. Forsyth: Only the hon. Gentleman could complain about cuts in services in response to an announcement of a new service being established in Lothian. To describe as a drop in the ocean a service which will enable deaf people to hear is symptomatic of the hon. Gentleman's approach to the health service.

    1203
    The hon. Gentleman said that Longmore is to be closed, but he knows that the service that it provides in terms of breast cancer treatment will continue at the Western general hospital at a unit in which £2 million is to be invested by the health board. That will bring the facility into a hospital where there is an oncology department, with the result that the service to patients will be improved.
    It is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman to misrepresent the splendid efforts of Lothian health board to improve services for his constituents throughout its area. The hon. Gentleman delivered a letter about Longmore hospital to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, under the gaze of the cameras, but we did not receive the letter until two days later because he left the Department and posted it. Therefore, he may be unaware of the background, but he should pay tribute to the efforts that Lothian health board has made in respect of Longmore.
    Mr. Strang: Does the Minister appreciate that an important element of the chronic underfunding of the health service in Lothian is the inadequate money allocated to it to tackle our AIDS problem? Is he aware that around one twelfth of the people identified as HIV positive in the United Kingdom are in Lothian but that the district receives less than 1 per cent. of the total budget for the United Kingdom, that the short-stay drug crisis centre has been postponed because of lack of money, that there is no long-term residential resettlement centre and that the cost of dealing with people with AIDS and those who are HIV positive will double every year from now on? When will the Government give us the money that we need?
    Mr. Forsyth: I know that the hon. Gentleman follows these matters carefully, so he will know that the sum provided for AIDS care in Scotland is £15 million. I believe, from memory, that the share that Lothian receives is £5 million, the bulk of it going to the new unit to provide care for AIDS patients. He needs to distinguish between HIV-positive cases and cases of AIDS. He will be aware that the planning which has gone on in Glasgow, Dundee and Lothian towards provision for AIDS patients has taken account of projected numbers, and we have committed ourselves to providing the necessary resources.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What is the comparison between the funding of Scottish health boards and of English and Welsh health boards? Has my hon. Friend's Department any information about the efficiency with which that money is being used in terms of how it is translated into patient care?
    Mr. Forsyth: It is well known that the Scottish health service is better funded than the health service south of the border—for example, by about one third in its hospital services. One of the interesting points about the proposal by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for the funding of a Scottish assembly is his argument for the principle of equalisation. The health service in Scotland spends twice as much as the health service south of the border on care for the elderly. In the south, that burden lies with local government—yet local government in Scotland still spends more than local government in the south. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the considerable investment in the health service in Scotland.

    Housing Survey
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the report of the Scottish housing conditions survey; and if he will make a statement.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The results of the national house condition survey will be published in the summer of 1993.
    Mr. Hogg: Is not it true that the report is not being published because it would harm the Government's prospects in the general election, because the Minister is ashamed of what it will reveal about disrepair and dampness in Scottish housing, leading to a crisis of homelessness, and because he will not make available the necessary funds properly to house the people of Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The physical survey of the sample dwellings will take place before the social survey of occupants. The two sets of data necessarily need to be compiled before the statistical analysis is conducted. It is not possible to publish the physical survey results in advance of the social survey, and all the results need to be considered as a whole. Unfortunately, an earlier publishing date is not feasible. The reporting timetable is customary for surveys of such complexity. The national house condition survey is not a substitute for local surveys, which I strongly urge all local authorities to carry out.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister recall that Glasgow district council carried out a local survey several years ago, but the Government have taken no action on it? Although Glasgow has the highest allocation, it still has nothing like the amount of resources that it requires.
    As the survey will take the best part of three years, will the Minister undertake to visit some of the bad housing areas, such as those in my constituency, so that he can see the damp-ridden houses? He should not come to Maryhill only to open pretty, new housing estates.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady must be aware that I have visited 52 district councils in Scotland and have seen their housing stock. I have been to the hon. Lady's constituency several times. Although I opened a new housing project, she must appreciate that it is not possible to visit her constituency without seeing other sorts of housing. I have seen plenty of examples of damp housing. I stress that what goes into Glasgow's housing plan will be very important and will be fully taken into account before allocations are made.
    On the point about local surveys, the hon. Lady is aware that Scottish Homes is spending considerable sums of money in Glasgow, and that almost £500 million has been spent by housing associations.

    Transport Policy
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will formulate an integrated transport policy for Scotland.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government believe in a balanced transport policy, providing users with as much choice as possible between competing forms of transport.
    Sir David Steel: Is the Secretary of State aware that during the summer an efficient Scottish transport network

    1205
    suffered two blows—first, the announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport that the new Al motorway would stop short of the Scottish border and, secondly, the announcement by ScotRail that it is postponing the modernisation programme for its rolling stock due to lack of funding? When will the Scottish Office stand up to the Treasury?
    Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman seems unaware that there are two major projects for improving the A1. The dual carriageway will be extended first to Haddington and then beyond that to Dunbar. A steering group has been formed between the Scottish Office and the Department of Transport to determine what further improvements might be required.
    The right hon. Gentleman must know that only 5,000 vehicles per day use the stretch of road between Dunbar and the border—one tenth of the amount of traffic using those parts of the Al in the south that are to be upgraded under the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
    With the near completion of the east coast line British Rail is completing the biggest ever investment in that area, amounting to some £450 million on the electrification of the line between London and Edinburgh.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that electrification is not complete when it reaches Edinburgh, but should continue up the east coast to Aberdeen? Is my right hon. and learned Friend prepared to discuss with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport British Rail's investment criteria, which are related purely to a return on investment, not to a cost benefit analysis so that road and other forms of transport benefit? Secondly, in the light of the new situation affecting the price of fuels, will he discuss with British Rail and his right hon. Friend the relative costs of diesel and electric power?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am familiar with the aspirations of people in the north-east to see the electrification of the east coast line extended from Edinburgh to Aberdeen, and British Rail's recently appointed project manager in Scotland is investigating whether further electrification can be justified. I appreciate that there is a debate about whether the criteria for a return on such investment are too strict or whether they are justified. If the use of taxpayers' funds is to be justified it is not unreasonable that British Rail should be expected to obtain a return on its investment and British Rail must take that into account. Debate on that issue will clearly continue for some time yet and I am glad that British Rail has not ruled out the electrification of that section of the line in the future.
    Mr. Ron Brown: If the Secretary of State does not miss the bus at the next general election but makes a journey to the centre of Leith, he will find tenants demanding repairs to their properties which Scottish Homes, under the chairmanship of Sir James Mellon, is refusing to do.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is on the wrong question. This one is about transport.
    Mr. Wilson: May I assure the Secretary of State that the Government's anti-rail prejudices will be a major issue in Scotland, as elsewhere, in the run-up to the general election? What interest has the Scottish Office taken in the decision to postpone investment in the main west coast line
    1206
    from London to Glasgow? Will he tell us precisely what representations the Scottish Office has made in the past months on the disastrous proposal to abolish Speedlink freight services, thereby forcing large quantities of freight from rail, to which they had been drawn, back on to the roads? The Secretary of State for Transport said that he had not referred to electrification north of Edinburgh at the Tory party conference in answering Mr. Hirst's protestations because he could not change his autocue in time. Is the Secretary of State for Scotland capable of changing his autocue to give some backing to the expansion, modernisation and electrification of rail services in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should inform himself before he makes foolish accusations. If he suggests that the Government are against investment in the rail network, he is clearly unaware of the fact that the Government have authorised no less than £3,700 million investment by British Rail throughout the United Kingdom during the next three years, which is the largest railway investment that Britain has ever known. The fact that Scotland has already benefited from one of the largest electrification projects that the United Kingdom has ever known compounds the hon. Gentleman's foolishness in asking that question. As the hon. Gentleman knows, British Rail has not reached any conclusion on Speedlink. We are taking considerable interest in that matter and we are seeking to evaluate the implications in Scotland and elsewhere of implementing the proposal.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government finance.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): My right hon. and learned Friend last met the president and senior office bearers of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 6 July.
    Mr. Ross: When the Minister met the president and office bearers, did he discuss with them the increasing difficulty that they and their members are encountering in encouraging people to pay their poll tax? Does he not realise that the inability of local government to draw blood from a stone by asking people living on poverty wages to pay a minimum of 20 per cent. is seriously challenging its ability to deliver services? Is it not time that he and his colleagues did away with the poll tax and started to deal with the serious underfunding from which local authorities have suffered for a number of years?
    Mr. Lang: Part of the problem that local authorities have faced in collecting the community charge is the fact that so many Members of Parliament and councillors—in the Labour party and in other parties—have discouraged people from paying, thus leading them into considerable personal difficulty. In my view, they are embarking on a course of the highest irresponsibility. Despite that, however, authorities in Scotland now expect, on average, to collect some 95 per cent. of their budgeted targets. As the community charge accounts for only about one fifth of the total expenditure of local authorities, they will have about 99 per cent. of their total spend. In those circumstances, they should be able to meet the problem through prudent management of their spending.
    Mr. Harris: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) has moved from the Labour Benches to the Scottish National Benches? However, it does not matter—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Has this something to do with Scottish questions? The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Harris: It does not matter where an Opposition Member sits if that hon. Member engages in the irresponsible and reprehensible action of encouraging people not pay their community charge. That hits—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, and he knows that he must ask a question and not make statements.
    Mr. Lang: I had noticed that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) had moved from the Labour Benches to those of the Scottish National party. As he has moved from one socialist party to another, however, it is hard to tell the difference.
    As for the attitude to the community charge, the most unfair and irresponsible posture for any party to adopt is to encourage people not to pay their fair share. The most unfair feature of all would be for those who have contributed to the cost of local services to be asked to pay the cost of those who have not. That is something that local authorities should not be asked to do.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I think that I should call Mr. Dick Douglas.
    Mr. Douglas: When the Secretary of State met COSLA, did he not say that local authorities in Scotland had fallen into the trap that he had laid for them? They are caught between a rock and a hard place. In the beginning, COSLA said that the tax was unworkable so why is it now trying to make it work by the most draconian means? I myself—and I have already been referred to—have been the subject of warrants of a dubious nature. Is it really in the mind of the Secretary of State to tell local authorities that to make the tax work they must get into the barbarous atmosphere and attitude of poinding and warrant sales? Should not the Minister go back to COSLA and say that he will review the scheme and take it away completely?
    Mr. Lang: The vast majority of community charge payers have paid and are paying their community charge. The system of recovery available to local authorities is broadly the same as it was under the previous rating system. Those who are willing to ignore the irresponsible advice of politicians who tell people not to pay taxes, and are willing to pay their due to local authorities, will not have to fear the processes of recovery.
    Mr. Maxton: When will the Minister stop using the rather foolish non-payment campaign being run by the Scottish National party as a shield behind which to hide and pretend that the poll tax is working? Does he not recognise that research shows that the vast majority of those who have not paid their poll tax simply cannot afford to pay it? The simple fact is that he could end the crisis tomorrow by abolishing the 20 per cent. rule, allowing a moratorium on rebates back to 1 April 1989 and improving the rebate system to make it much more
    1208
    generous. He must recognise that Scottish local authorities are facing a financial crisis as a result of the poll tax itself and not because a few people are foolishly not paying it.
    Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman is trying to tell me that Labour Members of Parliament and Labour councillors are refusing to pay their community charges because they cannot afford to do so, I have to tell him that I do not believe it. The vast majority of people have paid their community charge, and more than I million are eligible for a rebate, so account is taken of ability to pay. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's irresponsible position explains why his party has inconceivably decided to go back to the even more unfair and most unacceptable payment of all, with a return to the old rating system.

    National Health Service
    Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met Scottish health board chairmen to discuss the national health service in Scotland.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I met the chairmen of health boards on 29 June.
    Mr. Ingram: It is unlikely that the Minister would have had an opportunity to discuss with them the report produced recently by the Institute of Manpower Studies, commissioned by the Scottish Office, which showed a worrying wastage rate among nurses because of the lack of opportunity to involve themselves in patient care and because of cuts in wage rates. Will the Minister discuss that report at his next meeting with board chairmen, which I hope will be in the not-too-distant future? Is not that report a damning indictment of 11 years of Tory policy and of the Government's attitude to the health service, which nurses are leaving in droves?
    Mr. Forsyth: We are anxious to improve the opportunities for recruiting nurses and other staff to the health service. The hon. Gentleman will recognise, if he is fair, that since 1979 the number of nurses in the health service has increased substantially, as has their pay—by about one quarter in real terms. I confess that I have not read the report to which he refers, but I will do so and respond to the points that he made.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the objectives of health service reform is to encourage greater public involvement and interest? In relation to the reform of local health councils, is my hon. Friend satisfied that in large areas such as Grampian there will be adequate representation of both rural and urban interests? Even rural interests can be very disparate. Will he re-examine local health council reorganisation to ensure that it will provide genuine local involvement?
    Mr. Forsyth: My view, which is shared by Opposition spokesmen, is that in general it will be better to have one health council per health board, with the resources to operate as a strong organisation and on an equal footing. I shall be answering today a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) about the possibility, as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), of having more than one health council per board.

    1209
    There is nothing to prevent boards from proposing schemes which involve more than one health council, although our preference is for only one such council.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: I was right. Withdraw the circular.
    Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will allow me to answer my right hon. Friend's question, he may then catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
    Our preference is for health councils that are strong enough to represent the voice of the consumer effectively, but health boards may suggest schemes that provide for more than one health council, and they will be considered on their merits.
    Mr. Galbraith: When the Minister next meets the chairmen of the health boards, will he discuss with the chairman of Greater Glasgow health board the continuing public utterances of his general manager, who only yesterday said that the national health service in Glasgow is "second class"? That same general manager recently issued a warning to his staff that if any of them publicly criticise the NHS in Glasgow, they will be summarily dismissed. In that, he included comments to Members of
    1210
    Parliament. Yet only yesterday, in the surroundings of the luxurious Gleneagles hotel, the same general manager deprecated the Greater Glasgow health board and its services, for which he personally is responsible. Why do we have such double standards, whereby the general manager can criticise the health service but the rest of the staff cannot? If the general manager can criticise, so can the rest of the staff.
    Mr. Forsyth: It is the general manager's job to identify deficiencies in the health service and to put them right. I pay tribute to what Laurence Peterken has done in the health service. In Greater Glasgow health board, Lennox Castle, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, was identified as a hospital in need of improvement by the general manager, and it has been transformed. In that speech, Lawrence Peterken was saying that it was no part of the business of the health service to continue with inadequate Victorian buildings and that we wanted an efficient service providing the highest standards of care. That is the Government's belief. Only a fool would argue that there are no problems in the health service. There are problems. The Government are the first to have tackled them for a very long time and have delivered a higher standard of patient care.

Cammell Laird (Sale)
3.30 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I seek to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing an urgent and specific matter which should have immediate attention, namely,
"the proposed sale of Cammell Laird shipbuilders."
The matter is immediate because the proposed sale was announced this morning, and it is urgent because 2,000 jobs are at stake, and Birkenhead is already a black spot in the unemployment league table. If the closure takes place and a sale is not forthcoming, we shall be pushed towards the top end of that league table.
Moreover, it is also urgent because Cammell Laird is the very heart of Birkenhead and it is difficult to conceive of the town without its shipyard. The matter is urgent because Cammell Laird provides one of the great skill centres of Merseyside and if this country is to have an industrial future in the next century, it is important that those qualities are not squandered lightly.
The matter is also urgent because I wish the House to have the opportunity to show that it understands the worries, doubts and anxieties that my constituents in Birkenhead as well as people throughout Merseyside will feel today.
The matter is urgent because we wish to give the Government the opportunity to explain to the House what measures they propose to take to ensure that the sale is a success.
Lastly, the matter is urgent because, if there is no sale, this great shipyard will be closed.
While I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to stress the positive side of Cammell Laird to a wider audience, I believe that it is only in a full-scale debate that I and the House could do justice to what is now on offer and on sale. I want the House to take a resolution that it will not lightly allow that asset, those skills, those people and the dignity that they have shown through the years to be cast on to the unemployment scrap heap. For all those reasons, and not merely one of them, I seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the proposed sale of Cammell Laird shipbuilders."
I, too, listened to the news at lunchtime and I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said about this important matter. However, as he knows, under Standing Order No. 20. I have to announce my decision without giving my reasons to the House. I have to decide whether his application comes within the Standing Order and whether a debate should take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow.
I regret that, in this case, the matter which he has raised does not meet those requirements and I cannot today submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.34 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In today's vote bundle, my name appears in error against various early-day motions, including early-day motion 1398. I have received an apology from the Table Office. It intends to include a correction in tomorrow's corrigenda. My concern, and what I believe is a matter for you, is that early-day motions are read by people outside the House and are taken to be an accurate reflection of the views of those hon. Members who sign them. I am most concerned that my name should have been added to those motions. I very much hope that something can be done to improve the mechanism. I am particularly concerned about early-day motion 1398, because it is about Israel and the middle east. I believe that those who signed that early-day motion did so either because they are naive or because they are anti-semitic.
Mr. Speaker: I regret the mistake that was made. It may have arisen because of the number of hon. Members who bear the same name. However, the hon. Gentleman has put the matter right and that is probably the best way to deal with it.
Mr. David Winnick: On this point, and related matters, Mr. Speaker, although I know that you are not responsible for statements, you will know that the Foreign Secretary's visit to the middle east has produced a good deal of controversy on both sides of the House. I am wondering whether there is any way in which hon. Members can ensure that, when the Foreign Secretary returns to this country, there will be a statement. There is deep concern over what is happening in the middle east. Although the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) made derogatory references to a motion which I have not myself signed, that does not alter the fact that there is deep concern in the House over the killing of the 21 Palestinians.
Mr. Speaker: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about that, as I think the whole House does, but he will have heard the Leader of the House's statement on Monday that he will take this matter into consideration.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to prolong this, but I wonder whether you could clarify the exact situation relating to Standing Order No. 20. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked for your leave to adjourn the House on a matter which for his constituency is, without a shadow of doubt, of cardinal and critical importance. In circumstances such as that, which affect Birkenhead and which, in other circumstances, might affect my own constituency, will you clarify for me exactly what scale and magnitude of disaster there has to be before an Adjournment debate can be granted on what is, for an ordinary Member of Parliament, a really desperate state of affairs?
Mr. Speaker: It is a friendly act by the hon. Member, but he will have heard me say that I am enjoined not to give my reasons to the House. However, I imagine that there are those outside the House who will be as interested as the hon. Member in what the criteria are. I have to take into consideration other opportunities that may arise and

1213
whether the matter is so urgent that it should take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. These are very difficult decisions for the Chair. I hope that, as I said to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the matter will be raised on another occasion.

BILL PRESENTED
  HOMEWORKERS' RIGHTS
  Mr. Keith Vaz, supported by Ms. Clare Short, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. David Hinchliffe and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, presented a Bill to extend to homeworkers certain rights afforded to employees by enactments relating to health and safety, employment protection and finance; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Tuesday 23 October and to be printed. [Bill 201.]
Orders of the Day

  Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [16 October] on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in Standing Committee), That the clause (Supervised attendance orders as alternatives to imprisonment on fine default) be read a Second time.
  '.—(1) A court may make a supervised attendance order in the circumstances specified in subsection (3) below.
  (2) A supervised attendance order is an order made by a court with the consent of an offender requiring him—

  (a) to attend a place of supervision for such time, being 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 hours, as is specified in the order; and

  (b) during that time, to carry out such instructions as may be given to him by the supervising officer.

  (3) The circumstances are where—

  (a) the offender is of or over 16 years of age; and

  (b) having been convicted of an offence, he has had imposed on him a fine which (or any part or instalment of which) he has failed to pay and either of the following sub-paragraphs applies—

  (i) the court, prior to the commencement of this section, has imposed on him a period of imprisonment under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 407 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (power of court, when imposing a fine, to impose also imprisonment on default) but he has not served any of that period of imprisonment;

  (ii) the court, but for this section, would also have imposed on him a period of imprisonment under that paragraph or paragraph (b) of that subsection (power of court to impose imprisonment when a person fails to pay a fine or any part or instalment thereof); and

  (c) the court considers a supervised attendance order more appropriate than the serving of or, as the case may be, imposition of such a period of imprisonment.

  (4) Where, in respect of an offender, a court makes a supervised attendance order in circumstances where sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) above applies, the making of that order shall have the effect of discharging the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the offender.
  (5) Schedule (Supervised attendance orders: further provisions) to this Act has effect for the purpose of making further and qualifying provision as to supervised attendance orders.
  (6) In this section—
  "local authority" means a regional or islands council;
  "place of supervision" means such place as may be determined for the purposes of a supervised attendance order by the supervising officer; and
  "supervising officer", in relation to a supervised attendance order, means a person appointed or assigned under Schedule (Supervised attendance orders: further provisions) to this Act by the local authority whose area includes the locality in which the offender resides or will be residing when the order comes into force.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton]
  Question again proposed.
  3.38 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I was going to say that I was in full flight—but perhaps that is a little grandiloquent, in view of what was happening at 10 o'clock last night—when these proceedings were brought

  1215
  to a close. However, I was certainly addressing the House, and I now rise with a certain feeling of nostalgia, because this is the last time that I shall start a session on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which to me seems like an old friend. I cannot remember any other Bill to which the Opposition have made more changes or on which they have made more political progress. I doubt whether the Minister's memories of it will be quite so happy, but there we are.
  The proposal that supervised attendance orders should be made is of real importance. As I explained last night, the new clause came as a surprise to me. I had not expected it, but I should be misleading the House if I were to suggest that I oppose it in principle.
  I have some doubts—this is the point I had reached yesterday—about the basis of the Minister's argument. He explained that because, under clause 51(3), community service orders can be imposed only where the only genuine alternative would be a prison sentence, we will not reach the position that has commonly existed whereby community service orders were imposed in place of a large fine. With the new narrow interpretation of when it is appropriate to have a community service order, the number of large fines will increase, and therefore it is assumed that the number of non-payers will increase. As a result, there has to be some alternative to imprisonment for non-payment to stop our prisons being choked and clogged as they have been in the past.
  I should have been happier if the Minister had said that the pressure—perhaps not spectacular pressure but in my case nagging pressure going back to the Criminal Justice Bill in 1981—to see whether there could be an alternative to imprisonment for non-payment of fines had been successful and was being adopted on its merits. The argument about clause 51(3) is esoteric and doubtful. After all, a high fine does not necessarily lead to high non-payment because, presumably, the instalments are set according to the payer's means. If the court is doing its business, there should be no greater risk of non-payment and the penalties that follow than for any other financial responsibility.
  I take the view that supervised attendance orders as an alternative to imprisonment might be more appropriate for those who have failed to pay small fines. It is offensive and ridiculous for people who may have failed to pay a fine of £20 or £30 to find themselves doing seven or 14 days in prison to the disadvantage of the prison system. I am not impressed by the Minister's argument, but the reform he is introducing is useful in a modest way.
  I have already said that I have argued for and still believe in the abolition of imprisonment as a punishment for non-payment of fines. I have done so for the past decade in this place. I was going to make a graceful reference to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) but, unusually, he is not in his place during a debate on this Bill. During the proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill in 1981, he gave me very strong support but expressed a doubt because he thought that there had to be an alternative penalty to just debt collection and diligence. We are now providing that. The Government have suddenly found that it is practical to do something in this way, and we should be thankful for that.
  1216
  I want to ask one or two questions which I am sure the Minister will be able to answer. I recognise that the cost is to be fully reimbursed. As I understand it, in the year ending 31 March 1989, local authorities spent £3·2 million on community service orders, at an average cost per order—according to a parliamentary question—of £920. In that year, there were 3,492 orders. I asked a further parliamentary question on 11 June and was told that the total number of orders made in 1989 was not under 3,500 but had increased in that short time to 4,190. In other words, the number of community service orders is on a steeply rising curve. Obviously, that raises questions about the Government's expectations for the number of supervised attendance orders that will be made and the cost that that will place on the Exchequer.
  The Minister must not get me wrong: I believe that the cost should be met 100 per cent. I have a letter from Professor Fred Edwards, the director of the Strathclyde regional work and social department. He is talking about an agreement whereby local authorities had to meet agreed standards for the quality and quantity of the work—that is, of community service orders—before receiving increased funding. Clearly an incentive was being built in to raise standards in order to attract increased funding. I assume that the same system will apply here. Perhaps the Minister will say a word about that.
  It is important that the Minister comments on the form of supervision—this point has been made by my hon. Friend the experienced Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who knows much about the social work world—and on how attendance sessions will be organised. We are told that they will be for between 10 and 60 hours, so, as an initial response to someone's conviction for a criminal offence, they will be shorter than community service orders. Of the 4,190 community service orders made in 1989, only 802 fell below 100 hours. I presume that some of the new supervised attendance orders will be as low as 10 or 20 hours, so clearly they will raise different practical problems.
  I am not clear whether supervised attendance orders will be administered on a different basis from community service orders or whether people on attendance orders will mix and share activities with those performing community service. It may be a matter for the discretion of the local authority, but perhaps the Minister will say a word or two about that.
  I notice that the briefing distributed by the Minister says that activities will be "provided in modular form". I am not clear what he means by that, but no doubt he will be able to wax earnest and learned on modular forms in supervised attendance orders.
  Whom did the Minister consult? I have tried to find out from Strathclyde regional council—my regional council and social work authority—whether it was consulted before this innovation was introduced. I do not have a clear picture, but my impression is that, if there was consultation, it was cursory in the extreme, which suggests that it was introduced hurriedly. Was the Sheriffs Association consulted? Sheriffs will be involved in deciding supervised attendance orders. If it was consulted, what was its reaction and did it support the proposal?
  Having asked these questions, I conclude briskly by making it clear that I welcome the proposal, so far as it goes. The prison system has been handicapped by the number of receptions of prisoners who were not sentenced to a custodial term but who ended up in prison because

  1217
  they failed to meet a monetary penalty. The figures for receptions are spectacular. In 1988, the last figures available to me and excluding remand prisoners, who would be a distorting factor, the number of admissions for default of payment of fines was 9,680, which is 47·1 per cent. of total admissions to the Scottish prison system.
  That is a startling figure, but it probably will not startle many of my colleagues, because it is familiar to anyone who takes a passing interest in the prison system. I am aware that it is only just over 6 per cent. of the daily prison population, but the clogging of the system, the problems of reception, of administration and of processing the entry of a prisoner only for him or her to be discharged perhaps two or three weeks later causes enormous destruction to the proper work of the prison system.
  I am concerned that the way in which the Minister presented this proposal was that its purpose is to stop the problem getting worse. He has argued that, because of the changes in the initial use of CSOs, which will lead to an increase in large fines, if we do nothing the number of receptions for non-payment, and the pressure on the prison system, will increase. I hope that he can be more positive. I hope that supervised attendance orders will have an impact that does not just stop the problem worsening but improves it. I hope that, after two or three years of experience, we might be in a position to say that that 47 per cent. figure of receptions for non-payment of fines had significantly decreased.
  If the system works well, courts could be encouraged—I know that courts take individual decisions in individual cases—to use this alternative and to rid the prison system of at least a proportion of people, not just at the top of the fine scale but at the bottom end of this sad band of people who find themselves in prison for quite the wrong reason, to their distress, to the concern of their families and to the expense of the state. I am afraid that those people make it more difficult for the prison system to deal with those who, for reasons of public safety, must be imprisoned. It is a modest reform, but I hope that it is the start of better things.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: The Bill has many aspects. We are dealing now with a major issue in a piecemeal fashion. That has been one of the features of this Bill. The imposition and collection of fines are major issues, meriting a major inquiry to see where the problem really lies. I know from my mailbag and experience that it is not popular to say that a fine should relate more to the offender's ability to pay than to the crime committed. For many years in the Scottish courts, the fine imposed has related to the offence, not to the offender's ability to pay.
  Some years ago, I went to Sweden to study the Swedish penal system. If there was one aspect that impressed me, it was the fact that, throughout my period there, not one person was imprisoned for failure to pay a fine. The reason is simple. In Scotland, a fair amount of research is carried out into an offender's background before the court sentences him or her to a first custodial sentence. In Sweden, extensive research is carried out into an offender's ability to pay a fine. Before a case comes to court, the presiding judge or magistrate knows exactly what the person can pay should he be found guilty and a fine be imposed. Payment is based on earnings and other aspects.
  Having taken the trouble to investigate an offender's ability to pay, the Swedish authorities claim the right to collect the fine—a system which I favour. In Sweden, there
  1218
  are no supervised attendance orders or alternatives to paying a fine. Research is carried out and the fine relates not to the offence but to the person's ability to pay.
  I make no criticism of the Government or of the Minister, because successive Governments—I take my share of the responsibility—have paid little attention to this aspect of court work. It makes no sense to fine a person £1,000 if he or she is on income support or to impose a fine that is way beyond a person's ability to pay, in the certain knowledge that the fine will not be paid. It would be more honest of a court to impose a prison sentence, because that would be the outcome in any case.
  It is time that we all agreed that there must be a major inquiry into the operation of fines in the Scottish judicial system. In many ways, Scotland has led in terms of judicial and law reform, and we should all be proud of that. I am convinced that we can do the same in terms of the levying and payment of fines.
  I cannot give the new clause a wholehearted welcome, because I regard it as a piecemeal approach to a major problem. Instead, I want to give it a qualified welcome and to ask the Minister one or two questions about it.
  At present, when an offender fails to pay his fine and is sent to prison, he can buy himself out before his sentence is complete. There is a scale governing the length of the custodial sentence that a fine defaulter should serve, and that is determined against the background of the level of the fine. A fine defaulter who has failed to pay a £1,000 fine will serve longer than a defaulter who has failed to pay a £50 fine.
  The Minister knows from experience that it is quite common for a fine defaulter to be imprisoned on Monday and for someone to go along and pay his fine on Tuesday morning. All the paperwork surrounding his reception in prison then has to be gone through again and his release arranged. Will a fine defaulter now be able to buy himself out of a supervised attendance order? Suppose that the order requires him to attend for the maximum period of 60 hours. Will he be able to buy himself out when he has completed 20 hours, and what will be the scale used? Clearly, we are not talking about the payment of the total fine, because the offender will have served a third of the supervised attendance hours specified in the order. The Minister must have some sort of scale in mind.
  Who will decide whether the offender may buy himself out of the arrangement? How will we decide whether a fine defaulter should be asked to attend for 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 hours? Under the present arrangements under which a fine defaulter is sent to prison, scales are laid down. I may have missed the reference to such a scale in the new clause; that is not beyond me, I can assure the House. Is a scale to be specified for the proposed scheme? Unless we know what we are doing—unless social workers know in detail whether a fine defaulter can buy himself out—it seems inadvisable to proceed. We should not introduce the scheme until all the details have been put in place. If we introduce the scheme against a background of confusion, matters can only get worse and we shall find that we have added to the problem that we sought to solve.
  My welcome for the new clause is qualified because, in my view, we are merely tinkering at the edges of what is now a major problem. We ought to consider other approaches. I urge the Minister to consider the establishment as soon as possible of a commission of inquiry to look into the whole question of levying fines according to the seriousness of the crime of which the

  1219
  offender has been found guilty rather than according to his ability to pay. If I were asked to choose, I would choose a system that related to the offender's ability to pay because if we had such a system, many of the other issues that we are discussing today would disappear.
  4 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I promise to be brief, Mr. Speaker. Before asking the Minister a couple of questions about the new clause, may I, too, give it my qualified support? I recently attended a session of the sheriff court in Edinburgh when it was hearing a number of what are colloquially known as "means court" cases. One young man was sent down for 30 days for his failure to pay a fine, much to his deep dismay. Other young men—those appearing were mainly men—suffered the same fate. I should add that I was in good company—I was with Michael Clancy of the Scottish Law Society.
  I thought that it was all a disgraceful waste and wondered why we should put that young man's family through such distress. He was bundled down below within 20 seconds of the sheriff making his nonchalant decision. Therefore, although I give the new clause some support, the Minister and his officials should further consider its implications.
  I refer the Minister to subsection (2)(b), which states that the offender will
  "carry out such instructions as may be given to him by the supervising officer."
  I believe that I am right in saying that, when answering an intervention from me yesterday evening, the Minister said that the supervising officer need not necessarily be a social worker. I am a little concerned about that. The Minister will recall that, in the explanatory memorandum that he sent to members of the Committee, he stated that, among others, we are referring to ex-drug abusers—those who have fallen by the wayside because of the misuse or abuse of drugs—and others. People who have unfortunately become addicted to drugs need to be supervised and need someone in the team who is highly experienced in such matters. As that rule must be applied to other offenders, I should like to hear the Minister offer a word or two about the non-social work supervisors, because I believe that he is straying into queer territory.
  Similarly, the Minister needs to consult more comprehensively—or his officials need to consult more comprehensively—social work departments and voluntary associations whose main concern is the rehabilitation of offenders and those who have transgressed in terms of non-payment of minor fines. I should like to hear the Minister say something positive in response to my reservations on subsection (2)(b).
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am as concerned as my colleagues about some of the things that go on in the minor courts. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friends who have expressed some shock about the way in which young people are simply sent to prison casually and without much consideration.
  I should like to ask the Minister a rather unpleasant question. I am not anti-lawyer, but I have a particular case
  1220
  in mind, which is known to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) because it concerns Bo'ness, which I represented for many years.
  Will the Minister make it an obligation on sheriffs and temporary sheriffs not to take any alcohol during the lunch hour? I once brought a case to the attention of the House, in which a police career was ruined—that of Sergeant Jamieson—by a temporary sheriff who had taken drink during the lunch hour and then took decisions that could not be undone. That case has lived with me and I suspect that the same has happened on a number of other occasions.
  As we are on the subject, it might be a good idea if those on the bench took no alcoholic drink during their lunch hours.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I have been encouraged to participate in the debate only following the remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). For the record, I want to make it clear that I understand that there was an investigation by the then sheriff principal of the circumstances surrounding the case, and that no fault was found to attach to the sheriff concerned. The hon. Member for Linlithgow is perfectly entitled to raise the issue, but it is only right to put the record straight.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman deny that the temporary sheriff concerned had taken alcohol during his lunch hour before coming to his decision?
  Mr. Campbell: That is not within my knowledge—
  Mr. Dalyell: It is within mine.
  Mr. Campbell: What is within my knowledge is that an investigation was effected and no fault was found to attach to the sheriff.
  Mr. Dalyell: Some of us thought it unfortunate that the sheriff concerned came to the decision that he did, and that the investigation was a matter of lawyers all getting together.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I believe that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) had an Adjournment debate on this subject some years ago—
  Mr. Dalyell: Yes.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It would be rash of me to go into the case without researching all the facts, but I have heard what the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) has said, so I suspect that there are two sides to the issue, of which we have heard only one this afternoon. I shall look into the case.
  I warmly welcome what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said—
  Mr. Dalyell: Airline pilots, drivers, and many other people in skilled occupations are not supposed to drink alcohol in the course of their work, so is it unreasonable to suggest that those who take decisions affecting people's lives should do the same? Many other people are not supposed to drink at work; should not the same apply to those on the bench?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I approach the subject with some caution. If the hon. Gentleman were to table a motion suggesting that hon. Members should not take

  1221
  drinks before they participated in debates, I suspect that there would follow a heated debate in which different views would be expressed. I shall look at the facts of the case and come back to the hon. Gentleman in due course. It would certainly be wrong of me to give a judgment off the top of my head—
  Mr. Dalyell: In my opinion, those who are going to take part in debates on the Floor of the House should not take alcohol before doing so.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I applaud the hon. Gentleman's high standards. All I am saying is that he would find this a contentious subject if he were to table a motion banning Members from drinking at lunchtime—
  An Hon. Member: Or Speakers.
  Mr. Speaker: Just for the record, I never do.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to confirm that. I most certainly do not drink if I am about to speak in the House of Commons.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden made a most positive speech; I agree with everyting that he said. The hon. Gentleman asked who was consulted. The Sheriffs Association, local authorities and other interested bodies were consulted. A letter was sent out in April and all the responses were in support of supervised attendance orders for fine default. The bodies consulted included the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Directors of Social Work in Scotland, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland), the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. I am glad to say that they strongly supported the measure.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden asked about modular form and the kind of supervision. The programmes will be organised in standard units. For example, there will be two-hour sessions on drug and alcohol misuse and two-hour blocks of unpaid work with groups of from eight to 12 offenders. There might be some sharing with people who do group placements on community service orders, but where practicable the two groups will be kept separate.
  I was asked about national standards for supervised attendance orders. Standards will be drawn up in consultation with local authorities and others and funding will be conditional on standards being met. I was asked about the details. Guidelines will be drawn up and, as I said yesterday, a consultative group will be formed to look into these matters. It will include representation from local authorities, the judiciary and other relevant interests.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) asked whether fine defaulters could buy themselves out of supervised attendance orders. I am glad to confirm that the answer is no. Once the offender consents to a supervised attendance order, he will have to complete it. The hon. Gentleman also said that fines should be related to the means to pay and not to the severity of the offence.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: The Minister says that an offender will not be able to buy himself out of a supervised attendance order. What sanction is available if the offender fails to complete the allocated number of hours? Is the sanction imprisonment? If that is the case, we are caught in the situation from which we are trying to escape.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. What happens is broadly similar to that which occurs after non-co-operation with a community service order. I hope that that will not happen in more than a few cases. I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that section 395(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975—the hon. Gentleman may have played a part in getting that Act on to the statute book—states:
  "A court … in determining the amount of any fine to be imposed on an offender shall take into consideration, amongst other things, the means of the offender so far as known to the court."
  The High Court has rightly emphasised that in appeal cases. In this connection, I agree with the hon. Member for Garscadden.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who has left the Chamber for a moment, said that there was a need to do more work on implementation. I agree. Detailed guidance for social work authorities on the operation will be drawn up in consultation with interested parties before the provisions of the Bill come into force. The hon. Gentleman also asked about non-social work supervisors. Their use is well precedented in bringing forward community service schemes. They always have access to support and advice from professional social workers.
  Like the hon. Member for Garscadden, I think that it is important for there to be a range of community disposals in which the people of Scotland can have confidence. The hon. Gentleman asked me about this late last night, when he asked me to speak about probation. Fewer than 3 per cent. of offenders appearing before the High and sheriff courts are placed on probation. While probation is not suitable for all offenders, it has the potential to make a much bigger contribution. It has been somewhat neglected, so we saw 100 per cent. funding as important, not just for community service orders and supervised attendance orders, but also for probation.
  When we gave 100 per cent. central funding for community service orders, it resulted in a 25 per cent. increase in the number of such orders in the first year. Obviously, that is an important consideration.
  Mr. Dalyell: Why does the Minister think that the level of provision has fallen back like this? When I was first elected to the House, there was a tough probation officer in West Lothian who was a father figure and who sorted out a number of boys by using common sense and know-how. That sort of thing does not happen to such an extent these days, unfortunately.
  4.15 pm
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Our information is that local authority social workers are often reluctant to recommend this course of action in social inquiry reports, possibly because of the work load consequences for them, so 100 per cent. funding will assist.
  Clause 51 makes other necessary changes to improve the effectiveness of the services. It ensures that community service orders are reserved for those offenders who would otherwise have been imprisoned. As the hon. Member for Garscadden said, the result would be to increase the number of fines. We believed it to be essential to do something about the problem of fine defaulters, or the Bill would inadvertently result in more people going to prison

  1223
  than was the intention of any hon. Member who served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, or the House as a whole.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Like others, I have been critical of the Minister from time to time during the passage of the Bill, but I warmly welcome what he has just said. It betokens an enlightened and sensible attitude from the Department. I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The effectiveness of the probation service before the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 was a watchword in penal circles. If we can, by a more generous allocation of funds, return to probation officers the stature that they enjoyed and the successes that they were able to achieve, that would be a good thing for many young people in Scotland.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has just said. I think that this move will also be welcomed by prison officers, who have the duty of looking after those who are in prison because of serious crimes. If a young person who has committed a minor misdemeanour and finds difficulty in paying his fines—there are hundreds of such cases—can be dealt with in this way, that will help with the administration of the prisons.
  Mr. Dewar: It seems to me that the drive of some of these comments is a move away from generic social workers and back to specialisation in the social work department. I should be interested to hear whether the Minister embraces that proposition.
  I wish to clarify what the Minister has just said, because it is important. The thrust of his central argument is that there will be large fines, leading to fine defaults and the use of the new supervised attendance order, which is aimed at preventing a specific increase. Do the Government hope that the supervised attendance order will be widely used, perhaps for small defaulters—people who are fined under £50 but who have not paid, perhaps because they are on benefit or have a number of social pressures on them—who will benefit from the flexibility that this allows, with the result that there is a reduction? In other words, I want to know what part the Minister thinks that a supervised attendance order will play, and whether it will largely replace, over time, the imprisonment factor.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My view is that it will be seen as a lesser form of community service, shorter in scope and easier to carry out by those concerned. A range of disposals is important. The 100 per cent. funding for the probation community service order and supervised attendance orders will give the court a choice, which will depend on the seriousness of the case.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow also asked about the role of the social workers. Social workers should be deployed where their special skills can be used to the best effect. They will be responsible for the planning of supervised attendance orders and for generally overseeing their operation. The day-to-day supervision can be provided more cheaply by other local authority staff, and many of the components of the programme could be brought in from other providers, such as voluntary organisations. For example, local councils on alcohol could provide speakers on alcohol abuse.
  1224
  It is important to distinguish supervised attendance from probation. In probation, the focus is on the individual offender and his offending behaviour. A probation order combines control of the offender with assistance to help him to solve his personal problems and stay out of trouble. Probation calls for the special skills of the social worker in one-to-one counselling and small group interaction. In contrast, supervised attandance will not be concerned with tailoring the approach to the individual offender. In essence, it is a fine on the offender's free time, and the supervisor's main function will be to ensure punctual attendance and good behaviour of a group of about eight to 12 offenders, whose activities will follow a standardised modular pattern.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow may have missed my earlier comment. In answer to his point, I can say that the Government do not believe that it would be a sensible use of scarce social work skills to have professional staff solely carry out this work. They will be much better employed in doing the things that only they can do—providing supervision and help to offenders on probation and parole, and preparing social inquiry reports to enable the courts to choose the most appropriate disposal.
  Dr. Godman: I sincerely apologise to the Minister for the fact that I have been racing around for the past few minutes and therefore missed his comments.
  It is essential that any activity-centred scheme is realistic and constructive, so that it helps such people to come back into the community. I know that ex-drug users at some centres spend many empty hours that could be more usefully spent preparing them to find jobs. That is why it is essential that the supervision is carried out by highly qualified and trained people.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but there are degrees of specialisation within the social work department. As the hon. Member for Garscadden suggested, we want to encourage greater specialisation in working with offenders.
  In response to the point raised by the hon. Member for Garscadden, I confirm that supervised attendance orders will be widely used for defaulters of small fines. They will be highly appropriate in that category. The provision fulfils an important need.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am carefully following the Minister's arguments, and I agree that there is a need for qualified, trained social workers to be involved. Will there be additional recruitment into social work, and will additional funding be made available to colleges and universities involved in the training of social workers? The necessary resources and back-up facilities must be provided, because social work departments are already under severe strain.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is obviously a matter for the consultative group, which will have representation from local authorities, the judiciary and other relevant, interested bodies. We shall keep closely in touch with the position.
  We believe that the new penalty will be of great value in helping to reduce the pressure on the prisons, while continuing to provide a disincentive to fine default and

  1225
  enabling those who do default to make amends for their offence through loss of their free time, disciplined attendance and constructive activity.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 21

  EFFECT OF MENTAL INCAPACITY ON POWERS OF ATTORNEY ETC.
  '.—(1) Any rule of law by which a factory and commission or power of attorney ceases to have effect in the event of the mental incapacity of the granter shall not apply to a factory and commission or power of attorney granted on or after the date on which this section comes into force.
  (2) In subsection (1) above, "mental incapacity" means, in relation to a person, that he is incapable of managing his property and affairs by reason of mental disorder within the meaning of section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8—Further provisions as to judicial factors—
  '.—After section 35 of the Judicial Factors Act 1849 there shall be inserted the following section—
  "35A—(l) Subject to subsection (5) below, where an individual grants a factory and commission or power of attorney which includes a declaration of intention to which this section applies, the factor and commission or power of attorney shall not be revoked only by reason of any subsequent mental incapacity.
  (2) This section applies to a declaration of intention which is in the prescribed form and includes a statement that the granter intends the factory or commission or power of attorney to continue despite any subsequent mental incapacity of his, provided that—

  (a) the factory and commission or power of attorney has been subscribed by the granter and attested by two witnesses before a notary public and has been registered in the Books of Council and Session or in the books of the appropriate sheriff court of the sheriffdom in which the granter habitually resides;

  (b) the notary public has made a statement in the prescribed form that the granter has read or has had read to him prescribed information explaining the effect of the declaration; and

  (c) the granter has sworn or affirmed before the notary public that the declaration was made freely and without coercion of any kind.

  (3) In subsections (1) and (2) above 'mental incapacity' means, in relation to a granter, that he is incapable of managing his property and affairs by reason of mental disorder.
  (4) 'Mental disorder' has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.
  (5) A factory and commission or power of attorney which includes a declaration of intention to which this section applied shall be revoked by appointment of a curator bonis or tutor-dative and may be revoked on application to the court by any person having an interest.
  (6) In this section—

  (a) 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State:

  (b) 'the court' means the Court of Session or the sheriff court".'.

  Government amendment No. 108.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: New clause 8 in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and new clause 21 have similar aims. They seek to overcome a problem faced by an increasing number of families where a relative, who has granted a factory and commission or power of attorney, subsequently becomes mentally incapacitated. In Scotland, unlike England and Wales, a power of attorney terminates if the granter becomes mentally incapacitated. A curator bonis could be appointed, but in view of the costs involved, a curatory is not usually considered worthwhile except for fairly large estates.
  New clause 8 mirrors for Scotland provisions in the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 which apply to England and Wales, but the simpler provision in new clause 21 will achieve the same end. It will ensure that, after the commencement of the provision, any existing rule of law by which a factory and commission or power of attorney ceases to have effect in the event of the mental incapacity of the donor shall have no effect. Mental incapacity is as defined in section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.
  The provisions will apply only to powers of attorney granted after the provision comes into force. It does not seek to alter the effect of powers of attorney already granted, nor does it revive powers of attorney that have lapsed because of the mental incapacity of the donor. In the former case, the granter can revoke any existing power and grant a new power.
  Amendment No. 108 seeks to ensure that the new clause will come into effect as soon as possible—that is, on commencement of the Act. New clause 21 is sufficient to achieve the objectives sought by the hon. Member for Garscadden. It has been deliberately kept simple, since the Law Commission intends to publish later this year a discussion paper on powers of attorney and other matters relating to guardianship of the adult incapacitated.
  It may turn out that, on the basis of the commission's consultations, and a more wide ranging consideration of the matter, a different solution to the problem may emerge. Accordingly, I ask hon. Members to recognise that it may be necessary to return to the subject when the commission issues its report and recommendations. In bringing forward the new clause we recognise that a social need exists which should be met now, and new clause 21 is sufficient to achieve that end. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to accept new clause 21 and amendment No. 108, and I ask the hon. Member for Garscadden to withdraw new clause 8.
  Mr. Dewar: I have no difficulty about falling in with the Minister's request on this occasion. I do not always think that a shorter clause is a better clause but there is no doubt that we are attempting to obtain the same result and I am perfectly happy to take the Minister's word that his new clause encompasses the meaning more conveniently. It is an admirable means of curing a difficulty, which, as he fairly said, has faced many families who unfortunately, have had to deal with the situation where a close relative no longer has the faculties to look after his or her affairs. It is right in those situations—in a sense anticipated, because a power of attorney has been granted—that the power of attorney should run on and allow the proper administration of that person's affairs. I am glad that the Minister has acted to achieve that. I welcome his new clause, and will not press new clause 8.
  Dr. Godman: I, too, welcome new clause 21. Will the Law Commission, as part of its brief, comment upon the code of practice which was produced under the auspices of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984? I ask that question because I am fairly confident that neither the House nor the Scottish Grand Committee has ever had the opportunity of scrutinising the workings of that important Act.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The remit is for the Law Commission to consider later in the year matters relating to the guardianship of the adult incapacitated. In so far as the code relates to this, it would be perfectly competent for the Commission to comment on it as it so wished.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 24

  EVIDENCE OF CHILDREN THROUGH TELEVISION LINK IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
  '.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, where a child has been cited to give evidence in a trial, the court may, on an application being made to it, authorise the giving of evidence by the child by means of a live television link.
  (2) The court may grant an application under subsection (1) above only on cause shown having regard in particular to—

  (a) the possible effect on the child if required to give evidence, no such application having been granted; and

  (b) whether it is likely that the child would be better able to give evidence if such application were granted.

  (3) In considering whether to grant an application under subsection (1) above, the court may take into account, where appropriate, any of the following—

  (a) the age and maturity of the child;

  (b) the nature of the alleged offence;

  (c) the nature of the evidence which the child is likely to be called on to give; and

  (d) the relationship, if any, between the child and the accused.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following: Government new clauses 25 to 27.
  New clause 1—Evidence of children on commission in criminal proceedings—
  '.—(1) Notwithstanding section 32 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and subject to section (Circumstances in which procedures may be authorised) of this Act, where a child has been cited to give evidence in a trial, whether under solemn or summary procedure, the court may, on an application being made to it at an appropriate time, appoint a commissioner to take the evidence of the child.
  (2) The proceedings before a commissioner under this section shall be recorded by video recorder.
  (3) The accused shall not be present in the room where the proceedings under this section are taking place except with the leave of the commissioner, but the accused, if not present, shall be entitled to watch and hear those proceedings by such other means as seem suitable to the commissioner.
  (4) In subsection (1) above "at an appropriate time" means—

  (a) in relation to solemn proceedings, at any time before the oath is administered to the jury;

  1228

  (b) in relation to summary proceedings, at any time before the first witness is sworn, or

  (c) in exceptional circumstances, in relation to either solemn or summary proceedings, during the course of the trial.'.

  New clause 2—Use of screens in taking evidence of children in criminal proceedings—
  '.—(1) Subject to section (Circumstances in which procedures may be authorised) of this Act, where a child has been cited to give evidence in a trial, whether under solemn or summary procedure, the court may, on an application being made to it, authorise the use of a screen to conceal the accused from the sight of the child, notwithstanding that such use of a screen is objected to by or on behalf of the accused.
  (2) Where a screen is used in pursuance of this section, arrangements shall be made to ensure that the accused is able to watch and hear the child while the child is giving evidence.'.
  New clause 3—Evidence of children through television link in criminal proceedings—
  '.—Subject to section (Circumstances in which procedures may be authorised) of this Act, where a child has been cited to give evidence in a trial, whether under solemn or summary procedure, the court may, on an application being made to it, authorise the giving of evidence by the child by means of a live television link.'.
  New clause 4—Circumstances in which procedures may be authorised—
  '.—(1) The court may grant an application under sections (Evidence of children on commission in criminal proceedings), (Use of screens in taking evidence of children in criminal proceedings) or (Evidence of children through television link in criminal proceedings) of this Act only on cause shown having regard in particular to—

  (a) the possible effect on the child if required to give evidence in open court; and

  (b) whether it is likely that the child would be better able to give evidence if not required to do so in open court.

  (2) In having regard to the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) above, the court may take into account, where appropriate, any of the following—

  (a) the age and maturity of the child;

  (b) the nature of the alleged offence;

  (c) the nature of the evidence which the child is likely to be called on to give; and

  (d) the relationship, if any, between the child and the accused.'.

  Government amendment No. 127.
  4.30 pm
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This is perhaps the most important issue before us this afternoon. The clauses concern the protection of children in criminal cases, about which there has been widespread concern, and it is right that they should be before us today. There has been considerable concern about criminal trials where child witnesses under stress have been unable to give their evidence properly. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) tabled a number of amendments in Committee, and made it clear that he wished to return to the matter on Report.
  The discussion is centred on the use of a live television link arrangement, under which the child witness would be in a room separate from the court room and would give evidence through closed-circuit television. We have decided that the arrangement should be progressively introduced in Scotland. It is intended—subject to consultation with the judiciary—that appropriate equipment should be available initially in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

  1229
  The arrangement is based on the recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission in its "Report on the evidence of Children and Other Potentially Vulnerable Witnesses", published earlier this year. The Commission believes that, in many cases, children will be able to give evidence in court by conventional means.
  Live television links should be required in relatively few cases. Their use is accordingly to be at the discretion of the trial judge, according to the statutory criteria set out in the first Government amendment. It would of course reduce the expected benefits from the use of the live television link if the child witness still had to identify the accused in court in a face-to-face dock identification. Accordingly, a further Government amendment deals with evidential requirements.
  There are also further provisions dealing with sheriff court jurisdiction and the transfer of sheriff court cases within a sheriffdom. The jurisdiction provision enables a case to be taken anywhere in a sheriffdom, and the transfer of a case within a sheriffdom will be allowed when an application for the use of a live television link has been approved. Without these transfer provisions, it would be difficult to operate the new procedure efficiently.
  We have reached the view that we should not—at least, in the meantime—implement the Scottish Law Commission's recommendations with regard to a video—recorded pre-trial deposition procedure and a statutory provision relating to the use of screens. The deposition procedure would involve an examination of the child witness, ideally before the judge who was to preside at the trial. Much the same purpose will be served by a live television link. We have decided that it is appropriate to introduce the live television link procedure first, and monitor its operation carefully before considering other statutory measures.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister say why he thinks that he and his Department know better than the Law Commission? I thought that the Law Commission was rather convincing.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I would not say that I knew better than the Law Commission. I have discussed the matter in detail with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Garscadden is expressing scorn, but my hon. and learned Friend probably has more experience of criminal cases than any other Scottish Member of Parliament. He has considerable knowledge of the subject.
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), as I have not done so yet.
  Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) asked me, if the opportunity arose, to express his apologies for not being present, and to state clearly that he supports what the Government are doing and believes that it is right.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross told me the same.
  1230
  The Government take the view they do because to adopt another arrangement could be prejudicial to the accused. I myself have been involved in a court case in which a child witness identified a boy as guilty of murder, but under cross-examination admitted that he had told a lie on the instructions of relatives. I have seen that happen. That case involved youths who had kicked another youth to death. If that child's claim had not been broken down under cross-examination, an innocent person could easily have been convicted of murder. As well as the protection of children, we must bear in mind the importance of fairness to the accused.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I cannot help making the observation that, if the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) now has power of attorney for the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), we may have to examine the capacity of the latter.
  Taking the three new clauses together, I find it difficult to grasp the practicalities of defending an accused person in circumstances in which a television link has been allowed by the court, and the extent to which cross-examination of a child may be possible. If I read new clause 26 correctly, cross-examination of a child on the issue of identification may not be excluded by way of statute. Practical difficulties exist that remain to be explained.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In the case of a child who had been abused in one way or another, dock identification could be very upsetting and distressing for that child. We believe that a video link could provide an effective means of taking evidence. Identification might be made on some former occasion. One Glasgow police station has a one-way mirror that allows women who have been raped, for example, to identify their attackers without suffering immense additional distress.
  Dr. Godman: I am confused by the Minister's use of the terms "closed-circuit television link" and "video link". I refer him to a comment that he made at the beginning of our debate yesterday afternoon:
  "I intend to accept the central point on video evidence. That does not include every aspect of new clause 1".—[Official Report, 16 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 1060.]
  Why has the Minister changed his mind?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I want to make it clear that I do accept the proposals for a video link, but the evidence goes further than that, and suggests that there is a risk that it could be prejudicial to the accused.
  As to cross-examination, the television link would be continuous. The provision concerning identification would apply only where the court had granted an application for use of the television link procedure. Where a child gives evidence that he or she recalls having previously identified the person alleged to have committed the offence, the evidence of a third party of that identification would be admissible as evidence of such identification. There remains for determination by the court the sufficiency of that evidence—whether the Crown has sufficiently proved the identification. Accordingly, fairness to the accused would not be prejudiced.
  Mr. Dalyell: This is a complex subject, and Ministers are certainly entitled to make decisions on the basis of their own experience. I personally would greatly value the views of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir

  1231
  N. Fairbairn) on such a subject. Equally, the House is entitled to know in detail why the Government have overturned the Law Commission recommendation, especially since its Lord President, Lord Hope, is currently proposing a scheme.
  Do the Government have the agreement, in their view, of the Lord President? Has he given advice to the effect that the Government, rather than the Law Commission, are correct? I do not want to make a party point, because none is to be made, but it is a matter of considerable importance to a number of our constituents. Again, I can think of a personal case in which I was tangentially involved on a constituency basis.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I genuinely do not think that the Lord President has been approached to ask whether he supports the Law Commission's view in opposition to any other point of view on this matter. He is certainly aware of the Government's proposals, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow will be aware.
  The Scottish Law Commission in its report recorded a number of reservations expressed to it about the use of screens. The Scottish court is exploring technical aspects of the use of screens and we would wish to monitor the present use before reaching a concluded view as to the needs of the statutory provision on the line recommended by the Scottish Law Commission.
  Undoubtedly hon. Members are aware of the welcome memorandum on guidance on child witnesses which was issued by the Lord Justice-General at the end of July. The purpose of the memorandum is to provide assistance to judges in the exercise of their discretionary powers to put a child at ease—for example, by removing wigs and gowns. The adoption of other measures recommended in the Lord Justice-General's memorandum can be expected to make a substantial contribution to reducing stress for child witnesses. We wish to know how wider use of such measures will help before we consider further statutory or other innovations.
  Two other Government amendments provide necessary definitions and make necessary adjustments to the long title of the Bill. The Government amendments provide a coherent and practical set of provisions. We wish to respond quickly to the opportunity to legislate now to bring in closed circuit television for child witnesses.
  The new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow are not workable as they stand, in the absence of a provision enabling cases to be transferred and doing away with dock identification. Accordingly, I invite the House to support the Government amendments.
  4.45 pm
  Dr. Godman: I thank the Minister for responding as he did to my new clause 3. However, I wish to speak to new clause 1 which is also in my name. Incidentally, I shall not press new clause 3 as it was intended to elicit a comprehensive response from the Minister and I thank him for his positive response.
  New clause 24 not only brings Scots law into line with English law in terms of section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but is an improvement on that English legislation. I think that I am right in saying that there are now 22 English Crown courts with closed circuit television
  1232
  and that there is a fair geographical spread throughout England of what has become known as "CCTV". There is some confusion between closed-circuit television and video recordings. The Minister was talking about closed circuit television.
  My aim in new clause 1 is simple: to give added protection to children when they give evidence in criminal proceedings involving sex abuse or physical abuse.
  In the past 10 months, two major reports on this deeply troubling matter have been published in England and Scotland. I refer to Judge Pigot's Home Office advisory group's report on video evidence published in September 1989 and to the 125th report of the Scottish Law Commission entitled, "Report on the evidence of Children and Other Potentially Vulnerable Witnesses" which was published about nine months ago.
  In the context of new clauses 1, 2 and 4 and of the Minister's new clauses, English and Scottish legal systems have a good deal to learn from each other. I was much taken by the observations offered by Spencer and Flin in their book, "The Evidence of Children. The Law and the Psychology"—Spencer is a Cambridge fellow and Dr. Rhona Flin is a psychologist at the Robert Gordon's Institute in Aberdeen. In their book, published by Blackstone Press earlier this year, they said about evidence given by children:
  "It is now almost 400 years since James VI of Scotland became James I of England, and nearly 300 years since the Act of Union: yet little knowledge about the Scottish legal system seems to have spread south of the Border. In Cambridge University Library there has been a copy of Dickson's classic treatise on the law of evidence in Scotland since 1864, and when the first author consulted it in 1989, he found that every page remained uncut!"
  I believe that if the English were more familiar with our system of children's hearings, which was set up in 1971, they would establish something akin to that system in England. It is a matter of considerable regret to me that, despite a near consensus in the House, the Government have failed to use the Children Act 1989 as a step towards the creation of an informal system of courts south of the border. In that regard, England and Wales are some 20 years behind Scotland. However, in the matters dealt with by my new clauses Scotland lags behind England. The Minister is rectifying that to some extent in his new clauses.
  In support of new clause 1 and the use of video-recorded interviews with children as evidence, I intend to quote from both the reports that I mentioned. I am disappointed by the Minister's comments on the use of such video-recorded interviews as evidence. I understand that such legislation, involving the use of such video-recorded interviews, will be introduced south of the border. If that is the case, we shall again be lagging behind in Scotland.
  I confess that to draw up my new clause I plagiarised the draft Bill that was appended to the Scottish Law Commissioner's report. I make no apology for that, because, among other things, it has elicited a most heartening response on closed-circuit television from the Minister. I still hope to persuade the House on the need for a similar response to new clause 1. My aim is to lessen the appalling burden imposed on children, without harming the interests of the accused.
  I think that the Pigot report may lead to new legislation south of the border. On page 69, it states:

  1233
  "We recommend that at trials on indictment for violent and sexual offences and offences of cruelty and neglect and at comparable trials in the juvenile courts"—
  which is the English system—
  "video-recorded interviews with children under the age of 14 conducted by police officers, social workers or those whose duties include the investigation of crime or the protection of the welfare of children should be admissible as evidence. Where the offence charged is of a sexual nature this provision should extend to child witnesses under the age of 17".
  That is a radical proposal, but I accept it wholeheartedly.
  At page 18, paragraph 416, the Scottish Law Commission's report said:
  "On the whole matter we accordingly recommend: 10(a) where a child has been cited to give evidence in a criminal trial, whether under solemn or summary procedure, it should be competent, as an alternative to adducing the child as a witness in court, to take the evidence of that child on commission prior to the date of the trial or, exceptionally, during the course of the trial."
  This excellent report goes on:
  "(b) the taking of evidence on commission should, so far as practicable, take place in a room which is congenial and non-threatening so that the child may feel at ease during the proceedings."
  I heartily endorse that recommendation.
  The video-recorded interviews to which I refer are far removed from precognitions under Scottish law. Precognition is
  "The preliminary examination of witnesses or persons likely to know about the facts of a case, in order to obtain, with a view to trial, a general knowledge of the available evidence; especially in criminal law, an examination by a procurator-fiscal of those who can give evidence regarding a crime or offence (in older practice conducted by or before a sheriff or other judge ordinary)".
  That quotation is taken from "The Oxford English Dictionary", second edition, volume XI. "The Concise Scots Dictionary" simply states that precognition is
  "a statement made by a witness during this investigation."
  Such precognitions are usually conducted by ex-police officers, but it is not unknown for others to carry out such work, even though they may have had no training. The video-recorded interviews provided for by my new clause 1 would have to be spontaneous and voluntary. They should certainly not be based on interrogation and they should not be conducted by over-zealous professionals. I recognise that there are major difficulties; they do not have to be pointed out to me by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), or by my hon. and old Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Precognitions have always caused difficulties for our courts.
  I am reminded of Lord Justice Clerk Thomson's comment in Kerr v. H.M. Advocate, Scottish Law Times 1958, volumne 82. He said that
  "Precognosers as a whole appear to be gifted with a measure of optimism which no amount of disillusionment appears to damp."
  As with precognitions, the interviews of children present problems because of their limited powers of conversation and their immaturity.
  In the Butler-Sloss report the observation is offered that "Not all members of the judiciary"—
  this is the English judiciary—
  "are in favour of video recordings."
  That comment, however, appears to be based on anecdotal evidence, perhaps obtained during conversations with fellow judges over a glass of sherry. No research evidence is offered in that report for the reservation concerning video-recorded interviews being used as depositions.
  1234
  The commissioner to whom the Law Commission refers would need to be chosen carefully, perhaps initially from the ranks of reporters to the children's panels. I have every confidence in their integrity. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden will readily agree with that comment, because he was employed for a short time as a reporter. Professionals of that kind could, in the early days, take on the role of commissioner in order to obtain such evidence. A young child is much better able to remember dreadful incidents shortly after the perpetrator has committed them rather than in a courtroom six, eight, 10 months, or even a year or 18 months later. That is why I say that video-recorded interviews should be used as evidence in such cases.
  I regret that we are dealing with these important issues on Report. They are worthy of lengthy and tough-minded debate. There are cases under investigation in Scotland to which I cannot refer because they are sub judice. However, they have aroused a sense of horror and repugnance among all decent-minded people throughout the land, despite the conservative reservations of lawyers. I have much respect for lawyers, despite some of the observations that I have made, but, by heavens, they form part of a conservative profession. They always offer, as the Minister has done, the classic conservative argument that the moment is not right for change, that the moment is not propitious. It is the classic argument of the conservative lawyer, irrespective of political affiliation.
  New clause 2 provides for the use of screens. Again the Scottish Office is lagging behind the English. I refer to Home Office circular 61/1990, published in August 1990. The title of the circular is
  "Use of Screens in Magistrates' Courts."
  That circular was sent to the clerk to the Magistrates' Courts Committee and to clerks to the justices, with a copy for the chairmen of the bench, for information. The circular has also been sent to the chief officers of police in England and to the chief probation officer. The circular says about screens:
  "The purpose of this circular is to bring to the attention of courts a recent decision of the Court of Appeal on the use of screens in courts in cases of violence and/or sexual abuse involving child witnesses.
  2. The Court of Appeal, in the case of R v X, R v Y, R v Z [1989] 'The Times' November 3 ruled that the use of screens was not unfair or prejudicial in order to prevent children from being intimidated by their surroundings.
  3. Justices' clerks may also wish to be aware that the Advisory Group on Video Evidence, chaired by Judge Pigot, in its Report published in December 1989 recommended that screens should be used in proceedings in magistrates' courts in cases of violence against and/or sexual abuse of children. This would help child witnesses to bear the burdens of appearance in open court, cross-examination, face to face confrontation with the alleged perpetrator and repeated and unnecessary worry about matters which may be extremely distressing or even traumatic."
  If the measure is regarded as necessary for English children, why is it not necessary for Scottish children?
  During the summer recess, which was not all holiday for hard-working Members of Parliament, I examined—not with an architect's eye but with a shipwright's eye—all the court rooms in the sheriff courts in Edinburgh. On some occasions I sat in on cases. I have examined all the High Court courtrooms and the courtrooms in the sheriff court in Glasgow. That court must be the most modern in Scotland. God knows what the architects were thinking when they placed the witness box in each of those courts within 12 or 15 ft of the dock.

  1235
  5 pm
  In those circumstances, young children may have to give evidence about members of their family—their nearest and dearest—within three or four yards of the accused. If the English can introduce screens and such a circular can be sent out by the Home Office, why cannot the Minister send a similar circular to Scottish sheriffs?
  On page 19, paragraph 4·17 the Law commission report says:
  "we expressed considerable reservations about the use of screens as a means of concealing an accused from the sight of a child who is giving evidence in court. Those reservations were based, first, on a concern that screens might not in fact be effective in reducing a child's anxiety".
  I recognise and reaffirm the distinctiveness of our legal system, but in this case we in Scotland have a good deal to learn from the English experience, just as they have a good deal to learn from our excellent system of children's hearings. Screens could be used in some of our courts and, given the architecture of those courts, they would provide an essential protection for children.
  As I have said, I have no wish to continue with new clause 3 in the light of the Minister's comprehensive new clauses. However, although I am heartened by the Minister's new clauses, I am deeply disappointed and saddened by his obduracy about the use of screens. He is a courteous and civilised adversary in debates, but, in the light of the Home Office circular to English magistrates, I am appalled at what appears to be a contradiction between what he said in the House last night—column 1060 of Hansard—about the use of video evidence and what he has said today. I am fairly confident that it is a genuine mistake. Like many other hon. Members and many people outwith the House, he has confused closed circuit television links with video recordings. I do not think that there is any such thing as a video link. He is talking about a closed circuit television installation that allows a child to give evidence while sitting in congenial surroundings in a room adjourning the court. There cannot be a video link in those circumstances.
  The video-recorded interview is a change. It has been argued for by police officers, police surgeons, social workers and the Royal Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I visited the society's unit in the east end of Glasgow last week. It has a video camera with a two-way mirror. I do not know why they are called two-way mirrors because those being observed cannot see the observers. People such as Norman Dunning and Sam McTaggart of the RSSPCC should be allowed to interview a child following abuse or an assault. That interview should be used in its entirety as a production and should be admissible as evidence. The aim is to reduce the appalling distress that is inflicted upon children following such abuse.
  Apparently my new clause has some technical deficiencies, but, if the Minister were to produce something along similar lines, I believe that it would lead to a significant improvement in the rehabilitation and treatment of children caught up in horrendous circumstates. Also it might persuade mothers, in some cases the fathers, or those responsible for the care and protection of children to come forward so that the alleged perpetrator may be proceeded against.
  My response to the Minister is mixed. I am pleased with his new clause concerning closed circuit television, but I
  1236
  am deeply disappointed, indeed angered, over his obdurate response to my new clause 1. He still has a chance to change his mind about my new clause.
  Mr. Dewar: There was some laughter when the Minister said that he had consulted the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) about new clause 24. There was a voice from afar, a sort of thought transference, as the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) told us of the hon. and learned Gentleman's support for this proposition. It meant no disrespect to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross, but the Minister has spent all his time in Committee disagreeing with him on everything and it seems odd that he should now pray in aid his agreement as a conclusive argument.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: All advocates at the Bar will recognise that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross is an exceptionally experienced criminal lawyer. He has had immense experience in the courts. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) has been his junior counsel, as have my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I.
  Mr. Dewar: I accept that. I do not wish to spend my time discussing the hon. and learned Gentleman's views except to say that I am not surprised that he supports new clause 24. I should have thought that he would have great doubts about new clause 26, which deals with identification procedures, but I shall come to that.
  This is an important announcement. It has come late in our proceedings and I regret that, because we have no opportunity for amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) might have made more progress if this had been carried out on a different timetable. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who, as we know, has long been involved in this matter. He has done an enormous amount of hard work and has shown tremendous interest and commitment in the cause of helping children through the stressful and difficult occasion of having to give evidence in court. The change in views must owe something to my hon. Friend's work and efforts.
  I speak perhaps from a prejudiced position. For a short period, I earned my bread and butter as a defence lawyer, practising mainly in the criminal courts. As a counterweight to that, I spent five years as a reporter to the children's panel, which might have given me a rather different perspective. I welcome the new clause on the use of television links to take the evidence of children. I hope that it will work well, because it is important to protect children in that difficult position.
  We have heard much about the Scottish Law Commission report, which was published in February and is the fundamental basis of this debate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow about the fundamental point made in paragraph 4·8, which says that there is
  "a range of available options from which can be selected the one which appears likely to be the most beneficial in a given case."
  There were three available options, and I have some sympathy with the point about the reasons why one of the three has been selected. However, the Minister's argument was not clear on that point.

  1237
  The Minister should say more about pre-trial deposition, the use of screens and why it was decided not to proceed with them; there is some confusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow made a strong plea on pre-trial deposition, but what he was advocating in his new clause is different from what the Law Commission advocated in its report. He kept saying that it is an excellent report and that it should be implemented, but the key to pre-trial deposition is that it is not just a recorded voluntary statement by the child but a formal examination of the child. A key factor recommended by the Law Commission was that there should be cross-examination of the child by the solicitors appearing for the Crown and defence which should take place at the latest possible date and as near to the trial date as is administratively possible. That is very different from what my hon. Friend was advocating. I do not want to enter into the details of that point because of the constraints on time, but pre-trial deposition can be interpreted in rather different ways. I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow about the use of screens and the Minister should say a little more about them.
  It came as a surprise to me that closed circuit television was now selected for debate in this way, and I stress the word "now", because, as anyone who has the most cursory interest in this matter will recognise, it has a curious history. Paragraph 4·28 of the Law Commission's report says:
  "In the Discussion Paper"—
  that was the basis of its findings—
  "we suggested that live closed circuit television should not be introduced in Scotland as a means of enabling child witnesses to give their evidence. Our principal reason for reaching that conclusion was that we considered that a child who was too frightened to give evidence in court was unlikely to be any less frightened if required to sit in a distant room, surrounded by a mass of cameras and screens … No doubt in view of the negative position which we ourselves had adopted at that stage, the majority of consultees simply agreed with us without making any further comment."
  The Law Commission came down decisively against the proposition that it then advocated in its final report because, as I understand it, it reached the conclusion in paragraph 4·31 that
  "a closed circuit television arrangement along the lines which we have described appears likely to be helpful."
  Paragraph 4·29 says that English experience
  "has persuaded us, first, that a closed circuit television arrangement need not be obtrusive or threatening from the point of view of the child, and second, that it need not, and does not, present problems from the point of view of judges, counsel and, so far as can be ascertained, juries."
  It therefore reached its conclusions on the basis of English experience. I want to make a confession to the House which is probably shared by most hon. Members present: I have not seen the English experience in action. I do not know whether the Minister has done so; perhaps when he replies he will say whether he has.
  5.15 pm
  I do not want to found too much on this, but perhaps as a corrective and a warning I say that we shall have to monitor this practice carefully. I have seen a report of a solicitor whom I know extremely well and who has very wide knowledge of these cases. He is noted for his work in welfare law and cases involving children. He recently visited Guildford Crown court—he showed much enthusiasm in doing so—and I have the report that he
  1238
  wrote for the benefit of the Law Society. He says that he visited that court in a positive frame of mind. He states that he is strongly in favour of reform and
  "Given that I approached this task in that frame of mind I was disappointed by what I saw at Guildford. The most abiding overall impression is that the use of the live television link is very obviously more conducive to an inquisitorial process and is very much out of place grafted on to adversarial proceedings."
  He mentions several technical difficulties that he witnessed and records the fact, in a rather legal phrase which may prejudice his testimony in some people's minds, that
  "There is no doubt that the use of this television link system generates an aura in the court which is not conducive to a vigorous defence case."
  He backed that up from what he saw in that court.
  That is one of the difficulties. We are trying to produce such an atmosphere, but, as was fairly acknowledged by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, the balance must be maintained, and it is sometimes difficult to achieve that.
  I do not want to quote that report at length, because it would not be fair to do so, but it is clear that that solicitor, having seen the system in operation, took a rather different view from the Law Commission. We shall obviously have to monitor these matters carefully, although I am certain that we are right to try to strike at the problems of children giving evidence and to create an atmosphere that is fairer and will put them more at ease.
  We tend to argue these matters in the context of child abuse cases, but the Government's proposal is available—I stress the word "available"—for any witness under the age of 16. It is perhaps not always true to say that it will be used for a small child who perhaps has been sexually abused by a member of the family.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow mentioned the excellence of the report, but he will not have forgotten that in paragraph 4·7 the Law Commission states:
  "Any new techniques or procedures will, we anticipate, be required in a relatively small number of cases."
  I find that a little disappointing. If the Law Commission is right, such new techniques or procedures may not make as big an impact as perhaps some people expect.
  I suspect that most of the evidence that is given by children about sexual abuse, perhaps in the home and involving members of their family, will be given not in criminal trials but in children's panel hearing proofs. Although that is not a criminal trial, and although some courts try to put the child at his or her ease, many of the inhibitions and the problems that will exist for the child giving evidence would exist for him giving evidence in a criminal charge. The effect for the child in terms of what may happen and whether he may continue to live at home is perhaps just as traumatic and drastic. We may have to consider how we run our children's hearing proofs because that may become a matter of some importance.
  Does the Minister intend to accept the Scottish Law Commission's recommendation in paragraph 4·40 that guidelines should be laid down for the courts on when these television arrangements should be used? Perhaps he feels that it would be better to leave the matter entirely to the discretion of the courts. The hon. Gentleman should say something also about the Scottish Law Commission's recommendation that, if this system is used, it must be founded on an application before the trial by one of the parties to the trial, be it the Crown or the defence.

  1239
  Presumably, some thought has been given to that aspect. It would be useful to know whether a pre-trial application must be made and when this system will begin to operate.
  The report on the Guildford Crown court proceedings referred to a child who was in a separate room with someone who knew that child—I was going to say "minder" but it sounds a little inhuman. In that case, it was the mother. The counsel who conducted the examination-in-chief and cross-examination remained in the courtroom. I gather that in Canada counsel go into the room with the child and the whole case is examined there. This is a fundamental difference in approach. I suspect that some of the difficulties on which my colleague reported in the Guildford case may have arisen from the fact that there was a preference for counsel on both sides to speak "from afar" through the television mechanism.
  Dr. Godman: One can think of variations. Why not put the accused person or persons in a room adjoining the court, with links to the courtroom? One can think of a number of ways in which life can be made much easier for the child without harming the interests of the accused.
  Mr. Dewar: That matter can be discussed. It is a fairly basic principle—this may sound like a lawyer's point—that an accused man or woman is entitled to be present throughout his or her trial. If that person is in another room with a television link, there might be problems. However, I take my hon. Friend's point. All these matters can be discussed.
  New clause 26 will be of particular concern to many people involved in court work because it involves identification of the accused. Paragraph 3·7 of the Scottish Law Commission report states:
  "The identification of an accused person as the perpetrator of an alleged offence is always an essential matter which the prosecution requires to establish in the course of a trial."
  If this is an essential matter, careful arrangements must be made to ensure that identification can be fairly tested and challenged by the defence if it wishes.
  I recognise that "dock identification"—to use the Scottish Law Commission's words—has been in disfavour in England and Wales since 1914 and I recognise all its shortcomings. I have often been struck by the fact that it is not very difficult for a person to know who he is supposed to identify if the other person is sitting in the dock between two policemen. Memory may be unreliable after a period has passed and not be as sound when the trial comes around. Identification is important. I accept that in many of the cases in which this procedure may be used, involving allegations of child abuse within a family, identification may not be a big issue. But for all that, there is a much more wide-ranging power in new clause 26 and we must pay some attention to it.
  The Scottish Law Commission dealt at some length with this matter and concluded that in a case where there was identification parade evidence or some other recognised identification procedure—perhaps involving a young person and identification from a group of photographs—evidence of that should be lodged as a production 14 days before the trial. The Scottish Law Commission concluded that, during the period before the trial, the defence should have the right to challenge, and if that evidence were challenged presumably identification would have to be made during the trial in a more
  1240
  traditional fashion. That may seem a little clumsy. Clearly, an attempt was made to ensure that there was a right of challenge.
  New clause 26 states that where
  "the child gives evidence that he recalls having identified, prior to the trial, a person alleged to have committed an offence, the evidence of a third party as to the identification of that person by the child prior to the trial shall be admissable as evidence as to such identification."
  How does the defence challenge that identification? The Minister must address himself to that point. The defence can challenge the third party who is giving evidence, but the third party is not the primary person involved. Is it envisaged that, in those circumstances, the child can be cross-examined? Presumably, one would be able to cross-examine the child about the circumstances in which he made the identification.
  It is important to establish exactly what is envisaged because the identification may be vital in some cases. Even in sexual abuse cases, assumptions may be made about who is responsible. In my experience, such assumptions are not always justified. Another person may have been responsible, even if the incident took place as described. We all know that identification can be shaken. I know even from my limited and lowly experience in the sheriff court that identification has been decisively shaken under cross-examination in terms of the jury's decision.
  I am concerned about new clause 26. I recognise that we do not want to put undue pressure on a child, but some cases relate to charges that are peculiarly damaging to the reputation of the accused and have disastrous consequences. We must be careful to ensure that there is a right to challenge identification evidence. I am not sure whether, on the face of new clause 26, that will apply as well as the Minister would like. I hope that he will comment on that matter.
  My fears may be exaggerated. For example, there may be a pre-trial application by the Crown to protect a child. The defence may say, "The essence of our defence is that my witness was not involved. There has been a mistake in identification." The court may take that information into account in deciding whether this procedure is entirely appropriate. There is a difficult balance to strike and there are unanswered questions about the identification issue.
  I have taken enough time to express some of my anxieties. We are right to go down this road. I have some sympathy with the screen proposal. I feel that much more work should be done on the matter of pre-trial depositions than is possible during these truncated proceedings. I hope that what the Minister offers will protect the child, remove the threatening majesty of the system, allow the child to speak more freely and in a more relaxed fashion and allow the court to get the truth with more certainty, which is the point of the exercise. It is difficult to strike a balance, but I am happy with the idea that we should introduce these provisions, that we should monitor them carefully and that we should learn from experience and consider what further steps are necessary.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I have grave reservations about these provisions. Those reservations are in no sense ameliorated by the fact that we are discussing these matters against the background of a time restraint. What we are discussing represents a substantial innovation in criminal procedure and the law of evidence in Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke with great sincerity and on the basis of

  1241
  considerable analysis and work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that my reaction is the automatic reaction that one might expect from someone involved in the law.
  I do not claim to have the experience of defending in the criminal courts that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) has, but I have had the advantage of prosecuting and defending and I suspect that that may entitle me to claim a rather more rounded view of the difficulties to which the new clauses may give rise. The hon. Member for Glasgow Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has referred to some of those difficulties already. But it is also important to realise that new clause 24 applies not simply to cases involving assaults on children, as its language makes plain. It says that the court will have the power available to it
  "where a child has been cited to give evidence in a trial".
  That means any trial.
  5.30 pm
  There may well be cases in which it is not the prosecution but the defence that seeks to take advantage of the new clause. The defence may judge it in the interests of the accused to create the kind of artificiality to which we shall undoubtedly be subjected if the child is in another room while the proceedings of the court are taking place in the courtroom.
  One important issue has not been addressed so far. The accused person is not represented by counsel or solicitors in every case; he may choose to represent himself. In such cases, the court is slow to allow anything to happen that may be prejudicial to the accused by reason of the fact that he or she is not legally represented. It has been suggested that we might follow the Canadian model and have counsel or solicitors in the same room as the child witness. The whole purpose of the new clause would be defeated if the accused was representing himself and went with the prosecutor to the room where the child was being kept. The proposal is by no means straightforward.
  Moreover, one should not underestimate the difficulties for the prosecutor if the child is to be kept in a room away from the court. Often a stage is reached in a child' evidence at which, for a whole variety of reasons—some of which have been canvassed—the child becomes reluctant to continue and needs to be prompted. Those who have prosecuted in cases that involve children giving evidence know that there are certain devices that one can use. One may adopt a slightly different tone. Within the bounds of proper questions, and not transgressing by the use of leading questions, one may remind the child of some factor that may persuade him to remember his evidence. We should not discount, or be unaware of, the difficulties that may be caused to both prosecution and defence in the ordinary conduct of criminal proceedings if those proceedings are conducted in accordance with the new clause.
  The new clause lists a number of factors that the court must take into account in considering whether to allow such an application. Absent from that list of factors is something that is an essential feature of all criminal proceedings—fairness to the accused. As the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said, the purpose of this innovation is to prevent children from having to suffer the additional traumatic effects of having to give evidence about extremely unpleasant events in which they may have been involved. But however laudable and desirable that
  1242
  purpose may be, it must always he subordinate to our overriding purpose, which is to convict the guilty and to ensure that the innocent are not convicted. The absence of any reference to fairness to the accused in the critieria set out in the new clause is certainly worthy of note and, in my view, gives rise to some concern.
  Like the hon. Member for Garscadden, I am especially apprehensive about the effect of new clause 26. I intervened in the Minister's opening remarks to say so, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had to chide me for the length of my intervention. It was only a reflection of my concern.
  Suppose that, on a previous occasion, a child has identified someone who is subsequently charged and who is an accused person in criminal proceedings. It would appear that, however informal the circumstances were, and whatever the nature of the relationship between the child and the person to whom the identification was made, it would be open to that person to come to the court and say that that identification was made.
  Those of us who have participated in criminal trials involving children know that there is the constant fear of coaching. Such an identification may well have been made in response to a series of leading questions—to questions of an interrogatory nature and questions that might contain some threat or inducement. Nevertheless, the identification would become admissible in evidence. Moreover, under new clause 26, the fact of the identification having been made would still be a matter on which the child, and the person to whom it was made, could be cross-examined.
  No doubt the Minister has given careful consideration to the cases of Muldoon v. Her Majesty's Advocate and Bennett v. Her Majesty's Advocate and will know the extent to which the High Court of Justiciary has departed from the apparently inflexible rule that identification could be carried out only in the presence of the accused in the course of the proceedings. But I wonder whether careful consideration was given to the effect that this new clause, which is designed to protect children, would have and to the extent to which it may innovate in respect of the principle of fairness to the accused person.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I apologise for not having been here throughout the debate.
  I support new clause 24 because I think that it represents the best way of not putting odium upon an accused person. The protection of the accused lies in the fact that there must be an application to justify. It is not a matter automatic; the procedure must be justified by application to the court. That is most important.
  I should also like to bring to the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) something that I did not know until last week. Apparently, in England, an identification in court—which I have always thought pretty suspect—is not valid.
  Mr. Campbell: On the latter point, I have never known the hon. and learned Gentleman to be anxious to import into the procedure of the law of Scotland things that take place in England. At the centre of our criminal procedure has been the fact that identification must be live identification, although that was watered down to some extent by the views expressed by the court in the case of Muldoon v. Her Majesty's Advocate.

  1243
  In respect of new clause 26, I have tried to illustrate the kind of difficulties that may arise when one embarks on an innovation in the established procedures. The motivation behind such innovations may be of the best but they may raise important and significant issues of principle none the less. I understand that, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, any application under new clause 24 can be granted only by a court if an application is made to it. The language of the new clause states "on cause shown". I understand that, but, as I said before the hon. and learned Gentleman joined us in the Chamber, fairness to the accused must stand at the centre of our criminal proceedings. My concern is that the absence of an express reference to that among the factors that the court must take into account is a serious omission.
  The mood of the House, the country and those who are concerned with these matters is that something should be done to try to assist the giving of evidence by children. It would be churlish and small-minded to try to stand out against that. However, as the hon. Member for Garscadden seemed to imply, I believe that we are embarking upon a substantial innovation that may well give rise to difficulties of which we have not yet conceived in the short time available for our debates.
  In those circumstances, there is a substantial obligation on the Minister to give an undertaking that there will be the most careful monitoring of what takes place. On the issues of identification and the effective representation of an accused person, we need an undertaking that those matters will be examined with great care to ensure that no prejudice arises. It would be most unfortunate if, in our anxiety to do well by children, either through inadvertence or omission, we created circumstances that caused great unfairness to accused persons.
  As has been said many times, it is a question of balance. I am prepared to take a bet on the balance being established by these provisions. None the less, I feel it important to enter these reservations and to urge the Minister to ensure that this innovation in our law does not pass unmonitored and that its effects are properly taken into account and understood.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I intend to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish first to congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on his assiduous work over a considerable period, which has brought this matter eventually to the Floor of the House. It is a pity that we did not have an opportunity to explore this issue in more detail in Committee, because this is a significant innovation. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern because I, too, do not belive that the provisions go far enough. I share his disappointment that pre-trial video depositions are not to be introduced because that would have been a major step forward.
  I listened with great interest to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). I found it difficult to understand many of his technical legal arguments. He seemed extremely pessimistic about the venture upon which our legal system is now embarking. We have a responsibility to take such steps forward. My background is in social work training. Anyone who has read case studies of children who have been physically or
  1244
  sexually abused knows the trauma through which those children have lived and which they are asked to relive time and time again when asked to give evidence.
  This week, many people have been thinking about the horrendous case of the 11-year-old girl who was raped in a ward at St. Helier hospital. We must think of the trauma that that girl and her family have undergone. In similar circumstances in Scotland, we would want to ensure that that child and her family would be spared as many difficulties as possible when bringing the accused to justice and to ensure that it never happens again.
  From a humanitarian point of view, the provisions are a step forward for children in our society. I not only wish the new clause every success, but hope that its provisions will be extended to take account of the other points raised not only by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, but also by the Scottish Law Commission.
  The Minister said that television circuits would be introduced first in Edinburgh and Glasgow. When will that happen? The hon. Gentleman also mentioned monitoring. How long does he envisage the monitoring period lasting? Will it be for a short period or for two or three years? I should like to know how long it will be until a final decision is taken. We should also like to know who will decide whether the experiment has been a success, and the criteria for deciding whether it is a success or a failure.
  I know that the Minister will respond positively—I can tell by the look on his face that he intends to refer to these important points. Many people in Scotland are waiting to hear the exact details of his proposals.
  5.45 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), without whom I am sure that the House would not be discussing these issues. I also want to put on record my great condemnation of the fact that this House saw fit to discuss such relative trivialities as the conduct of the financial affairs of charities for many days in Committee, and yet something as important as this issue has been pushed in at the tail end of our consideration. That is a deplorable sense of proportion. I hope that, when the House is considering a future Scottish law reform Bill, it will give such issues far greater prominence.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow that screens could be an important and valuable part of setting a child at ease, reassuring him or her, and making it possible for the child to feel less fear. I hope that we shall see some progress on that in the future.
  On the issue of the stage at which a child should be interviewed, I accept that both prosecution and defence must cross-examine the child in the interests of justice. However, I do not understand why anyone should think that that cross-examination should invariably take place as near as possible to the date of the trial. I should have thought that, in most cases, the nearer the date of the interview, carried out by both sides, to the events being complained about, the better. Obviously, when the child already knows the person or persons who are accused, recognition of those individuals is irrelevant. However, when the accused persons are not known to the child, it is clear that the sooner the proceedings take place after the event the more likely it is that the child will properly be able to recall events and to recognise those concerned.

  1245
  I was once a witness to a crime and reported the person to the police as having long, greasy red hair, of slim build and about 5 ft. 6 in. tall, but if that person had turned up in court a year later with his hair cut and washed and wearing different clothes, I might not have recognised him if he had not been standing in the dock. It is nonsense to expect a child—possibly a young child—to have clear recall many months after an event.
  I turn now to the claim that children never tell lies. They are not capable of telling lies involving events that are outside their experience. A child cannot invent something which he or she has never encountered, because a child could not recognise such things. Children do not invent things that they could have learnt about only from pornographic magazines, for example, if they have never set eyes on them. That means that children are likely to be telling the truth. In the Cleveland controversy, in their anxiety to protect persons from unjust accusations, some people were far too prone to go around saying that children generally tell lies about such events. For the reasons that I have explained, I do not believe that.
  Although I accept that, in justice to the accused person, the questioning must be partly adversarial, it should be carried out in such a way as to ensure that it is a seeking out of the truth. The adversarial aspect of a normal trial might rattle and unsettle a child and cause him to keep silent. That is to be deplored and it must be avoided.
  Not enough account has been taken of the fact that it is not only the court that might intimidate a child. A child witness in a high court or a sheriff court might have to travel a long way to take part in a trial and might have to stay overnight in an unfamiliar setting. He might have to have breakfast in an hotel dining room and sleep in a strange bed—all that can be unsettling, as any parent will know. Since little can be done about these unsettling events, it is all the more important to try to create as much of an atmosphere of confidence as possible for the child.
  I was interested to receive in my mail this week—most hon. Members must have received it too—a newsletter from the Scottish Child Law Centre. It contains an inquiry page on which a social worker dealing with a number of abused children who would be appearing in court to testify had asked the writers of the publication what could be done to ease the position of such children. We have already heard about a memorandum that came out in the summer describing some improvements which have already been made, such as people no longer wearing wigs and gowns, but I think that the advice given to the social worker shows that there is a long way to go yet. It was that
  "preparation can sometimes be difficult because of lack of consistency in approaches by judges to the protection of child witnesses".
  Such inconsistences must be reduced as much as humanly possible. It should not be left to a judge to decide how he or she should approach the protection of child witnesses. I hope for some code of practice on such matters.
  The same publication goes on to refer to a Crown office leaflet entitled "Going to Court", which can be helpful, and to a leaflet which is apparently used for children in English courts, entitled "Susie and the Wise Hedgehog go to Court". It seems that that could be used to some extent in Scotland, and such publications should be used for the benefit of young children. In rarefied debates such as this, we often forget about the language in which young children think.
  1246
  All these aspects must be examined much more thoroughly than is possible in these circumstances. The fact that so many judges are elderly and upper class shows the chasm between them and children who may speak broadest Glaswegian. They may not be able to communicate with each other at all.
  I agree with other hon. Members that these measures must be carefully monitored. I hope that, next time we discuss Scottish law reform, we shall draw up a comprehensive programme on how to deal with children in Scottish courts and make it an important part of future Scottish legal legislation, instead of treating the subject at the tail end of a Bill as if children hardly mattered.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This has been an important debate in which the need increased protection of children has been accepted.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) asked whether television links were novel. They are not; they are already used in England and Wales, and we shall monitor them carefully.
  All courts will be directed in matters concerning fairness to the accused and the interests of justice in all criminal proceedings, so these aspects do not need to be expressly provided for.
  I agree about the importance of identification, which the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) mentioned. At pre-trial identification, the accused will have the right to be represented, but if his representative wishes to challenge the identification at the trial he is free to do so, and if necessary to examine the child on the identification procedures.
  Informal identification is admissible, and the court can take that evidence into consideration, but it is not required to believe it or to decide the case in accordance with it. The court must weigh the evidence.
  I have not seen the television rules in operation in England, but my Scottish Office officials certainly have. We shall draw on their assessment and make certain that the procedures and equipment operate effectively in Scotland. The Guildford courts use voice-activated television rather than fixed television, and that confirms the need for careful monitoring.
  I was asked whether the procedures would be applied to proof before a children's hearing. The answer is, not at this stage. We have decided that it is appropriate in the first instance to introduce the live television link procedure for child witnesses in criminal trials, but we shall have to monitor that closely, too.
  There are views that screens do not operate effectively to reduce a child's anxiety, so the Government want to proceed initially relying on the Lord Justice General's memorandum and advice to judges, and also on live video links. Screens can be used at present with the consent of the accused and the defence.
  Evidence on commission is a judicial deposition. There may be difficulties in taking the child's evidence in parts. We think it better in the meantime to take all the evidence at the trial, if necessary using television links.
  Subject to consultation with the judiciary, the starting date in Edinburgh and Glasgow will be 1991; and thereafter, following monitoring, throughout Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden asked about regulation. It can be done by Act of Adjournal as appropriate.

  1247
  I was asked whether counsel would be in a court room or in a side room with a child. Counsel would remain in the court room. The television link would provide the link between the court room and the adjacent room where the child was.
  I was asked about the Home Office circular which follows an English appeal about the use of screens in English courts. In Scotland, screens have been used successfully with the consent of the accused.
  New clause 24 provides for the court to determine whether these circumstances are appropriate to the use of these special procedures. Before the court reaches a decision, it will have to consider an application from one of the parties, and it will be open to the other party to seek to oppose the application if he or she so wishes. If the application is granted and one of the parties subsequently considers that the trial was not fair, it would be open to that party to lodge an appeal.
  This is a major step, and I think that we are right to take it, but we are also correct to proceed cautiously, because we must consider not only the protection of the child but also fairness to the accused.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 25

  TRANSFER OF CASES IN WHICH CHILD'S EVIDENCE IS TO BE GIVEN THROUGH TELEVISION LINK
  '.—(1) Where a sheriff to whom an application has been made under section (Evidence of children through television link in criminal proceedings) of this Act would have granted the application but for the lack of accommodation or equipment necessary to achieve the purpose of the application, he may by order transfer the case to any sheriff court which has such accommodation and equipment available, being a sheriff court in the same sheriffdom.
  (2) The sheriff court to which a case is transferred under this section shall be deemed to have granted an application under that section in relation to the case.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 26

  IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED BY CHILD
  '. Where a court has, or is deemed to have, granted an application made under section (Evidence of children through television link in criminal proceedings) of this Act in relation to a child cited to give evidence in a trial, and the child gives evidence that he recalls having identified, prior to the trial, a person alleged to have committed an offence, the evidence of a third party as to the identification of that person by the child prior to the trial shall be admissible as evidence as to such identification.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 27

  INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS (EVIDENCE OF CHILDREN THROUGH TELEVISION LINK IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS), (TRANSFER OF CASES IN WHICH CHILD'S EVIDENCE IS TO BE GIVEN THROUGH TELEVISION LINK) AND (IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED BY A CHILD)
  '. In sections (Evidence of children through television link in criminal proceedings), (Transfer of cases in which child's evidence is to be given through television link) and ( Identification of accused by a child) of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears—

  'child' means a person under the age of 16 years;

  'court' means the High Court of Justiciary or the sheriff court; and

  'trial' means a trial under solemn or under summary procedure.'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 28

  CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF SHERIFF COURT
  '. The following subsection shall be inserted at the end of each of sections 3 and 288 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 to form subsection (4) and subsection (5) respectively of these sections—
  '( ) Where an offence is alleged to have been committed in one district in a sheriffdom, it shall be competent to try that offence in a sheriff court in any other district in that sheriffdom.'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 29
  EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS BY COMPANIES
  '.—(1) For section 36B of the Companies Act 1985 (execution of documents: Scotland) there shall be substituted the following section—
  EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS BY COMPANIES

    Execution of documents: Scotland.
    36B.—(1) This section has effect in relation to the execution of any document by a company under the law of Scotland on or after 31 July 1990.
    (2) For any purpose other than those mentioned in subsection (3) below, a document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company by a director or the secretary of the company or by a person authorised to sign the document on its behalf.
    (3) For the purposes of any enactment or rule of law relating to the authentication of documents under the law of Scotland, a document is validly executed by a company if it is subscribed on behalf of the company by—

    (a) two of the directors of the company;

    (b) a director and the secretary of the company; or

    (c) two persons authorised to subscribe the document on behalf of the company,

    notwithstanding that such subscription is not attested by witnesses and the document is not sealed with the company's common seal.
    (4) A document which bears to be executed by a company in accordance with subsection (3) above is, in relation to such execution, a probative document.
    (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of any enactment (including an enactment contained in this section) a company need not have a common seal.
    (6) For the purposes of any enactment providing for a document to be executed by a company by affixing its common seal or referring (in whatever terms) to a document so executed, a document signed or subscribed on behalf of the company by—

    (a) two directors of the company;

    (b) a director and the secretary of the company; or

    (c) two persons authorised to sign or subscribe the document on behalf of the company,

    shall have effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.
    (7) In this section "enactment" includes an enactment contained in a statutory instrument.
    (8) Subsections (2) and (3) above are—

    (a) without prejudice to any other method of execution of documents by companies permitted by any enactment or rule of law; and

    (b) subject to any other enactment making express provision, in relation to companies, as to the execution of a particular type of document."

    (2) Where, on or after 31 July 1990 and prior to the coming into force of this section, a document was signed or subscribed, in accordance with section 36B(2) of the Companies Act 1985 (as inserted by section 130(3) of the Companies Act 1989), by—

    (a) a company; or

    (b) a body corporate to which section 36B of the 1985 Act (as so inserted) applied by, under or by virtue of any enactment,

    that document shall be deemed to have been validly executed by the company or body corporate in accordance with subsection (2) of section 36B of the 1985 Act as substituted by subsection (1) above.
    (3) Where, on or after 31 July 1990 and prior to the coming into force of this section, the presumption in section 36B(3) of the Companies Act 1985 (as inserted by section 130(3) of the Companies Act 1989) applied in relation to a document, that document shall be deemed to have been validly executed in accordance with subsection (3) of section 36B of the 1985 Act as substituted by subsection (1) above, and subsection (4) of that section as so substituted shall apply to the document as if it bore to be so executed.
    (4) For the avoidance of doubt, in determining, for the purposes of subsection (3) above, whether the presumption in section 36B(3) of the Companies Act 1985 (as inserted by section 130(3) of the Companies Act 1989) applied in relation to a document, the reference in section 36B(2)(b) of the 1985 Act (as so inserted) to the last page shall be construed as a reference to the last page of the document excluding any inventory, appendix, schedule, plan or other document annexed to the document.
    (5) Any reference to section 36B of the Companies Act 1985 (however expressed) in any enactment (including an enactment contained in a statutory instrument) shall be construed as a reference to section 36B of that Act as substituted by subsection (1) above.'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 129 to 135.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The clause has the full support of the Law Society of Scotland. It deals with a complex legal point. It has unanimous support, and it is important for lawyers' practising in commercial law in Scotland.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to new clause 5. I call Dr. Norman Godman.
    Dr. Godman: With a heavy heart, not moved.

New Clause 9

  PROCEDURE AT TRIAL OF PERSONS SUFFERING FROM MENTAL DISORDER
  '(1) Sections 174 (Insanity in bar of trial or as the ground of acquittal) and 376 (Power of court to order hospital admission or guardianship) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 shall be amended as follows—
  (2) After subsection (3) of section 174 there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
  "(3A) An Order made by a Court in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection, concerning the detention of a person in a State hospital or such other hospital specified, shall cease to have effect if the person the Order refers to is reprosecuted and the case disposed of by a Court."
  (3) After subsection (1) of section 376 there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
  "(1A) An Order made by a Court in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection, concerning the detention of a person in a hospital or the placing of a person under the guardianship of a specified local authority or person, shall cease to have effect if the person the Order refers to is reprosecuted and the case disposed of by a Court.".'.—[Mr. Menzies Campbell.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  6 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I shall try to adopt the spirit of the proceedings. The clause is important but I shall try to deal with it briefly. It seeks to address an issue that has been brought to my attention by Dr. Derek Chiswick, an eminent consultant forensic psychiatrist at the Royal Edinburgh hospital. It seeks to deal with the circumstances that may arise If an accused person is found insane in bar of trial under solemn procedure and is thereafter automatically committed to the state hospital at Carstairs without limit of time by virtue of the provisions of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. When such a person subsequently becomes sane and fit to plead, he may be brought back to be reprosecuted. However, there is now an automatic procedure whereby the original hospital restriction orders are terminated after reprosecution. Thus it may be the case that accused persons acquitted after reprosecution could, theoretically at least, find themselves still liable to be detained without limit of time in the state hospital at Carstairs.
  Along with two other eminent colleagues, Dr. Chiswick has written a helpful article on this matter in the Psychiatric Bulletin 1990, volume 14, pages 208–10. That article sets out precisely the kind of circumstances to which I have referred and draws attention to two cases, one arising from proceedings in December 1986 at the High Court in Edinburgh and the second in January 1985 at the Dunoon sheriff court. In each of those cases there was reprosecution. In the first case the accused was acquitted by reason of the judge determining that there was insufficient evidence against her to allow the case to continue and the prosecution to proceed. The second case was slightly different, but in both cases it was necessary for the Secretary of State to authorise an absolute discharge some time after the second set of proceedings had been concluded. I understand that in England and Wales there is a power, similar to the one sought by the new clause, in the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964.

  1251
  As the Minister will readily appreciate, the new clause applies not only to solemn proceedings but to summary proceedings. That is precisely the kind of issue which a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill should address, and it should find favour with the Minister because it involves what I suppose one might describe as a tidying up of the legislative situation in Scotland. Such a situation has not arisen in England because of relevant statutory provisions. I urge the Minister to give the new clause a favourable reception. It can hardly be regarded as contentious and would remove a statutory anomaly which the two cases referred to by Dr. Chiswick and his colleagues plainly demonstrate is urgently required.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised an extremely interesting matter. I have considerable sympathy with what he is trying to achieve and there is some force in the new clause. I shall look carefully at the matter with a view to dealing with it comprehensively at an appropriate time in the future. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising the matter.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: If the Minister would give a little more urgency to
  "an appropriate time in the future"
  I should be satisfied, because cases clearly have arisen and may be likely to arise at any time. The longer the delay, the more likely is the continuation of this statutory anomaly. If the Minister will inject a note of urgency into his undertaking, I shall not find it necessary to press the matter.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We shall do our best in the light of what is possible.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I do not wish to be seen as unreceptive to the Minister's generosity but he could do a little better than that. He is like the drowning man, and I offer him a third and last opportunity to say that the matter will be treated urgently.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot commit the Government to immediate legislation. I do not know exactly what will be in the Queen's Speech, although its terms will soon be revealed. Obviously, we shall do our best.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I accept that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 19

  SETTING ASIDE OF CONVICTIONS
  'In section 453 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (consent of prosecutor to set aside the conviction) the words in subsection (3) "not exceeding £40·00" shall be deleted and the words ", the amount of which to be decided at the discretion of the Court," added.'.—[Sir David Steel.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir David Steel: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I express my gratitude to Mr. Speaker for selecting this new clause. It was not in the provisional selection list yesterday, but Mr. Speaker paid some heed to my
  1252
  representation which was, in short, that one of the purposes of our being here at all is to seek the redress of grievances. The new clause seeks such a redress which cannot be achieved for one of my constituents, whose case I shall shortly outline. However, it will be of benefit to others who find themselves in a similar position.
  Time is short and I shall not go into the details of the case. Suffice it to say that in 1987 a constituent living in Melrose was convicted in the Clydesdale district court in Lanark on a charge of speeding. Some two years later it came to light that the conviction was an error and should not stand. He then received a letter from the procurator fiscal in Lanark setting out the procedure to be adopted in order to appeal by way of bill of suspension. It was explained to him that the procedure is laid down in section 453 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. That is the section which I seek to amend. This is the only procedure that Parliament has provided for such cases where a conviction is in error and the Crown, like everyone else, must follow it.
  The procedure is relatively straightforward. In particular, the parties do not require to be heard in a court at all and the matter can be dealt with expeditiously by a judge sitting in chambers. Section 453(3) of the Act allows expenses not exceeding £40 to be awarded to the appellant and paid by the Crown. My constituent pursued this procedure and his solicitor's fees were a not unreasonable £170. He was therefore out of pocket in achieving the lawful redress of his grievance which Parliament has allowed. I took the matter up with the Lord Advocate and had a helpful reply from the Solicitor-General. It states:
  "I recognise that in fact your constituent was left out of pocket. I have noted this point and can reassure you that any future review of procedure will consider whether this particular aspect can be further simplified in some way."
  I received that letter during the summer recess. It seems wrong to allow a miscellaneous provisions Bill of this kind to go through the House without taking the opportunity to put this matter right since it is acknowledged by the Crown Office that an amendment should be made.
  The 1975 Act allowed for expenses of £20 and by statutory instrument in 1984 that was raised to £40. I am assured by those who know about these things that inflation alone means that in real terms £40 in 1984 should now be £150. My basic point is why we have a fixed sum in the principal Act at all. My proposal is that the expenses awarded to an aggrieved person should be at the discretion of the court. I do not think that that discretion would be used irresponsibly. The new clause is a sensible amendment to the criminal law of Scotland and the House should seize the opportunity to adopt it.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) described the position accurately. I was interested to hear the details of his constituent's difficulties. The amount of compensation—£40—was set by statutory instrument in 1984, and the time may have come to review that figure. When it was set, it represented an appropriate limit on expenses. In the light of the circumstances mentioned, I propose to consider—in consultation with interested parties and taking account of the terms of the 1975 Act, which enables the Secretary of State to substitute a new sum, having regard to the changes in the value of money—what adjustment is necessary by means of a further statutory instrument.

  1253
  The right hon. Gentleman wanted me to go a little further and consider whether this matter could be dealt with more thoroughly by further legislation. I will consider that matter in the future, but the immediate option is a statutory instrument, and that can be proceeded with relatively quickly.
  Sir David Steel: I shall press the Minister on two points. First, this is not compensation—the hon. Gentleman may have made a slip of the tongue—because we are talking about the expenses incurred by an aggrieved individual in seeking redress of a grievance. My contention is that, within reason, these expenses should be met. It is far better for a court to judge that matter than for the House to judge it in abstract.
  Secondly, if I simply accept the Minister's assurance on a statutory instrument, I shall not have done my duty. We all know the pressure on both the Scottish Office and the time of the House. How do we know when a statutory instrument will be introduced? The erosion of money values since 1984, when the matter was last examined, is serious. Would it not be more simple to accept the principle that the court should determine the right limit on expenses, rather than establishing a sum that has to be constantly updated by statutory instrument? I hope that the Minister will give me a rather more cheerful reply.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I hope that we can introduce a statutory instrument before too long. There should be no problem.
  On the second point, before we introduce any legislation, it will be necessary to consult the interested parties.
  The right hon. Gentleman has raised relevant points and we shall consider them carefully.
  Sir David Steel: Is the Minister saying that a statutory instrument will be introduced fairly quickly?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes.
  Sir David Steel: On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 59

  BLOOD AND OTHER SAMPLES IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 63, line 7, leave out 'direct' and insert 'request'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 103 to 107.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These are technical amendments on DNA, and I commend them to the House.
  Mr. Dewar: I accept that these are technical amendments, but they relate to an important clause, which introduces into civil actions in Scotland a new power, which will probably be brought into play most commonly in paternity cases. The DNA test, or genetic fingerprinting, allows deciding the truth of the matter to be put beyond any significant chance of error. I was pleased when the new clause that I moved in Committee on this subject was accepted by the Government. I hope that it will end the bitterness and humiliation that is all too often built into
  1254
  paternity cases. I have been involved in such cases—in a professional sense—and they are not a pleasant experience.
  The Committee and the House spent some time on the protection of children giving evidence in court, and spoke of the stress put on them. There is a strong case for introducing the change set out in this clause as it protects those who might otherwise become entrenched combatants in paternity cases. I am delighted that this will reach the statute book, and it is a worthwhile part of the Bill.
  Will the Minister say something about commencement? I know that there is a citation and commencement clause in the Bill—clause 62—under which certain parts of the Bill come into force within two months, beginning with the date on which the Act is passed. Clause 59 is not one of them, which means, as I understand clause 62(2), that it will be brought into force.
  "on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument".
  This is not just idle curiosity. I have had inquiries, in particular from solicitors who have an active interest in this machinery, about when the commencement order will be laid. It would be useful if the Minister could help me on that point.
  6.15 pm
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It will come into force two months after Royal Assent. I understand that this is covered in the clause.
  Mr. Dewar: Can I press the Minister on that point? I may be becoming obtuse and goitered in my old age—
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: That is not true.
  Mr. Dewar: Thank you for that loyal all-party vote of confidence from behind me.
  Clause 62 refers to the provisions of part III, which is the licensing part, and says that it and
  "section 55 of this Act and so much of section 61 as relates to those provisions; and
  (b) section 56 of this Act and paragraphs 21 and 32 of Schedule 7 to this Act,
  shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed."
  Therefore, clause 59 is not included, so it must be covered by clause 62(2), which provides that it will commence when an order is laid before the House. If the Minister is saying that he intends to lay an order so that the clause will be brought into effect two months after the passing of the Act, I am happy with that, but that seems an unlikely promise, so I should like him to confirm it.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can confirm that that is the intention. I believe that we can proceed along those lines under the terms of the Bill. There should be no problem and the provisions will commence two months after the passing of the Act.
  Mr. Dewar: I am obliged.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 103, in page 63, line 13, leave out 'direction' and insert 'request'.
  No. 104, in page 63, line 14, leave out 'given' and insert 'made'.
  No. 105, in page 63, line 16, leave out 'directed' and insert 'requested'.
  No. 106, in page 63, leave out lines 22 to 28 and insert—
  '(3) In section 6 of the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986 (determination of parentage by blood sample)—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the words "blood sample" there shall be substituted "sample of blood or other body fluid or of body tissue"; and

  (b) in each of subsections (2), (3) and (4), for the words "a blood" there shall be substituted "such a".'

  No. 107, in page 63, line 31, leave out 'Act' and insert 'section'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 62

  CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 64, line 12, leave out 'subsection (3)' and insert 'subsections (3) and (3A)'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 59.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These amendments put the law back to what everyone thought that it was. I commend them to the House.
  Mr. Dewar: We have made such good progress so suddenly and unexpectedly that I can allow myself the luxury of asking a question. As I understand the situation, the means test courts have been operating in a way that is not justified by the law of Scotland, so that these amendments give them the powers that they always thought that they had to act in the way that they have always acted. If that is the position, I am curious about what happens if someone challenges the competence of what the courts have been doing. Will it be necessary to allow for compensation, or to make provision to undo the damage that has been done if, for example, someone has gone to prison as a result of this misunderstanding of the law? I am in favour of things being put right, but will the Minister say a word or two about the consequences for those who were dealt with under a misapprehension?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I do not think that there will be a problem. The amendments clarify the position. They implement the provisions to empower the means inquiry courts to allow a fine defaulter more time to pay his or her fine and at the same time to impose a period of imprisonment in the event of future default. As hon. Members know, a recent High Court ruling cast doubt on this practice and the necessary clarification was agreed unanimously in Committee. It is right, as the courts in Scotland are conducting means inquiries daily, that the legal position should be clarified as soon as possible.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Has anybody been sent to prison as a result of non-payment of fines on a misunderstanding of the legal powers of the sheriff?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will have to check on that, but not to my knowledge. The point is that doubt was cast on the process by a High Court ruling, so that it was necessary to clarify the matter to make certain that that would not happen.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 108, in page 64, line 19, leave out 'section 56' and insert
  1256
  'sections 56, 59 and (Effect of mental incapacity on powers of attorney etc.)'.
  No. 59, in page 64, line 22 at end insert—
  '(3A) Paragraph 27(4) of Schedule 7 to this Act shall come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.'
  No. 129, in page 64, line 23, leave out 'subsection (5)' and insert 'subsections (4A) and (5)'.
  No. 130, in page 64, line 23, at end insert—
  '(4A) Section ( Execution of documents by companies) of this Act, paragraph 31A of Schedule 7 to this Act and Schedule 8 to this Act so far as relating to the Companies Act 1985 and the Companies Act 1989 extend also to England and Wales.'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 1

  SCOTTISH CONVEYANCING AND EXECUTRY SERVICES BOARD
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 65, leave out from 'securing' in line 17 to end of line 23 and insert—
  '(a) that members of the Board have expertise or knowledge of—

  (i) the provision of conveyancing and executry services;

  (ii) the financial arrangements connected with the purchase and sale of heritable property;

  (iii) consumer affairs; and

  (iv) commercial affairs; and

  (b) that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the composition of the Board is such as to provide a proper balance between the interests of, on the one hand, qualified conveyancers and executry practitioners and, on the other hand, those who make use of their services.'
  The amendment fulfils an undertaking that I gave in Committee to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
  Mr. Dewar: I shall be brief, but the amendment is worth comment. I thank the Minister for honouring his undertaking on a quite significant matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Scottish Consumer Council pressed hard for the amendment, and it was right to take an interest in the executry board's membership. The amendment brings us into line with the phraseology that appears in the Courts and Legal Services Bill, which is the English equivalent. The important point is that, in appointing members to the board, the Government are committed to ensuring that
  "as far as is reasonably practical, the composition of the Board is such as to provide a proper balance between the interests of, on the one hand, qualified conveyancers and executry practitioners and, on the other hand, those who make use of their services."
  It is important to maintain that balance. There is a danger, which we could fall into unintentionally, of appointing to the board only people with technical skills, so that the board ends up with a collection of lawyers, qualified conveyancers and suchlike. Of course they have an important contribution to make, but it is valuable to put in statute a burden on the Government to keep in mind the need for proper representation of those who consume the services—not in a token manner, but as a means of ensuring a proper balance. I understand that to be more than someone being a lone individual playing a lone role against the serried ranks of those who may—not in a vicious, but in a practical sense—have a vested interest in the profession that is being regulated. It is a worthwhile provision, and I thank the Minister for including it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 66, line 6, at end insert—
  '(2) Where a person ceases to be a member of the Board otherwise than on the expiry of his term of office, and it appears to the Board that there are special circumstances which make it right for that person to receive compensation, the Board may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, make a payment to that person of such amount as the Board may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, determine,'
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 62, 68 and 109.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These are technical amendments relating to the payment of pension provisions for the ombudsman.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 62, in page 66, line 13, leave out
  'by way of compensation for loss of employment' and insert '(including pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of any such employee who suffers loss of employment).'
  No. 63, in page 68, leave out lines 14 to 17 and insert—
  '18. The Board may exercise the power conferred by paragraph 18A below for the following purposes—

  (a) an inquiry under subsection (1) of section 18 of this Act;

  (b) a review of a decision by virtue of subsection (10)(a) of that section; and

  (c) consideration by the Board whether to exercise the powers conferred on them by section (Board's intervention powers) of this Act.

  18A. The Board may give notice in writing to a practitioner specifying the subject matter of their investigation and requiring either or both of the following-'.
  No. 64, in page 68, line 21, leave out 'inquiry' and insert 'investigation'.
  No. 65, in page 68, line 24, leave out 'inquiry' and insert 'investigation".
  No. 66, in page 68, line 25, leave out '18(a)' and insert '18A(a)' .—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 2

  SECTION 22
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in page 69, line 4, after 'a' insert 'daily'.
  This is a simple amendment that responds to a point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). Originally it was tabled as amendment (a), but another, controversial amendment was also marked (a), and the two were confused. I promised to put the matter right on Report.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Perhaps I might be allowed a small moment of self-congratulation. This amendment is the only material alteration that I have made during the passage of the Bill. It may be a case of "Si monumentum requiris, circumspice."
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3

  SCOTTISH LEGAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN
  Amendments made: No. 68, in page 69, line 25, at end insert—
  '(2) Where a person appointed to the office of ombudsman ceases to hold that office otherwise than on the expiry of the term of office specified in his appointment, and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for that person to receive compensation, the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, make a payment to that person of such amount as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.'
  No. 109, in page 69, line 29, leave out from 'remuneration' to end of line 30 and insert
  'and as to compensation for loss of employment (which may take the form of pensions, allowances or gratuities).
  4A. Neither the ombudsman nor his staff are, in such capacity, Crown servants.'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 4

  JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS
  Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 140, in page 70, line 17, leave out
  'had a right of audience in both the Court of Session and the High Court of Judiciary'
  and insert
  'been admitted as a solicitor in Scotland'.
  I cannot find the amendment—[Interruption.] It is obviously an interesting amendment of great importance. [Interruption.] I cannot find it and the House will have to bear with me for a moment. I have found it, and I am confirmed in my opinion that it is an interesting amendment about which the House will no doubt feel strongly. Unfortunately, it is not one that I can debate at any great length in the present circumstances. I shall briefly state my grievance, take it away and nurse it until another occasion.
  I accuse the Minister—but not in any unparliamentary sense—of, if not fraud, at least a little sleight of hand. We are dealing with the right of a solicitor to be considered for a place on the bench of the Court of Session. When that was first mooted, I had the impression that any solicitor could be considered, provided that he had met the time qualification of one year in practice. It now appears that, in fact, he must have had right of audience in both the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary for the requisite number of years. In other words, he must be one of those strange hybrid animals—a solicitor—advocate. That is unduly restrictive.
  Although it will not be common, it is possible that someone such as a senior partner in a big commercial practice, whose views on commercial law, company law and a whole range of issues are widely respected, and who would have the standing that might tempt his brother professionals to ask for his professional opinion, might aspire to that position. I hasten to add that I would never aspire to be, nor ever would be, in such a category. I am not sure that it would be right to say that, if such a person wished to aspire to what is, in many ways, the highest honour in his trade—a place on the bench of the Court of Session—he should have to go through such an odd, and at the moment untried, formula of gaining right of audience in the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary.

  1259
  It may be unlikely that someone will be considered for the High Court bench who has not had direct Court of Session experience. However, the spirit behind the widening of the selection was that solicitors should at least be possible candidates and, in exceptional circumstances, might even be chosen. I understand that it is now possible for a solicitor to go to the shrieval bench and therefore come up that way rather than having had active life in the Court of Session.
  I shall not press the amendment, but its intention was to make it clear that a solicitor was a solicitor under the new proposals, considered on his merits, who did not have to go through the hoop or over the hurdle of becoming a solicitor-advocate in the way described in the Bill. I do not expect the Minister to accept the amendment, but as we have a few minutes in hand I hope that he will explain why the Bill will rule out a large number of solicitors from consideration—many of whom, I suspect, are the most respected members of the profession, whom many of us might think to be the most appropriate for consideration.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Eligibility of criteria for appointment as a Court of Session judge was discussed in the Secretary of State's consultation paper issued in March 1989. As a result, it was suggested that the application of that principle to situations where solicitors had rights of audience in supreme courts would require the introduction of changes in statute. It was suggested that, if they had rights of audience for five years, they should be eligible. That was widely welcomed by those consulted, including the representative bodies concerned.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has proposed a major amendment, and in considering it we do not have the benefit of the views of all the different groups and organisations that have an interest in judicial appointments. The response to the consultations last year on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State did not suggest that his proposals relating to the eligibility of criteria for judicial appointments were over-restrictive. In fact, the Bill ensures that in future all lawyers, whether advocates or solicitors, who have served as sheriffs principal or sheriffs for five years or more, should be eligible for appointment as a senator of the Court of Justice.
  The amendment not only has technical deficiencies, but more importantly it would serve to weaken the eligibility criteria for the most senior judicial appointments in Scotland. Therefore, reluctantly, I must say that I cannot accept it.
  Mr. Dewar: The Minister is always a man of charity and I am grateful for the word "reluctantly" in his last sentence. I shall have to be content with that.
  I hope that, as the new arrangements unfold—I concede that that will be over a number of years—the restrictions about which I have complained will be reassessed and, perhaps, a more generous and unreluctant view taken of my case.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 70, in page 70, line 35, at end insert
  ',with the consent of the Secretary of State, and'.
  No. 71, in page 71, line 5, at beginning insert
  'Subject to paragraph 7A below,'.
  No. 72, in page 71, line 6, leave out
  'or the High Court of Justiciary'.
  No. 73, in page 71, line 12, at end insert—
  '7A. A person appointed to be a temporary judge of the Court of Session shall, by virtue of such appointment, be a temporary Lord Commissioner of Justiciary in Scotland.'.
  No. 74, in page 71, line 14, leave out
  'of the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary'.
  No. 75, in page 71, line 16, after 'Court' insert
  'of Session or the High Court of Justiciary'.
  No. 76, in page 71, line 18, leave out 'that' and insert 'either'.
  No. 77, in page 71, line 21, leave out 'that' and insert 'the relevant'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 7

  AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 86, line 3, leave out '10' and insert '21'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This fulfils a commitment that I gave in Committee about time scales on licensing which I think will be acceptable to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 15, in page 86, line 7, leave out '10' and insert '21'.
  No. 16, in page 86, line 10, leave out '21' and insert '28'.
  No. 17, in page 86, line 14, leave out '21' and insert '28'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 86 line 36, after '64' insert—

  '(a) in subsection (1), after the words "an entertainment licence" there shall be inserted the words ", a refreshment licence"; and

  (b)'.

  I can explain the amendment in more detail if hon. Members wish.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in page 90, leave out lines 44 to 46.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 85,
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This amendment removes redundant references.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 95, in page 90, line 50, at end insert—

  AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS

    'The Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978
    . In section 4 of the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978 (which, amongst other things, gives the court powers to deal with failure to comply with community service order) there shall be added at the end the following subsection—
    "(3) The evidence of one witness shall, for the purposes of subsection (2) above, be sufficient evidence.".'.
    No. 110, in page 91, leave out from beginning of line 33 to end of line 14 on page 92 and insert—
    '(5) In section 26 of the 1980 Act (offence for solicitors to act as agents for unqualified persons)—

    (a) in subsection (1)(c), at the beginning there shall be inserted "subject to subsection (4),";

    1261

    (b) in subsection (1)(d), at the beginning there shall be inserted "subject to subsection (4),";

    (c) in subsection (2), at the end there shall be inserted "or employed by a law centre."; and

    (d) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—

    "(4) Subsection (1)(c) and (d) shall not apply in relation to—

    (a) writs relating to heritable or moveable property drawn or prepared upon the account of or for the profit of independent qualified conveyancers providing conveyancing services within the meaning of section 20 (interpretation of sections 14 to 19) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990; or

    (b) papers to found or oppose an application for a grant of confirmation in favour of executors drawn or prepared upon the account of or for the profit of an executry practitioner or recognised financial institution providing executry services within the meaning of the said section 20.".'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    6.30 pm
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 92, leave out line 17.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 87.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This amendment again honours a commitment that I gave in Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 112, in page 92, line 22, at end insert 'providing conveyancing services'
    No. 79, in page 92, line 36, at end insert—
    '(7A) In section 42A (powers of Council where inadequate professional services alleged), at the end of subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
    "(d) to direct the solicitor to pay to the client by way of compensation such sum, not exceeding £1,000, as the Council may specify.".'
    No. 80, in page 93, line 7, at end insert '(a)'.
    No. 81, in page 93, line 10, at end insert—
    'and
    (b) after subsection (2)(c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
    "(d) to direct the solicitor to pay to the client by way of compensation such sum, not exceeding £1,000, as the Tribunal may specify.".'
    No. 126, in page 93, line 22, at end insert—
    '(11A) After section 56 there shall be inserted the following section—

    Further provision as to compensation awards.
    56A.—(1) The taking of any steps under section 42A(2) or 53A(2) shall not be founded upon in any proceedings for the purpose of showing that the solicitor in respect of whom the steps were taken was negligent.
    (2) A direction under section 42A(2)(d) or 53A(2)(d) to a solicitor to pay compensation to a client shall not prejudice any right of that client to take proceedings against that solicitor for damages in respect of any loss which he alleges he has suffered as a result of that solicitor's negligence, and any sum directed to be paid to that client under either of those provisions may be taken into account in the computation of any award of damages made to him in any such proceedings.
    (3) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend subsection (2)(d) of sections 42A and 53A by substituting for the sum for the time being specified in those provisions such other sum as he considers appropriate.
    (4) Before making any such order the Secretary of State shall consult the Council.
    (5) An order made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'
    No. 83, in page 93, leave out lines 23 to 28 and insert—
    '(12) In section 63 (penalties and time limit for prosecution of offences)—

    (a) in subsection (1)—

    (i) for the words "level 3" there shall be substituted the words "level 4"; and

    (ii) the words from "and to imprisonment" to the end shall cease to have effect; and

    (b) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

    "(3) Where an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

    (a) any director, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate; or

    (b) any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

    he (as well as the body corporate) shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
    (4) Where an offence under this Act is committed by a partnership or by an unincorporated association (other than a partnership) and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a partner in the partnership or, as the case may be, a person concerned in the management or control of the association, he (as well as the partnership or association) shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to and punished accordingly.".'
    No. 113, in page 93, line 29, leave out 'section 65(1)' and insert
    'subsection (1) of section 65'.
    No. 114, in page 93, line 31, leave out 'and' and insert—
    ' ""foreign lawyer" means a person who is not a solicitor or an advocate but who is a member, and entitled to practise as such, of a legal profession regulated within a jurisdiction outwith Scotland;";
    (aa) after the definition of "judge" there shall be inserted—
    "law centre" means a body—

    (a) established for the purpose of providing legal services to the public generally as well as to individual members of the public; and

    (b) which does not distribute any profits made either to its members or otherwise, but reinvests any such profits for the purposes of the law centre;";

    (ab) after the definition of "Lord President" there shall be inserted—
    "multi-disciplinary practice" means a body corporate or a partnership—

    (a) having as one of its directors or, as the case may be, partners, a solicitor or an incorporated practice; and

    (b) which offers services, including professional services such as are provided by individual solicitors, to the public; and

    (c) where that solicitor or incorporated practice carries out, or supervises the carrying out of, any such professional services as may lawfully be carried out only by a solicitor;

    "multi-national practice" means—

    (a) a partnership whose members are solicitors or incorporated practices and registered foreign lawyers; or

    (b) a body corporate whose members include registered foreign lawyers, and membership of which is restricted to solicitors, incorporated practices, registered foreign lawyers and other multi-national practices;";

    (ac) after the definition of "property" there shall be inserted—

    1263
    "registered foreign lawyer" means a foreign lawyer who is registered under section 60A;".'
    No. 115, in page 93, line 35, at end insert—
    'and
    (c) in the definition of "unqualified person", after the word "person" there shall be inserted ", other than a multi-disciplinary practice,".'
    No. 84, in page 94, leave out lines 17 to 21 and insert—
    ' "14A. In carrying out their duty under paragraph 14, the Tribunal may refrain from publishing any names, places or other facts the publication of which would, in their opinion, damage, or be likely to damage, the interests of persons other than—

    (a) the solicitor against whom the complaint was made; or

    (b) his partners; or

    (c) his or their families,

    but where they so refrain they shall publish their reasons for so doing.".'
    No. 131, in page 95, line 17, at end insert—

    'Companies Act 1985 (c. 6)
    31A.—(l) The Companies Act 1985 shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In section 38(1) (appointment of attorney to execute deeds abroad), the words "under the law of England and Wales" shall cease to have effect.
    (3) In section 39(3) (official seal for use abroad), the words "or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B," shall cease to have effect.
    (4) In section 186 (share certificate to be evidence of title), the words "(or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B)" shall cease to have effect.
    (5) In section 188(2) (issue and effect of share warrant to bearer), the words "(or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B)" shall cease to have effect.
    (6) Subsection (2) of section 462 (power of company to create floating charges under Scots law) shall cease to have effect.'
    No. 132, in page 95, line 26, at end insert—

    'Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45)
    32A. Section 53(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (execution of instrument appointing receiver) shall cease to have effect.' —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 95, line 28, at beginning insert—
    'In subsection (3) of section 4 (Scottish Legal Aid Fund) of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986—

    (a) paragraph (a) shall cease to have effect; and

    (b) in paragraph (c), after the word "property" there shall be inserted "(including money)".

    (1A) .'
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 117, 118, 119, 121, 122 and 123.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The first amendments are technical, but amendment No. 119 is a bit more substantial. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be able, by regulation, to insist that an assisted person be represented in the supreme courts by
    1264
    a solicitor with rights of audience there rather than by an advocate. That choice will be for the client alone and that will be followed.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 117, in page 95, line 28, leave out 'the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986' and insert 'that Act'.
    No. 118, in page 96, line 9, at end insert—
    '(4A) After subsection (2) of section 17 (contributions and payments out of property received) of that Act, there shall be inserted the following subsections—
    "(2A) Except in so far as regulations made under this section otherwise provide, any sum of money recovered under an award of or an agreement as to expenses in favour of any party in any proceedings in respect of which he is or has been in receipt of civil legal aid shall be paid to the Board.
    (2B) Except in so far as regulations made under this section otherwise provide, where, in any proceedings, there is a net liability of the Fund on the account of any party, the amount of that liability shall be paid to the Board by that party, in priority to any other debts, out of any property (wherever situate) which is recovered or preserved for him—

    (a) in the proceedings; or

    (b) under any settlement to avoid them or to bring them to an end.".

    (4B) Subsections (3) to (5) of that section shall cease to have effect.
    (4C) In subsection (6) of that section, for the words "subsection (5)" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (2A) or (2B)".
    (4D) In subsection (8) of that section, for the words from "subsection" to the end there shall be substituted the words "subsection (1) above and in section 33 of this Act to "fees and outlays" include references to sums which would have been payable to that solicitor if he had been so employed.".'
    No. 119, in page 96, line 20, leave out from 'words' where it first appears to the end of line 21 and insert—
    '", his counsel" there shall be substituted the words "or a solicitor holding rights of audience by virtue of section 25A (rights of audience) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, his counsel or such a solicitor".
    (8A) In subsection (9)(b) of the said section 31, at the beginning there shall be inserted "Subject to subsection (11) below,".
    (8B) At the end of the said section 31 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(11) Nothing in subsection (9)(b) above shall enable the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising the granting of legal aid only to solicitors holding rights of audience under section 25A (rights of audience) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.".'.
    No. 120, in page 96, line 26, at end insert—

    'The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 (c. 41)
    33A. In section 6(1) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 (definition of implicative gifts), for the words "mentioned in section 5(2) of this Act" there shall be substituted "on which, in respect of a person suspected of, or charged with, an offence to which section 1 of this Act relates, the warrant to arrest and commit was granted, or a restraint order was made (whichever first occurs).".'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
Schedule 8

  REPEALS
  Amendments made: No. 85, in page 97, leave out lines 24 to 26.
  No. 86, in page 98, line 10, column 3, at end insert—

  'Section 31(3).'

  No. 87, in page 98, leave out lines 11 and 12.
  No. 88, in page 98, leave out line 14.
  No. 133, in page 98, line 46, at end insert—

  '1985 c. 6.

  The Companies Act 1985.

  In section 38 (1), the words "under the law of England and Wales".

  In section 39(3), the words "or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B".

  In section 186, the words "(or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B)".

  In section 188(2), the words "(or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B)".

  Section 462(2).'

  No. 134, in page 98, line 53, at end insert—

  '1986 c. 45.

  The Insolvency Act 1986.

  Section 53(3).'

  No. 121, in page 99, line 2, column 3, at beginning insert—

  'In section 4(3), paragraph (a) and, in paragraph (b), the words "a court".'

  No. 122, in page 99, line 4, leave out '(12)' and insert '(3) to (5)'.
  No. 123, page 99, line 10, at end insert—

  '1988 c. 34

  The Legal Aid Act 1988. In paragraph 3 of Schedule 4, sub-paragraphs (b) and (c).

  No. 135, in page 99, line 12, at end insert—

  '1989 c. 40

  The Companies Act 1989.

  Section 130(3).

  In Schedule 17, paragraphs 1(2), 2(4), 8 and 10.'

  —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

New schedule

  SUPERVISED ATTENDANCE ORDERS: FURTHER PROVISIONS
  1.—(1) A court shall not make a supervised attendance order in respect of any offender unless—

  (a) the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that arrangements exist for persons who reside in the locality in which the offender resides, or will be residing when the order comes into force, to carry out the requirements of such an order;

  (b) the court is satisfied that provision can be made under the arrangements mentioned in paragraph (a) above for the offender to carry out such requirements.

  (2) Before making a supervised attendance order, the court shall explain to the offender in ordinary language—
  1266

  (a) the purpose and effect of the order and in particular the obligations on the offender as specified in paragraph 3 below;

  (b) the consequences which may follow under paragraph 4 below if he fails to comply with any of those requirements; and

  (c) that the court has, under paragraph 5 below, the power to review the order on the application either of the offender or of an officer of the local authority in whose area the offender for the time being resides.

  (3) The Secretary of State may by order direct that subsection (2) of section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on fine default) of this Act shall be amended by substituting, for any number of hours specified in that subsection such other number of hours as may be specified in the order; and an order under this subsection, may in making such amendment specify a different such numbers of hours for different classes of case.
  (4) An order under paragraph (3) above shall be made by statutory instrument, but no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
  2.—(l) A supervised attendance order shall—

  (a) specify the locality in which the offender resides or will be residing when the order comes into force; and

  (b) require the local authority in whose area the locality specified under paragraph (a) above is situated to appoint or assign a supervising officer.

  (2) Where, whether on the same occasion or on separate occasions, an offender is made subject to more than one supervised attendance order, the court may direct that the requirements specified in any of those orders shall be concurrent with or additional to those specified in any other of those orders, but so that at no time shall the offender have an outstanding number of hours during which he must carry out the requirements of these orders in excess of the largest number specified in section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on fine default) of this Act.
  (3) Upon making a supervised attendance order the court shall—

  (a) give a copy of the order to the offender;

  (b) send a copy of the order to the director of social work of the local authority in whose area the offender resides or will be residing when the order comes into force; and

  (c) where it is not the appropriate court, send a copy of the order (together with such documents and information relating to the case as are considered useful) to the clerk of the appropriate court.

  3.—(1) An offender in respect of whom a supervised attendance order is in force shall report to the supervising officer and notify him without delay of any change of address or in the times, if any, at which he usually works.
  (2) Subject to paragraph 5(1) below, instructions given under a supervised attendance order shall be carried out during the period of twelve months beginning with the date of the order; but, unless revoked, the order shall remain in force until the offender has carried out the instructions given under it for the number of hours specified in it.
  (3) The instructions given by the supervising officer under the order shall, so far as practicable, be such as to avoid any conflict with the offender's religious beliefs and any interference with the times, if any, at which he normally works or attends a school or other educational establishment.
  4.—(1) If at any time while a supervised attendance order is in force in respect of any offender it appears to the appropriate court, on evidence on oath from the supervising officer, that that offender has failed to comply with any of the requirements of paragraph 3 above or of the order (including any failure satisfactorily to carry out any instructions which he has been given by the supervising officer under the order), the court may issue a warrant for the arrest of that offender, or may, if it thinks fit, instead of issuing a warrant in the first

  1267
  instance issue a citation requiring the offender to appear before that court at such time as may be specified in the citation.
  (2) If it is proved to the satisfaction of the court before which an offender is brought or appears in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1) above that he has failed without reasonable excuse to comply with any of the requirements of paragraph 3 above or of the order (including any failure satisfactorily to carry out any instructions which he has been given by the supervising officer under the order), the court may—

  (a) revoke the order and impose such period of imprisonment as could, in respect of the original default or failure, have been imposed by the court which made the order if the order had not been made; or

  (b) subject to section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on default) of this Act and paragraph 2(2) above, vary the number of hours specified in the order.

  (3) The evidence of one witness shall, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above, be sufficient evidence.
  5.—(1) Where a supervised attendance order is in force in respect of any offender and, on the application of that offender or of the supervising officer, it appears to the appropriate court that it would be in the interests of justice to do so having regard to circumstances which have arisen since the order was made, that court may—

  (a) extend, in relation to the order, the period of twelve months specified in paragraph 3 above;

  (b) subject to section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on default) of this Act and paragraph 2(2) above, vary the number of hours specified in the order;

  (c) revoke the order; or

  (d) revoke the order and impose such period of imprisonment as could, in respect of the original default or failure, have been imposed by the court which made the order if the order had not been made.

  (2) If the appropriate court is satisfied that the offender proposes to change, or has changed, his residence from the locality for the time being specified under paragraph 2(1)(a) above to another locality and—

  (a) that court has been notified by the Secretary of State that arrangements exist for persons who reside in that other locality to carry out instructions under supervised attendance orders; and

  (b) it appears to that court that provision can be made under those arrangements for him to carry out instructions under the order;

  that court may, and on application of the supervising officer shall, amend the order by substituting that other locality for the locality for the time being specified in the order; and the provisions of section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on fine default) of this Act and of this Schedule shall apply to the order as amended.
  (3) Where the court proposes to exercise its powers under sub-paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (d) above otherwise than on the application of the offender, it shall issue a citation requiring him to appear before the court and, if he fails to appear, may issue a warrant for his arrest.
  6.—(l) The Secretary of State may make rules for regulating the carrying out of the requirements of supervised attendance orders.
  (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, rules under this section may—

  (a) limit the number of hours during which the requirements of an order are to be met on any one day;

  (b) make provision as to the reckoning of time for the purposes of the carrying out of these requirements;

  (c) make provision for the payment of travelling and other expenses in connection with the carrying out of these requirements;

  (d) provide for records to be kept of what has been done by any person carrying out these requirements.

  (3) Rules under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  7. The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament each year, or incorporate in annual reports he already makes, a report of the operation of section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on fine default) of this Act and this Schedule.
  8. In section 27 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (supervision of persons put on probation, released from prison or subject to community service orders)—

  (a) in subsection (1)(b) there shall be inserted at the end the following "; and

  (iv) without prejudice to paragraphs (i) to (iii) above, persons in their area who are subject to supervised attendance orders under section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on fine default) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.";

  (b) for the words "probation and community service scheme", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words "probation, community service and supervised attendance scheme".

  9.—(1) In this Schedule—
  "the appropriate court", in relation to a supervised attendance order, means the court having jurisdiction in the locality for the time being specified in the order under paragraph 2(1)(a) above, being a sheriff or district court according to whether the order has been made by a sheriff or a district court, but in a case where the order has been made by a district court and there is no district court in that locality, the sheriff court;
  "local authority" and "supervising officer" have the same meanings respectively as in section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on fine default) of this Act.
  (2) Except where the context otherwise requires, expressions used in this Schedule and in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 have the same meanings in this Schedule as in that Act.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
  —[Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Title
Amendments made: No. 127, in line 9, after 'licensing:' insert
'to make special provision in relation to the giving of evidence by children in criminal trials;'.
No. 128, in line 9, after 'licensing:' insert
'to empower a sheriff court to try offences committed in the district of a different sheriff court in the same sheriffdom;'.
No. 96, in line 11, after 'prison' insert
'and for supervised attendance as an alternative to imprisonment on default in paying a fine'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in line 15, leave out
'in relation to homelessness due to risk of violence'.
This amendment will ensure that the long title more accurately reflects the amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 that are included in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
6.34 pm
Mr. Dewar: There will be one or two Third Reading speeches, but they will all be marked by their brevity.
I look back with some satisfaction on the Bill, but it will remain something of a curiosity in the annals of Scottish parliamentary procedure. Never were so many columns of Hansard filled in so short a time.
The situation now is rather different, but it is appropriate that for most of this evening the Under-Secretary of State laboured on alone, accompanied only by the Secretary of State. I say entirely appropriate because, in a sense, they were alone for almost the entire Committee stage.
The Under-Secretary of State gets tired of people paying tribute to him, but I must do so on this occasion. He ploughed on with remarkable courage, often sounding like Bertie Wooster, but in a sense as unflappable as Jeeves. Never have I seen briefs put to such determined use when all round him there was chaos and confusion. At times—this is a factual observation—the Committee Room looked like the last act of "The Duchess of Malfi", with bodies everywhere. We saw the decrowning of the chairman of the Scottish Conservative party and we saw blood on every side, but in the middle of it all the Under-Secretary of State kept going, and for that he deserves some credit.
I hope that no one will accuse me of over-complacency, but Opposition Members—I include my friends in other parties, particularly the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and, an honorary blood brother for this occasion only, the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), who I believe in the many votes taken in Committee voted for the Government only once, not by mistake but as a matter of principle, and we all allow the hon. and learned Gentleman his occasional aberrations of principle—did good work. I cannot remember any Bill that has left our hands more changed and more lightened. A great deal of rubbish had gone and many good things had been added, for which we can claim some credit.
I also want to thank those from outside this place who helped us. It may not be proper to mention them in detail, but a number of bodies have laboured long and hard, perhaps above all the Law Society. Many others, such as the Scottish Consumer Council, were also involved and their help, although not always uncritically received, was invaluable. Their contribution to the law of Scotland may not be major, but the Bill makes a better contribution to it than it otherwise would have done.
A number of issues of real importance have had to go by the board. I have explained this before, but I stress it again. The Opposition were implacably opposed to what was suggested, but it was impossible in the ludicrous time scale suggested to look at the matters adequately—I am thinking particularly of changes in the divorce laws, licensing laws and some good ideas on reforming fines in the criminal courts, along with a number of other matters. I hope that we will have an opportunity to return to those before too long.
I understand that there is a possibility next Session of legislation on parole. The Under-Secretary of State, probably wisely, remained silent when I said that I hoped that would be a Scottish Bill, not a throwaway Scottish insert in a United Kingdom Criminal Justice Bill. The
1270
Kincraig report contained some serious propositions and I hope that if we are to implement some of them, as we should, we will do so on the basis of Scottish legislation.
Perhaps that would give us an opportunity to return to some of the issues, or perhaps there should be another Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill—I hope that the Secretary of State does not blanch at the thought—before too long. It has all been good fun, and—on a more serious note—rather a useful exercise.
6.39 pm
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The Leader of the House will remember that the late F. E. Smith—late at night and after some appallingly boring and long-drawn-out speeches—was asked to give a vote of thanks. He said "Before I came here I prepared two speeches, one long and one short, and because of the lateness of the hour I intend to give them both." I intend to give neither. All that I want to say is that I hope that our Government and our party will not break the rule that rules should not be multiplied and that legislation of any kind is a bad thing.
6.40 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: When we set out to consider the Bill, few of us realised that it would prove such an effective springboard for the career of Lord Sanderson of Bowden, or that it would have such a dramatic effect on unemployment statistics in the city of Edinburgh. Had we known that those dramas were being enacted as we went through our routine day-by-day examination of its clauses in Committee, it might have added a certain piquancy to our proceedings, and might even have persuaded the press and television to take yet more interest in our efforts to improve the law of Scotland.
One thing is certainly true: putting charities, reform of the legal profession and licensing law reform into a Bill, and then adding what were genuinely miscellaneous provisions, meant that many important issues failed to receive the time and the detailed intellectual consideration that they undoubtedly deserved.
The Under-Secretary of State deserves our congratulations on his indefatigability and his continuing courtesy to all sides. Sometimes it seemed that a greater strain was being put on his courtesy by those behind him than by those who were nominally opposing him. However, he survived.
I look forward with considerable pleasure to accounts of our proceedings as they will appear in biographies which I know are yet to be written. The role that some people played in the proceedings, especially in Committee, will be marked in passages of such colour and verve that they will come to be regarded as significant contributions to English fiction.
No doubt the Bill will pass into law. It contains many good things, but I fear that it also contains a number of bad laws, the lack of quality of which will be properly explored and made clear only when some of the measures that we have passed into law are put into practice. Undoubtedly, it has been a learning experience for all of us. I do not think that anyone will wish to oppose Third Reading at this stage, but it can certainly be said that the Bill is now in rather better condition that it deserved.
6.42 pm
Mr. Dalyell: As one who has been present for the past two days' debate on the Floor of the House but was not a member of the Committee, I should like to say thank you to my parliamentary colleagues of all parties who have taken part in our discussions, as well as to the officials and to the Law Society of Scotland for having improved, in many respects, the lot of our Scottish constituents.
6.43 pm
Dr. Godman: This is the second Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill in which I have been involved; I hope that a considerable time will elapse before I am called back by the Whips to take part in a third. I only hope that, if I am placed on the Standing Committee on another Bill in the future, the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) is also placed on it.
I should like to express my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for the many civilities and courtesies that he has extended to me, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I am heartened by the measures concerning the introduction of closed-circuit television to deal with the evidence given by children in criminal proceedings; however, I am deeply disappointed that the same Minister was unwilling to listen to my argument concerning the use of video-recorded interviews as evidence in criminal proceedings. I fear that, with the advent of the Gracious Speech on 7 November, we will find that we are slipping further behind English legislation in this respect. Nevertheless, with the Under-Secretary's involvement, we have improved the law of Scotland as it affects the interests of young children who are caught up in such horrendous circumstances, and I am grateful to him for that measure at least.
6.45 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Those of us who served on the Standing Committee will have many memories that will no doubt be recounted through the ages, not so much because of the contents of the Bill as because of the nature of its passage. The memories include the summoning of members of the Scottish Grand Committee in the Royal High school in Edinburgh to be given talks behind the scenes and long walks up and down the Committee Corridor by the Secretary of State for Scotland and various Ministers with their own Back Benchers. Judging
1272
by the expressions on their faces, the Secretary of State sometimes wished that there was a perpendicular structure at the foot of the passage over which he could tip some of his own Back Benchers.
More seriously, let me say that there have been improvements as a result of the Bill; but the way in which it was treated was, in many ways, an insult to the need for law reform in Scotland. Certainly—as one who sees the institution of the Scottish legal system as a major bastion of Scottish nationhood and as an institution of which we are rightly proud—I hope that any future miscellaneous law reform Bills will be just that, and that we shall be able to look in more detail and more effectively at many of the issues that have been left untouched.
I too thank the Minister for his abiding courtesy throughout the many hours in which we have debated. I also congratulate him on being a member of a team that has at least lived up to one of the Prime Minister's requirements. I refer to her request for a "green" image: what would have been a very large statute has been reduced during our proceedings to a much smaller one.
6.47 pm
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Let me pay tribute to those hon. Members who served on the Committee for more than 80 hours, to the Law Society of Scotland, to the Scottish Consumer Council and other bodies and, of course, to the officials who worked ceaselessly around the clock to ensure that I gave accurate answers to the points raised by Opposition Members. I have no regrets about the considerable number of amendments: I believe that that is parliamentary democracy operating at its best.
Part I of the Bill will help charities by giving them much more information. Part II will help to introduce an element of competition to assist the consumer and will also open up access to the supreme courts for solicitors for the first time in Scottish legal history. Part III will introduce important licensing reforms and stiffen the criteria for late-night extensions, which is a law-and-order measure. Part IV has been discussed extensively today; perhaps the two most important measures concern supervised attendance and video links, which will go a long way towards protecting children.
I thank hon. Members for the part that they have played in the Bill. I believe that it will prove a significant measure for us to look back on in years to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Caldey Island Bill
Not amended (in Standing Committee), considered.
Caldey Island Bill
  Clause 1

    ELECTIONS
    Amendment made, in page 1, line 23, leave out from 'a' to first 'of' in line 7 on page 2 and insert
    'person to be included in the registers of parliament and local government electors published for the years beginning with 16th February 1990 and 16th February 1991—

    (a) subsections (1) to (3) above shall be deemed to have been in force on 10th October 1989 and 10th October 1990 (the qualifying dates in relation to those registers);

    (b) the reference in section 11(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to the correction of a register shall include a reference to any addition made by virtue of this section; and

    (c) the relevant provisions'—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

    Bill reported, with an amendment.
    6.49 pm
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    In Committee, some concern was expressed about clause 2, and I am happy to inform the House of our decision that the Caldey community should become liable for community charge as from 1 April 1991, and that it should also become liable to non-domestic rates as from the same date.
    We have also succeeded in devising a good scheme to provide transitional relief for the community. I believe that, on the whole, the islanders will find the total package quite acceptable. Therefore, I have pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.
    6.50 pm
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: I thank the Minister for his courteous response, as always, to the substantial point that we made in Committee about the imposition of poll tax before the Bill could be passed. I do not imagine that the islanders of Caldey will be desperately pleased at having the poll tax imposed on them in any shape or form, but at least we have saved them from being taxed before the relevant legislation could be enacted, for the Minister has now confirmed that the poll tax will not take effect there before next year.
    The Minister said that the Government have devised "a good scheme" to provide the equivalent of transitional relief. We have already made the point that some difficulty arises because there is no previous rating base from which to work. However, the Minister seems to have confirmed his promise to do something about transitional relief, so perhaps he will give us an idea of what it will be.
    6.51 pm
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The scheme that we intend to establish will require the islanders, each year in a four-year transitional period, to pay a fixed percentage of that year's community charge for standard spending—or CCSS. That percentage, which I propose to set at 80 per cent. in 1991–92, will increase over the four-year period so that the islanders will move smoothly into a regime of full charges in 1995–96—the same year that full charges will be payable in the rest of Wales as the general transitional relief scheme comes to an end.
    1274
    The effect of my proposals into 1991–92 is that, as the Welsh CCSS for next year is £228, the islanders will each pay 80 per cent. of that figure, or £182–and so will in effect receive relief of £46 per head. If the charge actually set is lower than the CCSS, then the islanders will each pay only 80 per cent. of that lower charge. However, if the relevant authorities' spend is such that the charge set exceeds £228, each islander will pay 80 per cent. of the CCSS plus the amount by which the charge set exceeds the CCSS. Therefore, Dyfed county council and South Pembrokeshire district council will want to set their budgets in such a way as to enable the islanders to gain maximum benefit from the scheme that I have described.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 4.

    Division No. 320]

    [6.52 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Alexander, Richard

    Fallon, Michael

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Favell, Tony

    Amess, David

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Arbuthnot, James

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Ashby, David

    Fisher, Mark

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Flynn, Paul

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Forth, Eric

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Freeman, Roger

    Bellingham, Henry

    French, Douglas

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Boswell, Tim

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Grist, Ian

    Bowis, John

    Ground, Patrick

    Brazier, Julian

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Hague, William

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Burns, Simon

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

    Burt, Alistair

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Butcher, John

    Harris, David

    Butler, Chris

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hill, James

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hind, Kenneth

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Chapman, Sydney

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Howells, Geraint

    Conway, Derek

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jack, Michael

    Cran, James

    Janman, Tim

    Cryer, Bob

    Jessel, Toby

    Curry, David

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dicks, Terry

    Kilfedder, James

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Dover, Den

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Dunn, Bob

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Durant, Tony

    Knapman, Roger

    1275

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Pawsey, James

    Lang, Ian

    Portillo, Michael

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Price, Sir David

    Leighton, Ron

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Lightbown, David

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Lilley, Peter

    Riddick, Graham

    Lord, Michael

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    McCartney, Ian

    Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

    McCrindle, Robert

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    McFall, John

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Shelton, Sir William

    Madel, David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Sims, Roger

    Mans, Keith

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Speller, Tony

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Michael, Alun

    Stern, Michael

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Mills, Iain

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Strang, Gavin

    Moate, Roger

    Sumberg, David

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Summerson, Hugo

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Trotter, Neville

    Mudd, David

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Murphy, Paul

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Neubert, Michael

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Wood, Timothy

    Norris, Steve

    Yeo, Tim

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Paice, James

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Patnick, Irvine

    Mr. Neil Hamilton and

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Mr. John M. Taylor.

    NOES

    Madden, Max

    Skinner, Dennis

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mr. Ron Davies and

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Mr. Rhodri Morgan.

    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you could confirm that the Caldey Island Bill which has just been given a Third Reading was a Bill to extend the franchise, and some hon. Members were here to vote on it, but it is a matter of regret that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett)—the area concerned—was apparently unable to make the Lobby in time.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): As the hon. Member is aware, hon. Members' attendance in the House has nothing whatsoever to do with the Chair.

Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
7.6 pm
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I support the motion standing in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means that further consideration of the Heathrow Express Railway Bill should be carried over to the next Session of Parliament. Hon. Members may know that the Bill has already been through its stages in the other place. Indeed, throughout discussions, there have been petitioners against the Bill, but at no point have they objected to the concept of what it seeks to do. The Bill was deposited as far back as November 1988, but at no stage in its proceedings has it been delayed or objected to, other than delays caused by the pressure of Bills, which has made it impossible for the Bill to have a Second Reading before the Summer recess started at the end of July.
The Bill aims to provide a straightforward and basic service. During discussions in the Opposed Private Bill Committee in the other place, some substantial changes were made, which I hope will be to the benefit of the people who will use the link and to those who live in the area it will pass through, or who represent it.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that it would be very unfortunate if the Bill were not allowed to complete its stages, as it satisfies an important requirement.
Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend says that the Bill will benefit constituents such as mine who live in the area through which the express train will pass. That may be so, but I have not yet received the assurances which I sought from the promoters that the train would stop at least twice a day in Ealing.
If the train cannot be stopped at Greenford, which would be better still, I would settle for a stop at Ealing

1277
Broadway in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young)—at least twice a day, and more often if possible. The promoters have made certain noises about that, as if to say that they will make some concessions to the good citizens of Ealing and the surrounding areas, but so far nothing concrete has come from them. Could my hon. Friend give me some assurance on that matter?
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: As one expects, my hon. Friend speaks with great fluency on a matter that concerns his constituents. No one is a more doughty fighter on behalf of his constituents than he. If he will bear with me for a moment, however, I shall endeavour to deal with the point that he made about stopping trains on the link. It is a matter of concern not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) but also to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and others.
At this stage I want to establish the Bill's credentials—how far it has come and how it has been held up by events that are not directly related to the arguments that might he deployed when considering the clauses. The Bill is jointly promoted and jointly financed by Heathrow Airport Ltd., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of British Airports Authority and British Rail. The Bill aims to satisfy a real need—a fast, dedicated service between the capital and its principal airport. That is in line with thinking throughout the rest of Europe.
Many might reasonably ask why such a service has not been provided before this. I am among those who believe that we should have had something along these lines a long time ago. The Bill is a direct response to the Government's White Paper of 1985 that dealt with airport policy. The Heathrow surface access study, commissioned by the Department of Transport, followed in 1987. An evaluation of the consultations on that document followed in June 1988. Immediately after those consultations had been brought to a successful conclusion, the Bill was deposited—in November 1988. It is in response to a direct demand by all those concerned. No time has been wasted by those who wish to provide the service.
The underground service, the airbus, cars and taxis provide other means of getting to Heathrow airport, but those of us who know this part of England well recognise that road congestion is a great problem. A dedicated service would therefore be a great bonus. It would be a premium service. The promoters are seeking by means of the Bill to provide a fast premium service to enable travellers, who are prepared to pay a fare of approximately £6, to have fast transport straight into the airport.
Sir Alan Glyn: It will, of course, provide a very good service, but is my hon. Friend aware that most people want to travel by car to the airport and that the new service will not relieve the congestion on the M4, as has been suggested?
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend uses the M4 to reach his constituency. Although I use it a great deal, he must use it more than I do. I realise that it is a very crowded route, but that applies to almost every other motorway that runs into and out of London. It surely cannot be denied that we need the best possible public service links from the capital to the airport if we are to alleviate the problem to which my hon. Friend has just referred.
Mr. Robert Adley: I know that my hon. Friend is an avid reader of all my publications. Therefore, I am sure that he will have read in bed "Tunnel Vision", in which I have tried to deal with the problem. I stress in particular the need for a west-facing link. If I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope to be able to refer to it and to deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn). The contents of the Bill deal only with traffic from London, although that is not clear from the long title. The procedural point that I wish to put to my hon. Friend is this: is he of the opinion that, if the promoters succeed in obtaining the agreement of the House to this carry-over motion, they will be amenable to some of the proposals that may emerge during the debate?
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend has made an important point. He is an acknowledged expert on these matters. It leads me straight to the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and others: that the link with Heathrow should not be unique to that service, and that others should be able to take advantage of the line that will start at Paddington. I have to make the point, which applies to hon. Members with constituencies in Wales and elsewhere, that, although the promoters are seeking, by means of the Bill, powers to construct the basic route, they have not closed their minds to the point that has just been made by my hon. Friend. They have not disregarded, either, the pleas that have been made by other hon. Members. When the line is in operation, all sorts of options can be examined. However, we are considering a Bill that provides only a basic service.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: So the answer is no.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I am not so sure that the hon. Gentleman is right about that. If one were coming from Cardiff, or from anywhere else in Wales, which I know extremely well, one would probably be better off to go to Paddington and pick up the dedicated line to Heathrow rather than have to face all the confusion and problems that could exist—I do not say that they would exist—with stopping trains of any sort.
Another fundamental point is that, following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about London's east-west crosslink, there will be occasions when people from the eastern side of the capital will want to take advantage of a train that goes straight into the airport. British Rail and the British Airports Authority have made it clear that they are anxious to look at that point. The important point, however, is that the time scale of the two projects is totally different. The airport link with which we are dealing this evening is designed to be operational by 1994, whereas the east-west crosslink is unlikely to be available until 1999—a five-year gap.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I promise my hon. Friend that I shall not persist with my interruptions, so I hope that he will be kind enough to allow me this one. My hon. Friend is, I know, an honourable man. However, he is asking the House to accept the good faith of the promoters and to agree in due course to the construction of the line. He says that, when it is operational, the promoters will consider

1279
pleas made by others, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and myself, for a proper stop at Ealing at certain times of the day.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. We are at the commencement of the debate. I must remind the House that this is a carry-over motion. We are not debating the arguments for and against the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will keep in mind the fact that this is a narrow procedural motion.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your ruling.
Mr. Greenway rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman had completed what he wanted to say. He was going off the rails in a very big way.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: We must bear in mind that this is not a Second Reading debate, but I hope that I carry the House with me when I say that a Second Reading debate will be needed on a future occasion. I have taken note, however, of my hon. Friend's point.
There are still 15 petitioners against the Bill. According to the motion on the Order Paper, those petitions will be carried over to the new Session.
As I pointed out at the outset, the petitioners have no objection in general to the concept of the rail link that is being promoted. They are concerned about individual special interests which, hopefully, can be discussed in Committee if the Bill is sufficiently lucky to be given a Second Reading.
It is worth remembering that the original Bill introduced in the other place conceived the likelihood of an overhead rail viaduct across the M4 and into airport terminals 3 and 4. As a result of the discussions in the opposed Committee in the other place, the promoters have decided to go under that motorway and, hopefully, improve the environmental appearance of the operation and meet the important points made by the objectors. As a result of that decision, they have probably added about £25 million to the cost. Therefore, we have already seen in discussions on the Bill that substantial changes can be made.
Mr. Terry Dicks: My hon. Friend mentioned an increase of £25 million. The paper produced by the promoters mentions the figure of £12 million. I want to help my hon. Friend and ensure that he has got the figures right, because we should not give the wrong information in this debate.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: The figure I have is £25 million. If my hon. Friend has another figure, we must discuss that later. However, if one were to look at the possibility of burying the line still further, we would be looking at a further increase of about £10 million, which would have a detrimental effect on the fare structure to which I have referred.
I hope that the House will agree that this is an important matter and that it should receive further consultation and discussion. It should be allowed to have a Second Reading during the next Session and then proceed to its Committee and other stages. Therefore, I commend the motion.
7.21 pm
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I must plead a constituency interest in this matter and remind the House that I am a former railway worker. I know every inch of the railway. If we go back far enough, I was a goods guard and shunter. When the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) made a plea for a stop at Ealing Common, it reminded me of someone who asked me whether a train stopped at Paddington. I said, "Blimey, madam, if it doesn't, there won't 'alf be a row." I support a stop at Ealing Broadway, and my constituents want a stop at Southall. In that part of my constituency there is a large Indian community and many employees of Heathrow airport. Of course, it is for the Bill's promoters to decide whether they want to resist the idea of stops. It might contradict the title of the Bill.
I want more information about the speed of the trains, because they will fundamentally affect my constituents in west Ealing. Already work is being undertaken on track laying in conjunction with the new high-speed train. Some of the houses near that area are nearly 100 years old and already suffer vibration from the existing services. In some of the houses, pictures jump about on the walls. A high-speed service to Heathrow at 15-minute intervals will not do much to improve their lives. I understand that British Rail has had a discussion with local residents. Those residents have said that it is the last thing they want, since there is about 25 ft. between the back of houses and the railway track, and the embankment is to be raised to bedroom height. I do not think that many hon. Members would want to live in that part of the London borough of Ealing.
I must take this opportunity to spell out some of the worries of my constituents. However, in accordance with the spirit in which the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) introduced the Bill, I must say that in general terms there is a welcome for the idea.
Mr. Dicks: Will the hon. Gentleman say exactly where in his constituency the line rises to the height of windows? I bow to his expertise on the railways but I was under the impression that that would happen as the train was leaving Hayes, not Southall.
Mr. Bidwell: I used to be a resident of Hayes and this matter never worried me when I lived there, so the hon. Gentleman probably knows more about it than I do. Although I often motor and walk around that area, I am sure that he knows more than I do about the spur extension near his constituency and across Stockley industrial estate.
There was a derailment last year very close to the houses I have mentioned, but miraculously there was no loss of life. An express train from Oxford to Paddington hit a piece of rail which it was thought may have been left by vandals, although that has never been proved. When such things occur, residents adjacent to the line must be fearful, especially with the prospect of increased traffic, even though on a quieter track.
Nobody has told me that they are powerfully opposed to the idea, and I would expect British Rail, backed up by the British Airports Authority—which is rolling in money—to be generous if the question of compensation for my constituents arises in the future. I am sure that they will want to be generous, because it is not simply a matter of increased use of the existing track with traditional express

1281
trains to Reading, south Wales and so on. If the enterprise is to be thought to be worthwhile, they will want a service of Gatwick-Victoria proportions.
I promised that I would raise this matter. I think that there will be further consultation with British Rail, and the British Airports Authority should be present at such consultations. They should look further at the worries and fears of those in my constituency who will be affected. As far as I know, no one will suffer such oppression, although I am sure that my colleague, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), will tell us differently. The old houses I have mentioned must be considered seriously. If they are not, I shall lead a protest greater than has been known hitherto.
7.28 pm
Sir John Wheeler: I welcome the principle of the motion and the potential progress of the Bill. I welcome the introduction of the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) who is standing in for my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) who has ultimate charge of the progress of the Bill on behalf of the promoters. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South has been particularly helpful to Westminster city council in recognising my constituents' special concerns because of the proximity of Paddington to the residential community.
If the House is minded to pass the motion, I hope that in future greater consideration will be given to the environmental aspect of the Bill as it affects the city of Westminster. My council has asked me to make clear that it is concerned about the impact that traffic may have should the Bill progress. Much growth is already expected in traffic movements to the A40 and the M40 extension, growth is predicted in general traffic and railway patronage of Paddington and there are estimates of a growth of traffic to Heathrow.
Mr. Adley: I fully understand and support what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree not only that his constituents are entitled to the protection for which he is asking but that he is entitled to suggest—if he does not do so, I will, and he might agree with me—that environmental expenditure to alleviate the problems faced by people because of railway schemes should be funded in exactly the same way as environmental expenditure is provided to alleviate problems created by road schemes? If there is an environmental problem, the taxpayer should pay, not the promoters of the Bill.
Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, but it is not for me to express an opinion on the merits of his argument. That is, perhaps, for elsewhere or for another time in this Chamber.
My support for the principle of the Bill and the motion rests on the assumption that the promoters will continue to consider the traffic and environmental impact in the city of Westminster. In particular, they will want to focus their attention on access to Paddington station via what is described as
"a sub-standard ramp off Bishop's bridge road which requires cars to stop and proceed at 4 mph."
I am advised that considerable progress is being made by the promoters to satisfy the council and particularly residential environmental groups such as the south-east
1282
Bayswater residents association. Should that progress continue to be made, I have no doubt that the Bill will be greatly welcomed.
Mr. Peter Snape: What is the view of the hon. Gentleman and his council about the existing underground connections at Paddington? Does he feel that an additional 6 million passengers through Paddington main line station may cause enormous difficulties unless underground facilities are considerably improved?
Sir John Wheeler: That, again, goes beyond my ability to comment tonight and is a matter for elsewhere.
The Bill is greatly affected by the proposal to provide the east-west cross way, which may have the advantage of reducing potential vehicular traffic to Paddington railway station. That announcement impacts favourably on the environmental aspect of the Bill and I very much hope, therefore, that the motion will be supported tonight.
7.34 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I am uncertain whether to support the motion and will therefore need certain assurances from the sponsor of the Bill before reaching a decision.
I need not explain why a Welshman should speak to the Bill or seek those assurances. Paddington, with which this expressway will connect, is important not only to my personal life, given the amount of time that I spend going to and from it, but to the commercial and business community of south Wales. High-speed access to Paddington station is a vital factor in the industrial and commercial development of the Principality.
The best architectural sight in London is Paddington from a departing train. I say that not as a personal whim but because that station and the line to south Wales play a significant role in the economic well-being of south Wales. If, therefore, there is to be any disruption, even for a short period, to the high-speed link between London and south Wales—I shall draw the attention of the House to that possibility in a minute—it will be a matter of profound concern not only for hon. Members and their personal convenience but for the economic and commercial development of the Principality.
A vivid example that has concerned us about key life-line communication links is the state of the Severn bridge. The fact that it has been in a state of repair, refurbishment or alteration for a long time has had an important impact on attracting industry and commerce to the Principality. We therefore have every right to be worried, and before supporting the motion I shall need assurances from the sponsor of the Bill about the nature and character of the works and the impact that a new expressway might have on the speed with which the main 125 service from south Wales travels in and out of Paddington.
Let me explain some of my basic worries, which were not raised on Second Reading or Third Reading in the other place. Following an inquiry with the Private Bill Office in the other place, I do not believe that they were the subject of detailed discussion or cross-examination in the Committee proceedings in the other place. The first of my worries is the impact that a new 15-minute service from Paddington between 5 am and 11.30 pm might have on existing and future traffic to and from Paddington. If I do

1283
not receive some reassurance from the sponsor that our worries and concerns will be taken on board, that will influence how I vote.
Those of us who spend a considerable part of our lives on this line—
Mr. Morgan: Who almost live on it.
Mr. Rowlands: Almost.
Many times, the 125 has been on time until the last three or four miles into Paddington station. Those last three or four miles cause the delays. About 90 per cent. of delays occur in that vital three or four miles into Paddington. One of the possible consequences of supporting the motion would be to add another 15-minute service in and out of Paddington from 5 am to 11.30 pm. I have not found any evidence from the proceedings on the Bill showing that the ripple effects that this new service might have on the speed of the 125 service in and out of Paddington have been investigated.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: As this is not Second Reading I shall not be seeking leave to speak again, but the promoters have assured me that current services will not be disadvantaged as a result of the Heathrow link. That is the best assurance that I can give the hon. Gentleman. If the motion is passed, he will have an opportunity to raise this matter in more detail on Second Reading.
Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he has already understood that vital point. There was little evidence in the debate in the other place that it had been taken on board; it was, understandably, very much a London debate. The Bill has much wider significance, especially in terms of the Welsh economy. I hope that the word will go out to the promoters that we will seek detailed and categorical assurances. As I understand it, the new 15-minute service will be provided on existing lines and there are no plans to build new lines into the Paddington area. This point has not been dealt with in the necessary detail.
I understand from my reading that a great deal of the construction will not take place immediately around the main line. I do not believe that a scheme of such importance will not cause considerable disruption on and around the existing railway tracks into and out of Paddington, especially in areas about which Conservative Members can speak with greater knowledge. I ask the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) to say that he will take this matter back to the promoters. We need an assurance about construction. The high-speed 125s travelling from the south-west and south Wales are vital to economic development and to inward investment in our community. We want an assurance that the construction will not affect their speed.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, about which the promoters are concerned. The assurance has been given—to me, at any rate—that the service will in no way disadvantage main line trains travelling to Paddington from south Wales and other parts of the country.
Mr. Rowlands: I value that intervention. Obviously we shall seek to put flesh on that assurance later.
1284
It would be galling for us to lose the speed and the efficiency of one of the major lifelines from the Principality to the capital. Many of us have suggested that British Rail should consider electrifying western lines as it has done along the east coast. It would be galling to watch construction of an electrified portion of the line in the west if construction slows services from and to the south-west and south Wales for a significant period. One can imagine the irritation and anger that could result. I am grateful to the hon. Member for New Forest for accepting that this is an important point.
I am concerned also about possible linkages between the new expressway and traffic coming from south Wales and the south-west. The hon. Member for New Forest said that the Bill's promoters were open minded. It will be galling if we are left with a service from south Wales to Heathrow that involves getting off at Reading, getting on a bus and, if one is lucky, reaching one of the Heathrow terminals 45 minutes later, then spending a considerable time running round the four terminals. It also takes a lot of time to get out of Heathrow before one can set on one's way towards Reading to catch the mainline service.
On balance, I am inclined not to oppose the carry-over motion because of the comments by the hon. Member for New Forest. We give due notice, however, that we will raise the issue of the connection between the railway service from south Wales to Heathrow and Paddington and the ways in which the benefits of a major, new communications infrastructure can be tied to the Principality's requirements. We feel that we are a long way from the channel tunnel; we are determined not to be a long way from London or Heathrow.
7.45 pm
Mr. Robert Adley: I should like on behalf of the whole House, I hope, to thank my hon. and neighbouring Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson). Over the years, he has taken immense trouble with railway Bills and he is always courteous, diligent and thorough. We are grateful to him yet again, and we are grateful for his attempts to answer questions.
We have a problem. This procedural motion involves a group that is partly financed by a nationalised industry, which presumably accounts for the presence of the Minister on the Front Bench. We shall all try to keep within order, but it is difficult to decide whether to support this motion without assurances from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest or my hon. Friend the Minister on some points.
I have to declare an interest as the author of "Tunnel Vision" which the Hansard reporters could not seem to see, so I shall hold it up for them. It was published by the Conservative Political Centre and was purchased by certain Labour Members. A long time ago, the book foresaw many of the points that we are discussing. I declare an interest also as author of a recently published book "Out of Steam", which also attends to questions of railway investment criteria.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest asks us to support the Bill. Paragraph (4) of the preamble states:
"In order to provide improved services and facilities for passengers travelling to or from Heathrow".
I submit that, before the Bill completes its passage, the words "from central London" should be inserted. Preferably—I strongly echo the words of the hon. Member

1285
for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)—the Bill should provide what is proposed in paragraph (4). Unless the Bill is amended, a great opportunity will be lost.
A west-facing link must be a vital feature of the Bill for south Wales, the west country and the south-west. Of course we accept the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, but surely the time when the Bill is being promoted is the time for the promoters to say that they will acquire the necessary land. We are talking about 200 or 300 yd of land on which to build west-facing tracks and that land should be reserved now. I have not yet heard an assurance from my hon. Friend on that point.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: As I said, this is not a Second Reading debate, but I should like to make the point that the promoters want to ensure that the link between the capital and the airport is preserved as a premium rail route. If we are to have stopping trains or any alterations to that basic principle, obviously different objectives will have to be considered. I have already assured the House that those objectives are being considered. Finally, I should emphasise that it will probably be as quick to go to Paddington and get on to the dedicated line as it would be to have stopping trains on what is intended to be a fast premium service.
Mr. Adley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I should point out to him that people who are traveling—whether to Baghdad or to Bangkok—with lots of luggage will not take kindly to finding themselves whizzing past Heathrow at 125 mph on a high speed train from Swansea, watching the airport disappear behind them, getting off at Paddington and taking all their luggage from platform A to platform B, only to go back on themselves.
Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn), I suspect that unless a determined decision is made at the outset of the Bill's proceedings both to provide and utilise modern technology and to provide for the acquisition of the necessary extra land—I shall touch on that in a moment—the Bill will face considerable difficulties as we proceed.
This is not a hybrid Bill, but it is the result of a hybrid promotion: it is being promoted partly by a recently privatised company and partly by a state-owned company. Sooner or later—and before we proceed much further with the Bill—someone will have to recognise that a public transport opportunity will be missed unless the matter is dealt with properly. We need a transport policy that recognises opportunities. We need the electrification of the Great Western main line— thank goodness Brunel built it to the 7 ft gauge, otherwise we should not now have enough land to do what the promoters envisage in the Bill—not just from Paddington to Heathrow but from the proposed Heathrow junction to Reading and Oxford and to Banbury and Coventry. We need the line to be connected with the electrified rail network throughout the country.
I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest that people like through trains. They do not like having to change, especially if they are travelling with a lot of luggage. To build a new piece of railway line at a cost of many tens of millions of pounds and not to capitalise on the opportunities being created is a dereliction of duty.
1286
Have the promoters considered the use of modern technology for powered slip coaches? The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) will remember that the Great Western used to slip coaches in steam days. In those days, one could not do what one can now do with electric and diesel power, which is to slip a self-powered unit. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether that has already been considered, or whether it will be borne in mind when the promoters consider the west-facing link?
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I am not competent, Madam Deputy Speaker, to answer questions about advanced technology on the railways in this debate: it is not a Second Reading debate. My only concern is that we should move to the point at which the interesting arguments deployed by my hon. Friend can be given a proper opportunity to be discussed—namely, a Second Reading debate in the next Session.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I should again draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are not discussing the Bill. We are discussing the motion on the Order Paper, which deals with the question whether we should suspend proceedings on the Bill. We are talking not about the Bill but about a suspension motion and it would make my job a little easier if hon. Members would relate their remarks to that from time to time.
Mr. Adley: I shall relate my remarks to that from time to time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The present Bill is a private Bill, but it will be funded in part by the nationalised railway industry. We cannot simply disregard the Bill's national transport implications. I shall endeavour not to incur your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not have a great deal more to say, but the point is that this is a private Bill based on the use and exploitation of a public asset—the Great Western railway main line.
On that basis, the promoters must be made aware that they cannot just take advantage of the opportunities of financial reward; they must be made to be responsible for the public interest in their use of a priceless national asset. That is why I ask my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest—or perhaps the Minister can answer this question—whether the promoters or the Department have made any sort of cost-benefit analysis not only of what is in the Bill but of the aspects that the promoters might reasonably have assumed hon. Members would raise at this stage in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Minister may not know this yet, but a number of us have had a wasted year. We have been discussing with British Rail the future of the Waterloo-Salisbury-Exeter line. We were promised a cost-benefit analysis and then, at the eleventh hour, British Rail had to admit that it had been told by the Department of Transport not to go ahead with such an analysis. Flow on earth can the Department of Transport forbid a nationalised railway industry to undertake a cost-benefit analysis? For this Bill, such an analysis is essential.
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): Although it is not directly relevant to the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I must tell my hon. Friend that he has been misled. At no stage did the Department of Transport suggest to British Rail that a cost-benefit analysis should not be performed.
Mr. Adley: When my colleagues and I come to see the Minister, we shall pursue the matter. Certainly, that was the clear impression that we received from British Rail in the course of our meetings with it.
We are being asked to approve a carry-over motion for half a Bill. Where else but in Britain could it seriously be proposed to build a rail link from the nation's major airport facing in one direction only? The proposed new construction comprises a spur from the Great Western main line into Heathrow. The spur faces eastbound only. The Heathrow Express Railway Bill, welcome in itself, highlights dramatically everything that is wrong with transport planning in this country.
Passengers from the west country and south Wales—from Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea, Gloucester, Swindon—who wish to use the Heathrow link will have to travel into Paddington passing the new link-line; then transfer themselves and their luggage from platform X to platform Y at Paddington; then travel back on themselves to Heathrow. Leaving aside the time wasted and the aggravation of whizzing past one's destination and continuing in the wrong direction, the inevitable result of this situation is that large numbers of potential rail travellers to Heathrow from the west country will still go by coach and car, thus failing to ease congestion and pollution.
The obvious common sense of building a westbound spur into Heathrow has escaped planners of the new line, or, more likely, has failed to attract them as commercially worth while. No questions are asked about the perceived national interest, the obvious regional advantages or simple transport logistics.
Can anyone imagine the Department of Transport proposing a new motorway link road which faced in one direction only? To ask the question is to answer it. This highlights only too well the fundamental difference in road and rail planning in this country. For roads, money is no object. The taxpayer pays and that is the end of the story. For railway development, whether publicly or privately funded, no such rules apply. If it is not commercially viable, it is not built.
When British Rail announced its intention to build a high-speed link from the channel tunnel to central London, the nation demanded—quite properly—that full environmental protection be given to those who might be adversely affected. The Government so instructed British Rail: but they have failed to provide funds for the environmental protection. Somehow British Rail—alone amongst western European railways—is expected simultaneously to behave like a commercial organisation and a national environmental benefactor.
Contrast that with the saga of the Winchester by-pass. Quite appropriately, again, the Department demands sensible environmental protection: the taxpayer pays; no questions asked; end of story. Unless and until the same investment criteria are applied by the Department of Transport and the Treasury to road and rail investment, Britain's railway developments will be based on the foundation of Victorian engineering by our forebears, whilst our industrial competitors in Europe are busy building new railways as well as improving their existing infrastructure. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest will pass my thoughts on to the promoters in full and that he will be able to assure me that, before we proceed any further with the Bill, these matters will be raised with the Department of Transport—
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: The points that my hon. Friend has raised are exactly the points that should be raised in a Second Reading debate. I very much hope that the House will allow the Bill to be carried over so that that debate can take place and so that my hon. Friend can deploy his interesting arguments.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I shall have considerable doubts about supporting the carry-over motion unless proper attention is paid to the environmental aspects of the Bill to which my hon. Friend has referred. In my constituency, we need safeguards to prevent children from getting on to the line because they can do so all too easily—[Interruption.] Well, this is fundamental to my attitude and to whether I vote for the carry-over motion—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that it is, but I must advise the hon. Gentleman that it is not fundamental to the—
Mr. Greenway rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not fundamental to the carry-over motion. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will seek to speak in the debate and I shall wish to call him so that he can speak to the motion.
Mr. Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. How can one decide whether to support the carry-over motion without making the fundamental points that had been put before one by one's constituents in support of the ultimate Bill?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If we should reach Second Reading, that is when the hon. Gentleman should put his points. He is now anticipating a Second Reading debate in which he will be able to determine how he will vote on the Bill.
Mr. Adley: May I conclude my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker? I do so by saying that, in view of my long, close and happy relationship with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, I shall support the carry-over motion because he has assured me that my points will be taken into account. The Minister has also listened to all the debate. I therefore hope that, before the Bill receives its Second Reading, those of us who support it but who wish to see it amended will be able to seek a meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister to pursue some of these points, preferably on an all-party basis.
8 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: The debate has been interesting, whether in or out of order. The fact that so many hon. Members of all parties have expressed their legitimate concerns about the progress of the Bill shows that, if and when we reach Second Reading, the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson), who moved the motion with his customary diligence and courtesy, will face considerable cross-examination. I have no wish to arouse your ire, Madam Deputy Speaker, by transgressing the rules because, were I to do so, I should suffer in a way in which other hon. Members would not, because you would have ample opportunities to tell me so in West Bromwich, as well as in the House.
I should like to give my party's attitude to the motion and, if we have a Second Reading debate, to present our views on the Bill as a whole. The way in which the Bill is being promoted is indicative of the lack of any transport

1289
policy under this Government and of the illogical thinking of many Conservative Members. Over the past 11 years, the Government have continually said that British Rail must divest itself of what Conservative Members term its "superfluous activities". Those aspects of the railway network that were built up by the former private railway companies and run by British Rail since 1948, such as the shipping and hotel services, have been removed from British Rail during the past decade because the Conservative party has said that British Rail should concentrate on running the railway system.
Nevertheless, Conservative Members are here presumably prepared to support a Bill that is promoted jointly by the former British Airports Authority—now BAA plc—and British Rail. The Bill has little to do with operating an airport, but everything to do with running a railway. If the British Airports Authority—or whatever it calls itself these days—can build a railway, surely a railway system can be involved in the ancillary services from which it has profited and which have been seen as a necessary adjunct to that system for more than 100 years. To say the least, it is illogical for the Conservative party to support the carry-over motion, given the way in which the Government have behaved towards British Rail and some of its activities during the past 11 years.
The most worrying aspect of the provisions is that, if the forecasts of the hon. Member for New Forest prove accurate, 6 million people will be using the mainline station in London which is probably the least suitable to carry that additional burden. When I suggested to the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) who, alas, is no longer in his place, that that state of affairs should worry Westminster city council and himself, he replied that it was a matter for Second Reading. However, he also referred to the east-west crossrail which, if it is ever built, will have a substantial impact and will relieve Paddington station of that additional burden.
I realise that the Minister of State has not been at the Department of Transport very long and that he seems to have been shunted into this branch line, but I must advise him that some of the Department's pronouncements are difficult to believe. Earlier this year we had an announcement from British Rail about the modernisation of the railway line to Glasgow, but we are now told that that will not happen because of the economic situation. Furthermore, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State were very much aware of the fears of some of my hon. Friends—and, to be fair, of some Conservative Members—about the additional burden that would be placed on Paddington station if the motion were adopted.
Miraculously, at the Conservative party conference—a strange forum to make such an announcement—and in a vain attempt to produce the standing ovation which I always thought was customary on such occasions, although obviously I was wrong, the Secretary of State produced the east-west crossrail out of his top hat at an estimated cost of £1·5 billion but said nothing about the source of the funding. When the present Secretary of State produces such a white rabbit from his top hat before that particular forum, I think that it is a job for a good vet because I am not sure whether the animal is genuine. Both Siegfried and Tristan from "All Creatures Great and Small" would have an interesting time examining that white rabbit. The Minister of State owes it to the House to
1290
tell us whether the funding for the east-west crossrail will be forthcoming because the Opposition's attitude to the motion may well depend on that central point.
Mr. Freeman: I do not wish to detain the House later if I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. The east-west crossrail will be funded in the conventional way by the Department of Transport by way of grant, in just the same way as the Jubilee line will be financed. Turning to the west-coast main line, I must advise the hon. Gentleman that he should not believe what he reads in the newspapers. That project has not been cancelled. As I understand it, it is still very much in British Rail's plans.
Mr. Snape: If I said that it had been cancelled, I was wrong. I thought that I said that it had been delayed or postponed. We now read that British Rail is talking about an additional year of delay before bringing forward those plans.
Let us concentrate on the Bill—
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I was wondering whether my hon. Friend could pursue this a little more quickly. Shall we be able to get from Glasgow to London quicker before we can get from Paddington to Heathrow that little bit quicker?
Mr. Snape: I have no doubt that, having heard that comment, the Minister of State will reply suitably to it if he succeeds in catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The real fears expressed by hon. Members of all parties about the motion and the logical conclusion of its acceptance should be considered carefully both by the promoters and by the Department of Transport. It is not just a question of BAA plc and British Rail dividing the £235 million cost in the way in which they have outlined with 80 per cent. being met by BAA plc and, as I understand it, 20 per cent. by British Rail. In an ideal world, the Department of Transport would say that this should be a joint partnership. If the Minister of State would like to take the weight of speaking for the nation on his undoubtedly broad shoulders, he should say, "We, the nation, must be involved in a project of this size." It does not make sense merely to connect the nearest London terminal station to Heathrow airport. We must do far more than that and ensure that if and when the new rail link is built it becomes an integral part of our overall railway system. Such a piecemeal, begging-bowl approach to these matters bedevils our transport industry and amply illustrates what is wrong with the Government's lack of a transport policy.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is it not also nonsensical that an important railway development should apparently depend on British Rail being able to flog off some land to obtain the revenue to inject into the project? It might find itself in the same position as it was in at King's Cross. The land that it proposed to sell was suddenly declared to belong to a hospital and had to be returned to that hospital instead of being used for development land—a classic example of depending on the vagaries of property development for important projects.
Mr. Snape: Exactly. The overall economic situation, grim as it is, also has an impact on the amount of cash that British Rail can raise from the sale of its land. This is the only nation on earth that would approach projects of this size and complexity in this way. It is nonsensical that

1291
British Rail should have to flog off parcels of land to find the money to invest in a railway line which should have been built decades ago.
Mr. Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman come to the point about the west-facing link? In case I did not make myself clear, does he agree that if the same had been done by road, it would have been announced when the M4 was being built that there would be a link from the M4 to central London but that the traffic coming in by road would have to go right into central London, round Hyde Park corner and back out again?
Mr. Snape: That amply illustrates the nonsensical approach that the Government always adopt.
I should not want the House to think that I am being too hostile to the British Airports Authority. Without its contribution, the link would never be built under the present Government because British Rail would have great difficulty proving that there would be a proper return on the capital. No doubt it would have to parcel up even more tracts of land throughout the country to finance the link, assuming that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State gave it permission to spend its own money.
To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), a similar situation arose with the Manchester airport rail link. That is being built by BR, although it can only afford to build a north-facing junction. It has supposedly reserved enough land to be able, when it has parcelled off and sold another piece of land, to build a south-facing junction some time in the future. Those are the economics of bedlam and the railways of the madhouse.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that at least the promoters of the Manchester Bill had the honesty to include in that Bill the north and south links? Although it is sad that the south link is not being built at the same time, at least the parliamentary powers exist to build it and it can be lobbied for. The sad thing about this Bill is that there is no sign of a west link in it. All the signs are that the promoters are determined not to have one.
Mr. Snape: That is probably right. Looking at the scheme from the promoters' narrow angle, I do not believe that they want a west link. They want their own dedicated train service running every 15 minutes between Paddington and Heathrow. They would regard the addition of trains from the west country as an intrusion on their private railway. That is what is wrong with the system. Even if land is reserved for a west-facing junction, there is no guarantee that under the present 80–20 system of ownership the junction would ever be laid. Given the habitual incompetence of much of British Rail's senior management, they would miss an opportunity like that if they were given the chance.
It is hard to imagine the BAA seeking additional trains from the west country because the authority would regard them as trespassing on its private piece of railway. The BAA also says that because the new station at Heathrow is under ground it will be unsuitable for the diesel trains—HSTs or diesel multiple units—which now operate on the former Great Western main line. As the hon. Member
1292
for Christchurch would tell us, that is an argument for electrification, but so far as I am aware the Government have no plans to electrify the Great Western main line. So unless common sense prevails and there is a change of heart by the Government we shall be stuck with a private piece of railway—[Interruption.] I wish the Minister would persuade some of the people who sit in the civil servants' Box, and who have been giving him doubtful advice, not to shake their heads when an Opposition Member is speaking. After all, it is their advice on which successive Ministers have relied for so many years, which explains why our transport network is in such a mess.
I hope that before the House accepts this motion it will look again at some of the points that have been raised. Perhaps we should reconsider the signalling system in and out of Paddington—a point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney—which I believe is still controlled from an old oak signal box dating from the late 1960s. I do not know whether that system can be improved to cater for these additional trains without impinging on the existing mainline service from Paddington. If the experience of Birmingham is anything to go by, it cannot, because we have enormous problems with additional capacity into Birmingham New Street station, where the signalling system dates from the 1960s. With its habitual short-sightedness, British Rail senior management ripped up every additional piece of track that it could, so life is extremely difficult now that capacity needs to be increased in the way that many of us had warned that it would.
There are still many unanswered questions. Although the hon. Member for New Forest has done his best to answer them, hon. Members on both sides need more reassurance. If this is to be a small private railway run purely for the benefit of Heathrow airport, it will not have the support of the Opposition or, I suspect, of many Conservative Members.
8.17 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I apologise to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for any apparent discourtesy by officials—it was not meant. From my knowledge of officials in the Department of Transport, I can say that they would serve any Government of any party fully and faithfully, and I assure him that their views about the facts are in no way intended to be discourteous.
The Government support the procedural motion because we support the principle of the Bill: a new, fast, electrified line from the nation's capital to the nation's major airport. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) rightly pointed out, prospects of connections beyond, once the east-west crossrail is completed—we hope by the end of the decade, although British Rail cannot yet have fully thought through the details—open up, for instance, between the airport and other places in the nation's capital and further afield. That is an exciting prospect, made possible by the announcement on the crossrail.
Mr. Cryer: As the Government have no plans to electrify the former Great Western main line out of Paddington, does the Minister envisage a dedicated track to Heathrow as the sole electrified track out of Paddington? Does not that militate against any use of the Heathrow railway by other traffic?
Mr. Freeman: I do not want to stray into secondary issues. Of course, an electrified track coming off the main line to Heathrow would preclude—although this is not for me to say—a diesel service coming from the west country, for reasons of railway safety. That is a matter of common sense, although it is not for discussion in this debate. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, all points west of the junction with the main line would have to be electrified to provide a west-facing service. The line to Reading will be electrified on the east-west crossrail. However, no submission or decision has been made by British Rail about the electrification of the whole of the Great Western line.
Mr. Adley: Is the Minister saying that the east-west crossrail rail will have full overhead electrification to Reading? If that is the case, it is extremely welcome news which I must have missed.
Mr. Freeman: Planning permission for an east-west crossrail has to come before the House if that procedure is adopted. That is the principle behind the proposal. I should he happy to meet hon. Members to understand more fully some of the points that have been made. They are not directly germane to the motion or the principle of the Bill.
I note the pressure for stops on the line, especially in Ealing, and the arguments for a west-facing service. I also note what hon. Members have said about the implications for the existing service at Paddington station. Those are all important matters and I give an undertaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and to other hon. Members that at any time from tomorrow onwards I should be happy to meet them to understand their concerns more fully. In the meantime, the Government support the motion because we support the principle of the Bill.
Mr. Patrick Ground: The Minister mentioned links in other directions. Will he include in his undertaking a willingness to discuss the possibility of keeping open links to the south by constructing the tunnels under the airport, because the points that he has made apply in the same way to links to the south as to links in other directions?
Mr. Freeman: I note what my hon. and learned Friend says. The Department of Transport does not run the railways. This is a private Bill and it is for British Rail to make investment proposals to the Government. If my hon. and learned Friend cares to join my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch in a meeting with me or cares to see me separately, I should be glad to listen to his arguments.
8.21 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Did the Minister say that the cross-London link will be electrified from Reading? If that is the case, the west link is much more feasible. The Minister is nodding, from which I take it that the line will be electrified from Reading to the centre of London.
I oppose the carry-over motion because it is a totally inappropriate way for us to proceed in this matter. It is clear from the debate that we are concerned about three major areas. One is a national transport policy, the second
1294
relates to environmental issues for people close to the proposed link, and the third is about how well petitioners can be represented.
It is inappropriate for us to deal with transport policy by way of a private Bill which can always be narrowed as it goes through Parliament. However, it can never be widened. The perfectly reasonable proposals about the west link could not possibly be introduced to the Bill at any stage because the promoters would have had to give notice to local people and it is possible that petitions would have been raised. Such a procedure enables us to discuss only a narrow part of transport policy.
We should throw out the Bill. We have already spent a long time on it, but the Government should start again. Instead of using a private Bill, the Government should present their own measure which would give us an opportunity to discuss all the transport implications in the same way as the House is able to scrutinise public Bills. That is much more satisfactory than the way in which we scrutinise private Bills.
Mr. Snape: I realise that my hon. Friend's objections to the Bill are procedural rather than on the details of the Bill. However, I urge him to bear in mind that, although this system of legislation is inadequate, it at least enables the House to debate railways projects. There is no such procedure for road projects, which is why we never debate them.
Mr. Bennett: I am not arguing for a procedure that would allow us to debate only road projects. I want a procedure that will enable us to debate our whole transport policy. We do not have an opportunity to debate a whole series of transport matters.
What is the relationship between the Bill's proposals and the whole question of the channel tunnel? I am mystified about what British Rail will do. Will it advertise to encourage people to go to Paris by taking the train from Paddington to Heathrow and then flying, or will it encourage people to go all the way by rail? The British Airports Authority wants to promote a rapid link to Heathrow because it wants to encourage more people to fly. I am baffled by British Rail's proposals.
We should have a proper debate about how far we want to encourage more people to fly to Europe or more people to travel by train when the channel tunnel is completed. We could debate the environmental issues and the implications for Kent and for those who live around the airport. The Bill also raises the whole question of the regional airports versus Heathrow. The north-west faced great difficulties about getting the money for a small rail link from the centre of Manchester to Manchester airport. That link should have been built years ago. However, we see the ease with which money can be raised to improve a link through the centre of London and out to Heathrow. We should be able to explore the whole of that argument.
We should question whether everyone should have to travel into London and then out to Heathrow or Gatwick rather than having direct links to those airports. Hon. Members have spoken about the west link. A west link would be attractive for people from the north of England because from Reading northwards the old Great Western line to Coventry would form an attractive link to the north-west. It is much more attractive to come from Manchester to Heathrow via Reading and to have a direct

1295
link into the airport from the west than to have to get out at Euston and struggle through central London and all its crowds.
Mr. Adley: That is precisely why I have been pleading for some years for the linking of the channel tunnel line and the proposed line through to Reading, Oxford, Banbury and, through Leamington, to Coventry. We have not touched on a matter that the promoters must consider because it is relevant to the Bill. It is whether passengers would prefer to save perhaps five minutes by transporting their own luggage from A to B or whether they would prefer through services if they were available. In any discussion on transport policy linking rail and air, that aspect of any proposal must be fully considered.
Mr. Bennett: I accept that. I would argue strongly for a link from Reading northwards. It would be attractive for people on the west side of Britain to have a major service down the west side to Reading which then made its way to the channel tunnel, avoiding London. A link from Reading to Heathrow would also be attractive. Many people who live north of Reading would find it better to go northwards to Manchester, which has a much more convenient airport, than to try to struggle round the four terminals at Heathrow. There are strong arguments for developing a policy that encourages much more use of regional airports.
A major problem of the private Bill procedure is that it does not give us a proper opportunity to explore what should be our national transport policy. For example, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) asked whether people want through journeys, or to change. What about the convenience of changing on one platform rather than having to struggle from one platform to another—a factor with considerable implications for people with luggage?
If this were a public Bill, amendments could be tabled and issues could be debated at some length in Committee. I suspect that there would be a great deal of interest in debating and making proposals for an effective integrated public transport system. While the private Bill procedure gives us the occasional three-hour debate—when we press some of the procedural points, we get slightly more debates—it is not a satisfactory way in which to proceed.
There are also the environmental issues. The private Bill procedure is not satisfactory for those who live along the proposed routes. I appreciate that in this case the promoters have put much of the section to Heathrow underground, and removed the objections of some of the people who live close to the route and who would suffer environmental problems. However, those living along the existing sections of railway will suffer from the considerable increase in the frequency of trains. There are far better ways for them to put forward their objections than to have to come to a Private Bill Committee in the House of Commons.
It is increasingly onerous on hon. Members to have to sit in a semi judicial role. Furthermore, I wonder whether any hon. Member can honestly say that he has no interest in a Bill such as this. The theory behind the Bill procedure is that four hon. Members, who are supposed to be neutral and disinterested, and who will listen to the case being put forward by the promoters and the objectors, are picked to serve on the Committees examining the Bills. I suspect that
1296
most hon. Members have suffered from the frustrations of trying to get out to Heathrow and would, for their own convenience, prefer to cut the journey time considerably. Many hon. Members use Heathrow almost weekly, so the House will have to look carefully to find those who could fairly serve on the Committee and have no interest in the matter. Furthermore, we do not best serve our constituents by being tied up in a Private Bill Committee with such narrow terms of reference for the long hours that some of our colleagues have suffered when dealing with private Bills such as the Kings Cross Railways Bill and the Channel Tunnel Bill and one or two other such Bills.
If the House were to refuse this and other carry-over motions, it would encourage the Government to reform the private Bill procedure. We have had a consultation document on this, and the responses to the Government were in by 28 September. I hope that the Minister will at least have a word with the Leader of the House and suggest that there are many attractions in finding time in the next Session to legislate to reform the private Bill procedure. It is likely that the Session after that will be the first of a new Parliament. I suspect that reform of private business would not be the first priority in such a Session. When the Labour party forms the new Government, there will be fierce competition for the first Bill, and I suspect that Tory Members who hope that they will form the next Government will not want legislation dealing with reform of private Bills to be introduced in the first Session of their new Parliament. Therefore, the next Session of Parliament, in which business appears to be rather light, gives us the most reasonable chance of getting through such reforms.
We must tell people outside what is happening. Several Bills dealing with transport are under discussion and people have a right to know whether such Bills will be taken through under the present archaic procedure, or under a new and improved set of rules. For example, in what way will the proposal for a cross-London link, which we have discussed today, be dealt with? We must sort out our procedures, and if the House stopped routinely passing carry-over motions and insisted that promoters got Bills through in one Session, or if the Government looked for some other way to promote such measures, that would be a major spur to sorting out these procedures.
8.35 pm
Mr. Terry Dicks: I am the constituency Member for the Heathrow end of the proposed railway and I declare an interest as a shareholder in the British Airports Authority. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) said that the cost of amending the route was £25 million when, as I pointed out to him, it was £12 million which was put in by the BAA. The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell)—I nearly called him my hon. Friend because we both sit on the Select Committee on Transport—also suffered from a slight misunderstanding. He said that his constituents were concerned about the rising of the line on the flyover, but the flyover comes out at Hayes. I think that the hon. Gentleman was remembering the days when he lived in this part of Hayes, and I hope that he does not mind my correcting what he said.
We have to look at several factors before deciding whether to agree to the carry-over motion. The first is consultation. When this issue first raised its head in the summer of 1988, what consultation there was was bad.

1297
Since then, and since this was brought most forcibly to the attention of the sponsors by me and others, the consultation, especially that between the BAA and me, as the local Member of Parliament, has improved substantially. I am glad to place that on record.
I still believe that the route chosen is the wrong one. I feel that it should come in from Southall direct to the terminals. However, again as a result of the debates in the other place, the promoters of the Bill amended the proposal in a way that most reasonable people would feel is acceptable, and they are to be congratulated. However, many of my constituents are more concerned about the way in which the railway line will lift off past their homes—in some instances past their bedrooms—rather than being pleased that the line in going under the M4, as that has little effect on the way that they live or on their environment.
The amount involved now is over £200 million and, on the projected figures, 6 per cent. of the 39 million passengers using Heathrow will use the link. However, there will soon be a planning application for terminal 5, which, if approved, will increase the number of passengers to 50 million. What will be the effect on the comfort and perhaps even the safety of the link of another 1 million passengers—7 million rather than 6 million? Before we decide to agree to the carry-over motion, will my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest say how this potential increase in rail use is covered by the Bill?
I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) that we must have a better rail link from London to Heathrow. The motorway and other surface access to Heathrow is appalling with four terminals, and the only way to improve surface access is to make sure not just that we have a link but that we have one that meets the needs of my constituents as well as the financial aspirations of British Rail and BAA.
My local authority of Hillingdon has never been and is not now opposed to the principle of a fast rail link. However, some questions need to be answered. As I have already said, the construction will cause a great deal of concern to my constituents. The area is renowned for the amount of hazardous waste beneath the surface. Unfortunately, it has methane gas deposits, so great care must be taken. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give an assurance that all possible measures will be taken to minimise the impact of dealing with hazardous infill—for example, it may have to be moved and deep piling may be necessary.
Although the proposals are welcome to many people in my area, it must be remembered that my constituents will have to cope with the noise of additional trains at night and early in the morning. I wonder whether the Bill's promoters have considered every possibility for minimising the noise from additional trains.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I have already said that 15 petitions have been lodged against the Bill, some of which relate to my hon. Friend's concerns. If the carry-over motion is passed, that will provide an opportunity for the important points raised by my hon. Friend to be given an appropriate airing in Committee.
Mr. Dicks: I am aware of the requirement that we speak within the rules of the carry-over motion. However, if my
1298
hon. Friend can clarify certain aspects of the proposal tonight, some of the petitioners might modify their objections by the time the Bill reaches Committee.
I understand the comments from south Wales Members about trains not stopping to pick up passengers along the line into London, even though Heathrow is just around the corner from some of the stations.
I am in a dilemma, because some of my constituents do not want the rail link, while my local authority wants it, but believes that there is a better route. At this stage, I am not sure which way I shall vote. From a democratic viewpoint, I suppose that a Second Reading would give hon. Members the opportunity to air their views in a much deeper and more meaningful way than is possible on a narrow carry-over motion. Perhaps, on balance, there is a case for allowing the Bill to proceed to Second Reading. I shall have to make a decision on that before the vote.
8.42 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Like other hon. Members, I am in a dilemma. I am not opposed to the principle of a fast rail link from London to Britain's major airport. London has been referred to as the nation's capital, and it is certainly one of the nation's capitals. I am disinclined to support the motion, and my reasons for that are related to what a carry-over motion is all about and to the rights of ordinary Members of Parliament with an interest in the matter. I have taken an interest in this Bill since it was first mooted and eventually made its first tentative steps into the private Bill procedure in another place.
We must seriously consider our rights in relation both to the private Bill procedure and to carry-over motions. Most of us understand the private Bill procedure to confer on Members of Parliament the right to express views to the promoters. The promoters then have a fairly clear idea what they need to do to satisfy the objections from all parts of the House. If they want their Bill to go through quickly, they try to meet those objections. If they do not mind struggling through a carry-over motion, Second Reading in the next Session and a Committee stage opposed by 25 petitioners, the procedure will take a great deal longer but they may eventually get the Bill in the form in which it was originally tabled. That is their choice, and it is the traditional way in which we conduct our private Bill procedure. It is the balance that Parliament has struck between the rights of the promoters to bring a private Bill before Parliament, with petitioners able to object to it, and our rights as Back-Bench Members of Parliament.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) said when he attempted to satisfy some of the objections from Opposition Members and, in particular, from Conservative Members, in the hope that those who are minded to vote against the Bill or who are extremely worried about it might have their minds changed by the end of the debate. I wish to explore the exact nature of the assurances that he gave to his hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and others. I wish to clarify exactly what he said.
I should not like to think that the hon. Gentleman was giving oral promises which might fall into the Sam Goldwyn category of not being worth the paper on which they are written. The hon. Gentleman said that the promoters were fairly open-minded about making some

1299
provision for travel from the west into Heathrow which would take advantage of the investment that the British Airports Authority and British Rail are willing to make. He said that he wanted to make that point at this stage in the hope of achieving some cross-party—east and west of Heathrow—backing.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I made it clear that the Bill seeks to provide a basic, dedicated service between the capital and Heathrow. However, the promoters have said that at some time in the future, after that is set in place, they will consider the options available—some of which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Minister—when the east-west crosslink has been built. Much is said about what happens in continental Europe. Charles de Gaulle airport has a dedicated line which does not go past the airport, and does not pick up people from Reims, Vervins or anywhere else. That is a normal procedure. British Rail is right to build a basic system first and then consider the options to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Morgan: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is withdrawing all the assurances that he gave about having an understanding with the sponsors that, if we pass the carry-over motion and give the Bill a Second Reading, at some stage in the proceedings the sponsors will be willing to spend some money on making provision for westward travel. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, if we pass the carry-over motion and if the sponsors manage successfully to negotiate the other shoals and rapids of the parliamentary procedure, perhaps at some later stage there could be some provision for futher expenditure, wholly unconnected with the matter before us tonight, which might provide the wider link to south Wales and, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), to Birmingham and points north-west via a link from Didcot? The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I am not trying to have it both ways. If the hon. Gentleman reads what I said in Hansard he will find that, both in my opening remarks and now, I am saying that we are seeking power in the Bill to build a basic link between the two points. However, British Rail has said that in future it will look at the sort of extensions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
As the former Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure, I am well aware of the current system's defects. The Committee's unanimous report is currently being considered by both parts of the House. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) pointed out, that led to a consultation document which ended on 28 September. There is nothing sacrosanct about the private Bill procedure. I should like to see it altered for railway building, but I am anxious that the Bill should go forward for a Second Reading when the important points to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has referred can be properly discussed. He can have the proper assurances on such an occasion, but I am afraid that tonight is not the right occasion for such assurances to be given.
Mr. Morgan: It is important that the House should be crystal clear about what the hon. Gentleman is now saying. Is he saying that the Bill's promoters are
1300
open-minded about amending it during its passage through the House with regard to both the Westminster end and the people who represent constituencies immediately west of Heathrow or around Heathrow or elsewhere? Or are they merely open-minded about doing something entirely different at a later stage? Of course they will be open-minded about introducing an entirely different Bill at an entirely different time, possibly with an entirely different public/private sector joint venture. But I think that the hon. Gentleman is saying that their minds are closed to any alterations to the Bill.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I made the point earlier that in the Opposed Private Bill Committee in the other place a substantial change was made to the route that the link will take. It was to have gone on a viaduct above the M4, but it is now going in a tunnel under it. The hon. Gentleman's point can be argued in Committee, if such takes place, when the Bill returns in the next Session. The assurances for which he is asking must be given by the promoters. I am making the point that they are listening to what he is saying and that the purpose of the Bill, as at present drafted, is to build the basic link.
Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for the gracious way in which the hon. Gentleman has risen every time I have challenged him. I do not wish to put too heavy a burden on him as though he were the promoter—he has simply introduced the Bill today for the purposes of the carry-over motion—but it is our right as Members of Parliament on a carry-over motion that is important.
The hon. Gentleman said that in the other place the promoters showed themselves flexible enough to put more of the line in a tunnel and therefore we should be reasonably satisfied that they will listen to any points that are made, but this carry-over motion is one of the ways in which to bring a bit of heavy muscle to bear on the promoters so that they give us some indication of the kind that they have not shown so far during the Commons stages of the Bill. They have done so in respect of altering the route from Paddington to Heathrow, but not in respect of the linkages between the line and the rest of the public railway system. That is the critical point. Are they willing to consider putting one or more stops on the line, as distinct from altering the route or putting sections of it in a tunnel? That is the sort of thing that Back Benchers would like to know at this stage.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this a procedural motion. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating a Second Reading debate, when these matters can be debated.
Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After an earlier exchange between myself and the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson), I believed that this was an open-minded debate and that when it came to Second Reading and subsequent stages the promoters would be genuinely open-minded and at least consider making provision in the Bill for stopovers and connections with the west, particularly with south Wales. It now appears that that is not quite so, and that affects the way in which I shall vote on the motion. Therefore, I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will consider that a legitimate point to raise in the debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman seems to be repeating a speech that he made earlier.
Mr. Morgan: I am confining myself as best I can to the motion, but in my inexperience you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may have to correct me and I shall be happy to accept such a correction.
I am concerned about the kind of undertaking that can be given in a debate on a carry-over motion to show not the good behaviour of the promoters but their flexibility, which the sponsor has been at pains to emphasise in his opening speech and in his interventions in response to me and to other hon. Members.
There are three major ways, apart from the buffers at Paddington station, of linking the dedicated enclave line contained in this private Bill with the public railway system. Can some sort of nod or wink be given at this stage as to whether any of those are up for grabs if we agree to the carry-over motion and the Bill reaches Second Reading and Committee stage? Those three ways have been partly referred to by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape).
Mr. Adley: I accept the assurance given by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) and I gratefully accept the Minister's offer of a meeting to ensure proper ministerial influence. I hope that on that basis the hon. Gentleman will be inclined to join me in the Lobby tonight in support of the motion.
Mr. Morgan: I shall be happy to do that. Earlier today the Welsh parliamentary group met the Minister in Marsham street when the matter that we are discussing was touched on. Like the hon. Gentleman, I accept the assurances that have been given, but I want to know what they mean. Basically, we are seeking to discover what a carry-over motion can achieve for ordinary hon. Members.
I was dealing with the three major ways of linking the line to the public railway system and whether we can discuss those tonight by way of a sponsor's undertaking on behalf of the promoters or whether we simply have to accept an open-ended assurance that they may be dealt with at another time.
We in south Wales would like a stop on the line as far west as possible—somewhere between West Drayton and Hayes, I think, but my knowledge of the local geography is limited. Members for the Ealing area have already mentioned that they would like a more commuter-oriented stop closer into London—seven miles east of Farringdon. We would like some mention of that from the sponsor tonight. If we give the Bill's supporters the carry-over motion tonight, are they prepared at a later stage to talk about stops, or have they completely shut that out of their minds? Would they rather drop the whole Bill? Do they think that stops would wreck the economics of the line?
Another idea has been mentioned three or four times today, so I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will not mind if I mention it a fifth or sixth time. That is the question of a westward-pointing junction just slightly west of Heathrow, which would join up on the stub line down into Heathrow with the eastward-facing junction coming out in the Hayes area. They would join up to enable people
1302
from Slough and points west as far as Reading, Bristol, south Wales—and, indeed, Oxford and Birmingham—to enter London from that route.
A third idea is what I think that the sponsor has talked about. It has also been tangentially referred to by the local Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), with whom I had the honour of serving on the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill for some sins that I must have committed during the summer of 1987, although I have still not found out what they were. They pointed out that if, and only if, terminal 5 is built at Heathrow—and that would convert this matter into a totally different type of undertaking—a westward link would come out underneath terminal 5 of the new railway link that is to go underneath terminals 1, 2, 3 and 4, thereby offering a nice little carrot to the House of Commons to remember in future what we spoke about in the original Heathrow Express Railway Bill back in the summer of 1990. It is almost as if they are saying, "We are willing to do that for you now, but only if you give us permission for terminal 5." That would not convert tonight's proceedings into an ability to obtain an undertaking that they are willing to consider a westward link; it would mean that, if they come back with an entirely different scheme to expand Heathrow massively to a capacity for a throughput of up to 60 million or 70 million passengers a year, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington—
Mr. Dicks: I did mention 50 million, but the 60 million or 70 million referred to by the hon. Gentleman is going too far. Nor was I suggesting that the promoters—especially British Airways—would use this as a form of blackmail to get terminal 5; I was merely referring to the transport implications for both road and rail of a fifth terminal.
Mr. Morgan: I mentioned 60 million or 70 million, as opposed to the 50 million mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, because I am not the local Member of Parliament and therefore would not encounter the frightful constituency implications that no doubt would affect him. I am not merely repeating the hon. Gentleman's point about terminal 5; I am amplifying it, because it is entirely relevant to the carry-over motion.
I have been exercising my rights as an ordinary Member of Parliament to object to a private Bill. I have put my name down; other objectors have had to withdraw because they are now on the Government Front Bench. I have done that for many months. The objectors have had meetings with the two promoters of the Bill. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has exercised his right, as a local Member of Parliament, and I have exercised mine as a south Wales Member of Parliament. The promoters have told us that if there is a fifth terminal it will be possible to exercise the third way of connecting up to the railway system somewhere west of Slough. A big loop would then come in from Reading, dive down to terminal 5 and through to terminals 4, 3, 2 and 1, and back up on the line that we are discussing tonight.
What is being said is, "Give us the ham tonight, and then, if you give us the eggs at a later stage, we will have a 'ham and eggs' of the westward link." That is what hon. Members on both sides of the House are asking for tonight—both those who want commuter assistance because they represent constituencies near Heathrow involving huge

1303
work forces, and others who have a regional point of view to put but cannot put it properly under the private Bill procedure unless they exercise their muscle power as Back Benchers in relation to carry-over motions.
Procedural though they be, such motions give us the right to try to put the squeeze on the promoters of private Bills. Otherwise they ignore us completely, as we have been ignored regionally in attempting to exercise our rights. That is why tonight's procedural motion provides an extremely welcome opportunity for us to see whether, by expressing our views forcefully tonight, we can obtain some type of undertaking that the promoters are listening to people who say that "private enclave" railways are not a good investment for this country, but that new investment on the railways that is linked to the public railway system is a good investment for many reasons relating to the environment, global warming, traffic exhaust fumes and surface access transport to the most important single mode of transport in this country.
I am still disinclined to vote for the carry-over motion, simply because of the procedural point that has already been referred to by the hon. Member for New Forest—when he was talking as the past joint Chairman of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure and not as a sponsor of the Bill. That Committee made a recommendation that carry-over motions should not be acceded to by the House unless the promoters could demonstrate that they had not been dilatory. I think that I am summarising the views about the dilatory clause in the recommendations. In the narrow procedural context, we must ask ourselves whether the promoters have been dilatory and whether they have dealt properly with the objectors who have made their views known.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: The promoters have been extremely attentive in dealing with the objections put to them—some would argue that in the other place a great measure of success was achieved by the objectors. Tonight, we are asking only that the Bill be given an opportunity to progress in the next Session, so that the promoters can be equally thoughtful and forthcoming in response to views of the kind that the hon. Gentleman is expressing.
If the motion is lost, the link will be lost. Those who would vote it down must understand that it will be a long time before such a project can be re-established. Who knows when? I urge those who have doubts to allow the Bill to proceed in the next Session, so that all the valid arguments deployed today by the hon. Gentleman and others can be fully considered. To kill the motion now will be effectively to kill the Bill, with great damage to those who need the link to London airport.
Mr. Morgan: That was a very effective winding-up speech by way of an intervention. In accepting the point that I made when quoting the hon. Gentleman's report, as Chairman of the Committee, that carry-over motions should not be available to promoters unless they can prove that they have not been dilatory, I presume that the hon. Gentleman accepts also that that ruling does not apply to any proceedings in another place, but only to the extent that the promoters have been dilatory after a Bill has left the Lords and it comes before this House. Our only concern is whether Members of this House and their objections have been dealt with in a reasonable manner. I
1304
am not suggesting that our arguments should immediately be conceded—that would be nonsense—but have the promoters made any attempt to meet the many points that have been made?
The promoters know, for example, that all Members of Parliament representing constituencies in south Wales have fears about the future of Paddington station, and believe that the people of south Wales are again being treated like second-class citizens. If rail congestion in the Paddington area gets much worse during the construction of the link, we may be compelled to have Welsh parliamentary questions in Reading town hall because that will be the only place where we can foregather.
Our fears are reinforced when we hear that not only the 10 miles on our main line—although we have no ministerial access to it—is to be electrified, but that something more is to happen, according to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Transport at last week's Tory conference in Bournemouth. The Secretary of State appears to believe that announcements about major new investment projects are in the nature of a travel competition, in which the first prize is a week's holiday in Bournemouth and the second prize a week's holiday in Bournemouth, spent in deafening silence at that conference.
The Secretary of State makes such announcements thinking that everyone will be very pleased. That new project has not yet come before this House, which is a sad reflection on the right of Members of Parliament to debate such matters. In any event, we understand that the line is now to be electrified as far as Reading. However, places to the north of Reading and elsewhere, where the rest of us live—such as Didcot, Oxford, Birmingham and even Scotland, where access could be provided via the west coast main line, though the Scots may have views about the desirability of using Heathrow anyway—are treated as back numbers. They are expected to find ways of compensating for that disadvantage through regional policy, simply because investment decisions are oriented entirely to south-east England.
No wonder we often have to debate regional policy, when private Bills and carry-over motions pass through this House as though they have no regional or wider implications, and when the only point considered to be of importance is whether objectors to the land being taken, and so on, can be squared when the Bill reaches the Committee.
The debate tonight is important because of its wider implications for electrification and the links between the proposed railway and the present public rail system.
The private Bill procedure has many problems.
Mr. Peter Hardy: One argument that my hon. Friend may like to consider in support of the carry-over motion is that it will allow us the opportunity to study the fare structure used on the link as well as that used elsewhere by British Rail. My hon. Friend is familiar with many aspects of European life. A few days ago, I travelled between Paris and Brest on a superb train, part of the way it was the TGV, and the fare was two-thirds what it would be here. My hon. Friend will be aware that French railway investment is proceeding apace. I welcome the proposed investment in the Bill, but I hope that it will not be accompanied by a fares policy which is outrageously at variance with the policy across the channel.
Mr. Morgan: The financing of the line should be fully considered at Second Reading, if the Bill gets that far. The use of the private Bill procedure by a consortium which is both private and public has financial implications. British Airports Authority was privatised recently but the money that it will use to fund the express line comes from taxes forgone on duty-free goods at Heathrow. British Airports Authority have a tax-free concession from all of us here tonight and from the 60 million people who live in this country. As people do not pay tax on the goods that they buy there, we all have to pay more tax. The British Airports Authority sells franchises for sale of duty-free goods, for example, to Hills duty-free shops which put 50 per cent. of the price back on to the duty-free goods. Payment for such franchises are made to the British Airports Authority which then has free capital to invest in projects such as the one we are discussing tonight. However, we shall not be able to discuss the financing of the link tonight, as the money used has been called private money. It is not private, it is our money—the taxpayer's money—because it is a result of taxes forgone on goods: VAT, purchase tax and other taxes on goods sold—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going a long way off the rails from the carry-over motion. He is an experienced parliamentarian and debater and I am well aware of that, but I should like him to return to the motion on the Order Paper now.
Mr. Morgan: I do not want to cross swords with you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Even before I became a Member of Parliament I was warned not to do so. I was told that you had been a Tiller girl and the emphasis was on the Attila. Therefore, I shall definitely not quarrel with you tonight.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: My hon. Friend mentioned Scotland. Everyone in Scotland to whom I have spoken about the link is in favour of it. All those people who travel from Inverness, Edinburgh and Glasgow to Heathrow hate the dreadful journey from Heathrow into central London on the Piccadilly line. However, they have serious reservations about diverting money from the Glasgow to Euston run for the construction of the express link. I have met no one in Scotland who objects to the express link—they support it wholeheartedly.
Mr. Morgan: I entirely agree that there is universal support for the line but people want it to be linked to the rail system. They are surprised at the dilatoriness with which the promoters of the Bill have considered how to join the express link with the present railway system.
I am still inclined to oppose the carry-over motion. The sponsor's threats that successful opposition to the carry-over motion would kill the chance of getting a link from central London—
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that if the Bill falls today it will put considerable pressure on the Government to sort out the private Bill procedure and they could consider bringing forward their own legislation? The promoters would be able to reintroduce the Bill in November and, provided that they had been able to satisfy all the petitioners, the Bill would go through the House as an unopposed private Bill. Such Bills can move through both Houses extremely quickly. That is one of the arguments for getting petitions sorted out before the
1306
promoter starts the parliamentary procedure. Therefore, that threat is not serious and if the promoters were willing to meet the wishes of the objectors, a Bill could go through Parliament quickly.
Mr. Morgan: I was about to make that point to the sponsor of the Bill. I am sure that he did not mean to threaten the House when he said that if the House exercised its constitutional right to refuse the carry-over motion because it believed that the promoters had been dilatory, that would be the end of the Heathrow Express Railway Bill. That is what I think that he said, but I am sure that he did not mean it. If it were a threat, it would be accepted in the way that all threats are accepted. It would show that the promoters had adopted a poor attitude and that they were prepared to cut off their nose to spite their face.
The House has to consider whether to exercise its right to refuse the carry-over motion. It would be open to the promoters to reintroduce the Bill in the next Session. Similarly, recommittal occasionally takes place because of changed circumstances. If the House refuses to agree to the carry-over motion, that will not be the end of the story. The promoters believe that the Bill is a gold mine, so they will reintroduce it in the next Session of Parliament. We want to be part of that gold mine; we do not want to be second-class citizens. Between 6 million and 7 million people live in the London area; they need a first-class service. In addition, between 6 million and 7 million people live to the west of Heathrow. They, too, want a first-class service to Heathrow, but they do not want to lose the almost first-class service to Paddington that they now enjoy. For that reason, I intend to oppose the carry-over motion.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 10.

Division No. 321]

[9.16 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Alexander, Richard

Devlin, Tim

Amess, David

Dixon, Don

Arbuthnot, James

Dorrell, Stephen

Ashby, David

Dover, Den

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Dunn, Bob

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Durant, Tony

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Fallon, Michael

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Favell, Tony

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fishburn, John Dudley

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Flynn, Paul

Boswell, Tim

Fookes, Dame Janet

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bowis, John

Freeman, Roger

Brazier, Julian

French, Douglas

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Gale, Roger

Burns, Simon

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Butler, Chris

Gill, Christopher

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Carrington, Matthew

Goodlad, Alastair

Chapman, Sydney

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Chope, Christopher

Gorst, John

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Grist, Ian

Conway, Derek

Ground, Patrick

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hague, William

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hanley, Jeremy

Curry, David

Hardy, Peter

Dalyell, Tam

Harris, David

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

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

1307

Haynes, Frank

Patnick, Irvine

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Pawsey, James

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Portillo, Michael

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Howells, Geraint

Price, Sir David

Jack, Michael

Riddick, Graham

Janman, Tim

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Ryder, Richard

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Key, Robert

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Kilfedder, James

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Sheerman, Barry

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Kirkwood, Archy

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Knapman, Roger

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Speller, Tony

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Lawrence, Ivan

Squire, Robin

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lightbown, David

Stern, Michael

Lilley, Peter

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Lord, Michael

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Sumberg, David

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Summerson, Hugo

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

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

Maclean, David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Malins, Humfrey

Trimble, David

Mans, Keith

Trippier, David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Michael, Alun

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Mills, Iain

Wallace, James

Miscampbell, Norman

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Monro, Sir Hector

Wheeler, Sir John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Widdecombe, Ann

Moore, Rt Hon John

Winterton, Nicholas

Moss, Malcolm

Wood, Timothy

Murphy, Paul

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Needham, Richard

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Norris, Steve

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson

Oppenheim, Phillip

and

Paice, James

Mr. Jack Aspinwall.

1308

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Parry, Robert

Callaghan, Jim

Skinner, Dennis

Cryer, Bob

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Dicks, Terry

Eastham, Ken

Tellers for the Noes:

Illsley, Eric

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and

Morgan, Rhodri

Mr. Ron Davies.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Promoters of the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended in the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—
[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
9.28 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: I shall be brief in asking the House to agree to the carry-over motion, but, with the leave of the House, I shall be happy to respond to points made in the debate if that is helpful.
Mine is a simple plea: do not dash the hopes of my constituents for a better future, for a better environment and for homes and jobs by voting against a motion that simply allows for full debate in the new Session. I hope that even opponents of the Bill will support the carry-over motion and welcome, as I do, the prospect of proper and full debate on Report.
I have been asking myself whether there are any reasons of any weight for refusing a carry-over. Frankly, there are not. There are, of course, important issues for us to debate on Report, and I shall refer briefly to two. First, there has been a great deal of argument about groundwater. There has also been a great deal of avoidable confusion and some disinformation, but groundwater is undoubtedly a matter of concern. I took the matter seriously from the beginning. When I found that the arguments were becoming technical and esoteric, I demanded the right to appoint my own independent expert to review all the evidence progressively, in order not to have to choose between the corporate view of the development corporation and its advisers on the one hand and the committed opponents of the Bill on the other. These matters will be debated further on Report, but let me give a succinct summary of the position today.
I remind hon. Members that impoundment is not to a level greater than the current position. The level of impounded water will be between the present high water level and the present low water level. I would certainly not support the building of the barrage if the evidence suggested that my constituents were under serious threat. If serious doubts about safety were to arise now or in the future, I should cease to support the Bill—so would South
1310
Glamorgan county council, Cardiff city council and others involved in the promotion of the Bill. But that is certainly not the case to date.
There is a continuing debate about detail, but that must not be allowed to obscure the fact that all available evidence continues to provide a reassurance that the original conclusions remain valid, that, combined with generous safety margins, they provide the basis for confidence in the future and that the selection of plus-4 to 4·5 m ordnance datum for the impounded level is reasonable and sensible. Details will rightly be the subject of debate on Report and of public debate when the additional studies are completed, but there are no grounds for general doubt which would justify refusing further consideration of the Bill.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Is my hon. Friend saying that at this stage, in discussing safety, he takes no account of the urban swamp hypothesis which was put forward by Dr. John Miles in Committee and which it appears the Select Committee accepted?
Mr. Michael: I am aware of the evidence provided by Dr. John Miles and others and I have taken account of it. The conclusions which have been reached and which are supported by the evidence to date and the generous safety margins provide the basis for confidence in the future. The selection of plus-4 m to 4·5 m OD for the impounded level is reasonable and sensible. I have taken account of the evidence given to the Committee. I have taken independent advice and I state that with confidence. Were the position to change, it would be a different matter, but that is the position now.
The second major issue that has been debated, and which is of considerable interest to some of my colleagues, is wildlife. I can understand their concern, taken in the context of a general threat to estuaries, but, as I have pointed out frequently to colleagues and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, they are attacking the wrong case in opposing developments in Cardiff, because here their case is weak. However, that, too, can be debated on Report. We can also talk then about the artificial lagoon which is a major and significant attempt to reconcile development with conservation—indeed, it is a landmark in attempting to do so.
Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend said that the case of those who are concerned about conservation is weak. Surely he has read the examination in the Committee of the witnesses brought by the promoters of the Bill and the petitioners against it. There was general agreement that there would be considerable destruction of wildlife in the bay area and that we would be in breach of our obligations to protect a site of special scientific interest which is protected under the Ramsar convention and which is entitled to protection under the European directive on wild birds. There was consensus in the Committee. How can my hon. Friend say that the case is weak?
Mr. Michael: I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in these matters but, with respect, I think that he stretches the evidence given in Committee and the strength of the case made by the RSPB and those interested in wildlife. A number of issues need to be discussed, but, as I was about to say, I maintain that there are significant positive aspects in the attempts that are being made to reconcile

1311
development and conservation and that the barrage will bring positive effects in encouraging wildlife and a living environment in Cardiff bay. It will be appropriate for us to discuss those aspects on Report and when we have the conclusions of the Select Committee before us. Those two questions have been debated in the past, and I submit that in no sense are they matters on which to base opposition to the carry-over motion, which is the only motion before the House tonight.
The Bill's opponents have advanced further arguments. They say that they do not like the private Bill procedure. I agree. It is an antiquated procedure which requires amendment. The procedure has been diabolically unfair to the promoters, to me and to my constituents, so I share the concern about it.
People have said that they do not like development corporations. By and large, I agree with them, but in this case the development corporation is working in partnership with local elected representatives.
Other issues, such as the removal of the tip in my constituency, have been brought into the debate and a proposal to provide two new schools for the most deprived area in Cardiff even came under threat recently. I submit, however, that none of these matters provides any ground whatever for the refusal of the carry-over motion.
The supporters of the Bill are also involved with a number of other important issues, such as how to preserve existing jobs, how to bring good-quality new jobs to the area, how to provide affordable housing and housing for rent and how to balance the existing communities with the new communities that are to be created.
I remind the House that the whole development area is in my constituency and that, while groundwater may affect constituencies other than mine and new jobs will help other constituencies, most of the matters that I have listed affect my constituency and my constituency alone. However, for the purposes of tonight's debate, the important thing to remember is that they are not relevant to the Bill. Even if one has persuaded oneself that they are relevant to the Bill, one must nevertheless accept that they do not represent the slightest ground for rejecting the carry-over motion. I hope that even the Bill's opponents will accept that and will not indulge in spoiling tactics.
So far I have concentrated on the defensive arguments but there are many positive arguments in favour of the Bill. The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Mr. Jones) and I have sought to provide as much information as possible to hon. Members about the Bill's positive benefits, and I shall not take the time of the House by expanding on that information. The arguments against it can be fully explored on Report and we should set aside those issues which do not, in any way, justify a refusal of the carry-over motion. The positive arguments are far more important. The Bill will make possible the creation of a quality waterside environment. That potential has been proved by the development that has already taken place at Bute east dock, where we see fishermen and cormorants and where there is Dragon boat racing at the weekend. Local people make use of the place. They talk there and enjoy the environment. The same water quality will pertain in Cardiff bay once we have impoundment.
I was involved in the economic development of Cardiff for 16 years as a councillor before I came to this place. I
1312
was involved in the redevelopment of the central area of Cardiff, which is now acknowledged throughout the world to have been a success. I have been involved in trying to help small firms and businesses. The present development of south Cardiff and the bay area—the fact that people are coming into that area—is built on faith in the Bill's success and on the record of success that we have achieved in recent years.
This is my first opportunity to place a certain matter on record, albeit that it involves a slight diversion from the motion. In the latter part of the Committee stage, we heard comments about the Labour councillors who supported the development of south Cardiff and the barrage and, in particular, the three who were elected by ballot of their peers to be members of the Cardiff Bay development corporation board. I refer to the leader of South Glamorgan county council, Councillor Lord Brooks, to Councillor Paddy Kitson, who represents the most deprived area of the city, and to the late Councillor John Reynolds, the then leader of Cardiff city council. Between them, they provided more than 100 years' service to the city and the Labour movement of the area. I am sure that the remarks about a master-servant relationship to the board came from ignorance rather than malice, but it is sad that those remarks were made when Councillor John Reynolds had unfortunately passed away.
John Reynolds was a kind and gentle man; a lion in defence of the defenceless and when fighting for the future of the city that he loved and in the service of which he destroyed his own health. He had the toughness of a true friend, the courage to withstand and forgive the pettiness of others and, above all, an absolute integrity which made him a giant in the Labour movement of Cardiff in a way in which the author of the minority report clearly did not understand or appreciate. I ask the House to understand the way in which the Bill was supported by John Reynolds and the others who represent their fellow councillors on the board and the fact that the Bill has not commanded uncritical support from the late Councillor John Reynolds, myself, or the councillors of the city and county who represent the area. It has commanded the critical, careful and genuine support of elected representatives who are determined to do their best to achieve a real future for their constituents.
Therefore, I return to my basic and simple plea to the House—do not dash the hopes of my constituents for a better future, a better environment, for homes and for jobs by voting down the Bill on a motion which, I remind the House, simply allows the Bill to be carried forward for a full debate on Report in the new Session when any hon. Member can have an opportunity fully to discuss the issues raised in this important Bill.
9.41 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that we all have that opportunity now, which is why some of us are choosing to exercise our right to object to the carry-over motion. We are objecting in principle to the Bill. It has already been examined by the House and our questions have not been answered. We know that it has been considered in Committee where many of its fundamental flaws were exposed. We feel that it is now time for the Bill to be stopped and to proceed no further. That is why we shall oppose it.

1313
I was surprised that my hon. Friend used the term "spoiling tactics" to describe our opposition to the Bill—
Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend should not be surprised.
Mr. Davies: Apparently my hon. Friend wants to intervene and I am happy for him to do so. If he reserves for himself the right to promote the Bill in the House, he must recognise that others of us have the right to oppose the Bill. If he is suggesting that the House should approve a carry-over motion, he must recognise that others are equally entitled to oppose that. He is not doing his case any good to describe our principled and fundamental oppposition to the Bill as "spoiling tactics". We have made our root and branch opposition to the Bill clear throughout.
I should like to put on the record the fact that if we are unsuccessful in halting the Bill's progress tonight, it will not be the end of the matter. The Bill will return for its consideration motion and we shall oppose it again. We shall then table many many amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will have to detain the House night after night and he will find that the coalition that has been constructed to get the Bill this far will come increasingly under pressure.
Many of us knew Councillor John Reynolds and, regardless of our views on the Bill and on the way in which he voted in his role as a representative in Cardiff, all of us deeply mourn his passing and associate ourselves entirely with my hon. Friend's comments. There is no dispute between us on that.
I have referred to the coalition that is supporting the Bill. It is as well to clear up this matter now because the carry-over motion will not be determined only by the dozen or so hon. Members who are present now, although those of us who are present shall listen to the debate and consider the options and the consequences and the future of the Bill. But when it comes, the vote will not be cast by people in favour of the Bill. It will be cast by the coalition that I have mentioned, consisting in part of Tory Members who will ensure that the Government's will prevails. The payroll vote is on call tonight. A moment ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was here; he has absolutely no interest in Wales, Cardiff or the barrage—
Mr. Peter Hardy: Or in agriculture.
Mr. Davies: I was coming to that—to judge by his speeches it is true.
We know that the payroll vote has been put on standby and will be wheeled out to try to obtain a majority.
The coalition also consists of Parliamentary Private Secretaries. I see the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) in his place—
Mr. John Bowis: I am the hon. Gentleman's Member of Parliament.
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is not my Member of Parliament. He represents the constituency in which I temporarily reside. He will be pleased to know that I put up a poster in the window at every election urging my neighbours to put him out of a job. As it seems that he will play a crucial role in tonight's proceedings, I can assure him that I will put up two posters at the next election urging my neighbours to put him out of a job.
Mr. Morgan: As further evidence of the extent to which the Government are committing their prestige to this apparently private Bill, the White Paper on the environment published by the Government less than a month ago states, in the section on Wales, that
"the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation was established in 1987 to secure the physical, social and economic regeneration of the South Cardiff area, including the former docklands."
That is a bipartisan statement which presents no problem to any of us. The document continues:
"The aim is to introduce new housing, employment and a better environment to the area".
We have no quarrel with that either. It goes on:
"The strategy includes a proposal to construct a barrage across the estuary of the Taff and Ely as a key feature". We have no doubt that the Government support what should be considered a private Bill on which they should be neutral.
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is exactly right, as he invariably is in these matters. That is why the Whips Office and the Parliamentary Private Secretaries are conniving at producing an artificial majority to ensure the Bill's progress.
Another element in the coalition is represented by the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), who I know takes a keen interest in environmental matters. But I also know that he has been on what we call a freebie. I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong—I do not want to cast aspersions that I cannot justify—but I believe that he has been entertained at public expense down in Cardiff, where he was persuaded, no doubt, by the force of the arguments that he heard. I am sure that the five-course arguments and the brandy and cigars did not influence him at all. The fact is that he and many other Members have been entertained at public expense and we shall see tonight when the voting lists are prepared that those Members have stayed behind to cast their votes.
If this happened in local government, and people were influenced in any way when casting their votes, they would be prosecuted. All Conservative Members were party to the legislation that placed obligations on local councillors to declare their interests so as to ensure that their votes are not influenced by financial considerations, and to exclude themselves voluntarily from those considerations. That is a fairly seedy coalition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth pleaded with us not to dash the hopes of his constituents for a better future and a better environment. Unfortunately, no one knows whether he is speaking on behalf of the majority of his constituents, because that has not been tested.
Mr. Michael: It is generally accepted in the House that hon. Members know their own constituents. I am quite confident about the matter and it has been tested at the ballot box because anti-barrage candidates stood in recent elections and were thoroughly trounced. I spend a good deal of time in my constituency and I have the pulse of the opinion there. My hon. Friend might bear in mind, as he considers the views of those who are more and more remote from the area that will be directly affected by the Bill, that it has the support of four of the five Members in the south Glamorgan area.
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend asserts that his case is correct, but he has not introduced any evidence to

1315
substantiate it. I am not persuaded by such assertions. He spoke about anti-barrage candidates who have been beaten by Labour candidates. He is not so naive as to think that in local elections people vote on single issues. The fact that more than 400 people were prepared to vote for anti-barrage candidates is significant. I am debating on my hon. Friend's ground and it is not an area that I want to enter. However, I know that many Labour party members in his constituency have considerable doubts about the measure. Of course, at election time they will vote Labour because that is their primary commitment and loyalty. We would not expect them to vote anything other than Labour. I urge anti-barrage candidates not to stand.
Mr. Morgan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Davies: I should like to develop my argument a little further before giving way.
We do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth speaks for all his constituents. However, we do know that a considerable body of opinion is opposed to this measure. Some people oppose it for reasons related to the environment. I am in that category. Some are opposed to it because they think that their homes are jeopardised, and some feel that such public expenditure cannot be justified. My hon. Friend should recognise that an influential organisation in Cardiff is opposed to the measure. I think that all hon. Members have received a submission from an organisation called Cardiff Residents Against the Barrage. The residents ask, "Can it be defended?"
Mr. Michael: Not all of them say that.
Mr. Davies: If my hon. Friend feels in any way slighted by his constituents, with whom he apparently enjoys such a close relationship, I shall remedy that because as soon as I have concluded this point I shall pass the leaflet to him. For the sake of other hon. Members who might not have received it, I shall read it. It states:
"Can it be defended if a parliamentary private Bill has to be carried over into a third Session?"
That is almost unprecedented and we know that the proceduralists in the House have produced reports expressing great concern at a single carry-over motion. However, we are now talking about a second carry-over motion and the Bill having to go into a third Session of Parliament. The Bill has been considerably damaged and we shall have to wait for action by a Minister if it proceeds. The residents say:
"Can the Bill be defended if the Commons Select Committee was unconvinced by the promoters' technical case to the extent that the final decision has been left to the Secretary of State for Wales?"
That statement is incontrovertible. The Committee examined the Bill in great detail and at great length. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth makes noises.
Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Davies: I shall give way in a moment. The Committee considered the technical case and concluded that it was fundamentally flawed. It sent the promoters away, told them to carry out a further 12 months study, and said that they would have to present the findings to the then Secretary of State for Wales for a judgment about
1316
whether the scheme should proceed. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that that is hardly an overwhelming endorsement of the scheme.
Mr. Michael: It is ludicrous for people to argue that additional work should be subject to independent scrutiny and public discussion, and then to use the fact that it is subject to independent scrutiny as a reason for suggesting that there is weakness in the previous case. The openness of scrutiny is its strength. My hon. Friend might be a little more objective about the information that he uses, rather than taking what has been circulated by an organisation that does not take advantage of objective scrutiny in the information that it puts out, which is often not 100 per cent. accurate.
Mr. Davies: I assure my hon. Friend that, when I come to the letter that he sent to Members of Parliament, I will be objective, as I shall be when I come to the glossy publication produced by the promoters. In the meantime, the fact remains that the Select Committee that examined the Bill rejected the technical evidence presented on behalf of the promoters and was not satisfied. In other words, it believed that the barrage will cause considerable flooding in Cardiff. That is incontrovertible.
The residents who object say in their leaflet:
"Can the Bill be defended if the Select Committee could only reach a majority decision and still insists on major amendments?"
We know that the Chairman of the Committee expressed considerable doubt, and that at least one member of the Committee was so concerned about the evidence presented that he felt that the Bill should have been rejected, and that all the members of the Committee were so concerned that they collectively agreed considerable amendments. Even then, they decided that they would abrogate the responsibility of taking the decision and put it off for the Secretary of State to decide. We are now asked to be party to the Bill proceeding.
The residents continue:
"Can the Bill be defended if the objections of the majority of the 70-plus petitioners against the Bill have still not been satisfied?"
That case stands by itself. They continue:
"Can the Bill be defended if local polls show that most local residents are opposed to it, even though they have been given no chance to vote properly on the issue?"
Why does not the Cardiff Bay development corporation undertake, with the Cardiff city council and South Glamorgan county council, a referendum in the city of Cardiff? All the evidence could be given and residents could cast a vote on it. If that happened, we should have some evidence on which to base our claims that residents are for or against the barrage. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth acknowledges that residents who vote against it at election time are being given the chance to vote on the issue, why does he not now ask the CBDC to organise a referendum? I guarantee that if he accepts to be bound by the results of the referendum, and to withdraw the Bill if the vote is against it, I will agree to be bound by the results of the referendum and will withdraw my objection if the vote is for it. There cannot be anything fairer than that. It is important that residents be carried along. My hon. Friend will know that I have other objections, but I will make that pledge. My hon. Friend can intervene now if he wants. He does not want to take that opportunity, so perhaps we shall come back to it later.
The residents continue:

1317
"Can the Bill be defended if one of he local MPs—one who is affected by many of these matters—and many local councillors are totally opposed to it?
Can the Bill be defended if it is vigorously opposed on environmental grounds by the NCC and the RSPB?
Can the Bill be defended if at least 12,000 inner-city homes"—
with people who have already been affected by the horror of flooding—
"will be affected by the damage compensation provisions of the Bill?
Can the Bill be defended if even the promoters acknowledge that some 1,700 properties will suffer some degree of ground water related damage if the barrage is built, and others fear it will be more?
Should you not find out more now about this controversial Bill and why the Cardiff Bay barrage should not be built?" That is the view of local residents, not the view of Members of Parliament or those who have a particular interest and are pushing one case or the other. The individuals who are directly affected say that they do not want the carry-over motion to succeed.
Mr. Michael: It is the view of those who published the leaflet, not the view of residents within the area.
Mr. Davies: I offered my hon. Friend the opportunity to determine public opinion on the matter. I could not be fairer than that—

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]
The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 13.

Division No. 322]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Amess, David

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Arbuthnot, James

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Conway, Derek

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Ashby, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Cran, James

Aspinwall, Jack

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Atkins, Robert

Curry, David

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Dalyell, Tam

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

Baldry, Tony

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Dixon, Don

Bevan, David Gilroy

Dorrell, Stephen

Boswell, Tim

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bottomley, Peter

Dover, Den

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Durant, Tony

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Eastham, Ken

Bowis, John

Fallon, Michael

Boyes, Roland

Favell, Tony

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Burns, Simon

Fishburn, John Dudley

Butcher, John

Flynn, Paul

Butler, Chris

Fookes, Dame Janet

Callaghan, Jim

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Forth, Eric

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Freeman, Roger

Chope, Christopher

Gale, Roger

1318

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Monro, Sir Hector

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Goodlad, Alastair

Murphy, Paul

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Needham, Richard

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Grist, Ian

Norris, Steve

Ground, Patrick

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Paice, James

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

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

Patnick, Irvine

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Haynes, Frank

Pawsey, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Portillo, Michael

Hind, Kenneth

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Price, Sir David

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Riddick, Graham

Howells, Geraint

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Jack, Michael

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Jackson, Robert

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Janman, Tim

Ryder, Richard

Jessel, Toby

Sackville, Hon Tom

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Key, Robert

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Kilfedder, James

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Knox, David

Speller, Tony

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Lang, Ian

Squire, Robin

Lawrence, Ivan

Stern, Michael

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Lightbown, David

Sumberg, David

Lilley, Peter

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

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

McFall, John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Trippier, David

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Trotter, Neville

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Maclean, David

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Major, Rt Hon John

Wallace, James

Malins, Humfrey

Waller, Gary

Mans, Keith

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Maples, John

Wheeler, Sir John

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Widdecombe, Ann

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Wood, Timothy

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Yeo, Tim

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Meale, Alan

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Tellers for the Ayes:

Michael, Alun

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

Miller, Sir Hal

Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Miscampbell, Norman

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Pike, Peter L.

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

Sillars, Jim

Cryer, Bob

Skinner, Dennis

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Hardy, Peter

Illsley, Eric

Tellers for the Noes:

McWilliam, John

Mr. Ron Davies and

Morgan, Rhodri

Mr. Ted Rowlands.

Nellist, Dave

Question accordingly agreed to.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords]
Question again proposed.
10.13 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: I seem to have a technical problem: I do not seem to have my notes. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) is expressing his condolences, but I was not prepared to leave them on my seat while my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) was guarding them. I am not suggesting for a moment that he would have taken them away, but there is a possibility that he might have reordered them.
Mr. Paul Flynn: I assure my hon. Friend that I do not have the slightest interest in reading his notes, having heard the identical speech for the fourth time.
Mr. Davies: I must correct my hon. Friend, because this is only the third time that I have made this speech. The first was on Second Reading, and the second was on the carry-over motion.
As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members voted on the 10 o'clock motion, and we must place it on record that the House has decided that the debate should proceed. Therefore, I hope that no artificial device will be deployed later in an attempt to short-circuit the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has just returned from the Lobby, having voted with more than 160 other right hon. and hon. Members to continue the debate. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—out of respect for those of us who opposed the motion and who did not want the debate to continue until a late hour, but who will honour the decision—will not permit a closure motion later. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will be consistent and will ensure that there is a full debate. I sincerely hope that he will not attempt to move a closure.
Mr. Michael: The whole gist of my argument was that we should have a full and proper debate on the Committee's report. My hon. Friend surely accepts that the rules of the House exist to protect all right hon. and hon. Members and are there for them to use. My hon. Friend uses them enthusiastically, so I am sure that he would not want to deny to others that same right.
Mr. Davies: We must all exercise our rights, as well as observe the rules of the House in the way that is intended. I was merely pointing out that the House had been given a clear demonstration that right hon. and hon. Members want to continue the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that it is important that we should thrash out the matters in question, so I hope that he will not seek now artifically to restrict the debate.
When moving the original carry-over motion, my hon. Friend said that we should endorse the development that has already occurred and not oppose any further development of the bay. I must make it abundantly clear yet again that we are not opposed to the development of Cardiff bay. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is rolling his eyes and tutting. He should not do so, but ought to take at face value the points that I and many other hon. Members want to put to him.
1320
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is among the bodies that want to see Cardiff bay developed. It devised, at considerable trouble and expense, an alternative scheme, which it presented to the Select Committee, development corporation, local authorities and Members of Parliament. The RSPB made it clear to us all that it is not opposed to the development of the bay. All that is in question is whether the barrage is a necessary prerequisite or will facilitate that development. There is considerable doubt about that. My hon. Friend must accept the considerable body of evidence presented to the Select Committee, suggesting that the development could proceed without the barrage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth should accept also that the development that has already been undertaken even before the barrage has been approved by Parliament is of a kind that he applauds and wants, and it can continue regardless of whether or not the barrage is built.
Mr. Michael indicated dissent.
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend should not shake his head. The proof of my argument is that which has already been built; the evidence has been presented to the Select Committee. The considerable development that has already occurred is proof positive that such work can progress without the barrage. He must accept that that is a considerable body of evidence.
Mr. Michael: It is not.
Mr. Davies: If my hon. Friend does not accept that, he must agree that there is evidence to that effect.
My hon. Friend also mentioned that there would be an improvement to the environment. He said that there would be a better future and a better environment. He knows that it is principally due to my concern about damage to the environment that I oppose the Bill. I hope that he understands that, because my views are sincerely held and are endorsed by hundreds of thousands of people in this country. My hon. Friend is right to say that those people are not directly affected as they do not live in Cardiff, but that does not invalidate their right to an opinion on whether the barrage is environmentally damaging. They have a right to an opinion because the environment of Cardiff bay is part of our common heritage in Britain.
I maintain that, although I live in my constituency of Caerphilly, I have as much right to express my anxiety about damage to the environment in Cardiff as anyone who lives there. People who live in Sandy in Bedfordshire, for example—the home of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—have an equally valid right to express their concern about the environment, because it does not belong to the people of Cardiff, but is part of our national natural heritage.
In some circumstances my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth argues the case for conservation internationally. I am sure that he will say that the persecution of cetaceans is wrong. I believe that he has made representations to the Norwegian Government about the persecution of some species of whale. He is entitled to do so, as whales are part of our international heritage, and as a Member of Parliament he has an international responsibility to discharge.
I know that my hon. Friend will join me in condemning the destruction of herds of African elephants for their

1321
ivory. He nods in agreement. He accepts that such herds are part of our international heritage, and that the Governments and peoples of the countries where elephants are being destroyed have a responsibility to the international community to protect them.
The environment in Cardiff bay is of national and international importance in exactly the same way. Nationally, it is important because it has been declared such as a site of special scientific interest. Internationally, the site is important because the birds that use it are not restricted to Britain but include migrants. As a result, the bay has been awarded protection through our international obligations under Ramsar. The site is also covered by the European directive on the conservation of wild birds.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth does not deny that national Governments have a right to sign the Ramsar convention. The importance of the sites covered by Ramsar is international.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that we all have a responsibility for the environment in Cardiff. He cannot keep the right to destroy that environment to himself or to the people of Cardiff.
If it could he proved that there was an overwhelming need for the destruction of the environment there and for the development of the barrage to proceed he would have a case. Then we would be able to weigh up the relative benefits and importance of conservation areas against the economic benefits that would result from a development that was contingent on the destruction of the SSSI.If that were the case, my hon. Friend would have a strong point, but the economic case for the development has not been proved. That is why my hon. Friend must address the site of special scientific interest question: why is he prepared to support the destruction of part of our priceless natural heritage for an unproven and unquantifiable economic benefit?
Mr. Michael: I understand the philosophy that underlies what my hon. Friend says: that we have a mutual responsibility for the worldwide environment. However, the Taff-Ely SSSI is a site of national, not international, importance for wild birds. As part of the Severn estuary area, it constitutes a potential, but not an actual, protection area. I believe that the economic case has been made, that we have a responsibility to balance the economic and the environmental arguments, that in this specific location the environmental argument has none of the strength that my hon. Friend has sought to give to it and that it is certainly not comparable with other examples that he gave of sites of international importance.
Mr. Davies rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with a carry-over motion. I am sure that he will relate his remarks to the motion.
Mr. Davies: I shall do so precisely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is precisely because conservation has not been dealt with properly, either by the promoters or in Committee, that I oppose the carry-over motion. The SSSI question was not addressed, either by the developers or in Committee. The Committee took a lot of evidence. It agreed that some of the operations would be very damaging and that there would be a considerable loss of
1322
wildlife. However, the question of how the destruction of that priceless asset could be justified was not answered. My hon. Friend may say that that SSSI is more or less important than other SSSIs. I accept that there must be a gradation—that SSSIs may be of greater or lesser importance—but my hon. Friend has not answered certain questions.
First, why is the destruction of this SSSI justified? Why must it be destroyed, in the absence of overwhelming economic evidence? Secondly, and more crucially, if we allowed this SSSI, which deserves international protection, to be destroyed, how on earth could we deny the development of other SSSIs? My hon. Friend has not grasped the point that the destruction of one SSSI would lead to the destruction of the whole system. It would invalidate the protection that is offered to all the other SSSIs.
Mr. Michael: That does not follow.
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend says that that does not follow. In what circumstances, therefore, would he oppose the development of other SSSIs?
Mr. Michael: I shall have to refrain from intervening so often, even though my hon. Friend is so provocative. However, he has just said that there must be a gradation and that one must consider whether a balance can be struck. My hon. Friend answered his own question; I do not need to do it for him. He has given no credence to the positive efforts that have been made to provide a lagoon alternative. It is a unique example of promoters seeking to provide positive conservation. He must surely concede that during the discussions undertakings were given to protect wildlife. Therefore, the carry-over motion should be agreed to so that these matters can be debated fully on Report.
Mr. Davies rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, I must remind the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) that too many detailed arguments cannot be advanced on a carry-over motion. Of course he wishes to illustrate why he opposes the carry-over motion, but during the debate on a motion of this kind all the details cannot be gone through.
Mr. Davies: I accept that entirely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall try to comply with your strictures. My hon. Friend made two points that are worthy of comment. I accept that there is an alternative. That was considered in Committee. I shall deal with the alternative later, since it is relevant to the carry-over motion.
As to the principle involved in designating SSSIs, of course I said that there must be a gradation. My view, however, is that if a site is accorded protection under British legislation it should be protected. The answer to the conundrum that my hon. Friend has posed is that all SSSIs should be protected from damaging operations.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: In my constituency there is the wonderful bay of Broughton, where the Nature Conservancy Council has designated a site of special scientific interest. A local farmer is concerned about the rate at which land is being eroded by the sea. I know that my hon. Friend is a former geographer and a specialist in these matters. He is interested in wave-cut platforms and various other marine features. The farmer to whom I have referred is concerned that the sea is taking away his land

1323
at a remarkable rate, but the SSSI has been designated with a view to assisting the sea to erode the land even faster so that it will be possible to observe the glacial till that will become exposed. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that in certain circumstances, even when an SSSI has been designated, there may be a strong case for downgrading the designation. As I have said, I am aware of his expertise in these matters.
Mr. Davies rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that in responding to the intervention of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) will stay within the rules of order.
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) has raised a fascinating topic for consideration, and it is one of which I am aware. The answer is not to allow development that will destroy the SSSI. If my hon. Friend feels that the area to which he has referred should not have been so designated, there must be case for the removal of the protected status. If that is removed, the development will take place. No one has attempted to argue, however, that the Cardiff bay site should not be designated. Everyone recognises that the site is of immense importance, but there are still those who wish to destroy it. That is the nub of the argument, and that is why Broughton is different from Cardiff.
When these matters were discussed on Second Reading—obviously we cannot repeat the Second Reading debate this evening—the director general of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds was quoted. You will be pleased to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the quote summarises the argument. By using the director's words rather than my own, I am sure that I can deal with the issue more quickly.
The director said:
"Cardiff Bay is one of Wales' most prestigious natural assets, holding between 5–8,000 birds each winter, including dunlin, redshank, shelduck, teal and knot. Many of these birds travel thousands of miles from as far away as Iceland, Greenland and Siberia to winter on Cardiff's ice-free bay. The birds depend on this bay for their survival. We have an international responsibility to protect it."—[Official Report, 19 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 305.]
I do not know who the chairman of the development corporation thinks he is when he sets himself up to be a greater expert on these matters than the director general of the RSPB, who has made it clear that the development is unacceptable.
We must recognise the importance of the site and prevent the acceptance of the carry-over motion at this juncture. If we defeat the motion, the House will be making a statement that it is committed to conservation.
The importance of the site was recognised by the South Glamorgan county council. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower has said that in 1979 the county council, in the preparation of its structure plan, which was subsequently approved, recognised the site as a conservation area. That was its future design for the bay. There was no objection to the classification and no attempt to remove it, until someone had the idea of constructing a barrage.
When I referred to the petitioners' objections, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth invited
1324
me to refer the promoters' literature. The letter that he sent asking us to support the motion—I am sure that he will not mind my referring to it, because it is an open letter—says:
"The Bill has the support of the Wales TUC and many individual organisations and trade unions in Wales and the locality. While there are still some opponents, it is clear that the Barrage will benefit Cardiff and South Wales substantially more than other schemes."
Not only are there still some opponents, but their number has been growing. He should have said, "It is true that there are more opponents than there were", but instead he said
"there are still some opponents".
He also said,
"It is clear that the barrage will benefit Cardiff."
I urge my hon. Friend to think again, because that has not been proved. He is arguing that we should destroy a priceless asset for an unquantifiable benefit. He does not appear to realise that, which is a source of some distress to me.
The letter continues:
"There is to be an innovative new feeding ground for the displaced wading birds while the new cleaner environment will attract birds which have not hitherto been seen in the neighbourhood."
He argues that as a benefit of the development and attempts to persuade us to vote for the carry-over motion on that basis. The lake was the subject of detailed consideration in Committee. The new birds that my hon. Friend refers to were the subject of a question put by the promoters to their own witness. They said, "What will these birds be?". They will be swans perhaps, mallard perhaps and a few seagulls perhaps. In conservation terms, the provision of an area of open water to facilitate swans and mallard does not constitute much compensation for the loss of an internationally important feeding ground for thousands of endangered waders.
Mr. Michael: I invite my hon. Friend to read the evidence that has been provided, including the published document commissioned by the development corporation from the Wildfowl Trust—obviously it would be inappropriate to deal with that in this debate—which deals in extenso with the matter. He is trying to denigrate an important development for an inner-city area of great dereliction.
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend should not make such accusations. I have the evidence given by Dr. John Goss Custard from the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, who was the expert witness called by the promoters. On day eight—it appears on page 24 of the evidence—he was asked by the promoters:
"As an ornithologist could you perhaps just indicate which sort of wildfowl are likely to be attracted to the impounded waters? A. I should think, given the numbers of people that are likely to be in the vicinity, rather common ones such as mute swans and mallards and birds of that kind. That would be my guess."
That is the evidence of the promoters. I leave my hon. Friend to reply to that point if he feels it appropriate.
The people who oppose the motion include all the conservation bodies that have considered the evidence submitted to the Committee. I do not want unnecessarily to delay the House, but I have the detailed questioning—
Mr. Morgan: There is another hour to go.
Mr. Davies: There is certainly another hour. My hon. Friend is trying to encourage me, but we must not unnecessarily delay the House. I shall not go into the detail of that argument, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be grateful for that.
I wish to reply briefly to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West, who has been encouraging me to turn my attention to him. He has been involved in the debate. On Second Reading, we had a difference of opinion about the conservation value of the site and what would happen to the birds. I asked the RSPB whether it would write to my hon. Friend, and I know that it did so, because I have a copy of the letter. I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind my reading it. The RSPB wrote:
"The fate of estuarine birds displaced is complex and not fully researched. Experts advising both Promoters and Petitioners against the Bill agree that a large proportion of those displaced by a barrage would not be able to 'fit in' elsewhere, or would displace other birds in turn. The availability of suitable habitat is finite; areas of international importance such as the Severn estuary, of which the Taff/Ely is a part, are to be treasured accordingly. Loss of an important part would cause an overall nett loss in the world population of species affected. The Promoters accept that some loss will have to be compensated for, by introducing a measure in the Bill to create an artificially engineered mudflat system at the Wentloog Levels… As to the 'adaptability' of nature"—
I hope that this point will persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West that we should stop the passage of the Bill—
"we believe that nature does not adapt, rather that some bird species take advantage of conditions artificially created by man which mimic (accidentally or by design) natural conditions. An example is the crow".
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West is aware of the argument. The RSPB's view is clear. In a briefing submitted to us, it said:
"What will happen to the birds? If the barrage is built and the bay flooded, the wading birds displaced will have to seek their fortunes elsewhere. Birds such as knot, dunlin and redshank will attempt to find fresh feeding grounds and many will fail. They will find that the size of the larder available in the Severn—indeed in all other estuaries within flying range—is limited. In most years, all the best alternative feeding areas are full up with other birds. Many will be excluded from feeding in these areas by competition from other birds, and will die of starvation. Some will successfully displace other birds from their feeding grounds. Those birds in turn will die.
This phenomenon will not take place instantaneously, so no spectacular heap of birds will accumulate. Over a short period of time, birds will disperse elsewhere—some may travel well away from Cardiff in search of food. They will die in ones and twos, many crawling into a secluded place to expire. Imagine the public outcry if honourable members sanctioned the mass destruction of 5,000 birds by, say, shooting or poison. There would be a heap of bodies for the popular press to feast upon. There would be a scandal of major proportions. Elected representatives, be they councillors or members of this House, would not get re-elected because of the outcry. What is being proposed in this Bill by South Glamorgan County Council and the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, aided and abetted by the Welsh Office, will have the same effect on birds as buckshot or poison."
Mr. Gary Waller: The hon. Gentleman wholly misrepresents the balance of the evidence given to the Committee. I do not believe that even those people who appeared on behalf of those who objected to the Bill suggested a scenario along those lines. How many of the books published by the RSPB or any other body concerned with birds suggest that Cardiff bay is a location to which those interested in seeing birds should go?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is going to comment on that intervention, I am sure that he will relate his remarks to the carry-over motion.
Mr. Davies: I do not particularly want to get involved in that matter. I assure the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) that I shall write to him, giving a full answer.
Mr. Morgan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Davies: Having suggested that it would be inappropriate for me to reply to the intervention of the hon. Member for Keighley, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule that it was similarly inappropriate for me to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West—at least if he wants to develop the same argument.
Mr. Morgan: I wanted to point out what was wrong with the argument.
Mr. Davies: I hope that my hon. Friend will be making an intervention—albeit perhaps a brief one—later in the debate.
My final point concerns the promoters' case as outlined in the glossy book that they have handed out. They refer to "the living environment", and say that considerable improvements will result from the development. There is a lovely photograph of high tide in the bay, but there is precious little substance to the text, which reads:
"An exciting new development in practical conservation will be the new 55 acre feeding ground for overwintering birds at Wentloog some 3·5 miles east of the bay. This will be partial compensation for the loss of the mudflats to be covered by the lake. The Severn Estuary has 39,000 more acres of … designated inter-tidal area, including the River Rhymney, which the Corporation will protect and enhance as a particularly important feeding ground."
The promoters appear to be making two points. First, they are implying that, because there are a further 39,000 acres, it is all right to destroy those affected by the Bill. I reject that argument. If they can destroy one part of the bay, they can come back next year and say, "There are still 39,000 acres; let us have another 1,000." Who will we be to stop them if we have not said no at this stage?
Secondly, the promoters claim that an exciting new development in practical conservation is to take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has invited us to consider that in deciding whether we should allow the Bill to proceed. Less than 1 acre is being provided for every 10 acres being destroyed. I do not think that that is a particularly good bargain. I do not regard it as an exciting new development in practical conservation to destroy 500 acres of protected wildlife habitat and to provide 50 acres as compensation.
Even if one accepts, as I do, incidentally, that the development corporation is trying to offer compensation—perhaps it realises the damage that it is wreaking and feels that it must do something—one must accept that what is being proposed is not very satisfactory. The site will be an area scooped out of the shore of the Severn. There will be no natural drainage, so it will be impossible to recreate the habitats that are to be destroyed. We are not talking about an area that will be flooded once or twice a day, enriching the bed that provides the invertebrate food that attracts the birds; there will not be any. The promoters will not be creating the environment that has been lost.

1327
Moreover—and this is worse—the site is adjacent to a large refuse tip, which presents two further problems. First, there will be a considerable amount of leaching out of the refuse tip and that will pollute the lagoon. Even if we assume that that will not happen—although why we should assume that, I do not know—we know for sure that thousands and thousands of gulls feed on that tip. Those gulls will prevent the lagoon from becoming a refuge for the secretive, sensitive wading birds for which it has been provided. As the gulls feed, they fly up and roost on the water. If dunlin and redshank were attracted, they would certainly be driven off by the gulls.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me over the management of gulls on waste disposal sites. Are not there ways of preventing gulls from reaching the sites, including the use of falcons?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) will help me by referring rather more closely to the carry-over motion.
Mr. Davies: I hope that the development corporation will not get the idea that falcons will help them to attract wading birds. I am sure that they would get rid of gulls but I am afraid that the redshank, the dunlin and the knot would go with them. They are not usually very happy to be overflown by sparrowhawks and goshawks, which are the predators that prey on most birds, although peregrines might do the job as well.
Let us get back to the point. We will have a scoop taken out of the shore, which is supposed to be attractive to those birds, next to a refuse tip that has thousands of gulls and where leaching comes into the water. In addition, many high-voltage electricity cables pass overhead. I do not know whether the development corporation is proposing to relocate them, but one can imagine the carnage that could be created. I am sure that while the redshanks are still in Cardiff my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will have taken the opportunity to have a look at them and that he will have noticed their formations as they take off into flight. High-voltage overhead cables will not do their formation dancing much good. That is another problem, and another reason why I do not think that the barrage is a good idea. We should not accept it.
In addition, the barrage is an experiment. Why on earth should we be prepared to accept the destruction of something that we know is good and valuable for something which is unquantified and unproven? The new lagoon will have to be maintained—at what cost and for how long we do not know. Presumably, the public will have to pay in the short term. We do not know what is going to happen, but we do know that the conditions that are necessary to provide feeding opportunities for waders will be destroyed in that maintenance process. One cannot bring in bulldozers and dredgers to dredge the mud—although it will have to be done to prevent the site silting up—and still maintain the area as a quiet, peaceful, settled refuge for wildlife. When my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth says that an alternative is being provided, we must stop for a moment and look at what is being presented.
There are many arguments. I do not think that the development corporation has understood the deep-rooted
1328
objections of environmentalists or the problems associated with groundwater in Cardiff. I know that that matter concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and that he will seek to comment on it in a moment or two. In addition, local people are concerned about their local circumstances—about their homes, livelihoods and immediate environment. In conjunction with them, hundreds of thousands of other people are concerned at the destruction of the environment which belongs to us. Those two views represent an overwhelming coalition opposed to the barrage. That overwhelming case is why I oppose the barrage and why I hope that the carry-over motion will not be carried and that we shall put a stop to this sorry saga once and for all.
10.52 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I rise to make the case against the carry-over motion because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), as I oppose the Bill, I must therefore oppose the carry-over motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) made an eloquent and moving speech which we shall take fully into account. He referred to a most distinguished member of the city council, Councillor John Reynolds. John Reynolds and I fought as candidates for the nomination for the Cardiff, North seat in 1966. I was successful and entered the House a couple of weeks later. Such was the quality of Councillor John Reynolds then—as it remained throughout his life—that, despite the vivid disappointment of that occasion, he never gave less than unstinting support; in every sense, he backed me throughout my time as the hon. Member for Cardiff, North while he continued as a Cardiff councillor. Like my hon. Friend, I wish to pay him that tribute.
A distinguished socialist once said that socialism is the language of priorities. If it is, we must oppose this Bill on public expenditure grounds. I first raised this matter in the debate on the carry-over motion on 14 November last year. I was never called to order during my speech, because the financial consequences of Bills for public expenditure are fundamental to the nature of parliamentary accountability. My case this evening is that, in the context of the Welsh Office budget and the needs of the Principality, I and many other Welsh Members oppose the level of expenditure that the Bill—and, it seems, Welsh Office Ministers and the Chancellor—would endorse.
I make no apology for raising this issue again. It has been my role in debates on this Bill to discuss its implications for public expenditure. We must establish what have been, what are and what will be the public expenditure consequences of the Bill before deciding whether to carry it over.
I am sorry to chide my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, as I did in the debate in November last year and on Second Reading. He made an eloquent speech about the character of the Bill and its impact on his part of the city, but, as a major supporter of the Bill, he never said a single word about its public expenditure consequences. That might not be his function here, but it is certainly the function of the Minister. On the two previous occasions when this Bill was debated, the Minister confined himself to some rather modest and

1329
peripheral remarks, but tonight we hope for a rather deeper analysis from him of the implications for Welsh Office expenditure.
Mr. Michael: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not chide me for welcoming investment in my constituency which will bring benefit to my constituents in terms of the local economy and jobs. I am sure he would do the same if investment came to his constituency.
I mentioned earlier the background information with which I have supplied my hon. Friends, although that is more a matter for discussion on Report.
Mr. Rowlands: Of course I do not chide my hon. Friend for his efforts on behalf of his constituents. But the Bill that he brings to the House has enormous implications for Welsh public expenditure. Huge amounts of public expenditure should not be discussed on Report. They are to do with mainstream, fundamental parliamentary accountability and they should be discussed root and branch in a debate on whether to allow the Bill to carry over. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I have had this exchange once before, but I maintain that this is not a matter for Report stage. This is a fundamental matter; if the Bill is not carried over it goes back to the start. My arguments are not about Report but about the very nature of the Bill and its public expenditure consequences.
I hope that I am not being too presumptuous when I say that I have taken a lead in expressing a concern that is shared by other hon. Members in that I have drawn to the attention of hon. Members the public expenditure aspects of the Bill. I shall attempt to identify the public expenditure related to the Bill. The front of the Bill shows two figures. Paragraph 3 states:
"The expenditure on construction of the proposed works is estimated at £82,230,000. The expenditure on the acquisition of lands and easements for the works is estimated at £2,550,000."
I shall return to those figures.
It is strange that exactly the same amounts were shown in the original Bill. I understand the procedural problems involved in amending a financial memorandum. Are those two amounts still valid? Have they been updated? We should bear in mind that they are only one aspect of the financial consequences of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will give us that information. That is not the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. It is the responsibility of the Minister, because I assume that the financial memorandum must be endorsed by the Treasury.
Mr. Morgan: The truth, if the Minister were willing to state it, is that the face of the Bill should show that expenditure will be whatever it costs eventually to build the barrage. The amount does not matter to the Welsh Office so long as it saves the face of the last Secretary of State for Wales but one.
Mr. Rowlands: I am trying to be as objective as possible. Let us examine the matter stage by stage and figure by figure. I should not go as far as my hon. Friend, although there is some substantiation for his point in Hansard. In the debate on 19 December last year, the figures given did not even remotely represent the total public expenditure consequences of carrying out the scheme. On that date, the Minister said that £31·5 million would be available this year. He said:
1330
"over the next three years, Government funding would total £100 million, bringing the total amount given, or announced, to date to some £150 million."—[Official Report, 19 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 308.]
Over and above the financial memorandum on the face of the original Bill, there was a straightforward admission that there was a formal commitment. It was not prospective but committed money to the tune of £150 million over three years.
Mr. Michael: I should like to clarify a constituency point that I am sure my hon. Friend will understand. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the Minister must answer for the Welsh Office. In the financial requirements, things that will happen anyway have to be counted in and included on the face of the Bill. For example, roads have to be included because that is how definition of these matters goes. The provision of alternative sites for wading birds, water quality and dredging are also included, as are matters such as sewer diversification and modification, which will cost £13·8 million. All these projects will go ahead anyway, but the requirements of the legislative process are such that they have to be included in the figures used in the Bill, although they are essential for bringing new life to this derelict part of south Cardiff, with which my hon. Friend is familiar. I am sure that he will accept that we should be looking at those aspects that are dependent on the barrage, which is the subject of the Bill before us, rather than at other aspects which, by accident of legal requirement, have to be included in it, or at the other work of the development corporation that is not dependent on the Bill.
Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. We have had this discussion on previous occasions, and I understand that included in the broad total is expenditure that would be necessary anyway, and that it would be best to identify the two. Let us identify the two, and then we can unravel the figures, and let us not say that the total cost of the barrage is anything like that given in the Bill.
I shall first develop my point, although I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend at each and every stage because I am in the process of being educated, as I hope that I shall educate my hon. Friend. We also need educating by the Minister.
One of the most amazing things ever said by the Minister came in the debate last December. Having announced that £150 million would be allocated, he then said something that I would love him to say about the valleys initiative, or about any other project that any hon. Member representing a Welsh constituency advocated. He said:
"Beyond that, we will ensure that sufficient funding will be made available to enable the corporation to carry through its task."—[Official Report, 19 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 308.]
That simple statement means that the Cardiff Bay development corporation will be given by the Welsh Office whatever funds it requires to finish its task.
I wish that this or any previous Secretary of State had made such a staterhent about the needs of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, so that if the costs of a project there escalate, or the whole thing goes awry, or the financial assumptions behind it are wrong—as the barrage scheme is heavily involved in property, the environment now and the future environment lead to some doubts about the financial forecasts of the scheme—the Welsh Office will fund the task of the corporation. That is an enormous

1331
commitment, and its open-ended character must be of concern to any hon. Member representing a Welsh constituency, because we are fighting for the same money.
We have all been in this game long enough to know that Chancellors are right when they say that there is not a bottomless pit, that there are priorities in, and competing demands for, public expenditure. We all have to make difficult and often odious choices. As a Member representing a traditional community, I have every reason to say that we would love to be told, "Beyond that, we will ensure that sufficient funding will be made available to enable Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney to carry through its tasks." I should love to have such a commitment from Welsh Office Ministers. Because it has been given once, we are concerned that it might be given again—but it all has to come from one budget. We spend that budget in a gentlemanly and comradely fashion, having competed for it in our different ways. It is a matter of great concern and I shall not support the motion.
Even if I considered that statement to have been an aberration, or simply that it required qualification, I should wish us to consider the current public expenditure commitment compared with the commitment when we last discussed the issue. I first raised the question of expenditure on various items during our debate on a carry-over motion on 14 November last. I suspect that the original cost of about £82 million was to cover the capital infrastructure costs of the barrage. What is the figure now?
Mr. Michael: I wish to help my hon. Friend, so that we do not spend too much time on questions that can easily be answered. The £8·27 million includes the barrage structure, the locks, the refuge harbour, the fish passes and the sluices—and roads and services. That is my point: it includes elements that would be required anyway.
Mr. Rowlands: That is a compendium of elements. I was given a document today. I have not had time to go through it, and no doubt my hon. Friend can educate me as we proceed. The document is entitled, "Cardiff bay barrage—planning update and economic appraisal statement." I am sure that the Minister has it to hand. It is dated 5 January 1990. It is a revised review of the public expenditure consequences.
From appendix 1, table 2, it appears that the barrage infrastructure cost—not including roads or all the other elements mentioned by my hon. Friend—total £125·5 million. That is not £82 million. Is that correct?
Mr. Michael: The figure does not include the other elements.
Mr. Rowlands: It does not?
Mr. Michael: No.
Mr. Rowlands: Below that figure comes a whole host of industrial costs such as demolition and clearance, service diversions and so on. I totted up those figures and they came to £148 million—that is, additional to the £125·5 million. I shall come to the bottom figure in a moment.
On improved access, the review shows that the PDR-Butetown link plus other road schemes, car parking and a light rapid transport system will cost £152 million. We all agree that the PDR-Butetown link is essential, and
1332
it is currently on the books at £95·9 million. What was the figure when we last debated the issue? There has been a substantial increase.
Mr. Morgan: When the Cardiff Bay development corporation was established, the estimated cost of the PDR-Butetown link was £50 million, but its outturn cost is now estimated to be £126 million. The Minister is shaking his head. Perhaps he wishes to correct me. I was supplied with that figure by the department within the county council that will have the responsibility of commissioning the building of the road.
The additional £76 million has been caused entirely by the CBDC asking the county council, in 1987, not to proceed but to wait until there had been various design changes. That additional £76 million must be loaded on to the costs of the interference of the CBDC. That would not have happened if the CBDC had not been established to build the barrage.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is dealing with the finances in considerable detail. I hope that he will link it to the carry-over motion.
Mr. Rowlands: I most certainly will. When I come to the bottom figure even your jaw might drop, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we carry the motion over, we will endorse a public expenditure consequence of the Bill even greater than that which we were asked to endorse at the end of last year. I am seeking information on the limits and extremities of the Bill so that I may come to a conclusion on it, although my objections to it are pretty fundamental anyway.
According to the revised document, the barrage infrastructure cost is £125 million; industrial relocations, demolition and land reclamation I crudely totted up at about £148 million; improved access and the road schemes, £152 million; environmental improvements such as landscaping, water features, and so on, £96 million; and other projects, £25 million. The sum total of that list is £547·29 million.
When we debated the matter on 19 December, the Minister admitted:
"The total cost to the development corporation is estimated…to be some £402 million."—[Official Report, 19 December; Vol. 164, c. 309.]
Is the £402 million equivalent to the present figure of £547 million? If not, what should be deducted from the £547 million? That figure of £402 million, not the £82 million on the face of the Bill, is the total public expenditure Welsh Office consequence of the Bill.
Mr. Michael: No.
Mr. Rowlands: It is. My hon. Friend is getting het up. We can deduct from that the Butetown link and the rest, but we are now talking about more than £400 million gross. Am I reading the appendices correctly when I say that the £402 million figure is now £547 million?
Mr. Michael: I simply make the point that my hon. Friend is including figures that have nothing to do with the Bill even under the definition which draws in things such as the roads, because the development is in south Cardiff, as well as the elements which are on the face of the Bill, many of which, as I explained earlier, would have to take

1333
place anyway. There is an element of confusion, although I accept entirely that my hon. Friend is an earnest seeker after truth in these matters.
Mr. Rowlands: I am an earnest seeker after truth. The £547 million figures comes from the "Cardiff bay barrage—planning update and economic appraisal statement", not from Cardiff or South Glamorgan. Therefore, any hon. Member would have to conclude that the £547 million relates to the barrage and its financial consequences. It is not every bit of expenditure in South Glamorgan or in the city of Cardiff; it is related, in one form or another, to the cost of the Cardiff bay barrage and its consequences. Half that amount would probably be essential in another development.
I am not arguing about that. I am simply saying that, whereas at the end of last year we had a figure of a little more than £400 million, we now have a figure of about £547 million. To save time, will the Minister say whether the previous figure of £402 million equates with the present figure of £547 million? Are they comparable figures or is there anything substantially different in them? Well, I hope that the Minister will allow us to intervene on his speech so that that point can be cleared up.
Mr. Bob Cryer: It seems to me that, if the carry-over motion were approved tonight, that approval would in a sense endorse all the financial confusion. If my hon. Friend is saying that all this financial information must be clarified before we proceed any further with the Bill, that, surely, is a strong argument for opposing the motion.
Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has made very forcefully a point that I made in regard to the last carry-over motion—and we lost that vote, although I do not think that we lost the argument.
I feel that, given the public expenditure consequences of private Bills of this size—especially when they involve Welsh Office collusion to such an extent, and an open-ended cheque book too—we have a right to argue our case. Although I am a passionate supporter of public expenditure, I also accept that it is all about priorities: the money must come from somewhere, and in this instance it will come from other budgets which are of vital concern to other parts of the Principality.
One of my fundamental criticisms of private Bill procedure is that, when—after a Committee has spent weeks considering the issues—one of us asks a simple question about the likely cost, as any hon. Member might do on the Floor of the House, the most that we get is some vague statement. I quoted a marvellous one on 14 November, which said that the cost might be between £75 million and £125 million. That is the order of the evidence given by—on that occasion—the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation.
Even those of us who, like me, are passionate supporters of public expenditure are supposed to be vigilant in that regard. I really do not feel that we can pass the motion without much more clarification than has so far been provided—and, in any event, the public expenditure consequences of the Bill are bound to be enormous.
Expanding on the third point that I raised, I accept that I am treading on less firm ground: here I must deal with city expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) can speak about Cardiff
1334
much more effectively than I can; I have been speaking about the needs and budgetary priorities of Wales as a whole. My hon. Friend is right to fight for his patch, but I am fighting with equal vigour to ensure that his fight does not cause an unwelcome ripple effect in communities such as mine.
This scheme is, in effect, an enormous plan to build houses—very high-class ones, in many instances—that is, in the main, supposedly led by private enterprise. I do not think it improper of me to ask how it can be described as a private-enterprise-led scheme when it will require about £550 million of public money—and not in the form of a loan or a guarantee, but in the form of public grant from the Welsh Office budget. We are encountering some curious semantics when huge slugs of public money are described as "private enterprise".
Following the pre-empting of significant amounts of Welsh Office money, the benefit to the city council will be non-existent. It is for the electors to decide whether they wish to carry the burden. However, I feel that I should point out that, after all that public money has been invested, the result will be an operational loss per annum.
Earlier, my hon. Friend told me that I had got my figures wrong. I accepted that, and went away with my tail between my legs. Originally, I was told that the figure was only £400,000 per annum, and that it was modest by comparison with the cost of running Cardiff's parks, and so on. How sanguine should we be in the light of the revised economic appraisal? As at January, the net operating costs are now said to be not £400,000 but £1·3 million. Am I interpreting table 3 in appendix I correctly? It seems to me that it relates to the same figures that were the subject of our earlier argument, when my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth sought to educate me.
The forecast revenue has increased from £470 million to only £480 million, but the costs have risen to £1·8 million, and the net operating costs—which I suppose to mean the net annual operating deficit—are now set at £1·35 million.
Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is placing a fair interpretation on the figures. The corporation will bear the cost during its lifetime, and the successor body—which we assume will be the local authority—will not have to burden the community charge, or the successor to it that I hope will be in place by then, because the corporation's assets will then be available. The intention is to create sufficient revenue to fund the cost. That is why I made the comparison with the £3 million needed for Cardiff's parks. I assure my hon. Friend that aspect has been carefully considered by my colleagues on Cardiff city council.
Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend offers a different argument from that which he produced when we last debated the matter, when he told me that the annual cost would be a mere £400,000. At least he is now admitting that, in the course of just nine months, that figure has increased to £1·3 million. I am glad to have that valid comparison made clear.
My hon. Friend says that after the corporation is wound up its assets will be handed over to the successor body and will produce sufficient revenue to cover the operating costs. Those assets will have been created from the enormous grant made by the Welsh Office, and we must assume that, at the end of it all, there will be a substantial potential profit. I ask the Minister, as I have

1335
before, whether the Welsh Office will be able to claw back any portion of the £400 million originally mentioned, or the £550 million now suggested, that it is to make available?
If some of the profits are to return to the Welsh Office, at least a proportion of them could be recycled to the benefit of Merthr Tydfil and Rhymney and other parts of the Principality. Can the Minister say whether any part of the Welsh Office's £550 million commitment to the development corporation will be returned not to the city's coffers—because it is not local but Welsh money, provided by taxpayers nationally—but to the Welsh Office?
I have previously begged the Minister to answer that fundamental question, and I hope that he will do so on this occasion. In terms of public expenditure, besides all the environmental arguments, I cannot support a carry-over motion for the Bill when the public expenditure consequences will not merely have such great significance for parts of Cardiff, but could be to the considerable detriment and loss of the rest of the Principality, and to the communities which I represent.
11.29 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): I join the hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) in paying tribute to the work of councillors who serve on the corporation in Cardiff, and especially the late Councillor John Reynolds, who was a political opponent. I remember him standing for Cardiff, North. He was a thoroughly principled man, and a true friend of Cardiff.
It may be helpful if I give the House a brief indication of the Government's position on the Bill and the amendments made by the Committee. The House will know from previous debates that the Government have a substantial interest in the objectives of the Bill.
We have carefully considered the detailed and wide-ranging evidence on all aspects of a barrage across the estuaries of the Taff and Ely, and concluded that the economic case is very strong, even taking into account the environmental considerations. The Government believe therefore that the construction of a barrage and the substantial economic, recreational and other benefits arising from it are the key to the redevelopment of the Cardiff bay area. This imaginative and high-quality redevelopment will transform not just our capital city, but the wider economy of south Wales and the image of Wales as a whole. I am glad to say that this view was not seriously challenged by the majority of the Committee.
We are pleased that the Committee, having considered all the evidence, has recommended that the Bill should be allowed to proceed subject to a number of amendments and undertakings, mainly relating to groundwater. It is right that the Committee should reflect the genuine concerns expressed during its lengthy and detailed examination of the evidence and, for our part, the Government would not wish to differ from their recommendations.
As this is the first opportunity to debate the Bill since it emerged from Committee, the House may also find it helpful if I say briefly how my right hon. Friend the
1336
Secretary of State proposes to fulfil the undertakings that he gave to the Committee in respect of his consideration of further work on groundwater.
My right hon. Friend has appointed Mr. Roy Stoner, director of the Institute of Irrigation Studies at Southampton university, as an independent expert to assist him in fulfilling the undertaking. Mr. Stoner is an eminent specialist in groundwater and related matters and has considerable personal experience on such projects world-wide. His appointment should command the support of all parties.
Mr. Morgan: Would the Minister spell that name please?
Mr. Grist: S-T-O-N-E-R, as it is pronounced.
The independent adviser's first task will be to confirm, by the end of this month, whether the terms of reference for the further studies by Hydrotechnica are adequate.
Once the report on the further groundwater studies and the development corporation's response have been submitted to the Secretary of State, there will be a three-month period during which written representations on the contents of those documents may be made to the Secretary of State by interested parties. The independent adviser will then advise my right hon. Friend on whether the terms of reference have been met, on the soundness of the assumptions, working methods and conclusions, on written representations and the adequacy of information on the various criteria. I expect my right hon. Friend to be able to announce his decision on public funding and the final position of the protected property line, taking into account all of these factors, early in 1992.
Mr. Morgan: Can the Minister say whether the Dr. Stoner to whom he refers has any familiarity with Cardiff? The reason why I ask is that there has been a wide separation in the professional advice received as between geologists, engineers and other experts who are from or work in Cardiff, virtually all of whom are against the barrage, as they think it unsafe, and those experts who have been commissioned but have no familiarity with the area in question, all of whom turn out to be in favour of the barrage. Will the Minister reflect on that and say whether Dr. Stoner has any working familiarity with the groundwater particularities of Cardiff?
Mr. Grist: To be perfectly frank, I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman. If he has any grounds for doubting the technical competence and the expertise of Mr. Stoner I am sure that he will let us know. I do not believe, however, that the hon. Gentleman will find that that is so. Mr. Stoner is a world-wide expert on these matters.
As the House is aware, the Government have already made available, or announced, very significant levels of funding for the corporation—more than £150 million to date. If my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the economic, technical and safety criteria in respect of the further work on groundwater have been met, we intend to honour our long-standing commitment that the cost of the barrage will be met by the development corporation, with the assistance of grant-in-aid from the Welsh Office.
I must point out to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that the most recent economic appraisal of the barrage strategy estimates its overall public sector costs to be £335 million at

1337
mid-1989–90 prices. The two main elements of the strategy are the construction of the barrage itself and the construction of the Butetown link section of the PDR.
The Government have already made plain their commitment to provide funding for the barrage through grant-in-aid, subject now to the satisfactory completion of further work on groundwater, to which I referred earlier. The corporation will also be generating income from the disposal of assets and will be drawing in money from the private sector, all of which will go towards the funding of its barrage strategy.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney should not have overlooked in his peroration the fact that the valleys programme has led to the expenditure of some £500 million in threé years. I do not think that he expects the Welsh Office to receive a refund of that money. That is part of the investment in the future wellbeing of Wales, and that is precisely what the barrage strategy is also designed to achieve.
Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman is racing through his figures. He referred to the figure of £335 million. Is he saying that the figure of £402 million that he gave to us in December is now £335 million? Are we comparing like with like?
Mr. Grist: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a fairly gratifying drop in the amount of public sector money, due to the introduction of private sector finance. He ought to welcome the injection of finance by the development corporation if he is so mindful of public finance.
Mr. Rowlands: Table 2 in the appendix to the economic appraisal published in January quoted a gross figure of £547 million. What proportion of that figure is Welsh Office funded?
Mr. Grist: I think that the hon. Gentleman is looking at an outturn figure. The outturn figure for the barrage is estimated at £147·7 million.
Mr. Rowlands: The document entitled "Cardiff bay barrage—planning update and economic appraisal statement" dated 15 January 1990 gives, in table 2 of appendix 1, a summary of individual project investments. The barrage figure is £125 million. The rest comes to a grand total of £547 million. What proportion of the £547 million will be Welsh Office funded?
Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman cites a figure that I do not have before me. I have given him the figures that I have, which relate to the motion before the House. We estimate that the barrage strategy itself, at 1989 prices, will be £335 million. There would clearly be funding from many other sources. The leverage with a barrage is twice that which would be available without it. That is a measure of the importance of the barrage for the regeneration of south Cardiff and the area around Cardiff.
Therefore, I believe that the Bill as amended in Committee, where it was given detailed examination, should be allowed to proceed so that it can be further considered. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, these matters could then be thrashed out in much greater detail.
11.40 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: In opposing the carry-over motion, I shall refer at a little length to the document provided for us by the Cardiff Bay development corporation and the South Glamorgan county council, which we found in yesterday's post. It is part of the preparation for the debate. In a well-presented folder there are set out the arguments why we should be prepared to support the motion and allow the debate to continue on the Bill. Unfortunately, from the point of view of the promoters, having read the brochure produced by the development corporation and the county council, I have not been persuaded to change my view about the need for a barrage to be constructed to ensure a successful development of the Cardiff bay area.
The debate on the need for a carry-over motion to enable us further to consider the Bill is closely related to the type of development which needs to take place in Cardiff, and I am still of the view that there can be successful redevelopment of the bay area without the barrage being built. I remain convinced, therefore, that I should oppose the carry-over motion.
I shall refer briefly to the cogent arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on the public expenditure considerations of the barrage. Perhaps I should remind him that it was that incomparable popular singer, Shirley Bassey, who made a great name for herself with a song, among others, entitled "Hey Big Spender". Shirley Bassey comes from Tiger bay, which is part of the area that will be the beneficiary of all the public expenditure. It is—[interruption.] I hear from sounds off that Shirley Bassey came from Splott. That may be the precise area from which she came, but everyone in the world associates her with Tiger bay first, second and third. We are entering into some procedural, academic and semantic niceties by referring to Splott, but it will benefit from the redevelopment of the south Cardiff area.
Mr. Flynn: I do not wish to bring about a feeling of deja vu by repeating my previous performances when considering the Bill—other hon. Members have not shown the same restraint—but to suggest that Splott and Tiger bay are really one and the same place is an affront. It is as dangerous as saying that Upper Cwmtwrch and Lower Cwmtwrch are one and the same place. Shirley Bassey hails from the splendid Portmanmoor road, and she would be greatly insulted if it were suggested that she came from Tiger bay, which is a different part of Cardiff altogether.
Mr. Griffiths: I should hate to go into all the arguments. I am sure that you will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that according to popular mythology, which is important, Shirley Bassey hails from Tiger bay.
As a student at Cardiff university I lived in Habershon street, which is not far from Portmanmoor road, and can therefore attest to the need to redevelop the area. However, the question is whether the barrage is essential to the prosperous and successful redevelopment of Cardiff. I believe that it is not essential.
Some of the arguments advanced in the brochure, ignoring the economic case, given even more reason to oppose the motion. Once again, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney did us a good service in revealing much of the associated cost of the development and mentioned a figure of about £500

1339
million. The Minister, who for the time being at least has an interest in Cardiff as he is the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central, said that the figure is now about £335 million. Even if we accept that figure, it is much more than the £125·55 million quoted in the brochure, which attempts to outline the reasons why the barrage should be allowed.
Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman is probably muddling the figure of £335 million with the figure of £ 125·55 million for the barrage. The figure of £335 million includes the PDR expenditure.
Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to the Minister for pointing that out, but the barrage is the contentious part of the total scheme for the redevelopment of south Cardiff. We doubt whether all the additional expenditure will be worthwhile for the Welsh economy. No doubt there will be spin offs for the economy of south Wales in the redevelopment of south Cardiff, but we are saying that the money provided for the barrage could be better spent in other parts of south Wales.
I want to draw the House's attention to two pages in the brochure, one entitled "Prevention of Flooding" and the other "Bay Water Quality". The section on prevention of flooding states:
"There will be a lower risk of flooding in Cardiff when the Barrage is built."
Good.
"The Barrage will keep out the very high tides, and at high tide the Barrage will provide adequate storage for river flood waters until low tide allows the sluices to be opened and the water drained off."
Good.
"Co-operation between the Development Corporation and all public bodies concerned with flood prevention is built into the Bill."
Good.
"As the flood protection authority (the National Rivers Authority) says, 'the Barrage will not reduce the level of protection provided by existing flood defences and may create a worthwhile improvement.'"
Good.
If we accept the word of the National Rivers Authority, the building of the barrage will help prevent flooding in south Cardiff. I certainly hope that that will be so, and it is good that that hope is buttressed by the authority and scientific knowledge of the National Rivers Authority.
Mr. Morgan: That view is totally contradicted by the Cardiff Bay development corporation's consultants, Wallace Evans and Partners. In their May 1988 report, they wrote:
"The results demonstrate that draining down the impounded bay before the arrival of a peak flood does not produce any real benefit for the high discharge event. This is because the bulk of the flood volume around the peak is far greater than the storage volume being made available."
Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. I was aware of the dispute about the evidence, but at least we had the authoritative statement by the National Rivers Authority that the barrage would be helpful in preventing flooding.
Mr. Michael: The NRA's authoritative statement is useful, but the evidence to the Committee and elsewhere shows that this is not a matter of dispute. It has been investigated and cleared out of the way, and hon. Members can have full confidence about it.
Mr. Griffiths: Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for trying to enlighten me. I accept that a dispute still exists, but for the sake of my argument I am happy to accept the NRA's statement about the prevention of flooding.
The page entitled "Bay Water Quality" states:
"The new freshwater lake will be fed by the Taff and Ely rivers and water will flow out through the Barrage. While not tidal, a continuous management programme will see to the removal of debris and algae that may accumulate on the shores and on the surface of the lake."
Good.
"Special equipment will keep the lake water oxygenated when river flows are very low. Today, salmon breed again in the Taff river after many years absence, a sure sign of improving water quality."
Good.
"Diversion of 14 main sewers will remove a major source of pollution. Standards set by the National Rivers Authority and effective control of industrial pollution will further improve the quality of water in the lake and thus make possible a greater range of water-related activities in the future."
Good.
"A management company, fully accountable to the Development Corporation, will manage the Barrage and the Bay and water quality in the lake. It will be funded from income generated by a property portfolio and without recourse to local authority funds."
Good.
Let us look at some of those statements. The NRA is directly quoted to substantiate the argument that the barrage will help to prevent flooding, but although reference is made to the NRA on the subject of water quality, there is no positive statement from that independent organisation that building the barrage will result in a satisfactory water environment. I believe that the NRA has ruled out the possibility of water contact sports because of the dangers for people who may fall into the water when participating in them.
Mr. Michael: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend by saying that that applies to many other inland waters, both natural and artificial. A case in point is Roth park lake, which is greatly valued even though the water quality is not marvellous. I invite my hon. Friend to consider the water in Bute east dock, which comes from the same source as will the water behind the barrage and which is already greatly appreciated by the general public in Cardiff.
Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend wants to put up the best case that he can for the barrage and the lake, but, as I understand it, the water behind the barrage will be completely different in nature from that which is now held in the docks. The building of the barrage will change the whole water regime in the Cardiff bay area. That is why there is such a big difference and one cannot compare what happens in Cardiff docks at present with the state of play that will pertain after the barrage is built. I find it most disturbing that, on the issue of bay water quality, the promoters did not see fit to get the National Rivers Authority to make a positive statement about the safety of the water and the freedom from pollution and other possible dangers that could be attendant on the management of the water behind the barrage.
My other major concern about the management of the quality of the water behind the barrage would not arise so much at times of low water. One can have water oxygenation equipment and we know that, in many parts of the world, it represents an extremely successful way of

1341
keeping the water healthy for the forms of life to be found in it. But I foresee a major difficulty arising at times when the river Taff is in spate. It is all very well to talk about the diversion of 14 main sewers but that is nothing like the number of sewers that pour into the Taff and Ely rivers at times of severe flooding, which happens very frequently in Wales during the winter months. We are famous for our rainfall. The rivers Taff and Ely readily flood, and the fact that the bay water quality leaflet makes no real mention of how to deal with water quality problems when the rivers are in flood is a major obstacle to our accepting the carry-over motion.
There is one further reason why I remain firmly convinced that we should not accept the carry-over motion—it has to do with the groundwater issue. The Minister referred to that and said that amendments had been made in Committee. He explained that further studies would be made in the light of which the Welsh Office would make a decision. Unfortunately, the end result of those studies could still be controversy. I do not think that it would be fair to place such a burden of responsibility on any Minister at the Welsh Office, especially given the high degree of commitment that the Welsh Office has to the barrage and to the present proposals for the development of Cardiff bay.
If we consider the groundwater issue, as outlined in this leaflet, which is designed to convince us that the correct thing to do would be to go along with the carry-over motion, we learn:
"The water impounded by the Barrage will raise the groundwater level in south and central Cardiff, which the Promoters have always recognised could affect some basements."
As I understand it, it took a lot of persuasion to get them to that position. Nevertheless, finally and because of the weight of the argument, they were persuaded to take account of this issue. In the beginning, however, the promoters tended to dismiss such arguments and only after seeing the weight of the evidence did they begin to accept that they would have to do something about the matter.
The leaflet also states:
"Independent experts commissioned by the Promoters say that this will not cause structural damage"—
hooray—
"cellars may become damp or at worst wet—but groundwater experts say that most properties will be unaffected."
There is a nice diagram to illustrate that point, but it does not convince me.
We are then told:
"Under the Bill there will be a comprehensive protection system for residents. The Bay management must survey properties within an agreed 'Protected Property Line' and undertake remedial action at no cost to occupiers. The protection will last for 20 years from the time of remedial work. The Development Corporation will initiate the general surveys and there will be a detailed code of practice to safeguard householders' rights.
Surveys will be undertaken over a wide area and will ensure that no property is without protection. It is estimated that only about 1,600 properties may require work and residents will have free access to an independent Complaints Administrator.
Residents outside the 'Protected Property Line' will also be fully safeguarded by the provisions of the Bill."
But why are they not dealt with in the same way as those within the protected property line?
We are then told—this might be looked on as a comfort to sustain the argument for the carry-over—that
1342
"More computer modelling work on groundwater aspects is already underway to cover points of concern in the Petitioners' evidence. This will be reported to the Secretary of State and will be taken into account in his decision."
Yes, but that is the crux of the whole way in which the Cardiff bay barrage and the Bill intended to enable it to go ahead have been examined. We are running before we can walk. We are putting the cart before the horse.
Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend must accept that the last time we discussed this matter he was one of the few who showed a detailed knowledge of the environmental reports that had been made. My hon. Friend is not doing himself justice tonight by quoting a weak summary of the argument when he knows that a great deal of respectable scientific work has been carried out. The collection of headings and generalisations to which he refers are untrue.
Mr. Griffiths: I am conscious, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we do not want to detain the House—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): What I am conscious of is that we are dealing with a carry-over motion to which I hope the hon. Gentleman will refer from time to time and that he will not get carried away with the general argument.
Mr. Griffiths: I have been trying to keep that at the forefront of my mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, all evening.
Madam Deputy Speaker: You could have fooled me.
Mr. Griffiths: The trouble is that interventions often cause me to go down the wrong track.
If I can be allowed to carry on with what I want to say, my answer to the very important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Flynn) is that I do not dispute the fact that a number of studies have been carried out—some are still being carried out—on the groundwater aspects of the building of the Cardiff bay barrage. I contend that it is inappropriate for us to be discussing the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and the carry-over motion that will enable the Bill to continue on its course through the House while the studies are incomplete.
The most important point of all is that the people who could be affected by the rising groundwater should know the results of all the surveys before we give the Bill further consideration. We can have differences of opinion about the importance or otherwise of the sites of special scientific interest, but we cannot have a difference of opinion about the fact that the barrage should not go ahead until all the studies are completed and available for our inspection. We should not allow the studies to go on and then let the Welsh Office decide once they are completed. That would place the Welsh Office in an invidious position. It has already made it clear this evening that it fully supports the barrage. If there is still contention about the effects of the groundwater after the studies are completed, it would be wrong to let the Welsh Office decide. That is why I hope that the House will reject the carry-over motion.
12.6 am
Mr. Gwilym Jones: As you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) went into detailed arguments about different parts of the Bill. Like the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), he discussed the economic case. Indeed, the hon. Member for

1343
Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney concentrated upon it entirely. I believe that both hon. Gentlemen made the case for the motion.
Within the narrow confines of what we can properly debate on this motion we cannot resolve these detailed economic matters or some of the other points that have been mentioned. The logical outcome of passing the motion would be to allow the Bill to go forward to Report stage, when all these points can be properly dealt with, all the detail can be examined and, I hope, when all hon. Members can be satisfied, at least as far as that is possible. These matters should be discussed on Report, not in a debate on this motion.
I shall try to remain within the limits of the motion and not be called to order. I want to respond briefly to the lengthy contribution made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). I shall not discuss the minor part of his speech dealing with the environment, because I have a healthy appreciation of his concern for environmental matters; but the major part of his speech was about the backing for the Bill. He went so far as to misrepresent the fact that seldom has there been a Bill that enjoys such overwhelming support in South Glamorgan.
Four of the five Members who represent South Glamorgan strongly support the barrage Bill. Many councillors in the Cardiff city, South Glamorgan and Vale of Glamorgan councils support the Bill. More than 80 per cent. of councillors in the area support it—a good demonstration of the support among the tiers of elected representatives in the area.
Support for the Bill is not confined to one political party. The Labour party controls South Glamorgan council, the Conservatives control the Vale of Glamorgan council and Cardiff city council is a hung council. Both major parties in Cardiff strongly support the Bill.
Mr. Morgan: I think that the hon. Gentleman may be misleading the House. If he means that Labour councillors support the project he may well be right, but he is not right if he means that the Labour party supports the project. Four of the five general management committees of the Labour party are against the barrage. [Interruption.] I am not sure what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who is sitting behind me, is trying to say. In the last 12 months those general management committees in South Glamorgan have voted against the barrage by majorities of 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 and 5:1.
Mr. Jones: I hope that I am not misleading the House. I cannot speak well about Labour party management committees, but the sotto voce comment from behind the hon. Gentleman suggested that he might well have been misleading the House. In every respect it must be true to say that all elected representatives from the major parties are in favour. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) would like to contribute to the debate because I understand that the minor party, the Liberal party, on Cardiff city council and in South Glamorgan is very much in favour of the Bill. I urge the House to support the motion.
I appreciate the built-in frustration of debating a private Bill. That has been well covered. However, for the moment it is the only way for us to consider the matter and it has resulted in long and exhaustive consideration. In its
1344
way such a Bill is no different from other Bills. Earlier, we debated the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill and a great raft of mainly Government amendments went through in a short time. It is naive for anyone to expect a Bill to emerge unchanged at the end of the parliamentary process. Such a Bill would be a minor one. Bills are made better by amendments.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: I hope to be brief but I had better give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Griffiths: I would not expect the Bill to remain unamended. One of my major points was that such a contentious issue as groundwater should be settled before the Bill is debated. That is my objection to the motion.
Mr. Jones: How can we make progress without accepting the motion? The matters that worry the hon. Gentleman can be moved forward and debated at another stage.
The Bill has been improved by the consideration that it has already had. The fact that we are discussing an exceptional measure fully justifies the basic principle of a carry-over motion. The Bill is exceptional because of what it will achieve. It will lead to the redevelopment of south Cardiff and new jobs and homes and will be a tremendous boost to our economy and to the capital city of Wales. Of course, that is already happening, because Cardiff is talked about far and wide. However, the benefits from the Bill will extend to a wider area. It would be a tragedy if the motion were defeated and the Bill were lost.
There has already been a substantial investment in the Bill of time, money and activity. Many people, such as hon. Members, the two councils, the development corporation and others have made that investment. It has not been mentioned so I shall put on record our thanks to the four members of the Select Committee who spent 26 or 27 painstaking days going through the Bill. They were my hon. Friends the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and the hon. Members for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh). We owe all of them a debt of gratitude.
That Committee was quite innovative. I think that it was the first time that a Committee has taken evidence outside the House on the matter. Certainly, it must have been the first time that a Committee took evidence in song on it. It would be a tragedy if all that hard work and exceptional consideration were lost. Not least, it would be tragic in view of all that has been done to resolve the reasonable doubts in south Wales. Contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) my impression of south Wales is that opposition to the Bill is fast receding. From what I read of the front-page headlines in South Gamorgan, opposition in the Labour party there is receding. The greatest attempts are being made to resolve all the legitimate concerns. All along, those who have wanted to promote this scheme have appreciated the concerns, and all involved have been doing all that they can to help those who are worried that they might be disadvantaged by what happens if the Bill is passed.
I noticed recently that the city council gave money to the Cardiff flood action committee, not because it agreed with the position that the committee had taken but in the

1345
spirit of trying to help those who are worried by the Bill. That same spirit has been shown by everyone, particularly the officials of the two councils and the development corporation.
If we were to carry on with the detailed arguments, we should not achieve the real purpose of the motion. The only way to resolve the detailed arguments is to agree to the motion so that we can have further debates. Not to resolve it in that way would be the greatest tragedy for south Wales.
12.17 am
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I wholeheartedly agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and others about the sad passing away of Councillor John Reynolds, who was the Labour leader on Cardiff city council and who served as a member of the board of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The very first job that I ever had was as a tutor-organiser with the south Wales district of the Workers Educational Association. I was told that my job was to go out and find more John Reynolds. He had been a booking clerk, and he went on to make a major contribution first to education and then to the public service, serving on the city council for several decades. For the two years that I was with the WEA, I tried to find more such people, before handing my job on to others who are far better known in public life and politics.
I ask the House to sink this barrage before it sinks half my consituency.
Mr. Flynn: That is a wild exaggeration.
Mr. Morgan: I feared that there might be a sedentary comment from the back row in response to that, although I am not sure what the definition of wild exaggeration might be. Anybody who thinks that that is a wild exaggeration should turn to the evidence presented to the Select Committee on this point. Earlier, we had the presence of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), but there are no members of the Committee present now, so I had better read the evidence of a witness expert in groundwater computer modelling, which is a way to predict what would happen after a barrage was built. This is relevant to whether we should agree to the carry-over motion.
The House will have to allow for the elision in the banter between the witness and the Chairman in these questions and answers. The Chairman asked:
"Thousands of people will suffer from groundwater problems if the model is wrong?"
Dr. Miles, the witness, said:
"Yes, and rather than enhancing Cardiff, it would turn it into a laughing stock; this is the city that turned itself into a swamp—how would that look in the papers?"
Later, the Chairman asked:
"'Urban swamp' was your own phrase. I tried to rhyme 'Miles' with 'urban swamp'"—
this is the banter—
"and I failed to come up with something, I must confess!"
Dr. Miles, having done the donkey work necessary to make an accurate prediction, within the best parameters, using the best technology in computer modelling and accurate field work when collecting the data that goes into the computer model, predicted that the barrage would
1346
present a serious danger of turning the low-lying areas of Cardiff into an urban swamp. That is the risk that I am being asked to take on behalf of my constituents.
I take the matter seriously because we are being asked to pass a carry-over motion even though the studies are not yet complete. It is obvious from the debate that this is a unique motion. We are being asked to approve, on behalf of our constituents, a pig-in-a-poke.
The technical studies were demanded by a majority of the Select Committee. One member wanted to throw it out, but the other three agreed that, procedurally, the Bill should come this far, even though they did not think that it was proper for the barrage to be built. From what the Minister said earlier, we will not know the results of the studies for another 18 months. We are being asked to continue the life of the Bill even though that is irrelevant because the actual decision will be made not by Parliament, with most unusually restricted rights for petitioners and objectors, but by the Secretary of State for Wales after he has had written representations and has consulted his new expert from the centre for irrigation studies at Southampton university.
As far as I am aware, never before have we been asked to approve a Bill that is subject to the Secretary of State having the last word. It is like the Select Committee saying that it did not really think it safe to proceed with the barrage, but it did not want to kill the Bill. We are being told, "Bear with us, take it all on trust and the Secretary of State will play a fair-minded, neutral, quasi-judicial planning role when he makes up his mind in 18 months."
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that next year could be election year? If so, the carry-over motion means that we will be discussing the Bill in election year. What happens in an election year? The Government start Bills but do not finish them. The Prime Minister will be deciding the date of the election, she will be looking for that window of opportunity, she will be fiddling every set of statistics that she can, she will not know whether she is coming or going, the ERM will go sour, and in the middle of all that someone will say to her, "Do you know, Prime Minister, that we have not yet finished the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill?" What is she likely to say in the middle of all that? It will be, "Stuff the Bill", or something like that. She will not come here in her carpet slippers at 10 or 12 o'clock at night to vote for the Bill. She will have other fish to fry.
I am hoping to speak in the debate about the electoral consequences of the Bill. In some circumstances, they could be helpful to the Labour party. I am looking at it from both angles. Has my hon. Friend examined it from a wider political view?
Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has given us yet further proof that he is not thinking of crossing the Floor.
It is quite likely that there will have been an election before the results of the further inquiries are known, yet we are being asked to pass a carry-over motion tonight.
We must consider the alternatives if the motion is refused. The promoters of the barrage could return when they have finished their studies. They could then say that they have used the best technology available and the best computer modelling experts, and then give their prediction for the level of groundwater in the affected low-lying areas

1347
of the three constituencies concerned. We will then know the price of the barrage; tonight, we are being asked to buy a pig-in-a-poke.
The groundwater issue is of concern to my constituency. Obviously, it also affects the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The barrage will be in his constituency, but water does not respect parliamentary boundaries. On the other side of the River Taff, it will also affect the highly marginal constituency of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist). In terms of residential areas, my constituency will be most affected. Roughly 40 per cent. of them fall within my constituency, 35 per cent. within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and 20 per cent. within Cardiff, Central, the Under-Secretary of State's constituency. The barrage will have an effect in those areas.
If the mouths of the Taff and the Ely are impounded, the resulting lake may be in my hon. Friend's constituency, but two fingers of it will extend into my constituency and that of the Minister. But the water under the surface, residentially speaking, affects my constituency more than any other, so I am very concerned about it.
Mr. Skinner: Residentially speaking?
Mr. Morgan: I do not know whether my hon. Friend remembers his days underground.
Mr. Skinner: Yes.
Mr. Morgan: He would have been extremely conscious of water under the ground. Water beneath one's house is as important as water flooding a coal mine. I do not want my constituents to live in the equivalent of a flooded coal mine.
Since about 7.30 this evening I have been in a position to present some new evidence to the House on that very issue. It is pretty sensational because it cuts completely across the assurances given in the wonderful pop-up birthday card sent to all Members of Parliament by Cardiff Bay development corporation, at great public expense, and about as factual as one.
The information that I want to give to the House is the result of the fieldwork carried out by—
MR. MICHAEL rose in his place, and claimed to move,
That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 10.

Division No. 323]

[12.26 am

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Burt, Alistair

Amess, David

Butcher, John

Arbuthnot, James

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Ashby, David

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Atkins, Robert

Chapman, Sydney

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Chope, Christopher

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Baldry, Tony

Conway, Derek

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Boswell, Tim

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Bottomley, Peter

Curry, David

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

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

Bowis, John

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Burns, Simon

Dixon, Don

1348

Dorrell, Stephen

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Maude, Hon Francis

Dover, Den

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Durant, Tony

Meale, Alan

Fallon, Michael

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Fishburn, John Dudley

Michael, Alun

Flynn, Paul

Miller, Sir Hal

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Forth, Eric

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Foster, Derek

Murphy, Paul

Freeman, Roger

Needham, Richard

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Goodlad, Alastair

Oppenheim, Phillip

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Paice, James

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Grist, Ian

Parry, Robert

Ground, Patrick

Patnick, Irvine

Hague, William

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Portillo, Michael

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Redwood, John

Harris, David

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Haynes, Frank

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Hind, Kenneth

Ryder, Richard

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Sackville, Hon Tom

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Howells, Geraint

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Jack, Michael

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Jackson, Robert

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Key, Robert

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Sumberg, David

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Tredinnick, David

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Trippier, David

Lang, Ian

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Waller, Gary

Lightbown, David

Wareing, Robert N.

Lilley, Peter

Wheeler, Sir John

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Widdecombe, Ann

McFall, John

Wood, Timothy

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Yeo, Tim

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Maclean, David

Malins, Humfrey

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mans, Keith

Mr. Gwilym Jones and

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Mr. Ray Powell.

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Pike, Peter L.

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

Skinner, Dennis

Corbyn, Jeremy

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Cryer, Bob

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Tellers for the Noes:

Morgan, Rhodri

Mr. Ted Rowlands and

Nellist, Dave

Mr. Win Griffiths.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly—
The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 10.

Division No. 324]

[at 12.40 am

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Bottomley, Peter

Amess, David

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Arbuthnot, James

Bowis, John

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Burns, Simon

Ashby, David

Burt, Alistair

Atkins, Robert

Butcher, John

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Baldry, Tony

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Chapman, Sydney

Bevan, David Gilroy

Chope, Christopher

Boswell, Tim

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

1349

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Malins, Humfrey

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Mans, Keith

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Curry, David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

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

Maude, Hon Francis

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Dixon, Don

Meale, Alan

Dorrell, Stephen

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Michael, Alun

Dover, Den

Miller, Sir Hal

Durant, Tony

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Fallon, Michael

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Murphy, Paul

Flynn, Paul

Needham, Richard

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Forth, Eric

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Foster, Derek

Oppenheim, Phillip

Freeman, Roger

Paice, James

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Parry, Robert

Goodlad, Alastair

Patnick, Irvine

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Portillo, Michael

Grist, Ian

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Ground, Patrick

Redwood, John

Hague, William

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Harris, David

Ryder, Richard

Haynes, Frank

Sackville, Hon Tom

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Hind, Kenneth

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Shaw, David (Dover)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Howells, Geraint

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Jack, Michael

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Jackson, Robert

Sumberg, David

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Key, Robert

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Tredinnick, David

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Kirkhope, Timothy

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Waller, Gary

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Lang, Ian

Wareing, Robert N.

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Wheeler, Sir John

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Widdecombe, Ann

Lightbown, David

Wood, Timothy

Lilley, Peter

Yeo, Tim

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

McFall, John

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Tellers for the Ayes:

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Mr. Gwilym Jones, and

Maclean, David

Mr. Derek Conway.

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Pike, Peter L.

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

Skinner, Dennis

Corbyn, Jeremy

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Cryer, Bob

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Tellers for the Noes:

Morgan, Rhodri

Mr. Ted Rowlands and

Nellist, Dave

Mr. Win Griffiths.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill
1350
Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
Ordered,
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended in the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

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. Nicholas Baker.]
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—

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS, ETC.

  Time for taking questions
  (l)—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
  (l)—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 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. Nicholas Baker.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  Portsmouth Naval Base
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  12.51 am
  Mr. David Martin: The debate arises from the present and latest consideration within the Ministry of Defence of the future of the fleet maintenance and repair organisation in Portsmouth dockyard, which is crucial to the future of the dockyard. It follows upon a letter which I received in September from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who is making tonight his first appearance at the Government Dispatch Box since taking up his ministerial duties in July, and whom I welcome wholeheartedly.
  With about half of all naval personnel and their families living in Portsmouth, or within its immediate area, the considerations generated by the debate cannot be confined merely to the naval base. Its future has profound implications for the future scope and effectiveness of the Royal Navy itself. We must never forget that the Royal Navy is the world's third largest as an effective fighting force, and I want it to remain so.
  The people of Portsmouth—above all, the debate is about people—have grown used over the centuries to cuts in times of peace and to expansion in war. There is a deep understanding of such necessities. These are timely considerations in the present Gulf crisis. In the euphoria of the aftermath of events in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, there was much talk of a peace dividend, of making huge cuts in our armed forces, including a drastic reduction of ships in the Royal Navy. I did not share that judgment, and to his everlasting credit nor did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I asked him during the most recent defence questions on 17 July whether he agreed with me
  "that it would be criminal folly to reduce our defences, including nuclear weapons, to a lower level than any eventuality, however unforeseeable, might demand?"—[Official Report, 17 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 847.]
  My right hon. Friend's reply, and subsequent remarks in the "options for change" statement a week later, were encouraging.
  The events of 2 August and subsequently in the Gulf wholly vindicate such an approach. Many of our ships are serving in the Gulf and more are likely to be needed. Thank goodness for the Royal Navy and for Portsmouth dockyard and those who serve it so well. The present investigation into the future management of the FMRO identifies several options, depending on several assumptions. I have not the time to explore them all. No one expects the present arrangements to continue indefinitely. Change is expected, and positive change will be welcome.
  Before dealing with the options, I want to underline the importance of my hon. Friend reaching a swift decision. An interim report is sought from the consultants by 14 December, with a final report in February 1991. I suspect that the December report will be the vital one on which irrevocable decisions will be made. Apart from docking and essential maintenance work, the type 42 refit stream is being kept employed on HMS Nottingham, with a planned finish in August 1991. At that time, the FMRO was expecting HMS Manchester, but Plymouth's needs appear to be winning that order.
  Portsmouth will suffer grievously from indecision and I urge my hon. Friend not to permit it. Whatever the

  1353
  structure of management, we need a continuous programme of work to keep the strengths of the FMRO together and the morale and confidence of its work force assured.
  The options include privatisation and the introduction of commercial arrangements similar to Plymouth. However, the option I wish to be adopted, which I wish to concentrate on as the positive option, is the introduction of a defence support agency with a trading fund. That would assume a core programme of docking and essential defects on ships based at Portsmouth. Such an option keeps military control and the prized integration of service and civilian personnel which I referred to in my maiden speech almost exactly three years ago and which has been working so effectively since 1984. That integration also provides the best safeguard against industrial action.
  Such an option would, in addition, give an undisputed yardstick for comparing costs so that the FMRO can compete fairly in the marketplace through tendering for naval refits or any other suitable work such as cross channel ferry maintenance and repair, rather than risking it going to French yards. Had such a structure been in place last year, we probably would not have lost the type 42 HMS Southampton repair and refit, which was a great blow at the time. Such a structure would keep in being the apprenticeships, of which there are 125 at present and 32 a year, which provide vital opportunities for young people in the work force.
  The alternative to that option, which is the worst and most unacceptable of all, is a bollards and fenders option—in effect, closing down the existing FMRO, selling off the greater part of the dockyard and using what is left as a parking lot for ships, with all necessary work being contracted for and usually to be carried out at a great distance from Portsmouth.
  To pursue such an option, or any other tantamount to it, would be foolhardy in the extreme for several reasons. Of the three dockyards—Portsmouth, Plymouth and Rosyth—Portsmouth is the most sensible in which to concentrate work on ships. It would be wise to increase the number of ships based there, and there is space. The policies of harmony, Slimtrain and others have for many years led to the highest concentration of people, ships with home base and training bases in Portsmouth and its area. Apart from the naval base, including HMS Nelson and Gunwharf—I press as strongly as possible for the special clearance diving unit to remain there—there is Collingwood, Whale island, which is soon to have the addition of Phoenix, Sultan, Dryad and Mercury, which is being transferred to Collingwood.
  That is why I referred earlier to approximately half of all royal naval personnel and families living in Portsmouth or near to it. To reverse such policies would lead to excessive separation and the loss of good men and women, would risk personal morale and would have a serious effect on recruitment. It would be incomprehensible to many serving in the Royal Navy, let alone the people of the city of Portsmouth.
  The city, as my hon. Friend is well aware, has coped magnificently with previous large reductions in the work force, which is reliant on the dockyard. A heritage area has grown up around HMS Victory and the royal naval museum, which comprises the Mary Rose and Warrior. Massive new investment is planned there. A thriving ferry port has increased in strength and importance, but to pursue any option that neuters the naval base, the core of
  1354
  the royal naval presence in Portsmouth, would be to sacrifice centuries of the closest and most fruitful relationship between the city and the Royal Navy, to the damage of both.
  This brings me to the third and final strand of the debate. It concerns Navy days. Practically everybody in the United Kingdom is aware of Portsmouth's Navy days. For many visitors in late August, that is why they come to Portsmouth. They and those who live in the area produced an attendance of about 70,000 at Navy days this year. Navy days began in Portsmouth and are a veritable showcase of the Royal Navy. They make a sizeable profit every year, even after allowing for the greatly increased costs of security arrangements. This year, the net profit was £106,000, which was shared between various naval charities, chief among them the King George V Fund for Sailors. By contrast, Plymouth-Devonport attracted merely 23,000 visitors to its Navy days and made a net profit of £15,000.
  It is rumoured that we are to lose our annual Navy days, to alternate them with Plymouth. I cannot understand why successful Portsmouth should suffer for the deficiencies of Plymouth as a magnet; nor can my constituents. It is not just a question of having an aircraft carrier to inspect. Portsmouth has many other related attractions. It is highly successful; it is not remote; and it is central, with an enormous catchment area.
  Annual Navy days are a vital catalyst of interest in naval affairs by the public which has contributed to the special affection in which the Royal Navy is held. Portsmouth is inextricably linked with that feeling. The contribution of our Navy days to recruitment over the years should never be underestimated. This unique throwing open of the gates should be retained every year. There is no sense, operationally or financially, in jettisoning such a successful and profitable—particularly for charities—annual occasion.
  I should like to draw together the strands of the matters that I have raised. The presence of the Royal Navy in Portsmouth and the surrounding area, with its core at the naval base, is above all about people who are proud of its service and traditions. Napoleons, Kaisers, Hiders, Galtieris and Husseins are always popping up in one guise or another. That is understood in Portsmouth as nowhere else in Britain in greater measure.
  In Portsmouth, generation after generation of citizens and families have crammed the ancient battlements, crowded the shores or massed at the entrance to one of the greatest harbours in the world to mingle their tears, cheers, enthusiasm and profound respect in seeing off or welcoming home the men who do their duty in fighting our battles, in risking life and well-being for the preservation of our freedoms. That is the very lifeblood and spirit of Portsmouth. It will never be dated, and it will never be redundant.
  1.2 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): I am delighted to be able to reply to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin), partly because he has been kind enough to give me the opportunity to make my debut at the Dispatch Box but chiefly because it gives me the opportunity to discuss Her Majesty's naval base at Portsmouth.

  1355
  My hon. Friend is a staunch fighter for his constituency. In my short time at the Ministry of Defence, he has already made known to me several times his concern about Portsmouth. I know that I shall become used to his vigour in the months ahead. I sense from his speech his pride for his town and his determination to protect it. As he advised me, Portsmouth has a long and distinguished naval history. As long ago as the reign of King Henry VII, the first real dry dock and yard were built just outside the town. Henry VII built up a fleet in the face of the threat from France and chose Portsmouth for his dockyard and naval base. This progress was consolidated over the next 150 years and, by the end of the 17th century, Portsmouth was recognised as the chief naval centre of England. Its distinguished naval tradition continued for the next two centuries and capital warships were built there until the end of the first world war.
  More recently, the Falklands war in 1982 saw the same degree of dedication from Portsmouth that we had learnt to expect in previous wars. HMS Hermes sailed for the South Atlantic on 5 April 1982 from Portsmouth and became the flagship of the task force, which was to grow into the largest fleet to sail from the shores of Britain since world war 2. Portsmouth also converted more ships taken up from trade than any other yard—21 in all. Again, Portsmouith met the challenge with its traditional spirit.
  My hon. Friend represents a constituency with a unique and proud naval tradition, but he knows that history shows that the needs of the armed forces change over time. For example, the defence review of 1981 identified the need to reorganise defence efforts to obtain the best return from the defence budget. As a result, the role of Portsmouth dockyard was changed in March 1984 when it became the fleet maintenance and repair organisation, or FMRO as it is habitually known.
  My hon. Friend has raised a number of important points and I should now like to deal more specifically with them. As the declaration at the London NATO summit in July recognised, Europe has entered a new and more promising era to which the alliance must and will adapt. As my hon. Friend knows, in the light of these developments, the United Kingdom, along with its major NATO allies, has been conducting a thorough review of the way in which our armed forces might be restructured in the mid 1990s.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced the broad thrust of the proposals that we had under consideration for our own armed forces in his announcement to the House on "Options for Change" on 25 July. My hon. Friend said that he understood the need for that statement, and expressed his general support for it.
  In announcing the proposals for changes in our force structures, the Secretary of State also made it clear that we would be looking for substantial savings in the support area. As I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, if we are to achieve our aim of strong and reliable forces but at a lower level and at an affordable cost, we must carry out the most rigorous and wide-ranging examination of all our activities and resources in the support area to ensure that we are providing that support in the most effective and cheapest way. However, as my hon. Friend knows, many complex and inter-related factors impinge on the way
  1356
  forward and require proper evaluation. It is still far too early for any decisions to have been reached as a result of this continuing work.
  In parallel with and as an input to our work on "Options for Change", as my hon. Friend knows, we are undertaking a study looking into the future of the FMRO. The study has a long pedigree. I do not want to burden the House with a lengthy account, but I think that it is important to record the background against which we find ourselves needing to review our ship refitting capacity generally, and the Portsmouth capacity in particular.
  Since the introduction of commercial management at Devonport and Rosyth in 1987, there has been a steady decline in the core programme of refits allocated to those yards. The decline has been faster and to a lower level than expected before vesting day when the term contracts were negotiated with Devonport Management Limited, or DML and Babcock Thorn Limited, or BTL. Devonport, with a higher proportion of surface ship work, has seen a particularly sharp drop in load. More than 4,000 jobs have been shed by DML since vesting day in an attempt to keep productivity ahead of the declining load and compete for new business.
  Equally, I acknowledge that Portsmouth endured a major reduction earlier in the 1980s when civilian jobs declined from 7,000 to under 3,000. Since then, however, the FMRO workload has been kept fairly constant while the load elsewhere has declined. The aim of the study is to examine the role of the FMRO in the light of the reduction in the overall fleet repair and maintenance task, given the need to secure value for money. As my hon. Friend knows, the study will be undertaken by external consultants.
  I want to stress that no decisions have yet been taken on the future workload at Portsmouth. The consultants will be invited to recommend separate arrangements for each of three different workload scenarios. One is broadly the status quo; another is the status quo less the few refits currently in Portsmouth's programme, leaving the intermediate dockings, other routine maintenance periods and unprogrammed work intact; and the last is to leave only berthing facilities, with the ships docking elsewhere for deep repair or refitting.
  It is necessary to study this wide range of workload alternatives so that the future of the FMRO can be better determined within the context of our wider work in the fleet support area on "Options for Change". The smaller fleet envisaged for the mid-1990s implies significant rationalisation of shore support. The FMRO study will therefore form a useful input into that broader study of our naval bases, dockyards and other support facilities. We hope to be in a position to make that input by the turn of the year. I understand what my hon. Friend said about speedy decisions and the need to avoid uncertainty as far as possible.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned his wish for a defence support agency. As one of the alternatives, the study will also have to consider whether that status would be suitable for the FMRO.
  I should like to follow my predecessors in paying tribute to the dedication and skill of the work force in the FMRO, both service and civilian, who have a record of which to be proud, not least in recent weeks as they have helped prepare the ships deployed to the Gulf on operation Granby. As I have said, this is service in the great tradition of Portsmouth, and we pay tribute to that, as my hon. Friend did so proudly.

  1357
  My hon. Friend referred to the effects on the morale of the naval community of any decision to diminish or abandon the naval presence at Portsmouth. I understand that concern. As part of the continuing work on "Options for Change", and as part of the FMRO study, we shall take carefully into account issues related to morale. I regard that as particularly important. It is, however, as I have already emphasised, too early to make announcements since this work remains to be completed. The interests of the Portsmouth naval community, service and civilian, will of course be given careful weight before any decisions are taken. Of course, I understand the worries that any review creates, but we should be negligent if we did not look carefully at all the options before us.
  My hon. Friend also expressed concern about the future of Portsmouth Navy days. He may find it helpful if I explain the current position. As he is certainly aware, Navy days are currently held each year at Portsmouth, Plymouth, Rosyth and Portland. We have, however, initiated a review of the present arrangements. Pending the outcome of the review, it is intended to introduce interim revised arrangements for Navy days in 1991. Under these revised arrangements, Rosyth and Portland would continue to host Navy days as at present, but major Navy days would alternate between Plymouth and Portsmouth every year. It is planned to hold that event in Plymouth in 1991. I know that that may well be a disappointment to my hon. Friend.
  The principal reason behind the change is to
  1358
  concentrate assets at one major port each year so as to make more efficient use of available resources, and to ensure the best possible show for the public. It is far better to have one really good show than two shows with less panache and zest. I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that we need to strike an appropriate balance between the many competing demands on the fleet's ships and personnel. No decision on future arrangements beyond 1991 will be taken until after the review. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that we shall take full account of the popularity and value of Navy days at Portsmouth and at the other venues when reaching a decision.
  I recognise and have taken note of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend on behalf of Portsmouth naval base and its naval and civilian personnel. I assure him that we are very much alive to those concerns and that they will be given their due weight as we go forward with our examination of the infrastructure needed to support the fleet in the changing circumstances that have come upon us.
  I said at the beginning of my speech that my hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for Portsmouth. I respect his efforts and I welcome the opportunity to work closely with him over the months ahead. I certainly look forward very much to my forthcoming visit to Portsmouth.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past One o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Prime Minister whom she intends to appoint to replace Sir Gerald Ronson on the board of trustees at the natural history museum.

  The Prime Minister
  There are at present no vacancies on the board of the natural history museum to which I appoint but any new appointments will be announced in due course.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on seeking a revaluation of the sterling exchange rate mechanism band.

  The Prime Minister
  Together with our European partners we are fully committed to maintain the system of central rates and intervention limits agreed with them over the weekend of 6 and 7 October.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has anything to add to her statement of 12 July 1989,Official Report, column 518, about the conditions for United Kingdom adherence to the European monetary system.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 15 October at columns 928–29.

  Single European Currency
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the reply of the Lord President of the Council to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley),Official Report, 26 June, columns 179–80, whether she will make a further statement on progress towards a single European currency.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government remain opposed to the imposition of a single European currency as prescribed in stage 3 of the Delors report. The Chancellor of the Exchequer set out the Government's alternative proposals for developments beyond stage 1 on 20 June. These include a new institution, the European monetary fund, and a common European currency, the hard ecu.

  Economy
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the changes in economic circumstances which have taken place since 16 September.

  The Prime Minister
  Since 16 September there has been further evidence that sustained tight monetary policy backed by firm budgetary control has now checked demand growth and is reducing inflationary pressures in 808
  the economy. The Chancellor was able to announce, with effect from 8 October, a one-point reduction in interest rates and, at the same time, United Kingdom entry to the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent by her office on official hospitality in 1989–90.

  The Prime Minister
  The cost of official hospitality met by my office during 1989–90 was £27,427.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will provide the final figures for 1989–90 for(a) the cost of maintaining and running No. 10 Downing street and additional costs at Chequers, (b) the grant-in-aid to the Chequers Trust and (c) the costs on a consistent basis and expressed at constant 1984–85 prices.

  The Prime Minister
  The figures requested are as follows:

  (a) Cost of maintaining and running 10 Downing street and additional costs at Chequers (1) (2) (3) 1989–90—£7,669,276

  (b) Grant in aid to the Chequers Trust 1989–90—£238,000

  (c) Costs at (a) and (b) in 1984–85 price terms (4) 1989–90 (a) £5,856,878 (b) £181,756

  Notes:

  (1) The figures include costs at both 10 Downing street and Chequers; the information is not available by location.

  (2) Salaries and wages, notional pension liability, administration costs, the costs of office services and the grant in aid to the Chequers Trust are included. The Prime Minister's salary is excluded.

  (3) These totals are calculated on a consistent basis with the total for 1986–87 in sub-paragraph (a) of the reply to the hon. Member on 23 October 1987 at column 846. If office services costs are excluded (to produce a figure consistent with those at sub-paragraph (c) of that reply) the total is:

  1989–90 £7,155,708 £5,464,676 (5)

  (4) Constant costs have been calculated using the Treasury's GDP deflator for 1989–90 rebased to 1984–85.

  (5) At 1984–85 prices.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will provide the final figure for 1989–90 for the total cost to public funds of all her offices, duties, accommodation and expenses.

  The Prime Minister
  The total cost of all my offices in 1989–90 was £7,704,396 (1).

  Note:

  (1) Salaries and wages, notional pension liability, administration costs, and the grant in aid to the Chequers Trust are included. My salary as a Cabinet Minister is also included. My pay and allowances as a Member of this House are excluded.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of travel incurred by her office in 1989–90.

  The Prime Minister
  The total cost of my travel and that of my staff in 1989–90 was £948,656.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Know-how Fund
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money(a) has been and (b) is to be allocated to each country under the know-how fund.
  809
  Mrs. Chalker
  A total of £50 million has been allocated to Poland, and £25 million to Hungary both for expenditure over a period of years. The know-how fund was extended to the German Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia in March and April respectively. No specific country financial limits were announced. The know-how fund for the GDR ceased on 3 October.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects funded by the know-how fund in each of the countries of eastern and central Europe since its inception.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer to the replies I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on 14 March at column 236, to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock) on 13 June at column 213 and to my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) on 2 July at column 417. The additional activities approved since then under the know-how fund are as follows:

  CZECHOSLOVAKIA

  Title: Anglo-Czechoslovak Law Seminar

  Description: Four Czechoslovak lawyers attended a seminar in London organised by the Anglo-Czechoslovak Law Association.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £2,000.

  Title: Data Envelopment Analysis Programme

  Description: The London School of Economics ran a short computer programming course based at the Ecole Polytechnique de Brno. A computer has been installed at the Polytechnique to enable them to undertake further courses.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £10,000.

  Title: Prince of Wales Scholarships

  Description: Two Czechoslovak students will be sponsored to attend courses at Atlantic College, Wales.

  Status: The two students took-up their courses in October 1990.

  Cost: £9,300.

  Title: Workshops on Tax Structure and Public Finance

  Description: The Institute of Fiscal Studies in cooperation with the Czechoslovak Institute of Economics and Sociology is to arrange, over a two year period, a programme of workshops to examine tax requirements and procedures resulting from the changes in Czechoslovakia. In addition there will be inward and outward visits by researchers and the provision of computer equipment.

  Status: Started September 1990.

  Cost: £25,000.

  Title: Training for personnel of Czechoslovak TV

  Description: VISNEWS have arranged a short training programme for key personnel from Czechoslovak TV News to enable them to see how news coverage is approached in Britain and to look at United Kingdom equipment and production techniques.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £5,000.

  Title: Media Training for Czechoslovak Radio

  Description: A group of journalists from Czechoslovak Radio undertook a two day training session with an individual consultant looking at ways of improving presentation and content.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £200.

  Title: Legal Education

  Description: The Jan Hus Foundation is to advise Czechoslovak Universities on the reform of their system of legal education.

  810

  Status: Underway.

  Cost: £5,000.

  Title: Assistance for Privatisation

  Description: A team of privatisation advisers from Ernst and Young, Schroders and Denton Hall will undertake a six month assignment to advise the Czechoslovak Privatisation Agency.

  Status: Started September 1990.

  Cost: £450,000.

  Title: Broadcasting Training

  Description: The BBC World Service is to provide a six week course for Czechoslovak broadcasters on the methods and techniques of broadcasting and journalism in a plural society.

  Status: To start February 1991.

  Cost: £250,000.

  Title: Banking Training

  Description: A visit to assess the training needs of the Czechoslovak banking sector.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £12,000.

  Title: Banking Training

  Description: A programme of six two week seminars for senior managers of various banks in Czechoslovakia.

  Status: To be implemented.

  Cost: £170,000.

  Title: Assistance to the Ceskoslovenska Obchodnoi Banka

  Description: Two consultants will work alongside bank staff as part of a team finalising the evaluation of an integrated software package.

  Status: Started October 1990.

  Cost: £14,500.

  Title: Assistance to the Komercni Banka

  Description: The placement of ten Czechoslovak bankers, selected by the Komercni Banka, with British clearing banks, mainly in their documentary credits departments in order to obtain practical, working experience of international commercial banking business.

  Status: Started October 1990.

  Cost: £35,000.

  Title: Assistance to the Investicni Banka

  Description: Barclays Bank to provide a three day training course to two employees of the Investicni Banka in the issue of Certificates of Deposit.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £900.

  Title: Development of employment Services in Slovakia.

  Description: A short visit by two Employment Service officials to Slovakia to ascertain needs in the employment sector.

  Status: To be implemented.

  Cost: £3,000

  Title: Book Sector Study.

  Description: A study to consider all factors relevant to educational book development which will form the basis for a more detailed book development programme to be linked to an IBRD contribution to this sector.

  Status: To be implemented.

  Cost: £44,500.

  Title: Training for Employment Services Managers.

  Description: The Employment Service are to provide a number of courses for the Czechoslovak equivalent of Jobcentre managers.

  Status: To be implemented.

  Cost: £53,000.

  Title: Training and Retraining of Adults.

  Description: Up to ten Czechoslovak officials will visit the United Kingdom for two weeks to look at adult training facilities and policy.

  811

  Status: To be implemented.

  Cost: £39,300.

  Title: Development of Employment Services.

  Description: A visit by United Kingdom Employment Service officials to Czechoslovakia to look at existing arrangements for dealing with unemployment and a return visit by officials from the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs to discuss with institutions in the United Kingdom the handling of unemployment issues.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £19,600.

  Title: Insurance Sector

  Description: To help establish a new insurance company.

  Status: Underway.

  Cost: £140,700.

  Title: Management Training in the Telecommunications Sector

  Description: The training, by British Telecom, of 10 senior executives in the Czechoslovak Federal Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications.

  Status: Underway.

  Cost: £58,800.

  Title: Accountancy Training

  Description: The placement of eight Czechoslovak accountants selected by the Ministry of Finance with British accountancy firms.

  Status: Underway.

  Cost: £13,000.

  Title: English Language Teaching In-Service Seminar

  Description: A two-week seminar in Bratislava to prepare teachers for the introduction of new English teaching materials and methodology.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £10,500.

  Title: Russian Teachers' Conversion Course

  Description: The British Council are to organise a three-month intensive teacher training/conversion course for Czech and Slovak teachers of Russian to prepare them for English teaching duties in state primary and secondary schools.

  Status: Underway.

  Cost: £195,000.

  Title: Advice to the Federal Minister of Economy and the Chairman of the State Bank

  Description: The payment of airfares for up to 15 visits per year to Prague by Mr. Stanley Rudcenko, Vice President and Chief Economist at the Bankers Trust and one of an informal group of advisers to the Chairman of the State Bank and Federal Ministry of Economy.

  Status: Underway.

  Cost: £6,000.

  Title: Secondment to the Federal Ministry of Economy

  Description: The secondment of Dr. Drabek of the World Bank to act as a principal economic adviser to both the Ministry of Economy and the Czech Ministry of Strategic Planning.

  Status: To be implemented.

  Cost: £50,000.

  Title: Secondment to the Prime Minister's Office

  Description: The Department of Employment have seconded an official to the Czechoslovak Prime Minister's office to advise on the employment and other implications of the economic reform programme.

  Status Underway.

  Cost: £50,000.

  Title: Management Training in the Construction Sector

  Description: A pilot management training course for the construction sector.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £57,950.

  812
  HUNGARY

  Title: Share Ownership

  Description: Job Ownership advised the Resz-Vetel Foundation on the legislation for employee share ownership schemes.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £3,200.

  Title: European Accounting Association Conference

  Description: Ten Hungarian accountants attended the conference held in Budapest.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £2,000.

  Title: Employment and Trade Union Issues

  Description: Members of ACAS visited to advise on employment and Trade Union issues.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £2,500

  Title: International Institute of Administrative Sciences Seminar

  Description: The Royal Institute of Public Administration provided a speaker to a seminar organised by the Hungarian Institute of Administrative Sciences.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £900

  Title: Support for UNIDO initiatives

  Description: A contribution to the various industrial based projects in Hungary funded by UNIDO.

  Status: Underway.

  Cost: £500,000

  Title: Biotechnology

  Description: Consultants have been looking at potential productivity improvements in the fine chemicals sector.

  Status: Underway.

  Cost: £86,000

  Title: Broadcasting Training

  Description: The BBC will arrange for a number of broadcasters from Hungary to be trained in the United Kingdom.

  Status: Underway.

  Cost: £220,000

  Title: Prince of Wales Scholarships

  Description: Two Hungarian students will be sponsored to attend courses at Atlantic College, Wales.

  Status: Underway.

  Cost: £9,300.

  Title: Franchise Booklets

  Description: The translation and printing of two booklets on franchise procedures for distribution to interested parties through the Hungarian Franchise and Distribution Centre.

  Status: Underway.

  Cost: £4,000.

  Title: Training for Small Businesses

  Description: The development of training materials and the delivery of courses for small business advisers

  Status: Underway.

  Cost: £99,000.

  Title: Book Sector Study

  Description: A study to consider all factors relevant to educational book development. This will form the basis of a medium term book development policy and strategy to guide donor priorities in the book sector.

  Status: To be implemented.

  Cost: £44,500.

  Title: Developing Teacher Competency in Enterprise Education

  Description: A five day workshop to introduce teachers to the British enterprise curriculum, the materials developed for pupils and teachers and the associated required teaching styles.

  Status: To be implemented.

  Cost: £5,800.

  813
  Title: Developing Small Business Counsellor and Trainer Competencies

  Description: A stage by stage approach to developing the competencies of counsellors and trainers of small and medium sized enterprises in Hungary.

  Status: To be implemented.

  Cost: £5,800.

  Title: Assistance for Employee Share Ownership Schemes

  Description: As a follow up to their visit in March, Job Ownership Ltd are to examine in more detail the feasibility of introducing employee share ownership into up to five Hungarian Businesses which are currently state owned.

  Status: Underway.

  Cost: £80,000.

  Title: Management Training in the Telecommunications Sector

  Description: The training of 12 senior executives in the Hungarian Telecommunications Company in management skills essential for operating in a free market environment.

  Status: To be implemented.

  Cost: £72,000.

  Title: Seminar on the Agri-Food Sector

  Description: The seminar is designed to stimulate business links between British and Hungarian partners in the agri-food processing sector.

  Status: To be implemented.

  Cost: £7,600.

  Title: Kecskemet Business Support Centre

  Description: A feasibility study to look at the potential to establish a support centre in Kecskemet to stimulate the development of the small business sector.

  Status: Underway.

  Cost: £10,500.

  Title: Seminar on Commercial Law

  Description: A three-day seminar on commercial law held in Budapest by the British-Hungarian Legal Association in conjunction with the Association of Hungarian lawyers.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £32,000.

  Title: Advice to the Hungarian Parliament

  Description: A visit by the Clerk of the Overseas Office of the House of Commons to give the officials of the Hungarian Parliament an overview of British methods of parliamentary organisation.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £3,000.

  GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

  Title: Scholarships

  Description: A programme of 28 scholarships.

  Status: Underway.

  Cost: £261,000.

  Title: Summer School

  Description: 50 places for GDR English specialists at a British Council managed summer school.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £69,000.

  Title: ELT

  Description: Programme of four institutional links.

  Status: Underway.

  Cost: £75,000.

  Title: Media training

  Description: Attachment of two producers from East German radio to the world service.

  Status: Completed.

  Cost: £35,000.

  POLAND

  Title: Management Training sector mission

  Description: Project identification.

  Status: Completed May 1990.

  Cost: £39,000.

  Title: UNIDO projects

  814

  Description: Trust Fund agreement to use UNIDO as management agent for industrial sector.

  Status: Commenced April 1990.

  Title: Book Presentation Programme

  Description: Provision of essential books to libraries/educational institutes—administered by the British Council.

  Status: To be implemented.

  Cost: £100,000 a year.

  Title: Solidarity Economic Foundation

  Description: Equipment for Gdansk centre.

  Status: Completed March 1990.

  Cost: £20,000.

  Title: English Management Advisory Service

  Description: Pilot programme to increase us33seage and quality of English by Polish Businessmen, involving establishment of a resource centre in Warsaw and a team of peripatetic trainers/advisers to work with regionally based Polish institutes and trainers.

  Status: Started September 1990.

  Cost: £530,000.

  Title: Management Training

  Description: Contribution towards one year training programme in all aspects of International freight forwarding for two Polish trainees.

  Status: Started July 1990.

  Cost: £20,000.

  Title: Polish Access to English

  Description: Assistance to Ministry of Education to achieve a sustainable English Language teacher training programme through provision of:—planning support for development of strategy; EL teacher training; curriculum development; materials/equipment for new colleges.

  Status: Started August 1990.

  Cost: £454,000.

  Title: Assets and Liabilities Restructuring

  Description: One year secondment of member of Barclays Bank to assist Minister of Finance in analysis and restructuring of State banks.

  Status: Started August 1990.

  Cost: £45,000.

  Title: Ministry of Industry—Industrial Restructuring Fund

  Description: Six month attachment of United Kingdom expert to upgrade the structure and management of the Industrial Restructuring Fund.

  Status: Started July 1990.

  Cost: £85,000.

  Title: Stock Exchange Training

  Description: Six month attachment for five Polish trainees with a firm of traders on the London Stock Exchange.

  Status: To be implemented.

  Cost: £105,000.

  Title: Ealing Language Courses

  Description: Two six week English Language training courses for Polish Vice-Ministers.

  Status: Started July 1990.

  Cost: £45,000.

  Title: Accountancy Training Project

  Description: Intensive five year programme of accountancy training in Poland.

  Status: To be implemented.

  Cost: £4,093,000.

  Title: Police Training

  Description: Project identification visit.

  Status: Completed June 1990.

  Cost: £4,000.

  815
  Title: Polish Publishing House

  Description: Four week secondment of United Kingdom expert to State Scientific Publishers (PWN) to advise on restructuring.

  Status: To be implemented.

  Cost: £15,000.

  Title: Coal Industry Training

  Description: Additional training in colliery management techniques—two follow-up courses in United Kingdom; six courses in Poland.

  Status: Underway.

  Cost: £186,000.

  Title: Insurance Consultancy

  Description: Restructuring of Polish State Insurance Company.

  Status: To be implemented.

  Cost: £300,000.

  Title: Assistance to Krakow Veterinary Hygiene Institute

  Description: Visit to United Kingdom institutions by 12 Veterinary Officers.

  Status: Due to start October 1990.

  Cost: £40,000.

  Title: Overlay cellular telephone network

  Description: Provision of consultancy advice on tender evaluation procedures.

  Status: Started September 1990.

  Cost: £42,000.

  Title: Training of Polish Diplomats

  Description: Training for 6 weeks of 10 students at the Diplomacy Acadamy of London (Polytechnic of Central London).

  Status: Started October 1990.

  Cost: £50,000.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Community Charge
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the poll tax benefit case load, as at 31 May, for(a) Coventry, (b) Warwickshire and (c) each standard region.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as all the information becomes available.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to raise the level of invalid care allowance to the level of other income maintenance benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  The Government are committed to increasing invalid care allowance in line with movements in the retail prices index.

  Refugee Monitoring
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when the refugee monitoring and review programme was started at Woodgrange Park house, Forest Gate, London; and how many refugee cases were then in the office;

  (2) what method of identifying refugee status was used when fraud section staff inspected files at Woodgrange Park house, Forest Gate, London;
  816
  (3) how many fraudulent claims have been discovered through the refugee monitoring and review programme at Woodgrange Park house, Forest Gate, London.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No system of monitoring and controlling claims from refugees has been used at Woodgrange Park house. Consequently, there has been no such identification of fraudulent claims. Normally statistics are not held on the number of claims from refugees, but in order to assess the resources needed to deal with an influx of claims, a special count was made on 19 July 1990. Identification of these claims was made in the normal way from claim forms, and as a result a total of 1,200 claims from refugees was identified on that date.

  Pensioners
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of men over retirement age; and what number are in receipt of means-tested benefits.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In mid-1988 there were approximately 3·5 million men over age 65 in Great Britain. Of these an estimated 1·1 million were in receipt of an income-related benefit.

  Hostels
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he has made to transfer the money made available by the October 1989 changes in hostel dwellers' benefit entitlements to alternative funding sources.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In line with the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State on 16 March 1989 at columns 546–54, funds will be transferred from the Department of Social Security as follows:

  Department

  Allocation

  Department of the Environment (for the Department of Health)

  For local authority social services departments in England

  Home Office

  For probation, bail and after care hostels

  Scottish Office

  For local authority social work departments in Scotland

  Welsh Office

  For all relevant hostels in Wales

  In addition, a small proportion of the available total will be retained by the Department of Social Security for the Resettlement Agency.

  The other Departments concerned will be initiating discussions about consequent arrangements for hostel funding from April 1991 with local authorities and other interested parties. Details of temporary payments currently being made to hostels by the Department of Social Security are being provided to these Departments to inform their discussions.

  Mr. John Pattinson
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the Medical Appeal Tribunal in Liverpool to arrange another hearing for Mr. John Pattinson, case no. L195/5/90, who first made a claim for industrial injury in 1983.

  Mr. Scott
  I have written to my hon. Friend.

  Benefit Payments (Reviews)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the returns from each local office requested in circular RD TECH 100/90, showing the number of payments made and the total amount paid to claimants as a result of reviews following the commisioners' decisions CIS/144/89 and CIS/180/89.

  Mr. Scott
  Returns received up to and including 11 October 1990 are shown in the table.

  Local Office

  Number of payments

  Amount

  Aberdeen South

  1

  363·99

  Aberystwyth

  0

  —

  Airdrie

  9

  15,857·42

  Arbroath

  0

  —

  Ashington

  37

  12,838·00

  Ashton-under-Lyne

  18

  31,342·81

  Balham

  12

  9,689·82

  Barnet

  1

  366·80

  Barnsley (East)

  76

  26,027·84

  Barnstaple

  0

  —

  Barrow-in-Furness

  29

  10,480·60

  Basildon

  82

  27,929·20

  Basingstoke

  0

  —

  Bathgate

  0

  —

  Birmingham (Erdington

  30

  12,801·83

  Birmingham (Northfield)

  38

  12,884·17

  Birmingham (Perry Bar)

  28

  10,743·45

  Birmingham (Sparkhill)

  19

  11,959·38

  Birmingham (Washwood Heath)

  44

  18,677·90

  Blackpool (South)

  12

  4,538·71

  Blackwood

  38

  12,223·40

  Blyth

  35

  11,361·45

  Bolton

  15

  6,266·70

  Boston

  3

  1,074·20

  Bournemouth

  2

  838·40

  Braintree

  19

  31,508·33

  Bridgend

  4

  1,332·36

  Bridgwater

  0

  —

  Bristol (Central)

  2

  681·20

  Bristol (East)

  0

  —

  Bristol (West)

  0

  —

  Burnley

  29

  4,343·70

  Buxton

  1

  213·34

  Campbeltown

  2

  618·20

  Cannock

  2

  516·80

  Chester

  10

  3,376·41

  Chester le Street

  4

  4,319·40

  Chesterfield

  84

  78,827·79

  Clydebank

  10

  16,652·83

  Colwyn Bay

  1

  340·60

  Coventry (East)

  41

  13,797·76

  Cowdenbeath

  0

  —

  Crawley

  0

  —

  Crewe

  2

  3,623·61

  Croydon

  0

  —

  Deeside

  24

  n/k

  Derby (Becket Street)

  31

  40,979·59

  Derby (Heritage Gate)

  20

  6,864·40

  Derby (London Road)

  38

  n/k

  Dewsbury

  39

  13,979·04

  Diss

  2

  3,913·25

  Dolgellau

  0

  —

  Doncaster (East)

  1

  393·00

  Doncaster (West)

  12

  4,611·20

  Dudley (North)

  23

  11,126·58

  Dumbarton

  2

  428·08

  Dumfries

  0

  —

  Dunfermline

  0

  —

  Durham

  22

  7,846·55

  Eastbourne

  2

  759·80

  Edinburgh (East)

  1

  183·40

  Edinburgh (South)

  0

  —

  Edinburgh (West)

  0

  —

  Elgin

  3

  1,837·00

  818

  Local Office

  Number of payments

  Amount

  Epsom

  0

  —

  Exeter

  1

  635·10

  Folkestone

  2

  733·60

  Fort William

  0

  —

  Galashiels

  37

  63,546·01

  Glasgow (Anniesland)

  24

  8,714·23

  Glasgow (City)

  2

  883·40

  Glasgow (Laurieston)

  0

  —

  Glasgow (Partick)

  7

  4,818·72

  Glasgow (Provan)

  44

  20,717·45

  Glasgow (Rutherglen)

  15

  8,883·35

  Goole

  0

  —

  Gravesend

  0

  —

  Great Yarmouth

  1

  336·14

  Guildford

  0

  —

  Harlow

  7

  1,384·20

  Harrow

  0

  —

  Havant

  1

  340·60

  Hereford

  0

  —

  Houghton le Spring

  1

  290·29

  Hove

  1

  314·40

  Huddersfield

  30

  10,537·53

  Hull (East)

  29

  34,000·00

  Hyde

  12

  3,658·40

  Ilkeston

  0

  —

  Johnstone

  5

  1,514·03

  Keighley

  2

  786·00

  Kidderminster

  4

  1,362·40

  Kings Lynn

  0

  —

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  —

  Lancaster

  13

  3,623·10

  Launceston

  0

  —

  Leamington

  4

  1,336·26

  Leeds (East)

  0

  —

  Leeds (North West)

  1

  1,942·00

  Leeds (North)

  0

  —

  Leeds (South)

  0

  —

  Leicester (Lower Hill Street)

  19

  6,101·39

  Leicester (Norton Street)

  0

  —

  Leigh

  0

  —

  Lichfield

  5

  1,321·23

  Lincoln (Newland)

  0

  —

  Lincoln (Orchard Street)

  31

  11,609·41

  Liverpool (City)

  1

  150·00

  Liverpool (Edgehill)

  1

  238·44

  Liverpool (Huyton)

  0

  —

  Liverpool (West Derby)

  0

  —

  Llanelli

  37

  12,444·18

  London (Battersea)

  5

  1,425·83

  London (Hendon)

  1

  162·50

  London (Highgate)

  3

  2,557·30

  London (Peckham)

  0

  —

  London (Poplar)

  0

  —

  London (Shoreditch)

  0

  —

  London (Streatham)

  2

  2,774·75

  London (Wandsworth)

  6

  11,829·95

  London (Wimbledon)

  2

  2,338·16

  Loughborough

  2

  406·94

  Lowestoft

  9

  6,612·85

  Macclesfield

  1

  1,993·00

  Manchester (Cheetham)

  3

  2,101·32

  Manchester (Failsworth)

  6

  7,451·95

  Manchester (Longsight)

  17

  22,630·78

  Manchester (Rusholme)

  12

  20,925·25

  Mansfield

  145

  62,284·89

  Merthyr Tydfil

  32

  9,953·92

  Middlesborough

  88

  34,637·70

  Milton Keynes

  0

  —

  Mitcham

  0

  —

  Motherwell

  2

  786·00

  Neath

  5

  1,703·00

  Newbury

  0

  —

  Newcastle Upon Tyne (St. James)

  54

  20,539·80

  Newtown

  1

  340·60

  North Shields

  11

  16,717·49

  Northallerton

  8

  2,474·34

  Northwich

  0

  —

  819

  Local Office

  Number of payments

  Amount

  Norwich (Chantry)

  2

  732·31

  Nottingham (Shakespear Street)

  5

  1,788·28

  Nottingham (Station Street)

  13

  4,824·54

  Nuneaton

  38

  18,272·63

  Oban

  6

  1,819·59

  Oxford

  2

  733·60

  Pembroke Dock

  0

  —

  Penrith

  2

  890·80

  Perth

  8

  1,980·60

  Peterlee

  11

  3,930·00

  Pontypridd

  1

  314·40

  Port Glasgow

  18

  29,255·14

  Porth

  4

  1,446·22

  Preston (North)

  0

  —

  Preston (South)

  9

  n/k

  Reading

  8

  14,335·83

  Redcar

  19

  11,846·44

  Rhyl

  55

  15,268·40

  Romford

  1

  340·60

  Rotherham (North)

  0

  —

  Salford (North)

  0

  —

  Scarborough

  25

  8,063·94

  Scunthorpe

  8

  10,327·95

  Sheffield (North West)

  3

  1,021·80

  Skipton

  0

  —

  Smethwick

  19

  6,336·53

  South Shields

  22

  11,735·51

  Southampton

  1

  829·70

  Southend on Sea

  30

  10,349·00

  St. Austell

  0

  —

  Stanley

  10

  12,800·79

  Stockport (North)

  0

  —

  Stockton

  71

  25,625·06

  Stoke on Trent (South)

  0

  —

  Stroud

  0

  —

  Sunderland (North)

  26

  8,436·22

  Sunderland (South)

  31

  9,822·05

  Sutton In Ashfield

  46

  28,374·60

  Swansea

  0

  —

  Telford

  1

  393·00

  Truro

  1

  235·80

  Twickenham

  1

  1,968·20

  Wallsend

  13

  1,297·42

  Walsall (East)

  42

  13,021·40

  Walsall (West)

  48

  14,701·14

  Warrington

  9

  3,432·20

  Watford

  0

  —

  Wath On Dearne

  18

  6,209·40

  West Bromwich

  2

  1,466·14

  Weymouth

  3

  969·40

  Wick

  0

  —

  Wilmslow

  1

  3·75

  Wolverhampton North

  2

  753·65

  Worksop

  88

  32,948·70

  Wrexham

  60

  20,739·94

  Yeovil

  2

  686·05

  York

  1

  314·40

  Unidentified

  2

  786·00

  Unidentified

  1

  340·06

  Total

  2,501

  1,267,979·65

  Social Fund
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for review were received during the period April 1989 to March 1990 inclusive in respect of(a) social fund community care grants, (b) social fund budgeting loans and (c) social fund crisis loans, by each of his Department's local offices at Eston, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Stockton, and how many of each of these applications for review resulted in revised decisions.
  820
  Mr. Scott

  [pursuant to his reply, 23 July 1990, columns 88–89]: Some of the information given in the table was found to have been misinterpreted. The corrected information is as follows:

  April 1989 to March 1990

  Applications received

  Decisions revised

  Eston

  Community care grants

  98

  23

  Budgeting loans

  251

  57

  Crisis loans

  9

  4

  Hartlepool

  Community care grants

  163

  38

  Budgeting loans

  270

  57

  Crisis loans

  9

  3

  Middlesbrough

  Community care grants

  569

  158

  Budgeting loans

  771

  295

  Crisis loans

  44

  13

  Stockton

  Community care grants

  520

  164

  Budgeting loans

  561

  173

  Crisis loans

  17

  6

  Redcar

  Community care grants

  127

  49

  Budgeting loans

  162

  48

  Crisis loans

  4

  2

  Some of the revised decisions will refer to review applications made in a previous period and decisions may not have been made on some of the review applications made in the period shown.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Bingo Clubs
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in support of relaxing present restrictions on advertising licensed bingo clubs; what consideration he is giving to this question; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since the reply by my right hon. and learned Friend to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 19 March at column 455, we have received a further 25 letters from hon. Members about the controls on the advertising of licensed bingo clubs.

  I understand that in April the Bingo Association of Great Britain resumed discussions with the Gaming Board for Great Britain on the scope, if any, for some partial relaxation of the controls on bingo club advertising, and that the board hopes soon to be in a position to report, for our consideration, its advice in light of these discussions.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in the Official Report the number of occasions in the past 10 years when public interest immunity certificates have been issued concerning matters before coroners and other courts preventing members of police forces and others within the remit of his Department from attending such courts, and to prevent such courts from hearing details of operations; indicating which operations were involved and how many individuals were covered by such certificates.
  821
  Mr. Waddington
  There is no systematic record kept centrally of all cases in which public interest immunity is claimed in respect of police forces and others within the responsibility of the Home Office and it would not be possible to provide the information sought except at disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in the Official Report the number of occasions in the past 10 years when public interest immunity certificates have been issued concerning matters before coroners and other courts preventing officials of his Department and others within the remit of his Department from attending such courts, and to prevent such courts from hearing details of operations, indicating which operations were involved and how many individuals were covered by such certificates.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It would not be possible to provide the information sought except at disproportionate cost.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Sri Lanka about human rights violations in that country, including harassment and murder of lawyers.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have made our concern about human rights known to the Sri Lankan Government on many occasions, both bilaterally in London and in Colombo, and together with our European partners.

  Conventional Forces
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 26 July,Official Report, column 538, when he expects the high-level task force to complete its examination of further limitations on the offensive capabilities of conventional armed forces beyond those currently under negotiation at the CFE talks; and if he will place a copy of their report in the Library upon completion.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The London summit declaration set out the alliance's position that once a CFE treaty has been signed follow-on talks on the basis of the same membership and mandate should begin with the aim of building on the current agreement including measures to limit manpower in Europe. There is now agreement on this in Vienna and the HLTF is currently preparing the alliance's negotiating position. The London declaration also undertook to seek new conventional negotiations within the CSCE framework in the 1990s on further far-reaching measures to limit the offensive capability of conventional armed forces in Europe so as to prevent any nation from maintaining disproportionate military power in Europe. The HLTF will be formulating a detailed position for these talks.

  A copy of the London summit declaration has been placed in the Library. The contents of HLTF papers are, however, classified.

EMPLOYMENT

  Association of Community Enterprises—Highlands and Islands
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department has taken to try to expedite payment by the European social fund of an interim grant payment due to the Association of Community Enterprises—Highlands and Islands in June, following representations to his Department about the delay in receiving payment.

  Mr. Forth
  The association's claim for its interim payment from the European social fund was received in my Department on 22 June, and forwarded to the European Commission on 26 June.

  I understand from the Commission services that an interim payment of £42,089 was finally approved on 24 September, and that authority to pay should be received later this month.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Under-fives
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to publish the report on under-fives prepared by the group chaired by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend has just received, and is now considering, the report of the committee of inquiry chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden. He will make a further statement in the near future.

  Iraqi Students
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy in relation to the provision of loans to Iraqi students at universities in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Students, of whatever nationality, are entitled to loans from the Student Loans Company provided that they meet the eligibility requirements set out in the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990. These include the condition that a student should satisfy the ordinary residence requirements set out in the schedule to the regulations or in the Students' Allowances (Scotland) Regulations 1987, or be a refugee—or a spouse or child of a refugee—who has been ordinarily resident in the British Islands since being recognised as a refugee.

HEALTH

  Young People (Secure Accommodation)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each of the years 1975, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1988 and 1989 the names of those community homes and other facilities providing secure accommodation for young persons according to each local social services authority area.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information in the form requested is not available for the full period. The table
  823
  gives details of approved secure units in England, and their managing local authority, as at 31 December 1989. Comparable details covering the period 1984–1988 are given in the annual publication "Children Accommodated in Secure Units During the Year Ending 31 March", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Secure units provided by local authorities: 31 December 1989

  Region

  Name of Unit

  Local Authority

  Northern

  New Aycliffe (Royston House)

  Durham

  Clavering House

  Newcastle

  Aycliffe Special Unit

  Durham

  Netherton Park

  Northumberland

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Kepples View

  Rotherham

  East Moor

  Leeds

  East Moor

  Leeds

  North Western

  Red Sands

  Cheshire

  Derwent House

  Liverpool

  Red Bank (Vardy House)

  Lancashire

  Red Bank Special Unit

  Lancashire

  Blackbrook House (Labore House)

  St. Helens

  Briars Hey (Orchard House)

  Lancashire

  Dyson Hall

  Liverpool

  Barton Moss (Park House)

  Salford

  West Midland

  Danescourt

  Wolverhampton

  St. Johns

  Birmingham

  East Midlands

  Moorfield

  Derbyshire

  Kesteven

  Lincolnshire

  Amberdale

  Nottinghamshire

  Greenacres

  Derbyshire

  Thames/Anglia

  Salters

  Cambridgeshire

  Woodside Young People's Cnt

  Hertfordshire

  Thornbury House

  Oxfordshire

  Brookside

  Berkshire

  London

  Middlesex Lodge

  Hillingdon

  Little Heath Lodge

  Newham

  Orchard Lodge

  Southwark

  Frant Court

  Greenwich

  Stamford House

  Hammersmith

  Southern

  Landsdowne

  East Sussex

  Beechfield

  West Sussex

  Fairfield

  Hertfordshire

  Glen House

  Hertfordshire

  South Western

  Atkinson Unit

  Devon

  Kingswood

  Avon

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest total cost figure for military assistance during the recent ambulance workers' dispute; and whether more bills are expected from the Ministry of Defence.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The final total cost of military assistance was £7·2 million. Bills for this amount have been received and paid.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he was consulted by the European Investment Bank over its decision to provide further loan finance to the channel tunnel project; and if he will make a statement.
  824
  In addition, two centrally provided youth treatment centres are available. St. Charles YTC at Brentwood, Essex opened in 1971 and Glenthorne YTC in Birmingham opened in 1978.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the EIB statute, the bank is obliged to consult the host Government before making a loan to any project. As is the case with all proposed loans to projects in the United Kingdom, the Government were consulted on a further loan for the channel tunnel project.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to engage in the provision of public funding for the channel tunnel project.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes. Section 2 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 specifically prohibits the provision of Government funds or guarantees for the project.

  Glasgow-London Line
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to meet British Rail to discuss the shelving of the £750 million rail scheme for the Glasgow-London route; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail has not shelved its scheme for investment in the west coast main line from London to Glasgow, and currently plans for the first of the new trains to come into operation in the mid-1990s.

  Moray Adventurer
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about an incident involving the fishing vessel Moray Adventurer at noon on 4 October; what investigations have been or will be carried out; whether the report will be made public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 October 1990]: A report was received by HM coastguards on 4 October that the fishing vessel Moray Adventurer had an object caught in her nets and was at one stage in danger of capsizing. The incident is being investigated by the marine accident investigation branch. No decision can be made about whether or not to publish a report on the incident until the investigation has been completed.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EC Stocks
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest estimate of the stocks of skimmed milk powder and butter in the European Economic Community; and what was the position 12 months previously.

  Mr. Curry
  Physical stocks of skimmed milk powder and butter (including aided private storage) in the European Community at the end of September were as follows:

  (Tonnes)

  1989

  1990

  Butter

  252,689

  378,168

  Skimmed milk powder

  4,811

  333,406

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will extend the suckler cow premium by putting young bulls into intervention.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has already announced that the suckler cow premium will be paid at the maximum rate allowed under Community legislation in the less-favoured areas, and will be maintained at last year's rate for other producers. This will provide an extra £8 million for beef farmers. Intervention coverage has also been extended, and expenditure so far this year has been over £130 million. It would be difficult to justify any further extension in intervention coverage in view of the substantial cost of existing measures.

  Food Advisory Committee
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received to date from the Food Advisory Committee concerning health claims made for foods not requiring a medical product licence; what advice he has given to the European Commission on the issue; and when he intends to introduce new draft regulations.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Food Advisory Committee is currently considering the question of health claims as part of the review of food labelling which I announced on 15 November 1989. My right hon. Friend expects to receive its report at the end of the year and it is likely that the European Commission will be advised of the relevant findings of the review. Any proposals for further legislation controls will be the subject of wide consultation with interested parties before any new draft regulations are introduced.

  Beef
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met European Commission Agriculture Ministers to discuss trade in beef.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have regular contacts with Agriculture Ministers from other Community countries, in particular during meetings of the Agriculture Council. Matters related to the trade in beef are discussed as the need arises.

  Zoonoses Order
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will repeal the Zoonoses Order.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans to do so.

  Dairy Products
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest estimate of expenditure by the European Commission on the dairy sector during the 1990–91 dairy marketing year.

  Mr. Curry
  Estimates of EC expenditure are not available on a market year basis. The preliminary draft budget for 1991 includes provision of 4,927 million ecu (£3,433 million) for the dairy sector. This does not take account of any costs arising from German unification, which are still under consideration.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes have occurred in the level of consumption within the European Community of dairy products since 1983.

  Mr. Curry
  Consumption of the major milk products in 1983 and 1989, including disposals of skimmed milk powder for animal feed, was as follows:

  '000 tonnes

  1 1983

  2 1989

  Butter

  1,520·0

  1,571·0

  Skimmed Milk Powder

  1,606·0

  1,057·0

  Cheese

  3,631·0

  4,134·0

  1EC10

  2EC12

  Agricultural Exports (France)
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he places on the effect of recent French action on the quantity and value of British-produced lamb sold to France.

  Mr. Curry
  The level of British lamb exports is influenced by a number of different factors. We cannot identify the effects of individual factors.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider interim relief for farmers in less-favoured areas by introducing the special premium scheme for ewes during the current financial year.

  Mr. Curry
  The payment to producers in the less-favoured areas (LFAs) of an additional 4 ecu per ewe in sheep annual premium, due to come into effect from the 1991 marketing year, could not be made this year without a proposal from the European Commission and agreement by member states. This is unlikely to happen. All sheep producers, however, will benefit from the decision to bring forward the second advance of annual premium; and we have decided to pay suckler cow premium at the maximum possible rate in the LFAs.

  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will monitor beef and lamb imports from eastern Europe with a view to reducing the volume if it proves detrimental to the interests of British producers.

  Mr. Curry
  I have made clear to the Commission our concern about the effects which such imports might have on the market and the need to monitor the situation closely.

  British-produced Meat
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he places on the effect, according to quantity and variety, of the hot summer on sales of British-produced meat.

  Mr. Curry
  It is not possible to isolate the effects of the hot weather from other factors affecting meat consumption. The latest figure for consumption of meat and meat products from the national food survey (which covers only domestic consumption and does not distinguish between home-produced and imported meat) covers the period from April to June 1990. The table gives the estimated average consumption per person per week for that period, for the same period in 1989, and for the first quarter of 1990.

  Ounces per person per week

  Second quarter 1989

  First quarter 1989

  Second quarter 1990

  Meat and meat products

  36·45

  33·99

  35·77

  of which beef and veal

  5·62

  6·06

  5·13

  mutton and lamb

  2·65

  2·72

  2·75

  pork

  3·15

  3·21

  3·30

  bacon and ham

  4·88

  4·12

  4·29

  poultry and cooked chicken

  8·00

  7·25

  8·88

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of knackermen and slaughterhouses to discuss working conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I, and my officials, have regular meetings with representatives of knackermen and slaughterhouses to discuss a wide range of issues. However, working conditions in knackers yards and slaughterhouses are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Nuclear Emergency
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in publishing his Department's arrangements for dealing with a nuclear emergency in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. Friend the Minister announced on 26 March this year at column 56 his intention to publish details of the Department's arrangements at each of the major United Kingdom nuclear sites. Plans have now been published for the nuclear installations at Sizewell, Bradwell, Hinkley Point, Oldbury, Winfrith, Capenhurst and Springfields. Copies are being sent to public libraries in the vicinity of each installation and have also been placed in the Library of the House. Plans for other installations will be issued as they become available.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what checks are carried out by his Department to monitor the transportation conditions of wild birds being imported into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Ministry is responsible for legislation under the Animal Health Act 1981 to protect the welfare of animals and birds during transport and to prevent the introduction of diseases. This legislation is enforced by local authorities. Ministry veterinary staff maintain close liaison with the authorities concerned, particularly with the corporation of the city of London which operates the Animal Quarantine Station (AQS) at Heathrow airport through which all commercial consignments of wild birds are routed. On release from the AQS imported birds are held for 35 days at quarantine premises approved by the Ministry. During this period the health and welfare of the birds is monitored by veterinary inspectors including Ministry veterinary officers.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has regarding the number of wild birds imported into the United Kingdom during 1988 and 1989 which were dead on arrival or died in quarantine.

  Mr. Maclean
  Details of mortalities in imported wild birds in 1988 compiled by the Ministry were published in
  829
  December 1989 and placed in the Library of the House. The figures show that of 184,577 birds imported, 4,732 (2·6 per cent.) were found to be dead on arrival and a further 20,619 (11·2 per cent.) died during quarantine. A similar analysis of imports in 1989 is currently being compiled.

  EC Food Surpluses
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increases or decreases have taken place in the surpluses of food and wine in the EEC, both in public and private storage, over the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and if he anticipates that they will increase or decline over the next 12 months.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is as follows:

  Commodity

  1989

  1990

  Reference date

  EC Intervention Stocks ('000 tonnes)

  Butter

  30

  187

  September

  SMP

  5

  333

  September

  Beef

  123

  145

  June

  Olive oil

  133

  71

  June

  Total cereals

  8,586

  11,651

  September

  Durum

  1,117

  1,053

  September

  Wheat

  2,466

  5,346

  September

  Barley

  3,136

  3,412

  September

  Rye

  1,089

  1,521

  September

  Table wine (ML)

  1,531

  624

  January

  (March)

  EC Private Storage ('000 tonnes)

  Butter

  223

  191

  September

  Cheese

  159

  167

  September

  Beef

  38

  0

  September

  Pigmeat

  0

  2

  July

  Stock levels are affected by a variety of factors and changes for the next 12 months cannot be predicted.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total amount of land now covered by the set-aside arrangements; and what expenditure is involved in financing this per annum.

  Mr. Curry
  The latest information available indicates that the total amount of land to be set aside in England in the year commencing 1 October 1990 will be some 105,000 hectares. A total of £7·4 million was paid in the financial year 1989–90 to participants in the first year of the set-aside scheme and a further £17·5 million has been allocated in the 1990–91 financial year in respect of participants in the second year of the scheme.

  Fishing Quotas
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Spanish vessels will be permitted to engage in fishing of the United Kingdom quota in terms of the decision of the British and Euro courts on interim relief; how many United Kingdom boats are entitled to fish for the same quota; and if the Spanish vessels which have successfully claimed interim relief will be entitled to compensation from the United Kingdom Government.

  Mr. Curry
  Only United Kingdom-registered and licensed vessels may fish against the United Kingdom 830
  quota. The interim relief granted to applicants in the Factortame case is restricted to the requirement that owners and shareholders be resident and domiciled in this country and affects only 53 vessels. The requirement that vessels should be managed and their operations controlled from the United Kingdom remains.

  At present approximately 3,200 boats are licensed to fish in the United Kingdom. The House of Lords granted interim relief to the Factortame applicants on the grounds, among others, that damages would not be available.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Luxembourg on 15 and 16 October.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting together with my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), Parliamentary Secretary in my Department.

  The main subject discussed was the Commission's proposal for a Community offer for reductions in agricultural support and protection in the current GATT round. Some Ministers were not able to take a definite stance and eventually the chairman decided to suspend the meeting and resume discussion on 19 October to allow them the opportunity for consultations in capitals.

  I much regret that, with so much preparation, this Council was not able to endorse the Commission's package, which provides a useful basis for taking forward the talks in the GATT round.

  The Council agreed on a useful amendment to the pesticides prohibition directive and on a resolution on veterinary measures required for the achievement of the single market.

ENVIRONMENT

  ILEA (Abolition)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the London residuary body made a full inventory of items of historic importance prior to the abolition of ILEA.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The London residuary body made an inventory of items known as the heritage collection once the Greater London council had been abolished.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 26 July,Official Report, column 702, if he will give details of the various pieces of ivory for which his Department has given formal consent for sale within the European Community.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. Information contained in individual applications for CITES licences is considered by the Department as confidential and cannot be released.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many licences he has issued for the sale of elephant ivory since the current ban came into force.
  831
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Nine licences have been issued for sale of ivory within the United Kingdom, in conformity with the European Commission guidance and CITES regulations.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 26 July,Official Report, column 702, if it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to allow the ivory ban to be lifted in some respects in the not-too-distant future.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government remain firmly committed to maintaining the ivory trade ban for as long as is necessary to ensure the survival and recovery of elephant populations. CITES provides for species to be removed from annex 1 when no longer endangered, but the Government have no plans to initiate proposals for such a reclarification.

  Sea Birds
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the number of sea birds washed up dead on the beaches of East Anglia in each of the past five years; and what were the main recorded reasons for death.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This information is not available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further information he has made available to local authorities about standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Key
  Two publications, "Standard Spending Assessments: Background and Underlying Methodology", and the "Standard Spending Assessment Handbook 1990–91" were produced in August. These describe the way local authority services are reflected in standard spending assessments and how each SSA element is constructed. They are similar to the "Blue" and "Green Books" which we produced under the rate support grant system. Copies of the publications have today been placed in the Library of the House. Copies have also been sent to every local authority in England and to the local authority associations.

  Time commitment

  £ per annum (from 1 April 1990)

  Sir Godfrey Taylor (Chairman and Chief Executive)

  Full-time

  63,530

  Mr. Jack Esling

  2 days per week

  15,350

  Mr. Reg Hartles

  2 days per week

  15,350

  Mr. Wallace Mackenzie, OBE

  2 days per week

  15,350

  Mr. Michael Roberts

  2 days per week

  15,350

  Cllr. Sir Peter Bowness, CBE

  1 day per week

  7,650

  Mr. Jack Wolkind, CBE

  1 day per week

  7,650

  Sir Godfrey Taylor was reappointed from 12 August 1990 and Mr. Hartles from 23 October 1989. All other members were reappointed from 12 August 1988.

  The total expenses paid to the chairman and members in 1988–89, the latest year for which information is available, was £6,430. Travelling arrangements are a matter for the residuary body.

  County Hall
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will direct the London residuary body not to entertain any use of county hall, other than of a temporary nature, until after the next general election; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 16 October 1990]: No.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has regarding damage to the interior and removal of contents from county hall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 16 October 1990]: I am not aware of any damage to county hall.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when was the last occasion that staff from his Department responsible for listed buildings made an inspection of county hall.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 16 October 1990]: This is a matter for English Heritage.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the London Residuary Body; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer, 16 October 1990]: I met Sir Godfrey Taylor on 19 April. A number of issues were discussed.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of current members of the London residuary body, together with their salaries and expenses, hours worked, vehicles allocated to them and dates of their appointment.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 16 October 1990]: The information is as follows:

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 21 June,Official Report Column 637, if he will list the fittings removed from county hall for safekeeping by the London residuary body.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Armory
  The fittings that were removed from the principal floor of county hall are stored in county hall.

WALES

  General Surgery
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the reasons for the rise in the number of people waiting for general surgery in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the "Welsh Hospital Waiting List Bulletin 1990; No. 2" which illustrates a variable performance in the light of developing demand and activity levels. During 1989 generally surgery in-patient and day care throughput increased by 2·9 per cent., out-patient throughput rose by 0·1 per cent., with new out-patient attendances up by 4 per cent. In addition, at 31 March 1990 the number of urgent in-patients waiting fell by 9 per cent. over the previous year, the number of

  Local Authority

  1976

  1980

  1985

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Clwyd

  In existence1

  Nil

  Nil

  Bersham Hall

  Bersham Hall

  Bersham Hall

  Bersham Hall

  Approved but not in use2

  Bersham Hall; Bryn Estyn

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  In use3

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Dyfed

  In existence

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Approved but not in use

  In use

  Gwent

  In existence

  Nil

  Mill House

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Approved but not in use

  Crick House

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  In use

  Ty Mawr

  Ty Mawr

  Ty Mawr

  Ty Mawr

  Ty Mawr

  Gwynedd

  In existence

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Approved but not in use

  In use

  Mid Glamorgan

  In existence

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Approved but not in use

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  In use

  Maes-yr-Eglwys; Silverbrook

  Silverbrook

  Silverbrook

  Silverbrook

  Silverbrook

  Powys

  In existence

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Approved but not in use

  In use

  South Glamorgan

  In existence

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Approved but not in use

  Nil

  Nil

  In use

  Sully

  Sully4

  West Glamorgan

  In existence

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Approved but not in use

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  In use

  Glamorgan Farm School; Llwyncelyn

  Hillside5; Llwyncelyn

  Llwyncelyn

  Llwyncelyn

  Llwyncelyn

  1 "In existence" refers to homes containing secure accommodation which is not approved and is not in use.

  2 "Approved but not in use" refers to secure accommodation approved by the Secretary of State for use but not brought into operation.

  3 "In use" relates to approved, operative secure accommodation.

  4 Until 1 October 1985.

  5 Formerly Glamorgan Farm School.

  834
  non-urgent in-patients rose by 7 per cent., and the number of out-patients rose by 3 per cent. Urgent cases waiting one month or more rose by 13 per cent. over the previous year; non-urgent cases waiting one year or more fell by 6 per cent. and out-patient cases waiting three months or more fell by 2·5 per cent.

  Young People (Secure Accommodation)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, for each of the years 1975, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1988 and 1989 the names of those community homes and other facilities providing secure accommodation for young persons according to each local social services authority area in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is contained in the table.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fair Employment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Local Government Staff Commission is taking to ensure that it conforms to the Fair Employment Acts 1976 and 1989; and what measures it is taking to advise local councils in relation to their responsibilities under the Acts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Local Government Staff Commission has registered with the Fair Employment Commission, adopted a policy statement on development and training and, in accordance with the statutory requirements, monitors its staff in relation to their perceived religious composition.

  The staff commission has taken the lead role in ensuring that councils, as employers, fulfil their responsibilites under the Acts. It has, inter alia, established a computerised personnel record system in all 26 councils to ensure that they are properly equipped to provide the statutory monitoring returns on their work force; prepared and issued to councils a comprehensive package of material on equality of opportunity practices and continues to revise and update this; met, and maintains contact with, the Fair Employment Conmmission to discuss matters relating to fair employment and acts as an interface between councils and the Fair Employment Commission; and established a working party representative of local government interests to review the employment and promotion procedures adopted by all councils to ensure that they fully accord with the principles of fair employment.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in the Official Report the number of occasions in the past 10 years when public interest immunity certificates have been issued concerning matters before coroners and other courts preventing members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and others within the remit of his Department from attending such courts, and to prevent such courts from hearing details of operations, indicating which operations were involved and how many individuals were covered by such certificates.

  Mr. Cope
  There is no central record of all cases in which public interest immunity is claimed and it would not be possible to provide the information sought except at disproportionate cost.

  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many meetings of the Anglo-Irish Interministerial Council have taken place since its establishment; and if he will list the Ministers present and the issues discussed.

  Mr. Brooke
  There have been 36 meetings of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference since 1985. These meetings are normally attended by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. It is recently been agreed that departmental Ministers should attend when necessary; as 836
  a result of this, my hon. Friends the Members for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) and for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) attended the conference held on 17 July 1990.

  Details of the topics discussed can be found in the joint communiques published after each meeting, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for 1968, 1973, 1977, 1985 and 1989, on the basis of 1973 = 100, United Kingdom output of (a) textiles, clothing, leather and footwear, (b) motor vehicles, (c) mechanical engineering less groups 320 and 329 and (d) electronic and electrical engineering goods.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The available information covering broad industry groupings is shown in the table.

  Index of Industrial Production 1973 = 100·0

  1968

  1973

  1977

  1985

  1989

  Textiles, leather, footwear and clothing

  92·2

  100·0

  93·4

  79·1

  78·2

  (SIC 43 44 45)

  Motor vehicles and parts

  90·6

  100·0

  91·1

  64·0

  80·2

  (SIC 35)

  Mechanical engineering

  93·3

  100·0

  99·8

  79·6

  87·7

  (SIC 32)

  Electrical, electronic and instrument engineering, office machinery and data processing equipment

  75·4

  100·0

  101·6

  133·5

  169·2

  (SIC 34 37 33)

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  SIC=Standard Industrial Classification (1980).

  Iraq
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of(a) military, (b) other manufactured and (c) financial services exports to and imports from Iraq in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Trade with Iraq in manufactured goods since 1980 is given in the table. The other information requested is not available.

  United Kingdom trade with Iraq

  Manufactured goods1 Year

  Exports

  £ million Imports

  1980

  285

  5

  1981

  582

  16

  1982

  809

  14

  1983

  375

  12

  1984

  290

  25

  1985

  397

  38

  1986

  420

  27

  1987

  240

  30

  1988

  353

  37

  1989

  396

  33

  837
  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  1 Manufactured goods are defined as Sections 5 to 8 of the Standard International Trade Classification Revision 3.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what levels of credit guarantees by the Export Credits Guarantee Department have been made available to British-based companies for trade with Iraq for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 15 October 1990]: ECGD cover for exports to Iraq was available until earlier this year under both short-term and medium-term facilities. As a matter of general policy, ECGD's exposure on individual countries is not normally revealed publicly, but the amount of medium-term credit which was made available to Iraq sinces 1983 under a series of financial protocols is a matter of public knowledge, and was as follows:

  Year

  Amount £ million

  To Finance

  1983

  250

  capital goods and projects

  25

  pharmaceuticals

  1984

  250

  capital goods and projects

  50

  pharmaceuticals

  1986

  50

  pharmaceuticals

  1987

  100

  capital goods

  75

  pharmaceuticals

  1988

  265

  capital goods and projects

  75

  pharmaceuticals

  These protocols have not been fully taken up by the Iraqis, and the actual exposure is therefore less than the figures given above.

  Euro Week (Essex)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department was invited to provide financial assistance to the county of Essex for its Euro Week; what decision he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department had initial discussions in March with Essex county council about its proposed Euro Week. Various ways in which we might be able to assist were considered. No request has yet been made for financial assistance.

  Internal Market Councils
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Internal Market Councils held on 17 September and 9 October.

  Mr. Redwood
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Internal Market Councils on 17 September and 9 October.

  On 17 September the Council adopted the utilities directive, which sets rules to prevent restrictive purchasing policies by utilities, and a regulation on Community transit, which will facilitate trade across borders after 1992. Three amendments were adopted to technical directives on electrically operated lifts, electrical equipment for use in explosive atmospheres, and simple pressure vessels. The Council also took note of a progress report on the infrastructure networks needed for the completion of the single market, and held preliminary discussions on data protection, and on a framework directive to provide a single authorisation to do non-life insurance business in
  838
  the Community. On food labelling, the Council adopted a directive on optional food labelling, and held a discussion on the prospects for compulsory food labelling.

  On 9 October the Council agreed two amendments on dangerous substances, one on the classification, packaging and labelling of dichloromethane, the other on the marketing and use of pentachlorophenol. Vice-President Bangemann presented to the Council the Commission's green paper on European standards. The Council also discussed trade in works of art, the handling of company law directives, and the Commission's latest figures on the implementation of single market measures.

  Companies Inspection Handbook
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when publication of the revised edition of the companies inspection handbook, as recommended by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, will occur.

  Mr. Redwood
  In our White Paper responding to the report of the Select Committee we undertook to publish a revised edition in the early autumn. The new edition, now called the "Investigation Handbook", to reflect its extended coverage, was published this morning and replaces the earlier publication last revised in 1986. It takes account of recent legislative developments including the Companies Act 1989, the Financial Services Act 1986 and the Insolvency Act 1986 as well as incorporating points made by the Government in their response to the Select Committee.

  The handbook describes the powers of investigation of the Secretary of State and includes procedural guidance for inspectors under the Companies Acts and under section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986—inquiries into possible insider dealing. I expect that the handbook, like its predecessor, will be extensively used by my Department, inspectors, regulatory authorities, witnesses at inquiries and their legal advisers, academic staff and the public generally.

  The Secretary of State's powers of investigation play an important part in the Department's objective of increasing confidence in the working of markets by achieving a fair level of protection for the individual consumer and investor.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Mortgages
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average increase in repayments per week on the average mortgage in each region between 1 June 1988 and the present time.

  Mr. Maples
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar question by him on 20 June 1990 at column 558 as mortgage rates have not changed for most existing mortgage borrowers.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes any changes to the PEP regulations.

  Mr. Maude
  I have three changes to personal equity plans to propose.
  839
  First, I recognise that many people, particularly PEP managers, want to know how interest on cash deposited prior to investment will be dealt with when composite rate tax is abolished. I have decided that from 6 April 1991 such interest will not be liable to withholding tax under the new rules for the taxation of bank and building society interest. This interest will also be exempt from income tax at both basic and higher rates in the hands of investors, but only if it is eventually re-invested in the PEP. If it is withdrawn, it will be taxable in full. I hope that this news will be welcomed by plan managers who, I know, wish to start re-programming their systems in time for the change.

  Secondly, shares may be described as "paired" where a United Kingdom and a foreign company have both agreed that no share in either company may be acquired other than as part of a unit comprising one share in each of the two companies, and units are offered for sale to the public in both companies at a broadly equivalent price. At present the PEP regulations do not allow such "paired shares" to be held within a PEP. I propose to bring paired shares within the definition of qualifying investments by analogy with the PEP rules for unit and investment trusts. The same maximum annual subscription of £3,000 will apply. Until the regulations can be amended, the Inland Revenue will operate the new rule by extra-statutory concession.

  Shares subscribed for in a new issue may be transferred into a PEP up to 30 days from their allocation. Experience of this rule in practice has shown that it allows very little time for the necessary action to be taken. I therefore propose to increase the period to six weeks. Again, until the regulations can be amended, the Inland Revenue will apply the new rule by concession.

  European Community Finance
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the net sum contributed by the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community in 1989; and what is the latest estimate for the comparable sum in(a) 1990 and (b)

  Mr. Maude
  The statement on the 1990 Community Budget (Cm 1095), published on 26 April 1990, included the outturn figure of £2,315 million for the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community in 1989, and an estimate of £2,175 million for 1990. An estimate for 1991 is not yet available.

  Exports (EC)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the exports to the European Economic Community and imports from the European Economic Community in each year since 1973; and what was the percentage of Britain's exports to and imports from the European Economic Community in each year.

  Mr. Maude
  Data from which the information requested can be derived is to be found on the Central Statistical Office database which may be accessed through the Library of the House.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax incentives he will consider introducing to encourage energy efficiency.
  840
  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 15 October 1990]: My right hon. Friend has no present plans to introduce such tax incentives. The White Paper on the Environment outlines a number of measures designed to encourage energy efficiency.

SCOTLAND

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of staff employed by Grampian health board at the Aberdeen royal infirmary.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Last year there were 2,340 whole-time equivalent staff at Aberdeen royal infirmary.

  Scottish Assembly
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about a Scottish assembly.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department has received nine letters in support of an assembly in the past six months.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the fiscal implications of a directly elected Scottish assembly.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the past six months, three letters referring to the fiscal implications have been received.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last led a United Kingdom delegation to the Council of Ministers; and on which other occasions he has attended the Council in the past 12 months.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last led a United Kingdom delegation to the Council of Ministers; and on which other occasions he has attended the Council in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last led a United Kingdom delegation to the Council of Ministers; and on which other occasions he has attended the Council in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last led a United Kingdom delegation to the Council of Ministers; and on which other occasions he has attended the Council in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I attended the Fisheries Council on 18–19 December 1989 with my noble Friend the then Minister of State.

  Community Care
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the care in the community Scottish work group to discuss the implementation of community care aspects of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
  841
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no request for such a meeting.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional funds he will make available to local authorities to house those discharged from long-stay care in hospital under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 does not of itself require or promote hospital discharges. Decisions on the rate of discharge are taken in accordance with clinical judgment having regard to the availability of accommodation and necessary support in the home area. Rates of discharge have increased substantially in recent years and voluntary bodies as well as the statutory agencies have played an important part in making this possible.

  Provisional allocations to local authorities for housing capital expenditure in 1991–92 will be made in December on the basis of their relative housing needs and with reference to their capital programmes and housing plans. Local authorities should include any capital requirements for housing arising from the need to house those discharged from hospital in their capital programmes, which are due to be submitted to the Scottish Development Department in November.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many registered disabled people are currently employed by his Department in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Office and its associated Departments currently employ 91 registered disabled staff. In common with other Government Departments they accept the same responsibilities for employment of the disabled as other employers.

  Hospice, Linlithgow
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his oral reply of 4 July,Official Report, column 979, what response he has had from Lothian health board in relation to its examination of the legal position on the feu disposition in respect of the hospice at Linlithgow.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Lothian health board has been instructed to examine carefully the legal position on the feu disposition in respect of Linlithgow hospital before taking any final decisions about the future of this hospital.

  Industrial Development, Bo'ness
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to visit Bo'ness to discuss industrial development.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no current plans to visit Bo'ness to discuss industrial development.

  Housing Survey
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the report of the Scottish housing conditions survey to be published; and if he will arrange for all data collected during the survey to be made publicly available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer to my answer today to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg).

  The remit for the survey agreed by the Scottish Development Department and Scottish Homes provides that, following publication of the report, survey data in a form to be agreed will be made available to bona fide research institutes and other bodies including local authorities.

  Substandard Houses
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to make additional resources available to tackle the problems of damp and substandard houses.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The final allocations to local authorities announced last March for housing capital expenditure in 1990–91 include increased net allocations of £15·5 million compared with 1989–90. It is for local authorities to determine their own priorities for use of these allocations in the light of local circumstances, including the need to tackle dampness and substandard houses if this is seen as a priority in their area.

  Speedlink
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the occasions on which he has met directors of Railfreight to discuss the future of Speedlink services in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  British Rail is currently studying the options for Speedlink and is consulting its customers. My right hon. and learned Friend will be fully involved in the consideration of any proposals which BR puts to the Government in due course.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the full report from the Scottish Development Agency on the Scottish steel industry; and if he will ask the agency to prepare an interim report on the implications of the proposed closure of the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig by the British Steel Corporation.

  Mr. Lang
  The emerging findings of the SDA study should be available by Christmas and my right hon. and learned Friend expects to receive the full report by the end of March. British Steel should be in a position to consider any opportunities identified before the date announced for final closure of the hot strip mill.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of economic growth in Scotland in the latest year for which figures are available.
  843
  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Office estimates that the Scottish gross domestic product grew by 5 per cent. in 1988, the latest date for which estimates are available. This is the highest rate of growth experienced by Scotland for 15 years.

  Farming
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to have discussions with the National Farmers Union of Scotland about farming in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My noble Friend the Minister responsible for agriculture and fisheries and I regularly meet representatives of the Scottish National Farmers Union. Discussions have recently concentrated on the state of the livestock sector.

  NHS Hospitals, Lothian
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to visit national health service hospitals in Lothian.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I regularly visit hospitals throughout the country. I visited Roodlands and East Fortune hospital (and other Lothian hospitals) on 22 June.

  Caledonian MacBrayne
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of Caledonian MacBrayne; and what subjects were discussed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not met the chairman of Caledonian MacBrayne since he took the company into his direct ownership on 2 April 1990. However, my noble Friend the then Minister of State and I met the chairman on 19 February shortly after his appointment. I also met the full board of the company on 25 June when we discussed a number of matters relating to Caledonian MacBrayne's current and future operations. As indicated in my reply of 8 June to the hon. Gentleman, regular and frequent discussions take place between officials of the Scottish Development Department and Caledonian MacBrayne.

  Education
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of teaching unions to discuss the future of Scottish education.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have invited representatives of the teaching unions and of the two head teacher associations to meet me on Friday 26 October to discuss a range of educational issues.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the numbers paying the poll tax in Scotland since 1 April.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not held centrally. Most levying authorities, however, expect 90 per cent. or more of the total community charge due in 1989–90 to be paid.
  844
  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he is next going to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss poll tax arrears.

  Mr. Lang
  I offered to meet the convention at an early date to discuss community charge collection issues following a recent request from its president, and as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters, my right hon. and learned Friend and I will be meeting the convention on 26 November.

  Constitutional Change
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for constitutional change in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. The Government believe that the present arrangements provide for full and fair representation of Scotland's interests.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the west coast fishing industry.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My noble Friend the Minister responsible for agriculture and fisheries hopes to meet representatives of many of the principal fishing industry organisations over the coming months. He met the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which represents many west coast fishermen, on 3 October.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet the leaders of the fishing industry in north-east Fife.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My noble Friend the Minister responsible for agriculture and fisheries intends to have regular contact with the principal organisations representing the Scottish fishing industry. Earlier this month he had a very fruitful meeting with representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, an organisation to which the Fife Fishermen's Association is affiliated.

  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest assessment of the earnings of the Scottish fishing fleet during 1990 and the past two years.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The value (at the first sale) of fish landed into Scotland in 1989 was £246 million, compared with £253 million in 1988. The latest available information for 1990, which covers landings up to the end of August, is a total so far of £176 million, an increase of 11 per cent. over the same period last year.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many expressions of interest have now been made for self-governing hospitals and other national health service units; and how many formal applications have been submitted.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Four expressions of interest in NHS trust status have been received, but these have not yet progressed to the formal application stage.
  845
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the establishment of national health service self-governing trusts.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Representations have been received on a number of aspects relating to the establishment of NHS trusts. Four expressions of interest are currently being pursued.

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of under-fives have places in local authority nurseries.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There were 41,785 three and four-year-olds in Scottish education authority nursery schools at September 1989, 32·2 per cent. of the 1989 mid-year estimate of the total three and four-year-old population, the range which is the relevant age group for nursery education.

  Road and Rail Transport
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in improving road and rail transport in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government are committed to improving the Scottish road network and, since 1979, 288 miles of the network have been constructed or improved including 26 miles of motorway and 142 miles of dual carriageway. Earlier this year my right hon. and learned Friend announced a massive £130 million package of major trunk road schemes which are planned to start during 1990–91. These form part of a significant programme of improvements designed to relieve congestion, improve journey times and safety.

  Over the next three years the resources allocated for new construction and improvements to our road network are set to rise by nearly 50 per cent.

  Investment is not, however, restricted to the road network. Since 1979, the Government have sanctioned record levels of investment by British Rail and Scotland has been, and will be, a major beneficiary of this investment. Completion of the east coast main line electrification will enable electric running to begin in May 1991. Together with electrification between Edinburgh and Carstairs, this will allow substantial reductions in journey times between Scotland and London. As part of its long-term strategy, British Rail is investigating a range of further electrification options in Scotland. New rolling stock is being introduced on non-electrified lines.

  Health Services
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what improvements he has made to Scottish health services in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Over the past 12 months the Government have announced a number of substantial new developments for the national health service in Scotland. First, Grampian health board has been asked to prepare detailed proposals for a new specialist maternity unit in Elgin and for a new cottage hospital in Peterhead. Both units are to be developed on the existing hospital sites.846
  Tayside health board's proposals for a new hospital in Crieff to replace outdated facilities at Crieff cottage hospital and Bridge of Earn hospital have been approved. Together these three capital projects represent an investment of some £20 million in the NHS estate.

  The helicopter ambulance services based in Inverness will be centrally funded to serve the more remote parts of Scotland and allow rapid transfer of patients requiring urgent hospital treatment. This will cost some £600,000 and will be the first centrally funded helicopter ambulance service in Britain.

  A new national service for the rehabilitation of brain-injured patients is to be established to complement and enhance the work already being carried out in the NHS and the private sector. It is estimated that there are around 500 patients in Scotland who would be likely to benefit from intensive specialised rehabilitation services, many of whom are young people whose quality of life could be vastly enhanced if these facilities were available.

  Scotland is also to get its first heart transplant unit so that Scots patients do not have to travel to England for transplant surgery. Many Scots have benefited from the service in England but the long journeys are distressing for very ill patients and their relatives. A new Scottish unit will be much more accessible and will build on the considerable improvements in cardiac surgery in Scotland, which now carries out 2,500 cardiac operations a year.

  Earlier in the year the Government announced that £200,000 per annum was to be made available over the next three years to support the development of cochlear implantation in Scotland. This new technique will greatly enhance the quality of life for some deaf people.

  On 11 July the Government announced that a total of £4 million is to be made available to provide the health service in Scotland with five advanced magnetic resonance imaging scanners. Use of these scanners will greatly improve early detection of brain tumours and other cancers and, in many cases, will mean that the need for investigative surgery can be avoided. The new equipment will be installed at major neurosurgical and oncology centres.

  The first three scanners will be installed at Aberdeen royal infirmary, the Western General hospital in Edinburgh and the Southern General in Glasgow during the financial year 1991–92. The remaining two will be installed at Ninewells hospital, Dundee and the Western infirmary in Glasgow during 1992–93.

  The Government have agreed to provide financial support to the independent hospices in Scotland up to at least 50 per cent. of their running costs. These hospices provide a worthwhile contribution to patient care for the terminally ill. In addition approval has been given to the building of a new blood transfusion centre at Inverness at a cost of £900,000 and to the construction of eight new control centres for the Scottish ambulance service at a cost of £4·7 million over the next four years. These investments will improve the efficiency of the ambulance service throughout Scotland and provide a much better blood transfusion service for Inverness and surrounding areas.

  The Government have also approved the introduction of a new contract for general dental practitioners which will encourage preventive dentistry and improve patient care. The contract provides patients with continuing care from their dentist and ensures that dentists have a system which recognises their continuing responsibility for patients.
  847
  The Government have established a Scottish medicines resource centre to provide pharmaceutical advice and information to GPs and others in the primary care service. The centre will issue independent evaluated drug information and provide assistance in the development of local formularies with a view to encouraging rational, safe and cost-effective prescribing of medicines.

  The remit of community pharmacists in Scotland has been extended to allow them to play a greater part in the NHS by allowing them to maintain medication records for certain patients; and to visit residential homes in Scotland to advise on the safekeeping and dispensing of medicines.

  In the light of a comprehensive review of health education in Scotland, a consultation document was issued on 9 October setting out the Government's strategy for the future, including our proposals for targeting specific problem areas such as coronary heart disease and cancer and for promoting healthy life styles. The new Health Education Board, which will operate from 1 April 1991, will give fresh impetus and direction to health education in Scotland. The Government have also made available in 1990 some £2·2 million in the health programme specifically for the support of drug misuse services and for preventive measures. As regards prevention, an accelerated schedule has been announced for childhood immunisation against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough and polio which should lead to higher uptake levels.

  Finally, in recognition of the burdens resulting from AIDS and HIV, the Government have continued to make general allocations to health boards, which in 1990 amounted to £7·84 million. In addition specific allocations totalling £7·05 million have been made to those boards which are setting up and running special AIDS units in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee, where the majority of AIDS cases in Scotland will be located. This brings total provision to £14·89 million this year.

  Maintained Schools
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) children and (b) teachers are now in maintained schools in Scotland; what was the comparable figure in 1986 and 1976; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested, for education authority primary and secondary schools, is as follows:

  Number of pupils

  1976

  11986

  1989

  Primary schools

  611,788

  433,459

  437,072

  Secondary schools

  402,704

  344,369

  298,603

  1 Estimate.

  Number of Teachers 1

  1976

  1986

  1989

  Primary schools

  27,324·3

  21,218·1

  22,186·1

  Secondary schools

  27,432·2

  25,992·7

  24,143·3

  1 Full-time equivalent.

  In the period since 1976 pupil:teacher ratios have improved from 22·4 to 19·7 in primary schools, and from 14·7 to 12·4 in secondary schools.

  Lothian Health Board
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has of the deficit likely to be incurred by Lothian health board in 1990–91.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Lothian health board is making good progress in introducing more efficient ways of providing health care and reorganising its hospital service. The savings resulting from these measures are improving the financial position, but it is too early to predict the outcome for the financial year.

  Roof Tax
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has recently received regarding proposals for a roof tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a very few letters about the Labour party's proposed local tax on houses.

  Elderly People
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet Mr. Don Cruickshank, chief executive of the national health service in Scotland, to discuss care of the elderly.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I frequently meet the chief executive of the national health service in Scotland.

  Lead Piping
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional funds he intends to make available to local authorities to facilitate the replacement of domestic lead piping to comply with the Government's commitment that such work will be completed in the current year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government have given no such commitment.

  A1
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the implications for the A1 in Scotland of the upgrading of the A1 south of Newcastle to motorway status.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The most recent assessments following the routes south of Edinburgh study concluded that upgrading the A1 from London to Tyneside would result in only approximately 300 additional trips per day across the border on the A1 by the year 2008. This is because the majority of long-distance traffic crossing the border on the A1 is coming from or going to the north-east of England and would therefore be very little influenced by the upgrading of the A1 south of Teesside. I am satisfied that the £50 million package of improvements I announced in April together with the implementation of a route action plan which the A1 steering group has been charged with formulating will considerably improve this important and strategic route to the advantage of Scotland. The monitoring of traffic on the A1 by the steering group will give an early warning of traffic pressures developing which exceed forecasts.

  Students (Housing)
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning housing difficulties for students in higher education in Scottish establishments.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Apart from one case raised by the hon. Member himself, my right hon. and learned Friend has received no representations on behalf of students during the past year about the availability of student housing. He has, however, received various representations about the withdrawal of most students' entitlement to housing benefit as part of the revised student support arrangements.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss the Government's health service reforms in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I last met representatives from the BMA in March this year.

  Flood Damage, Tay Valley
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of individuals and companies which have received grants to repair flood damage in the Tay valley; and what proposals there are to protect the village of Spittalfield and the farms downstream from Braecock.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  To date the Scottish Office has either paid or certified for payment grant amounting to £158,471 to 22 farmers and landowners in the Tay valley area for the restoration of flood damage. A further 15 claims with an estimated grant value of £346,505 are under consideration or awaited.

  Restoration of the elevated floodbanks at Braecock farm is now virtually completed and this should also afford protection to properties immediately downstream in the direction of Spittalfield.

  Public Spending
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide the most recent information available relating to annual public spending per capita in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The latest available figures on identifiable public expenditure per head are in the reply my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave on 19 December 1989.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total amount of land covered by the set aside schemes; and what expenditure is involved per annum.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The area of land currently set aside by farmers in Scotland is approximately 19,700 hectares.

  Annual expenditure on payments is cumulative, as new participants may apply each year and participate for five
  850
  years. Payments of £2·279 million were made in financial year 1989–90. Provision of £4·22 million has been made for 1990–91.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report a list of the unemployment figures, at the latest available date, for each Scottish county.

  Mr. Lang
  The level and rate of unemployment in each of the Scottish regions as of August 1990 is given in the table. Overall unemployment in Scotland has fallen by over 135,000 in the past three years.

  Unemployment in Scotland, August 19901

  County/Region

  Number unemployed

  Rate2

  Borders

  1,900

  3·8

  Central

  10,583

  8·8

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4,273

  6·0

  Fife

  12,179

  8·3

  Grampian

  9,200

  3·4

  Highlands

  6,590

  6·6

  Lothian

  25,563

  6·2

  Strathclyde

  114,356

  10·3

  Tayside

  14,136

  7·2

  Orkney Islands

  396

  4·1

  Shetland Islands

  365

  2·9

  Western Islands

  1,385

  10·0

  Scotland

  200,926

  8·0

  1 Unadjusted for seasonal variation.

  2 Rates expressed as a percentage of the workforce.

  Source: Department of Employment

  Tayside Health Councils
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider the possibility of creating more than one local health council in the Tayside health board area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I agree that local health councils have an important role to play, but to be effective it is desirable that what is expected of councils is clear, that they are truly representative of my areas that they serve, and that they speak with one voice. These criteria are, in my view and that of my colleagues, most likely met by well-resourced single councils capable of dealing on a one-to-one basis with their health boards. However, if Tayside health board, or indeed any other board, wishes to submit a scheme for more than one council any such scheme will be considered on its merits.

  Education Statistics
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the educational participation rate of 16 to 18-year-olds in Scotland and in(a) Denmark, (b) Belgium, (c) Canada, (d) Australia, (e) France, (f) West Germany, (g) Italy, (h) the Netherlands, (i) Spain, (j) Norway and (k) Sweden.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 October 1990]: The participation rate in full-time or part-time education or training in Scotland was 60 per cent. in 1986 and 68 per cent. in 1988. International comparisons, including references to definitional differences, are contained in the

  851
  Department of Education and Science statistical bulletin No. 1/90 "International Statistical Comparisons of the Education and Training of 16 to 18 year olds", copies of which are in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report the number of occasions in the past 10 years when public interest immunity certificates have been issued concerning matters before coroners and other courts preventing members of the armed forces and others within the remit of his Department from attending such courts, and to prevent such courts from hearing details of operations, indicating which operations were involved and how many individuals were covered by such certificates.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is no systematic record kept centrally of all cases in which public interest immunity is claimed in respect of the armed forces and others within the remit of the Ministry of Defence and it would not be possible to provide the information sought except at disproportionate cost.

  Belize and Thailand
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy regarding the release of detailed information concerning service personnel stationed in(a) Belize and (b) Thailand.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  National security considerations may restrict the amount of detail that can be disclosed about service personnel stationed overseas. In addition, where such personnel are providing military training assistance for the host Government, details are normally confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the Government concerned. Further information on such assistance may be released in some circumstances with the agreement of the host Government. These principles apply when considering the release of information concerning United Kingdom service personnel in any overseas country, including Belize and Thailand.

  Service Personnel (Qualifications)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many qualifications were acquired each year since records began by service personnel as a result of pre-release training.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally and could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Civil Servants (Training)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 25 July,Official Report, column 297, which skills in which his Department's civil servants have received training are applicable to outside employment.

  Mr. Carlisle
  Most of the skills acquired by MOD civil servants through either in-house or external training are 852
  transferable to outside employment. Wherever possible in both industrial and non-industrial training use is made of outside accreditation bodies such as the training boards or the institutions to give recognition to the skills acquired, in addition to academic awards such as BSc, MSc, MBA and HNC.

  British Forces (Germany)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his statement of 25 July,Official Report, columns 471–72, (1) whether he envisages that those forces that remain in Germany by the mid-1990s will have a similar balance of different types of equipment;

  (2) whether he envisages those forces designated as reinforcements for British forces stationed in Germany increasing or decreasing in size.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Work is continuing to refine the detail of the broad proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 25 July. This includes consultation with NATO and our alliance partners. It is too early to say what will be the appropriate balance between forces stationed in the United Kingdom and Germany or what levels and types of equipment remaining forces in Germany will need.

  Foreign Military Forces (Training)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 26 July,Official Report, column 538, whether any companies have contacted his Department to seek approval for the provision of military training for foreign military forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Companies intending to provide military training for foreign military forces would be required to request approval from the Government only if such training involved the release of United Kingdom classified information. We have no records of any requests of this nature being made to the Ministry of Defence.

  Household Division
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any financial resources from non-Ministry of Defence sources have ever been provided to assist the Household Division in carrying out its ceremonial duties.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. Financial resources for ceremonial duties undertaken by the Household Division are provided solely by the Ministry of Defence.

  Procurement Programmes
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which equipment procurement programmes whose total value is expected to be greater than £250 million have been either delayed, cancelled, or reduced in size since 1 June.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I told the House on 18 June at column 770 that I had decided not to authorise further work on the eighth batch of Tornado aircraft, and I have since decided to slow production of the Warrior armoured infantry fighting vehicle and its variants.

  Nuclear Capable Combat Aircraft
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his statement of 25 July,Official Report, columns 471–72, whether he envisages an increase in the number of nuclear capable combat aircraft as a result of the "Options for Change" study.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Defence Establishments (Closures)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what announcements have been made regarding the closure of Royal Air Force bases and other of his Department's establishments since 25 July.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since 25 July the Ministry of Defence has announced proposals to close the RAF air defence radar station at Bishops Court.

  Tri-Service Resettlement Organisation
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual budget of the Tri-Service Resettlement Organisation and the number and grade of his Department's personnel attached to the organisation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Tri-Service Resettlement Organisation does not yet have a budget of its own, but the current level of expenditure was indicated in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 25 July 1990 at column 301. The information requested about the number and grade of personnel attached to the organisation is as follows:

  Number

  Headquarters

  Wing Commander/Lieutenant Colonel

  2

  Major/Lieutenant Commander

  4

  Grade 6

  1

  Retired officer (Principal)

  1

  Retired officer 1

  1

  Retired officer 2

  1

  Retired officer 3

  1

  Higher executive officer

  1

  Information officer

  1

  Executive officer

  2

  Administrative officer

  6

  Administrative assistant

  6

  Resettlement Centres

  Lieutenant Colonel

  2

  Major

  2

  Warrant officer 2

  2

  Lance Corporal

  1

  Higher executive officer

  4

  Senior lecturer

  2

  Burnham lecturer 2

  5

  Burnham lecturer 1

  4

  Higher information officer

  2

  Information officer 1

  32

  Stores officer

  1

  Special typist

  1

  Senior storekeeper

  4

  Storekeeper

  1

  Skilled labourer

  1

  Craftsmen

  3

  Forklift driver

  1

  Typist

  1

  Administrative assistant

  1

  Caretaker

  1

  Labourer

  4

  Messenger

  1

  Executive officer

  3

  Hawk Aircraft
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his statement of 25 July,Official Report, columns 471–72, whether he envisages that there will be an increase in the number of armed Hawk aircraft.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations have taken place with civil service trade union representatives regarding the "Options for Change" study.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Since the trade union representatives were informed of the "Options for Change" proposals on 25 July, the subject has been discussed at meetings of the joint industrial Whitley council and the non-industrial joint general purposes committee.

  Defence Planning Committee
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 12 June,Official Report, column 142, when he expects that the work in hand on the implications for British forces of the Defence Planning Committee meeting of 22–23 May will be complete.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The review of readiness and availability requirements for NATO forces to which I referred in my reply of 12 June is progressing satisfactorily and further interim measures have been agreed. Details are classified. We expect work to continue for some time yet.

  Cambridge Hospital, Aldershot
  Mr. Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will take steps to ensure that the Cambridge hospital in Aldershot will resume its normal civilian and military functions once the Gulf crisis has been resolved.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes. This will of course be subject to the future hospital requirements of the armed forces which are currently under review.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what safeguards are being taken to prevent toxic waste originating from Nancekuke polluting the sea and beaches of Cornwall; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will give details of the location and type of toxic waste dumps created by past production of nerve gas at Nancekuke; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what assistance is being given by his Department to appropriate authorities inquiring into the dangers of toxic wastes originating from past activities at Nancekuke;

  (4) what representations have been made to his Department by the National Rivers Authority in respect of toxic wastes buried in Cornwall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The United Kingdom had abandoned its chemical and biological weapons by the late 1950s. The policy of the Government is that chemical and biological weapons will not be used or produced by this country and we have no plans to acquire any such
  855
  weapons. There is no evidence to suggest that there is any cause for concern at Nancekuke resulting from Ministry of Defence operations.

  The Nancekuke nerve agent pilot plant operated between 1953 and 1956. The plant was decommissioned in 1956 and dismantled in 1978–79 following a decision to close the site, which had been used for a variety of tasks not related to the United Kingdom's chemical defence programme since 1956.

  No chemical warfare or toxic material was ever disposed of by burial at Nancekuke. All such material was either treated chemically or incinerated, the resulting products not causing any environmental hazard. The disposal arrangements at the site were highly sophisticated and were subject to independent on-site inspection throughout the operations.

  The material buried at Nancekuke is mainly the decontaminated structure and components of the dismantled pilot plant. This material was buried using approved techniques and was classed as non-leachable and therefore safe for such disposal. It is buried at five main sites which are fenced off to prevent disturbance; these sites are well known locally.

  The National Rivers Authority (south west region) have been provided with comprehensive information on our management of the site to enable them to carry out their statutory responsibilities in taking ground water samples. Representatives of the National Rivers Authority visited the site on Monday 15 October and have indicated that, in accordance with their statutory responsibilities, they will place the results of their work on the public record.

  British Forces Overseas
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current estimated daily cost of the British military presence in(a) the Falklands and (b) the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The current estimated full daily cost of the British military presence in the Falklands and the Gulf is £0·167 million and £2 million respectively.

  Low Flying
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Her Majesty's Government intend to reply to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee's report on low flying published earlier this year.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Shortly.

  Trident
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what costs would be incurred at each stage if the United Kingdom withdrew from its contractual commitments with United States of America on Trident submarines and the nuclear weapons to be carried by Trident.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Her Majesty's Government remain firmly committed to the United Kingdom Trident project, and have no plans to withdraw from their related contractual commitments, either in the United States of America or elsewhere.

ENERGY

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what requests the International Atomic Energy Agency has submitted to his Department in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has not retained records of all requests made by the IAEA over the last 10 years. We receive annual requests for contributions to the agency's regular budget, its technical assistance and co-operation programme and for assistance on safeguards research and development. We also receive invitations for United Kingdom experts to participate in the many technical meetings and other events organised by the agency. Other ad hoc requests for assistance are received from time to time.

  Research and Development
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply of 4 April,Official Report, column 681, what is the (a) annual expenditure on the safeguards research and development programme for each year since records began, (b) average number of staff employed on the safeguards research and development programme in each year since records began, (c) grades of the staff employed on the safeguards research and development programme, (d) annual number of technical reports provided by his Department to the International Atomic Energy Agency and (e) titles and subject matter of the technical reports provided by his Department to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Mr. Baldry
  Since 1981, the United Kingdom has conducted, in consultation with the IAEA, a programme of R and D in support of the IAEA's safeguards work. The programme includes the provision of training courses for IAEA safeguards inspectors. The funding for the programme, which is managed by the UKAEA, is provided by my Department.

  The expenditure in each year since 1980, in money values of the year in question, is as follows:

  Year

  amount (£k)

  1980–81

  301

  1981–82

  535

  1982–83

  573

  1983–84

  661

  1984–85

  744

  1985–86

  825

  1986–87

  854

  1987–88

  828

  1988–89

  950

  1989–90

  1,064

  1990–91

  11,088

  1 Budget

  Provision of technical reports on safeguards to the IAEA is a matter for AEA Technology, which carries out the research and development work for it. AEA Technology produces a UK programme progress report which includes, among other things, a list of reports published during the year. A copy of the most recent progress report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The additional information requested by the hon. Member under items (b) and (c) could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the implications of the 1990 conference on the non-proliferation treaty for the work of his Department.

  Mr. Baldry
  To the Government's regret, the review conference could not adopt an agreed final document. My Department is still studying the ideas which emerged from the valuable work done in the conference's main committees relating to my responsibilities, notably for safeguards and nuclear supplies.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he has taken to ensure that Government Departments practise greater energy efficiency.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [pursuant to the reply, 25 June 1990, col. 105–6]: Copies of the first annual report on the campaign to promote energy efficiency on the Government estate have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

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.

Lord Haslam
Sir Robert Haslam, Knight, having been created Baron Haslam, of Bolton in the County of Greater Manchester, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Thomson of Monifieth and the Lord Pennock.

Sunday Trading and the Law
2.47 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take on Sunday trading in the light of conflicting court decisions arising from the judgment of the European Court of Justice in November 1989.
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is for the courts in the first instance to resolve any differing interpretations of the judgment of the European court. The Government favour reform of the Shops Act 1950 and continue to encourage interested parties to try to reach agreement on a solution which would be enforceable, practicable and likely to command a parliamentary majority. No such solution has yet emerged.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that what his Answer amounts to is that the Government are not prepared to do anything on a matter that is reaching dangerous proportions regarding respect for the law in this country? Four judicial courts have said that with the law as it stands, it is impossible to unravel the contradictions and difficulties that surround this matter. Does my noble friend agree that we should do something about it before disrespect for the law interferes with people's adherence to it?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with my noble friend's point of view. The fact is that the Government attempted to change the law in 1985 with the Shops Bill, but that was defeated in another place. Until it is plain that that will not happen again, there is unlikely to be further legislation.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have no sympathy at all with his noble friend and the Question that he has asked? Is he further aware that there is no public clamour at all for a change in our British Sunday? However, it might be helpful and remove anomalies if all commerce were forbidden on Sunday. I would support that.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I was aware that the noble Viscount held a different point of view. It was the Government's belief that our proposals would find
886
favour with the majority of the population; but the Government have not succeeded in getting legislation through Parliament.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have no sympathy at all for the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy? Can he tell your Lordships what is the cost to public funds of the mass of conflicting legal decisions taken in our courts as a result of the present confusion of the law?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I was also aware of my noble friend's lack of sympathy in the direction in which he expressed it. I do not have any figures regarding the costs to the different parties surrounding the present situation. I am sure that some costs are considerable.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I live a quarter of a mile away from a supermarket which is open all day every Sunday, and is invariably crowded by the population of the local district which regards it as a very good thing?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that bears out what I said earlier. The Government regard the law on Sunday trading as being outdated, full of anomalies and in need of reform. But reform can come only if it is subject to the conditions which I gave at the outset.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that, for many shopworkers, Sunday is the only day that they can spend with their families?
Lord Reay: My Lords, in the event of any future legislation the Government would seek at any rate to prevent shopworkers being forced to work on Sundays.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that anyone who has no sympathy with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, will get no sympathy from me?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure the House appreciates that remark.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this problem will not go away? If the Government agree that the law needs to be reformed, the only people who can reform it are the Government themselves. Ought they not to get on with it before we get into even greater trouble in adhering to the law than we have at the moment?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Government are doing a good deal to try to reach consensus on this matter. Since January 1988 there have been no fewer than 45 meetings between Home Office Ministers and individuals and organisations representing different sides of this argument. The Government continue to play an active part, and I hope that a solution may one day be reached.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
2.52 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they regard the articles in the Non-Proliferation Treaty requiring nuclear disarmament by existing nuclear states as being equally

887
important as those seeking to inhibit the further spread of these weapons to non-nuclear and semi-nuclear states.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the United Kingdom, as a depositary power, fully supports the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We consider all the articles of the treaty to be important.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that Answer. Will he tell us precisely what the Government are doing to pursue that article in the treaty which requires existing nuclear powers to disarm in respect of nuclear weapons?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is referring to a comprehensive test ban treaty. That is what lies behind his question. The answer is exactly the same as my noble friend Lord Brabazon gave to the noble Lord—that is something for which we are ultimately working.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, what are semi-nuclear powers; who are they and where are they; and what degree of semi-ness do they occupy?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, when I saw the Question on the Order Paper, I too wondered what a semi-nuclear state is. I looked up the text of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I can find reference to nuclear states and reference to non-nuclear states but no reference to semi-nuclear states.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, there are currently 141 signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Is it not the case that South Africa, which has a formidable stockpile of nuclear materials and technology, has not yet signed? Can he say whether the Government have sought to influence that government to sign the treaty? Secondly, is it not the case that the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is short of resources at the present time, has a vital role to play? Do the Government have any intention of helping it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first question, the South African Government recently stated that South Africa would accede to the NPT in the context of similar commitments by other states in the region. We therefore hope that South Africa will soon decide to accede to the treaty.
The noble Lord asked about the IAEA. I agree with him about the importance of that institution. As regards funds, I should like to look into that matter if he will permit me to do so.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that just yesterday he stated in answer to a question about Iraq that it was essential that Britain should retain its own nuclear weapons? If that is the case, can he answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Jenkins? What are the Government doing —not thinking but doing—about implementing that article of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which insists that nuclear disarmament is an essential part of that treaty? What are the Government doing about that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, although I stand to be corrected should he wish to clarify the position, I think that the noble Lord is talking about Article VI of the treaty.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Yes.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is talking about Article VI. That article refers not only to nuclear weapons but also to general disarmament. There has been a considerable amount of progress in this field. NATO has unilaterally reduced the number of nuclear weapons in Europe by 35 per cent. since 1979 and further cuts are likely; in 1987 there was a treaty on intermediate nuclear forces which is resulting in further cuts; and it is likely that a strategic arms reduction agreement will be concluded this year resulting in significant reductions in United States and Soviet long-range weapons. There has been the chance of a successful conclusion to the Conventional Forces in Europe Agreement. Those are the areas where the British Government have played an active role.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I do not have the treaty before me but I think Article VII specifically requires nuclear disarmament by those states which already possess nuclear weapons. Irrespective of the comprehensive test ban treaty, what are the Government doing about implementing that article?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I covered that point to a large extent in my previous answer. We are working towards a reduction. We would ultimately like to see a total fulfilment of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Press Complaints Commission
2.57 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have had any indication from the newspaper industry that the projected Press Complaints Commission will entertain complaints about standards of journalism and not only complaints by aggrieved persons; and, if not, whether they will urge that such powers be given to this new body.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Calcutt Report recommended that the Press Council be replaced by a Press Complaints Commission which would consider complaints of unjust or unfair treatment by the press and of unwarranted infringements of privacy through published material or in connection with obtaining such material. The Government have welcomed this proposal for self-regulation and made known that they will review the effectiveness of the Press Complaints Commission after 18 months operation. Subject to that, the Government have no intention of intervening in the remit of the commission.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in every debate in your Lordships' House about the press and its standards, the standard of journalism in certain journals has come under bitter criticism? Is he also aware that if this self-regulatory body is to be

889
effective the question of standards of journalism must be part of the remit? Why do the Government not wish to see that matter as part of the remit?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I was indeed entirely aware of the noble Lord's first two points. The remit of the Press Complaints Commission will be narrower than that of the Press Council, but whether or not this narrower remit will make the commission more effective is a matter for speculation. The important point is that the Government will consider putting regulation on a statutory basis if the commission is not effective. We are confident that the commission can be effective so long as it has the support of the industry.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that "standards of journalism" also means ethical or unethical standards, such as the cruelty of intrusion into private grief, the hounding of individuals and the rottenness of cheque-book journalism? Is he further aware that the Press Complaints Commission will be of no use unless it has sanction powers publicly to call on the journalist to apologise and pay compensation; and, if the incident is serious enough, to curtail production of the tabloid paper concerned? Finally, does he not agree that only by such penalties will standards of tabloid journalism improve?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord raised a number of points. The general assessment of the Calcutt Report was that the Press Council was ineffective. We welcome the proposal that it should be replaced by the proposed Press Complaints Commission. The situation at present is that the industry is to be self-regulated for at any rate a further 18 months. At the end of that period we shall review the situation and decide whether it is necessary to introduce legislation to put the commission on a statutory basis.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, to the post of chairman of the commission will be a very successful one?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House welcome the appointment of the noble Lord to the chairmanship of that body. He has considerable knowledge and experience both of the press and of self-regulation. We have every confidence that he will prove to be a truly independent chairman.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Lord believe that a commission consisting of editors is really the best kind of body to adjudicate on complaints against the press?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the main point is that we must look to see whether this form of self-regulation works. That is the position in which we now find ourselves.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Press Council has not been a success over many years under many different chairmen? Does he also agree that its lack of success was at least in part due to its preoccupation with difficult matters of taste
890
and with regular complainers who had particular bees in their bonnets? After all these years of failure, should we not at least give the new organisation a chance?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his closing remarks which I fully endorse.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government agree with the criticism that the standard of tabloid journalism in this country is deplorable?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is plain that the situation which led to the setting up of the Calcutt Committee arose out of a widespread dislike of abuses which have, generally speaking, been observed and resented. That is the situation in which we have found ourselves. The Calcutt Committee recommended the establishment of this new commission. We give it our support, but we must wait to see whether it is effective as a method of self-regulation.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to explain to the House how the effectiveness of a power of a commission can be looked at by the Government when the power is not given to that commission?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not think that the Government will be looking only at the effectiveness of the Press Complaints Commission; they will also be looking at the effectiveness of self-regulation more widely practised in, for example, the areas to which the noble Lord referred, which are not within the remit of the commission. The Government will be looking at all those aspects of self-regulation over the next 18 months.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the commission will be drawing up a code of impartiality?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am afraid that that is another question to which I have no answer at present.

Mr. Oleg Gordievski: Representations
3.4 p.m.
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the Soviet Government to allow the wife and daughters of Mr. Oleg Gordievski to join him in the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have repeatedly pressed the Soviet authorities to allow Mr. Gordievski's family to join him in the United Kingdom. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised this matter again when he saw Mr. Shevardnadze in New York on 24th September. There is no justification for Mrs. Gordievski being kept apart from her husband. Such reunifications are explicitly covered in the Helsinki Final Act and we shall continue to press the Soviet authorities to honour their obligations.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. However, can he say whether his right honourable friend has pointed out to

891
the Soviet Government that whatever they may think about Mr. Gordievski, his wife and small children are totally innocent parties in this matter and that it is intolerable for them to be penalised for something which was done by another person.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that my right honourable friend has already made that point forcefully. So far as we are aware, Mrs. Gordievski has done nothing wrong even under Soviet law.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we on this side of the House also regret that the Soviet Union is unable to allow Mrs. Gordievski and her two daughters to join her husband in this country? Can he say whether our embassy officials in Moscow are able to see Mrs. Gordievski frequently or whether that communication has been cut by the Soviet authorities?
Finally, I wonder whether the noble Earl will allow me to depart slightly from the Question and ask whether Her Majesty's Government are proposing to take any action in connection with Mr. Gordievski's book and his allegations about Mr. Cairncross being the "fifth man"?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as regards the first question of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I am sure that the way he phrased it summed up the feelings of all your Lordships. I can assure him that the embassy has been in contact with Mrs. Gordievski and will continue to be so as and when necessary. However, in reply to the noble Lord's final question, I confirm that it is indeed slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
  British Railways (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]
    Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]
      Llanelli Borough Council (Burry Port Harbour) Bill [H.L.]
        Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [H.L.]
          Midland Metro (Penalty Fares) Bill [H.L.]

            Standard Life Assurance Company Bill [H.L.]
            3.6 p.m.
            The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. These are seven House of
            892
            Lords Bills which, if your Lordships agree to the Motion, will be allowed to continue their progress in this House in the new Session.
            Moved, That the promoters of the Bills have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bills, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
            That such Bills shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bills are the same in every respect as the Bills at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
            That the proceedings on such Bills shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
            That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bills in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
            On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Clyde Port Authority Bill
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is a House of Commons Bill now before this House. Although the Motion is slightly different from the one that I have just moved, it will have the same effect and allow the Bill to continue its progress in the new Session.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with it, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Commons in the next Session, the agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Commons in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to

893
every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Environmental Protection Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (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 121 [Creation and constitution of new Councils]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 127, line 41, leave out from ("and") to end of line and insert ("related matters").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during the course of debate on this Bill and during parliamentary Questions I have been pressed many times for information about the Government's implementation of the restructuring of the Nature Conservancy Council and the countryside agencies in England, Wales and Scotland. Therefore, I bring forward the information with agreement from all sides of the House. It has been agreed that the timing of doing so should be now. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I shall proceed to put such information before your Lordships.
There was a most informed and constructive debate about Part VII of the Bill in Committee. My predecessor, my noble friend Lord Hesketh, was able to set out the Government's position in some detail and I believe that it will be helpful on this occasion if I intervene at an early stage in the debate. In doing so, I shall try to avoid going over too much of the ground we covered in Committee, and concentrate instead on bringing the House up to date with developments since July.
The arguments about the need to reorganise the conservation agencies have been widely aired, both in this House and in another place. They have, most unusually for proposals before Parliament, also been considered simultaneously by a Select Committee of this House under the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. There has also been a very extensive debate outside this House involving conservationists, scientists and many others who have the interests of our wildlife and countryside heritage at heart.
Throughout the debate, the Government have maintained and I believe justified the case for reform. In a nutshell, it is that separate agencies for each country will be more sensitive and accountable and consequently more effective guardians of our natural heritage. Since there have actually been debates on the principles of reorganisation at all five of the main stages of the Bill, I do not intend to take up your Lordships' time once again with a more detailed exposition today, I believe too that the House is anxious that I should say something about the resources and costs of the new agencies, and I shall come to that shortly.
However, before doing so, I want to make two other points. The first concerns the way in which the Government have handled the reform. I understand why there has been concern in this area, and it was of course mentioned in the report of the noble and gallant Lord. Nevertheless, whatever has been said about the period before these proposals were announced in July 1989, there can surely be no criticism of the way in which the Government have fulfilled their undertaking to listen to reasoned and constructive comments since then, and to take heed. Indeed the final structure of Part VII—and particularly the role and composition of the statutory joint committee for GB and international nature conservation—owes much to the views which have been expressed by the existing agencies, by independent scientists and, especially, by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and your Lordships' Select Committee.
Virtually all the recommendations contained in the committee's report have been accepted by the Government, either in their formal response in May or following further discussions between my noble friend Lord Hesketh and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. There will be further discussion when we come to discuss the amendments put down by the noble and gallant Lord and other noble Lords later today. I understand the strength of feeling about the structural changes for the agencies proposed in the Bill. However the Government's recent White Paper on the environment made it clear that Ministers have not closed the door on merger of the NCC and the Countryside Commission in England in the longer term. We will review that and other options when the new agencies have had a chance to settle down. If the Government do eventually opt for merger, then further legislation would be needed, and I am sure that that would have to deal with the role of the joint committee. I hope that the House will agree that this is the logical order in which to proceed.
My second general point concerns further commitments which my predecessor made in Committee in this House to consider amendments put forward by noble Lords. I shall deal with each of these later today as there will be an opportunity to cover them under particular amendments. All I would say at this stage is that the Government have delivered the commitments they made, particularly in bringing forward a statutory statement or "mandate" for the Countryside Council for Wales and in responding to

895
several proposals made by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook to improve the operation of the habitat protection provisions in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We have brought forward amendments to clarify that management agreements can be made to protect any SSSI, whether of national or local importance, and to protect areas immediately adjacent to SSSIs. I shall also be able to give assurances to my noble friend about the NCC's powers to enter into agreements with people such as commoners and crofters, and about the denotification of SSSIs. Finally, I expect to be able to give assurances about the scope for the NCC's successor bodies to support nature conservation in areas outside SSSIs in response to amendments put down by my noble friends Lord Somerset and Lord Peel.
I turn now to resources. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I shall give full details today about the total costs of reorganisation, although I hope that he and all other members of your Lordship's House will understand that I cannot anticipate or commit my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who will in due course be making the customary statement about public expenditure in 1991–92 and following years, which will include provision for the new agencies.
Before I give the bottom line on costs, I should like to explain to the House briefly how we got there, and in so doing dispel some of the wilder flights of fancy which have appeared in the media and have regrettably been quoted on occasion in the House or the other place. We have in fact adopted a systematic and professional approach to the task. Separate teams of staff inspectors or other experienced officials from the respective sponsor departments and the existing NCC designed organisational structures for the three new country agencies and estimated how many staff would be required to man them in a way which ensured that viable organisations would be created to press forward the existing programmes in an effective and efficient manner. At the same time, consultants were appointed to examine three other areas which would affect the ultimate shape of the new agencies: the staffing of the unit to support the Joint Nature Conservation Committee; the scope for sharing common services such as the library at Peterborough; and the immediate and long-term information and computer needs of the new agencies. The reports of the consultants were largely accepted and fed into the final organisational proposals. The Government have, as promised, published these three reports, and copies were placed in your Lordships' Library last week.
At the same time as that work was being undertaken earlier this year, the Government asked the NCC to give separate estimates of the additional staff and other resources which would be needed to enhance the level of conservation and other work which could be undertaken by the new agencies. That is in line with the normal processes of forward planning for agencies like the NCC. The results of that process have to be considered alongside the many competing claims for additional public expenditure.
896
The key point is that the NCC's bids for "enhanced programme spending", as we call them, are not attributable to the reorganisation proposals and cannot therefore be chalked up as part of the bottom line for implementing Part VII of this Bill.
I regret to say that despite our very best efforts to keep the programme bid and the reorganisation estimates separate, they have been lumped together by those who, shall we say, do not wish to see our proposals presented in the best light. That accounts for the exaggerated estimates of £20 million or even £30 million for the annual costs of reorganisation which have regularly appeared in the media.
The bottom line is in fact far more modest. The detailed estimate which we have drawn up, agreed with the NCC and the Countryside Commission, shows that the extra annual costs of the new agencies from 1991–92 onwards attributable to reorganisation should be less than £10 million. The estimate for extra staff and consequential costs such as accommodation is £9·18 million. There will be 1,350 publicly financed staff in the agencies—654 with the NCC for England, 225 with the Countryside Council for Wales, 385 with the NCC for Scotland and 86 with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. That is 294 more than the present staffing levels. I should add that within those figures we are allowing the consolidation of a number of existing temporary posts as well as the creation of some new ones required by reorganisation. That means that far from there being a major increase in bureaucracy, there will be extra permanent posts in scientific grades, and additional provision for policy and think tank work, particularly within the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, compared with current levels of activity.
The new structure will be soundly based, and when it is in operation it should be able to do more in each country than the existing NCC. That is particularly true of Scotland and Wales. In Scotland, there will be a much stronger regional presence and greater participation by council members through new regional boards. In Wales, reorganisation will for the first time provide capacity on the ground at regional level to deal with landscape conservation, recreation and access issues, and we expect that the same will also happen in Scotland from 1992.
I also draw the attention of the House to the detailed proposals for staffing the joint committee. We now envisage that there will be 51 permanent staff, more than half of whom will be scientists. In addition, 35 staff working on crucial national projects such as the marine and geological conservation reviews will come under the joint committee. In that area we have in fact gone considerably further than the recommendations in the noble and gallant Lord's report which suggested that there should be up to 20 professional staff with some additional support. That illustrates the importance which we attach to providing a scientific overview of the nation's wildlife. Indeed, the JNCC, freed from executive duties, and covering Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the UK, should be better

897
equipped than the existing NCC to provide a clearsighted and objective view of the strategic wildlife issues.
As I have said, I cannot anticipate decisions about the total public expenditure to be provided to the agencies next year. However, the Government have made it clear throughout that adequate resources would be provided to cover reorganisation without damaging current conservation programmes. I repeat that commitment, which must be seen in the context of the substantial increases in the NCC's grant which we have provided in almost every year since the 1981 Act was passed and which represent a rise of almost 160 per cent. in real terms since 1979. This Government's record in funding wildlife conservation stands comparison with any Government since the NCC was first established as the Nature Conservancy in 1949.
My attention has also been drawn to a letter by Sir William Wilkinson published in The Times last week and to a briefing paper which he has circulated to several noble Lords for this debate. Both mention a figure of £30 million, but also acknowledge that the actual direct costs of reorganisation are under £10 million in accordance with the figures I have just given. There is less daylight between the Government's perception and that of Sir William than is perhaps supposed. In simple terms, we agree with his presentation of the first tranche of £10 million (for reorganisation) and the third tranche of £10 million which is a straightforward bid for enhanced resources arrived at, as I said earlier, at the request of the Government. The difficulty comes with the middle tranche of another £10 million which Sir William claims is needed to make up for previous underfunding. Whether one accepts his argument depends on the expectations and, to some extent, on the old argument about whether a glass is half full or half empty.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Baroness forgive me for intruding? My understanding of discussions this morning was that a short statement would be made at the start of business in order to facilitate progress later on. The information would be given in that way so that people could digest it before we reached the appropriate amendment. I believe that that information has been given. Perhaps the noble Baroness is now straying into the matter of the amendments which have not yet been moved. I can see her difficulty, but perhaps it might be a good idea if we moved on to the amendments at this stage, if people are satisfied that the information has now been given to noble Lords.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, I also need to deal with personnel matters which are very much part of the interim arrangements. If the House will be patient, I shall deal with personnel matters, but I am in the hands of the House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was one of those who agreed that this statement should be made. However, I confess that a statement which lasts eight minutes puts us in a totally impossible position. All the way through the passage of the Bill we have asked that we should be given adequate information
898
about the resources available to the various nature conservancy bodies, both in the countries and the joint committee. First, we were put off at Committee stage by being told that the information would not be available until all the consultants' reports were available. We are now told for the first time—because I have been given no notification—that three reports were put in the Library last week. How am I supposed to know that? How is the House to know that reports are available and could have been part of our debate?
The noble Baroness has personally been extremely courteous to me. She has sought my agreement to this intervention. However, in the absence of a written copy of what she has said, to take in and fully to react to a statement lasting eight minutes is physically impossible. We are at a halfway house between what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve —which is to help the House—and what really ought to have happened. That is, an adequate statement should have been given by the Government in advance of the debate or at least a statement following the rules of statements to the House outside Report stage proceedings. Such action would have meant that we would have been given copies.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the reports that were published and put in the Library. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, pressed me hard, requesting that as soon as those reports became available I should give an assurance that they would be placed in the Library. I honoured that assurance. As soon as they became available, they were placed in the Library.
On the statement, I am in the hands of the House. The information I have was literally only brought together this morning. I asked that copies of what I am presenting at the Box today should be available in the Printed Paper Office. If they are not now, they will be available within minutes of me sitting down. I have asked that the information also be made available.
Noble Lords will have to take it on trust that my own notes and all this information were brought together literally only this morning. I have yet to deal with the personnel issues, but if the House would prefer to forgo them, I shall of course be guided by it.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may make one comment to the noble Baroness. Last Thursday I asked a Question involving the resources for the NCC. The Minister said that we would be told something this week. I believe that it was most extraordinary that she did not say at that moment that the consultants' reports would be in the Library for us to see.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry, but I believe that I have just made it clear that it was during the course of that parliamentary Question that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, pressed me hard. The reports were not available at the time but they became available a day or two after the Question was asked. The moment they became available, they were placed in the Library.
Lord Denham: My Lords, we are out of order. I wonder whether my noble friend's Motion could be put to the House so that the Question would be before the House. Then the House would again be in order.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Question was put before the House by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend informs us that she has only been able to put all the decisions together today. I accept that. It is helpful for those of us who have put aside the whole of today in order to consider these important amendments and the new clauses—much changed as a result of the Committee stage—to receive a general statement at the beginning, which my noble friend has given. That is certainly helpful to me. I cannot comment on what did or did not happen last week, but I believe that my noble friend is being helpful to everybody who will be taking part in this Report stage until probably a late hour this evening. She has made a general statement now, at the beginning of the debate and I hope that the House will accept it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not wish the House or the noble Baroness to misunderstand me. I said that of course she personally has been as helpful as she could. However, if we take the position of the Government as a whole, they have had since June to make up their minds about these matters.
A noble Lord: My Lords, July.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, we finished the Committee stage in June. It is not good enough for a statement of this kind to be prepared on the morning of the debate after all opportunity for amendments has passed.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am surprised, since the noble Baroness responded so promptly to my request, that nobody told me that she had reacted and that the papers were available in the Library. It is a difficult situation for us all. She is trying to be helpful. Perhaps I may also ask her to speak a little more slowly; we admire her delivery but it is rather fast.
Lord Denham: My Lords, perhaps we may get on to the first amendment. There is no Question before the House at the moment. I understand that the Question that we further consider the Bill on Report has now been put and agreed. Therefore, we need a Question before the House before anything else can be said. If the first amendment can be moved and put to the House, then the House will be in order.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, I beg to move that the amendment be now put.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Question is:
"page 127, line 41, leave out from (`and') to end of line and insert (`related matters')".
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, shall I continue with the statement? I shall very quickly deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I apologise unreservedly if it was not brought to his notice that we responded to his request
900
as soon as we did. I went straight back to the department to ask that the reports be made available in the Library as soon as possible.
I feel that I cannot win on this issue. I was speaking quickly in the hope that I could get the statement across quickly. I shall omit some of it and if I have left any gaps I shall have to return to it in detail during the course of the amendments.
The Government have every right to be believed when we say that we will also provide the necessary resources for the agencies. However, resources are not the sole prerequisite for the success of the new agencies. Their performance will depend on the talents of both members and staff. Noble Lords will recall that we have already announced the appointment of four distinguished shadow chairmen for the new agencies and the JNCC: the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in England; Mr. Michael Griffith in Wales; Magnus Magnusson in Scotland and Professor Sir Fred Holliday to the JNCC.
We have also previously announced the appointment of three eminent scientists to the JNCC as nominees of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State: Professors Knill, Harper and May. Earlier today, my honourable friend the Minister of State for the Environment announced the names of 10 people who had accepted invitations to serve on the new NCC for England. Similarly, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Wales today announced eight proposed appointments to the Countryside Council for Wales, including the deputy chairman.
There are some distinguished names on both lists. In each case we are appointing a mix of new and existing members. This will ensure continuity, while bringing in some new blood. In the case of the NCC for England, seven existing members of the NCC or its existing advisory committee for England will serve on the new council. They are: Dr. Peter Banham, a consultant geologist; my noble friend, Lord Peel; Dr. Duncan Shaw, director of the Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies; Mr. Alan Swindall, a former county planning officer; Mr. James Teacher, a farmer and chairman of the Kent Trust for Nature Conservation; Dr. Michael Usher, an ecologist from York University; and Mr. Lindsay Waddell, chairman of the Moorland Gamekeepers' Association. They will be joined by three new members: Professor Janet Kear, curator of the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust at Martin Mere; Ms. Janet Barber, head of conservation at the World Wide Fund for Nature in the United Kingdom; and Mr. Mark Thomasin-Foster, a farmer from Essex who is vice-chairman of the Farming and Wildlife Trust.
My honourable friend, the Minister of State for Wales, has announced that Professor David Bowen, director of earth studies at the University College of Wales and Aberystwyth, will be deputy chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales. He is already a member of the NCC. There will be four further appointments of members who already serve on the existing NCC or Countryside Commission committees for Wales. These are Dr. Allan Evans, a headmaster, Mr. John Harrop and Mr. Tom Jones,

901
both farmers, and Dr. Mervlyn Hedger, a sociologist and town planner. They will be joined by three new members: Professor Denis Bellamy, a zoologist and Emeritus Professor of the University of Wales College at Cardiff; county councillor Morgan Chambers, chairman of the Brecon Beacons National Park Committee; and Mr. Mervyn Williams, director of countryside management at Bangor Normal College. Further details of these appointments are contained in the statements made by my honourable friends today. Further appointments to both bodies will be announced shortly. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland also expects to make an announcement soon about appointments to the NCC for Scotland.
I hope noble Lords will recognise the efforts which Ministers are making to ensure that each of the new agencies has the right balance of expertise to fulfil its remit. These appointments—and those announced earlier this year—also give the lie to those who have suggested that the new agencies are intended to pander either to ministerial wishes or to any entrenched interest.
Finally I want to say a few words about the arrangements we are making to transfer existing NCC and Countryside Commission staff to the new agencies. As the House will recall, my noble friend Lord Hesketh gave an undertaking within three weeks of the original reorganisation announcement last July that every existing member of the NCC's staff would be offered a post with one of the new agencies on terms and conditions no less favourable as a whole than those they have now. A similar undertaking was given in respect of Countryside Commission staff in Wales who are to be transferred to the Countryside Council for Wales. These undertakings have been given statutory force through Clause 130 and Schedule 10 of this Bill. Not only are they important to staff as individuals, but they also help to achieve the Government's objective of making the existing scientific expertise—the science base—available to the new agencies.
In readiness for the transfer, questionnaires have been completed by staff and draft transfer schemes allotting each eligible NCC and CC officer to one of the new agencies, and to the JNCC in some cases, have been drawn up by the existing agencies. I hope that they will shortly be agreed with the Government and the shadow agencies with a view to issuing offers of employment as soon as the new bodies are vested within a few days of Royal Assent. This should provide considerable reassurance for staff at all levels.
Obviously there will be some vacant posts after offers are made to existing staff early next month. These will be filled as soon as possible using service-wide trawls and open competition. The objective is to fill as many of the posts as possible before the new agencies take over their functions on 1st April next year. I think it is fair to say that these arrangements represent a good deal for the staff and a good deal for wildlife and the countryside. They build
902
on the legacy of the existing organisations within the framework of Part VII, which, like my predecessors on this Bench, I commend to the House.
I again offer my apologies to the House, but had I made this information available after today's debate I might have been in even more trouble. Copies are available of some of the information that has been brought together for the purpose of this statement. The information has been hurriedly put together and I understand that copies are available in the Printed Paper Office for collection. If those copies run out, staff have an instruction to make a telephone call and extra copies will be made available without delay. The two amendments which have already been called are technical amendments to Clause 121 in Schedule 9. They are needed to transfer amendments to enactments such as the Superannuation Act, the Parliamentary Commissioner Act and the Inheritance Act from the schedule of nature conservation amendments, that is Schedule 9, to the place where they are correctly located, Schedule 6, which deals with the constitution of the new agencies. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, things have now got completely out of hand. I asked for help and the noble Baroness was courteous enough to give me help. I asked for the information from the Government which had been promised in Committee and which would enable us to table serious and responsible amendments on the resources for nature conservation in this country, and indeed all the countries concerned. That information ought to have been available in good time for this House to consider it and for noble Lords to be able to table amendments for this stage of the Bill. However, the information was not available and we are now told that it was hastily put together this morning.
The Government are playing exactly the same trick they played in Committee. When the Government were in a corner in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, announced to the Chamber the names of the chairmen of the country conservancy councils. Those names were welcome, but that was no way for the Chamber to be treated. I am the last person to say that statements should be made outside Parliament before they are made to Parliament. However, there is a time and a place for everything and there is a way in which the responsibilities of this House can effectively be exercised. This is not the way. What we have heard from the noble Baroness may indeed be welcome. We have in effect heard a 15-minute statement which we have not seen and which we cannot use to table amendments at virtually the last stage of the Bill.
The statement does not help us, through the way it was presented, to give a proper consideration to Part VII of the Bill. Under those circumstances I have no alternative but to say that when this amendment has been agreed to I shall move that the House adjourn during pleasure to allow us a proper time during which to consider the remaining business of Part VII of the Bill.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I wish to support what my noble friend has said. I witnessed some pretty confusing circumstances in the days when I was Leader of the House. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House is available but the Government Chief Whip certainly is. This is an extraordinary position. I sincerely counsel that there should be an adjournment during pleasure to review the situation.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I shall certainly give way to that. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite wish to adjourn now or when the amendment is finished. I shall be quite happy to call a short adjournment to discuss this matter outside the House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that at the insistence of the noble Lord the Chief Whip we are debating Amendment No. 221. Surely the best thing to do is to get that amendment agreed to and then to adjourn during pleasure.
Lord Denham: My Lords, that is probably right. I shall certainly agree to an adjournment to discuss this matter outside the House.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 221 be agreed to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure and that consideration on Report should not be resumed before 4.30 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the time is now 25 minutes before 4 o'clock. I agreed to an adjournment but I think that length of time is rather over-generous. I suggest that we adjourn to discuss the matter outside the House and that we return at 4 o'clock. I hope the noble Lord will agree to that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree to that on the explicit assurance that the text of the statement of the noble Baroness is now available to us. I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure and that further consideration on Report be resumed at 4 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 3.38 to 4 p.m.]
4 p.m.
Schedule 6: [The Nature Conservancy Councils for England and Scotland and the Countryside Council for Wales: Constitution]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 179, line 37, at end insert:
("Public Records
. In Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of public records), in Part II of the Table at the end of paragraph 3 (organisations whose records are public records) there shall be inserted in the appropriate places entries relating to the Countryside Council for Wales and the Nature Conservancy Council for England.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is usual for the records of public bodies of this type to be subject to the Public Records Acts. The Acts require that, under the guidance of the Keeper of Public Records,
904
arrangements are made for the selection of records which should be permanently preserved at the Public Record Office and made available to public inspection at the appropriate time.
For the new agencies for England and Wales an amendment to Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 is required to achieve that objective, and that is what the amendment does. In Scotland matters are already arranged to the effect that the records of the new NCC for Scotland will be treated as records belonging to Her Majesty for public records purposes. No legislative changes are therefore needed here. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say that the matters which were considered immediately before the adjournment affect a very large number of amendments for debate this afternoon, but in particular my amendment, Amendment No. 223. Therefore, noble Lords will wish to know that we on these Benches propose to make clear our position and our mounting dissatisfaction with the way in which the Government are proceeding in respect of the debate on Amendment No. 223 and associated amendments. I do not dissent from Amendment No. 222.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, although I do not wish to prolong the irregularity of these proceedings, I am told that the papers that it was promised would be in the Library are not in the Library. Is that so?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not able to answer that question. My information was that the reports were in the Library. I am having that investigated now.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it may also be for the convenience of the House if I say that it is our intention that when Amendment No. 223 is debated the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Ross of Newport, Amendment No. 288A, should be added to the grouping which has already been given to the House and considered together with other amendments of the same nature.
It is my information that the reports which were alleged to be in the Library were not in the Library a quarter of an hour ago but were being sent over from the Department of the Environment. Doubtless we shall hear more later.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [The Joint Nature Conservation Committee]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 222A:
Page 181, line 7, leave out ("chairman of the Countryside Commission") and insert ("member of the Countryside Commission appointed by that Commission").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 222A I shall also speak to Amendment No. 222B. Neither of the amendments is affected in any way by statements, counter statements, papers in the Library, lack of papers in the Library, the House being adjourned during pleasure or being adjourned without giving anyone any pleasure. They are fairly straightforward and refer to the membership of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
During Committee stage my noble friend Lord Hesketh gave the information that where the chairman of the Countryside Commission is referred to as being a member of the JNCC it means just that and he or she alone can attend. The chairman of the Countryside Commission is a part-time appointment with very many commitments and responsibilities. As I understand it, the JNCC intends to meet several times a year. It is unrealistic to expect the chairman to be able to attend every meeting of that body. Since the Countryside Commission has only one seat at that table rather than the two enjoyed by the country councils there will inevitably be times when the commission's interests will not be represented in that important decision-making forum.
I have purposely put down two amendments, either of which would rectify the situation. I put down two amendments in order to allow the House and the Government to choose which they would prefer. Amendment No. 222A has the effect of allowing the chairman of the Countryside Commission to send a substitute on those occasions when he or she cannot attend meetings of the JNCC. That substitute would have the full authority to act on behalf of the Countryside Commission. That is the preferred amendment.
The other amendment recognises that the preferred amendment gives the Countryside Commission an advantage not enjoyed by the country councils in that they cannot send substitutes to replace their chairman or nominated member. However, they have the benefit of two representatives so that it is extremely unlikely that they will not be represented at meetings of the JNCC. Amendment No. 222B therefore allows the commission to nominate a member, not necessarily the chairman, to be its regular representative on the JNCC While not eliminating the possibility of the Countryside Commission being absent from JNCC meetings, it would allow the commission to be represented by someone who would be able to give more time to the work of the JNCC than is likely to be possible in the case of the chairman. I beg to move.
Lord Carver: My Lords, in speaking to the noble Earl's amendments I shall also speak to the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Chorley, Amendment No. 242.
The appointment of the chairman of the Countryside Commission to the joint committee was part of the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology's subcommittee, which I chaired. If the House will allow me, I shall read out the relevant paragraph, which follows one which recommended that eventually in England the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission should be merged. We said:
"Meanwhile the remit of the Joint Committee should be extended to cover countryside conservation and the Countryside Commission for England should be given a place on it. There are going to be enough difficulties getting cooperation between on the one hand Scottish and Welsh agencies, whose remit unites nature conservation and countryside conservation, and on the other hand English agencies whose remit does not, without complicating matters further by having a Joint Committee which can only discuss
906
nature conservation. Such a situation would be administratively difficult and at the same time could marginalise the countryside conservation function".
In their response to the report the Government said:
"This recommendation implies a potentially huge extension of the role of the Joint Committee … It would also lead to significant change in the focus of the Committee's remit. The Government has seen it as being concerned solely with matters of nature conservation … Nevertheless, there are areas where the two interests overlap, and occasionally conflict. The Government sees some advantage therefore in the Committee's being able to take account of considerations of landscape and wider countryside matters, which the Countryside Commission's representation would assist".
Although fully appreciating the practical considerations that lie behind the noble Earl's amendments, I would not like to see the representation of the Countryside Commission on the joint committee weakened by allowing somebody else to represent the chairman. If that were allowed for him it would presumably also have to apply to other members of the joint committee and there would be a danger that it could be transformed into a committee of officials and its authority thereby devalued.
In addition, I am further opposed to either of the amendments because the Government have resisted our full recommendation and have maintained that the appointment to the joint committee of the chairman of the Countryside Commission with a vote is sufficient to meet it. That was the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, at Second Reading and in Committee. We do not accept that. That is why my noble friend Lord Chorley and I have tabled Amendment No. 242 which has been grouped with these two amendments.
We recognised that the House in Committee rejected the proposal which my noble friend Lord Chorley made and which I supported; namely, that the joint committee should give equal weight to nature conservancy and countryside matters. We therefore table this amendment, accepting that it would be a joint Nature Conservancy Council committee but trying to ensure that in considering nature conservancy matters due regard was paid to countryside considerations.
In an exchange of correspondence during the Recess, I was told—I quote the actual words—that our amendment would:
"shift the focus of the joint committee under the country councils, including the Nature Conservancy Council for England, too much towards countryside issues and it could even lead to a situation where the remit to protect wildlife is unintentionally weakened".
If that is thought to be a danger that would arise if the joint committee were allowed to use the words of our amendment (namely, to have regard to the need of the Countryside Commission, the Countryside Council for Wales, and the Countryside Commission for Scotland—until it is merged with the NCC for Scotland—to further the discharge of their functions) why on earth are the Government merging the two functions in Wales and propose to do so in Scotland? If that is a real danger, why does it not arise there?

907
More recently, the noble Baroness, representing the Government, explained to me that if countryside matters were taken into account by the joint committee in giving advice to the nature conservancy councils, the Government feared that somebody whose property was affected by a designation as a site of special scientific interest, or something like that, might claim that the designation had not been based on purely scientific grounds, as required by the Wildlife and Countryside Acts. I find that to be a very convoluted argument.
The difference between my amendment and the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, which will be discussed later, is that my amendment would not give the joint committee any kind of overview of countryside matters or authority for giving advice on them. It would simply ensure that when advice on nature conservancy matters is given upwards to the Secretaries of State and downwards to the councils, due regard is paid to the countryside functions of those councils which have the responsibility of discharging them.
The reasons given for creating a new body in Wales and for proposing a merger between the Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission in Scotland is said to be the need to ensure that nature conservancy is not considered in isolation from other aspects of the environment. That is the whole tenor of Chapter 7, entitled "Countryside and Wildlife", of the environment White Paper.
I am sure that noble Lords will understand the reasons why I do not like either of the two amendments proposed by the noble Earl. I hope that the Government will stifle their fears about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and me, and that they will accept it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I well understand the reason why the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has a difficult problem; namely, because of the grouping of these three amendments. As I understand it, his amendment, Amendment No. 242, has nothing whatsoever to do with the simple point made by my noble friend Lord Swinton. In effect, one statute appoints the chairman of a committee. This statute then hijacks that chairman to sit permanently on a statutory commission set up by this Bill. It puts a tremendous burden on that chairman.
That is the sole issue that my noble friend Lord Swinton raised. It has nothing to do with the power politics of the "caring greenies" (for want of a better term). I suggest to my noble friend and others in the House that my noble friend Lord Swinton has tabled a sensible and simple amendment which should be supported.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I believe that we shall have a slightly confused discussion because the linkage in this grouping in some sense seems to be rather remote. It will not surprise the noble Earl to hear that I intend to speak mostly about Amendment No. 242, to which I put my name together with the noble and
908
gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I speak for myself and with the support of the National Trust, of which I have just recently had the honour to be named chairman designate.
At Committee stage I explained at length the trust's strong interest in importing into the remit of the joint committee some regard to wider countryside considerations. I shall not go over that ground again except to note that the trust has a large number of SSSIs in its guardianship and has to manage other important land holdings with wider countryside considerations in mind.
The amendment that I proposed at Committee stage obtained a wide measure of oral support. Nevertheless, it failed on Division, although only modestly, which was partly owing to government objections. In an effort to find a way forward which took account of those objections from the Government, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was good enough to find time to discuss the problem with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and myself. Although we were not able to find a mutually agreeable solution, for my part at least we were able to clarify some of the issues. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her help.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has explained the changes that we have made in coming forward with this amendment; namely, the "have regard to" which puts a secondary focus, as it were, on countryside matters, and the fact that in effect the definition is now more tightly drawn, in as much as it is tied back to the phrases of the existing statute. I hope therefore that two possible objections have been dealt with. I have identified three remaining possible objections with which I should like to deal.
The first objection is that it creates a new quango; the JNCC becomes in effect a quango. That seems to have been an objection at Committee stage. However, that cannot be so, whether legalistically or even in a practical sense, because the opening words of Clause 126 make quite clear that the JNCC is the creature of the councils.
The next objection that I have heard raises what is sometimes called the thin edge of the wedge argument. It is said that this is a back door route to amalgamate the Countryside Commission for England with the NCC. As the Government said earlier, and again in the White Paper—and I say quite unequivocally—there is no intention of using the thin end of a wedge. Like the Government, I recognise that there are arguments both for and against amalgamation which have to be weighed carefully. There has to be wide consultation and in that sense I welcome the White Paper. I do not believe that the thin end of the wedge argument runs here.
Thirdly, there are said to be legal objections. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, referred to that point. It is said that if this amendment is accepted, there will be grave risk of litigation and judicial review because either wider countryside matters were not sufficiently taken into account or alternatively too much weight was given to them. That seems to

909
amount to the argument that all the actions and functions of the joint committee must be based solely on nature conservancy considerations and must be untainted by any other considerations.
If that is the case it seems clear to me that it follows that there will be contradictions between the role of the joint committee on the one hand and its parent bodies in Wales and later in Scotland on the other hand. Those two bodies will be required to operate in a wider mode at the country level but in a narrower mode at the GB level. And it is not only that. The Bill reserves to the joint committee alone a series of special functions. One may well ask how those two country bodies will square the circle to deal with that incompatibility—and to what advantage we do not know. It is not clear. Again one has to ask oneself: what is the purpose of including the chairman of the Countryside Commission for England in the JNCC? What is to be his role if only nature conservation considerations are to be allowed?
We should remind ourselves that the purpose of splitting up the Nature Conservancy Council in the first place was the criticism from Scotland that the NCC took far too narrow a view of matters; that wider considerations were very important in Scotland. Yet the result of the Bill is to perpetuate that narrowness of approach with regard to special functions. Certainly the Scots have their own NCC but neither the Scottish NCC nor its successor body will be a free agent because the special functions are reserved to a GB body—the JNCC. In exercising those functions, no wider considerations are to be allowed. It was for those reasons, as I understand it, that the Scots objected to a proposal for a joint committee. With the Bill as it now stands, whether for legal or other reasons which have put a very narrow remit on the JNCC, we have a considerable muddle.
I believe that the legal objections are farfetched. Do we really think that there is a grave risk of litigation? In the first place the joint committee does not deal with operational issues. Those are a countryside matter. The joint committee has mainly to deal with strategic-type issues. Clause 126 makes provision for five special functions. Of those five, three are,
"the provision of advice for the Secretary of State".
It is hard to see how the provision of advice could give rise to litigation.
The fourth requirement is to establish common standards for monitoring research and analysis. One finds it difficult to believe that monitoring research and analysis will be fertile ground for lawyers. Finally, there are what I call the Schedule 9 functions. Again it is hard to see how the requirements regarding the Countryside Commission functions expose a flank in this area.
It is surely better to take a more practical approach. It is better to resolve the muddle inherent in the Bill by achieving a consistent approach and to run the remote risk of some adverse litigation. The lawyers may not like it but that is what practical men would do. I have talked and consulted with numerous experts on the issue. I have yet to come across anyone who does not
910
acknowledge the need to allow the JNCC to take account of wider countryside matters. That was the view of the Select Committee; it was the view from the evidence it received; it was the Government's view in response to the Select Committee. I hope therefore that the House will support the amendment, which seeks to remove the anomaly.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on one point that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, raised. He made the general remark that the Scots were against the establishment of a joint committee. There may have been some of such opinion, but there were other views. As one of the members of the Carver Committee—the subcommittee which went to Edinburgh for two days and took evidence from a number of organisations—my recollection is that some of the people from whom we heard may have had difficulties about the establishment of a joint committee but most of them accepted it. I must make that clear for the record.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I did not intend to state that every Scot in the land was against such a committee. However, there were undoubtedly a considerable number who were.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment and also to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, because I believe that either of those options would be better than the provision in the Bill. The arguments for widening the remit of the council seem overwhelming. They have been debated so often that I do not propose to do so again.
I wish to make one point. I was astonished to read the defence of the Government's position in the White Paper. It appears at paragraph 18.25 if anyone wishes to look it up. It was repeated by the noble Baroness today. The main argument against the inclusion of countryside matters seems to be that further change at this stage would hinder the new organisations in "finding their feet". But surely, if changes are to be made, this is the time to make them. The Bill is not yet an Act. The Government have seen fit to charge ahead with sweeping changes, before the necessary legislation is in place. Having mismanaged the preparation of the Bill, and having met widespread opposition to their proposals, progress through Parliament has been slow.
However, that is no excuse for stopping all logical thought. The statement that the noble Baroness gave us today states that,
"If the Government do eventually opt for merger, then further legislation would be needed".
Surely this is the legislation in which such provision can be made if the Government's wish to do so. The shortage of time has not stopped them making other changes to the Bill. It is better to make the changes now rather than to let the new bodies struggle painfully to their feet and then be knocked over in a couple of years' time with yet another burst of legislation.

911
Do the Government pay any regard to the feelings of the staff in all these organisations? They seem to act without any thought for their future welfare. I support Amendment No. 242. I cannot support the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, for the reasons given by the noble and gallant Lord. I believe that such an arrangement would reduce the prestige of the Countryside Commission's presence on the body.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. However, I am slightly confused. If one imposes countryside responsibilities on the joint committee, that is fine so far as concerns Scotland and Wales, where the Countryside Commission and Nature Conservancy Council are joint bodies. But in England they will remain separate bodies. It appears to me (I wear my NCC hat now; and I made the point at Committee) that we may find ourselves in a degree of confusion. We might have countryside responsibilities foisted upon us that we are not capable of dealing with. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinton appears to me to eminently sensible.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I enter the debate solely as a result of the experience of having been the Secretary of State responsible for the two organisations in the very early days when they were finding their feet, having been established under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I do not like any of the amendments in this group. The amendments of my noble friend Lord Swinton suffer from the difficulty upon which both the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, firmly put their finger. Once one gives the chairman of the Countryside Commission an opportunity, in effect, to have an alternate, one devalues his presence. If it is regarded as important that the chairman of the Countryside Commission should be a member of the JNCC, his presence is essential. He attends in his own right. One cannot dissociate that view from the very distinguished current holder of that office. I do not believe that his colleagues would find themselves too upset if one said that it was very important that he should attend; and the same will be true of his successor in due course. I find that argument persuasive.
The argument on the amendment in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has been rehearsed many times. I have refreshed my memory by reading his report. It quickly became apparent to me in dealing with both Sir Derek Barber and the Countryside Commission, and Sir William Wilkinson (Mr. Wilkinson as he then was) and the Nature Conservancy Council, that the two bodies were very different animals. The essentially scientific base for the work of the NCC, coupled with what has always appeared to be the more sociological base of the work of the Countryside Commission, made uneasy bedfellows. My first question to my officials was, "Why do we have two separate organisations?". I quickly became convinced that the decision of Parliament was right because the bodies were engaged
912
in fundamentally different functions. Wales and Scotland are small countries and it would be difficult to have a proliferation of organisations. Therefore, I find the argument in relation to them as leading the other way; the situation is not clear cut. However, for England the argument is right.
It follows therefore that if they are to be separate it is because they have separate functions and a different focus. The scientific basis of the work of the NCC must not be allowed to be overridden by more general and wider sociological and related matters which are described in the Bill as "countryside matters".
That is important and it is with enormous diffidence that I beg to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. There is an important legal trap which it is essential to avoid. Some years ago Parliament approved a change in legal procedure by establishing the judicial review. At the time it might have appeared to be a relatively minor legal procedural change. However, under the well-known legal maxim ubi remedium ibi jus—where there is a remedy there is to be found the law—the existence of the power to challenge administrative decisions has in the course of a relatively short time given rise to an entirely new body of administrative law. Administrative decisions are now open to challenge as they were hardly ever before under the old prerogative writs. One of the basic reasons why there is justification for challenge in the courts is contained in the splendid phrase that the Minister, or whoever is being challenged, has "misdirected himself". It is on that ground that a decision can be overturned.
If in the course of making an essentially science-based decision—for instance, whether to designate an SSSI or to excise any of the other powers of the NCC—there are allowed to creep in matters which are extraneous to that because the commission is having to take account of the wider countryside functions, that must increase the risk of challenge by people who are either deeply upset by the designation or, if there is a decision not to designate, to say that the commission has misdirected itself in refusing.
Although that may appear to be a remote possibility, I believe that it is very real. For that reason I believe that the Government are right to do their utmost to keep the two functions separate. While the two bodies remain separate—and clearly that is the intention for the time being as indicated in the White Paper—it is equally important that the functions should be kept separate. Therefore, with the greatest respect to the noble and gallant Lord and to the members of his committee, I find it difficult to accept what he has said. If there is a vote I shall vote against Amendment No. 242.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has put forward an eloquent case for keeping separate the functions of the NCC and the Countryside Commission. If that is accepted, why are we merging the functions in Wales? The fact is that we are. If we are considering the Government's proposal, we shall have sitting on the joint committee not only

913
the chairman of the Countryside Commission for England but also the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales, who will be responsible for both functions. At present the Government have an illogical situation because in the deliberations of the joint committee those two representatives will not be allowed to take account of their countryside responsibilities regarding access to the beauty of the countryside, landscape and so forth.
The great merit of the amendment, No. 242, tabled by my noble and gallant friend is that it does not lay new duties on the joint committee but gives discretionary responsibilities to the council which will allow it to take account of its countryside responsibilities when taking part in the work of the joint committee. That proposal is so obviously sensible and I cannot imagine how it can be opposed. However, if there is force in the legal and other objections as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and others—and I realise that there may be —I hope that the Government will accept the substance of the case and, if necessary, produce a separate form of words taking account of those responsibilities. I believe that the substance is extremely important.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am sure that I am not the only Member of this House who finds it disturbing that at this late stage, with only a few days between now and Prorogation, we are still unsure of a fundamental element of the whole exercise. I find that extremely disturbing. During the last few minutes I have tried to visualise the position of the two Welsh representatives on the joint committee. How will they be able to discharge their functions without running into the kind of legal risks so eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding? If that presents a danger for the joint committee I cannot see why in certain circumstances it will not also present a danger for the body in Wales and ultimately in Scotland. I believe that in Wales the legal power now vested in the NCC to designate areas as SSSIs, national nature reserves and so forth will be exercised by a committee which has a dual function. Therefore, would it not be putting the members of that committee at risk?
I turn to the attendance of the chairman and one other member of the Welsh committee at the joint committee. How can they possibly fulfil their representative functions sensibly? After all, the chairman may not be a scientist—in fact, he is not. As the chairman of the National Trust in Wales he is more concerned with the kind of responsibilities described by my noble friend Lord Chorley. However, if the argument is that the joint committee is to be exclusively concerned with nature conservation in the narrow sense and not at all concerned with the wider issues of countryside affairs, one must rethink the whole situation. Why have a joint committee at all? We argued about that issue in earlier days and it was said that the joint committee was needed because of standards, our position in Europe and so forth. They were all most persuasive arguments and I should be sad if there were no joint committee. However, I was
914
horrified to read certain quotations attributed to the chairman, Sir Fred Holliday and which he has made plain, obiter dicta, are correct. He said that he does not expect the joint committee to have a long life in any event. I do not know quite what one is to make of that position.
It is very disturbing that we are being asked at this late stage to go back to fundamentals. We find it very difficult to see the light. I have every sympathy for the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. What looks to be an innocent, sensible and practical amendment has raised a fundamental issue regarding the real nature of what we are doing.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I also have some difficulty with the linking of these amendments because it seems to me that the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Swinton is quite distinct from the other amendment. Therefore, the amendments are quite separate and I intend to deal with them separately. I am grateful to my noble friend because he is right to address the issue of flexibility. I hope that in the course of my rather brief response to his amendment I shall be able to satisfy all opinion about this matter.
The effect of the amendment would be to allow the Countryside Commission to appoint someone other than a chairman to be its representative on the JNCC. Noble Lords will be aware that one of the recommendations of the sub-committee chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, was that the chairman of the Countryside Commission should be a member of the JNCC. The Government accepted that recommendation and do not wish to go back on that now. However, I understand the points made by my noble friend. Indeed, the chairman of the JNCC, Professor Sir Fred Holliday, has confirmed that he would be happy for the chairman's nominated representative to attend meetings of the JNCC but of course in the capacity of observer.
The point made by my noble friend is that the chairman's job is part time and at times the work may be demanding. There will need to be cover for sickness, and as there is one place for the Countryside Commission at the table on most occasions one would expect that to be filled by the chairman of the commission. However, it is suggested that on those occasions when the chairman cannot be present, rather than having a vacant place at the table he should be allowed to appoint an observer member. I hope that we do not need primary legislation to allow that to happen. That can be dealt with by regulations. The important matter is that the Countryside Commission should be represented at the table. Regulation would be the mechanism for ensuring that that takes place.
In speaking to Amendment No. 242 I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, on his new appointment with the National Trust. We wish him well on taking up that new duty. The effect of this amendment would be to require the country councils, through the joint Nature Conservation committee, to have regard to the need to further the discharge of countryside functions. However obliquely this

915
amendment is worded—and as your Lordships will be aware it has changed considerably since Committee stage—there can be no doubt that its purpose is to extend the remit of the JNCC to countryside matters.
The Government remain opposed to any suggestion that the JNCC should have a statutory countryside remit. There are several reasons for our opposition. First, the involvement of the JNCC would weaken the authority of the existing Countryside Commission to deal with strategic issues. There has never been any suggestion that the commission has performed this role inadequately. Secondly, an amendment could force the JNCC to pull its punches on wildlife issues, since it would also have to consider countryside matters, which might conflict with nature conservation. That was a point made by my noble friend Lord Peel.
Thirdly, the recent White Paper makes it clear that a merger of the Countryside Commission and Nature Conservancy Council for England is not an option in the short term. It would not therefore be appropriate to use this legislation to introduce a paving measure for such a merger before a policy decision has been taken.
In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, when these changes settle down, if it seems appropriate the evolutionary method is the one the Government would prefer to accept.
Fourthly, the amendment would muddy the legal waters considerably. That was a point touched on very eloquently by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. For example, it would require JNCC advice to the NCC for England to have regard for countryside issues, but of course the NCC for England has no countryside remit whatsoever. That was another point raised by my noble friend Lord Peel. This would open up all kinds of unwelcome possibilities—for example, a judicial review of NCC England decisions based on such advice—and it would be entirely inappropriate for the Government to agree an amendment which could leave the new agencies open to a greater risk of judicial review.
Fifthly, an amendment to require all the country councils to have regard to the countryside dimension would explicitly dilute the duty of the new NCC for England to protect wildlife in the different circumstances in England where pressures are often greatest on a patchwork of small sites.
Finally, any amendment would also introduce confusion about the respective roles of Ministers and the JNCC. The advice which the JNCC is to give to Ministers on UK and international wildlife issues is not trammelled by the need to take other factors into account, such as social, economic agricultural and forestry interests. This reproduces exactly the current situation in which the need to have due regard to these needs under the Countryside Act 1968 is not applied to the NCC's advisory functions. This is an important principle which is worth retaining. It also reflects the position under European and international commitments—such as the birds directive—where the agency
916
gives its advice focused solely on the needs of wildlife and Ministers then take account of the wider context whether it be socioeconomic factors or countryside conservation. The Government would not want to blur those distinctions.
The Government understand why the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and bodies such as the National Trust, which covers both wildlife and countryside conservation, want to bring wildlife and countryside considerations together wherever possible. The Government have not ignored this viewpoint and indeed this was the reason why, at Committee stage, the Government added the chairman of the Countryside Commission as a statutory member of the JNCC. There will therefore be a place at the table for the wider context, but we firmly believe that the menu of the JNCC should be wildlife in its national and international setting.
I have listened very carefully to this debate. A fundamental point is being missed. The remit for the JNCC and its primary function is to advise on conservation matters. If that remit is extended and the words "shall have regard to" appear on the face of the Bill, that becomes a legal obligation. The body advises on an issue. It takes everything into account as regards the legal obligation not only for wildlife but also for countryside matters. If, on balance of the evidence, it gives its advice weighted in favour of countryside matters, conflict will be introduced into that forum.
It is absolutely inconceivable that a debate should take place around that table without inextricably linking the two issues of wildlife and countryside. It will not be possible to discuss wildlife issues without discussing also the countryside. That is why a representative of the Countryside Commission will be at the table. That is why countryside matters will be part of the discussion. However, it is absolutely fundamental that there should be a primary legal obligation that the advice proffered to the Government or to the European Parliament should be unequivocal and should relate to its primary function; namely, wildlife and conservation matters.
If there is a conflict, it will be for the Government to accept that advice and to accept advice on countryside matters. Where there is a conflict and a decision needs to be made and the evidence weighed, that would not be a matter for the JNCC but for the body to which that advice is proffered, whether it be the European Parliament or our national Parliament.
We are absolutely at one in this Chamber in believing that conservation and wildlife matters and countryside matters are important in their own right. The point of difference, which may seem a small one but is fundamental, is whether we accept that that friction, that confusion and that element of having to balance the evidence should remain with the JNCC or whether it should be left to governments and other bodies to weigh up the evidence. The Government rest their case on believing that the JNCC should not be sullied and should be unequivocal in its advice and that all the advice that it proffers should relate to conservation and wildlife matters.

917
I hope that the noble and gallant Lord will not feel that he should press the amendment because I believe that the concerns about which he feels passionately are met.
Baroness White: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she explain the position of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales respectively? They have certain legal responsibilities. Are they to be advised by the joint committee or are they to take the advice of their own joint bodies and ignore the joint committee?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again, I believe that there is a difference of understanding about the nature of the JNCC. There is no conflict or problem for the joint body in Wales to concern itself with Welsh countryside and conservation matters, but there will be times when the conservation and wildlife matters go well beyond the boundaries of Wales, Scotland or England. It will be for Wales to take the advice of the JNCC. However, on the question of local Welsh countryside matters, I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of that body to resolve its own local conflicts.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, there is no fool like an old fool. When I got up and said rather rashly that this was a simple question, I should have seen the hornets' nest that I would stir up in the House. I should have known that it was coming. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Morris and Lord Peel, who are the only two noble Lords who kept to the point that I was trying to make. I am also grateful for what my noble friend the Minister said.
I should like to take up briefly the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and by my noble friend Lord Jenkin; namely that, if the proposal was accepted it would somehow reduce prestige. The Countryside Commission strongly believes that it should be represented on this body. I did not want to bring in the question of personalities because no one can be more outstandingly devoted and give up more of his time than the present chairman of the Countryside Commission. I understand that the body has held three shadow meetings and that he has found it impossible to attend two of them. He is desperately keen to do so whenever possible. This is such an important body whose meetings we wish to attend that we believe a substitute should be allowed to attend when necessary. It is certainly not our idea to hive it off to some official and say, "Go and do this for us". I am sure that we should get one of our fellow commissioners to attend.
I was glad to hear what my noble friend said. I shall have to check that this can be done under regulations, especially in view of the fact that her predecessor told me in Committee that it could not be done that way. If it is not possible, I may have to return to the matter on Third Reading, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 222B not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 223:
Page 181, line 37, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 40 and insert ("either—

(a) provide the committee with such staff, accommodation and other facilities, and such financial resources, as the committee in respect of any financial year considers necessary to enable it adequately to fulfil the requirements of sections 126(2) and (3) of this Act; or

(b) furnish to the committee, and lay before Parliament, a statement of the level of resources, staff, accommodation or other facilities as they consider appropriate, together with their reasons for such a determination").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 239, 253D, 254 and, as the House has been advised, Amendment No. 288A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross.
I shall deal with each of my amendments in turn and then, if the House will permit me, I should like to make some more general observations, which still fall within the scope of the debate on the amendment, about the issue of resources for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in the light of the Government's statement earlier this afternoon.
In Committee, we considered the funding of the JNCC and moved amendments to seek to put the funding on a more secure basis. Noble Lords will not need reminding that the funding of the JNCC is the responsibility of the country nature conservancy councils. There is no indication of the basis on which they are to make their decisions and there is certainly no adequate assurance that they will fund the significant levels of staffing which we are now informed will be employed by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
We were told that it would be impossible for the JNCC to determine its budget because the Government are determined that it shall be only an advisory body and not have any functions. In Amendment No. 222 this afternoon, they went out of their way even to remove a stray word "function" from the remit of the JNCC to make sure that it would not be trapped into thinking that it might perform any functions. One might think that that was going a bit far.
We are not anxious to go over the same ground that we went over in Committee, strongly though we feel on this issue. We are therefore proposing a much more modest amendment in Amendment No. 223; namely, that the country councils which are responsible for providing the money should ideally provide the committee with the staffing, accommodation and financial resources which the joint committee itself considers necessary, or, if they cannot do that—in this amendment at any rate we accept that it is their decision—they should furnish to the committee and to Parliament a statement of such level of resources as the country councils consider appropriate, together with the reasons.
If there is to be a conflict between the country councils and the JNCC about resources—given the way that the Government have framed the legislation, that seems almost inevitable—at least the public should know about it. It is an unsatisfactory situation. This modest amendment seeks not to overthrow the relationship between the country councils and the JNCC, as the Government propose it, but at least to ensure that a public debate is possible on the basis of informed figures from the country councils about the costs involved.
Amendment No. 239 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 254, which sets out a new clause about the basis on which the JNCC could give grants for assistance for projects which fall across individual country boundaries. There was lengthy debate on that matter in Committee and a number of cross-country projects could well be imagined. Reference was made to the Severn estuary and to the Solway Firth. I am sure that many others could be cited.
Again, we are extremely modest in these amendments. We simply propose that those powers should be subject either to a general authorisation which the Secretary of State may choose to give or to specific consents for individual grants. In other words, let us surely agree that some projects will need to cover more than one country. That must be common ground in this House.
How is that to be achieved? The JNCC is to be such a feeble body that it cannot give grants itself, but at least it can organise and evaluate the grants. It can decide what is necessary and then the Secretary of State, rather than the JNCC, subject to Treasury consent—we are even careful to that extent—will be able to authorise the individual grant. I cannot think that we could have found a more modest and unassuming way of approaching what would otherwise be a straightforward scandal; namely, that there is no adequate procedure for dealing with nature conservation projects which cover more than one country.
The amendment of my noble friend Lady David is on a similar tack, but I shall not trespass on her time to explain it. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, will want to speak to his amendment, but I want to make it clear that in placing it in this group he has the entire support of the Opposition on these Benches.
That brings me to the statement which has been made this afternoon and to the position in which we find ourselves on Part VII of the Bill. Let me immediately repeat what I said before the House was adjourned. I attach no personal blame to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the Minister now responsible for this part of the Bill. In making a statement of this kind—I did not realise that it would be so extensive —the noble Baroness was responding to an undertaking which she gave last week in this House. The timing of the statement as early as possible during this afternoon's proceedings was agreed with me. Let there be no doubt about that.
However, I turn to the Government as a whole rather than to the Minister who is now sitting on the Front Bench. I am bound to say that the way in which this matter has been treated since Mr. Nicholas Ridley, the then Secretary of State, made his first announcement in July last year has been disgraceful. There has been so little concern for the rights of Parliament and the possibilities of proper parliamentary debate, so little concern for nature conservation interests and the continuity of the valuable work which is done by nature conservation bodies in this country and so little concern for the staff who undertake this work, that one would not believe, even granting the crass timing of the original statement on the day when the NCC was announcing its own reorganisation procedures, that the follow-up would be as incompetent as it is.
We were promised, to take only the most recent history, much more detail about the resources available to the JNCC when the matter was debated in Committee. What has happened? To repeat the phrase used by the noble Baroness this afternoon, this statement was hastily put together this morning—not yesterday, because yesterday it could have been presented as a Statement in the House. We could have had copies of it and given it some consideration. On the basis of a Statement we could have submitted amendments taking it into account. Oh no! What has happened is that on the morning of the fourth and last day of the Report stage in this House a statement is hastily put together and made in the form of an intervention at the beginning of a debate. If I were in the Minister's shoes I would be having several very sharp words with those responsible in Marsham Street. This is not the way in which to treat this House and, much more importantly, it is not the way in which to treat nature conservation in this country.
I turn to the statement itself and, in the time we have had available, some of the information that we have been able to ascertain from it. First, as has been stated in a debate on a previous amendment, we now learn that although conservation and countryside matters in Wales are to be brought together immediately, the prospect of doing that in England now depends, if you please, on further legislation. My Lords, we are legislating today. There is no conceivable reason why, if we can do it for Wales, we cannot do it for England. It might mean more work for those concerned but that is not our concern. Our concern is to find the right solution. As my noble friend Lady Nicol said earlier this afternoon, it is not fair to the staff, it does not make for good administration and it does not give continuity for either the countryside provisions or nature conservation provisions if the new organisation that is to be introduced by this Bill is in the knowledge of the Government, and in the acknowledged statements of the Government, to be subject to further review with a possibility of further legislation. What a way to run a railroad!
Secondly, we have the consultants' reports. The statement said that the Government have, as promised, published these three reports and that

921
copies were placed in the Library last week. As my noble friend Lord Shackleton ascertained, at the time the statement was made that simply was not true. I understand that the consultants' reports are now in the Library but they were not there when the statement was made. Even if they had been there, one would have thought that someone would have had the courtesy to say to my noble friend who was demanding the publication of those reports—and to me because I have some responsibility in these matters, if not to other noble Lords—that the reports were available in the Library so that we could have taken them into consideration. It is no good making a statement at the beginning of a debate on the last day of the Report stage, even if it is true.
Thirdly, and this is probably the most important point of all, the statement and Government statements in the past have poured scorn on the estimates made about the additional cost of reorganisation—not the cost of better provision and not the cost of making up for past under-provision, but the cost of reorganisation. We are now told that these costs—not one-off costs but annually from 1991–92 onwards —will be £9.18 million for additional staff and accommodation. We are told that there are to be 294 additional members of staff for the country councils and the JNCC. If a Labour Government had put forward that kind of proposal—not to improve the services and not to make up for past deficits but purely for a reorganisation which appears to have sprung from the lips of the Secretary of State in July 1989 without any consultation—we would have been bitterly attacked from all sides of the House.
I do not think anyone would have accepted that it was right to have a budget of £9.18 million higher than the whole NCC budget in 1980—half of the amount available to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—not to provide a service but to provide for reorganisation. If that is the way a Government who are supposed to represent businesslike interests proceeds, what hope is there for the rest of us? That is the position as firmly set out by the Minister in the statement this afternoon. On that basis alone I should have thought that these proposals should be taken back for reconsideration.
That is not all. The noble Baroness referred to the estimates made by Sir William Wilkinson in a letter to The Times last week. The wording is careful on this matter. The noble Baroness accepted that the Government agree with his presentation of the first tranche of £10 million for reorganisation and the third tranche of £10 million which is a straightforward bid for enhanced resources, but was more doubtful about the middle tranche of another £10 million. This House will want to know, if we are to understand whether the Government are behaving at all seriously or with any attempt at seriousness in this matter, what is the status of those first, second and third tranches. Is that £9.18 million part of the department's bid for public expenditure this autumn—a base bid which will be agreed? What is the status of the second tranche? Will the Government support the bid which Sir William
922
has put forward? All we have been told is that the Government agree with the figure, not whether it is to happen.
If we are not to be given answers in that respect, what is the meaning of saying that there will be 51 core staff and another 35 staff seconded? I am bound to say that we are happy with the levels of staffing proposed for the joint committee. However, what evidence is there that the Government are prepared to provide the money and that the money will come through the country councils to provide the budgets necessary to make those staff effective?
No, this is a very sorry story. It has been a sorry story from the beginning and has become a sorrier story still as we come to the end of our consideration of this matter. Whatever the decision of the House may be on the amendment now before us, I must tell the House that on Third Reading we shall be putting forward amendments to delay the implementation of Part VII of the Bill for at least one year, and probably two years.
Let us consider where we stand. We are in the middle of October. Unless I am told otherwise it is intended that this part of the Bill will be implemented on 1st April 1991. We have not even been told of the appointment of a chief executive for the JNCC, let alone about the staff who will have to be appointed afterwards. We do not know where the headquarters will be. We do not know any of the facts necessary to give us any assurance at all that it is physically possible to bring together an organisation of this kind within the period from middle of October to the end of March 1991.
I suggest that we should vote on Amendment No. 223—a modest amendment to give some security of resourcing to the JNCC—as an indication of the displeasure of this House at the way in which it has been treated and at the way in which this abominable policy has been developed. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 239 and 254 to which my name is attached. I wish to make clear to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I very much support his Amendment No. 223. We now know that the JNCC will have as many as 86 employees. Therefore, its finance must be secured. There cannot be terrible arguments between the three country councils as to how the organisation is to be financed. I believe that Amendment No. 223 is very important.
As regards Amendments Nos. 239 and 254, we are asking the committee to give financial assistance to voluntary bodies and similar organisations. What is going to happen about national and international publications? The NCC brings out some excellent publications. Will that be done on a national basis or on an individual country basis? What about the grants to the voluntary bodies on a national, Great Britain-wide basis? One thinks about the red kite that has been introduced into England and Scotland with help from the RSPB and also from the NCC. I can recommend the latest RSPB film; everyone should

923
take the opportunity to see it. It is a marvellous film and a wonderful story. It concerns the increase in the number of red kites between the turn of the century when there were 12 pairs and the mid-1960s. There are now 62 pairs breeding in Wales. The co-operation that has taken place there involving farmers, landowners, the RSPB and the NCC is to be greatly praised.
What is to happen about licensing powers and the European aspects? If the JNCC cannot do these things, will there be squabbling between the country councils who, I suspect, will be very short of funds? We had a brief from the Royal Society for Nature Conservation. I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that its wildlife trust partnership manages a vast number of SSIs on our behalf in this country, funding the partnership totally itself. It costs the 47 wildlife trusts £2 million of their own money. If they were to do rather better, the cost would be up to £4 million. What the society obtains from the NCC is certainly helpful but it is only one-tenth of its costs. All these responsibilities cannot be put on the voluntary bodies. They will be unable to do all the work that I suspect will increasingly fall on them. That is why the central body should have the right to give grants on a national basis.
I turn to Amendment No. 288A. I have asked for it to be linked although it does not belong to the same grouping. However, it goes to the heart of the statement that we received earlier today. The House should note that those of us who are most gravely concerned with the break-up of the NCC have not tried to emasculate the Bill at this stage by tabling an amendment to the effect that Clause 131 should not stand part of the Bill. We have tried very hard to make the Bill work. This amendment is an attempt to provide the Government with more time to put their house in order.
It will be a very expensive exercise. From the statement that we received this afternoon we know that the cost will be £9.18 million. The figures were given to us by the trade union side of the NCC which has behaved absolutely splendidly throughout the whole of these discussions. The Government have accepted that figure.
I pay tribute to the Minister. I believe that she has done a great job since taking over the Bill. The manner in which she has been landed with a very difficult situation is most unfair. I am certainly not firing at her. My colleague on the Front Bench, my noble friend Lord Tordoff, has told me that the extra staff and accommodation will cost about £34,000 per head. That is a hell of a lot of money. I wonder whether the measure was necessary in the first place. The fact is that there are barely six months left because we are told in the statement that these arrangements have to take place on 1st April.
There are 200 to 300 vacancies still to be filled; there are 100 vacancies in Scotland, a similar number in England, and at least 70 in Wales. Two chief executives are still to be named and appointed. One appointment has been made in Wales but the
924
applicant has not yet signed an agreement; he is, I gather, still arguing over the terms. There is a long way to go.
The NCC called in ACAS to advise it. ACAS said that six months is far too short a time to allow and that at least another 12 months are needed. Originally, everything was to be completed by the Summer Recess. We are now almost at the end of October. Regrettably, experienced staff are leaving; they are very disgruntled about what is happening. About 50 members of staff with at least five years' service behind them are leaving. That is a tragedy in itself. Neither the chief in Wales, Dr. Tom Pritchard, who has done splendid work, nor his deputy, Hayden Williams, have been reappointed. As I said, the successor has not finally confirmed that he is taking the job.
It is widely believed that, due to all the upheaval, the interests of nature conservation, which has such a fine record in this country, will be put back at least five years. We were told about the three consultant reports at Committee stage. As we now know, they are in the Library. I went there to read them. They were not available then but they are now. Those important documents should be studied. One deals with the centralised computer; that is of vital importance. I gather that it is based at Peterborough. There is some argument involving one country council which believes that it should have its own computer.
How are staff to be paid? What about all the records in Peterborough? How are they to be dealt with? There is another internal report called the Bloomfield Report about which I have no knowledge at all. I would like to know what it is about. What action is to be taken on these reports? We have not heard. What action is to be taken about employees' pay and licensing across borders? If an individual wants to ring birds does he have to go to the individual country councils to get permission or can it be gained through Peterborough? What about publications, grants, international advice and all these matters?
We must know what is going to happen. There are many millions of wildlife conservationists. The Government put the number at about four million in their White Paper. I suspect that there are more than that. They all fervently hope that the Bill will work. If that is to be achieved then a lot more time and thought is needed. The Government should therefore accept my amendment. Although, unfortunately, it comes very late in the day, they should accept it. If the Minister were to say that the Government accept it, we should all be highly relieved and could proceed to the rest of the business.
We know about staff costs and very little else. We do not know what extra money will be available. Paragraph 13 of the statement made today contains a fairly strong commitment. We also know that the Secretary of State has settled his deal with the Financial Secretary. As I understand it, it is only the Secretary of State for Education who is going in front of the Star Chamber. Presumably, the matter has had to be settled. The poor man has a great number of

925
things on his plate. I suspect that there cannot be much more money coming in the direction of wildlife conservation.
In order to have the logistical arrangements in place on 1st April 1991, we have to know that the councils will be adequately staffed. They must have their systems in place in order to be able to carry forward their work effectively rather than spending the first six months desperately trying to sort themselves out. If we do not get an extension of time that is what will happen. We must have a clear view as to the modus operandi of the JNCC. How will the system of earmarked funds operate? How will it be possible to commission research that covers the whole of Great Britain? Will there be sufficient staff of the right calibre? We have gone a little way down that path today. A great deal of time will be spent before people sign up, particularly if the chairman is saying that the JNCC is unlikely to last very long. That is not exactly comforting to a senior scientist who is about to take a job. The former chief scientist left about six months ago and returned to Australia.
Some continue to have considerable reservations about the reorganisation; some see that there is opportunity; and some remain agnostic. However, surely everyone is agreed that it would be disastrous if the Government's model, because of financial and administrative restraints, proved to be incapable of working effectively. If Ministers are unable to offer sufficient assurances before Royal Assent—a pretty short period—the device of an affirmative resolution affords them the opportunity to come back to the House, when the question of resources and other matters have been settled, and convince Parliament that, with the latest facts, the reorganisation will work. There is considerable apprehension among those who are responsible within the NCC for operating the system about the six months' period which is left. There is a major job to be done, and there is just not the time to do it.
An internal poll taken in early October showed that within the NCC staff at present there are only three persons at headquarters who are actually in favour of the proposals and 184 voted against. In the new English NCC nine voted for and 283 voted against. In Scotland only 21 voted in favour and 112 against—this will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe—and in Wales only five were in favour and 62 against. The ratio was about 30:1 against in England and 5:1 against in Scotland. That was the position within the staff of the NCC. We can try to help them today by asking the Government to accept the amendment.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness intends to reply to the debate. She will be aware that on Report no one can speak after her. I shall hold on to my position and speak now.
In the 30 years or more that I have been in this House I do not remember a situation quite as chaotic as the one we have been confronted with today. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her attempts to help us. I am particularly grateful for her decision to put quickly into the Library the answers to the questions
926
I asked. The fact that she did not succeed in getting there—I have not yet seen them although I am told they are there—is obviously not her personal fault.
This is an alarming and worrying situation for your Lordships. In my time as Leader of the House I had some fairly chaotic moments to cope with. On one occasion one of my noble friends insisted on continuing a debate after we had already passed a Bill. But this situation passes anything resembling that. I am very critical of the performance not of the noble Baroness but of her noble friends who ought to be sitting with her listening to the debate. The Leader of the House and the Chief Whip are not here. No doubt they are doing something important but they ought to be listening to our criticisms.
I support my noble friend in his amendment but we are in an impossible situation. It does the reputation of your Lordships no good at all. We have a reputation for being fairly orderly by solving our problems easily and by doing sensible things. That is the opposite of the position we are in now. We have warned the Government consistently throughout the different stages that they would not succeed in completing the Bill in a form that would be satisfactory. I find it quite intolerable that we are being asked to carry out a Report stage when some of the matters ought to have been dealt with in Committee. We cannot now do it. I do not know what your Lordships expect of this.
This is not just a party matter. It is a very serious matter for the House of Lords as a whole. I still ask that the Leader of the House might possibly honour us with his presence. In the past it has always been the custom that the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip came in at difficult times. They flew in today just in order to agree to the brief adjournment. This is a dangerous situation for your Lordships and does not do the reputation of the House any good. I hope that these proceedings are not televised —perhaps I do not hope that the proceedings are not televised—because this is a very unsatisfactory situation.
The amendment before us asks for a number of things. We shall not get answers from the Government. I support my noble friend in saying, as some of us have been saying all along, that Part VII of the Bill ought to be taken out, considered at more leisure and brought back at another time. We asked the Government to do that and we asked for certain information to be put in the White Paper. We did not have it. I ask the noble Baroness to allow noble Lords who also have opinions to say what they have to say before she rises to reply. I deeply regret, as a keen supporter of your Lordships' House, the situation in which we now find ourselves.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly. I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, about the timing. I shall not mention the merits of the Bill or Part VII because I have expressed my views so frequently. I was so disturbed at the time that I resigned from the Nature Conservancy Council last year. What I am concerned about is the difficulty in which my noble friend the Minister is now placed. It is a fact that there is no possibility of the provisions of Part VII being introduced next April. I know

927
perfectly well from administrative experience over 40 or 50 years and service of many years on the Countryside Commission, and latterly on the Nature Conservancy Council, that it simply is not possible to bring that new organisation into being in April.
On many occasions, and most recently last week, I strongly urged my noble friend the Minister to consider the withdrawal of Part VII for the time being. As it cannot now be included in the White Paper, perhaps it can be added as an addendum to the White Paper. The Government must now be given time to organise things properly and not in this haphazard and chaotic way. That is the only way I can describe it.
I knew perfectly well the moment the announcement was made last year that no thought had been given to the question of additional costs and additional staff or how things would work. Now, one year later, we received information today in a very unusual way. The Minister has all my sympathy. I do not include her in any note of criticism but I believe that it is now impossible to meet the timetable and that it may well take a year before things can start to function properly. Therefore the simple and statesmanlike way is to pause, get our breath and do this properly.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, on the day before yesterday the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said at Question Time that the Government had gone too far to change their mind. I thought that that was not perhaps the wisest thing to say at Question Time. She was saying in other words that it is quite possible that the Government had made a howling error but they had gone too far to rectify it. The Government are too proud to change their mind irrespective of whether they are right or wrong. That is not how to govern a parish council let alone a kingdom. A government like this Government, who really are rather a good government, should sometimes pause, think again and be prepared to admit that they were wrong. This is certainly an occasion for them so to do.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I do not pretend to defend the Government's handling of this matter but since my name has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, I think I should say a word or two. I support the Government in their intention and I hope that the provisions of the Bill will be implemented. It is an exercise in devolution of authority to Scotland so that we can have a much more sensitive approach to some of the difficult areas of land use and environment, not from Peterborough but on the ground. It is not sufficient for the noble Lord, Lord Ross, whose colleagues in another place supported this measure, to say that ballots of the staff at Peterborough and of the small staff in Scotland were taken and that by a large majority they voted against this measure.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ross was trying to make the point not that that should be taken at this stage as being against the proposal in the Bill, but that the chaos which is clearly in the minds of the staff and which this state of affairs
928
exemplifies meant that there had to be some delay in implementing it. That was the point that he sought to make.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, it is being said that chaos will be brought about, but quite frankly this is a rearguard action by people who are opposed to Part VII of the Bill. I must compliment the opponents from all sides on their efficiency. They have written letters to The Times, lobbied and telephoned Members, and so on.
The House debated this matter on Second Reading and it seems to me to be unfortunate that we should be rehearsing some of the arguments made at that time. It would be all right if a case was made stating that it would be difficult to implement this in the time available. However, I suspect that this is a rearguard action to take Schedule 7 out of the Bill. I hope that that will not happen.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the noble Lord says that he does not support the Government in this matter and that the problem is how the Bill is handled. What does he mean by saying that he does not support them?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I said that I was critical of the handling of the Bill but that I supported the principle behind it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has made my remarks for me. It has been very sad to hear Members of the House of Lords, which represents the whole of the United Kingdom and which has Peers from the whole of the United Kingdom, talking about this issue as if the main point of this part of the Bill did not exist; namely, that people in the whole of the United Kingdom will be able to identify better with nature conservancy if the decision-making powers are devolved to the maximum possible extent.
During the course of this afternoon's debates there was not a single Scottish-based Peer present on the Labour Benches until the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, rose to speak. I also notice that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is no longer present in the Chamber so there is now no Scottish representative on the Liberal Democrat Bench.
The Earl of Onslow: Rubbish!
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend wishes to say something.
The Earl of Onslow: I have already said it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, during this debate noble Lords have been trying to whittle down the powers which will be vested in the new nature conservancy bodies and those which are already with the Nature Conservancy Council. That has been the exercise. I know that it has been done for reasons which people believe are good ones. However, I hope that noble Lords listened to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and that they heard the voice of someone who comes from an area where we very much want to identify better with nature conservancy; in other words, we want to do it better. We accept the fact that

929
a joint committee is necessary in order to deal with UK and international issues, but we want to give our own grants and we do not want those powers to be given to the central committee.
I ask the House to bear in mind the way in which the people of this country are thinking about the matter and not to concentrate only on the staff of the Nature Conservancy Council, the sciences or the briefs which noble Lords have received. Clearly all the information has not been contained in those briefs.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I have not taken part in this debate thus far and, unfortunately, I was not able to be present in Committee. I regret the fact that the debate is deteriorating and moving into matters which are not the subject of the amendments before us. We are not discussing whether we approve of a Scottish, a Welsh or an English body. Because we are conservationists we are worried—whether or not we believe in it—that when this is implemented it will be a failure. That is the issue before us; it is not whether we believe in this or that section of the Bill. We are trying to decide whether it is possible to implement Part VII of the Bill by 1st April. I should like to join the people who are absolutely convinced that that is impossible.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister appears to be jumping to her feet, but I have an amendment in this group to which I have not yet had the chance to speak.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry. I was about to ask whether the other amendments in this group were going to be addressed during the course of the debate. I was not intervening for any other reason.
Baroness David: My Lords, I take it, therefore, that this is my opportunity to speak. I intend to speak to Amendment No. 253D. However, I should like to say first that, as one who has been involved, ever since the Bill came to this House, in asking questions about the funding and resources and when we would hear about such matters, I entirely agree with all that has been said by my noble friend, by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson.
We are really anxious to know how this part of the Bill will be implemented in the time available. At this very late stage we have received a statement about resources which is not in fact complete even now; indeed, it tells us a certain amount but it does not tell us everything. Therefore, I fully support the move to postpone the implementation of the Bill.
I shall deal now with Amendment No. 253D which is tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. The amendment tackles the problem of grants for UK-wide or international projects. It tackles the problem from a different angle from that proposed by my noble friend in Amendments Nos. 239 and 254.
The purpose of our amendment is to require the three country councils to draw up a statement relating to grants and loans for nature conservation which are of a Great Britain nature or which cannot be directly related to one country. The memorandum may include a statement of understanding on such matters
930
as apportionment of grant between the countries, priorities, or policy matters relating to the giving of grants and loans.
More than half of the NCC's current expenditure on conservation grants totalling some £1.3 million last year relates to projects covering more than one country. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, suggested that separate grant applications would be required in respect of projects covering more than one country. Let us imagine such a situation. It would lead to gross inefficiencies. Moreover, it would lead to disputes between countries as to the level of contributions towards cross-border projects. For example, the RSPB has secured £20,000 from NCC's Great Britain headquarters towards the production of a book on important bird areas in the country. The RSPB will have to complete the book before the NCC is split as the NCC is unable to promise that funding for GB projects will be available under the new arrangements.
The proposed amendment will secure a firm basis for GB grants by requiring the three country agencies to agree to a memorandum of understanding. That may cover matters such as apportionment of funds for projects covering more than one country or for projects which are not country specific. It may also set out priorities and procedures for dealing with grant applications.
If a statutory understanding is not in place, the funding of projects will be left to the goodwill of councils which would result in many conservation projects not being able to get off the ground. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said:
"There is nothing to stop the country agencies agreeing between themselves how they should handle grants for projects which transcend country boundaries".—[Official Report, 4/7/90; col. 2221.]
That is what we are suggesting in our amendment.
There is just one other aspect that I should like to mention. I refer to environmental education. Environmental education forms an important part of the work of the NCC and is likely to suffer cuts in funding as a result of the reorganisation. The NCC is Great Britain's only statutory agency with a grants programme for environmental education and training—and the Government pretend to be enthusiastic about this concept.
Over the past five years the NCC has awarded education grants totalling £1.4 million. Its schools scheme alone has provided £150,000 per year to help create nature reserves in school grounds, covering 10 per cent. of all schools in Great Britain. I believe that that is something which has been suggested by various Ministers. All of these project grants have been awarded by the NCC's Great Britain headquarters. I believe that this is an important issue. I hope that the Minister will be able to support this amendment, even if she disapproves of the one put forward earlier by my noble friend. In my view it is important not only for Great Britain projects but also for international projects. I make a special plea for environmental

931
education. It seems to me to be a very sensible and simple way forward. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will agree to accept the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, if there is one matter about which I am sure all noble Lords will be in total agreement it is the fact that my noble friend Lady Blatch is very well able to take care of herself at the Dispatch Box. I shall, therefore, be extremely brief in what I have to say. However, there are one or two matters which I must raise in view of the somewhat intemperate nature of the attacks which have been made on the Front Bench here by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and others.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have not made intemperate attacks upon the Government Front Bench. I have defended the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I have not accused her of any discourtesy. I have attacked the Government. That is a different matter.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I used the phrase "Government Front Bench" as meaning—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I also protest. I went out of my way to say that I thought that the noble Baroness has behaved superbly since she took over her role. If the former Minister were sitting on this side of the House, I wonder whether he would be satisfied with the situation as it has been put before the House today.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the Opposition are entitled to oppose. I was going on to say that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, delivered his rebukes with great force and eloquence. It is a talent that he displays with great ability. I am sure that many of my noble friends will agree when I say that I hope that he will be able to do so from that Bench for a long time.
There are one or two points which it is right to make on the amendments. The JNCC is a body which has been set up in response—the Government are to be congratulated on having listened to the arguments and responded to them—to the fact that there are matters of a national and an international nature upon which advice needs to be given. The essence of the matter is the word "advice". It has never been intended that the body should in any way be an executive one. If it is to be able to concentrate on giving advice effectively on national and international matters, it is important that it is not overlaid with detailed administrative functions which are properly the role of the national councils which the Bill sets up. The suggestion that the body should have a grant-administering function is one which must be resisted. I see no reason why it should not give advice to the national councils.
If one were to deal with the Severn estuary, or, as has been mentioned, the Solway Firth or other areas that cross boundaries, it would be proper for the joint committee to give advice. But I should strongly resent
932
the House writing into the Bill now a provision that it should become a grant-making body. Therefore I strongly oppose Amendment No. 254.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady David, goes less far, but surely what it proposes could be dealt with administratively. One does not want to clutter up a Bill with a mass of administrative detail unless it is necessary.
I shall reserve my final remarks for the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, who said that he was sure that conservation was going to be starved of funds. The House should continue to bear in mind that the increase in grants to the NCC since 1979 has been 150 per cent. in real terms after taking account of inflation. With a record demonstrating the priority which successive Secretaries of State, supported by successive Chief Secretaries to the Treasury, have given and the increased grants which have been provided for nature conservation, I find it wholly incredible that it should be suggested that somehow that was all to be turned on its head. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, was less than fair to the Government when he said that it was all now going to be starved of finance. I believe that I heard him aright. The Government have a fine record. I am sure that that will continue. I am equally satisfied that the body will be better when it is devolved. However, I do not wish to become involved in the merits of that argument. As has been rightly said by other noble Lords, that was decided on Second Reading and by the votes in Committee.
I cannot think of anything that would do more damage to the morale of the staff, and all the organisations involved with nature conservation, if one was now to call a halt to the process which is well under way. It may not be popular with staff. No major changes ever are. That is a point fairly made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. One thing calculated to send morale to rock bottom is to embark upon a course and then back away from it. Order, counter-order, disorder is the worst recipe.
The Government have set their course and at every stage in both Houses they have been supported. Of course the proposal must go ahead. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, proposes that it should not take effect except by order and that it should be postponed for a year or two years. I can conceive of nothing more damaging to the interests of nature conservation, and I hope that the House will have none of it.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may confirm that we are speaking to Amendments Nos. 223, 239, 253D, 254 and 288A. I say two things at the outset. The first is that I hope the House will bear with me as I respond in detail to the many anxieties raised, because this is a crucial part of today's deliberations. Secondly, I have already this afternoon apologised unreservedly to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for telling him that the studies were in the Library. The fact that they were not in the Library when noble Lords went there is a matter between me as a Minister and my department. I leave the statement at that.

933
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, described the proposal as showing a disgraceful lack of concern about environmental issues on the part of my department. I refute and dispute that comment vigorously. All environmental issues are a considerable preoccupation to my department and all concerned with it. To say that we have shown little concern when the Government have accepted virtually all of the recommendations of the Select Committee—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I believe that when she reads the record she will find that I did not refer to a disgraceful lack of concern for environmental issues by her department. I was criticising the conduct of the Bill. I was not criticising the department's general concern for environmental issues. It would never cross my mind to do such a thing.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise if I used the wrong words. However, my remarks apply even if we are talking about the Bill. We have listened to comments and responded almost in full to the report of the committee chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. Only one point of division between us remains.
We gave all existing NCC and Countryside Commission for Wales staff a statutory right to a job offer. We have also backed by statute the fact that no member of staff will be disadvantaged by the changes. We have also given a guarantee that adequate resources will be provided for the new agencies. We have shown today in some detail what the extra costs are likely to be. The Government have prepared the ground thoroughly and openly. They have an open mind to constructive suggestions for improvement.
The noble Lord concentrated upon resources. The potential for public expenditure on nature conservation is almost limitless. How much the NCC receives depends upon judgments made every year by Ministers. Benefits obtained from the expenditure have to be considered, as well as the assessment of what can he invested. This financial year the Government have given the NCC the best deal it has had since its inception. In 1979–80, we inherited an annual provision for the NCC of less than £8 million. We have increased its grant substantially already. Annual provision has risen from £8 million to £44 million. That is leaving aside the additional resources provided for reorganisation.
Between 1980 and 1990, the NCC has spent over £231 million on nature conservation, including the notification of over 5,300 SSSIs, the declaration of more than 70 new national nature reserves and the negotiation of 1,000 management agreements. That is a substantial record. It is a record which refutes all that was said by the noble Lord.
A rather serious statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady White, on a previous amendment has been repeated in the course of this debate. I believe that it must be addressed. Sir Frederick Holliday has been misinterpreted or had a statement he made taken
934
out of context. I wish to report to the House that he tells us that he has been misquoted in the debate. There is no question of the JNCC relinquishing any of its statutory functions or reducing its efforts on them. His comment quoted by the NCC's trade union side related to the work—mainly research—on which the country agency chairmen have agreed voluntarily to co-operate, over and above the statutory functions. It is that work that Sir Fred thought might one day be reduced and returned to the country councils, a very different interpretation of what that gentleman said.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, commented on computer records, licensing and what would happen. He listed a number of areas where he felt that action was needed to ease the transition to the new agencies. I assure him that in every case action is in hand, and in many cases it is well advanced. For example, on licensing, we have agreed arrangements with NCC and the shadow chairmen to ensure that there is a smooth transfer of expertise and that comparable standards are applied in future.
On computers, again arrangements for the transition are well advanced. One of the consultants' reports that we have published deals with computers. I hope that the noble Lord will make it his business to read it, now that it has become available. All its main recommendations have been accepted by the Government and the NCC. I could go on but I do not wish to take up unnecessary time because I have a number of amendments to address.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, was concerned about the inappropriateness of many comments made during the course of the debate and said that they were not to the point. The amendments that have been presented today to the House for consideration have a serious impact on the relationships between the different agencies. Therefore, as the Minister on the Front Bench, I regard all comments that have been made during the course of the debate as entirely appropriate and relevant to the amendments under discussion.
My noble friend Lord Onslow the other day quoted me as saying that the Bill had gone too far for change. If his memory serves him well, he will also remember that I came back on that comment and said that in these matters Parliament is supreme. If it is Parliament's wish to change the Bill, Parliament will do so; this Chamber and another place will decide. We believe as a government—and my noble friend Lord Jenkin said this also—that the proposals have gone too far for change. It is our belief that we are on the right track and are well on the way towards making these arrangements work.
It is necessary to go into some detail about the arrangements that are being made and put in hand. I have an impression from the debate that we are perceived as sitting here in isolation with nothing happening out there, but that all of a sudden in a single day in five months' time these measures will have to be put in place. Perhaps I may briefly run through the timetable. In July 1989, the reorganisation was announced. In August 1989 the joint steering group of NCC, CC and government officials was

935
established to oversee the detailed arrangements. In December 1989, the Bill was introduced into the Commons. From January to March 1990 the shadow chairmen of the three agencies and the JNCC were all announced. In May 1990 the Government responded to the Carver Committee and did so positively, as I have said a number of times already. In July 1990, the draft proposals for the structure of the new agencies were agreed. We hope to receive Royal Assent in late October 1990.
In early November 1990 new bodies will be vested. Also in early November 1990 the NCC and CC staff will receive offers of posts with the new bodies. During the course of the next five months, considerable activity will take place. Outstanding action to complete the transition will be taken. For example, guidelines for grants, recruitment and the issue that I know concerns the noble Lord, Lord Ross—vacant posts—will all be addressed. In April 1991, the new agencies and the JNCC will take over the functions of the NCC and the Countryside Commission. The post of chief officer for the JNCC is about to be advertised and the JNCC headquarters will be at Peterborough in the first instance. A decision about its permanent headquarters will be taken after a proper feasibility study.
I ask the House to bear with me because it is important to address the specific amendments. I turn to Amendment No. 223. The Government have already gone a long way to meet the legitimate concerns about the funding and role of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee expressed in another place, at Second Reading in this House and in the report of the Select Committee prepared by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver.
At Committee stage we introduced a completely new schedule to put flesh on the JNCC's bones by covering matters such as its membership, its resources and its annual report. As a result, the councils will be under a clear duty to provide the joint committee with staff and resources. However, Amendment No. 223 goes much too far by allowing the JNCC to set its own budget and staffing levels which the councils would then have to meet in full. In other words, they will be precepting on those agencies. This would allow the tail to wag the dog. The JNCC is a committee through which the councils carry out certain important nature conservation functions relating to Great Britain and the international dimension. The JNCC is not an independent quango and cannot be required to direct the councils on how much budget and staffing should be. Indeed, this would be quite irresponsible since the country agencies will have to operate—as the NCC does now—within a fixed grant in aid.
If the noble Lord's amendment were accepted, it would amount to an open-ended precept on these grants to be levied by a committee of the three councils. I fear that this has much in common with the Opposition's general approach to public finance but it should not in any way commend itself to this side of the House.
936
A further problem with this amendment is that if option (b) applies—and I assume that the purpose of this alternative is to cater for the fact that the country councils may not agree with the level of funding etc. that the JNCC has requested—there are no provisions for the JNCC to be provided with any resources at all. So the effect of the amendment would be to put the JNCC in an all or nothing position as regards resources. I am sure that that was not the noble Lord's intention.
I draw the attention of noble Lords to the existing safeguards in the Bill to deliver our commitment that the JNCC's financial resources should be safeguarded. First, there is a provision in paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 7, giving the Secretary of State the reserve powers to determine the JNCC's resources, if the councils cannot agree among themselves.
Secondly, there is the provision in Clause 122(2), introduced at Committee stage, which gives the Secretary of State specific powers to attach conditions to the councils' grant in aid to cover the use of the grant for JNCC expenditure. We have a perfectly workable framework with sensible safeguards.
Amendment No. 288A, which is linked with these amendments, would require the order to bring Part VII of the Bill into force to be the subject of a positive resolution in both Houses. It would thus open Part VII of the Bill once more to lengthy debate. My noble friend made this point very well for me. I believe that the uncertainty this would present is unacceptable to the Government at this stage. Displaying some cynicism on my part, I believe that the intent behind this amendment is not that we should properly consider these matters but that it should be a delaying tactic for the implementation of this part of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, was concerned with Amendment No. 288A, therefore I need to address some of his specific points. I have already said that the Government have given adequate assurances with regard to resources for the new councils. There is therefore no need for these matters to return to the House. The implementation order should follow the natural course of the passing of the Bill.
A further point is that the work is forging ahead to bring reorganisation into full effect in April 1991. I have addressed much of the detail of that process. The NCC staff are working hard to bring this about and the amendment would merely serve to introduce further delay and uncertainty into the process. It is my contention that the amendment would bring no positive benefits and it should be rejected or withdrawn. The effect of the amendment would be to put the position of the NCC staff into limbo. That is a situation that we certainly cannot accept.
Clause 154(3) is concerned only with the technical use of the word "commencement" and the date of that commencement. Commencement orders such as the order which will be made under Clause 154(3) are not made subject to parliamentary procedure because the principle behind the order, which is that the provisions of the Act are to have effect, is decided during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. It would not

937
be right to re-open that principle through a debate. This principle is, in my view, reinforced by the statement in Erskine May that this type of procedure is used principally for substantial and important portions of delegated legislation on which a high degree of scrutiny is sought.
While the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has raised important matters, they are not ones with which the commencement order is concerned. The proper place for that decision is not during discussion on the commencement order. The commencement order, of itself, does not meet the criteria for the affirmative procedures.
Amendments Nos. 239 and 254 are designed to give the JNCC an executive function of giving grants or loans. The House rejected similar amendments in Committee and the arguments are unchanged. The amendments go well beyond the conclusions reached in the Select Committee's report. As my noble friend Lord Hesketh explained in Committee, the JNCC is designed to be an advisory body looking at national and global issues. In the Government's view it will do this far more effectively if it is not burdened with executive duties such as grant-giving—the point raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy—which is exactly the kind of responsibility that ought to be exercised by the country agencies. I say "hear, hear" to my noble friend's comments on that point.
There is nothing to stop the country agencies from agreeing between themselves how they should handle grants for schemes which transcend country boundaries. Indeed the Government have already asked them to do that. However, that is surely not a unique or insurmountable problem when so many other public agencies are already organised on a country basis and have the relevant experience which can be shared with the new conservation agencies. We have deliberately drafted Clause 127 to be as wide as possible so that no worthwhile project will be debarred from grant on legal grounds.
At this stage I should say that I welcome the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. It comes as some relief to me on rather a difficult day that there is at least a modicum of support for the principles here. I venture to say that the whole House is at one as regards the implementation of the measure. We want it to work. It is not only in the interests of this House or the staff of the agencies but in everybody's interests that the measure works.
I now turn to Amendment No. 253D. The Government fully accept the principle behind this amendment. We made it clear in reply to a previous Question tabled by the noble Baroness that we have asked the three new country councils to make arrangements to ensure that grant applications covering more than one country can be dealt with expeditiously and without undue bureaucracy and double funding.
The Bill already allows the Government to bring the new councils into existence well before they take over their conservation functions next April. Indeed we intend to make an order vesting the new councils
938
as early as possible next month. This means that they will have up to five months to make appropriate arrangements for grants which cover more than one country. The conditions which Ministers attach to the grants-in-aid of the new bodies will require them to make and operate such arrangements. Clause 127 is already intentionally drafted to allow any of the councils to make grants or loans for nature conservation without any statutory geographical restriction. I hope that the House will accept that explanation.
I have one or two remaining points. The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to environmental education. There is nothing in this legislation which will preclude the new bodies from taking an active part in promoting environmental education within their areas and remits. Indeed we are anxious that that should happen. We have agreed that the organisational complements should make additional provision for environmental education, particularly in Wales and Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, referred to Great Britain-wide grants. I believe I have addressed that matter in part in my response. Perhaps I should add that there is absolutely nothing in the Bill which precludes the addressing of Great Britain-wide grants. There is also nothing whatever in the Bill which precludes the continuing of those healthy and good relationships which were described by the noble Lord in his presentation.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, also referred to the peril in which he considered the NCC staff found themselves. It is not perhaps surprising—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned this—that the NCC staff are concerned about the reorganisation. It must be difficult for them to divorce themselves entirely from concern about the effects of the change on their domestic and personal circumstances. The position is that the Government have given an assurance that all staff of the existing bodies will be offered a job in the new organisation. Details of the jobs to be offered are being given to staff informally this week. Definitive offers can, of course, only be made following Royal Assent. I hope that allays the fears about the staff. I should repeat, however, that no single member of staff will be disadvantaged by the changes or the measures set out in the Bill. I thank all noble Lords for their indulgence in this discussion on a particularly critical series of amendments.
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is certainly right about one thing which is that the noble Baroness is capable of taking care of herself. She has indeed taken care of herself. I should make it clear from the outset that I have not criticised the noble Baroness. I hope that I have never criticised individual members of the Government during my period in the House. I always seek to criticise the Government and to attack the Government when I think that they are wrong.
I should also make it clear that I did not make the comments to which the noble Baroness referred. I

939
certainly did not accuse the department of a lack of concern for environmental issues. If I made critical remarks about the department in the heat of the moment in my earlier comments—that is possible—I unreservedly withdraw them. I do not wish to criticise civil servants who have no opportunity to reply. It must be an accepted principle that we attack the Government as a whole rather than individual Ministers or civil servants.
However, that does not in any way lessen my feeling that the effect of this debate has been to expose the inadequacy of the Government's thinking and planning for this major change in approach to nature conservation matters. I am confirmed in that view by the fact that only three Members of the House have spoken in support of the Government. Two of those Members were the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe. They are both under the illusion that the amendment seeks to attack the principle of the devolution of the responsibilities of the NCC. That is not the case. I hope that in recognising that that is not the case, they will recognise that their votes ought not to be cast under that illusion. The third Member of the House to express support was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who spoke under the illusion that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee is purely an advisory committee. I should like to draw his attention to Clause 126(2) which makes it clear that the special functions of the JNCC—they are assigned to it separately from those functions which are to be assigned to the country councils—include the implementation of the 1981 Act provisions as set out in Schedule 9, the establishment of common standards and the commissioning of research. The JNCC is not simply an advisory committee. It is a committee which undertakes what are termed "special functions". Anything that we seek to undertake in this group of amendments is intended to secure that those functions can be properly carried out and to ensure that the Government have thought things through properly.
I am totally unconvinced by the Government's arguments about the timetable. I am interested to learn that they are about to advertise the post of chief executive. However, if I consider the timetable for that post in relation to public sector appointments, I am bound to conclude that if the Government advertise towards the end of October, the deadline for receipt of applications can hardly be earlier than mid-November. Therefore the shortlisting would probably occur in the second half of November and the interviews would be held probably before Christmas. If anyone who is on a three-month notice period applies for the job—surely such a person should not be excluded from applying—he or she will be in post by the second week of March. The JNCC is supposed to be in action on 1st April 1991. I ask noble Lords to consider whether the Government have got their timetable right and whether there is any serious possibility of an effective JNCC being put into place in the timetable that is proposed.
940
I ask the Government seriously, even at this last minute, to think again about the timetable and consider whether they have not perhaps got something wrong. If the chief executive is not in post until two weeks before the council starts work how are the remaining staff who will report to him or her to be appointed?
The noble Baroness dealt with all the amendments, and I pay tribute to her for that. However, in the end her response came down to an attack on our motives rather than the wording of the amendment. I find that unacceptable. She said that the intention of the amendments was to delay the implementation of Part VII of the Bill. That may be the Government's interpretation, and it may be the conclusion that your Lordships have drawn from the debates which have taken place. However, we have put down amendments not to attack Part VII of the Bill but to try to rescue the Government from the impossible position in which they have placed themselves. The position was bad enough when we considered it in Committee; it is worse now.
I suggest to your Lordships that Amendment No. 223, which seeks to provide for the implementation of the statements about funding and staffing which have now been made, should be approved by this House.
6.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 223) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kissin, L.

Alport, L.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Craigavon, V.

Moran, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, b.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Northfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ennals, L.

Oram, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Parry, L.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Glenamara, L.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L.

[Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Grey, E.

Ross of Newport, L.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Hanworth, V.

Serota, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hunt, L.

Thurlow, L.

Jay, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Varley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Kearton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkhill, L.

941

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Ampthill, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Liverpool, E.

Aston, V.

Long, V.

Balfour, L.,

Lytton, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Blatch, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Blyth, L

Merrivale, L.

Boardman, L.

Mersey, V.

Borthwick, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L

Mottistone, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Moyne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Munster, E.

Butterworth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caithness, E.

Nathan, L.

Caldecote, V.

Nelson, E.

Campbell of Croy, L

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Newcastle, Bp.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Chorley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Colwyn, L.

Peel, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Pender, L.

Cox, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Reay, L.

Crathorne, L.

Rees, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Renton, L.

Cross, V.

Renwick, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Darcy (de Knayth) B.

Rodney, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

St. John of Bletso, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Saint Levan, L.

Derwent, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Seebohm, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Sharples, B.

Elles, B.

Somerset, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strange, B.

Faithfull, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Swinton, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Greenway, L.

Teviot, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harvington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Tryon, L.

Hives, L

Ullswater, V.

Holderness, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vinson, L.

Jenkins of Roding, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Killearn, L.

Walpole, L.

Kimball, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.19 p.m.
Clause 123 [Countryside functions of Welsh Council]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 128, line 9, leave out ("enactments specified in") and insert ("Acts amended by").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 224 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 225 and 227. These are minor drafting amendments to improve the precision of the wording of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 225:
Page 128, line 11, leave out ("to those enactments").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 128, line 11, at end insert:
("(1A) The Countryside Council for Wales shall discharge those functions—

(a) for the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in Wales and of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside in Wales, and particularly in the areas designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as National Parks or as areas of outstanding natural beauty;

(b) for encouraging the provision or improvement, for persons resorting to the countryside in Wales, of facilities for the enjoyment thereof (particularly in those Parks and areas) and for the enjoyment of the opportunities for open-air recreation and the study of nature afforded thereby;

and shall have regard to the social and economic interests of rural areas in Wales.
(1B) The reference in subsection (1A) above to the conservation of the natural beauty of the countryside includes the conservation of its flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 229, 230, 231 and 232.
The House will recall that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, introduced a similar amendment at Committee stage. That amendment was based on a suggested mandate submitted by the Countryside Commission to the Committee chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. We had a short but informed debate. In reply, my noble friend, Lord Hesketh, explained that the amendment achieved very little as it did little more than restate certain parts of the existing legislation in somewhat different words. That would have created the potential problem that the Countryside Council for Wales would have been subject to two similar but different legislative definitions of certain of their functions. While the Government did not see the need for a statutory Welsh mandate, my noble friend acknowledged the strength of feeling in the House and elsewhere and agreed to reconsider the question. In view of that undertaking, the amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.
We considered this matter carefully during the recess and concluded that we should bring forward an amendment which broadly accords with the original amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, but meets the main objective which I have just mentioned. That is achieved by the consequential amendments in Schedule 8 to the Bill which will ensure that the equivalent functions in the original legislation to those now identified in Clause 123 will apply only to the Countryside Commission in England, with the new mandate in Clause 123 applying only to the Countryside Council for Wales. I beg to move.
Baroness White Baroness White moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 226, Amendment No. 226B:
Line 2, leave out subsection (1A) and insert:
("(1A) The Countryside Council for Wales shall discharge those functions so as to—

943

(a) protect, conserve and enhance the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside of Wales, both in the areas statutorily designated as National Parks or as areas of outstanding natural beauty and elsewhere;

(b) improve and extend opportunities for public enjoyment of and access to the Welsh countryside, consistent with the objectives in paragraph (a) above; and

(c) encourage forms of social and economic development which conserve and enhance the natural environment of Wales.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that this amendment will be accepted in substitution procedurally for Amendment No. 226A, which last week had to be withdrawn owing to a printers' error. It is substantially in substitution for the amendment just moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
I move this amendment for several reasons. The primary one is that if we are to establish an important new agency in the Principality—a council for Wales —to care for our outstandingly beautiful countryside, it should be given an appropriate remit worthy of the occasion. The version proposed by the noble Baroness is in my view both long-winded and uninspired. That the Welsh Office, which probably drafted the amendment, is from time to time capable of being uninspiring does not improve matters. I courteously suggest to the noble Baroness that the revised version which I propose is clear, succinct, dignified and worthy of the occasion and is therefore to be preferred.
There is only one major difference in the substance of my version compared with that proposed by the noble Baroness. It is a matter of emphasis but it is important. I do not suggest any change in subsection (1B), which covers the functions now exercised by the Nature Conservancy Council in Wales. But in subsection (1A) it is important to recognise that the responsibilities which are being transferred from the Countryside Commission to the council for Wales are comprehensive. There is no justification for the special emphasis placed in the noble Baroness's version of subsection (1A) (a) on the areas designated as national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty.
Of course those are extremely important. I speak as a vice-president of the Council for National Parks, which covers England as well as Wales. However, there are existing bodies responsible for the wellbeing of the national parks and there are other designated areas which may be just as much in need of attention from the new Countryside Council for Wales. The heritage coast areas are especially important in Wales, not to mention the areas designated as environmentally sensitive. There are even the less favoured areas—the LFAs.
In some respects it is the undesignated areas that stand in need of special protection because they have no specifically appointed guardians should the planning mechanism prove ineffectual in protecting countryside interests. There should be no suggestion that the new council ought to single out for its
944
attention the national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty to the possible neglect of other countryside concerns.
In saying that and emphasising the comprehensive nature of the new responsibilities, I may add that the Countryside Commission itself, which in Wales will be subsumed in the new council, is strongly of the view that I put forward. I confirmed that earlier today by telephone with Sir Derek Barber, the chairman of the Countryside Commission. In any case, we do not yet know what the current committee of inquiry into the national parks will recommend for their future administration. That report is expected early next year. It could suggest radical changes. Therefore I hope that the noble Baroness will think again about this matter. I believe that the emphasis in her version of the proposed remit is ill advised.
Finally, I am not attracted by the phrasing of subsection (1A) (b), which reads:
"facilities for the enjoyment … (particularly in those Parks and areas)"
which are:
"for persons resorting to the countryside in Wales".
What about those of us who live there? There is a strong flavour of Victorian patronage and condescension in the phraseology. I hope that the noble Baroness will take my point.
With regard to social and economic development, I believe that the wording of my amendment is to be preferred. We do not want to spend too much time on this modest amendment so I shall not enlarge on it but those who are familiar with the Welsh scene will, I am quite sure, understand what I mean.
For all those reasons I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will indicate that she will not press her amendment, Amendment No. 226, as it stands. It is simply not good enough for what is an important development in Welsh public administration. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it would be churlish of me not to thank my noble friend for bringing forward this amendment, as it was done in response to an amendment that I tabled at Committee stage. Having said that, I much prefer the wording of the noble Baroness, Lady White, not least because it is much closer to the wording that I used at Committee stage than what the Minister has brought forward today. I feel that the Government's wording is slightly strange. It seems to have been taken more or less word for word from parts of the 1949 and 1968 Acts, some of which are out of date.
I too am rather worried about the wording of subsection (1A) (a). I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Renton in his place because I believe that this is a case of what he has often described as expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Doubtless he will give me a roasting if my Latin pronunciation is wrong. It means that if one singles out something in legislation it implies the exclusion of other matters that are not included. There is a great deal of Wales which is very beautiful and well worth public access and the encouragement of the new body but which is not

945
either a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty. The very fact that such words are used in the Act may well concentrate the mind of the Countryside Council for Wales too much on those areas and not on other parts of the Principality.
I agree too that some of the wording in paragraph (b) is rather strange. It takes us back to the good old days when the Countryside Commission used to fund a few car parks, toilets here and there and some picnic places. With all respect to the Government, those days have gone. One hopes that the new body will instigate more positive thinking about the way to encourage public access. The words used are a little old-fashioned.
I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will reconsider the position. Perhaps the Government will come back at Third Reading with a slightly more up-to-date amendment along the lines of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady White.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady White. It represents a helpful improvement to the wording of Amendment No. 226. I say that for three reasons. First, without in any way wishing to let loose the rottweilers of critical analysis on the drafting of the amendment, as has been pointed out, there is a certain Edwardian elitism about such phrases as,
"for persons resorting to the countryside in Wales … for the enjoyment [thereof]."
I live in the countryside of Wales. I have not "resorted" there since I cannot remember when.
Whoever created the collocation in new subsection (1B),
"the conservation of its flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features",
was not then perhaps in his happiest vein. The wording is perhaps not as felicitous as it might be.
Secondly, if we take an optimistic and expansionist view of the work of the Countryside Council for Wales, it needs clear and unambiguous instructions, especially in view of the remark attributed, rightly or wrongly, to its distinguished chairman, Professor Frederick Holliday. Whether or not he said on 26th September 1990 that,
"it is quite possible that the new agencies will want to go their own separate ways on GB scientific research. The Joint Committee could therefore wither away within a few years",
if that is his view, then the Countryside Council for Wales may be called upon to assume functions that need to be fully and clearly defined. I believe that my noble friend's version is better than Amendment No. 226.
On the other hand, if we take a pessimistic view of the future of the Countryside Council for Wales, in the light of the fact that it has been reported that NCC senior managers in both Scotland and Wales now openly admit that the new agencies will start on 1st April 1991 with about half the staff that even their parent departments acknowledge to be necessary, it is doubly necessary to be clear about its duties. Whether
946
the Countryside Council for Wales is due to flourish or to flounder, it needs clear, unambiguous legislation and all the help that it can receive.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with what has been said about the amendments. It was a little hard of the noble Baroness, Lady White, to blame the unfortunate Welsh Office for the actions of the parliamentary draftsmen who, I suspect, had probably had more to do with it than my old department.
The wording is unfortunate in at least two respects. The phrase,
"particularly in the areas designated",
suggests that less attention should be given to the remainder of Wales. That is unfortunate. I do not underestimate the importance of the designated areas in any way. I represented one national park in Wales for 17 years, and I live in another. However, as everyone who knows the Principality will understand, a large part of Wales is equally in need of the sympathetic guardianship of the countryside council. We therefore want to remove any implication of the kind suggested.
I take some objection too to the phrase, "resorting to the countryside in Wales".
As I set out for my home on Friday morning I shall not be thinking that I am going on a trip to "resort" to the Black Mountains. However, I am less sympathetic to the proposal of the noble Baroness in new subsection (1A) (c) to move from the phrase,
"have regard to the social and economic interests of rural areas",
to,
"encourage forms of social and economic development".
I express doubts because I see possible conflicts arising. I am chairman of a public body, the National Rivers Authority. It has to reconcile a number of different statutory objectives. It is often an extremely difficult task. It seems to me quite clear that the primary task of the Countryside Council for Wales is protection, conservation and enhancement. It has to take proper account of the social and economic interests of the rural areas. However, if one gives it a positive duty to encourage forms of social and economic development, it may be faced with a number of difficult conflicts of interest when arriving at its priorities.
Such provision also creates problems of a different kind. A number of other public bodies—the Mid-Wales Development Corporation and the Welsh Development Agency, for example—have a primary statutory function to encourage social and economic development. The Welsh Tourist Board covers an area of responsibility which also involves economic development. We cause ourselves unnecessary trouble if we set up a number of parallel bodies with essentially the same function but without a clear understanding of which bears the primary responsibility.
I am quite clear about the primary responsibility of the Countryside Council for Wales. I am also perfectly clear that it must have regard to the social and

947
economic interests of rural areas. I would agree wholeheartedly with the amendment of the noble Baroness if it did not contain that final paragraph.
I hope that the Government will reconsider what has been said during the course of the debate. We welcome the principle of the amendment. It is very much on the lines originally suggested by my noble friend. I am grateful to the Government for putting the amendment down, although it is not perfect in its present form. There is still an opportunity to improve it at a later stage. I hope that my noble friend will indicate that she will consider whether improvements in the wording might be achieved.
Lord Parry: My Lords, it has been proved already that there is little that the Welsh love more than semantics. The government amendment has given us a field day. The House will recognise that we have heard a distinguished former Secretary of State for Wales speaking to an amendment moved by a former Minister of State for Wales who has had probably the finest political career of a Welsh women since Boudicca. We have the president of a university college and an ex-chairman of the Welsh Tourist Board. We all come to similar conclusions although we might wish to rearrange the government amendment in slightly different ways.
I have no intention of returning the House to the more fractious period today when we were anxious about the statement given by the noble Baroness. However, I wish to refer to paragraph 11 of that statement. Noble Lords will have had the opportunity to read it. It states:
"In Wales, reorganisation will for the first time provide capacity on the ground at regional level to deal with landscape conservation, recreation and access issues".
I should like to ask some questions of the Front Bench on that paragraph. Have the Government now reached agreement with some of the bodies that were named by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell? Some bodies were concerned about the apparent contradiction—it was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, earlier today—between the separation of the bodies in England and the merger of the bodies in Wales. Does the Minister believe that there is agreement between the bodies in Wales, and do they welcome the merger? I know that some county and district councils look forward to some of the provisions of the merger. However, I emphasise strongly that, despite the reassurances about funding given by the Minister when speaking to her statement, they are deeply concerned about being given proper funding to carry out their functions. They feel that Wales may lose out in the change of system. I know that the Sports Council for Wales was deeply anxious and it would like an answer to those questions.
At my age—approaching 65—I find it amusing to hear Members of this House speak as though they speak for all the people of Scotland and Wales. It is a fact of our constitutional democracy that at present the Government of Great Britain governs with the vote of 43 per cent. of the population and that the Opposition is trying to reach 44 per cent. in order to
948
arrest government from them. I do not believe that the hills and valleys of Wales will be singing tonight because of the long-term provisions for the long-tailed tit which are implicit in the amendment. I believe that people are more likely to be concerned with devolution for people than for birds, but in our co-operative democracy we must go for the best that we can get. I urge the Minister to co-operate and to make way for the proposals within her amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we are discussing a group of amendments moved by my noble friend Lady Blatch. Having considered the matter, I prefer them to the alternative amendment which overlaps to a great extent. It was proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon—
Baroness White: My Lords, occasionally the Speaker in the House of Commons confused me with Lady Bacon, but I had hoped that in this House a distinction might be made.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. In spite of my Christian name I have no Welsh blood, but I have a great love for Wales. I do not see why we should not pay the Welsh people the compliment of wishing to resort to their lovely countryside whether by bus, Rolls-Royce, hitchhiking, or whatever.
I am worried by the point being raised by my noble friends Lord Swinton and Lord Crickhowell regarding the use of the words "and particularly in" in paragraph (a) and the words "particularly in" in paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 226. There is a danger of ambiguity, but the position is worse than that. In each case there could be three effects. The use of those words could exclude other matters and I am sure that that is not the Government's intention. I do not believe that they wish the lovely parts of Wales outside the national parks to be ignored.
It may be that the words were included for emphasis so that more attention is paid to national parks than to the other parts of Wales. That would be wrong. It may be that the draftsman was merely giving an example by mentioning national parks, access to the countryside and areas of outstanding natural beauty. To do so could be misleading. Therefore, I hope that between now and Third Reading my noble friend will agree to consider the wording in her amendment, even though generally speaking I prefer the way she is dealing with the matter.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I support the wording suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady White. I do so not only because it is a good deal clearer and more elegant than the wording of Amendment No. 226 but because, in substance, it is to be preferred for the reasons that she gave. I live in a particularly beautiful part of Wales which is not in a national park. It is important that the amendment should not propose that the Countryside Council for Wales should favour one area of Wales over another. Indeed, would it not be possible to leave out the words in paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 226B,

949
"both in the areas statutorily designated as National Parks or as areas of outstanding natural beauty and elsewhere"?
They provide merely that national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and areas such as my own which are referred to derisively as "elsewhere" should be protected, conserved and enhanced. If that is correct, those words are unnecessary. As a basis for a remit for the Countryside Council for Wales the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady White, is good and I support it.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, paragraph (b) of the Government's amendment states:
"for encouraging the provision or improvement, for persons resorting to the countryside in Wales, of facilities for the enjoyment thereof".
What kind of facilities are envisaged? Facilities for the enjoyment of the countryside could be footpaths, which we should all welcome, but they could be time-share apartments, which we should not welcome.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, my view coincides with that of everyone else who has spoken —that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady White, is infinitely superior to Amendment No. 226. However, I support the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell that it would be improved if the noble Baroness would substitute for paragraph (c) the words:
"and shall have regard to the social and economic interests of rural areas in Wales".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not wish to intervene because the amendment has already been adequately debated. However, I wish to raise the question of whether we should continue through the normal dinner hour. I do not recall the Chief Whip suggesting that we should stop for dinner. I raise the matter on the Floor of the House in case any noble Lords might find that particularly inconvenient. I should be content to continue without a break.
Baroness White: My Lords, while the Government are considering that important issue I shall speak in defence of paragraph (c). I had thought that "encourage" was an in-word on the Conservative Benches. It appears so frequently in the White Paper that I thought it would meet with universal approbation. I am concerned not only with the social and economic interests of rural areas but also with the nature of the social and economic development which should enhance the natural environment of Wales. Certain suggestions for development in rural areas certainly do not do so.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to answer the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The noble Lord opposite, my noble friend Lady Blatch and indeed other noble Lords have quite a long stint ahead. I believe that to have no dinner break is asking a great deal. If the noble Lord feels that it would be wise to get on, let us have a 50-minute dinner break instead of an hour. However, if there is no break at all that will be asking a very great deal of noble Lords involved in the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I listened with interest to my noble friend Lord Swinton (who I believe was
950
the cause of these amendments), to other noble Lords and, of course, to the noble Baroness, Lady White, who has moved Amendment No. 226B.
As I said earlier, the Government's Amendment No. 226 was drafted broadly on the lines of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinton, which he introduced in Committee. I readily acknowledge that it uses the language of existing legislation. This was quite deliberate as it has been the Government's avowed intention throughout the consideration of Part VII of the Bill to deal only with the reorganisation of the NCC and Countryside Commission and not to change the present functions.
The noble Lord has expressed fears that the amendment will put the clock back by focusing on the Countryside Council for Wales' responsibilities in the national park and AONB fields whereas the Countryside Commission has moved on from its 1949 position to the wider countryside. This was certainly not the intention of the amendment. The Government's aim is for the Countryside Council for Wales (or CCW) to have the same countryside functions as the Countryside Commission has at present and that is clearly best achieved by applying precisely the same legislative provisions to both bodies. A statutory mandate, whether it is based on the language of the present Acts or couched in more modern language, is bound to run the risk of setting the bodies on different courses.
I find no difficulty in giving my noble friend the assurance he is seeking that the CCW's range of activities should be no different from that currently undertaken by the Countryside Commission. I can also confirm that it is not the Government's intention that nature conservation considerations will always take precedence over those activities traditionally associated with the Countryside Commission, but neither will the converse always be the case. There will inevitably be cases, although I do not think that they will arise very often, where what I might call NCC and CC interests will be in conflict. These will either be resolved at officer level where many of the more senior staff will have responsibilities which straddle the present divide or will be referred to the council itself. I have referred to NCC and CC interests to meet the point raised by my noble friend but I know Welsh Office Ministers are anxious that the CCW will see itself as a new body with a single but wide range of responsibilities. The present staffs of the NCC and CC in Wales have considered from the outset that there should be an integration of functions as far as possible and the proposed structure reflects this. Of course there will be internal differences on policy and casework as there are in any organisation but they will be resolved internally as any differences are at present in the NCC, the CC, or government. Welsh Office Ministers are convinced that the integration of the present NCC and CC functions in a single organisation will lead to a properly balanced understanding of all aspects of the CCW's work.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, has been critical, as have other noble Lords, of the wording of the Government's amendment and has moved her own

951
Amendment No. 226B to change the wording of subsection (1A). I assume her intention is to retain broadly the same meaning but in what she considers to be clearer words.
Those who have studied the government amendment will have realised that the wording is almost identical to that in Section 1 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and Sections 1 and 37 of the Countryside Act 1968. This is quite deliberate to ensure that the functions of the Countryside Council for Wales are kept in line with those for the Countryside Commission since it is the intention that the statutory framework shall be the same for England and Wales.
The noble Baroness's wording is significantly different from the existing statutory wording and in one important respect it would impose a new responsibility on the CCW which does not, and will not, apply to the Countryside Commission. At present the commission in the exercise of its functions is required to have due regard to the economic and social interests of rural areas, but the noble Baroness's wording would require the CCW to encourage forms of social and economic development which conserve and enhance the natural environment of Wales. I know that your Lordships are concerned about that part of the amendment. It could be argued that this would impose on the CCW a duty to promote and seek social and economic development, but social development is a matter for many other agencies and economic development is best left to such bodies as the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency. I would therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
Before winding up on these amendments, for the second time this afternoon—and, indeed, it may be the third or fourth time—Sir Frederick Holliday has been misquoted in this Chamber and, because it was a rather serious misquote, it is important to put it right. Sir Frederick Holliday tells us that he has been misquoted in that there is no question of the JNCC relinquishing any of its statutory functions or reducing its efforts in respect of them. His comment quoted by the NCC trade union side related to the work, mainly research work, on which the Countryside Agency chairman has agreed voluntarily to co-operate over and above the statutory functions. It is that work which Sir Fred thought might be reduced. In saying that, he believed that when reduced, it would return to the country councils.
I have been pressed to think again about this amendment and perhaps bring it back on Third Reading. I find that a most unattractive proposition at this stage given the amount of work which has been carried out by my department and officials from the Welsh Office. There have been many wet towel sessions on this wording and I am not convinced that more work on this will make a great deal of difference.
I should welcome a response from my noble friend Lord Swinton as to whether the objectives of my noble friend are met by this amendment. I hope that he will
952
be able to accept my amendment rather than the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady White.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I am not quite sure that I have understood her. She was speaking a little faster than my mind sometimes works. Do I understand that she intends to retain the word "particularly" not so much because it is appropriate but rather because so much work has been done on the drafting? If my noble friend would take away the amendment and rectify the drafting as regards that word, then I am sure that that will give a great deal of satisfaction not only to my noble friends but also to a very wide circle of people interested in this matter.
Baroness White: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I may be prepared to do a deal on this matter. If the noble Baroness will give me an assurance that she will withdraw the emphasis on particularity as regards subsections (1A) (a) and (b), then in all the circumstances I shall be prepared to withdraw my amendment. However, this is a very serious matter and if the noble Baroness does not give that undertaking it will be impossible for me to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, your Lordships are very persuasive. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Renton that I hear what he says. Perhaps the House will accept that, without prejudice to the outcome of this matter, I shall take away the amendment and consider all that has been said during the debate.
Baroness White: My Lords, in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 226, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall take away this amendment and give it further consideration before Third Reading.
Amendment No. 226, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Reay: My Lords, perhaps this is an appropriate moment to adjourn. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 7.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7 to 7.45 p.m.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 227:
Page 128, line 14, leave out ("enactments") and insert ("Acts").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 227A:
Page 128, line 15, at end insert:
("(3) In this Part "countryside matters" means matters which relate to the protection, conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, of amenity and of buildings, sites and objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest, and the enjoyment thereof.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.

953
241A to 241C and Amendment No. 242A, tabled in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross.
On the face of it, these amendments on countryside matters appear to seek similar ends to Amendment No. 242, standing in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. That amendment has already been spoken to. However, I believe that the amendments in my name meet the Government's criticisms of the earlier amendments tabled in Committee and I hope, therefore, that they will be more acceptable to my noble friend on the Front Bench. They represent a rather different approach from that of the noble and gallant Lord to achieving an overview of countryside matters, but they have a similar end in mind.
The amendments seek to allow the joint committee to give advice, although not binding advice, on countryside matters to the country councils of England, Scotland and Wales on matters of national and international importance. Let us just consider what countryside matters mean. I believe that the terms refers to the protection, conservation and enhancement of the whole countryside and its landscape, including archaeological and historical features, and public enjoyment through access and recreational activities. Those aspects are covered by Amendment No. 227A, which is a paving amendment for Amendments Nos. 241A to 241C, and for Amendment No. 242A.
We had a long and important debate in Committee on the issue of incorporating countryside matters into the remit of the joint committee, and there was considerable support within the Chamber for enabling the joint committee to address Great Britain or UK-wide countryside issues in a similar manner to those of nature conservation. However, the Government have consistently rejected that proposal, which was one of the key recommendations of the Committee chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver.
Perhaps I may give an example of where my amendment might help. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred quite rightly to the common problems faced by upland areas in England, Wales and Scotland—areas such as Dartmoor, the Brecon Beacons and the Cairngorms. In the environment White Paper, the Government acknowledged that they would review the landscape designations in Scotland with the possibility of establishing national parks or their equivalent in that country. Considering the vast wealth of experience of the national parks system in England and Wales, would not the joint committee be in an excellent position to consider some of those common issues? The Scottish countryside body would then have access to the best possible advice because the joint committee would be in a position to call on the appropriate experts in that field. They need not take that advice, but at least it is available to them should they wish to call on it.
I now turn to the reasons given by the Government for opposing an incorporation of countryside matters into the remit of the joint committee. The name of the
954
joint committee was even amended to become the Joint Nature Conservation Committee further to emphasise that the Government did not wish to see a wider remit. In Committee, the Minister then on the Front Bench, my noble friend Lord Hesketh, spelt out his objections to our amendments. I have to say that I believe the Government's fears were and are exaggerated. However, we have taken special note of those in the amendments.
These amendments do not seek to extend the formal functions of the joint committee and therefore do not run the risk feared by the Government, and repeated by my noble friend Lady Blatch this afternoon, that we would be creating another quango out of the JNCC. That is certainly not the purpose of these amendments. The amendments will enable the joint committee to give advice on countryside matters in the same way as it is able to do under Clause 126 on issues of nature conservation. That is likely to involve little more than the secondment of one or two members of staff from the countryside bodies. It does not have great resource implications nor does it greatly alter its prime functions. It is merely an advice-giving power.
That advice will not be binding on the country councils nor will it create a body able to dictate to them. The joint committee will, however, be in a position to address nationwide issues, be they of nature conservation or countryside concern, as I have described in my example about national parks.
The Government were also concerned that any attempt to include countryside matters within the remit of the joint committee would involve the extension of the NCC's remit to include countryside matters and that it would be a way of achieving, by the back door, the integration of NCC and Countryside Commission functions in England. The one thing we are not trying to do is to achieve integration in England by the back door. I recognise that the Government have said in their White Paper that they will review the situation in England in the light of experience. While I may wish that the Government had said more, my aim is simply to see that an overview of countryside matters is established. That is wholly in line with the Government's logic of integrating the NCC and Countryside Commissions in Scotland and Wales. An overview of countryside matters in relation to my amendments would not be dependent on a similar integration in England.
In tabling these amendments I am convinced that we have taken on board the Government's criticisms made in Committee. I hope that my noble friend will now be able to accept the amendments or give me a commitment that she will draft her own amendments to achieve the aims I have set out and return with them at Third Reading. We have moved a long way towards meeting the Government's concerns. Being, as ever, an optimist I now await my noble friend's response with great interest. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, against all the odds I still support the concept behind these amendments. I appreciate that the arguments have been debated on a number of occasions and the subtleties of this group of

955
amendments have been well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, so I do not propose to speak at length but merely formally support him.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I add my support to these amendments. Earlier this afternoon we heard the noble Baroness speak about countryside matters in relation to the role of the JNCC and I believe that this is a perfectly adequate definition which I hope will be acceptable.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I intervene briefly to say that I support the amendment in spirit but, not unnaturally, I prefer the alternative approach of Amendment No. 242, which we discussed earlier this afternoon when I spoke to it at length. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, did not favour the amendment but we have not yet reached it in terms of a Division and I hope that she will be more favourably disposed to the present amendment.
I am somewhat tempted to use this occasion to reply to some of the points made on my earlier intervention this afternoon and later by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but that might be thought of as taking an unfair procedural advantage so I shall resist the temptation. I will listen with interest to what the Government have to say.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am a member of the CPRE and I normally support amendments moved in this House which that organisation has drafted or inspired, but I regret that on this occasion I find myself unable to do so. There is naturally a great deal of overlapping in the work of wildlife conservation and in the conservation and improvement of the countryside. We cannot get away from that.
However, the question that arises is whether this consultative body which is intended to get together the three new councils for the different countries of the United Kingdom should have more than the advantage of a representative of the Countryside Commission, which is what I understand the Government intend. To give to the joint committee the responsibilities which by statute are well fastened upon the Countryside Commission and upon these councils would, I fear, lead to duplication, which ought to be avoided. I believe that the coincidence between wildlife conservation and preservation of the countryside is best left to the joint committee and consultation to the limited extent that may be necessary rather than imposing positive obligations on the JNCC, which, as I said, would lead to duplication.
Having said that, one must acknowledge that in seeking to secure wildlife conservation we must consider, above all, the habitat of wildlife. That includes not only the retention of hedgerows, spinneys and so on, but the whole question of afforestation as well. The preservation of marshes and heathland must also be considered. I agree that these matters are all very much intertwined, but we must be careful when legislating as to where it is we are placing positive responsibilities by statute. I think that it is better to give the joint committee the responsibilities which the
956
Government have already outlined and intend instead of fastening upon them work which could easily duplicate that of the councils.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I am bound to support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, because they are in line with the recommendations of the Select Committee. I prefer the amendment tabled by myself, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, because we accept the fact that the idea of giving the joint committee responsibilities for countryside affairs was rejected at an earlier stage in our proceedings. However, we said in our report, and we stick by it, that it is totally illogical to amalgamate nature conservation and countryside conservation in Scotland and Wales and to perpetuate the divide in England.
The only point I wish to repeat at this stage is that all the arguments that have been produced today and on previous occasions for keeping Countryside Commission affairs and nature conservancy affairs separate within the joint committee because they will be separate in England appear to me and to our committee to undermine the arguments made for joining them together in Scotland and Wales. Therefore, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is entirely in line with the Select Committee's report, and although I prefer my own amendment I must, from that point of view, support his amendment.
8 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I shall follow the admirable example of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and not repeat the arguments that were addressed at a different stage. I agree with every word that my noble friend Lord Renton said. I am unable to support the amendment which my noble friend Lord Norrie has moved.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as far as possible I shall also follow that example by not repeating the arguments so ably put by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. However, I must intervene because of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I hesitate long before saying this, but he has misinterpreted the group of amendments. He seems to think that to introduce the word "countryside" into the Bill as the amendments do, would be to duplicate the work of the Countryside Commission.
The noble Lord is wrong in two respects. First, there is no National Countryside Commission any longer—or there will not be when the legislation goes through—in the sense that in Wales the Countryside Commission will be absorbed into the new country council. That will happen in Scotland as well in due course. Secondly, the noble Lord has ignored Amendment No. 242A which states that all references to countryside matters in that section—that is to say, the section in which Amendment Nos. 241A to 241C occur—are references to:
"(a) any countryside matter of national or international importance or which otherwise affects the interests of Great Britain as a whole; or

957
(b) any countryside matter which arises throughout Great Britain and raises issues common to England, Scotland and Wales".
With the break-up of the Countryside Commission for Great Britain as a whole, there is no one left to take responsibility for these particular countryside matters. This is not an attempt to allow the country NCCs or the JNCC to take over all of the responsibilities of any Countryside Commission. It is an attempt to fill a gap which the legislation creates. It is no more and no less than that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall also try to follow the example set and we shall not go over much of the ground covered by the earlier amendment moved by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. The subject of the first amendment, Amendment No. 227A, will be familiar to the House as the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, introduced an amendment to a similar effect at Committee stage. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, spoke in support of it.
It was conceded on that occasion that the Countryside Commission was fully aware of the importance of archaeological features in the landscape, and I am sure that the Countryside Council for Wales will continue in that tradition. This amendment is much wider in its scope as it is not confined to the landscape but purports to give the CCW responsibility for the protection, conservation and enhancement of all buildings, sites and objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest wherever they occur and, further, to give the CCW responsibility for ensuring the public's enjoyment of this built heritage. This would cause even more conflict with the functions of Cadw in Wales—I am sure that the Welsh peers in the Chamber will tell me that Cadw is the Welsh word for heritage—than would the previous amendment. It is not clear if the amendment is intended to extend to the Countryside Commission but if it is it would create similar conflict between their functions and those of English Heritage.
I say that it purports to give additional functions to the CCW. As drafted, we believe that it fails in that aim. The amendment defines countryside matters, but the words appear only as a heading to Clause 123, as part of the heading to Schedule 8, and in parenthesis in Clause 123 as a brief description of Schedule 8. The words are therefore of little or no substance and to define them in the manner of this amendment would not add any archaeological responsibilities to the CCW. I believe that some of these matters were touched on by my noble friend Lord Renton. For those reasons I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 241A, 241B, 241C and 241 D. We have predominantly dealt with these issues. The only point I wish to repeat from the previous debate on this matter is that there continues to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the Government's perception of the JNCC and their intention towards it. There is also a misunderstanding about the role of the JNCC in the minds of other noble Lords.
958
The extension of the remit to the JNCC, by whatever means or words used on the face of the Bill, extends to it two added functions. My noble friend Lord Norrie said that the distinction between the two amendments was that the advice was not binding. No advice is binding in that sense. Advice will be proffered and it will be considered along with a range of advices. The difference between us is where deliberation and consideration of that advice takes place and whether that occurs at the level of the JNCC. It is also a question of whether the JNCC takes into account those nature and conservation issues alongside, and to be weighed up against, the countryside issues. It is also a question of whether they retain their primary function which is advising about nature conservation issues and allowing the countryside matters to be considered externally by the body to whom the advice is proffered.
That is a fundamental difference between us. It may appear to be a small one, but it is fundamental. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Jenkin for once again helping me to press this point. I hope that I am gaining some ground though I fear that I may not be. I hope that these amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down can she clarify exactly what she means? I said that the advice did not have to be taken. I do not understand her answer to that point. Advice can be given but it does not necessarily have to be taken. The advice is there if it is needed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry if I have misunderstood my noble friend. At the outset when he was moving the amendment, my noble friend said that the distinction between his amendment and that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, was that the advice relating to my noble friend's amendment is not binding advice. I believe that those were the words used by my noble friend Lord Norrie. What I am saying is that when the Bill becomes law the JNCC will be backed by statute with a requirement and an obligation to proffer advice primarily concerned with nature conservation and wildlife issues. Even that advice when it is proffered will be considered but it will not necessarily be binding advice. However, the remit for the JNCC is clear. Its priority is to be concerned with nature conservation and not countryside matters.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am greatly disappointed by my noble friend's response. While rejecting these amendments and those of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, there are no new objections as far as I can see. I am at a loss to understand the Government's continued opposition to this matter particularly as I stressed that when introducing these amendments we had met the Government's criticisms of them at Committee stage. I had honestly hoped for a better response. I am still amazed that the Government are not willing to allow the best possible advice to be given to the country councils on countryside matters. Before deciding what action to take I ask my noble friend whether even at this late hour she can indicate if there is a possibility of her offering her own amendment at Third Reading?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must say that I am obviously having difficulty in explaining what I believe to be a very fundamental difference between us on this amendment. Whatever the words are, the remit is quite clearly in the terms of the amendment tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and by my noble friend Lord Norrie. However, I believe that my noble friend's amendment makes even more explicit that consideration of countryside matters should be an obligation on the JNCC.
As I interpret it, it would lay a legal obligation on the JNCC to consider nature conservation matters and countryside matters. It would have a legal obligation to consider them and to advise on the basis of that legal obligation. But if after deliberation on a single issue, whether it applied nationally or internationally, the weight of argument came down in favour of countryside issues as opposed to nature conservation issues, the advice it proffered would have to be weighted in favour of countryside issues.
That extensive remit not only allows the obligation to consider matters of nature conservation and countryside matters but also adds to that obligation the requirement to weigh and balance the evidence and the weight of argument in favour of one or the other. It introduces the issue of conflict in that, when it produces that advice in favour of one or the other, that advice can inevitably be subject to challenge, the point made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin on an earlier amendment. I apologise for returning us to the debate on the previous amendment.
That is what I believe is the difference between us. The Government are clear that there is a single remit for the JNCC to consider nature conservation issues and not countryside issues. By extending its remit, if it has to have regard in primary legislation to countryside matters, it will inevitably have to make judgments, having weighed up the evidence, about the supremacy of one issue or the other.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I have listened to what the noble Baroness has said. There is a fundamental difference of opinion between the two of us. In my amendment I am offering free advice. If the free advice is accepted, that is fair enough; if it is not accepted, that is also fair enough. That is the fundamental difference. I have to disagree with the noble Baroness. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
8.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.227A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 53.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Blease, L.

David, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carver, L.

Grey, E.

Chorley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lockwood, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lytton, E.

960

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thurlow, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Tordoff, L.

Nathan, L.

Walpole, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Norrie, L. [Teller.]

Whaddon, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

White, B.

Seear, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Greenway, L.

Arran, E.

Harvington, L.

Astor, V.

Henley, L.

Auckland, L.

Hives, L.

Balfour, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Beloff, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Borthwick, L.

Mills, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caithness, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Peel, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Reay, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Renton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Sharples, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Strange, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Swinton, E.

Elles, B.

Trumpington, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ullswater, V.

Elton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Wynford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.21 p.m.
Schedule 8 [Amendment of Enactments relating to Countryside Matters]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 227B
Page 182, line 25, at end insert:
("Law of Property Act 1925 (c.20)
In section 194(2) there shall be inserted after the words "Lord of the Manor" the words "the Countryside Commission, the Countryside Council for Wales,".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to add the Countryside Council for Wales and the Countryside Commission to the list of those bodies which may apply to the county court for an order for the removal of a building, fence or other work constructed on common land without the consent of the Secretary of State where such consent is required. A similar amendment was tabled in Committee. In response the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said that it was the Government's intention to introduce comprehensive commons legislation when parliamentary time permits.
We are still awaiting that legislation and, indeed, any news about it. However, I shall return to that aspect of the matter later. The problem is that even the promise of comprehensive legislation in due course appears to offer no prospect of improvement on the issue of adequate safeguards against unlawful erections on common land since, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, made clear in his answer, the Government

961
do not consider that these bodies should be added to the list of those who may prompt action and believe that access to the courts is already adequate.
The noble Lord's answer amounted to saying that there was no problem, despite the fact that he heard on that occasion from the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and from my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who were able to give him many examples of unlawful buildings on a common and the erection of other constructions such as fences. It was pointed out that, although the lords of the manor and registered commoners have the right under the Law of Property Act 1925 to seek an order in the county court, they often did not do so because they were often the people responsible for erecting the buildings.
County and district councils might, among a range of priorities, not necessarily act so quickly as other bodies with a more direct interest in conservation and the improvement of common land. That is a feature which we have seen in other legislation, especially that concerning rights of way.
The amendment proposed is a modest one and is presented largely to enable the Government to correct the impression given last time that their policy when announced will introduce no changes in this area. We should like to know for certain whether that is what the noble Lord meant in his answer. As I have reminded the House on many occasions, the reforms which were suggested by the Common Land Forum to tighten safeguards against infringements of common land were included in the Conservative Party manifesto at the last election. Despite many questions and much pressure, we have not received satisfactory answers from the Government in this respect.
I must now refer to the end of July just before the Summer Recess. At that time I tabled a Question on common land. In response to a suggestion from the then Front Bench spokesman that I was about to receive a satisfactory statement from the Government, I agreed not to press the matter and not to ask supplementary questions. Therefore, I was very disappointed when the statement was eventually given because it was simply a repetition of what had gone before. It seems to me that, despite all the promises and the extreme damage which is being done to common land, the Government are not fulfilling their promise. I should like to hear something more constructive from the noble Lord in his reply this evening. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is too courteous. She was treated scurvily at the end of July. She asked a Question and was assured by Ministers that there would be a satisfactory Answer and on that basis she did not pursue the matter. However, she then found that the refusal of this Government to implement their own manifesto policy from 1987 was being continued. It was a most unsatisfactory little episode and the Government now have an opportunity to put matters right and to do what ought to have been done in response to my noble friend's persistent, but always courteous, reminders about their duty.
Lord Reay: My Lords, as the noble Baroness pointed out, an amendment which would have had a similar effect was moved in Committee, although it was technically defective.
Under Section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the county or district council, the lord of the manor or any other person interested in the common (which I understand means a person with a legal interest in the common, such as a commoner) can apply to a county court for an order for the removal of any building, fence or other work which was constructed without the Secretary of State's consent where such consent should be obtained. The present amendment would add the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales to the list of those who can apply to the county court for an order. The existing list is already wide ranging and we can see no reason for its urgent extension. The commission and the council, like any other organisation or member of the public, can already ask any of those on the list to take action on their behalf. We believe that this is not an appropriate time to tackle the complex subject of common land legislation, although I must repeat that there is a government commitment to legislate on the basis of the Common Land Forum proposals.
Although it has not been possible to bring forward such legislation, as the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, announced in response to a Written Question on 26th July 1990, the Government have embarked on detailed discussions with organisations which have a major interest in our commons to see how we can resolve the remaining practical problems. That was a new announcement in our statement and I must point out that the noble Baroness is not right when she says that my noble friend had nothing to add to the situation as it was at that time. We shall consider the way forward in the light of those discussions.
The present amendment is defective, in that it does not make it clear that the new powers shall be confined in the case of the Countryside Commission to common land in England and in the case of the Countryside Council for Wales to common land in Wales. In all the circumstances, I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, naturally I am disappointed in that reply. Moreover, the noble Lord did not indicate to me exactly where I was wrong in what I said. I believe that the report of the Common Land Forum was published in 1986 or thereabouts and consultations have been taking place since that time. The latest information I received indicated that the only sticking point was the Moorlands Association. I really do not see that the statement which was made in a Written Answer on 26th July added anything to the matter; indeed, I could not find anything new in it. However, I leave the point for now. Since there is possibly just one further year left of the present government, I hope that we shall have

963
reference to commons legislation in the Queen's Speech. If there is none, we can take due note of what happens to manifesto promises.
Earl Peel: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to make a point. I am a member of the Moorland Association. I do not wish to go into details now about the discussions that took place, but I should like to make it clear that the Moorland Association is in favour of legislation. It realises the fact that legislation needs to be enacted to safeguard common land.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his intervention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 182, line 29, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 233. These are minor drafting amendments to improve the precision of the wording of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 182, line 32, after ("England") insert ("for the purposes specified in subsection (2) below;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 230 to 232:
Page 182, line 35, at end insert ("for the corresponding purposes specified in section 123(1A) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.").
Page 182, line 36, leave out from beginning to third ("the") in line 39 and insert:
("(2) The purposes for which the functions of the Commission are exercisable are—

(a)").

Page 182, line 44, leave out from beginning to ("encouraging") in line 1 of page 183 and insert:

("(b) the").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when we are dealing with amendments that have been spoken to, it would be helpful to those of us who are trying to keep up with the business if the Minister would say when she introduces such amendments with which previous amendment they had been discussed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise. The amendments were grouped with Amendment No. 226.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 233:
Page 184, line 39, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 228. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 234:
964
Page 184, line 47, leave out from ("(2)") to end of line 50 and insert ("—

(i) after the word "recreation" there shall be inserted the words "and the study of nature"; and

(ii) at the end, there shall be inserted the words "; and the purposes for which the functions of the Council in Wales are to be exercised are the corresponding purposes specified in section 123(1A) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990."").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 226. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 124 [Nature conservation functions: preliminary]:
Lord Walpole Lord Walpole moved Amendment No. 235:
Page 128, line 25, at end insert:
(" () It shall be the duty of the Councils in discharging their nature conservation functions to take appropriate account of anthropogenic features which influence directly the nature conservation value of nature reserves agreed under the terms of section 16 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 or land of special interest agreed under the terms of section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 or notified under the terms of section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981")..
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may recall that in Committee I tabled a series of amendments designed to recognise man's influence over the countryside when it came to nature conservation. The amendment aims at ensuring that the new councils have a statutory duty to consider the archaeological value of designated conservation sites. The wording, "take appropriate account of" implicitly recognises the primacy of the nature conservation legislation in such designated areas except where archaeological interests are protected by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.
The wording of the amendment is also consistent with the Government's Clause 124(2) which relates to ecological changes. When the amendments were withdrawn in Committee I was promised by the Minister that a letter of intent rather than primary legislation might be the way of dealing with the problem. I have now what is described as the penultimate draft of such a letter by the NCC, English Heritage, Cadw, the Historic Monuments Board in Scotland, the Confederation of British Archaeology and the Council for Scottish Archaeology. If I could have an assurance from the Minister tonight that it will be agreed by the parties and that it will have some influence over the successor bodies when they come into being next April, we should have gone a long way towards solving the problem. I should obviously prefer the Minister to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I welcome the letter of intent which the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, was kind enough to let me see. It meets all the problems which are likely to arise, but it would be helpful if the Minister could reassure us that it will not be weakened by any further discussions. There are a number of areas in which it could do with being strengthened rather than the opposite. However, I am sure that it is not meant in that way and I welcome it.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, in Committee I too suggested that a joint declaration by the NCC and the appropriate bodies rather than an amendment to the Bill would be the right way to go forward. I am glad to acknowledge that the joint declaration is now in an advanced stage of drafting and is, as far as I know, satisfactory to all parties concerned.
There is no doubt that there are joint overlapping interests. Only yesterday, I was on a newly notified extension to the Swale SSSI where the ancient banks, built by our forbears, probably back as far as the Romans, in their progressive defences against the sea on the south side of the Thames Estuary, are now important features from the point of view of archaeology, nature conservation and special flora. There is no doubt about overlapping areas of interest. I welcome the joint declaration of intent.
Lord Reay:My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Hesketh said in Committee, in the Government's view it would be inappropriate to confer an archaeological remit on the new councils which they would not have the capacity to fulfil. However, as several noble Lords have said, the NCC is currently working with English Heritage and Cadw to draw up a joint statement of intent to ensure that no feature of anthropogenic interest is damaged, subject to the primacy of nature conservation interests. The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, said that he had seen the penultimate draft of the statement. I give him the assurance that he will see the final draft. It is intended to bring the matter to a successful conclusion. I agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, will be content with the reassurance and will not see fit to press the amendment.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his assurance that the letter will reach a stage when it can be signed rather than being merely a penultimate draft. I welcome what it says. As I said, we have gone a long way towards solving the problem. I thank all those people who have been involved in the drafting of the letter and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for his kind words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 235A:
Page 128, line 29, after ("may") insert ("after consultation in each case with the Councils, save where the nature of such directions would render such consultation impracticable,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to protect against distortions in the way different councils will operate. That principle was supported in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, but the amendment was rejected on that occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, on the grounds that there would be cases where action would need to be taken immediately. The amendment that we tabled at that time did not allow for that. The new wording of the amendment meets that objection.
I shall remind your Lordships why the amendment is needed. At present the Bill provides that the Secretary of State may make specific directions not merely as to grants and loans, as is presently the case, but on matters such as the establishment of nature
966
reserves, advice to the Secretary of State, Ministers and others in respect of research. That power of direction would enable different directions to be given to different councils on the same or different issues. For example, a direction could be given to a council about the content of its research programme without necessarily having full regard to the nature conservation needs of the research in that country or the need to complement the research efforts of other councils or the joint committee. Alternatively, a direction might be given to a council in relation to the advice it gives to, for example, a local authority on the safeguarding of sites.
In practice, therefore, the exercise of this power of direction could lead to distortions developing in the manner in which nature conservation is delivered in the three countries. To help ensure that such distortions do not occur as a result of directions, the amendment proposes that consultation be carried out with each of the councils before any direction is given to allow them the opportunity of making representations about the proposal. This would help to ensure that all relevant matters are taken into account, but in the event of a quick answer being needed the amendment would allow the Secretary of State to go ahead without consultation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I hope that I have taken a correct role throughout the passage of the Bill in that I have only spoken on issues where changes to the Bill will improve the operation of the future councils or the delivery of nature conservation in this country. Obviously I have an interest in so far as I am the chairman of the advisory committee for England on the Nature Conservancy Council and, as everyone well knows, I am chairman designate of the future body. I do not believe that on those aspects my interventions have been involved with any kind of interest. Therefore, I can repeat what I said at Committee stage: that the Nature Conservancy Council would welcome an amendment along the lines proposed by the noble Baroness.
Baroness David: My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment because it seems to me to be a sensible precaution. I hope that the Minister will be able to agree to it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Hesketh explained at Committee stage, consultation is a perfectly reasonable working assumption about the way things would normally be handled if the reserve power were invoked. As the amendment appreciates, there will be occasions when such consultation would be impracticable. I would, however, remind the House that a direction is very much a reserve power. It should only ever be needed as a last resort, but in these circumstances the Secretary of State needs to do what is right according to the circumstances. Any unreasonable use of such powers would be open to judicial review and I submit that this is quite sufficient. Clearly Parliament has accepted this in the past, since the existing clause uses standard provisions for ministerial directions. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press for an exception

967
in the case of the new conservation agencies, even with the powerful and persuasive support of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I do not believe that I suggested that the Minister might abuse his powers. The suggestion behind the amendment is simply that consultation should take place in order to ensure that standardisation—that is an unpleasant word to use in conservation terms. We are concerned that standards should be applied equally across the three countries. Much of our debate has been concerned with this and the amendment would have helped to ensure that there was adequate consultation where possible. I do not see that in the Bill.
The noble Baroness suggests that it is assumed that consultation will take place. I hope that it will, but it would be more satisfactory if it were spelt out in the Bill. However, I see no point in pressing the amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, I wish to make a statement. I understand that in Schedule 8, Amendments Nos. 229 to 232 and Amendment No. 234 should not have been agreed to. Although the circumstances are unusual, I believe that it would be a good idea if I were to invite the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to confirm that she did not wish to move them. If that is the case and if your Lordships agree, we would then undo the damage.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful for the opportunity to present to the House that in response to pressures from noble Lords I agreed to take these amendments back. It is entirely my error that I moved them. It can only be with the agreement of the House that I ask for this correction to be made.
[Amendments Nos. 229 to 232 and Amendment No. 234 not moved.]
Clause 125: [General functions of the Councils]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 235B:
Page 129, line 3, at end insert:
("() the provision of advice for local authorities relating to the drafting and implementations of coastal zone plans detailing strategies for the sustainable development of estuarine and coastal habitats;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to give the country councils a new function concerning the drafting and operation of coastal plans. The amendment will provide a statutory basis for managing Great Britain's coastal areas by a system of coastal plans drawn up by every local authority wishing to do so and which incorporates coasts or estuaries.
The RSPB supports the amendment, having recently carried out a study which revealed that of the 123 estuaries surveyed 80 were found to be at risk and 30 of those were in danger of permanent damage. Some 2 million wild birds depend on Britain's shores for a winter home and essential food supplies. Over 55 of Britain's estuaries meet the criteria for designation
968
as special protection areas, but the international tag is not sufficient to ensure that their environmental value is maintained.
The RSPB, the Marine Conservation Society and the Worldwide Fund for Nature have promoted the concept of coastal zone planning which would provide a strategic approach to the use of Great Britain's coastal areas. This amendment would simply enable the country councils to provide specialist guidance in this or any other scheme which may emerge for the protection of coastal areas.
Can the Minister say in her reply whether there will be a strategic plan for Britain's coastal areas? Will the proposed rationalisation of structure plans include a duty on coastal local authorities to produce coastal zone plans? Will the JNCC have a role in producing national guidelines for the sensitive use of coastlines? I realise that the noble Baroness will have very little time in which to obtain answers to the questions. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene as chairman of the National Rivers Authority to say that I have some sympathy with the objective. However, it is only one step in a great many that will have to be taken. It is worth using this opportunity to put on record the fact that we feel that there will be a need for a further look at the whole subject.
A recent paper by, I believe, the Marine Conservation Society which I have seen sets out some of the problems we face. It identifies the multiplicity of responsibilities in this area, the need to find a more coherent way to protect not just the coast but the coastal waters and what happens in and around them. I do not know whether there are any practical difficulties about the amendment, but it is worth putting on record the need for a further look at the matter if we are to have a coherent method of protecting the coastal environment.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I think the intervention from the chairman of the National Rivers Authority was helpful. I do not wish to delay him too long but I have an amendment coming up, Amendment No. 264, and I hope he will be here to listen to the debate on it.
His statement was helpful because all of us who are concerned with these matters know that our estuaries are under pressure at present. I wish to ask the Minister a question. As I understand it, the current Nature Conservancy Council carried out a review of our estuaries and the channels to them. I wonder whether that will be reported on or published before the NCC goes out of office in its national role. The figures on estuaries are quite staggering.
Obviously with the rundown in property development some of the pressure is off. At one time it seemed that marinas were going to be constructed in almost every estuary in this country. That situation has got totally out of hand. It would be helpful if the country councils and the NRA could play some part in advising local authorities when planning applications of this kind are submitted.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister considers the amendment, I should say that I believe it needs to be reworded. If my memory serves me right the Water Act used the words "coastal defence". Although I support what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, that concept would need to be introduced too.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the primary function of this Bill is to reorganise the nature conservation and countryside bodies and to build upon the good work undertaken by those bodies. It is particularly important to recognise that all the existing functions of the NCC will be taken over by the new agencies. These include the provision of advice to local authorities and others on all matters relating to nature conservation. This can of course include advice about coasts. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government are committed to a review of the existing legislation and other matters relating to the marine environment. It would be premature to introduce any particular planning blueprint in advance of that review.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell, while sympathising with the amendment, also pointed out that it is very complex. It involves a number of other governmental responsibilities which cut across departments. We are at one with the noble Baroness in our concern about this matter. We know that there are now growing pressures for a review. I cannot be specific in answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, except to say that the Government are certainly committed to a review. I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment in advance of the results of that review.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, this has been a most encouraging mini debate. I am grateful to noble Lords who have made contributions and also to the Minister for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 235C:
Page 129, line 10, at end insert:
("(the carrying out of conservation work on sites of special scientific interest for the purposes of maintaining the scientific interest of the land, in cases where a management agreement under section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 cannot be concluded with the owners or occupiers of the land;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 235C and 243 deal with the general functions of the councils, and damage to and neglect of SSSIs. Two similar amendments appear on the Marshalled List in my name. Amendment No. 243 concerns damage to SSSIs, while Amendment No. 235C deals with the neglect of SSSIs. I hope the House will forgive me if I deal first with Amendment No. 243, which proposes to insert a new clause into the Bill.
Amendment No. 243 will give the councils a duty to assess the effects of damage to a site of special scientific interest and will permit them to enter the land and rectify such damage. As currently drafted, the Wildlife and Countryside Act carries a presumption against damaging activities on SSSIs. Despite
970
this, more than 560 SSSIs have been damaged in the past three years. Although the 1981 Act contains provision for restoring sites which have the added protection of a nature conservation order under Section 31 of that Act, no mechanism exists for rectifying damage to the remaining thousands of SSSIs in Great Britain.
Noble Lords may be forgiven for thinking this is a rash move. However, when we were debating the Water Act last year we agreed to give the National Rivers Authority special powers under Section 115 of that Act to restore rivers that have suffered pollution damage. The NRA even has the power to reintroduce plants and fish to a river and to recover the cost from the polluter.
It is ironic to reflect on the fact that our nation's best wildlife sites are not given the same treatment. This proposed new clause would enable the councils to restore SSSIs which may suffer future damage and help repair some of the damage that has already been caused to hundreds of SSSIs.
Amendment No. 235C is slightly different, in that it enables the councils to carry out maintenance work on an SSSI in cases where sites are falling into a state of neglect and are in danger of losing their status. SSSIs are not sterile wastelands. Rather it is often the traditional agricultural management of the land which provides the essential habitat for our wild-life. For example, much of the remaining heathland in Dorset and Hampshire for example which is under serious threat, has become degraded following the retreat of traditional agriculture and an absence of controlled burning. Birch trees and introduced Scots pine have quickly invaded heathland areas, reducing their ability to support wildlife. Many of Britain's rare species of wildlife, including the silver-studded blue butterfly, the Dartford warbler, the nightjar and the poor old disappearing sand lizard depend on heathland for their survival. I cannot quote accurate statistics to the House now, but I believe that Britain had most of the heathland that was left in Europe at one time. However, it is decreasing at an alarming rate.
Although the NCC has been able to persuade many landowners to manage their land in a way which benefits nature conservation, there will always be one or two cases where a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached. This can result in the SSSI falling into a poor state and losing its statutory status. There is a recent case in Somerset which helps to illustrate the problem. Westhay Moor was notified by the NCC for its high botanical interest. It meets the criteria for designation as a wetland of international importance under the RAMSAR Convention. During four years of negotiation with the landowner, the NCC was unable to conclude a management agreement. In March this year the NCC was obliged to purchase the site. The chairman of the NCC, Sir William Wilkinson, said:
"it was the only course open to ensure that this important site could be preserved".
This amendment would enable the NCC to carry out essential management of the land. In the case of Westhay Moor, that would have involved removal of the scrub and the introduction of livestock. In order

971
not to prejudice the councils' relationship with co-operative landowners, the amendment makes it clear that any country council should only contemplate seeking such powers in cases where it has been unable to conclude a management agreement. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I have studied the amendment but I do not think that it deals with a problem that I had to cope with, which still rankles. A notification of a SSSI was made at a site near Bristol. The land was at that time in the possession of a well-known construction company whose chairman I shall refer to in a moment. A few days before the notification was due to take effect the company's staff totally destroyed the site, so there was no point whatever in notifying it. As Secretary of State at the time, I wrote an extremely angry letter to the chairman of the company but to this day I have never received a reply of any kind. The chairman of the company was Mr. Gerald Ronson, so perhaps that is not altogether surprising.
There is a loophole here, in that a landowner can be given notice of a SSSI designation and, if he moves quickly and ruthlessly enough, he can effectively destroy the whole process. That situation needs to be looked at. I am not sure that the noble Lord's amendment deals with that point. Perhaps my noble friend may be able to take advice and see whether something can be added to the Bill, even at this late stage. I am afraid that Mr. Ronson is now beyond my reach, but that was an absolutely outrageous example of commercial vandalism of the worst kind.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should not have thought that either of these amendments would deal with that situation. My name is added to the amendment which deals with the neglect of SSSIs, although I must confess that I meant to add my name to the other amendment too. I support both of the amendments. Something needs to be done to close the loopholes that exist. I hope the Minister agrees with that. She may ask where the money will come from if the councils have to put right any damage. However, I should point out that a lot of voluntary bodies operate in this area. One only has to think of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers. That is the kind of body which would be willing to remove scrub and carry out other such tasks. I hope that in future more offenders will do community service instead of going to prison, and that would be a very good task for them to turn their hands to.
There is a very real problem. Those of us who know the Sussex chalklands, for example, are well aware of how they have deteriorated. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the amendments.
9 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for what my noble friend Lord Jenkin said. He illustrated the need to act, but I am not sure that this is necessarily the right amendment to achieve the objective.
972
There is one point that I should like to pick up in connection with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross. Much of the damage that has been caused in specific cases has arisen on common land where, to my knowledge, the NCC or whichever body was involved has been unable to enter into management agreements with the commoners because the commoners did not qualify as occupiers. I take this opportunity to ask my noble friend whether progress has been made towards clarifying the present rather uncertain situation and whether she can give an assurance that in future the NCC will be able to enter into management agreements on SSSIs with people with common rights.
The Duke of Somerset: My Lords, I too support the purpose of the amendments. I gather that the NCC's records show that 2 per cent. of SSSIs which are reported to have lost their scientific value have done so because of a lack of proper management. Some form of failsafe mechanism needs to be in place to prevent Britain's prime sites falling into neglect.
The NCC already has the option to seek the Secretary of State's permission to purchase SSSIs, as we have heard. However, that appears to be an unsatisfactory way of progressing, though, as we have heard, in the case of the Somerset Levels it was necessary. Many sites are losing their conservation value because an agreement cannot be reached between the owner and the NCC. We have heard about heathlands and about chalklands in Sussex. In my part of Wiltshire the chalk downland once supported a rich species of grassland but that has been lost in some places due to under-grazing.
The amendment would permit the NCC to enter the land and carry out scrub removal to halt the decline of scientific interest and of bird life. However, it is a last resort power and would apply only to SSSIs and only where management agreements cannot be concluded. Normally, I should prefer there to be a consensus between landowners and the NCC, but perhaps in this rather unusual situation it may be necessary for the NCC to have more of a stick available.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have some sympathy with the noble Lord's intentions in introducing the amendments. However, in the Government's view, this Bill is not the appropriate means of achieving the objective sought by the amendments.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 235C, it is important to remember that all the existing functions of the NCC will be taken over by the new agencies. However, the amendment would substantially increase those functions beyond those necessary to comply with the voluntary principle enshrined in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The 1981 Act provides the new agencies with the powers to enable them to protect sites of special scientific interest from damage. They may offer landowners financial incentives to maintain the special interest of the land by way of a grant or loan, or they may offer to enter into a management agreement. In appropriate circumstances it remains open to the new agencies to ask the Secretary of State to make an order under

973
Section 29 of the 1981 Act, which has the effect of extending the time available to conclude a management agreement.
They will also wish to consider the extent to which other measures that the Government intend to take on environmentally sensitive areas and the national countryside initiative can be of help in addressing the problem of damage done by deliberately neglecting land. In the extreme case it is always open to the NCC to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to use their powers of compulsory purchase.
Nor are the Government opposed to the principle enshrined in Amendment No. 243 for the restoration of land where its special interest has been adversely affected. That point was made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset. Similar powers already exist in cases where damage has occurred in contravention of a nature conservation order and a conviction has been obtained. However, the amendment has a number of flaws.
Like Amendment No. 235C, Amendment No. 243 would substantially increase the NCC's powers under the 1931 Act, which already provides the NCC with all the powers necessary to protect SSSIs from damage, including the power of compulsory purchase which I have already mentioned. The term "non-natural event' is all-embracing and may well include damage arising for reasons beyond the control of the landowner, for example by unauthorised motorcycling by third parties. Those landowners who unfortunately suffer such damage to their land would be doubly disadvantaged by the threat of the NCC requiring them to restore it to its former glory on pain of a curt order to recover costs.
I was asked specifically by my noble friend Lord Peel about management agreements with commoners. It was a long time ago, and it is a rather vexatious part of our proceedings today, but I mentioned an amendment which we are to discuss later—from memory I think that it is Amendment No. 245 —in which we say that we would like to turn to the question of whether the NCC has the power to notify SSSIs to and enter into agreements with persons who are not owners or occupiers but who have rights over land, such as commoners and crofters. The NCC has indicated strong concern about damage done by over-grazing of SSSIs, for example in areas of Cumbria, by livestock owned by commoners. The NCC has expressed a desire to enter into agreements with those persons with a view to influencing the management of such land. However, they have been reluctant to do so because of the uncertainty of what is meant by the term "owner or occupier" in Section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 and Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
As the House will be aware, a number of amendments were tabled which seek clarification of that question. We do not propose to take the amendments forward and it is our firm view that the construction of Section 15 of the 1968 Act and Section 28 of the 1981 Act is such as to include those owners, lessee; or occupiers with a lesser interest in the land such as commoners and crofters. It follows, therefore,
974
that not only does the NCC have an implied duty to notify all lesser right owners, it also has the power, whenever appropriate, to enter into agreements with such persons.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin mentioned a very interesting case in Bristol. I believe that the loophole that he mentioned was closed by amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or alternatively the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act, which were introduced in 1985. On reflection, I may have got that wrong. I have not been very clear about the matter but I understand that the point raised by the noble Lord has been dealt with by another piece of legislation. I shall make this matter more clear to him in writing.
I know that it is rather boring to say that we sympathise with the amendments but they are not acceptable. I hope that with the explanations that I have given the concerns of all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate are met and that these amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response and I shall study her reply. If she has any influence on her department —I am sure that she has because her heart is in the right place—perhaps she will introduce legislation on common land in the next Session of Parliament. I believe that it has been promised in Conservative manifestos from a year or two back. I think that that would be very helpful. She will know from her previous experience in local government that compulsory purchase is a hazardous procedure and local governments do not embark on it if they can possibly avoid it because they generally become unstuck. I think the noble Baroness is saying that the remedies are there but that they are not very straightforward.
I was grateful to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on this occasion. It is a bit of a change and I am very grateful. I am not sure that I should say what I am about to say. However, I shall tell noble Lords that at this House last Tuesday evening I entertained someone who had been resident at Ford open prison. He rejoiced in the fact that a particular gentleman who is there now has the dirtiest job in the prison. The answer is probably that it serves him bloody well right.
I was grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, and also to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for playing the part of the noble Baroness, Lady David, in support. I think that I had better say no more. The remedies are there but they are a little too difficult to put into effect.
In this amendment we were trying to insist that if this is okay for the NRA, surely something ought to be done for the country councils. There is a problem with SSSIs. Far too many of them have been destroyed. It is undoubtedly the wish of every noble Lord who has spoken that we should do rather more about this problem. There was the case quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. It is exactly the same with tree preservation orders. One is about to put a

975
preservation order on a tree when someone finds out about it and has the tree down in double quick time so that it is too late to do anything about it. It is very sad. I wish that we could do something about this situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 235D:
Page 129, line 10, at end insert:

("(f) the conclusion of management agreements with any person having an interest in land for the purpose of conserving or enhancing any flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features;").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, during the Committee stage of the Bill I moved an amendment similar to this one. It received considerable support from all sides of the Chamber and in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport.
The intention of this amendment is to widen the powers of the Nature Conservancy Council and its successor bodies to provide for them to enter into management agreements in the wider countryside. By "wider countryside", I mean areas that are not covered by SSSI or NNR designations where such powers exist already. Therefore I am talking about 92 per cent. of the land mass in the United Kingdom.
At the moment the Nature Conservancy Council is entitled to provide grants and loans to owners and occupiers, which is a power conferred on it under Section 38 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. That has been carried through to Clause 124 of the Bill. However, that relates solely to outgoings in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred. The NCC does not have the power to provide compensatory payments to persons for income forgone which those persons would have received if they had continued to manage their land as before without the conditions relating to the nature conservation interests imposed on that land.
There are a number of instances where SSSIs are not always self-supporting of the species for which they were originally designated. Their significance could be undermined without the sensitive management of other land in the vicinity which is not always in itself worthy of designation—for example, the provision of roosting and resting sites for different species of birds and animals.
Both in your Lordships' House and elsewhere I have often expressed my desire to see nature conservation in Great Britain move more readily into the wider environment. I believe that it would be a terrible mistake if it were to be transfixed and put into the straitjacket of the designated areas. I remember that at Committee stage my noble friend Lord Cranbrook said that, for the conservation of nature and the natural resources of the country, in the end a limited site specific strategy would not be enough. I entirely agree with him. That is absolutely right. We must start moving forward.
Certainly I welcome the ESAs and the theories of extensification, although I am disappointed at the way
976
in which extensification has been seen to be developing, at any rate over the past few months or so. I greatly welcome the proposals in the White Paper for what I believe is called a national countryside initiative which is to be administered by the Countryside Commission.
However, I do not believe that that initiative should be a substitute for the Nature Conservancy Council being granted additional powers in the wider countryside, in particular in England where it remains a separate body. I suspect that such a scheme, run by the Countryside Commission, is likely to be more orientated towards landscape than nature conservation, as we have seen—unfortunately, I think—in some of the earlier ESA designations.
As I said in Committee, there are many instances where even a small financial commitment from the NCC could persuade an owner or occupier to alter the style of management, which could have enormous advantage for nature conservation. It would allow the Nature Conservancy Council to provide payments for positive management schemes without the often cumbersome process relating to the SSSI, potentially damaging operations and so on.
In reply to my original amendment in Committee, my noble friend Lord Reay said that it was up to the local authorities and national parks to decide if and where management agreements are appropriate. That power is conferred on them under Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. However, I feel that very often they are not qualified to enter into such agreement. They always have other priorities both with regard to time and finance. It seems totally right and proper that the major agency responsible for nature conservation in this country should have that power.
My noble friend's main objection to my amendment was, needless to say, cost. He stated that to give the NCC those powers over 90 per cent. of the remaining land outside the SSSIs would cost potentially hundreds of millions of pounds. But I do not believe that that need necessarily be so. The NCC will have its statutory obligations to look after SSSIs and NNRs which will always take up the largest percentage of its budget. Fiscal controls are possible in two ways. First, the Secretary of State could determine the allocation of management agreements in the wider countryside in any council's budget. Secondly, financial controls could be provided in the financial memorandum under which each council would operate and with provision for the Secretary of State to approve agreements which fall outside agreed guidelines. The wider countryside could fall outside the agreed guidelines.
I do not believe that finance is a genuine reason for turning down such an important amendment. With the pressure that is now building for the Government to be seen to be playing a wider role in the environment, they should consider the position very carefully indeed. I am aware that my noble friend Lady Blatch has given the matter some thought. I shall listen very carefully to what she says. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend has clearly explained the amendments which stand in his name. The intention is to widen the functions of the new councils in comparison with the present functions of the NCC in relationships with the public.
I agree with the principle of helping to establish good relations with everyone in the field with whom the councils have to deal. I had pleasure in serving on the Carver Committee. I agree completely now with Part VII of the Bill. I did not enter into the arguments earlier today. I waited until now to make that clear. The Government owe a debt to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. There is only one remaining point of difference between the recommendations of the committee and the Government. At the end of last year and at the beginning of this year, the noble and gallant Lord led the way with skill and expedition to finding solutions to the problems which were then quite clear.
The amendments add functions to the councils. Under the new structure the functions are considerably different from the position before Committee stage. However, major changes were made on 4th July. I should like to ask my noble friend to comment on how those functions will affect the public. The best illustration is to use the experience of part of the country which has probably felt more impact from designation of sites of special scientific interest than any other; it is northern Scotland. Earlier today the House listened with interest to situations that have arisen in Wales. I hope that now the House will be as interested to consider the effects of this part of the Bill on Scotland.
I have lived in northern Scotland for the last 32 years. I live in the constituency that I represented in another place. For most of my life I have been known to be familiar with the birds and other fauna of northern Scotland; I am regarded as a conservationist. When, during the last three decades, controversies have arisen about possible damage to habitats, local people have felt reassured and have withdrawn their objections if I was satisfied, or have become more concerned if I was worried. They reckoned that I knew as much about the threatened wildlife as anyone, whether the species was the corncrake of the Western Isles or the bar-tailed godwit of the Cromarty Firth. When I became a Member of this House 16 years ago the Lord Lyon immediately proposed that my supporters in my new arms should be birds. Appropriately they are an osprey and a curlew.
With such credentials I am, nonetheless, concerned about the way in which vast parts of northern Scotland are designated as areas of special scientific interest. More are proposed for designation. The livelihoods of people living and working there may be affected. The local authority area in which I reside is Highland region. It is equivalent to a county in England and Wales: there are no counties in Scotland. Its area is about one-third of Scotland. About 15 per cent. of that—an area, the regional council tells me, of about 380,000 hectares—is designated. I wonder whether any other part of the country is affected on that scale.
978
That should be good news. It is good news to me. The Highlands contain important flora and fauna; and also unusual formations of mountains, hills and glens which should be protected from erosion or other damage. Unfortunately, an impression has been created that land is blighted and devalued when designated as an SSSI. "Site" is hardly the correct description because in the Highlands huge areas are involved.
I hope that the Bill will help to change that attitude. The co-operation of local people can be enlisted if they have confidence in the system and if they are treated with sensitivity. Farming and crofting methods need not be severely changed to protect habitats. Unfortunately, there are at present definite fears that traditional occupations will be restricted and impaired. That is largely because not enough information is made available. Other activities which provide employment and support local communities are forestry and peat cutting. They need careful steering to areas where there is no conflict with rare species or sites of special scientific interest. However, the amount of new land needed is a small part of the total area of the Highlands. There is room for all if co-operation and common sense prevail.
I ask my noble friend Lady Blatch to comment on two matters arising from the functions that we are discussing. First, will, as I hope, the new structure and arrangements help to remove the impression that blight and bureaucracy will descend on an area when designated? Secondly, will the impression that there is no appeal against designation be removed? At present the NCC appears to outsiders to be both judge and jury because there is no forum where cases can be put for or against.
At present, the NCC operates under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, with Ministers functioning under Section 29. What rights of appeal will there be against designation for an individual, a body or a local authority if they have relevant and valid objections or views?
A picture of the Highlands would not be complete without mention of recreation. For the past 30 years the growth of recreation has been a major factor as regards employment and prosperity for many areas of the Highlands, for the whole of the year, because winter sports have developed greatly in those years. Here I must declare a personal connection because as an MP 30 years ago I obtained the first grant for winter sports; namely, a grant towards the first chairlift in the Cairngorms. A little later I am told that I made history as a Junior Minister by persuading the Treasury to authorise a grant for a road which led nowhere. Previously roads always had to lead to some form of habitation. That was the road going up into the Cairngorms and the grant was government assistance to the tourist industry.
In the past few years, conflicts have emerged over the extension of ski slopes on the Cairngorms and in particular, Lurchers' Gully. This summer for the second time a scheme to extend ski slopes into Lurcher's Gully was turned down by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Conservation considerations

979
clearly outweighed local aspirations for jobs and outdoor recreation. That decision should be noted by those who believe that decisions taken within Scotland are likely to be biased in favour of employment and development.
At the same time, it should be recognised that in certain areas of the Highlands one of the most endangered species is the resident human being. I hope that the new arrangements in Part VII will improve the situation in northern Scotland and I shall be grateful to hear the Minister's comments.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, before my noble friend on the Front Bench answers that very interesting intervention by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, I should like to refer to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peel, because there is a great deal to be said in amplification of his very able introduction to the amendment.
First, I should stress that this amendment is within the voluntary principles which have always been operated by this Government. As I understand it, my noble friend Lord Peel decoupled the amendments which are grouped together. He spoke solely to Amendment No. 235D, so I shall start by doing that because there are slightly different points at issue and he may wish to return to Amendment No. 235E in a few moments.
Amendment No. 235D adds a function to the councils by giving an additional power to enter into positive management agreements with anyone who has an interest in land. As my noble friend Lord Peel emphasised, that land is both within and without the designated sites.
My noble friend recognised that the NCC already has the power to give grants. However, there are important differences between grants and management agreements at present, as has been recognised. Management agreements contain a positive element that grants do not. Grants can refund expenditure. Management agreements can include an incentive element which has a strong persuasive value.
The virtue of that additional function would be not only to extend the powers of the Nature Conservancy Council outside the designated areas, which is something that I do not see in the new countryside initiative in the paper that has been passed to me. It would allow the Nature Conservancy Council to apply its skills, science and financial backing to the lesser sites, to the sites that are of prime importance and of nature conservation interest in the biological field and to what in geological terms are now called regionally important geological sites or RIGSs. These are the matrix of the high quality natural environment which makes up the background and supports the designated sites.
The importance of entering into positive agreements was illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, when discussing the previous amendment in relation to the work that is necessary to conserve the Dorset heaths. He also referred to the measures that are necessary to conserve heather heathlands, such as the
980
reduction of flocks. If the flock owner can be persuaded to reduce the number of sheep that he runs per hectare on heather moor, heather moor can be reconstituted. A management agreement, for instance, could also take account of factors such as providing compensation for damage that is done by grazing flocks of geese on crops or grass. Those are all areas where at present the Nature Conservancy Council is not able to enter into management agreements.
In providing that new function, the Bill would not, as my noble friend Lord Peel emphasised, open up the floodgates of expenditure because they would remain controlled by the budgetary systems which already exist and which give the final answer. The full measure of control lies within the power of the Secretary of State. This amendment conveying that additional function to the Nature Conservancy Council and its successors would be very welcome.
9.30 p.m.
The Duke of Somerset: My Lords, noble Lords have covered the amendment fully. It is similar to the amendments that I shall move a little later. It is more wide-ranging and more general, but I should like to give it my support.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, reminds me that I was hoping that the amendments would be linked for the purposes of the debate.
Noble Lords will be aware that the amendments seek to achieve similar objectives to those in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord in Committee and withdrawn. We have come to the view that the Bill is not the appropriate means of achieving the objectives sought by the amendment because the primary function is to reorganise the nature conservation and countryside bodies and to build upon the good work undertaken by those bodies. It is not intended for such a major broadening of the powers of the NCC under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is particularly important to recognise that all the existing functions of the NCC will be taken over by the new agencies.
The NCC is already empowered to enter into management agreements necessary to defend SSSIs. In a later amendment, the Government propose that that power should be extended to cover agreements on land that adjoins SSSIs in order to enhance the agency's ability to conserve the nature conservation interest of those sites. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook for originally suggesting that proposal in Committee.
It is also important to recognise that there are already a number of ways in which land not in SSSIs can be protected or enhanced. For example, the Countryside Commission, using its powers under Section 4 of the Countryside Act 1968, as amended by Section 40 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, has developed a countryside premium scheme which currently operates on an experimental basis in seven counties of Eastern England. Under that scheme the commission pays farmers to manage land which has

981
been taken out of agricultural production under the set-aside scheme in ways that produce environmental and recreational benefits.
The creation of attractive meadowland that may provide a wildlife habitat or a place for quiet enjoyment by the local community, or the provision of wooded margins by the sensitive management of existing hedgerows and the planting of new hedges and broad-leaved trees are examples of the type of action that may be taken under the scheme. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has recently announced the development of a new scheme by the Countryside Commission—a national countryside initiative which will begin next year using the same powers as those under which it runs the countryside premium scheme.
I announced the scheme to your Lordships last week in response to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Newall. Under the scheme the commission plans to offer incentive payments to managers and owners of land falling within target landscapes to take action which will protect and enhance valued landscapes. Agricultural departments also run schemes which are designed to protect the environment. Probably one of the best known is the designation of environmentally sensitive areas, of which there are now 19 in the United Kingdom. Within these, farmers may receive annual payments in return for following a prescribed set of farming practices which will help to conserve the environment.
I accept that there is still concern that the NCC should be allowed to do more itself in the wider countryside. I want to make two further points about the NCC's powers. First, the Government would not wish to extend the principle of compensation for net profit forgone beyond SSSIs or land immediately adjacent to them. Quite apart from the cost implications, this would run counter to the forward thrust of conservation policy, which is to encourage positive nature conservation work. In any event, I do not believe that this House would expect the Government to agree to such a wide-ranging proposal at this stage of the Bill.
Secondly, I want to make a statement today to help resolve uncertainties about the scope of the NCC's existing powers to support positive conservation work in the wider countryside outside SSSIs. The NCC's powers are in Section 38 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which is to be re-enacted as Clause 127 of this Bill. I am advised that it is already perfectly permissible for the NCC to devise a grant scheme which would involve making periodic payments to farmers and landowners for long-term project work outside SSSIs. Such projects might, for example, include the maintenance of ponds and hedges, coppicing, or the provision of interpretive research facilities for visitors.
The council also has power under Clause 127(3) to attach conditions to grants. There is no reason why the council and the grant recipient should not agree conditions which would include the husbandry methods to be employed on the land. What we are really looking at is the possibility of what one might
982
call long-term habitat conservation grants with strings attached. I appreciate that the NCC has not used its existing powers in this way but Ministers would be prepared to consider approving such proposals under Clause 127(1) if the new councils are able to present a sound case for a scheme along those lines.
I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will take what I have said in the helpful spirit in which it is intended. I hope I have resolved fears that have been expressed that, for example, longer-term grants for, say, five or seven years are not permissible under the legislation as it stands. That is not the case. I accept that what I have said may have implications for the budget of the new agencies. I cannot give any blank assurances about additional resources, but we are willing to look at any bids made as well as to encourage the agencies to realign their existing budgets to reflect any changes in their priorities.
I turn now to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and I join with him in paying tribute to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I have to say that I have been very remiss in concentrating rather too hard all day, and although I have made much mention of the noble and gallant Lord the one thing I have not done is pay a wholehearted tribute to his work and that of his committee. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for his work in that direction.
In regard to the specific point relating to the interesting aspect of the tensions between the public and the work of the NCC, the Government are well aware of the disquiet felt in many quarters over the operation of the SSSI designation programme. I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It illustrates the importance of having nature conservation bodies that are sensitively in tune with the major objectives of this legislation. It also gives me an opportunity to dispel some possible misunderstandings.
Your Lordships will recall that Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 imposes an unequivocal duty on the NCC to notify in the case of any land which it considers to be of special scientific interest. Any owner or occupier so notified may make representations to the council. It is the council and not the officials who decide whether a site should be confirmed. The balancing factor is that such notification does not involve any ultimate loss of rights over property and land. Preserving the nature conservation interests of the site is undertaken as far as possible by voluntary agreement and the owner and occupier is able to receive compensation for any loss incurred as a result.
In matters subject to development control the planning authority is required to take major conservation interests into full account together with all other relevant matters. Therefore, it does not follow that development is excluded from the site. The Government consider that, taken as a whole, the system provides a fair and balanced approach.
It is important to re-emphasise a number of points made during the course of the debate. My noble friend

983
Lord Peel drew attention to a reference by my noble friend Lord Reay to the possibility of costs reaching hundreds of millions of pounds. That was said in this context. The amendment asks for an open-ended commitment that potentially could cost hundreds of millions of pounds. There is no time limit over the period during which the payments would be made. Profits forgone are included and almost the whole of the country would be affected. It gives the NCC a roving commission over the whole of the country.
While it may seem an exaggeration to say hundreds of millions of pounds, one has to imagine that the cost may be substantial. I also take the point that the limit on resources will be dictated by the limit of funds available to the NCC. That point is taken. If these amendments were accepted expectations about these payments would be considerable. I do not want to sound negative. I believe that we have gone a long way.
If one takes the work of the NCC and the national countryside initiative scheme which has recently been announced, the work of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its schemes, and the environmentally sensitive areas which are designated by MAFF, I believe that the Government have gone a very long way to achieve much of the objectives sought by these amendments; namely, that where possible resources should be targeted to achieve a better environment for the people of this country.
We differ from the noble Earl on one small but fundamental point. The amendment allows moneys to be used. It is a licence to allow that to be done and for people to do nothing. There is considerable licence for NCC moneys to be used where people outside the SSSIs are positively active in taking conservation measures. We draw the line at paying money over unlimited time to people to do nothing. I hope that these amendments will not be pressed.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. I am not absolutely certain whether my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy is in favour of the amendment or not. However, I very much enjoyed listening to his opinions.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I am in favour of the principle but, as I said, I was not sure that the Government would not find the objections which my noble friend Lady Blatch did in fact produce. In principle I hoped that my noble friend realised that I thought that if it were possible to encourage good relations with the public in the field one should go on exploring ways of doing it.
Earl Peel: I am grateful to my noble friend. If it means strengthening the powers of the Nature Conservancy Council to avoid more designations of national parks, I shall be only too delighted. My noble friend also mentioned Lurchers' Gully. Wearing my nature conservancy cap, I was delighted at the outcome of that particular decision by the Minister. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook supported me as I expected him to do. He was absolutely right when he
984
said that the two amendments are different. I shall be explaining Amendment No. 235E in a moment. He went on to mention the lesser sites which I believe are very important. We simply cannot ignore them if nature conservation is to be continued effectively in the countryside as a whole.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for the tremendous effort she has made to try to reach a solution on this problem and for her very comprehensive reply. My noble friend gave me a number of encouraging signs. I am not in a position to comment on all of them but I shall read most carefully in Hansard what she has said. I take the point about the countryside premium scheme, which the Countryside Commission has initiated, the ESAs and so on. However, I made this point when I moved the amendment and I make it again now: it worries me that very often the schemes initiated by the Countryside Commission tend to be landscape orientated. That is often done at the expense of nature conservation. That is why I was particularly keen to try to give the Nature Conservancy Council the power to enter into such agreements. That is not to say that I do not welcome the various moves by the Countryside Commission and the ESAs under the auspices of MAFF. They are all admirable in so far as they go. To date my fear is that they have not gone far enough on nature conservation.
We could go on debating the question of cost for ever but I stick to what I said in moving the amendment. The cost as regards this matter could be controlled. But my noble friend and I will obviously not agree on that point and so I shall not pursue it. I take heart from the fact that the Government will encourage the NCC to give grants. They are not grants in the sense of management agreement for profits forgone but if they were for a sustained period—I should like to ask my noble friend to give some qualification as to the period she feels the grants could be given for—that would go a long way towards solving the problem.
Finally, is my noble friend in a position to give me an assurance that the NCC will be thoroughly involved in the countryside initiative scheme, to which I made reference in moving the amendment and which I believe the Countryside Commission is to initiate under the auspices of the White Paper? The two must go together if it is to be effective.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am advised that the NCC would have involvement in the working up of the schemes under national countryside initiatives. I am not sure that I understood the noble Earl's first question. If I misinterpreted it no doubt he will come back to me. He wanted me to give some estimate of the time over which the grants could be made. I am assuming that he was still including in that an element of profits forgone. I think I made it clear in my response that the notion of profits forgone outside of the SSSI areas—the immediate environs are the subject of another amendment tonight—is not concluded. But in terms of the time in which grants could be applied to longer-term schemes, I think I

985
made mention of five to seven years. I hope that my noble friend will come back to the department and discuss that in more detail with officials.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for answering my question. I was not referring to profits forgone. I was asking about the period of time over which my noble friend felt that grants could be given. She has answered that question comprehensively. I am grateful to my noble friend. I am not as happy as I should like to be but I realise the Government's predicament. As a result, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 235E:
Page 129, line 23, at end insert:

("(c) to make an agreement (in this section referred to as a "management agreement") with any person having an interest in the land with respect to the management of the land during a specified term or without limitation of the duration of the agreement;").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the specified areas of SSSIs. At the moment, owners and occupiers are compensated for not carrying out certain activities unless they threaten to do something contrary to the potentially damaging operations list. This amendment would simply allow the Nature Conservancy Council to enter into positive agreements on SSSIs so as to enable the owners actively to carry out nature conservation and be compensated for so doing. I beg to move.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, as we are now moving into designated areas, I should like to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lady Blatch for the statement she made which assured the Nature Conservancy Council that powers exist to enter into agreements with the lesser right holders, including commoners. She also promised that at some stage she would be making a statement about the powers of the Nature Conservancy Council to denotify SSSIs. I look forward to hearing that statement in due course. It is important for us to have note of such statements on the record.
As regards this particular amendment, I must stress once again the importance to the Nature Conservancy Council of having the capacity to enter into positive management agreements within the designated sites and not appearing always to react only to potentially damaging operations. That injures the overall prospect of enlarging upon the goodwill between the NCC and the populace at large, and the landowning and land occupying community to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred. It is a very important feature, which the new councils will wish to stress in the future.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, much of what I said in response to Amendment No. 235D covered this general subject of applying grants. Again, I am slightly uneasy about this particular amendment because my understanding is that there are already considerable powers available to the NCC to enter into management agreements which require positive as opposed to negative action. What I am not absolutely
986
certain about, in addition to what I covered in my response to the previous amendment, is what makes this amendment distinctive.
Earl Peel: My Lords, as I understand it, as regards SSSIs, the NCC can only respond to activities which would actually damage the PDO list. However, this is a matter into which I should like to look more carefully. In my view it is most important that we should try to encourage the NCC to enter into positive management agreements on SSSIs. I believe that my noble friend is insinuating that she thinks that the council already has the right to do so. However, as I said, I should like to look again at the matter; but I reserve the right to return to it at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. I am most grateful to my noble friend for her response and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 235F not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 236:
Page 129, line 35, leave out from ("functions") to end of line 36 and insert ("conferred by section 126(2) and (3) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 240 and 241. Amendment No. 236 is a minor amendment to remove some possible ambiguity about the meaning of the word "them" in Clause 126(3) (b) as presently drafted. The other two amendments are minor amendments designed to remove superfluous wording in Clause 126(2). I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord slid over that one very neatly. However, what he did not say was that the ambiguity in the drafting arose from the Government's own amendments which were put forward in Committee. In other words, the Government are now at almost the very last moment discovering errors in the drafting of their own amendments. In my view that is pretty poor. In fact, I wonder whether the Government have got it right even now.
In Committee, Amendment No. 363B stated that the country councils had the power to give advice to the joint committee on any aspect of their functions. As the noble Lord rightly said, that is ambiguous; indeed, it is not clear whether it is the functions of the joint committee or those of the country councils. He is now saying that the country councils can give advice on the terms of Clause 126(2) (b) and (c). What that means, as the Minister will see if he turns to the Bill, is that the country councils have the power to give advice to the joint committee on the advice it gives to country councils. It is only because the Government are determined to have that peculiar half-breed relationship between the joint committee and the country councils, and will not admit that the joint committee should be a proper body in its own right, that they have got themselves into this drafting tangle.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 236A:

987
Page 129, line 36, at end insert:
("(4) In exercising their functions under this section, the councils shall, where conducive to the interests of nature conservation or public enjoyment and access to the countryside, consult and co-operate with any relevant local authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 242B. Amendment No. 236A relates to country councils and Amendment No. 242B to the joint committee. The amendments are designed to ensure that there is adequate consultation with local authorities which have significant nature conservation and countryside responsibilities.
In the absence of any reference on the statute book, one assumes that the JNCC and the country councils would not feel themselves debarred from consultations with local authorities, but it should be on the statute that they have the ability to do so where they consider that there is a benefit to be gained from joint working. I apologise for the fact that the word "conducive" is misspelt as "conductive" in the first amendment.
The amendments also draw attention to the issue of recreation and public access to, and enjoyment of, the countryside, which, as has been argued comprehensively today, cannot be considered in isolation from nature conservation. Local authorities as landowners, with their responsibilities for recreation and leisure, have an interest in that aspect of the countryside. They may be managing their own land or other land with those objects in mind. It would be reasonable to ensure that the country councils and the JNCC, where appropriate and where they believe it to be appropriate, consult the relevant local authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 236A and 242B would place on the new councils and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee a duty to consult relevant local authorities where that would be conducive to their functions under Clauses 125 and 126. Such a requirement is unnecessary. Under Clause 123(d) councils already have the power to provide advice about nature conservation. So where a local authority was undertaking an activity that affects nature conservation, the councils could advise it.
Through their existing practices the NCC and the countryside Commission recognised that the conservation of our precious natural heritage can be achieved effectively only with the aid of those who have responsibilities for land management and other activities related to conservation. They therefore maintain close links with local authorities, not merely in areas where they are statutorily required to do so, such as SSSI designation, but on a range of matters relating to local authority functions, including land use planning.
The Government have every confidence that the new councils and the JNCC will wish to build upon the links that have been forged with local authorities and, in those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has every confidence. I suppose that at this time of night I cannot pursue the matter. I still believe that it would have been better to have ensured that that power and obligation was placed upon the country councils and the JNCC, but I clearly have not succeeded with that argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 126 [Special functions of Councils]:
10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 130, line 5, after ("monitoring") insert ("or operation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 238 and 242ZA, and Amendment No. 260A in the names of my noble friends Lady Nicol and Lady David. The amendments are concerned with the operation of sites of special scientific interest. The concern arises from the report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who expressed anxiety about the operation of SSSIs, as did the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, neither of whom is in his place.
Clause 126 states that the joint committee shall be responsible for ensuring that there are common standards in monitoring. However, it is not specific on common standards and criteria for notification. The issue of notification of SSSIs is absolutely critical. Noble Lords with what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, calls "Scottish bases" have expressed concern about the number and extent of SSSIs in Scotland. When I hear that, it makes me fear for the future of SSSIs under the wrong kind of Scottish conservation council. I do not refer, of course, to any of the members whose appointment has been announced recently.
As the noble and gallant Lord said, it is important that we should have common standards throughout the country in order to make sure that land-owning, shooting and forestry interests, for example, in certain parts of the country could not require lower standards for notification of SSSIs than in other parts of the country. That is a fundamental concern. There is no logical distinction between having common standards for monitoring and having common standards for notification. That is what Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 provide.
Amendment No. 242ZA has a similar but slightly wider theme because it is concerned with the possibilities of dispute over the boundaries of activities by the country councils and the joint committee. The amendment proposes that in the interpretation of the clauses which set out the general and the special functions, the joint committee should have the final say, subject to any direction issued by the Secretary of State either to the councils or to the joint committee. Again, this is an outstanding matter from the Carver Report. The noble and gallant Lord referred to it when he spoke on the subject in July. It

989
is related to the earlier amendments because of the division of labour which is now becoming clearer between the designation, monitoring and setting of standards for SSSIs. That is why we deal with the two together.
We fear that even if guidance is issued as to the designation by the JNCC, in practice there could be differences in the operation and disputes between the country councils and the JNCC. It is in the interests of having the highest possible common standards that, subject to the overriding authority of the Secretary of State, the JNCC should have that responsibility. I beg to move.
Lord Carver: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is quite right in saying that Amendments Nos. 237, 238 and 242ZA derive from the recommendations of the Select Committee's report. I regret to say that I have to dispute the comments of the noble Baroness—they were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—when she said that there was only one recommendation of the report that the Government had not accepted. There are two others.
I strongly support Amendments Nos. 237 and 238. Having studied those amendments and the Bill very carefully, I have to say that I do not think the amendments go far enough. The Select Committee report stated at paragraph 3.22(12) that the joint committee should be responsible for the,
"establishment of common standards for designation of SSSIs, research, monitoring, and data collection and analysis",
and for,
"monitoring the implementation of those standards and the operation of criteria for SSSI designation".
In Committee, I tried time and time again to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, to agree that the joint committee should have a responsibility not just to establish standards but also to monitor whether they were being properly implemented. We felt that there was a possibility that one of the country councils might be thought not to be implementing those standards properly, particularly if the standards of the different councils began to diverge. Although I am not sure that the amendments go far enough, I strongly support them.
As regards the other amendment which has been referred to which concerns disputes between the joint committee and the councils, I should say that Recommendation No. 4.16 of the report stated that in the last resort if there were a failure to agree a decision should rest with the joint committee. In their response to that recommendation, the Government provided a long legal argument. At the end of it they stated:
"Any disagreements about the division of functions should be very rare in practice, and subject in the final analysis to the arbitrament of the Secretary of State. For the avoidance of doubt we shall introduce amendments to establish that the Joint Committee can give advice to country councils and to require the country councils to have regard to it".
That was what occurred in Committee. I am no lawyer myself but it was explained to me that the words "have regard to" meant that the councils would have to act on the advice of the joint committee. I
990
must admit that the combination of that provision and, what is far more significant, the agreement that all members of the joint committee should have a vote weakened the need to introduce Amendment No. 242ZA.
Baroness David: My Lords, I believe it would be more satisfactory if I spoke to Amendment No. 260A, which is grouped with this amendment. The Bill currently requires that where a national nature reserve or SSSI lies partly in one country and partly in another it shall be considered to be two separate sites. The council in whose area each part lies is responsible for exercising all relevant functions. The amendment requires each council to consult the other before exercising any of its functions and enables the councils to exercise their functions jointly.
While the number of sites affected at present is not very great, they include some very important sites. The only cross-border national nature reserve at present is Lady Park Wood, which is part of the Upper Wye gorge SSSI. However, negotiations are in progress with respect to two other reserves. There are at present some 16 cross-border SSSIs and these include such large sites as the Severn estuary, the Black Mountains, the Dee estuary, the Upper Solway and the Cheviots. No provision is made in the Bill for the resolution of disagreements between councils on the management of these sites. This is important because the management of one part of a site could affect the other. For example, an important wetland site might fall entirely in one country but the water course feeding it might be mainly in another. Council A might be reluctant to refuse consent for a proposed operation on an SSSI in its area if damage would be restricted to the part of the site found under the territory of council B, and where refusal might lead to council A having to pay the costs of a management agreement.
The management of cross-border nature reserves is also likely to cause problems. Which council is to employ the warden, or are there to be two wardens? Can a warden carry out management on the reserve within another council's area? Who will bear the overall costs of management, and how are the receipts to be divided? If the nature reserve is in private ownership are all discussions with the owner to be on a tripartite basis? And so on.
The amendment would help to solve those problems by, first, providing for the Secretary of State to determine any matters of outstanding disagreement between the councils and, secondly, permitting, by agreement between the councils, one council to exercise statutory functions, particularly management, on behalf of both councils.
There is a problem. I believe that the amendment would resolve that problem and I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are back to a central point of difference between the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and noble Lords opposite

991
concerning the nature of the JNCC. We see it as fundamentally an advisory body but the amendments propose to give it executive functions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister may inadvertently have said what she did not mean. There is no dispute between the noble and gallant Lord and us. The dispute is between the noble and gallant Lord, us and the Government.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is what I meant but it may not be what I said. There is a fundamental difference between the Government and noble Lords opposite and the noble and gallant Lord about the nature of the JNCC. We see it as an advisory body and the amendments seek to turn it into an executive body.
An important purpose of the JNCC is to agree common standards, to which all the councils will adhere, for monitoring our wildlife to ensure that a satisfactory conservation status is maintained and to provide strategic advice to government, the councils and others. The powers as presently drafted permit the JNCC to agree common standards for monitoring SSSIs so that data may be more readily analysed on a GB basis for strategic evaluation. It must be remembered, however, that Clause 126 lists the special functions which the councils must exercise jointly through the JNCC. The operational duties are imposed on the individual councils under Clause 125.
As regards Amendment No. 238, as my noble friend Lord Hesketh said at Committee stage:
"I know that there has been concern to ensure that the JNCC is empowered to issue guidelines to the country councils about the criteria for the designation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. That work falls exactly within the definition of a common issue."— [Official Report, 4/7/90; col. 2204.]
He also said, at col. 2209, that:
"the revised Clause 123 [now Clause 126] will also give full scope to the JNCC to oversee the monitoring of standards of implementation of SSSI designation".
I should add that the JNCC itself fully accepts that. In the circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendments.
I turn now to Amendment No. 242ZA. The amendment is based on two incorrect premises. The first is that the country councils and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee will regularly find it impossible to agree. The Government do not consider that to be a reasonable or realistic starting point from which to assess the relationship of those bodies. The councils and the JNCC will have similar duties and responsibilities, including the furtherance of nature conservation. They will be staffed by people fully committed to that aim. Indeed, the JNCC will be staffed by officers of the country councils. In the Government's view, therefore, irreconcilable differences between the country councils and the JNCC are unlikely to arise. On the rare occasions that they do, the House will agree that it must be for the Secretary of State to decide and not the JNCC.
That leads me to a second false premise, which is that the JNCC is to be regarded as having authority over the country councils. The Government have
992
repeatedly made it clear that that is not our policy and that the aims of reorganisation would be subverted if the JNCC were to be placed in such a superior position.
Finally, I hope that the noble Lord will recall that at Committee stage the Government clarified the role of the JNCC with a number of amendments and an entirely new schedule. The scope for difference of opinion is therefore much less than might have been claimed before the amendments were accepted. Again, I hope that the noble Lord will not press that amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 260A. This is an interesting proposal which very much echoes the spirit of this paragraph of the schedule. While I cannot see any objection in principle to the councils agreeing that one of them should manage a site on behalf of both of them, I imagine that in practice the councils would be unwise to abrogate their responsibilities altogether.
What we want to see is the right for councils to delegate the management of cross-border sites; for example, by jointly appointing a warden employed by one or other of the councils to look after the whole site. But that should be done in the framework of both councils retaining their responsibilities for the cross-border sites. That is what Schedule 11, paragraph 11(3) already allows for. I see no need to go any further.
The Government also find it difficult to conceive of any circumstances arising in which arbitration by the Secretary of State would be required. As is the case with a number of other amendments to the Bill which have been considered at this stage and previous stages, there is an underlying assumption that the new councils will be ill-disposed towards each other. The Government cannot accept that as a starting point for bodies which each have statutory duties to conserve wildlife. I hope that the noble Lord will not press this amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must say that I have seldom heard a short answer which contained so many misconceptions about not only the purpose but the nature and wording of the amendments which are before the House. I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, for pointing out the modest nature of my Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 and for saying that in his view they could well have gone further.
In response, the Government seem to think that somehow there is something extraordinarily different between what the Bill at the moment provides, which is the establishment of common standards for the monitoring of nature conservation, and what we propose here; namely, common standards for setting up SSSIs. How can one have common standards for monitoring nature conservation if there are to be different standards for setting up SSSIs? It is inconceivable that that could be the case. The issue of whether or not these are executive functions does not arise.

993
There are already special functions for the joint committee in relation to SSSIs. We are simply making it more logical and rational and making sure that the common standards which are called for in the Bill are achieved. It ever I were tempted to divide the House on amendment, it would be on my Amendment No. 237.
When the noble Baroness turned to my Amendment No. 242ZA, she again totally misrepresented the way in which that amendment would work. She said that it is based on the premise that there will regularly be disputes between the country councils about sites which overlap the boundaries. Not for one moment have we said that such disputes will arise regularly. We say that there is no effective procedure for resolving the disputes.
The Government say that in the end the disputes will be resolved by the Secretary of State. We are much more practical. We say that the disputes need not escalate to the heights of Marsham Street. They could be dealt with much more simply by giving the joint committee the responsibility, under the ultimate control of the Secretary of State, for resolving disputes and having the final say. To that extent the claim that disputes will arise regularly is not part of our case and never has been part of it.
Again, the Minister went on to say that this amendment gives the joint committee authority over the country councils. It does no such thing. That is not the purpose of the amendment. It ensures that in the event of a dispute the joint committee has the final say, subject to the terms of a direction issued by the Secretary of State. That gives the ultimate authority to the Secretary of State and not to the joint committee.
We propose a practical means of dealing with the occasional disputes which may and probably will arise without bringing in the ultimate sanction of a decision by the Secretary of State, who inevitably is more remote from the issues concerned than are the members and staff of the joint committee.
I am totally taken aback by the Government's answers. I do not believe that they adequately represent the nature of the amendments before us. I do not believe that proper attention has been paid in drafting the answer to the amendments. It is only the lateness of the hour which makes me beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 238 not moved.]
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 238A:
Page 130, line 7, at end insert:
("() the establishment of nature conservation criteria, which shall include reference to gains and losses of wildlife habitats, to be applied for the environmental audit of Government Departments in Great Britain and the provision of advice for the Secretary of State on the assessment and analysis of such audits;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment gives the countryside council the function of setting nature conservation criteria to be applied when carrying out environmental audits of government departments as proposed in the Government's recent White Paper on the environment. One of the joint
994
committee's most important functions is to ensure that common criteria are established for conserving and monitoring wildlife and the environment upon which it depends for survival.
We had a detailed debate in Committee on whether or not the joint committee should be given any functions for the purpose of assessing and reporting on the state of the environment. At that time a consensus was developing that the joint committee should be given responsibility for advising the Government on the conservation status of the species of wildlife and other matters relating to nature conservation.
In response to one of my amendments the Government gave an undertaking that the joint committee would assume the statutory responsibility for advising the Government on whether certain species of plant or animal should be given additional or less protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. That is a function which rightly rests with the joint committee and reflects the central role it will need to play if reorganisation is to bring benefits to conservation in Great Britain.
The Government's White Paper on the environment proposes that in future all departments will need to report on matters relating to the environment. Those reports, which have been loosely termed environmental audits, are to be welcomed since they will provide a regular environmental stock-take of government proposals and projects.
The amendment standing in my name would ensure that common criteria are applied to nature conservation matters in the preparation of those reports or audits. Since the Government's adviser on conservation matters is the Nature Conservancy Council, it makes sense that the new council should be given responsibility for establishing the appropriate criteria. That is what my amendment seeks to do. It will ensure that that function is carried out by the joint committee.
The amendment includes special references to gains and losses in wildlife habitats. For example, an environmental report by the Department of Transport would need to include a report on the number of SSSIs likely to be affected by a road expansion scheme or the amount of heathland or wetland lost to motorway developments.
Noble Lords may be forgiven for thinking that it is a novel amendment. However, it provides a simple and effective way of assisting government departments in the preparation of their reports. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 238A would give the JNCC a further duty to establish nature conservation criteria for use in an environmental audit of Great Britain. We are back to the point that has been repeated throughout the course of the day. It is conferring upon the JNCC executive functions. That is not consistent with the plans that the Government have that it should be exclusively an advisory body.
As my noble friend Lord Hesketh said in Committee, the JNCC has a clear remit to establish

995
guidelines for the designation of sites of special scientific interest and for sites of national (that is in Great Britain) and international importance. As I said in response to Amendments Nos. 237 and 238, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it is inherent in the duty to establish guidelines that there is also a duty to monitor the operation of such guidelines. But to confer on the JNCC a duty to establish nature conservation criteria to be applied to an environmental audit goes rather further than merely establishing guidelines and monitoring the operation of them.
I do not need to repeat the arguments that have been heard throughout the passage of the Bill about the dangers of conferring executive functions on the JNCC that will in effect make it a fourth quango. It is a difficult path to tread between monitoring and second guessing. In the Government's view the amendment would tip the scales too far in the latter undesirable direction. It would give the JNCC the power to interfere in activities that would more properly be carried out by the country councils.
Again we must agree to differ on the fundamental point about the nature of the body of the JNCC. I hope that the noble Lord will respect the consistency of my case and will not press the amendment.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. Before withdrawing my amendment, I ask her to explain how each department in England, Scotland and Wales can produce its environmental report to include nature conservation issues and to the same standard without the availability of common criteria from which to work.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be a function of the JNCC to advise on standards across the country. In practice the implementation of those standards would be a matter for the country councils and the agencies.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am reluctant to intervene, but surely the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is about establishing criteria and giving advice. They are not executive functions.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I cannot understand the argument. Through the joint committee the Bill gives the councils the responsibility for the establishment of common standards throughout Great Britain as regards the monitoring of nature conservation. Why is it that the same councils, through the joint committee, should not have a responsibility for the establishment of nature conservation criteria and so forth in accordance with the noble Lord's amendment? I cannot understand it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have said on a number of occasions that we envisage the JNCC being involved in producing the standards. It is the implementation of those standards which is a matter for the individual agencies.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, in view of the late hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 239 not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 240 and 241:
Page 130, line 12, leave out ("and (3)").
Page 130, line 13, leave out ("they apply") and insert ("it applies").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 236. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 241A to 242B and 243 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Schedule 9 [Amendment of Enactments conferring Nature Conservancy Functions]:
Baroness Match Baroness Match moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 189, line 8, transpose paragraphs 4 and 5 to after paragraph 20 of Schedule 6.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 245:
Page 189, line 29, after ("interest)") insert ("—

(a) in subsection (2) the words "in the national interest" shall be omitted and, after the words "any such land" there shall be inserted the words "(or of any adjacent land)"; and

(b).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 245, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 283. These amendments, which have been heavily foreshadowed, stem from assurances given to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook in Committee.
These two amendments will broaden the existing powers of the NCC to enter into management agreements on SSSIs so as to include owners, lessees and occupiers of land adjacent to SSSIs. The effect will be to strengthen the ability of the NCC and its successor bodies to protect SSSIs from the effects of damaging activities on land adjacent to them, and will enable the NCC to influence the management of that land. This power is an important increment to the NCC's ability to safeguard the SSSI network and I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue. We have a so accepted a further suggestion made by my noble friend to remove the existing requirement for the NCC to consider whether such agreements would be expedient in the national interest. Such a requirement is no longer appropriate in view of the new arrangements for territorial NCCs.
I should like to take this opportunity to return to the question of denotification of SSSIs raised in Committee by my noble friend. He is certainly expecting me to say something about that this evening. As the House will recall, the amendment tabled sought clarification of the power of the NCC and its successors to denotify SSSIs where, in the opinion of the council, the special interest of a site no longer exists. We are advised that the amendments made by the Wildlife and Countryside Act (Amendment) Act 1985 to. Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are consistent with the practice of denotification and, given the duty in Section 28(1) of the 1981 Act, this can only be done when the council is no longer of the opinion that the land remains of special interest. It is our view that the means of denotification already exist and should be carried out by the NCC informing the Secretary of State, the local planning authority and the owners and occupiers of the council's decision. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I like what the noble Lord said about adjacent land, as I am sure did the. noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. However, being of a congenitally suspicious turn of mind, I like much less the removal of the term "national interest". It is
998
not as though that has been replaced by any term reflecting English, Scottish or Welsh interest. It has been removed altogether. Can there be any justification for that?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that was the suggestion originally made by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, much as I respect the noble Earl, that does not justify it. The Government should have a reason for doing that.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the reason for doing that is because those words are redundant since Section 15 already applies to all SSSIs.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 246:
Page 190, line 5, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 246, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 248, 249, 250, 251 and 253. These are six drafting amendments to tidy up Schedule 9 to the Bill.
Five of them involve changing the word "inserted" to "substituted". That change is necessary because the provisions introduced by these amendments need to replace provisions already in Acts which are being amended rather than merely added to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 247:
Page 190, line 17, transpose paragraph 9 to after paragraph 20 of Schedule 6.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 248 to 251:
Page 190, line 34, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
Page 191, line 19, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
Page 191, line 43, after ("Council"") insert ("to the end").
Page 191, line 48, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 252 and 253:
Page 192, line 45, transpose paragraph 15 to after paragraph 20 of Schedule 6.
Page 193, line 11, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 127 (Grants and loans by the Councils):
The Duke of Somerset The Duke of Somerset moved Amendment No. 253A:
Page 130, line 37, after ("loan") insert ("or periodic payments").
The noble Duke said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 253B, 253C, 253E, 253F and 271B, which are concerned with similar points.
The debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, on Amendment No. 235D covered much of the territory that I wanted to explore in these amendments. I am particularly grateful for the encouragement that the Minister has given to the

999
councils to make grants outside SSSIs for a period up to seven years. There is, however, one point that I should like to address a little further. I understand that it is at present the NCC's practice to make grants available for up to about 50 per cent. of the expenditure incurred. Will the Minister confirm that if the councils are now to have a serious commitment to long-term conservation projects they will be able to grant up to, say, 100 per cent. of the expenditure incurred where the circumstances merit that?
In tabling Amendment No. 253C I intended to give flexibility to the councils to provide nature conservation even where it may involve the landowner or the farmer in incurring losses of income in addition to or in place of expenditure. The Minister has mentioned that point already this evening, but I should like to return to it. Let us take the example that was mentioned earlier; namely, that of keeping a lower stocking density for sheep which may well be needed to reduce pressure on heather moorland. That also reduces the returns to the producers. If such initiatives are to be practical for the landowner or farmer, payments may be necessary to offset those losses. Surely that is positive conservation. It is positively conserving the heather moorland. Furthermore, I should like to make it clear that Clause 127 requires the authorisation of the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Treasury, so overall control of expenditure will continue to lie within the hands of the Government.
Perhaps I may now turn to Amendment No. 271B, which seeks to give the Countryside Commission the same flexibility as the councils. It was suggested in Committee in July that the powers enjoyed by the Countryside Commission to provide environmental projects in the countryside through the national parks and the local authorities are sufficient to ensure the fulfilment of the commission's potential in that area. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, doubted that at the time and I doubt it too. I was therefore pleased to see within the White Paper on the environment the national countryside initiative to which the Minister has referred this evening. It appears that the Government have modified their earlier view and have a much more positive role in mind for the commission to involve itself more directly with farmers and landowners to manage and create landscapes felt to be valuable to the public. That appears to be similar to my suggestions in Committee on 4th July.
Since July, the Government have found that the Countryside Commission has powers to enter into a management agreement with farmers and landowners to promote its national countryside initiative. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether they provide for annual payments. As she has already said, those powers are contained in Section 40 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. As I understand it, those powers are for experimental schemes. Will the Minister tell us what is to be the long-term future of the national countryside initiative if those powers are purely experimental?
There is one further point on which I require clarification. Do the Government propose to extend this initiative to Wales and Scotland, where I believe it would be just as useful? I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I support this series of amendments because if farmers and landowners are to have regard for the countryside and to improve the environment they need to have the money to do it. As the noble Baroness will know, the income from agriculture is shrinking fast. Without income they cannot possibly take care of the countryside in the way expected of them by the people living in the country.
Straight grants for a one-off action are, of course, useful; but to keep up such actions, which is what is required, periodic payments are necessary, as proposed by the noble Duke. In other words, maintaining and improving the countryside requires a great deal of money and certainly with the present state of agriculture assistance is necessary if the desired results are to be obtained.
Lord Lytton: My Lords, at the risk of detaining the House a little longer I should like to add a few words in support of the amendments. I declare an interest. My wife and I are co-owners of 800 acres within the Exmoor National Park, and it is outstandingly beautiful country. I believe that it qualifies as a severely less-favoured area. We regard ourselves as stewards of this area for our lifetimes. We recognise that there is an overriding public interest element that applies in Exmoor and many other upland areas.
I feel that the Exmoor National Park and other similar authorities have a difficult job in trying to line up all the various interests. I certainly feel that there should be a facility for other authorities, perhaps through the medium of the National Park Authority but not necessarily duplicating its functions, to make grants. I believe that is the point made by the noble Duke. He is not asking for additional sums but suggesting that sums which would otherwise have been paid in grants can also be paid as periodic sums. That gives a great degree of flexibility.
Certainly the type of arrangement suggested in Amendment No. 271B would be very much along the lines of the kind of discussions that I have been conducting over many months with the Exmoor National Park Authority. It is a question of positive planning and not a series of negative controls. I am optimistic that there is a solution that marries up with the valid public interest aspects, the needs of nature conservation and the legitimate aspirations of freehold landowners. Therefore, I commend the spirit of these amendments to the Government.
Earl Peel: My Lords, in a sense this goes back, as the noble Duke said, to the answer given by my noble friend as regards my amendment. The noble Duke raises an interesting point. If the periodic grants are to be effective they will have to be equal or equal plus to the amount that the farmer would have received, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, suggested.

1001
That comes back to the question of whether they are, in fact, payments for profits forgone. If they are to be effective, and intended to be effective in the way that I think my noble friend on the Front Bench indicated, that would have to be the case.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is first important to say that much of what I said in response to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel certainly applies; to some of the points made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset. However, I must also make one point clear because I believe there has been a misinterpretation of my references to the earlier amendment about negative and positive conservation. Perhaps I did not make myself clear.
Payment for doing nothing—reducing the number of heads of sheep or not planting a field—is negative action. But there are positive results for conservation. Therefore, it is a positive conservation measure though it may be a payment for inaction. I do not want anyone to feel I was speaking about payment for something which was very negative. As the noble Duke has pointed out, the result is a very positive one in conservation terms.
I take this question with some diffidence given that joining me on the Front Bench this evening is the Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who knows a great deal about these matters. I wish to take two small points and then bring the argument together as I did earlier. The question was posed concerning the percentage of grants and whether one could consider taking them up to 100 per cent. I shall try to be as accommodating in principle as possible. I mentioned earlier that we would talk with our Treasury colleagues and give very serious consideration to bids put to us by the NCC. If the bids are sound then clearly they will receive serious consideration. We shall try to break down the mechanisms for meeting these concerns, again without commitment. The department is well seized of the point made by noble Lords.
A specific question was posed about Wales and Scotland They have not been neglected in our debates today. The countryside initiative is experimental. It is intended to apply to England at the first stage. If it is a scheme that works and is manageable in the terms that the Government wish, then clearly extensions to Wales and Scotland would be considered. In the first instance the intention is that it should apply in England.
I return to the point about dealing with the country as a whole and all the different schemes that operate. Substantially, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food operates schemes which take into account the notional profits forgone. In an overt way we have said quite categorically both in relation to other amendments and those now before the House that the notion of profits forgone cannot be extended to the immediate environments outside the SSSIs. Again, if one includes the MAFF schemes, the countryside initiative schemes and the environmentally sensitive schemes which are designated by MAFF, all of them
1002
add up, not entirely to what the noble Duke is seeking but a long way towards covering very large tracts of the country.
Another point was made about the application of funds. If there is no more money, that problem begins to eat into the priority concerns of the NCC. It has large acreages in the country of designated areas which must make first calls on resources. It is only beyond those calls that one can move out of those areas. One is always limited by resources. I hope that the noble Duke will realise that we are with him in spirit. But there has to be some limitation on resources. We have chosen to be as accommodating as possible in the application of grants. I covered the point of periodic grants when I spoke to the amendments of my noble friend Lord Peel. One can pay grants over a period. I believe that the period I mentioned was five to seven years.
The Duke of Somerset: My Lords, I am very grateful for what the Minister has said and for her full reply to all the points that I raised. I am particularly glad that perhaps the Welsh and the Scots will be able to benefit from this initiative in due course. In view of what the Minister has said I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 253B to 254 not moved.]
Schedule 11 [Transitional Provisions and Savings for Part VII].
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 255:
Page 199, line 48, leave out ("Schedule") and insert ("Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 256 to 258 and 261. In introducing these amendments I must proffer an apology to my noble friend Lord Balfour. I am sorry to have to report to the House that Amendments Nos. 255 and 261 are necessary to reverse amendments which my noble friend tabled in Committee and which were erroneously accepted by the Government. I can only suppose that we were so carried away with enthusiasm for everything that my noble friend suggested that we took too much for granted, went too far and accepted two amendments which we should not have accepted.
The position is that the word "Act" is the correct word to use as we are referring to all of Part VII and not just the schedule. I hope that my noble friend will accept my profound apology. The remaining three amendments are technical or drafting amendments to Schedule 11. I hope that those will be acceptable to the House. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I wondered about that when I read these amendments. At the time I almost put it as a question to the House whether "schedule" or "Act" was meant. I emphasised at that time that if it was to be "Act" it should at least mention Part VII. I have no real objections to Amendment No. 255, but, with its acceptance, the Bill will read:
"by virtue of the Part of this Act".

1003
Bearing in mind that in years to come this will be legislation that we shall all have to understand and obey, will my noble friend consider between now and Third Reading making the provision read:
"by virtue of Part VII of this Act"?
There will then be no doubt. That is the only comment I wish to make.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I certainly note what my noble friend says and I shall look carefully at it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 256 to 258:
Page 200, line 22, leave out from ("to") to end of line 23 and insert ("a special function of the new Councils)—").
Page 200, line 32, leave out from ("to") to ("a") in line 33 and insert ("a special function of the new Councils").
Page 200, line 36, after ("corresponding") insert ("special").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 255. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 259:
Page 201, line 4, at end insert (", other than a scheme provided by that Council under paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 to the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendment No. 260. These amendments concern the pension rights of NCC employees who have already retired or left the NCC's employment. They are saving provisions needed to preserve the existing NCC staff pension scheme, which will then become the responsibility of the Secretary of State under Clause 128(4). They are essential to protect the rights both of existing and future pensioners. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 260:
Page 201, line 29, at end insert:
("Pensions for Nature Conservancy Council staff
10A.—(1) The repeal by this Act of paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 to the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973 shall not affect the operation on and after the appointed day of any scheme provided by the Nature Conservancy Council for the payment to or in respect of its officers of pensions, allowances or gratuities.
(2) Any such scheme shall have effect on and after the appointed day with the substitution for any reference to the Nature Conservancy Council of a reference to the Secretary of State.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 260ZA:
Page 201, line 45, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying that not only do we have on the Front Bench a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but also the Minister responsible in this House for Welsh affairs. I am sure they will be interested in the amendment that I am about to put before the House. It seeks to delete sub-paragraph (2) of Schedule 11. We have already gone over this
1004
ground to some extent, but, with the greatest respect to the Government, it is daft to say that, where SSSIs or nature reserves cross borders, they should be separated, or, in other words, that if part of an SSSI is on the Welsh side it should be controlled by the Countryside Council for Wales, and, if it is in England, by the Nature Conservancy Council. I think that it would be much better if it were to be agreed that it should be managed jointly or even severally.
As currently drafted, Schedule ll to the Bill requires that each part of an SSSI or nature reserve that crosses boundaries should be treated as a distinct piece of land. There are five SSSIs which lie on the border between England and Scotland, including the Solway SSSI, which is of international importance. There are 11 SSSIs which straddle the boundary between England and Wales, including the river Wye, the Dee estuary and Fens and Whixall Mosses, which I gather the NCC is about to purchase as a national nature reserve. So, presumably, once it is bought by the NCC it will have to be split for management purposes.
The Bill will require each country council to treat its part of the SSSI as a separate SSSI—that, in itself, is pretty daft. With the squeeze on NCC's funding, we are likely to end up with landowners on one side benefiting from management agreements and those on the other side doing rather worse, perhaps where the land is environmentally benign.
The Minister will no doubt say that goodwill between the councils will prevail. I hope to goodness that it will. But each council will have its own priorities and different limits on its funding set by different Secretaries of State. Nature conservation and wildlife habitats do not recognise political boundaries. Therefore, it is absurd to include on the face of this Bill a political fence across a piece of land that forms a single biological continuum. I suggest that the removal of this subparagraph would ensure that land-owners on different sides of a border in relation to a single site are treated equally. Its removal would also help to nurture the goodwill between the country councils which the Minister assures us will prevail.
I live right on the borders between England and Wales; in fact, I live on the English side because I was quite determined to stay in England. I live right on Offa's Dyke. My water comes from Wales but in fact it is managed by the Severn Trent Water Authority. Welsh Water supplies Hereford, but Severn Trent supplies vast parts of North Wales. Our electricity comes from the Midlands Electricity Board and Manweb supplies parts of North Wales.
I do not think that people get too worked up about these divisions. Therefore, if in fact different parts of an SSSI or nature reserve go into Wales and England people will not be too worried if the SSSI is managed by one side or the other. I believe that this subparagraph ought to be removed. Let us say that they either manage it jointly or, alternatively, we could add the word "severally" to the next part of the schedule. This seems to me to be a matter of common sense. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, Schedule 11 (2) to the Bill is directly related to the fundamental purpose of Part VII, which is to devolve the exercise of nature conservation functions to the respective countries of England, Scotland and Wales. The purpose of this section, specifically, is to ensure that those nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest which straddle the borders of England and Scotland, or England and Wales, are treated as two separate sites, one in each country. Subparagraph (3) goes on to specify how the two separate sites should be managed; for example, a cross-boundary site could be managed by the two councils concerned separately but with full consultation, or by some joint management regime if they considered that to be preferable. However, the effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to leave these sites unaltered—that is, as a single site. This would create not only practical problems—for example, over the management of the site—but legal ones as well. Which council would be legally responsible for the site, for the enforcement of any regulations covering the site—concerning nature reserve agreements, or potentially damaging operations? I am assured that the omission of this subparagraph would create a muddle, and I trust, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I honestly believe that that is a totally nonsensical reply. I am sorry to say this, but I do not think that these matters will work out as the Government seem to believe they will. The majority of the farmers who live near me are living in England but they are mostly Welsh. However, they do not go around parading the fact that they want to be governed by the Welsh Office; they regard themselves as being in England.
If we are not careful, we shall build artificial barriers. I think that that is really stupid. I honestly believe that it would be much better if that subparagraph were to be removed from the schedule. However, I realise that I am not going to make any progress on the matter tonight. I plead with the Minister for Wales on the Front Bench to have a word with the Secretary of State for the Environment and we may then perhaps get some common sense introduced into the issue. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 260A not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 261:
Page 202, line 9, leave out ("Schedule") and insert ("Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 136 [Public registers of land which may be contaminated]:
11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 261A:
Page 138, line 23, at end insert:
("(5A) The Secretary of State shall, in making provisions under this section, satisfy himself that the resources available to local authorities are adequate to secure the effective operation of the requirements of this section, and may require
1006
any authority to submit to him such information as may be reasonable to enable him to fulfil his duty under this subsection.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we leave Part VII. I cannot imagine that there are many noble Lords who will be sorry that this marathon debate has been brought to an end. We turn to what I consider to be an equally important subject, although I am sure that those noble Lords who think in terms of conservation organisations have no doubt made their arrangements to go home or are already on their way home.
We turn now to the issue of contaminated land. It is a matter of great importance for health and the safety and development of land and is also of considerable legal importance. I have a suspicion that the Government's intention in setting up registers of contaminated land is limited largely to the issue of what is necessary to fulfil the legal function as to what response is given when a search for development purposes is required. That is one of the objectives of the register of contaminated land, but it is far from being the only objective.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that registers of contaminated land are regarded as much more important than the Government are prepared to concede, and will involve substantially more local authority finance and staffing resources than have so far been recognised. When we think about the register of contaminated land we must ask ourselves: contamination by what? It could of course be chemical contamination—contamination by chemicals which might affect concrete foundations of buildings. It could be contamination which would affect crops or animals. It could be deep contamination of land which has been reclaimed after tipping of some kind which might affect deep-rooted trees, for example.
It is not enough to say that land is contaminated. One needs to know how it is contaminated and what use is proposed for the land if one is to make a sensible decision as to whether the contamination is relevant. That means that we must have a register based on a proper investigation of the nature of the contamination, and a proper understanding of the nature of the remedy required, which in turn must relate to the use to which the land is to be put. All that will involve the local authorities, which will have the responsibility for maintaining the register of contaminated land, in substantial expenditure, in having staff with considerable technical qualifications and probably with scientific equipment of some complexity. All that must be recognised in the resources made available to them.
I understand that consultation about contaminated land registers with the local authority associations is already taking place. We welcome that fact and appreciate it. If the consultation is to be effective, the Government must set if off on the right foot. They must give a better definition of what is meant by contamination. They must suggest what type of uniform approach should be adopted as to how the register is compiled. They must ensure that the local authority is not liable for any inadvertent omission

1007
from the register. They must suggest a way in which disclosure procedures will be adopted and how they will be limited. I understand that some thought has already been given to that point. That is necessary not just for the reasons that I have given but to avoid unnecessary blight on land which may be contaminated for some purposes but not for all purposes.
There are some London boroughs, for example, which are so contaminated that a large part of their land, which was used for industrial purposes, would figure on a register of contaminated land. If the register is not adequately prepared, compiled and kept up to date it will be a real deterrent to the development of such land which could be developed in some ways but perhaps not in all ways.
The best estimate I can obtain of the cost of setting up and maintaining registers of contaminated land is that the initial cost would be in the order of £7.5 million and thereafter it would be approximately £1 million per year. Those resources must be found from somewhere; at the moment they are not recognised, so far as I know, in the revenue support grant conditions or negotiations. If local authorities are to take on these significant and worthwhile additional tasks they will need the assurance, which will be available only if this amendment is agreed to, that the resources will be available. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment is one of a number which seek to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities are given sufficient resources for specific functions created by this Bill. As always in such cases, I can only reply that the Government are committed to the measures in the Bill and that they are as concerned as everyone else to ensure that adequate resources are available to implement them.
On the specific subject of contaminated registers, the estimated cost for all English, Welsh and Scottish local authorities of setting up the registers of potentially contaminated land is £15 million. Annual costs of maintaining the registers are estimated at £3 million. These figures have been published in the Government's response to the House of Commons Select Committee's first report on contaminated land.
However, it needs to be noted that no timescale has been set for the establishment of those registers; the clause creating the duty of establishing registers is an enabling clause only. Consultation will of course take place and that will be followed by the preparation of regulations. The regulations are not expected to be in place for at least 12 months.
On the point about registers having wide importance and the need to know what contamination is present and so on, the register as proposed is based on former land use and will be desk study, not survey —the method set out in the Cheshire report published in July, 1990. Experience of this is being used as a base estimate of resources, and other issues are to be addressed in the consultations which are taking place with the local authorities.
1008
Like all other new burdens, the costs of establishing registers of potentially contaminated land will be taken into account in the local authority finance settlement. Authorities will have the resources necessary to fulfil this duty. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to say that the Government's response to this amendment has confirmed our worst fears. I gave a figure of £7.5 million initially and £1 million a year as being the Department of the Environment's original estimates that were available to us. We are now told that the initial cost will be £15 million and the ongoing cost £3 million per year. If the department's estimates can vary so wildly and in the wrong direction, what evidence is there that it has been working the figures out correctly in the first place? I rather doubt that it has.
Much more serious is that we are also told that the register of contaminated land is supposed to be based entirely on what the Minister called "desk studies", I think, which are presumably the examination of paper records related to the existing use. That is simply not adequate. The result of such a cheap and inadequate approach to contaminated land registers will produce unnecessary blight and inadequate registers. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The original cost did not include Scotland.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, even if that is the case, and the figures I gave did not include Scotland—which I did not appreciate, and I am grateful for that information—it still does not explain a doubling of the cost of setting up the registers and a tripling of the cost of maintaining them on an ongoing basis. Scotland has, after all, only 10 per cent. of the population of the country, although it has a rather higher proportion of the land area.
The most important point is that it now appears that the registers of contaminated land will not be based on firsthand investigation. They will not be sensitive to different forms of future land use for which they should be intended. They will produce unnecessary blight and they will be significantly underfunded because the concept of registers of contaminated land is inadequate for the purpose.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is it not perfectly clear that if detailed surveys were to be undertaken on the sites of the many thousands of hectares of contaminated land—it is estimated in the White Paper that more than half of derelict land is probably contaminated —the costs would be far higher than anything my noble friend has mentioned? What is required is enough desk study information so that someone who expresses interest in the land concerned will have enough information to know whether it is then worth carrying out the much more expensive and detailed survey that would be needed before such a person could contemplate development. Is that not a sensible

1009
way to proceed rather than to undertake a massive, expensive nationwide survey of all contaminated land?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hope I may follow up that point. I am sure that the desk study is the basis of the survey. In calculating the costs involved here, we have taken into account the fact that there will be a requirement for some follow-up work, as my noble friend has just pointed out.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for his suggestion, which is entirely sensible and in line with what I was about to say. Thanks to the noble Lord, we have made some progress. We now learn that the study will not simply be a paper study but will also include provision for investigation. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we would not want to investigate physically every single site of contaminated land. A s the noble Lord said, the cost would be grossly excessive. In many cases the contamination will be straightforward. However, we have to provide for a significant amount of more detailed study. If that is the direction the Government are moving in, I am pleased to hear it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I must reiterate the point that a more detailed study must be carried out by the developer who is interested in developing the land. I fail to see why that charge should fall on the public purse. The developer must decide what the contamination consists of and therefore how much he is prepared to pay for the land.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an interesting point of view which may not find universal acceptance in the property industry. It certainly is not the view which the Government took, as I understood the Minister's reply. In all other cases local authority searches, after payment of a fee, have been undertaken by local authorities. I am interested in the noble Lord's suggestion but it is not reflected in other parts of planning law or local authority duties and responsibilities. We have heard an interesting range of replies in response to this amendment. I must go away and think about them, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 262:
After Clause 136, insert the following new clause:
("Disclosure of contamination
.—(1) It shall be the duty of any person holding an interest in any land that he knows or believes to be contaminated with noxious substances as a result of uses specified in regulations made under section 136 above to disclose the extent of his knowledge to any person to whom he transfers that interest before the transfer is made.
(2) Where a person suffers loss or damage by reason of any breach of the duty imposed by subsection (1) above the person on whom that duty was imposed is liable for that loss or damage except where it was due wholly to the fault of the person who suffered it.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is unfortunately indisposed and has asked me to move this amendment in his absence. This
1010
is an important amendment and would assist us with the amendment we have just discussed. It deals with the declaration of knowledge of contaminated land.
At present, when contaminated land is sold there is no general obligation to reveal information to the purchaser about the state of the land. The rule of caveat emptor still applies. This amendment seeks to replace that rule with a duty to disclose contamination and to compile public registers. It implements paragraph 95 of the House of Commons Select Committee Report on contaminated land of 1990.
That report states:
"insofar as the rule of caveat emptor relates to contaminated land, its effect is to discourage sound environmental practice and environmental responsibility. Its abolition would be a natural corollary to the compilation of local authority registers. We recommend that the Government bring forward legislation to place upon vendors a duty to declare information in their possession about contamination present on site, however caused".
We are obviously not saying that if an owner does not know land is contaminated he is under a duty to disclose. However, if he knows or believes it is contaminated with noxious substances he is under such a duty.
The report highlights the particular case of the redevelopment of a depot which was supposedly a store for inert material but which had been used for disposal of old batteries. The land was therefore liberally contaminated with lead and sulphuric acid.
The report reveals that the conveyancing committee of the Law Commission described caveat emptor as "unjustifiably ramshackle"—it discourages openness and sound environmental practice. The amendment sets out to provide an alternative—the compilation of local authority registers and a duty to declare information on contaminated land before any transactions take place. We should be moving in that direction, and that is what the Select Committee in the other place recommends. I hope very much that the Government may be able to give some words of encouragement when they come to reply. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, it has now become almost universal in the United States that before anybody buys industrial land, a factory or a company, it is an absolute condition of purchase that there shall be an environmental survey which shall show that there are no environmental hazards in the land. That is the purchaser's responsibility. It is a condition of sale. The vendor has to provide the necessary facilities so that the purchaser can satisfy himself that the land is clear. That is now happening in this country. As the potential risks become more widely known it is recognised that before one enters into a binding contract for buying land one has to satisfy oneself as to what it is one is getting.
I should be reluctant to accept that there should be an obligation on vendors such as that proposed. If the vendor fails to disclose something that subsequently comes to light he may well lose his sale. It is therefore in his own interests to disclose it, just as he would want

1011
to disclose a right of way, a restrictive covenant or anything else which is likely to affect the value of the land. To put a universal duty on everybody to disclose that they knew, or ought to have known or might have known is going too far. I should be opposed to extending the law further into the buying and selling of land as the amendment proposes.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government believe that there is a general awareness of the problem of contamination and that this should lead purchasers and their solicitors to ask vendors about possible contamination as a matter of routine. The Misrepresentation Act 1967 provides sanctions against any vendor who fails to disclose information about contamination in response to a specific request.
The Government have taken steps towards ensuring that purchasers of potentially contaminated land will be well informed. Clause 136 of the Bill places a duty on local authorities to maintain public registers of land which may be contaminated.
The Government are now commissioning research on types and locations of contamination. This will help local authorities to compile their registers of potentially contaminated land, and it will also provide information to both vendors and purchasers on possible contamination of their land.
The amendment would reverse the long-established principle of caveat emptor, which places the burden of investigating contamination on the purchaser. The Law Commission Standing Committee on Conveyancing has recently reviewed the caveat emptor rule and published a report. It recommends that the existing rule should be retained, but that "the buyer should be well informed".
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin, who stated two important points. One is the responsibility of the purchaser to make sure that the question about contamination of land is posed and that a survey or research is undertaken in the course of the purchase. He also enabled me to highlight the fact that if the vendor is asked a direct question there is an obligation on the vendor to supply that information.
In view of those developments I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I quoted the Select Committee in my support. I also quoted the Law Commission. We quoted from different paragraphs of the report, but it did say that caveat emptor was unjustifiably ramshackle and that it discouraged openness.
The amendment asked only that any person who knew or believed that the land was contaminated had to declare it. He can be asked a direct question by a lawyer, and he may well be able to say that he does not believe that there is any contamination. The fact is that in this country we have built houses and factories on land which has proved to be contaminated and there have been disastrous results. Accordingly, people have suffered losses of vast sums of money. I should have thought that this was an area which we had to tighten up.
1012
I was rather interested in the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, about the situation in the United States. My colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, confirms that that is the case. I gather that he has been involved in his company with the purchase of land in the United States. It would be a good idea if we were to follow that practice. I hope that perhaps those words may stir up something. I think that we have to do rather more than we are doing at present. That certainly was the view of the Select Committee in the other place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 263:
After Clause 137, insert the following new clause:
Penalties for offences of polluting controlled waters etc.
(".—(1) In section 107(6) of the Water Act 1989 (penalties for offences of polluting controlled waters or contravening consent conditions), in paragraph (a), for the words "the statutory maximum" there shall be substituted "£20,000".
(2) In sections 31(7) (a), 31A(2) (c) (i) and 32(7) (a) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (corresponding penalties for Scotland), for the words "the statutory maximum" there shall be substituted "£20,000".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of amendments in my name will serve to give magistrates and, in Scotland, sheriffs the power to impose higher maximum penalties—£20,000 rather than £2,000 as at present—for causing water pollution. This will not only bring the maximum summary fines for water pollution offences into line with those for other pollution offences provided by the Bill; it will also greatly assist the National Rivers Authority and the river purification authorities in Scotland in taking swift and effective enforcement action against offenders. It will, I believe, act as a clear deterrent to the small minority which continues to show a wilful disregard for the water environment.
The amendments do not affect the ability of higher courts to impose still higher fines, without limit, where they are needed. Noble Lords may recall that a £1 million fine was secured by the NRA against Shell earlier this year in relation to oil pollution of the Mersey. Nor do they affect the ability of the courts to imprison offenders where they believe that such a penalty is appropriate.
Amendment No. 263 increases the maximum summary fines for offences committed under Section 107 of the Water Act 1989, with equivalent effect on the penalties for similar offences committed in Scotland under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Amendment No. 286 alters Clause 154 to bring these new penalties into force at the earliest possible date —that is, two months after enactment—in line with similar penalties provided by the Bill. Amendment No. 290 extends the Long Title to include the necessary amendments to the earlier Acts.
These amendments further demonstrate our commitment to securing real improvements in the water environment. They are brief and straightforward and I trust will be widely welcomed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 264:
After Clause 137, insert the following new clause:
("Pollution of water from diffuse sources
. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State within one year from the date of this Act receiving Royal Assent, and having consulted such persons likely to be affected as he considers appropriate, to make regulations to control the entry of nitrates and pesticides into water from diffuse sources.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment because two councillors in the south of England—Councillor Mrs Cathy Fraser of Eastleigh and Councillor David Chidgey of Winchester—who are very concerned with something that is happening in then part of the world, have brought the matter to our attention.
The amendment seeks to draw attention to the problems of pollution from diffuse sources. I mentioned to the chairman of the National Rivers Authority (I had a word with him outside the Chamber) that I intended to raise this matter. That authority has powers under the 1989 Water Act to take action in respect of pollution. It is generally thought that the powers are still inadequate, for example to prevent excessive discharge of farm effluent entering a river during a heavy rainstorm or by leaching through the soil. The chairman told me that the NRA is very concerned about this matter. They are certainly looking into it very seriously.
I think that what caught the attention of the people I mentioned was the appalling example of Mr Roger Daltrey's trout farm in Dorset on which earlier this year some half a million fish were killed by a suspected leak of 32,000 litres of liquid fertilizer into the River Iwerne. I gather that he had no source of compensation for that.
I raise this matter now to ask whether the Government are satisfied that the NRA has the power, to deal with these matters. Are there adequate resources for it to do so? Perhaps there is a need for a plan for the farming community to promote waste management plans subject to NRA approval. According to a press comment that I have seen, I suspect: that the NRA intends now to get tough on farmers as regards these types of pollution, particularly from farm effluent and silage.
The amendment calls for the Secretary of State to make regulations, after first having consultations, to control the entry of nitrates and pesticides into water. The first step with regard to such a problem is recognition of the need, and the provision of the mechanism to deal with it. This probing amendment provides a preliminary step.
Only recently the British Medical Association called for an agency to monitor pesticides. It asked for a new government agency to be set up to monitor people's exposure to pesticide residues in food, water and the environment. It stated:
"With the extensive use of pesticides it is likely that most of the population has low-level exposure to pesticides residues in tap water … More than 700 different chemical contaminants have been detected in drinking water".
Those people to whom I referred received the answer from their assistant director of environmental health
1014
in Eastleigh that the National Rivers Authority had power under the Water Act to take action in respect of pollution incidents but that its powers were inadequate even in cases where it seemed likely that some of the effluent would eventually enter a river by run off during heavy ran or by leaching. It is understood that the NRA will be discussing this in the near future with other bodies including the Ministry of Agriculture, ADAS and the Water Research Council. It is understood that the NRA will be seeking powers to require farmers to have waste management plans. Perhaps we may hear something about that in the reply.
I should like to place one matter on record in fairness to the chairman who might say that it is not so. The Hampshire authorities feel that Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is rather a large area for only six field officers to cover. One officer is responsible for the whole of the catchment areas of the Hamble and the Itchen. Those rivers and their tributaries are very important fishing areas. It is quite a large job for one man.
I raise the matter because I believe that it is of growing importance. Will the Government tell us their views on the issue and what they hope to do about it? I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, perhaps I may explain one of the problems in Scotland. We have no equivalent to the drainage legislation in England. A problem that may arise with regard to the nitrate issue is this. A farmer owns nice, flat agricultural land at a high level. Someone else owns a field below that level. The farmer's nitrates drain down through the second person's field into a stream. So far as I know, there is no protection for the second landowner between the higher farmland and the stream. We do not have such legislation in Scotland.
Will my noble friend take that matter up with Scottish Ministers? Will some provision be made so that the intervening person—who might own a woodland there—is not blamed for the nitrates going into the stream when he may not be directly involved?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, shares the Government's concern that there should be controls on diffuse pollution by nitrate and pesticides. Powers to control diffuse nitrate and pesticide pollution already exist in the Water Act 1989 and the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. We are using these powers to address the concerns raised by the noble Lord and believe that the amendment is for that reason unnecessary.
I understand that the noble Lord's amendment could have the unfortunate effect of limiting our flexibility in responding to the very problems that it is designed to combat by preventing the Government from taking advantage of advances in scientific understanding of the most appropriate ways of controlling sources of this pollution.

1015
The noble Lord asked me about farmers' waste management plans. There are pilot schemes for nitrate controls. The signs are that there has been a good take up of those schemes.
The noble Lord also asked about the NRA. We are satisfied that the NRA has wide powers to take action over pollution incidents. Not only can it prosecute those who pollute but under Section 155 of the Water Act 1989 the NRA has powers to carry out remedial work after spillage; that is, cleaning up and restocking with fish. It can recover costs, which can be considerable. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, we did not receive an answer to the Scottish problem. It may have to come another day. I am grateful for the answer. There is legislation on the statute book which should be able to deal with the problem. I suspect that it is much worse than we appreciate, and the NRA is most anxious. I shall not pursue the matter further. I am grateful for the response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 138 [Deposits of substances and articles in the sea, etc.]:
[Amendment No. 265 not moved.]
Clause 139 [Public registers relating to deposits in the sea and incineration at sea]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 265A:
Page 140, line 15, after ("above") insert:
(" () the occasions on which either of the Ministers has carried out any operation under section 10 above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to Part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and mentions Section 10. Noble Lords may be baffled by the fact that Section 10 is not mentioned in Clause 139, which relates to the earlier Act. We are dealing with the provision of registers on the sea dumping of chemical waste. Public registers already exist under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and an amendment was tabled in Committee to extend the scope of the registers.
Almost everything we proposed in that amendment was covered in a subsequent amendment tabled by the Government, and that is now Clause 139. However, the only proposal not covered by the government amendment was that the registers should describe any action taken by Ministers under Section 10 of the 1985 Act. That will allow Ministers to undertake operations to protect the marine environment from the consequences of unlicensed dumping or incineration of wastes. The amendment is designed to cover that point. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I have no problem with this proposal. Therefore, I am content to accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord TordoffMy Lords, there is nothing to say save that I am sorry to have dragged the noble Baroness here at this late hour. I thank her profusely for the way she has accepted the amendment. I wish there were a simpler way of doing so than both of us having to stay here until this late hour.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 141 [Dog registration]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 265B:
Page 141, line 22, leave out from beginning to third ("the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 265C to 265G, 266A, 270A, 271ZA, 271ZB, 272B, 291 and 271A. I am grateful to the Government and to the Public Bill Office for tidying up and redrafting our amendment dealing with dog registration. These are drafting amendments although the Government have made clear ambiguities in the original amendment; for instance, the inclusion of a reasonable excuse defence and the extending of the consultation period for two years. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too should like to thank the Government for their help in tidying up these amendments. I shall be very interested to hear the implications arising from their help. I trust and hope that they will accept this amendment which has universal backing throughout the country. Their help is appreciated and will assist the swift passage of the Bill through the other place.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I have taken a keen interest in this matter. Much of what my noble friend Lord Stanley and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, have done has been of great help.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for warning me that he would be moving a number of amendments on the dog registration clause. On Thursday I was able to obtain a copy of the amendments. I support wholeheartedly Amendments Nos. 265B to 265D in subsection (1). There will be neither benefit nor harm to the environment. Amendments Nos. 265E and 265F are a vast improvement to the drafting.
However, Amendment No. 265G causes me some serious anxiety. It leaves the local authority with sole discretion as to how much the registration charges shall be and what exemptions, if any, shall be permitted without Parliament having any say in the matter. Most local authorities are pleading poverty; so I forecast a fee in the region of £35 or more.
I must point out that the word "shall" appears twice in line 33 of Amendment No. 266A in the name of my noble friend Lord Stanley. I presume that the first "shall" is required. If that is the case, then I fully support the amendment.
Perhaps I may read subsection (2) assuming that my noble friend's amendment is accepted.
"Regulations under this section shall include provision for the regulations to be administered by local authorities as to the charging by them of registration fees of such amounts and subject to such exemptions as they may determine".

1017
That means that responsibility has been placed in the sole charge of the local authorities and that the Secretary of State has no say.
Amendment No. 270A is an improvement to subsection (4). However, is it the Government's intention that local authorities should be able to delegate their responsibilities as regards dogs to an outside firm such as Securicor?
Amendment No. 272B to Clause 151 is very strange. It appears to me to prevent either House of Parliament having anything to do with the clause. Is that the desire of the Government? In other words, as I read the legislation, if the new subsection (5) in Amendment No. 271ZA is accepted and the regulations are enforced, then that is it. They cannot be altered by Parliament.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am in some difficulty on the groupings of these amendments. My undersi.anding—I hope my noble friend Lord Stanley will agree although he did not mention it—is that he spoke to Amendments Nos. 265B to 265G, 266A, 270A, 271ZA, 271ZB, and 272B. He also tagged on, from another grouping, Amendments Nos. 271A and 291.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on all but the last two amendments I mentioned I welcome my noble friend's perception in bringing forward amendments to correct technical deficiencies in Clause 141. If my noble friend's amendments are put on to the statute book the scheme must be. workable and I am more than happy to accept them.
Amendments Nos. 271 A and 291 were also referred to. Amendment No. 271A is a minor drafting point which maintains consistency with other references in the Bill to islands and district councils. I understand that my noble friend tabled this amendment on his own initiative. However, we agree that there is a need for it. Amendment No. 291 amends the Long Title of the Bill to include provision for a scheme for the registration, identification and control of dogs. I commend that amendment also.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I take note of the concern of my noble friend Lord Balfour on Amendment No.265G. I will certainly consider whether any further amendment is needed on Third Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendments Nos. 265C to 265G:
Page 141, line 23, leave out from ("by") to end of line and insert ("regulations").
Page 141, line 24, leave out ("a scheme for").
Page 141, line 26, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 27 and insert ("Regulations under this section shall include provision for the regulations").
Page 141, line 27, leave out ("fixing") and insert ("charging by them").
Page 141, line 28, leave out from ("fees") to end of line 30 and insert ("of such amounts and subject to such exemptions as they may determine").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 266:
Page 141, line 31, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections (3A), (3B), (3C) and (3D)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment could be inserted in the Bill without affecting Amendment No. 266A. It only introduces the new subsections (3A), (3B), (3C) and (3D). I speak also to my Amendments Nos. 267 to 270. They have all been extracted from previous legislation which allowed for exemptions from requiring a dog licence. They make special provision for taking dogs into care and the boarding of animals.
It should be realised that if my amendments are rejected blind people, police officers, shepherds and gamekeepers who live in one local authority area and work in another area could be involved in double charges. The cost of training the special dogs that are described in my Amendments Nos. 267 to 269 will be considerably increased. As it is, if any of these dogs do not come up to standard they are usually put down. Just for one moment, think of the costs involved in training a dog for the blind. It will have to be registered from the day it is born yet it may not come up to the required standard. Moreover, the mortality among puppies is very high.
Amendment No. 270 is designed to exempt people from the individual dog licensing requirements for any animal that is taken into care or an animal boarding establishment. A blind person cannot take his dog abroad and bring it back into this country. I fear that if the kennels were in some other part of the country an extra licence would be required. I sincerely hope that the drafting of these amendments is correct. I have had nobody to help me. I argue that Amendments No. 266 and Nos. 267 to 270 in no way weaken the principles of this clause. However, if they are rejected Parliament will have no power to provide for any exemption and the clause will be a catch-all.
My Amendment No. 271 would prevent the local authorities from being able to delegate their responsibilities and would force them to have consultations with dog owners. I hope that will lead dog owners to be properly responsible for their dogs and to look after them to see that they are free from fleas, lice, ticks and other forms of mechanised dandruff, and are regularly wormed. The problem with the wide variety of internal parasites is that they can reproduce without a mate and can thrive in children or adults.
I am not too sure whether Amendment No. 271ZB tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley is good or bad. I cannot comment on that. Amendment No. 271 is, I think, correct and should be accepted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it has been accepted.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, if I have missed that point then noble Lords must forgive me. It is a little late. I had very much hoped that if my amendments were not accepted then at least they could be incorporated into the regulations. However, after carefully reading this clause along with most of the amendments that were moved before this one and

1019
accepted, I do not think that that is possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friend Lord Stanley in their group of amendments have left the Secretary of State, through Parliament, to decide the range in the time and the amount of the registration fee. In other words, the fee can be limited to a maximum of, say, £50, and the licence could hold good for the life of the dog.
As a dog owner I must be grateful for that small concession. I hope that whoever is the Secretary of State will read what has been said on this clause today before proposing his draft regulations. I have no comment to make on Amendment No. 291. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, when I was Secretary of State for the Environment I sought to persuade my Cabinet colleagues that the time had come to deal with the nonsense of the dog licence. It cost three times as much to collect the fee as was brought in through revenue. The fee was widely evaded and resulted in thousands of hungry, neglected and often sick animals roaming the streets. In some parts of our cities they caused extreme distress to inhabitants because they were totally out of control. I have to say that I failed.
I do not think that I am breaking any secrets, but there was a moment in Cabinet when I tried to say that the Public Accounts Committee was snapping at the heels of my permanent secretary because each year the matter came up. Even that failed to persuade my colleagues. The policy, although accepted, never got into the programme. You can imagine my delight when I returned from a trip abroad to find that this Bill had undergone a major transformation and that the dog registration scheme was to be in it. I congratulate the Government because that is an enormous advance. I was delighted to see the amendment to improve the environment. I see this clause as being primarily to improve the welfare of dogs.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that he has information that the Government have accepted this provision in toto and will back it in another place?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I certainly hope they will. No doubt another place will have its say, but I am delighted to see that when the Bill leaves this House it will contain this provision.
I intervene at this stage on one narrow point. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour—Amendment No. 267—seeks to exclude from registration a dog kept and used solely by a blind person for his guidance. I am on the council of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. I can tell the House that the association is broadly in favour of registration; and it is in favour of registration for one very clear reason. One of the hazards that a blind person with a dog faces as he goes about the streets is the dog being molested by strays, and in particular, by untrained and uncontrolled strays. It can be extremely
1020
distressing for a blind person to find that his dog is being distracted from its very important task. The association favours registration. If that can help to control the problem of strays that will be entirely to the good.
As to whether guide dogs for the blind should be registered, the association is perfectly prepared to agree with whatever Parliament accepts. If there is a fee for guide dog owners it will be paid by the association. Set against the total cost of breeding and training the dog, training the guide dog owner and putting what is sometimes rather anonymously called a unit on the road, a cost which runs into some thousands of pounds for each unit, the cost of a licence is likely to be minimal. It will be borne by the association.
Therefore I cannot endorse the suggestion in my noble friend's amendment that guide dogs should be excluded from registration. To be effective a system of registration has to be as near universal as possible. I hope therefore that he may be prepared to reconsider or, if it is a question of regulations, as he suggested, that the regulations necessarily make that exemption.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I note what my noble friend says on dogs. The amendments are not about the merits or demerits of the scheme. Among my noble friend's comments he made specific reference to guide dogs and whether they should or should not be excluded.
Amendments Nos. 266 to 270 all relate to the question of making provision for exemptions from the registration or registration fee requirement in respect of particular categories of dogs. The amendments are unnecessary. For that reason Clause 141(2) already includes a provision for local authorities to determine exceptions. I hope therefore that the noble Earl will not wish to press the amendments. His concern is that there are powers somewhere to deal with the issue of exemptions.
In moving Amendment No. 271 the noble Earl appears to misunderstand the provision for local authorities to use agents such as animal welfare organisations in administering the registration scheme. This amendment would provide that a local authority could only enter into an agreement with an individual for the purpose of registering or identifying his dog. If the purpose of the amendment is to give local authorities flexibility in particular registration arrangements with particular owners, it would prevent them from entering into agreements with agents such as animal welfare organisations. Clause 141 would provide for local authorities to be able to enter into such agreements and we support this provision. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will not feel it necessary to press the amendments.
Perhaps I may use this opportunity to apologise to the noble Earl for not answering the questions he raised on the previous group of amendments. He asked about charging by local authorities. I must tell him that provision will be made in the regulations for a maximum fee. As regards the point about working dog exemptions, we could cover the question of dogs

1021
living in one area and working in another but, again, this would have to be done under regulations. Having given those explanations, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am very happy with that answer and accordingly I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 266A:
Page 141, line 31, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 33 And insert:
("Any person who without reasonable excuse

(a) fails to comply with any requirement imposed on him by regulations under this section to register a dog, or

(b) fails to comply with any requirement so imposed as respects identification of a dog,")..

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 267 to 270 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 270A:
Page 141, line 37, after ("enter") insert ("into").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 271 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 271ZA:
Page 141. line 39, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert:
("(5) No regulations under this section shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament and the Secretary of State shall lay the first draft regulations before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 271ZB:
Page 141, line 46, at end insert ("of the City of London").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 271A:
Page 141, line 47, leave out ("a District or Island Council") and insert ("an islands or district council").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 143 [Financial assistance for environmental purposes]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 271AA:
Page 143, line 11, at end insert:
("(kk) the Association of Community Technical Aid Centres Limited.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 143 is totally different from previous clauses. It is concerned with government grants for environmental purposes. It contains a long list of organisations in respect of which the Secretary of State has authority to give grants for environmental purposes. The amendment proposes to add to that list the Association of Community Technical Aid Centres Limited, which is a registered charity that co-ordinates the provision of
1022
technical and environmental professional services in support of environmental improvements initiated by local communities.
The association has in the past—as, indeed, it is at present—been supported by the special grants programme. For the time being, that would allow it to be included in Clause 143, but the grant runs out at the end of the three-year period in March 1991 and the association fears that if it does not receive further grant from that scheme it will thereby be precluded by the terms of Clause 143 from receiving further grant from the Secretary of State.
The association has put the case for its inclusion in the list on the same basis as, for example, the Ground Work Trust which performs a very similar task. It is a worthwhile organisation which exists on a relatively small amount of public money. I hope that the Government feel that it is no different in character from the other organisations which are eligible for grant under this clause. I hasten to add that the amendment does not mean that the Secretary of State would have to give grant to the Association of Community Technical Aid Centres; it would simply make it possible. I beg to move.
12 midnight
Lord Reay: My Lords, the amendment would extend the list of bodies or purposes to which the Secretary of State would be empowered to give financial assistance so as to include payments to the Association of Community Technical Aid Centres.
As the noble Lord explained, the association already receives assistance from the Department of the Environment under the special grants programme, which is listed in this clause. It is involved in encouraging tenant participation on housing estates and other activities that support the department's current housing initiatives such as Estate Action. The association is also involved in general environmental improvement activities, especially in the inner city regeneration context.
The association carries out useful work. However, we do not think that it is necessary to mention it separately in this list of bodies since the payments to it are covered by the reference to the special grants programme. The Department of the Environment funds over 120 organisations under the special grants programme; there is no reason to single out this one.
With regard to what happens after three years, I understand that it is possible for grants to be continued after three years, but they are subject to review.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was aware, and the association is aware, that it could apply for continued funding under the special grants programme. Indeed, I believe that it is already preparing its application. It will of course be disappointed in the answer that has been given, but I am sure that in preparing its application for further funding it will be able to use the noble Lord's reply to make it clear that there is no other way than the

1023
special grants programme for it to obtain funding from the Department of the Environment. That may help its case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 271B not moved.]
Clause 151 [Regulations, orders and directions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 272:
Page 146, line 38, at end insert ("but this subsection does not apply to orders under section 71 above or paragraph 4 of Schedule 3.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment was spoken to with an amendment to Part III. I am not aware of the number. I beg to move,
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 272A not moved.]
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 272B:
Page 146, line 41, at end insert ("but this subsection does not apply to regulations under section 141 above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 273:
Page 146, line 46, leave out ("71(7)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 152 [Consequential and minor amendments and repeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 274 and 275:
Page 147, line 5, after ("to") insert ("section 76 above, Schedule 11 to this Act and").
Page 147, line 5, leave out ("that Schedule") and insert ("Schedule 16").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I discussed the amendments with Amendment No. 259. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 276:
Page 147, line 5, at end insert:
("(2A) The repeal of section 124 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 shall not affect a compulsory purchase order made for the purposes of that section under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 before the coming into force of the repeal and such compulsory purchase order may be proceeded with and shall have effect as if the said section 124 had not been repealed.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 107A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Consequential and Minor Amendments of Enactments]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 277 and 278:
Page 215, line 5, leave out from ("following") to end of line 6 and insert ("paragraphs—

"(1) Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;

(m) Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;".").

Page 217, line 26, leave out second ("and") and insert:
1024
("(aa) in subsection (2), paragraph (b) shall be omitted; and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 277 was discussed with Amendment No. 163 and Amendment No. 278 with Amendment No. 133. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Repeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 279:
Page 219, line 7, at end insert:

("1982 c. 45.

Civic Government (scotland Act 1982.

Sections 124 and 125 and in section 126 sub-sections(1)and (3).")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 107A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 280, 281 and 282:
Page 219, line 14, column 3, at beginning insert:

("In section 7(2) paragraph (b) and the word "and" preceding it.")

Page 219, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert ("(6)").
Page 219, line 25, column 3, at end insert ("Section 35(6B).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were discussed with Amendment No. 133. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 283:
Page 221, line 30, column 3, at beginning insert ("In section 15(2), the words "in the national interest".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 284 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 154 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 285 and 286:
Page 147, line 28. at end insert:
("section (Transitional provision relating to section 88);").
Page 147, line 34, at end insert:
("section (Penalties for offences of polluting controlled waters etc);").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 285 was spoken to with Amendment No. 198. Amendment No. 286 was spoken to with Amendment No. 263. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 287 and 288:
Page 147, line 43, leave out ("and 17") and insert ("6, 7, 8, 17, 21, 23 and 30(4) (aa)").
Page 147, line 44, at end insert ("but, in the case of paragraph 21, in so far only as that paragraph inserts a paragraph (m) into section 7(4) of the Act of 1984;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 287 and 288 were discussed with Amendment No. 163. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 288A not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 289:
Page 148, line 11, leave out ("(7)") and insert ("(8)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 290:
Line 27, after ("land;") insert ("to amend section 107(6) of the Water Act 1989 and sections 31(7) (a), 31A(2) (c) (i) and 32(7) (a) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 291:
1026
Line 30, after ("ships") insert ("to make provision for a scheme for the registration, identification and control of dogs;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very happy to move this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Caldey Island Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

North Yorkshire County Council Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at seven minutes past midnight.

  IRAQ: SOURCE OF MISSILE AND NUCLEAR CAPACITY
  IRAQ: SOURCE OF MISSILE AND NUCLEAR CAPACITY
  IRAN: RESUMPTION OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH UK
  IRAN: RESUMPTION OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH UK
  CAMBODIA: ASSISTANCE
  CAMBODIA: ASSISTANCE
  WALES TOURIST BOARD
  WALES TOURIST BOARD